This week my guest is Daryl, a stay-at-home dad, truther, and a staunch advocate for critical thinking. Our wide-ranging discussion covers vaccines, lizards, and Manchester United via 'in silico', logical fallacies, and victimhood! Education not indoctrination
Well done, Daryl! My husband loved the 'who's ever had two viruses at the same time' part. That stumped him! He said: "He's got a pair!" Praise indeed coming from Lord Plumley! 😂 I tell myself off every week for the same speech habits... it always sounds worse to you than it does to others, that said I really ought to have learned by now - more practise required!
I'm from the speech police and I'm gonna need your personal information to arrest you for saying "yer know" over the arbitrary legal limit. LOL. I think you did great. Thanx for sharing.
Because, as we both know, all authority and power are held in a piece of card. Makes perfect logical sense. Like the idea that voting ... wait, I can stop there: like the idea of political voting.
You vote with every decision you make throughout the day. Should I buy the locally reared grass fed beef, or what's on special offer at Tesco's? Should I cook my meals from scratch at home, or order another takeaway? Should I do the workout/walk/cycling I know will raise my overall fitness or shall I wait until I feel ill and go to my GP? Should I take a proactive approach to my child's education, or just let the school deal with that?
These decisions are more important imo than voting on which puppet or team gets to live in a building in Downing Street. "Politics is downstream from culture"~Breitbart (I think). We all start making the right choices in our own lives and the ego maniacal, narcissistic, power obsessed, wannabe controllers can't get away with a "globalist takeover" or whatever.
I'm a bit of a word freak. "you vote with every decision" does not comport with the definition of voting. Additionally, I qualified it with "political voting" although checking again what "voting" means, that may be redundant. So no, every decision is not a vote. Choice & vote are two different words.
I agree that the examples you give are important choices. Voting for a political candidate is an immoral choice though, immoral in the sense that it formalises a desire of one person to tyrannise another and give legitimacy to an immoral political system.
"Politics is downstream from culture." That's a claim. I think it is questionable because of two problems (and more): 1) you cannot quantify direction of control, especially when someone like Edward Bernays spoke of an invisible government that manipulates the desires and choices of a populace thru media and "education" making the "will of the masses" (is that a reification fallacy?) under the control of others; so culture is downstream from the real controllers; and 2) as I'm sure you and Sarah said, it doesn't matter who is voted into office (which is meaningless when most of government is unelected), the agenda still keeps going. In point 2, culture does not shape the political agenda. So it can be argued, I believe successfully, that politics is not downstream from culture.
"We all start making the right choices ... " What you say there is the reason why they will get away with a globalist takeover. Yes, I said "will." Because it depends on a "we," on people other than you, people with their own desires, most of whom are worse than dumb animals, people we have no control over, people who have not only allowed, but willing pushed the growing snowball. There are hopeful people that say "we just need a vocal/active significant percentage to change the direction of the herd." I'm not among the hopeful. I'm just waiting for the world to burn.
Did I misunderstand you then? I thought you said you liked political voting? but here you say it's "immoral". It's late so I might be getting confused.
That was a really engrossing discussion. Makes me really ponder. I wonder if his focus on logical fallacies affects his view on history and cosmology. I found it funny how Sarah talked about being programmed to be pro-vaccine before critical thought, but that's how many other beliefs were imposed on me by teachers and society before I could think. To reach the age I am and think "hey, why do I think the ground I walk upon is a ball, spinning and hurtling thru an endless void at over a million miles an hour?" To reach an age long after puberty and think, "what makes any law binding? How can government get authority from the people when no individual has such authority to give to government?" It's like I learn to question way too late.
Great talk though. Darryl has a lot to share, more than any podcast. But this snippet was fascinating. Important insights from you too Sarah. Thank you both.
For me it has had a profound effect on both history and cosmology.
Controversially, I actually think we are better off with a government than anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. It's just too big and corrupted and has forgotten it's role.
I'll be blunt. I've already rejected the spinning globe idea.
When it comes to the idea of giving a group of people the delusion that they actually own others in any way (to govern politically is to control control coercively), for me, it's not about what works better. It's whether it's based on truth. If an individual has no right to take money from neighbour under the threat of force (robbery), or demand obedience from a stranger (slavery), then a bunch of individuals don't have that right, not even if there are thousands or millions. So, where do the people who are called "government" get their authority to take money from others under threat of violence (robbery renamed tax), or demand obedience from strangers (slavery renamed law)?
