How Do I Defend Voluntarism? - Questions For Corbett #087

05/24/202276 Comments

Richard Cox of DeepStateConsciousness.com and author of The Essence of Anarchy joins me today to help answer a question about anarchy: How can we defend voluntarism in the face of arguments about the positive benefits of state regulation?

Watch on Archive / BitChuteOdysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
DeepStateConsciousness.com

The Essence of Anarchy

Peltzman on Automobile Safety Regulation

Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" - FLNWO #35

Contradictions in Left Anti-Imperialism

Filed in: Questions For CorbettVideos

Comments (76)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Duck says:

    The argument you two appear to be making is really NOT against government as a thing but in favor of SMALL government…. even the locker room in the examplebdepends, ultimately, on the club members being willing to punch out the person who refuses to follow the rules or leave willingly.

    I think mark Twain said that lynch mob were the result of people refusing to convict and do civic law…thus leading to mob law.
    On the OTHER hand the lynching of Leo Frank was the people doing justice despite the very clear attempt by the Governor to use the law to NOT do justice….so maybe it’s down to the mindset of the people rather then the system of government.

    ANY form of government or anarchy where people do not have good social capital and shared values is always going to get overwhelmed and run by the worst kind of people.

    In a sense it’s like you are asking for Elites that have a bond to those they rule…. even the club house is going to have a few people who ACTUALLY run things and decide what the rules will be.

    • ethanms says:

      Ah yes, Leo Frank. Isn’t it ironic that the ADL was founded to defend Jewish criminals, in this case child rape and murder, from any measure of gentile justice? I’ve met plenty of people who glowing praise that organization as some moral authority. I think it’s important to note that under their system of “law” the act of raping that raping that girl is only problematic as “poking her in the eye” and she’d have to be put to death any way for causing an important Jewish man to sin in a way that would put him at risk of retribution from gentiles.

      • Duck says:

        Ethanms
        “…yes, Leo Frank. Isn’t it ironic that the ADL was founded to defend Jewish criminals, in this case child rape and murder, from any measure of gentile justice?…”

        True…. but my favorite part was when they almost lynched the state Governor…I was reading and was like WTF? Lol

        • ethanms says:

          Oh wow, I never heard that! If only people had the same fire and conviction today.

        • darrell says:

          How politically incorrect of you! Didn’t you know that Jews are never criminals, only victims of irrational “antisemitism”? Re- the governor who barely escaped with his life after making his last act as governor the commuting of Leo Frank’s death sentence, he was whisked up to New York by the usual suspects and feted by them.

          A good source on the malevolent ADL is E Michael Jones in interviews (not on youtube anymore) and in articles like this:
          https://culturewars.com/news/black-frankenstein (which also covers the Leo Frank trial and lynching)

  2. padraig says:

    enjoyed that sir. thanks, as per usual.

    peace

  3. Octium says:

    voluntarism is really about taking responsibility for looking after yourself, obviously people also have a moral responsibility to look after infants, mentally retarded and insane people as they don’t have the ability to be responsible for themselves, I guess when statists are asking the government to make decisions for them what they are saying is that they are retarded and insane – because they are too old to be children!

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    – Compulsory Seatbelt Laws –

    Near the 11:20 minute mark, seatbelt laws come up.
    I remember.
    For the longest time, cars did not have seat belts. Then, later car manufacturers started putting them into cars, (which I would stuff back between the cushions) so my date or girlfriend could slide over next to me on the long door-to-door front seat. Eventually, it became mandatory to belt up.
    I resented being mandated to wear a seatbelt at the risk of a ticket. For the longest time, I deliberately did not belt up, mostly because of my indignation at being told what to do with my life. Then, gradually, I fell into the habit for fear of being ticketed.

    Perhaps, bucket seats and seatbelts killed the Drive-In Movie Theaters. 😉

    In the old days, with pickup trucks, the kids and extra friends would ride in the back bed. Now, it is against the law.

    Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane society or system. The year 2020 brought that home for me. A lot of people don’t think straight…the rational thought processes are off-kilter. And we know that the system is a disaster.

    That said…
    IF we had a more sane society and system, I firmly believe that issues like seatbelts would naturally work themselves out.
    For example: If seatbelts (or any vehicle safety measure) were beneficial, then insurance companies would provide incentives and car manufacturers would tout their benefit.

    I contend that on a Voluntary basis, sane-thinking people tend to work things out.
    For example: The Corbett Report comment section is pretty much a Voluntary community – There is no grand Elitist Authoritarian Overlord with pages of mandated rules for the comment section. Newcomers can always ask the Corbett community about the do’s and don’ts of the turf. Alert readers will notice the occasional [SNIP].

    From a Voluntaryist perspective, I keep going back to this…one of my top Corbett favorites…
    5 minutes – James Corbett
    Economics in One Image

    https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/economics-in-one-image:5

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Economics – ‘How America Works’

      Mike Rowe Says Feds “Revoked” Film Permit Because Official “Didn’t Like His Personal Politics”
      https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mike-rowe-says-feds-revoked-film-permit-because-official-didnt-his-personal-politics

      EXCERPTS
      “Dirty Jobs” television host Mike Rowe called out the General Services Administration (GSA) for canceling his production team’s ability to film a new episode because of his “personal politics.”

      Rowe wrote a lengthy Facebook post on Monday, addressing the boilermaker workers at a facility overseen by the GSA that his permit to shoot was “suddenly revoked.”

      He said his film team received a call from a woman at the GSA about permits revoked for “security concerns.” When asked about the security concerns, the woman had no response. She said: That decision had come down from “the very highest levels within the GSA.”

