Podcast: Download (0.0KB)
Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS
Will Andrews, my Social Studies teacher, discuss ideological consistency, the failures of government, and utilitarianism.
Filed under Interviews, Philosophy
I found this pretty disjointed and difficult to follow. However you did cause me to think about some issues you touched upon. One thing in which I am in disagreement is the idea that you can go away from a principle (NAP) because you do not think it is practical or worse might not contribute to the “greater good”. This is the excuse of all authoritarian regimes for their worst excesses.
Your discussion touched on many things, but did not pursue in depth some questionable ideas. For instance when would you deviate from the non- aggression principle? Also in your discussion you seemed to accept the idea that we must just live with Social Security and Medicare. Many alternatives have been offered to replace this governmental systems. You do your listeners a disservice by not exploring these.
You also touched on my pet peeve: where do we start to dismantle big government? This is worth a whole podcast. Do you realize on January 1, 2015 we will have 600 new federal regulations? I told you there are well over 200 Oregon State agencies to regulate everything from cutting hair to selling milk. How about exploring sunset laws on regulations. Do we need all these licenses to “protect” us?. Why do we not have a right to work law? Who gains from all this agencies and licenses? You have plenty of fodder for future pod casts.
I mean these comments to be constructive. Please keep up your good work. You keep me thinking!
It was not a structured discussion, I apologize for that.
All I’m advocating for is benefiting everybody in the best way we can. Would you say a free market does not benefit more people than a centrally planned or regulated market?
I will be touching on that question of how I treat the NAP in an upcoming show.
I believe I offered a solution to Social Security, Self Directed IRAs. Planning on not getting that money when you retire, because SS is not sustainable. I hope I didn’t edit that out by mistake, but Will and I both agreed on that situation. We also showed why healthcare costs are high, and how that could be solved by not allowing the American Medical Association so much power as to limit the amount of doctors, which creates an artificial scarcity of healthcare professionals. I believe we did explore the solutions.
It certainly is a great topic, and I can’t wait to get into it. I’m studying up on economics currently so I can talk about the better systems(or the lack of) we could come up with instead of the lumbering inefficient giants called bureaucracies.
I appreciate all criticism. Thank you!
I think this is a good show. I came away with an opinion that deciding everything rationally without principles is just a rationalization of doing what ever you can justify at the time of your thinking and does not work for me.
Without principles, people just blow in the wind. As an individuals, that makes people unpredictable and bad associates. As a collective, they over use others and things for short term benefit. I assert that the people you respect the most are those with a strong set of principles. They hold a strong ethic and make good ethical decisions.
The non aggression principle is a good catch all to start with. The moral decisions in life are more complicated than I ever imagined. Rationalizing through them without principles as a guide is prone to mistakes and errors. Starting off a rationalization of something with the question: Am I forcing someone to do something?, is a good jump start on making a decision.
The principle is to think through your selfish desires rationally. Perhaps Will and I didn’t do the argument much justice on this front, but I’ve got a few shows coming up that will get into this more.
Everybody should have principles, but nobody should be stuck to them if overwhelming evidence shows them wrong. The NAP is great to live by, as I said in the show, but if there ever comes a time where we need to initiate aggression to benefit everybody, we should do it.
What we are advocating for is being rational, being logical, thinking through your decisions. I don’t see how you can argue against this without getting into extreme skepticism.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
The free TuneIn app is available on just about every phone platform. Grab the app here. Once it's installed, just search for Anarcho-Yakitalism!