Additionally, it is known that (the illusion of) authority corrupts and attracts the corruptible and evil. With the base and lazy (im)morality and non-existent zest for truth amongst people in general, an entity like this fictitious "authoritative government" can only tend towards evil and overgrowth. Even when supposed "good politicians" dictate (not suggest or encourage but command using threats) to others how to live, how is it not a claim of ownership? Even when a government makes "good" programs, it's only funded thru robbing people, some of which were unwilling.
So, again, how can it be about being better of when it has no basis in truth and it always tends towards evil?
Are you an advocate for anarcho-capitalism? There are huge benefits and privileges that come from a Governmental system that we have here and in many other countries.
Advocate? Interesting term. I don't label myself with the term "anarcho-capitalist" or associate myself with it or those that embrace it. Yet, when it comes to anarchy defined as there being no legitimate rulers (except God), then I fall into that category because I see no basis for their rulership or authority. If there's no basis for their authority, yet people believe they do without proper evidence, then they are little more than empty cult leaders who mean nothing to me. I think people should own their own stuff and control the fruits of their labour. I don't know if that makes me capitalist.
The alleged benefits and privileges (I'm glad you didn't say rights or human rights since they don't exist) that comes from liars and a violent gang (Lysander Spooner called them a band of theives, murderers and robbers in his book "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority") gives no legitimacy or honour to their villainy. It doesn't make up for the injustices, the killings, the wars, the tyrannies, the plots and the legal protection of forbidden acts.
When the evil (or the deluded, those who think they own other people and their labour, who make debts that others and their future generations must pay back) give benefits, then those benefits are like the drugs that drug pushers (I include the GPs and pharmaceutical companies in that) give to addicts, generating the illusion of need through dependency.
Interesting. Do you own a standing army? Hypothetically, what is stopping me coming over to your land/property with a gang or just a big gun and taking everything you own. You cannot call any police, they don't exist.
What is stopping a 60yr old man paying a 13yr old boy/girl for sex. The child wants the money and the pedo (technically in this example a hebephile) wants well...🤮.
Would these scenarios make a better existence? I think these are two good bases for an authority.
The cult we are contending with IS very corrupted but it gets away with more and more due to our (collective) ignore-ance. I think we must lead by example to put them back into their place and many of our problems may vanish. Make the unnecessary institutions obsolete.
I'm glad you started your response with "hypothetically." It's significant because the arguments against my rejection of the legitimacy of political authority is just that: conjecture and "let's imagine a world." But my gripes against the state-slavery is actual and evidenced throughout history up to now.
I don't call myself an advocate, one who speaks out for a cause or to persuade others. My views are my own and I have no need to spread them, especially to a cult, like the government cult who think some people own others with no rightful claim. I've been an opponent of the "Jesus is Messiah" idea in the midst of christians, able to sit comfortably with them without the need to promote my views. I'm happy to keep my views to myself until I'm questioned. Then I converse just to share ideas and learn. I know I can change no one.
Now, your points. You and a gang taking my stuff without my consent; that's exactly what the politicians do. So, in the strawman hypothetical you create, the worst case scenario of no-govt is that people act like govt. At least in the no-gov situation I would not accept that you deserved my stuff. In the govt cult, the cult acolytes would think you, the robber/politician/policeman, deserved the stuff you took from me without my consent. In this world, they would call the one who was robbed "the criminal" or theft-/tax-evader because the politicians deserve my stuff. That's how twisted this world is. The victim is the guilty one.
Moreover, what makes your hypothetical a strawman is that it mainly works in this modern culture where the family and community have been hacked to pieces by political factors like immigration and multiculturalism. People use the word "atomised" where it's more about an individual rather than a bigger and extended family or tightly-knitted community. There are many non-governmental factors that determine how people would deal with attackers and many governmental factors that hinder self-defense, like gun prohibition. So there are too many factors in the absence of state-slavery to hypothesize what a stateless society would look like. But I can say that self-defense is possible without robber-politicians.
I'm sure you know that "police" (policy enforcers) is a modern thing, right? Many eras in history and people groups lived without state-thugs.
You asked whether I had a standing army. In Vietnam, there is evidence that a militia using guerilla tactics held the standing army of the USA at bay. The US army even failed in Afghanistan. Some of America's early folks were against standing armies, preferring voluntary militias.
"What's stopping a 60yr old man paying a 13 yr old for sex?"
Hmmm ... another modern thing considering the age of consent only came about in the past century or so and ancient British kings married girls around that age. But that's probably because modern culture is more infantilised taking longer to mature, probably partly due to longer lifespans and decadence, kids being overprotected so as not to experience anything properly until they leave school at 16.