      Rowe went on to say Dirty Jobs has filmed in very sensitive government-controlled areas:
      “We’ve received permits from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Seabees, Coast Guard, NASA, and The Army Corps of Engineers. We’ve gotten permission to film inside the Capitol and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. We even got a permit to film inside the National Security Agency!”

      Shortly after the first call, his production team received another. This time, someone from the GSA explained the decision had “nothing to do with security, and everything to do with politics.”
      “According to this caller, someone at the highest levels of the GSA, ‘doesn’t like Mike Rowe’s personal politics,’ and used their power to deliberately string us along until the last possible second, for the express purpose of ‘yanking my chain,'” Rowe wrote.

      He added: “Unlike Dirty Jobs, however, ‘How America Works’ airs on Fox, and these days that’s enough to upset certain people.”…

      …Rowe might have irritated the Biden adminstration earlier this month when he sat down with Fox’s Steve Doocy to discuss out-of-control inflation—telling the news show host that American truckers aren’t buying the “Putin Price Hike” narrative when it comes to soaring diesel prices.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Sept 2021
      Mike Rowe on new FOX Business show ‘How America Works’
      (3 1/2 minutes)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXuthiiewnE

    • “I contend that on a Voluntary basis, sane-thinking people tend to work things out.
      For example: The Corbett Report comment section is pretty much a Voluntary community – There is no grand Elitist Authoritarian Overlord with pages of mandated rules for the comment section. Newcomers can always ask the Corbett community about the do’s and don’ts of the turf. Alert readers will notice the occasional
      [SNIP].

      This one was precious, I just had to comment.
      Of all people here to be ‘chastised’ for breaking the rules in the comment section
      by the non-statist Corbett, himself.

      Oh the irony! 🙂

      • Fact Checker says:

        Too subtle, Fawlty.

        You’re trying to troll HRS, but most will think HRS trolled you…

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Would rules (agreements to protocols) exist in a Voluntary community?

        With one’s own turf (Home or business or website or body or life), would a Voluntaryist set guidelines?

        • Of course HRS.

          I just thought it was hilarious that you were specifically
          talking about rules for the comment section, and there you went, breaking one of the key rules that most newbs break (long post).
          And then along comes Corbett having to [SNIP] your post, the enforcer of the voluntary system. 🙂

          It just jumped right off the page for me!

          BTW James, that was an excellent interview. I really enjoyed it. 🙂

          • mkey says:

            James didn’t snip it. Just like he didn’t snip this post.

            [SNIP]

            • Ah yes, thanks, you are right, my bad.
              Someone should have told me right away.
              Thanks mkey. 🙂

              I am so accustomed to seeing the [SNIP] being used,
              that as soon as I saw it (the post actually didn’t look too long to me) I thought it had been snipped.

              I didn’t read what HRS was saying carefully at that point in his post.

              I also thought it was a little strange that his post continued after the “SNIP” took place.

              Carry on! 🙂

              • Fact Checker did catch it, but instead of alerting me of my mistake in a clear (non-cryptic) way, he went about his usual business of condescension, so I just ignored all that he said.

              • Fact Checker says:

                Hahaha! I gave you too much credit, I guess, Fawlty. I thought you were making a slightly sophisticated and subtle joke to try to bait HRS, but I feared the Corbettariat at large would merely mistake your gag for a mistake, making it fall flat.

                But it really was your mistake?

                Wow.

                Woooooow.

                The internet is truly a desolate wasteland.

                [SNIP – BE NICE TO FAWLTY! IS THIS REAL WORLD OR EXERCISE??? –Fact Checker]

              • mkey says:

                James always leaves an explanatory note, there are just a few (three?) snip reasons.

              • “James always leaves an explanatory note, there are just a few (three?) snip reasons.”

                Yes of course, in retrospect many flags should have alerted me to my folly. 🙂

                However we are so conditioned here to seeing the dreaded [SNIP]
                that our brains can sometimes do what happened to me.

                I don’t recall ever seeing a [SNIP] message here in the comment section that wasn’t a warning from Corbett (apart from someone explaining to a newbie what happens with long posts).

                It’s funny how we process ‘trigger’ words here on the internet. 🙂

              • “But it really was your mistake?
                Wow.
                Woooooow.”

                Yes it really was my mistake!
                I confess. 🙁

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                I really enjoy the humor and ability to laugh on these comment boards.

  5. scpat says:

    @23:30 mark:

    Corbett cogitates on the idea of the State as a replacement for the family structure, and that it is not just an analogy, but plays on human interactions and social formations.

    I would agree. Besides the phrase Nanny State, other common phrases in everyday speech demonstrate this: The Motherland, The Fatherland, Uncle Sam, Big Brother, Homeland Security, The Founding Fathers, etc.

    • Duck says:

      Scpat

      The idea of state as family makes sense if you think that the states used to be Nations of people who had a common language, culture and genetics… A tribe is often an actual extended family the same way that Ashkenazi Jews are genetic cousins.

      I guess that it makes sense to think of the group as a family and the leader as a parent when your on a small scale and it just gets carried over to t he super sized state where it’s not true anymore

      • TimmyTaes says:

        Duck: Are you nuts? Do you like your family? Do you like your in-laws? Do you like your siblings or even your kids? Who are you? The Beaver?
        I’ll agree that humans had to band together into families or tribes or whatever group to stay alive in the caves of yore. For a human to be banished from the cave/tribe/family was a death sentence.
        The state as family makes sense; if you realize that they both are crazy institutions full of self-centered humans.
        Who don’t really give a damn about you!

