Part 6 in the survey series, A Renegade History Course. This is a live discussion with historian Thaddeus Russell, the author of A Renegade History of the United States. Thaddeus addresses questions and objections from the audience regarding our previous shows. Carlos Morales of Truth Over Comfort Podcast co-hosts.
-the history of minimum wage laws
-a MAXIMUM wage?
-the relationship between cultural norms and the dependence upon the state
-why did some people embrace the Puritan/Protestant work ethic and racism, while at the same time others were embracing- and really, introducing- organized crime?
-who are today's rebels?
-companies don't create the culture
-De Beers diamond campaign
-scientific racism just went away?
-the non-aggression principle
-the history of property rights
"Surfin' In Tofino" The Planet Smashers
Thaddeus Russell's Site - www.thaddeusrussell.com
Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money - http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-state-give-people-free
Previous School Sucks Show With Thaddeus Russell - https://schoolsucksproject.com/category/podcast/a-renegade-history-course-with-thaddeus-russell/
One of the most interesting shows over the past year. Really good stuff. Could have listened for another couple of hours.
This was a fantastic interview. Please have another Q&A.
The NAP discussion ended up in a great place where everyone was confused and basically came to “I don’t know I need to think about this some more”. This shows the caliber of the discussion! Here’s my thinking. The NAP lives 3 lives:
1) Ethics: “I personally think it’s wrong to agress against someone and I use the NAP to evaluate my actions and the actions of others”
2) Political Philosophy: “politics should be based on NAP” ie Libertarianism etc
3) Social science:”A society where conduct adheres to the non aggression principle will be good (maximize utility, satisfaction, ponies and kittens etc)”
It wasn’t clear all the time which one was being discussed but it was mostly 1&2. Thad seemed to not object to using it as a standard of ethics but didn’t really see how it was different much to the golden rule and didn’t see what the big deal is. He’s right on this I think.
Bret and Carlos then try to make the NAP more than that by referring to self-ownership as an axiom and therefore NAP and Libertarianism. And then Thad suggests “the politics of self interest” as an alternative politics. There are two problems that I see:
1) The self-ownership axiom doesn’t make sense. It is an is/ought fallacy (and libertarians really need to get over it):
” Self ownership doesn’t make sense specifically because ownership itself is a social construct. Ownership is not something physical. There is certainly “self control” but an ought cannot be made from an is. If you’re using self control and self ownership synonymously then of course one can can control oneself.” — Neodoxy from mises.org forums (I couldn’t say it better shorter) http://archive.freecapitalists.org//forums/t/26842.aspx) ie you axiomatically control your body, you don’t axiomatically own it (which doesn’t mean someone else owns it, it just means talking of a social construct axiomatically doesn’t make sense).
2)”The politics of self interest” doesn’t seem to be political at all — It is anti-political (political Nihilism?). I am interested to hear this expanded upon.
Thanks for this great episode!