Anyway, what does this have to do with government? Do you believe that laws are only made and maintained by dictatorship, a set of people owning others and telling them how to live? But that's legality, not morality. Are you conflating the two?
And, for using this as evidence that government is needed, then I only have three things to say to you: Jeffrey Epstein, grooming gangs and Jimmy Savile. All were protected by government entities for varying reasons. The government is only a bunch of people, people who protect their own. Some people even say the government protects its own sets of pedos amongst its employees. It will overlook or hide rape and pedophilia so as not to be seen as racist or get a bad name.
Again, are you trusting government for justice and the upholding of morality? You're trusting people who fought and struggled to get power over others, which is normally a trait that should draw suspicion? You're trusting badged and costumed thugs who pledge allegiance to an entity that legally protects those forbidden acts, like those who slaughter the unborn, badged thugs who chose to do a job where they must harrass and physically molest the innocent as well as the guilty to uphold the dictates of an immoral entity?
I'm not a utopian. I don't believe that any condition with humans in it will go perfectly, with or without govt. Why? Because people are bad and there are worse among them. But where there is government, there is a safe place for evil to hide or even gain power over others.
So your two "bases" for government are inadequate for various reasons. They are not the basis for legitimate authority. No one can say "I must control everyone or else bad things will happen." That's a logical fallacy called "appeal to consequences." In addition, the institution you defend either commits the acts you oppose (robbery) or doesn't stop many bad acts, even going so far as to protect evil people and evil deeds by law/threat.
When I speak of the basis of political authority, I speak of a factual and evidentially backed origin of this authority. There's no evidence that such authority can come from people who have no such authority to give. There's no evidence it comes from God since the governments/politicans themselves outrightly deny that and say the authority comes from the people. And the political systems of voting and pseudo-representation goes against the idea that God chose one political party or another, all of which work against his moral code in one way or another. So there is no origin for political authority.
"... we must lead by example to put them back into their place ..."
Who is "we?" It's not me. I'm not part of it as far as I know. Who defines "their place?" Again, not me. The system, the matrix, is well-entrenched, worse than any movie. The cult didn't become corrupt. It was always so from its root. And why? Partly because it's based on the fiction that political authority, apart from God, has any legitimacy. And this mob-based matrix of the blind being led by the evil can only end in one place.
Thanks for challenging me to think things through.
Thank you Sarah, I was anxious about it but I did enjoy our convo. Wasn't too bad to listen to. I must stop myself saying "yer know" so much though.🤭
Well done, Daryl! My husband loved the 'who's ever had two viruses at the same time' part. That stumped him! He said: "He's got a pair!" Praise indeed coming from Lord Plumley! 😂 I tell myself off every week for the same speech habits... it always sounds worse to you than it does to others, that said I really ought to have learned by now - more practise required!
I'm from the speech police and I'm gonna need your personal information to arrest you for saying "yer know" over the arbitrary legal limit. LOL. I think you did great. Thanx for sharing.
I'm going to need to see your warrant card before I give you any information. Lol.
Because, as we both know, all authority and power are held in a piece of card. Makes perfect logical sense. Like the idea that voting ... wait, I can stop there: like the idea of political voting.
You vote with every decision you make throughout the day. Should I buy the locally reared grass fed beef, or what's on special offer at Tesco's? Should I cook my meals from scratch at home, or order another takeaway? Should I do the workout/walk/cycling I know will raise my overall fitness or shall I wait until I feel ill and go to my GP? Should I take a proactive approach to my child's education, or just let the school deal with that?
These decisions are more important imo than voting on which puppet or team gets to live in a building in Downing Street. "Politics is downstream from culture"~Breitbart (I think). We all start making the right choices in our own lives and the ego maniacal, narcissistic, power obsessed, wannabe controllers can't get away with a "globalist takeover" or whatever.
I'm a bit of a word freak. "you vote with every decision" does not comport with the definition of voting. Additionally, I qualified it with "political voting" although checking again what "voting" means, that may be redundant. So no, every decision is not a vote. Choice & vote are two different words.
I agree that the examples you give are important choices. Voting for a political candidate is an immoral choice though, immoral in the sense that it formalises a desire of one person to tyrannise another and give legitimacy to an immoral political system.
"Politics is downstream from culture." That's a claim. I think it is questionable because of two problems (and more): 1) you cannot quantify direction of control, especially when someone like Edward Bernays spoke of an invisible government that manipulates the desires and choices of a populace thru media and "education" making the "will of the masses" (is that a reification fallacy?) under the control of others; so culture is downstream from the real controllers; and 2) as I'm sure you and Sarah said, it doesn't matter who is voted into office (which is meaningless when most of government is unelected), the agenda still keeps going. In point 2, culture does not shape the political agenda. So it can be argued, I believe successfully, that politics is not downstream from culture.