        • Duck says:

          TimmyTAres

          …The state as family makes sense; if you realize that they both are crazy institutions full of self-centered humans.
          Who don’t really give a damn about you!….”

          Dude..
          1) if your family really dont give a damn about you I am sorry… I hope that if YOU have a family you DO give a damn about them.

          2) Who but your family do you think is ever gonna give a damn about you or anyone else?

          “…Who are you? The Beaver?…”

          Mocking the family structure is pretty common now… its a self correcting problem though since eventually those without what were once considered normal family ties will die off. I estimate that EVEN WITHOUT economic collapse you will be seeing the Death-of-Despair rate in childless women explode in 10 years or so…maybe 15 but less then 20.

          The men who have wasted their lives will start dropping a bit later since guys age at a different schedule…but they WILL begin for people who have wasted their lives on consumer pleasure and dopamine hits

          We live in the “Open Society” where relationships are economic and the family is degraded …or if you like a “Bug Man” society.
          It wont last because its a stupid idea.

          Like these guys say…the end of history is ending 🙂 lol

          https://myth20c.wordpress.com/2022/04/26/the-end-of-history-and-the-last-man/

          LONG talk on “The End Of History” which is one of the few texts that makes the case FOR the current system rather then, as they say, against the other systems

          • TimmyTaes says:

            Duck: “those without normal family ties will die off.” LOL! Drug addicts, rapists, child abusers; reproduce like rats.
            You really are “the Beaver”.
            Some of my family loves me. Some don’t. I love my children, but that doesn’t mean that they love me.
            There is this thing called reciprocity.
            The nuclear family is a new idea. Will it last?

            • Duck says:

              TimmyTares

              “…Drug addicts, rapists, child abusers; reproduce like rats….”

              Those kind of people come predominantly (Yes, I know NOT exclusively) FROM BROKEN HOMES… not stable 2 parent homes with a homemaker and one parent able to pay for a decent life on ONE income.

              That is why if you look at the stats you see single parent homes and the State Care system churn out the vast majority of messed up people who will have bad life outcomes.

              “..The nuclear family is a new idea. Will it last?…”

              Well… not exactly new, its an Industrial world version of the Extended Family and the nuclear family in no way excludes extended family relationships…

              “….You really are “the Beaver”….”

              Thankyou…. if YOU LIKE nihilism and the current massive rise in anxiety, depression and mental illness in kids and teens then I dont know what to sat to you.

              I know I linked the talk on “The end of history” but you should go look at Blackpilled’s review of “Welcome To Pleasantville” …. the people who destroyed the Old World know its important to keep us laughing at what makes us healthy

            • Duck says:

              Hey… I found the link.
              Its short at 30 min but worth a look for the social commentary
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvSDIbikprY&t=3s

              Why they make you laugh at the 50’s…. he gets into the review about 5 min in

              • TimmyTaes says:

                Duck: I like the 1950’s. I was born in 1952. I’m not making fun or putting down the nuclear family of those days. Black families were more cohesive than white ones in the 1950’s. But the Democratic Party welfare system blew it all up.
                I don’t like the nihilism of our times. I’m just pricking your “Leave it to Beaver” bubble that those times are coming back in our lifetimes.
                They aren’t!
                Evil is in the land. Thinking that the losers will just “die out”, is not a solution.
                You come up with a solution to the moral decay of society today; let me know.

            • Duck says:

              TimmyTares
              “….times are coming back in our lifetimes.
              They aren’t!…”

              Whats so important about YOUR lifetime?

              Not saying this as an insult, but
              Do you see what your doing there? Your time scale is about yourself, not about your family, not about your community but about YOU.

              “… Thinking that the losers will just “die out”, is not a solution….”

              The loosers are dying off already…. but I do not really care about THEM.

              “….You come up with a solution to the moral decay of society today; let me know….”

              Read the Bible… try to follow it and then associate with people that do those 2 things.
              Its that simple.

              • TimmyTaes says:

                Duck: You have the long term Biblical outlook on life. My point is that things are not going to get better in what time I have left on the planet. I’m 70. I don’t expect Jesus Christ to come down our street on an ass any time soon.
                I read the Bible a few times a week. It’s a great book. But it points out that the only life we can change is our own. The only soul we can save is our own.
                How does associating with Bible thumpers help me save my soul or make a better society?
                Join an Amish community if you so wish. I’m too much of an individual for me to join any group.
                Soon enough, as George Carlin said, they start wearing funny hats, come up with slogans, dogmas, enemies, flags..
                Next thing you know there’s an Inquisition.
                I’m glad I’m checking out of this planet real soon.

            • Duck says:

              TimmyTares

              “…..How does associating with Bible thumpers help me save my soul or make a better society?….”

              Well.. let’s see.
              1)People will no longer pour money into corporate entity’s that hate them…as w the catholic boycott of Hollywood back in the day
              2) children statistically are better off raised in such communities… children are the future
              3) as to the soul part… you do you dude.

              “….. I’m too much of an individual for me to join any group…..”

              Without a group you are nothing but an ego…you have no power or ability to resist authority.

              Hyperindividualism is why everyone is so unhappy and sick.

              “…, as George Carlin said, they start wearing funny hats, come up with slogans, dogmas, enemies, flags….”

              You DO know that speil is right out of the Authrotarian Personality idea right? The idea by a few commies, mostly jewish, that anyone who was happy and normal and not perverted was a potential fascist???

