A libertarian handout for statists...

A Socratic conversation between a libertarian and a statist - written by Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, the top philosophy podcast on the net, available at www.freedomainradio.com.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul: A Complete Disaster for Libertarianism

Stefan Molyneux makes the case against electoral politics as a futile diversion for radical libertarians in our efforts to "smash the State".

read more | digg story

What are the Most Intellectually Stimulating Podcasts?

Ask a smart group of people an interesting question and get some terrific answers. If you're looking for a high-level podcasts from experts who really know their stuff, check these users' recommendations.

read more | digg story

A Handout For Statists

In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, if I don’t like it I can leave, taxation is not violence etc.

I thought this might also be of use to you, because life is short.

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a “social contract,” that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a “social contract.” Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a “contract,” then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it “charity.”

Statist: But I accept the social contract – and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract – and I have never agreed to a “social contract” of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a “social contract” that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood – and say that if people continue to live in “my” neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals…

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is “the government” not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others – a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose “the government,” do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point – you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master’s wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No – however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US.

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now – you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes – and your taxes are not extracted from you through force – then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I’m a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not – but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq, but volunteered for it – and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something – and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq, you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I’m certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

Freedomain Radio: Universally Preferable Behaviour: The Book -a mini-review

A preliminary review of the book "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics," by Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, the number one philosophy podcast on the Internet, available at www.freedomainradio.com.

read more | digg story

Standing in blood... The latest from Iraq - the audio

Standing in blood... The latest from Iraq

I live a secret life as a black man...

I guess the time has come to finally come out of the closet.For the past 20 years, I've been living a double life.The strain of my deception has finally gotten to me, and I wish to officially come clean.I live a secret life as a black man...

read more | digg story

My Secret Life Exposed…

I guess the time has come to finally come out of the closet.

For the past 20 years, I've been living a double life.

The strain of my deception has finally gotten to me, and I wish to officially come clean.

I live a secret life as a black man.

I was brought up in a pretty racist community, and I bought into all the lies about "white power" when I was young, before I began to educate myself. My parents, siblings and friends were all Klan members, and I was taken to rallies when I was in my early teens. I did cheer, but I always felt uneasy.

In my teens, I became fascinated by black history. I read everything I could on the subject – and then, in university, I joined a black power group.

They were hesitant to let me in, of course, since I basically make the Pillsbury doughboy look like Marvin Gaye, but I pointed out that antiracism was the very core of their philosophy, and so to reject me because of my race would be hypocritical.

I was quite open about my racist past, and in time was forgiven for my sins.

I secretly worked as a "blacktivist" for many years, mostly in the back rooms of course, writing speeches and raising money – and eventually felt truly accepted by my colleagues.

I also worked to move my brothers and sisters towards a more libertarian position. They were mostly socialists when I first joined – but also pacifists. I helped them see the contradictions in that position. "The government is force," I repeated, over and over, slowly winning converts to the ideal of pacifism in political as well as racial matters.

However, my secret life came crashing to an end today, so I might as well come clean about the whole mess.

This morning, I was dragged into the office of Ronnie, the chapter leader.

"What the hell is going on, Stefan?" he demanded. "I've just heard that you're still hanging with these racist bastards who raised you."

He threw some grainy black-and-white photos across his desk. I picked them up and leafed through them. There was me at pie-eating contest with my family. There was me playing horseshoes with my racist friends. There was me with a big grin giving the thumbs-up at a barbecue with my childhood companions.

I swallowed, closing my eyes. I guess I always knew it was going to come to this one day.

"Yes, yes. I'm not going to argue with pictures. I'm sorry."

Ronnie's eyes narrowed. "Do you know if these… people are still Klan members?"

I shook my head. "Yes – yes, perhaps. Some of them might be, I think… But I feel that I'm making some sort of progress in…"

He held up his hand. "I don't want to hear it." His fingers rapidly drummed the desktop. "These people raised you as a racist, and you broke away from all that, and saw the light. Great, I've always applauded that. But what the hell are you doing still hanging out with these bigots?"

I coughed, shifting in my chair. "Well, I've been talking to them about being more open about race relations, being more comfortable with different types of people, opening their minds and so on…"

"Oh yeah? And what exactly have your fine words accomplished?"

