Transcript: Capitalism is Lovemaking! X Space

Stefan Molyneux opened his live call-in show by taking questions from X. The first caller asked whether socialism or capitalism works better for most societies. He defined socialism as government redistribution backed by taxation and, in the end, the threat of jail or violence. In contrast, he described capitalism as self-ownership, private property, voluntary trade, and the non-aggression principle. He drew analogies to organized crime, self-defense, and the clear line between consensual acts and coercive ones to show that socialism rests on force while capitalism rests on voluntary exchange.

A second caller wondered if the United States can really be called capitalist when taxes are collected by force. Stefan replied that no country is fully capitalist, but some come closer to private property and non-aggression than others. He pointed to examples like North Korea versus South Korea, or Florida versus Cuba, to illustrate capitalism as a spectrum.

Another caller brought up the history and usefulness of the word “capitalism,” noting how leftists often load the term to shape debates. Stefan stressed the need to define terms clearly and reframed capitalism as the moral principle of peaceful, voluntary exchange. He suggested “toddlerism” as a simpler label for the basic rule of not hitting, grabbing, or stealing.

The conversation moved on to peaceful parenting. One caller asked about Stefan’s criticism of yelling at children and raised edge cases, such as a child running into traffic. He said these exceptions are often used to dodge straightforward moral rules and maintained that children should not be yelled at as a matter of principle, except in real emergencies.

Later, Stefan talked about virtue, explaining that people first have to stop destructive behavior before they can start acting virtuously. He fielded questions on religion, parenting inside the Mormon church, and drugs, noting that much drug use stems from self-medication for childhood trauma. The show wrapped up with a short discussion of his work since being deplatformed, including his books, call-in shows, and other projects.

Transcript

[0:10:28] So the question is not between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism says you own yourself and you own the effects of your actions. And the only way, the only moral way that your property can be transferred to someone else is gift or trade. You can give stuff to someone else or you can trade it. But there's no way that you can be morally stolen from or threatened and have your property extracted that way. In other words, capitalism says the moral laws of property rights and the non-aggression principle, which is you're allowed to use force in self-defense, but you can't Use force to initiate it.

[0:58:22] If she was painting a, what was that? It's a Polish woman who was killed by the black guy, Zyrinsko, whatever her name was. If she, if painting that mural, stop, right? Or me giving a public speech, stop. So that's not specific to children. So when I say, when you, if you are yelling at a child, you are the toddler and people say, well, I can think of an exception when I would raise my voice to protect a child. But the question is, would you only do it to a child? So I'm talking about at children, which means specific to children. If somebody would say, well, there's a blind guy back to wander into traffic. I'm going to yell at him to stop. Well, then that's not a child specific situation, right? You would do that to anyone who was wandering into traffic. And the big question there, of course, is would someone thank you afterwards? So if someone comes up and just sucker punches you in the park, you're not going to thank them. later. If somebody tackles you because you're about to walk into oncoming traffic for whatever reason, you're glued to your phone or something, you're going to be like, oh man, they're going to be surprised and startled. And then you're going to say, oh, thank you. You just, you know, you just saved me, right? If somebody tackles you on a bus and then a big pole comes through the bus window because the bus is turning at a weird angle or something, you're going to thank them, even though you'll be startled and so on, right? So... When you make a short argument, like if you yell at a child, you are the toddler, right? Which is basically just an argument for self-control.

[0:59:50] And there's ways that you can communicate to children without yelling at them. Now, if your kid is running towards the edge of a cliff and you say, stop. Okay. But that's, again, that's not kid specific. So you make a short concentrated argument and then people say, your one sentence argument or analogy does not cover every conceivable situation. Well, fucking duh. Of course it doesn't. Well, you shouldn't break into people's houses. Well, what if it's a lonely cabin and you're being chased by a bear? Do you see what I mean?

[1:00:23] Midwit exceptionalism is trying to find some wild edge case which can't be dealt with in a short burst of text, and then complaining that the short burst of text is incomplete. Now, of course, the answer as to can you break into someone's lonely log cabin if you're being chased by a bear, well, of course you can.