              As I said… makes you easy to rule. That’s why boomers were such a massive waste of potential

              “….I’m glad I’m checking out of this planet real soon…”

              THAT is a real boomer-ism….. it’s all about ‘me’ and let the flood come after.
              Honestly, the evil fruit of the boomers self indulgence is that they won’t be missed

              • TimmyTaes says:

                Duck; “Without a group you are nothing but an ego.” Groups tend to eat themselves eventually. Look at Christianity. How many heretics have been burned at the stake?
                “Children are the future.” That old trope. How do you even know there is a future? The nukes could be launched today. Or an asteroid. Or a plague. Or who knows what? Alien invasion?
                Live in the present.
                And your attack on Carlin’s saying makes no sense at all. Sounds like something you learned in Political Science class. Every authoritarian has a funny hat.
                And saying that boomers were a waste of potential is bullshit. At least we stopped the Vietnam War. Did you stop any? Blanket statements like I just made are crap,too. Boomers are a diversified group.
                Which brings me back to individualism. We are individuals. We are NOT a collective.
                Life is all about our soul. OUR soul. I can’t fix yours. You can’t fix mine.
                You join your collective and tell me how it all works out.

            • Duck says:

              TimmyTares

              “……Duck; “Without a group you are nothing but an ego.” Groups tend to eat themselves eventually. …”

              Yes groups do tend to eat themselves… WHAT has that to do with what I said ??? which is that Without A Group You Are Powerless …. are your going to counter that?

              “….“Children are the future.” That old trope. How do you even know there is a future?….”

              So what are you saying? That you should just care about yourself?
              OK…. but you see why this makes you sound like a super selfish ego-ist?

              “…Live in the present….”

              THAT is the attitude that has led us to disaster… I thought you were posting and wishing for a better society but here you appear to just care about your own pleasure.

              “… attack on Carlin’s saying makes no sense at all. Sounds like something you learned in Political Science class. …”

              It was not much of an attack, and I’d be rather unlikely to learn much in Political Science these days…. I Will make an attack on CArlin now, as Dr Jones points out his brand of Transgression Humour is corrosive and elads ultimatly to Nihlism …. which is epitomised by your own words “…. “…Live in the present….”

              “….And saying that boomers were a waste of potential is bullshit….”

              Not really, I think that they really COULD have built a better future has they not been sucked off into the death culture.
              The Boomer left IS THE ESTABLISHMENT, they are the system and they created the world that we live in (with help… lol)

              “… At least we stopped the Vietnam War…”

              NO you did not… they stopped serious protest as soon as they were no longer getting Drafted and then the North was brought to settlement…which they were able to then ignore because the Establishment left of the day refused to enforce the peace and the USA got its ass run out…. actually just like our Final Boomer president did in Afganistan

              “…. Boomers are a diversified group….”
              Thats very true, I am only talking in general

              “….Which brings me back to individualism. We are individuals. We are NOT a collective….”

              You have no identity without a group… at no time have you ever existed just as YOU rather then as a son or daughter, worker, brother, sister, mom, dad, ect.

              Obviously hyper collectivism is bad, but the stupidity of imagining that you can exist as a Splendidly Isolated island of ego is why people are feeding themselves into the identity politics grind mill right now.

              “….Life is all about our soul. OUR soul…..”
              Me me memememememememe… ok dude 😉

              “,,,You join your collective and tell me how it all works out….”
              like I said it should be balanced… but look at the culture around you and tell me how hyper Self centered culture is working out ? lol

              MOUSE UTOPIA dude…. you cant survive if your in it or if its in you

              • TimmyTaes says:

                Duck: Okay, you think a human is always part of a group; has no power without a group; must be in a group.
                Let’s take an example of an individual living outside of a group.
                The original “Robinson Crusoe” was a real person. He was left stranded on an island off the coast of Chile. He lived there by himself for years.
                Then he was rescued and went back to England and his drinking whoring ways.
                The man said he was happiest alone on that island.
                Now you can be part of your group and love your group and be happy in your group.
                Not for me.
                The culture we live in in the USA is all about groups. Identity politics is about groups. Political parties and languages and customs are all about groups.
                If you want a successful society, you have individuals working together for their own self interests that happen to coincide.
                And what is this “balanced” term you use with collective? There is no balance in a collective, just the collective.
                There is no “you” in a collective.
                Go join your Bible Study group and your Church and commune and be happy, but leave us individuals alone.
                That’s volunteerism.
                Your argument about the end of the Vietnam War is bullshit btw. We protested so much Nixon had to end the draft and wind down the US involvement in Vietnam. I have friends who suffered greatly in that war and protests. You weren’t there.
                You want to comment some more, go on ahead, but I’m done.

            • Duck says:

              Timmy tares

              You know… I was just thinking a bit more about the claim that boomers stopped Vietnam…. even if it were true the boomers were the biggest voting bloc all the way thru gulf war 2 and the war in terror.

              They will no longer be able to distort the vote soon so what comes next will be interesting, probably not nice but interesting 🙂

            • Duck says:

              Timmy Tares

              “…Your argument about the end of the Vietnam War is bullshit btw. We protested so much Nixon had to end the draft and wind down the US involvement in Vietnam…..”

              Yes…. and after the Draft ended Boomers gave zero F’s about the war, and the Left of its day refused to hold North Vietnam to its side of the agreements…hence getting run out on their ass rather like Afghanistan, eh?

              As to Alexander Selkirk, the Real Robinson Cruso, as I recall his greatest fear was that his masses of Cats were gonna eat him after he died…. rather an apt example for the Post-Boomer failure type known as Cat Ladies.

              “… I have friends who suffered greatly in that war and protests.You weren’t there….”

              Funny… because the LEADERS of those protests became the RULING CLASS we have today and the ProtestBoomers do not appear to have minded the Forever War… probably because someone else had to fight it.