"We all start making the right choices ... " What you say there is the reason why they will get away with a globalist takeover. Yes, I said "will." Because it depends on a "we," on people other than you, people with their own desires, most of whom are worse than dumb animals, people we have no control over, people who have not only allowed, but willing pushed the growing snowball. There are hopeful people that say "we just need a vocal/active significant percentage to change the direction of the herd." I'm not among the hopeful. I'm just waiting for the world to burn.
Did I misunderstand you then? I thought you said you liked political voting? but here you say it's "immoral". It's late so I might be getting confused.
That was a really engrossing discussion. Makes me really ponder. I wonder if his focus on logical fallacies affects his view on history and cosmology. I found it funny how Sarah talked about being programmed to be pro-vaccine before critical thought, but that's how many other beliefs were imposed on me by teachers and society before I could think. To reach the age I am and think "hey, why do I think the ground I walk upon is a ball, spinning and hurtling thru an endless void at over a million miles an hour?" To reach an age long after puberty and think, "what makes any law binding? How can government get authority from the people when no individual has such authority to give to government?" It's like I learn to question way too late.
Great talk though. Darryl has a lot to share, more than any podcast. But this snippet was fascinating. Important insights from you too Sarah. Thank you both.
For me it has had a profound effect on both history and cosmology.
Controversially, I actually think we are better off with a government than anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. It's just too big and corrupted and has forgotten it's role.
I'll be blunt. I've already rejected the spinning globe idea.
When it comes to the idea of giving a group of people the delusion that they actually own others in any way (to govern politically is to control control coercively), for me, it's not about what works better. It's whether it's based on truth. If an individual has no right to take money from neighbour under the threat of force (robbery), or demand obedience from a stranger (slavery), then a bunch of individuals don't have that right, not even if there are thousands or millions. So, where do the people who are called "government" get their authority to take money from others under threat of violence (robbery renamed tax), or demand obedience from strangers (slavery renamed law)?
Additionally, it is known that (the illusion of) authority corrupts and attracts the corruptible and evil. With the base and lazy (im)morality and non-existent zest for truth amongst people in general, an entity like this fictitious "authoritative government" can only tend towards evil and overgrowth. Even when supposed "good politicians" dictate (not suggest or encourage but command using threats) to others how to live, how is it not a claim of ownership? Even when a government makes "good" programs, it's only funded thru robbing people, some of which were unwilling.
So, again, how can it be about being better of when it has no basis in truth and it always tends towards evil?
Are you an advocate for anarcho-capitalism? There are huge benefits and privileges that come from a Governmental system that we have here and in many other countries.
Advocate? Interesting term. I don't label myself with the term "anarcho-capitalist" or associate myself with it or those that embrace it. Yet, when it comes to anarchy defined as there being no legitimate rulers (except God), then I fall into that category because I see no basis for their rulership or authority. If there's no basis for their authority, yet people believe they do without proper evidence, then they are little more than empty cult leaders who mean nothing to me. I think people should own their own stuff and control the fruits of their labour. I don't know if that makes me capitalist.
The alleged benefits and privileges (I'm glad you didn't say rights or human rights since they don't exist) that comes from liars and a violent gang (Lysander Spooner called them a band of theives, murderers and robbers in his book "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority") gives no legitimacy or honour to their villainy. It doesn't make up for the injustices, the killings, the wars, the tyrannies, the plots and the legal protection of forbidden acts.
When the evil (or the deluded, those who think they own other people and their labour, who make debts that others and their future generations must pay back) give benefits, then those benefits are like the drugs that drug pushers (I include the GPs and pharmaceutical companies in that) give to addicts, generating the illusion of need through dependency.
Interesting. Do you own a standing army? Hypothetically, what is stopping me coming over to your land/property with a gang or just a big gun and taking everything you own. You cannot call any police, they don't exist.
What is stopping a 60yr old man paying a 13yr old boy/girl for sex. The child wants the money and the pedo (technically in this example a hebephile) wants well...🤮.
Would these scenarios make a better existence? I think these are two good bases for an authority.
The cult we are contending with IS very corrupted but it gets away with more and more due to our (collective) ignore-ance. I think we must lead by example to put them back into their place and many of our problems may vanish. Make the unnecessary institutions obsolete.