[1:00:48] The people will be very happy that you did that. I mean, if I had a log cabin in the middle of some place and somebody had to break in to escape a bear, I'd be very happy they did because I wouldn't want a dead body and I wouldn't want someone to die when they could just break in. I mean, I'd like it if they fixed the window or whatever, but whatever, even if they didn't, it would still be, it'd be a cool story. If I had a webcam and somebody was like diving through the window being chased by a bear, I mean, that's worth repairing a window just for the coolness of the story. So you make a short argument and people create the midwit exceptionalism and they don't criticize themselves. They just blurt out, here's an exception to the rule because people don't want rules because then they have to follow them. Then they have to follow those rules. So they want to create this exceptionism to create the static. Well, nothing's certain. Nothing's absolute. I mean, I can think of an exception. Therefore, I don't have to follow any fucking rules at all. So I'm not mad at you. I'm just, you're not a toddler. So I'm just pointing out, uh, people immediately push back against rules because they're hedonists and hedonists don't like following rules. So the moment you come up with a rule, like don't yell at toddlers. I can think of a deception so I can yell at toddlers. It's bullshit. People just want to have the freedom to yell at toddlers if they feel like it. And they don't want to feel bad because if I, as a peaceful parent say, you can't have an asshole if you yell at a toddler, Yell at a toddler Not protect a toddler by raising your voice When they're running towards a cliff edge Yell at At Directly.

[1:02:15] And so it is not a deductive reasoning statement that you must never, ever raise your voice around a toddler. Oh, oh, okay. Does that mean I can't shout out song lyrics? If it's rap, well, don't rap around toddlers, it will rot their brains. But people just want to come up with exceptions because they want to do what they feel like at all times and under all circumstances. They want to do what they feel like. They're fucking hedonists. So when you say, don't yell at toddlers, So I can think of an exception. So I don't have to follow any fucking rules at all.

[1:02:49] It's absolute cowardly bullshit. You got to follow some rules, people. You can't just do what you feel like because that's being an animal. And even animals do what they don't feel like. Sometimes they're just programmed differently. So yeah, the moment you come up with a short pithy statement, like if you yell at a toddler, if you yell at a child, you're the toddler. People go, oh, I can think of an exception. I can think of something. I can think of a situation. Oh, great, great. Okay, then go yell at your toddlers. and then your toddlers will grow up, listen to me and think you're an asshole. I'm trying to help people. I'm really trying to help people, man. Peaceful parenting is loose in the world and it has been for 20 years now. Peaceful parenting is loosed in the world. If you're a parent, you're not gonna be judged by your parent standards. If you parent the way you were parented, like I was parented in the 70s, 60s and 70s, I cannot parent my child by how I was parented 40 years ago or 40 years in the past. Because my daughter is gonna judge my parenting not by my mother's parenting, but by her parenting and the standards that are around when she becomes a parent. So you've got to future-proof your parenting, not by saying, I did the jerky things that my parents did, but look forward and say, if I live on principle, if I act on principle, if I parent on principle.

[1:03:59] Then my daughter will judge me according to those principles, which are good and permanent and useful. If you are a hedonist, in other words, if you do to your child, any part of what was done to you that was negative, you're going to be judged according to your child's parenting standards when they become parents. So let's say my daughter becomes a parent at the age of 25. Okay. I had her when I was 41, right? So let's say, so she's going to start judging her parenting 25 years after I became a parent, not 35 years before that, right? So I'm talking about, let's say she's going to start thinking about moral parenting when the kid is two, right? So I was two 39 years before, right? 39 years plus another 25 years, right? We got a whole other thing going on there, right? And she's going to be judging me with a 64-year moral span because she's going to be judging me at the age of 25 how I was parenting and I will be judging my parenting by how I was parent it now because she's going to be more contemporary because there's so much peaceful parenting is now in the world. So when I say don't yell at infants, I'm trying to help people. I'm.

[1:05:24] They toddlers, little kids, kids. So don't don't yell at kids. I'm trying to help people. And they're like, no, I can think of exceptions. It's like, OK, have your exceptions, man. Have your exceptions and see what happens to your relationship with your kids when you get older. Just, you know, I don't want you to, you know, if I can say people that smoking is bad for you, it's like, oh, I know a guy who smoked two packs a day and lived to 90. It's like, OK, well, then you found an exception. Good for you. Keep smoking and see what the fuck happens to you. Does that make sense?