              “…You want to comment some more, go on ahead, but I’m done….”

              Ok…. 🙂

    • mkey says:

      This mechanism plays into the parental abandonment complex perfectly and builds up from the authoritarian upbringing the vast majority of us were subjected to.

      • scpat says:

        Sure does. One area (probably the biggest area) I’ve observed the parental abandonment agenda expressing itself is through television, movies, and pop culture. Back in the first half of the 20th century, TV shows and movies portrayed the father as the head of the household, strong, and respected. Now the father (especially the white father) is ridiculed, mocked, and denigrated as much as possible. I’ve seen this in TV commercials, TV shows, movies, etc. And it’s not just here or there. The propagandists obviously made an executive decision to drive this campaign forward in all areas of media. They portray the father as the fumbling, bumbling, laughing stock of the entire family. Erode the family structure, destroy the father figure, and have the State takes his place.

  6. HyperSimian says:

    Mind your own business. If anyone aggressively makes their business yours, I’d watch them like a hawk because either they are afraid of you and or want to control you. It’s that simple. Any human or group of humans that forms an entity that panders to the lowest common denominator for the “greater good” is not your friend and will turn on you in a second without question. People will give up all freedom for order no matter the cost. There is no logic and morality decision making anymore but emotional mob rule. The more you can stay away from big groups and or groups of people who blindly agree with each other is usually in your best interest. Instead, be a followerless leader always promoting self-sufficiency. A symbiotic common ground to see each other succeed is the formula for trust and loyalty to each others well being. Surround yourself with these people and only these people.

  7. SusanMundy says:

    I enjoyed this episode immensely, I always love it James when you push us to think deeper and consider things from different perspectives.

    And what a great find in Richard Cox ~ I had heard the name, but not connected with him or his work prior to this episode, thank you. I ordered his books immediately and after reading his essay on “Understanding Consciousness” I’m really looking forward to his books. A couple of my favourite topics covered from a slightly different perspective. Always positive for a deeper understanding of issues.

    Just as a side note regarding Justin’s question, I took Larken Rose’s online training “Candles in the Dark” a couple of years ago that I highly recommend to anyone seeking a way to discuss a voluntarist/anarchist way of life with a statist. Perhaps Justin or others might like to check it out. https://attendcandles.com/order-505708941630889960742

    Thank you James 🙏🏼

  8. nosoapradio says:

    As SusanMundy referenced Richard Cox’s essay “Understanding Consciousness” I decided to give it a read and then ended up listening to him read it himself this morning during pre-hamsterwheel coffee.

    The plurality of the tools employed in the effort to apprehend consciousness that he promoted struck me;

    If the tool of materialist rationalism is the sole means used to understand consciousness whose existence appears utterly irrational and even immaterial and painfully inexplicable (even just with the chicken and the egg dilemma)

    it’s like the IPCC limiting it’s exploration of what drives climate change

    to man’s activities alone, to the exclusion of other more colossal actors.

    It’s, at best, non-scientific and a flagrant act of confirmation bias.

    The approach of employing other seemingly irrational tools for exploring consciousness such as quantum physics (whose fundamental precepts seem to fly in the face of classical physical assumptions ) or the subjective experiences of yogis and mystics who may or may not have ingested psychoactive substances, along with philosophers who entertain all nature of demonstrable, intuitive or outlandish scenarios using a variety of reasoning techniques,

    would seem eminently more scientific and rational and honest

    than limiting one’s exploration to the exclusive use of the lens of materialist rationalism which, despite the fact that it has brought humanity as many wonders as it has horrors (the arms race is rational isn’t it?), and has even offered many partial explanations as to the nature of consciousness

    is too self-defeatingly limited for understanding something so omnipresent and fundamental as consciousness, whose nature, though so pervasive, is so tantalizingly elusive.

    If one had explained to Galileo that the cat is dead and alive at the same time or that a particle is also a wave until it is transformed through external observation or some other phenomenon to be one or the other

    he might’ve been a bit amused,

    in the same way that saying that God invented itself, flying in the face of the linear logical and materialist rationalist wisdom of the chicken and the egg problem,

    may inspire the cynical derision of some pundits.

    • TimmyTaes says:

      Nosoapradio: Dr. Jordan Peterson says that pain proves consciousness. “Pain is pretty damned real.” When you are in pain, you know it! I’ve had a lot of pain in my life the past 14 months.
      Oh, yeah.
      I’m conscious baby!
      And I feel time in a very real way.

  9. Nick says:

    Love Richard’s channel. been following it for 6 months or so after a previous hat tip James gave to him. I don’t want to discourage anyone from buying his book but for those that are broke like me, he goes through in a fair amount of detail, many of these issues in his videos. Would love to see him again discussing these issues here.

  10. mkey says:

    True or False with Kristi Leigh: Covid-19 Shots
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysYINSI6P8I

    Kristi: Hello, my name is Kristi and I am a conspiracy realist
    Gang: HELLO KRISTI!

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      That was worth watching!
      Great shownotes with sources.

      Austin, TX.
      Probably the south side of the river/lake.
      It has been awhile still I’ve been there.
      It has some of the old ambience from days of old, but mixed with a new breed of people.

  11. mkey says:

    George Bush Accidentally Admits U.S. Is World’s Evil Empire
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP7oaoCBOE

    Georgie boy commits a faux pas, the mother of all faux pas’. I understand this man is severely intellectually challenged, but still.