I paused. "Well, over the years we've had some really interesting debates…"

"Which have resulted in..?"

"What you mean?" I stalled.

"Quit stalling." Ronnie sighed. "You've had these debates, year after year. Have you changed anyone's mind?"

"Well, I think that they're coming along in some ways, though it's always very hard to tell of course…"

"Actually, it's not," said Ronnie abruptly, flicking a sheet of paper across his desk at me.

I caught it and stared. The names of my family – and most of my friends – were listed under the heading "Renewed Klan Memberships."

Ronnie's eyes bored into me. "See?" he said softly. "It's not that hard to tell at all. Stefan, you've been with us for over 20 years. You've been an emissary into your social group about the ideals we treasure. We value peaceful racial relations, we value non-violence, and we value the equality of all the races. You've been out there, making our case, for decades. And what has been the net result of your efforts? Your parents have renewed their Klan memberships. Your brothers and sisters have renewed their Klan memberships. Your friends have renewed their Klan memberships."

"Yes, but…" I stammered, my cheeks reddening (damn it's hard being white sometimes!). "But you have to understand – for them, it's mostly a social club, they don't really know what it's all about, they don't actually directly participate in any…" I paused. The word was so hard to say…

"Lynchings, my brother," murmured Ronnie. "Lynchings."

"Right, right," I stammered. "They don't really know what's going on, what it's all about…"

Ronnie leaned forward. "But you've had over 20 years to tell them what the Klan is 'all about.' Right?"

I nodded rapidly. "Yes, and I think I'm making progress, but you have to be patient about these things, Ronnie…"

"Have you been holding back your best arguments for the last 20 years? Have you neglected to inform them that the Klan is dedicated to the murder of black people? Have you refrained from telling them about the violence they're supporting with their dues, attendance and cheering?"

I opened my mouth, then lowered my eyes. "No, I've told them all that," I said heavily.

"And what has their response been?"

I shrugged. "Oh, they sort of agree at an abstract level, but it never really seems to connect with their actual choices. I mean, I do try and help them make that connection, but it's like pushing string – I never can get them to connect the value of antiracism – which they sort of agree with – with their memberships in the Klan. I just can't get them to live what they believe…"

Ronnie was silent for a long moment. "And you think that is their problem?"

I blinked. "Yes, of course – isn't that what were talking about?"

"No, Stefan. That is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about your family's lack of integrity."

"No? Then…"

"We are talking about your lack of integrity. We are talking about your betrayal of your own highest values."

The little office seemed to tilt suddenly. "What – what do you mean?"

Ronnie reached into his jacket pocket and pulled out a small white pamphlet. "Do you know what the Klan has to say about the use of violence?" He opened it to a bookmarked page and read: "'The use of violence is entirely justified in the defense of the white race. All minorities – and all who support them – may be legitimately aggressed against. It is the duty of every white man to protect this nation, and his race, using whatever means necessary to expel the corrupted races from his lands.'"

"Yes – yes, I remember that from when I was a kid. I know that it hasn't changed since."

Ronnie placed the pamphlet carefully on his desk. "You realize that your race will not protect you from the Klan. They clearly say: 'All minorities, and all who support them.' If these people have their way – if your friends and family have their way – you and I will be hung from the same tree."

I felt a shock of dizziness then, a vertigo – as if I were tipping over a deep chasm.

Ronnie continued: "You have dedicated your life to fighting the violence of racial hatred. You have renounced your own racist past. You have written the most beautiful speeches defending racial harmony, tolerance and pacifism. You have raised money through peaceful means, you have always counseled us to non-violence, and you have swayed many people here – myself included – to seek non-violent solutions to our problems. My very son was converted by you, and is now running for office instead of taking to the streets. Do you believe all that you have preached to us?"

My throat was suddenly dry. "I do…" I croaked.

"And do you expect other people to give up their racism?"

"Yes."

"Then why are you unwilling to give up your racists?"

The question hit me like a hammer. "I – I think that…"

"You have been trying to change these people's minds for decades, and have gotten precisely nowhere! You have told them repeatedly that violence is immoral, and yet when they continue to advocate violence against your friends – and you – you continue to spend time with them, and laugh with them, and joke with them, and break bread with them. You are destroying this movement, Stefan. You are destroying your values. You are destroying any chance we have of success!"