Caller

[1:05:54] Yes, that makes sense And I think people are just, like you said, It's a defense mechanism But the other thing that you pointed out They are trying to find an excuse to yell Because that's what they actually want to do The kid is not going to run into traffic or anything like that This is just a scenario And I really find it pathetic how When you point out, hey, don't yell at your kids their first instinct is to conjure up a scenario when they can.

Stefan

[1:06:25] Well, but that's their parents justifying in their minds. Like we all have our inner parents, right? Parents, every personality we are around for any reasonable period of time imprints itself upon us. If you've got siblings, aunts, uncles, you spend time with parents, everyone takes up residence in our head. Now, what happens is when I say, don't yell at your kids, then the inner parents of my readers say, no, no, no, it's good. It's fine. There's a justification for it. Because the parents don't want to be criticized for yelling at their kids. So inner parental alter egos are activated and people become seriously stupid. Because when people are defensive, they're stupid. You know, I try not to be defensive. I try not to be reactive and so on. Because defensive reactions just make people absolutely dumb.

[1:11:09] Our society is based on blood and violence. Now, less so than most societies throughout history and less so than most societies around the world. But nonetheless, the foundational realities of our society is that we love violence. What's happened is the violence has become much more hidden. So we don't, like the Aztecs, we don't take children and sacrifice them on stone altars to the thirst of the tear-drinking blood gods or something like that. No, no, we just, we throw them into leftist propaganda mills. We drug them like crazy because they're bored in schools. We harm the boys in particular by pretending that they're broken girls. And we train them in hedonism. And we also use them as collateral for near infinite borrowing. Thus, they're born into economic slavery of over a million dollars worth of debt and unfunded liabilities. So we are not Aztec sacrificers. We are much more subtle exploiters. So the violence and coercion and theft and fraud and lying and brutality in our society is covered up with this, you know, sociopaths always pretend to have empathy in order to control you. That's just a basic fact of human life. And so we are doing such wrong as a society.

[1:12:26] For society as a whole, we've got to stop drinking, vaping, smoking, doing drugs, overeating, cutting ourselves. And at that point down the road, society can start turning towards virtue. So people have to stop doing the self-destructive things before they can start doing the constructive things. So UPB is really focused on the non-aggression principle and property rights, because those are the two biggest ways in which people are violated. The violation of property rights that leads to government education, the violation of the non-aggression principle that leads to indoctrination and so on, and the violation of the non-aggression principle and property rights that leads to the government controlling vast aspects of health care and drugging children and paying parents to do it, right? Not only do parents not pay for these crazy, quote, drugs, but the government will give them money because their child is disabled now with some sort of disorder that's largely made up and there's no actual blood or physical test for.

[1:13:24] So, yeah, there are virtues, honor, courage, integrity, moral strength, and standing up for what's right and fighting evil. Most people have to find some way to stop being evil, and that's going to take them years and years and years if they ever make it. And even if we get individuals too, which I know I have, and I have myself, for a society as a whole, you know, that they're making crazy people a lot faster than we can fix them. It's like a war, right? They blow people up and hurt people a lot faster than those people can be fixed.

[1:21:01] High intelligence plus philosophy is a recipe for not exactly Friedrich Nietzsche-style isolationism, but it can be a little tough to blend with the average.

[1:21:16] So it really depends to some degree, and of course every parent thinks their children are treasures, so I say this advisedly and with humility, it really depends how original your children are, how curious they are, how much they want to think from first principles, because it's not, everyone's bag or a cup of tea. If your children score high, and I mean this in a completely morally neutral way. So I don't mean this in any judgmental or negative way whatsoever. And I hope it doesn't come across that way. If your children score higher in one of the big five personality traits called agreeableness, which means they get a great deal of happiness out of going along with others. And again, there's value in that, right? I mean, the things that I have around me were all built by teams. And those teams, I'm sure, had significant disagreements philosophically. So I'm not going to pretend that everybody has to work together with a team that they agree with everything because nothing would ever get done, at least as yet. So if your children tend to be maybe more natural followers, or they tend to take more pleasure in social life, and they don't particularly have much curiosity or hunger for the truth or originality or blank slate thinking from first principles.

[1:22:36] Not everyone is like that, right? It's rare. So then I wouldn't take that away from my kids. If, and this is a little bit more along the female side, if your females are going, I mean, we want our children to be good, but we also want them to be happy. And that's important as well. So I would say that you would judge your kids and, you know, dangle the, you know, original thinking from first principles, philosophy, skepticism, and so on.

