36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
andrew aka stash
andrew aka stash
9 years ago

in todays show you talked alot about how ‘if your product, food, item for purchase, doesnt hurt anybody then so be it let it be sold and purchased in a free market’ but what kind of system would be set up in an anarchist society for those times when things go awry, whether it be someone did something wrong intentionally or unintentionally. jails or prisons wouldnt exist would they? that would require rulers which dont exist in anarchy. im guessing it would be dealt with by mediation, but if they cant come to a conclusion within a reasonable (who determines what is reasonable) amt of time then it would seem that some sort of ruler would have to step in.

Richard Hauser
Richard Hauser
9 years ago

Jack has mentioned eBay as a possible example of recourse. If you sell spinach and someone gets sick then they will publicize it and your sales may be affected. If you are the only one who gets sick then, it is an anomaly. Hopefully their business will not be affected. But if a whole group of people get sick, then that is probably not an anomaly and people should justifiably avoid your business. No police, no guns, no judge except the next possible buyer. This would be a free market solution. A business operating correctly builds social capital and transgressions spend that capital. Enough transgressions, you run out of social capital and you go out of business.

andrew aka stash
andrew aka stash
9 years ago

EXAMPLE: i buy your spinach, get sick and accuse you of having salmonella all over your spinach you say no way, i say way, no way, way etc

artephius
artephius
9 years ago

If that happened and you told everyone you knew they’d all be afraid to buy his spinach until someone either tested it and proved you wrong, or he fixed the problem… and since he can’t hide behind the bureaucracy and the in-justice system by simply having more money than you, because it doesn’t exist, he’d have to correct the problem if he wanted to stay in business. If other people also got sick they’d spread the word too. Works just fine on ebay and amazon.

No rulers doesn’t mean no accountability… you or someone else could even set up a business that tests peoples’ food products and certifies them as safe independantly and growers would want to keep up to those standards or else lose their reputation, and their business. People want this already and some are trying to do it within the system, but the government is always IN THE WAY.

In the “system” you might try to sue him if you had enough money to go after him, which unless he’s one guy with a farm you probably don’t have enough money to even think about doing that, and even if you did, he could be a big corporate giant with the power of the corrupt government behind him like monsanto that will make sure you lose, and lose a LOT of money fighting… Does that really sound better to you?

Andrew aka stash
Andrew aka stash
9 years ago
Reply to  artephius

I see what you are saying guys. I was just trying to think of an example where the “one in the wrong is not all that easy to determine” and I guess the answer to that is “let the free market decide”

Newtopian
Newtopian
9 years ago

Glenn Beck, to me, more resembles controlled opposition than anything else. There are times when I hear him say things that really make sense, and I think “yeah, this guy knows whats up”. And then he completely contradicts himself on the next show.
He’s no freakin Libertarian. If he was, he wouldn’t have corralled his listeners to hate Ron Paul like he did when Paul was running for Pres. But now that Ron Paul is out of the way, it’s safe to be “Libertarian” because there’s no real threat to the establishment anymore.
I don’t know….. I just think Glenn Beck is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Chad
Chad
9 years ago

A good “back to basics” show! This would be a good show for new listeners, depending on where they are in their journy. The part of the American brain that processes liberty has so atrophied that it will take daily cerebral therapy over a long haul to regain it back to a healthy state. Not that it was ever perfect, but we can certainly do better than what we have today.

The real battle is in peoples minds. That battle is the limiting factor for all other battles.

Paul Edwards
Paul Edwards
9 years ago

Tyranny causes revolt. Revolt forms a Republic. A Republic slips into Democracy, which slowly dissolves into socialism, which crumbles into Communism. Pretty soon your back to Lord and Surfs. Which direction are we headed?

Jose Garcia
9 years ago

Jack,

Are humans, as a gregarious species, really capable of being free? That image of the lone wolf, as Paul would say: that’s just marketing. Wolves live in packs with very restrictive orders. They remain together for the procurement of food primarily. A white shark, on the other hand, is free, a lonesome animal that lives to eat and procreate. Neither animal understands freedom form a philosophical stand point, though. It’s just their nature.

Humans, though, were gifted with reason and as such we like to engage in what if scenarios, but at the end of the day our nature dictates more than our reason. Look around you. Nobody is clamoring for liberty above safety. And those who do, do so within the framework of a structured government that keeps the savages at bay. The same goes for the anarchist, without the safety of government it would reconstitute into a group to provide for safety first.

No doubt that our society has gone crazy micromanaging every aspect of life, but ask yourself if this not the natural convergence of a carefree society that has all it’s needs met with ease.

Andrew aka stash
Andrew aka stash
9 years ago
Reply to  Jose Garcia

Interesting comment , Jose. What is your personal choice, though? Would you like to walk towards freedom or fascism or socialism etc.? I think that once people have found freedom in their life, I think that you would be hard pressed to find someone that goes back to more control voluntarily. Anybody have any examples of this? IE ; Someone finding freedom (somewhat subjective???) and then returning to more control in their life.

Jose Garcia
9 years ago

You want an example, our country is an example. Not too long ago in the late 70s and early 80s we had significantly more freedom than today. Yet, here we are…by choice.

The government didn’t do this, society clamored for it.