  12. ethanms says:

    Thank you James, for pushing back on utilitarian argumentation and focusing on fundamental moral principles. I’m so tired of arguments from statistics and models. Hey, if it can be shown that masks and lockdowns reduce deaths by “x percentage” then the government can abrogate your fundamental rights and ability to provide for yourself.

    If it can be shown that seat belts prevent death by “insert statistic” then the police get to terrorize the public, violently stop their vehicle and put a claim on their time and product of their labor.

    All of these arguments ignore the inherent rights of man and are predicating on violently enforcing unilateral contracts under the pretext of emergency, public safety and health. None of these should be acceptable in a peer to peer society that recognizes inherent rights

    Justin, it’s just world view violence. I don’t like smoking, therefore if the government can limit it through violence, then it should. Because I can show statistics that smokers are more at risk of cancer. People should be free to accept their own risks, as long as salient information is provided concerning side effects. Although, it does become a problem when these massive companies don’t disclose potential risks and people get unwittingly injured. Like J&J with the baby powder, who then use legal loopholes to shirk financial liability. Good thing we have all these laws right?

    Why is someone smoking a problem? It’s a fundamental question of who own’s their body and is responsible for their health? Do they or the state, collective, whatever fiction or abstraction you want to insert?

    Lets set aside that according to Alan Watt, who spoke to a representative for a cigarette company, that told him it was government regulations that forced the companies to put the harmful chemicals into their products in the first place.

    Truth is these are the immoral people, these are the people advocating violence and coercion to further their nerfed view of the world. They then have to contrive all these logic stretches of how these “selfish actions” put other people at risk. It’s intellectually bankrupt and wrong.
    Because whether it’s smoking, seatbelts, masks, vaccines it’s the same framework of logic and authoritarian control.

    These are the earmarks death cult society, not at peace with death, risk, responsibility, human liberty, and justice. Therefore the whole operating system of Western Civilization is inverted by the process of involution through all it’s internal contradictions.

  13. darrell says:

    You mention morals and the moral order but there can be no objective moral order without God, the divine lawgiver. And without the Christian belief in Original Sin, we can never understand, much less solve social and political problems. We don’t have the power, without supernatural grace, to overcome the wound of our fallen human nature, and history attests to this.

    Beginning with the perplexing and tragic human condition, the great Oxford scholar and leader of the Oxford Movement John Henry Newman (1801-1890) in his famous autobiography, Apologia Pro Vita Sua explains very well (and in very elegant prose) what is the most rational solution to the riddle of human existence, of physical, moral, and social evil, and why the reality of Original Sin makes sense and also why it makes sense that there would be some means provided by God for having certainty about the most important things, including the moral and social order. Newman has some very profound thoughts in this chapter:
    http://www.erenow.net/common/apologia-pro-vita-sua/8.php. But keep in mind as you read it, that when he mentions the Catholic Church, Newman is referring to the Church as it existed in his time, which is a different Church than what the world has seen since a takeover of its visible structures, a relatively little known fact precipitated by a takeover of the papacy by the Church’s traditional enemies and their Masonic assets in 1958: http://www.whitesmoke1958.com.

    • mik says:

      “You mention morals and the moral order but there can be no objective moral order without God, the divine lawgiver.”

      Not really.
      Certainly it’s way easier, because then you have universal answer/argument: god.

      Without god it’s harder. It seems to me that without the Faith the whole endeavour is pretty much impossible. God is not necessary for moral order, while faith is necessary.

      “…without the Christian belief in Original Sin, we can never understand, much less solve social and political problems. ”

      Excuse me, you want to say other religions are inferior???

      • Duck says:

        “….Excuse me, you want to say other religions are inferior???,…”

        I dont know how the OP feels on that BUT

        If anyone professes faith in a religion then they MUST feel that other religions are inferior otherwise whats the point in following that religion?

        That said Muslim societies do appear to function ok, though I cant say I’d like to live in one…they do have a very differnt culture based on their different starting point

        • mik says:

          Strange thinking.
          I guess it comes from the Imperative of Choice…people always have a choice…yeah….well, no.

          Most people “choose” a religion that surrounds them. Rarely they go for something else because that other resonates better with them.
          The one who thinks his religion is superior has serious problems with his faith. His faith is probably on the level of ritual but that is not a genuine faith.

      • darrell says:

        “Excuse me, you want to say other religions are inferior???”

        I’m saying, as Newman implies in the chapter I linked above, that all religions except Old Testament Judaism until the time of Christ, and the traditional Roman Catholic Religion now, are either man’s groping search for the ultimate meaning of human existence, of the truth about man’s origin, nature, and destiny, or a mixture of what God Himself has revealed combined with human error. Everything centers on the towering figure in the Gospels. As C.S. Lewis intelligently and eloquently argues in his book Mere Christianity, Jesus is either who he said he was, the eternal Son of God the Father and Redeemer of the World, or he is a megalomaniacal liar or a lunatic. And he either rose from the dead as he foretold, or his Jewish enemies would have been able to think of a better story than that his disciples stole the body while about 16 Roman soldiers were sleeping (Matt. 28.11-15), a capital offense for them, by the way. And he either founded a church upon Peter (the “Rock”) and the other disciples, which he promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit (the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity, 3 divine Persons in 1 God, a mystery but not an absurdity, and revealed by Christ) and which would be preserved from teaching error (but not exempt from sin – there will always be Judases, and even Peter in fear denied knowing Jesus, but he repented of it) – either that or else there’s no way of having certainty about the most important things, including the all-important question of what happens to us, specifically our soul, after we die.