"Why?"

"Because you cannot ask people to take your values more seriously than you do yourself. If nonviolence is a moral value, then hanging out with people who advocate violence clearly communicates that you do not take your values – or morality – seriously at all! If a Jewish man enjoys hanging with Nazis – who openly wish him dead – then he clearly doesn't take his Judaism seriously at all. In fact, by continuing to hang out with those who advocate his murder, he only expresses his own self-contempt, his own lack of respect for his values, and his own pathetic need to excuse those who wish to do him harm!" Ronnie paused, taking a deep breath. "Do you see where I'm going with this?"

I sat back in my chair, my heart pounding. "So – what, you're saying that I have to give up all my friends and family for the sake of this – ideology? You want me to break off relations with everyone who just sort of disagrees with me? That's – that's just culty!"

Ronnie stared at me, his face impassive. "Do you believe that a woman should break off relations with a man who rapes her?"

"What? Yes, of course."

"And do you believe that a woman should break off relations with the man's family, if they approve of his rape, and want him to rape you again?"

"Yes."

"And should that woman also break off relations with any friend of hers who says that she should be raped in the future, and is willing to pay people to rape her?"

"Yes."

"And if this woman joins a group dedicated to opposing rape in any form, should she remain friends with anyone who believes that all women should be raped, and donates money, time and effort to bringing such rapes about?"

"No," I whispered.

"And if she makes the case to those around her that rape is wrong, and they understand her perspective, and her terrible experience, and the rationality of her arguments, but still donate time and money to make sure that she gets continually raped in the future, should she remain friends with these people?"

I swallow. "No."

"And does it matter if these people happen to be her parents, or her siblings, or friends that she has had for 20 years? If she genuinely opposes rape, can she reasonably stay 'friends' with people who not only approve of rape in the abstract, but devote considerable time and energy to supporting those who wish to rape her in the present?"

"No."

"And what if she actually is getting raped in the present? Should she stay friends with those who stand around cheering while she is getting raped?"

I flinched. "Good God no! That would be inhuman!"

Ronnie suddenly leaned forward and pounded his fist on his desk. "So
why are you doing it?"

I sat back and gripped the armrests of my chair. My dizziness was increasing; it felt as if Ronnie's little office was now spinning.

"What are you saying?" I asked, closing my eyes, suddenly close to tears.

"Stefan, you must either give up your values, or those who oppose them. You must give up non-violence, or those who advocate violence. You must start taking your philosophy seriously, or stop pretending to be a philosopher."

There was a long pause. I opened my mouth, having no idea what I was about to say.

Mercifully, Ronnie's phone rang, startling us both.

"Sorry Stef," he said, reaching for the receiver, "but I have to take this. It's an interview, about my son running for office."

I nodded, mightily relieved, and got up to go.

Just as I opened the door, though, it hit me, and I whirled around.

"Now – wait just a minute!" I cried…

Freedomain Radio Books

Libertarians and Taxation: To Pay or Not to Pay?

As libertarians, the question of participation in a statist society can be a great challenge. How can we claim to be resolutely anti-state, anti-war and anti-violence while at the same time driving on public roads, consuming public services, and paying the very taxes that make the coercive power of the state possible?

read more | digg story

Does the government really exist?

Reason, Passion and Salvation

Stefan Molyneux
Host, Freedomain Radio
www.freedomainradio.com

For the audio version of this article, please click here.

When I was younger, and optimistic to the point of being naïve, I had an economics professor – let's call him Dr. Destructo – who repeatedly made the following argument:

"War is good for the economy, because it reduces unemployment, and raises the demand for goods, capital and services. Government demands for gear, men and munitions stimulates production. Men are sent overseas, which creates job vacancies at home. More employment means more income, which in turn creates demand for additional production."

I clearly remember asking him if the elimination of unemployment and so on was a desirable end, and I remember him staring at me as if I were slightly stupid, and saying: "Of course, because it adds to the net wealth of society! And this demand keeps increasing, because in war, goods get continually damaged and destroyed!"