I'm glad you started your response with "hypothetically." It's significant because the arguments against my rejection of the legitimacy of political authority is just that: conjecture and "let's imagine a world." But my gripes against the state-slavery is actual and evidenced throughout history up to now.
I don't call myself an advocate, one who speaks out for a cause or to persuade others. My views are my own and I have no need to spread them, especially to a cult, like the government cult who think some people own others with no rightful claim. I've been an opponent of the "Jesus is Messiah" idea in the midst of christians, able to sit comfortably with them without the need to promote my views. I'm happy to keep my views to myself until I'm questioned. Then I converse just to share ideas and learn. I know I can change no one.
Now, your points. You and a gang taking my stuff without my consent; that's exactly what the politicians do. So, in the strawman hypothetical you create, the worst case scenario of no-govt is that people act like govt. At least in the no-gov situation I would not accept that you deserved my stuff. In the govt cult, the cult acolytes would think you, the robber/politician/policeman, deserved the stuff you took from me without my consent. In this world, they would call the one who was robbed "the criminal" or theft-/tax-evader because the politicians deserve my stuff. That's how twisted this world is. The victim is the guilty one.
Moreover, what makes your hypothetical a strawman is that it mainly works in this modern culture where the family and community have been hacked to pieces by political factors like immigration and multiculturalism. People use the word "atomised" where it's more about an individual rather than a bigger and extended family or tightly-knitted community. There are many non-governmental factors that determine how people would deal with attackers and many governmental factors that hinder self-defense, like gun prohibition. So there are too many factors in the absence of state-slavery to hypothesize what a stateless society would look like. But I can say that self-defense is possible without robber-politicians.
I'm sure you know that "police" (policy enforcers) is a modern thing, right? Many eras in history and people groups lived without state-thugs.
You asked whether I had a standing army. In Vietnam, there is evidence that a militia using guerilla tactics held the standing army of the USA at bay. The US army even failed in Afghanistan. Some of America's early folks were against standing armies, preferring voluntary militias.
"What's stopping a 60yr old man paying a 13 yr old for sex?"
Hmmm ... another modern thing considering the age of consent only came about in the past century or so and ancient British kings married girls around that age. But that's probably because modern culture is more infantilised taking longer to mature, probably partly due to longer lifespans and decadence, kids being overprotected so as not to experience anything properly until they leave school at 16.
Anyway, what does this have to do with government? Do you believe that laws are only made and maintained by dictatorship, a set of people owning others and telling them how to live? But that's legality, not morality. Are you conflating the two?
And, for using this as evidence that government is needed, then I only have three things to say to you: Jeffrey Epstein, grooming gangs and Jimmy Savile. All were protected by government entities for varying reasons. The government is only a bunch of people, people who protect their own. Some people even say the government protects its own sets of pedos amongst its employees. It will overlook or hide rape and pedophilia so as not to be seen as racist or get a bad name.
Again, are you trusting government for justice and the upholding of morality? You're trusting people who fought and struggled to get power over others, which is normally a trait that should draw suspicion? You're trusting badged and costumed thugs who pledge allegiance to an entity that legally protects those forbidden acts, like those who slaughter the unborn, badged thugs who chose to do a job where they must harrass and physically molest the innocent as well as the guilty to uphold the dictates of an immoral entity?
I'm not a utopian. I don't believe that any condition with humans in it will go perfectly, with or without govt. Why? Because people are bad and there are worse among them. But where there is government, there is a safe place for evil to hide or even gain power over others.
So your two "bases" for government are inadequate for various reasons. They are not the basis for legitimate authority. No one can say "I must control everyone or else bad things will happen." That's a logical fallacy called "appeal to consequences." In addition, the institution you defend either commits the acts you oppose (robbery) or doesn't stop many bad acts, even going so far as to protect evil people and evil deeds by law/threat.
When I speak of the basis of political authority, I speak of a factual and evidentially backed origin of this authority. There's no evidence that such authority can come from people who have no such authority to give. There's no evidence it comes from God since the governments/politicans themselves outrightly deny that and say the authority comes from the people. And the political systems of voting and pseudo-representation goes against the idea that God chose one political party or another, all of which work against his moral code in one way or another. So there is no origin for political authority.
"... we must lead by example to put them back into their place ..."
Who is "we?" It's not me. I'm not part of it as far as I know. Who defines "their place?" Again, not me. The system, the matrix, is well-entrenched, worse than any movie. The cult didn't become corrupt. It was always so from its root. And why? Partly because it's based on the fiction that political authority, apart from God, has any legitimacy. And this mob-based matrix of the blind being led by the evil can only end in one place.
Thanks for challenging me to think things through.