        St Thomas Aquinas was arguably the deepest thinker that ever existed. In the very beginning of his Summa Theologica, he states:

        (Summa Theologica P.1, Q.1, art.1) I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

        [SNIP – Please keep your comment to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

        • mik says:

          What you’ve written is too much theology and too little philosophy.

        • mik says:

          “St Thomas Aquinas was arguably the deepest thinker that ever existed.”

          Are you serious??
          You don’t weigh your words much.

          • darrell says:

            You apparently don’t know St Thomas Aquinas. Would you also say that the writings of Aristotle (d.322 B.C.) are of little importance in guiding modern man’s thinking and acting?

            Re- “too much theology and too little philosophy,” human reason, as the history of philosophy attests, finds itself limited in its ability to have certitude about many things. Aristotle is the best example of the extent to which unaided reason can reach, Plato being a good complement to his thought, but also a good example of the need for Divine Revelation, as Aquinas makes clear, at least for those who seek the truth rather than a justification for their own desires.

            On the correct relation between faith and reason, philosophy and theology, nature and supernatural grace, see my little book,
            https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Thomas-Aquinas-According-Etienne/dp/153979069X

            There are some things about which we can have absolute certainty: The first principles of reason, primordial sense experience, the conclusions drawn from the combination of those two, e.g. mathematics, geometry, and Aristotle’s philosophy – except in his metaphysics when he is unable to know God’s attributes, since that requires Divine Revelation, i.e. Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles as handed down through the centuries until the 1958 enemy takeover. That teaching is succinctly expounded in the “Penny Catechism”: http://www.stmarys-dunstable.org/faith-formation/the-penny-catechism and more fully expounded in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

    • cu.h.j says:

      “…without the Christian belief in Original Sin, we can never understand, much less solve social and political problems. ”

      I have not read the book this comes from, but believe this might not be correct or even possible. I think there are many non-Christians who are willing to try to improve society. It would be interesting to do a survey of people in freedom oriented communities inquiring about their religious beliefs. I would bet there may be agnostics, pantheists, etc. and even atheists and a variety of other beliefs among members. I don’t think it’s that simple, adhering to one specific religion and all problems solved, or that universal belief could be achieved at all. And would that be desirable?

      Just my opinion and I am certainly no religious or philosophy scholar nor do I adhere to a major religion, but go between agnostic and pantheistic views.

      I will definitely check out the book this is quoted from though.

      • Duck says:

        Cu.h.j

        I don’t know what the OP thinks but you must admit that culture grow around their original ideas… that’s why Muslim culture is very different from Christian culture and both are different from native cultures

        What counts as “improvement” varries… for example the Taliban “improved Society ” as far as they are concerned

        • cu.h.j says:

          Indeed, “improve” is subjective and I should have qualified this to mean developing societies that are more freedom oriented for all members. I don’t think adhering to one precise religion is necessary to improve liberty or joy.

          Though it is true that Christianity has certainly influenced culture, it alone, in my opinion has not been the only positive influence on western civilization.

          • Duck says:

            Cu.h.j

            “….don’t think adhering to one precise religion is necessary to improve liberty or joy….”

            What I should have said is that you will want the improvement that your values think ARE an improvement.

            Christian ideas are at the heart of traditional western thinking… which is why you do not find the idea of Human Rights in any other culture that I know of.

            What other positive influences post Rome have changed western culture do you think?

  14. Duck says:

    Scpat
    “….Now the father (especially the white father) is ridiculed, mocked, and denigrated as much as possible. I’ve seen this in TV commercials, TV shows, movies, e…”

    That is because the likes of the Frankfort school and other degenerates set a deliberate agenda to undermine the family because as far as they saw it anyone who grew up in a normal family and/or was not a pervert was a potential “fascist ”

    What you see on TV is a culture weapon…. they tested it on the Blacks first by attacking their family structure and getting the dads out of the home with welfare. Look at what they did to blacks and know that’s what they are gonna do to whites and Hispanics.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality

    The Moynahan report knew what would happen…mass thug life is a deliberate creation….along with the crack epidemic and gangsta culture

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

  15. TimmyTaes says:

    The original question about tobacco product advertising was from someone arguing with someone and neither one understands cause and effect. Why do fewer Americans smoke now than two generations ago?
    BECAUSE ALL THEIR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHO SMOKED DIED HORRIBLE EARLY DEATHS!
    It’s called observations of what happens around you. Do you let advertising run your life?
    Of course not!
    The state practices psychological warfare on us all. Resist and wake up.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I’ve been smoking cigarettes since around 1970. I’m pretty old. On some days, I smoke a lot.
      I have not observed that “friends and relatives who smoked died horrible early deaths”.
      I do not know of anyone personally.

      Personally, I am of the opinion that it is the inhalation of chemicals/metals, silica dust (e.g. cement) and such that does the most damage to one’s health via the lungs.

      These synthetic chemical “air fresheners” like Fabreeze are composed of very toxic chemicals. If one can smell it, they are breathing it. Fabreeze also has some incredibly toxic designs to the chemical structures, such as being able to “cling” and to “remain without degrading”.

      I am not advocating smoking tobacco. It is a nasty habit. And certainly it doesn’t promote long term health outcomes from habitual use.
      However, there is data that is not discussed around smoking and other substances which people inhale.

      • TimmyTaes says:

        HRS: In my case: A: My Grandpa Jack died at 55 from throat cancer. He was a truck driver and smoked cheap cigars. B: My other Grandpa John smoked cigarettes all his life and he died of throat cancer at 80. C: I had three good friends of my age. All three died at the age of 49. This was 21 years ago. They all died of lung cancer. They were all lifelong smokers.
        Mark Twain smoked a lot, too. He died in his early 70’s of heart disease.
        HRS: Consider yourself lucky to have made it this far.
        Oh, and two more examples; my wife’s mom smoked and lost a lung to cancer. My wife’s brother smoked and lost a lung to cancer.