Ethan L.
Ethan L.
9 years ago
Reply to  Jose Garcia

Jose,
The problem with liberty is that within it lies the potential for human abundance. Abundance leads to apathy, apathy to corruption, corruption to tyranny, tyranny to resistance, resistance back to liberty… and the cycle continues. That’s why they call it revolution.

Yes, there is a convergence. The thing is, we’re living in what stock brokers would call a ‘dip’, the low swing of apathy-corruption on the scale. We still haven’t even seen true tyranny yet. I think some people who consider themselves intelligent still forget that the Orwellian, Dystopian stories don’t always have the happy ending.

So to answer your question, yes we are capable of being free. We’re not always capable of remaining free.

Jose Garcia
9 years ago
Reply to  Jose Garcia

Relax, don’t get all testy. You are right, the point is not the wolf or anarchism. The point is that like wolves, humans, by choice, choose the bondage and the structure of a society at the expense of some liberty. That, inevitably leads to more bondage. Is there an optimal balance between liberty and bondage, perhaps? But in the end, and especially within a democracy, the tendency is always towards more control. Any debate on liberty is academic when dealing with a species that’s gregarious in nature.

Scott K
Scott K
9 years ago

Jack something you said in the podcast struck me as a great example of how deep the control and thought influencing goes even for people like us who are doing everything we can to break it.

In the marriage example you said you decide who your married to that is between you, your partner, and whoever your version of god and faith and spirituality is including if your an atheist then it’s nothing it’s just between the two of you and who get to make that decision the people getting married.

This is how deep the control goes it seems it never even occurred to you that poly groups might decide they are married be it a man and 50 wives or a wife and 50 husbands or 10 commingled couples or any other combination of people.

I have not finished the episode so if it occurred to you later in the show sorry.

Dick Haines
9 years ago

Jack, you’re missing an essential difference between the Old Testament and the New in your opening remarks to (Episode 1646 “Let’s Talk about Liberty.”) You focused on ancient Jewish religious practices that are found in the O.T. related to homosexuality but then generalized to your audience that, by implication, Jesus Christ (and therefore Christianity) fully endorsed these same draconian laws. This just isn’t true or accurate. Nowhere in the N.T. did Jesus advocate killing anyone but did virtually the opposite. He taught non-violence and love as our main response to aggression, carrying the occupying Roman soldier’s back pack and supplies a mile farther than the one mile the Roman’s had required of Jewish citizens, turning the other cheek when someone slapped you, loving your enemies, forgiving a prostitute “caught in the act”, and so on. He was the true revolutionary whose approach to living life today, to me at least, defines much of what Liberty should be about. So please do your homework, as you do so well in many other arenas, and let the N.T. speak for itself without asserting to all that because it is part of the Bible it condones everything written in the O.T.

James Stevens
9 years ago
Reply to  Dick Haines

Something that I’m only recently noticing is how much of an anarchist Jesus was according to his words and actions in the New Testament. He appeared to be politically averse and understood that the use of force is unethical. He was rebellious and consistently a challenger of status quo in every way. If you think about it, the non-aggression principle is core to the concept of humanity’s free will, since we were originally without a state and free to live as we pleased. Replace natural consequence with force and you get a relationship that is neither genuine nor pure.

War is our curse, simply the logical conclusion where non-aggression is broken. It is ironic when you examine the present day beliefs of the average American evangelical – or for that matter, the frequent past behavior of Christianity’s gatekeepers.

Dick Haines
9 years ago

Hey Jack,
I agree with what you just wrote that, “Jesus advocated a LOT of things that the current church doesn’t seem to do” (shame on the church) and “Christians today pick and choose PARTICULARLY from the OT what they want to further their POLITICS” (shame on these Christians). You’re right on both sub-points! But my main point was to urge you not to generalize from the Old Testament to the New. While Jesus Christ quoted hundreds of O.T. versus to His audiences He also led a movement of true Liberty to the world that has lasted a pretty long time.

chad
9 years ago

I’ll have to take everyone’s word on what the debates were like. I skipped it and watched a Rangers game. Figured my chances of going to bed angry would be a lot less.

Richard Hauser
Richard Hauser
9 years ago

On the note about having religious people obey all the Biblical rules, there is an interesting TED talk about a guy who tried. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MkpzMAOZM

Doug
9 years ago

Jack, Glad to finally hear you say that Christians need to “spread the word” by their actions and not by force. As a Christ follower I am called to tell people about the saving grace of God.
In the past it sounded like you were telling us to keep it to ourselves. I do not believe we should put any of our beliefs on others by force or laws. The Bible says they will know us by our love for one another.

midwestmike
midwestmike
9 years ago

Jack, great show. While listening I kept thinking of a line from an Eagles song, “so many times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key” (Already Gone). Thanks for 1. showing us our chains, 2. showing us the key, 3. urging us to use it. Love these types of shows, keep it up!

Doug
9 years ago

And something I learned from Frank Viola that I try to live by. Condemn not, Condone not. I may not like what you are doing or think that it is right but I will not condemn you for it. It is not for me to condemn. I might tell you I don’t like it if I have a close relationship with you but I will not condemn you for it.

Brent
9 years ago

I have started to compile a list of principals that my son or daughter, should I ever have one, can learn from and take to heart. I would like to make them into a book. Something you said(when talking about the tenth ammendment) reminded me of one. “An honerable man has only one set of rules”.

Mark
Mark
9 years ago

Finally got to finish listening to this episode. Loved it and the outgoing song was a perfect choice.