One student, who was much better read than I was, brought up Hazlitt's arguments about the fallacy of the broken window, which is that a broken window will provide work to the glazier, but only at the expense of everyone else, and to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

Dr. Destructo went into a long and convoluted argument as to why this was not the case. No one could follow it, but no one asked any questions, because in those days we were mightily pressed to sell our common sense for good grades.

As I said, in those days I was optimistic to the point of being naïve, and had faith that our teachers truly believed what they preached. After the class, I was walking through the parking lot when I saw a nice Porsche with the vanity plate "Destructo". Humming to myself, I thought about what the good professor had said, pulled out my keys, and scratched his car up and down both sides.

Just as I was finishing, I heard an enraged scream. Dr. Destructo came sprinting up, demanding to know just what the hell I was doing.

I blinked. "Well, I'm increasing employment, of course! Why?"

"You little punk!" he snarled at me. "You're going to pay for this!"

"What? But – why would that be necessary?"

"Why? Because you've just scratched up my car!"

"No – this can be paid for by the increase in the net wealth of society – remember, you said that reducing unemployment was a good thing, and that destroying stuff adds to the wealth of society – which is desirable. So I'm a little confused…"

"Well, damn it, I'm not going to pay for this. We're going to march straight to the Dean's office and call your parents, you little vandal!"

There followed quite an altercation between Dr. Destructo, my parents and myself – which in hindsight could be termed my real education. My parents were not as sympathetic to my perspective as I'd hoped they might be. When I explained my reasoning, my dad retorted: "Everyone knows that professors talk a lot of trash!" I asked him why I should go to university then, but he accused me of changing the subject.

I did end up having to pay for the repairs, and received a fairly poor mark in Professor Destructo's class. I did, however, learn a very valuable lesson, which is that there can be a cavernous gap between what people preach and what they practice.

Why did this professor teach that the destruction of goods was beneficial, but then rail against me when I destroyed his goods? Why did he intellectually believe that war was good for the economy as a whole, but then emotionally he recognized the truth? Why did he scornfully dismiss the fallacy of the broken window, but instinctually grasp that fallacy when he saw me keying his Porsche?

Even more importantly, when he reacted emotionally in an economically sound manner, why did that not cause him to doubt any of his intellectual ideas?

I wanted to know how widespread this rank hypocrisy was. The next semester, I had a sociology professor who preached that the strong must be taxed in order to support the weak – that the able must be forced to serve the less able. I found all this rather hard to swallow, because it bothered me on so many levels, but did my best to understand it. Sadly, my best was not good enough, and I was getting a steady stream of D's in her class. After pondering her instructions for many days, I finally realized – in a burst of illumination – exactly what she had been talking about. I asked her to point out her best student, so I could get some help improving my marks. She pointed out a girl named Sue.

Right after class, I caught up with Sue in the parking lot, and said that I would beat her up if she didn't do my homework for me.

What a mess! Tears, protestations, marches to the Dean's office, threatened suspension and charges of bullying all ensued. I did my best to stand my ground, but it did no good. I told them that I was merely forcing the more able to help out the less able – as I put it, a form of "Marks-ism" – just as I had been taught! I couldn't for the life of me understand why everyone was so angry. "You're like a politician who tells me that it's good to pay my taxes, but when I actually pay my taxes, you throw me in jail!"

This happened many, many times throughout my academic career. I had a history professor who told me that history is completely subjective – then gave me bad marks for getting historical dates "wrong" on my final exam. I told him that if history is completely subjective, then those dates cannot be "wrong," because they are "right" for me. "In fact," I said, "I decided not to study because you told us that history was completely subjective, so studying made no sense. When you asked for dates on the exam, I thought it was a sort of test – and that if I put down 'objective' dates, I would fail!"

Again, this escalated to the Dean's office, where little understanding – and less sympathy – awaited me.

My psychology professor kept telling us that morality was subjective, that there were no absolute standards of right or wrong, and that imposing our own values on others was bad. That was a great relief to me, since it is far easier to buy a term paper than it is to write one. After I handed in my paper, however, my professor dragged me to the Dean's office and accused me of plagiarism. "But," I protested, "you told me that ethics was subjective, and that it is wrong to impose my beliefs on other people. I don't believe in plagiarism, but you do – what gives you the right, by your own theory, to impose your beliefs on me?"