        • Duck says:

          “..Mark Twain smoked a lot, too. He died in his early 70’s of heart disease…”

          Thats not too bad an age really…esp in the days when people used to randomly drop dead of “brain fever” or septicaemia.

          • TimmyTaes says:

            Duck: Mark Twain loved to play billiards. He would play it for 6 or 7 hours walking the equivalent of 10 miles a day around the billiard table.
            No doubt this helped offset the smoking for awhile. Also, he didn’t drink much and ate and slept well.
            Both his wife and his favorite daughter preceded Mark Twain in death.

      • cu.h.j says:

        I thought it was the radioactivity in the soil that the tobacco is grown in that gets into the small air sacs alveoli that make tobacco smoking carcinogenic in addition to the chemical additives. The radioactivity is from radium in the soil.

        I think a lot of it is genetic though, if a person is prone to cancer, some things can trigger it like exposure to chemicals including those found in tobacco smoke. My husbands grandpa died of cancer when he was 60 and was a heavy smoker, but his grandma lived to be 93 and she smoked since she was 12. She never got cancer. I’ve treated patients who had lung cancer who were smokers too. I think tobacco can indeed cause cancer in some people.

        A lot of people are using the nicotine vaporizers nowadays that are probably a form of harm reduction. You might want to consider trying it. I do think they are probably less harmful if you use the ones without extra additives. If there is radioactivity in the tobacco, that can still get you over time. But like you said there are other reasons to quit like cost. They are expensive, I think, more expensive than vaporizers. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

      • mkey says:

        My grabdmother has spent some really miserable years after a throat cancer. She smoked cheap garbage for fifty years, so it is a slow destruction for some, but leads into an untoward conclusion of one’s life. It got quite ugly in the end, well undeserved considering her charcter.

      • mik says:

        HRS,

        com’on, why relativize harmfulness of smoking?

        I smoke but I don’t deceive myself about the harm. I’m tobacco junkie and certainly it’s bad to me, my lungs begs me to stop. (Also it’s so goood I’ll roll and have one now, mmmmm, get some concentrate for concentration).

  16. mik says:

    Voluntarism/Anarchism are not the same thing. Voluntarism is for those ones who cannot cope with inherent redness of Anarchism and they need re-framing and watering down the basics.

    Richard said at 4:10:
    “…anarchism is the most morally justifiable….”

    Richard wrote on The Essence of Anarchy site:

    “This message is ultimately a hopeful one, as all that is required to throw off the shackles of sickness, poverty and crime, is to consistently embrace the simple morality known to any child.”

    Richard uses morality in argumentation, but very superficially. For him it’s “simple morality known to any child”. It’s supposedly so obvious it needs no further argumentation. I doubt he expanded on the topic in the book.
    Well, on this point he is very wrong, there is no simple morality. It might appear simple, maybe because majority of our moral decisions are made on auto-pilot and are mostly ok.
    If you dive into moral/ethical problems you will find out there is nothing simple and also the extent to which morality has been skewed during various developments of civilization. Morality in anarchy and its guiding principles of ethics will be considerably different than the ones today, mostly based in christianity. It’s inevitable.

    “Is this where anarchy inevitably leads us, or would it in fact take us to a far greater level of societal harmony?”

    For societal harmony we first have to abandon individualism, hard nut to crack for most westerners.

    • mik says:

      “In this book I attempt to distil the very essence of what anarchy is, boiling it down to questions of consent or coercion.”

      Essence??
      Not at all, distinction consent/coercion is just a low-hanging fruit. It explains to extent the main difference between present system and anarchy. Still, it doesn’t provide affirmative guideline how to interact in new more harmonious society. Imperative of consent doesn’t say anything about how to cooperate…just says it must be consensual.
      Here we come to another argument why consent/coercion can’t be the essence. Anarchy is supposedly a spontaneous order. Spontaneity is no doubt important, but life is also about planning. Both notions are necessary. Therefore some order in anarchy will be achieved by some decision making process. Probably you are aware consensus is bad for efficient decision making process, particularly when decision making process is being blocked by impossibility of getting consensus. To avoid this situation we have to abandon the imperative of consent and therefore allow, oh yeah, some coercion. This might sound like heresy, although it’s just about recognizing facts of life, there will always be some jerks around and I guess we don’t want them to spoil for everyone otherwise good idea. It’s about utopia vs. best of possible systems. When I search for the essence of anarchy I look on ethics.

      Of course some might still recognize consent/coercion distinction as the essence. Going this way society can only go towards anarcho-primitivism and I doubt people will willingly, voluntary with full awareness, choose this way. Actually, I think in this case we can’t talk about society at all. Toothless society is not society.

      Why humanity must behave like pendulum, from one extreme(coercion) to another(consent)? And plenty of other similar examples.

  17. studiotwoseven says:

    QUESTION FOR CORBETT:

    Why do I hear sirens all day long?

    Has anybody just tried to ask ambulance drivers what they are seeing? Might they corroborate increased strokes, heart problems, clots, etc.? Every time I go outside, here in Portland (yep, that Portland), I almost always hear a siren within 10 minutes or so. It goes on all day long. This is just what I can hear in my little area of the city. I have to assume that most of these are ambulances, since the police have been so defunded and demoralized to the point that you can wait hours for them to respond. It seems odd that you really have not heard a peep from this group of people.

    Thanks James for your consideration.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top