Download MP3
42.5M 30:57

On my way home after my haircut, I saw a gentleman standing at the corner of the intersection I turn into to go to my apartment. As I turned, I saw he had a blind man’s cane (I see more blind people with canes in this area than I think I’ve ever seen in my life).

He was pretty clearly intending to cross the street, but I figured it was probably going to be pretty difficult as there aren’t any aural indicators that it is OK to cross, so I made a loop around the median and pulled back up to the intersection, parked my car, and asked if he’d like a hand.

As we crossed, he commented that he was just talking to somebody on the phone about “good people” in the world, saying that there don’t seem to be too many.

A part of me wanted to say that there are more good people in the world than it seems, but I didn’t… and in retrospect, I think that was right, because the blind guy is going to have experienced a lot more about just how good people generally are, because his disability puts him in a position of vulnerability that the majority of us just take for granted.

I don’t recount this to pat myself on the back or anything, though I do feel proud that I stopped to help out. What struck me about this guy, and what I felt somewhat sad about, is that we do live in a world where somebody taking the time out of their day to help somebody out is considered a novelty.

So let’s make some more good people… we have our work cut out for us!

Maybe this is completely gross and inappropriate, but does it strike anyone else that the name of Ellen’s new show, “Ellen’s Bigger, Longer, and Wider Show”, looks an awful lot like a dick joke?

The following is a review of Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior – A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics:

The first time I read this book (UPB), I didn’t really “get” it. I mean, I saw the logic and the proof and thought, “Hey, that’s kind of neat.” I was not able to access the implications that the proof of this theory would have in my life and in the greater world.

I have since re-read UPB. While I still struggle with the full range of the implications for my life, I think I get it (certainly more now than I have before).

The null zone concept is brilliant as well as fascinating! I now have the image in my mind of a “null zone” being forcibly inserted between the “little truths” and the “Great Truths”, which disconnect abstraction from practice in the minds of individuals.

This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate to anybody why this is a multi-generational project. Once you’ve had abstractions forcibly disconnected from practice within your mind, it is a trek through the fires of ten thousand hells to reconnect them.

Also of incredible resonance to me is when Molyneux discusses the emergent properties of morality within society as opposed to the imposition of whim-based morality from a centralized authority. This is the fundamental “reversal” of intuition that either Dawkins or Dennett (I can’t remember quite where I read it) has described when it comes to the science of evolution; that life, the universe, and everything do not proceed from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Complexity and order are emergent properties of matter over time, hence it makes sense that morality and social order are emergent properties of human society over time.

Eradicating that “null zone” within my own mind and becoming ever more aware of my top-down moral standards is the horrible, horrible consequence of UPB. The upside, however, is that if, one day, I have children… I will not inflict a “null zone” upon them and will equip them to be resistant to it!

I haven’t found any flaws. I think that Stefan Molyneux has done it.

The conclusion called “anarchism” effectively says, “I don’t know the answer, and neither do you.”

When somebody asks the question, “How will Problem X be solved without a government?” the only honest answer I can give is, “I don’t know.” I can make a guess at a possibility, but nobody has to listen to what I say, and if I’m wrong, so what? If I’m wrong making a guess at what a potential industry will turn out to be but I’ve put no money into it, then it’s just an opinion that didn’t go anywhere.

But it’s more than “I don’t know.” I don’t know the answer, and it’s not up to me to give it. It goes beyond my admission of ignorance and responsibility and imputes it upon you. Can you come up with a solution to Problem X that doesn’t involve forcing people to comply? If you are totally honest with yourself, you cannot! Perhaps you have an idea that will provide part of the system, but it’s improbable to the point of impossibility that you will be able to gather all of the information and make a calculation that provides the answer you seek.

It’s the theory of evolution as applied to politics and social organization (NB: not “Social Darwinism,” which is a misapplication of evolutionary theory). Just as neither you nor I could possibly predict exactly what the next species of frog or bacteria will look like “in the wild,” neither you nor I could possibly predict what form a non-coercive system will take place “in the wild.” It’s possible to make general predictions, but that will always be as far as you can go.

For more information, check out Freedomain Radio for a plethora of podcasts, articles, and forum discussions on this topic and more!