The Dean and the professor both looked at me with a mix of scorn and pity. I can imagine the same look coming from the manager of a corrupt casino, who sees a man keep coming back and losing his money, not realizing that the game is rigged.

Every time I tried to put into practice what my professors taught me, I was violently punished. It took me a long time to figure out what was going on – I did not have the cynicism back then to ascribe it merely to a corrupt form of fraud – but eventually I think I came up with something useful.

The most fundamental barrier to the spread of libertarian ideas is this terrifying gap between theory and practice. "Theory" describes a vague, almost Platonic realm, while "practice" describes merely pragmatic actions in the present.

For instance, I am often asked how a stateless society could conceivably work, and if there are any examples of such a society existing at any time. In response, I ask: "Do you use violence to achieve your goals? How many times a year do you use the state court system? Did your wife marry you voluntarily, or did you kidnap her and lock her in your basement? Did you get your current job by going for an interview and winning the position voluntarily, or did you kidnap your employer's children and hold them hostage?"

I have never met anyone who regularly uses violence to achieve his ends (I'm not saying that such people don't exist, but they tend not to move in debating circles). I have also never met anyone who regularly uses the state court system – though I have met many people who hate the courts for their injustice and inefficiency.

This is very strange, when you think about it. People who don't use violence to get what they want say that not using violence to get what you want is impossible. People who would never pick up a gun and force their neighbours to pay for their children's education enthusiastically support the public school system. People who would never shoot a foreigner just because some gray-haired guy told them to are rabid supporters of military imperialism.

I have written a book called "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion" detailing just how this cavernous disconnect between theory and practice arises – but I will sum up one or two additional points here.

The most important lesson my experiences in university taught me is that no one has a clue about ethics. What people really do is repeat the nonsense that they have been told in order to get the things that they want. Professors spout the most irrational nonsense about subjectivity and relativism and argue that destruction equals wealth because if they do, they get to be professors. Court toadies praise the king not because the king is praiseworthy, but because if they do, they get to be court toadies. Rappers have a "posse" due to their wealth, not their virtue.

However, it is fundamentally humiliating to lie about virtue for a living. Misleading the young about morality is a particularly sickening way to earn one's daily bread.

When people do bad things – and what can be worse than teaching the young that evil is virtue? – they have only two choices. They can either stop doing bad things, or they can redefine those bad things as good things.

There are no prizes for guessing which is the more prevalent solution.

The immoral pragmatism involved in making a living by corrupting the young is so ghastly that it can only be sustained by completely separating theory from practice. When you want to keep doing bad things, you must separate your self-justifying theories from your empirical actions, otherwise your guilt and self-hatred will arise and compel you to change your behaviour. You must numb your conscience by repeating over and over that morality has nothing to do with practicality – but only because the practicality that you have chosen is completely immoral.

Of course, when you come across someone who joins theory and practice together – as I did when keying my professor's car – this threatens the split that you have set up between theory and practice, between ethics and action. The rage that you feel is really hostility towards your own corruption, not for my action. You want to punish me because my actions make you feel bad. Since I make you feel bad, punishing me becomes a twisted form of self-defense. Since you are not living up to any kind of decent values, when your real values are put into practice, you realize how corrupt you are, which causes you to lash out.

Recognizing and understanding this psychological mechanism is, I submit, essential to libertarians. The greatest barrier we face is not the state, or taxation, or imperialism, but rather moral hypocrisy. People are well paid to do bad things – it is always emotionally volatile to confront people on their corruption, but it is a habit that we must cultivate within ourselves. We know that we are right, that our arguments against violence and statism are both valid and moral – but the arguments themselves will never change the world.

It is our passionate commitment to those arguments, and the strength we must find in ourselves to confront people on their hypocrisies – and to live our values ourselves – that will save the world.

Reason is the engine, but passion is the fuel. The truth must be defined logically; the world must be saved passionately.

 

Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] is the host of Freedomain Radio, one of the most popular Libertarian podcasts on the internet. He is also the author of On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion.

Freedomain Radio - The Free Will Series

My new three-part series on free will versus determinism...

The Supercharged Stock Market: An Object Lesson in the Perils of Coercion

A central reason for the instability of the stock market is the hundreds of billions of dollars being forced into it by endless government programs.

read more | digg story