[1:23:03] I would want that and they're really hungry for that, then, you know, you got to be honest and say, you're going to have to give up some of the more familiar, or you're probably going to have to give up some of the more familiar social situations that you're in. You're going to have to strike out into the desert and you'll find your people on the other side of the desert. But sometimes it feels like that desert goes on for a pretty long fricking time. So, uh, if, if my kids were more, um, agreeable with people and more, I would say conformist, that sounds like such a negative of phrase. I don't mean it that way because we all have biological personalities. Like we all have hardwired biological traits to our personalities. There's almost nothing in our personality structure that is not influenced significantly by genetics. So you wouldn't want to take people who are more naturally conformist or compliant or score high in trait agreeableness and set them off the lonely path of pure individuation because they probably won't make it and it would just make them unhappy.

[1:23:59] And at the same time, you wouldn't want to take your kids who score high in real honesty, curiosity, thinking from first principles, and get them to conform to others because it's like putting a round peg in a square hole. It's not going to fit, and no one's going to end up happy from that situation. So again, we want to counsel truth as a whole, but we also have to accept the limitations of our natures as well. Otherwise, we're kind of like communists who say everyone can be rewritten to do anything. All right. Thank you. And Vibe, you are up if you want to unmute.

[1:25:25] I mean, you're trolling with the number of E's in the word weed. I mean, like 14 E's later, we get to the D. So, I mean, drugs are a form of self-medication for childhood trauma. People who go through a lot of childhood trauma and particularly neglect, then they end up with... Unhappiness. And if they take drugs, often those drugs will return them to a normal state of human functioning, and they then realize how unhappy they've been. And they want to feel normal, not unhappy, because of their childhood trauma. And so they take drugs not to feel great, but to feel normal. Like, you know, if you've been prescribed painkillers for surgery, like the post-surgery pain, you don't take the painkillers to feel great. You take the painkillers to feel normal, right? Like if they have to drill your tooth, they put those little injections into your gums and they do that not so you feel great, but so you feel not in pain. So drugs are a way of being not in pain. People who have social anxiety because they were neglected or verbally, usually it's verbal abuse that leads to social anxiety.

[1:26:41] They're verbally abused as children, so they have social anxiety, but they still want to be with people. But the only way they can be with people is to take drugs or the only way that they can get out of bed and not be depressed, or maybe they feel suicidal or something like that. So drugs, it's a form of self-medication in general for childhood trauma. I think, obviously, I think there are better ways of dealing with childhood trauma other than taking drugs. Because if you take drugs to deal with childhood trauma, you generally end up inflicting trauma on others because they care about you and your own drugs. So I think it's a very sad situation. I don't think that people who are well-raised end up on drugs, but I do think that people who are on drugs are often just trying to not feel like hell because of the result of child abuse. And I think in general, it has to do with society's lack of sympathy for the victims of child abuse. Juju, the Jew so nice, he named himself twice. Juju, you are up. You are up. Questions, comments, issues, challenges, problems. All right.

[1:27:54] Duju is here yet. Yet not. All right. Freak. Freak. If you would like to unmute, I'd be happy to hear what you think. All right. Looks like we have gone so far that people have dropped off. Well, a lack of patience, what can I say? It happens.

[1:28:19] All right, well, I'll stop here. Of course, love you guys. Thank you for the mad Aussie contingent tonight. Very fascinating and very much appreciated. I like the wild thoughts from down under. Drill right through, right through the center of the earth and drill that crazed Aussie juice directly into my veins. I appreciate that. Freedomain.com/donate to help out the show. We will talk to you Sunday morning, 10 a.m. for your Saturday morning philosophy church, Saturday morning, 10 a.m. Freedomain.com/donate to help out the show. It's lean, man. It's lean at the moment on the donation front. And I don't mean to nag because if you haven't been here around for a while, enjoy the show and so on. But if you've been listening for a while, you know, if you've been listening for 15 years, drop a little because, you know, it costs a lot to keep everything up and running up here. So freedomain.com/donate to help out the show. Shop.freedomain.com for your merch, peacefulparenting.com for that book available for free. And there's a really nice AI there. You can ask parenting questions. And last but not least, call.freedomain.com or freedomain.com/call. Really do appreciate that. Looking forward to our next conversation. Lots of love from up here, my friends. Bye-bye.