Episode #195 ... Could Anarcho-Capitalism be the solution to our problems? - Anarchism pt. 4 (Rothbard, Friedman, Malice)
34:18 Share

Hello everyone, I'm Stephen West. This is Philosophize This. Thanks to everyone that supports the podcast on Patreon. Any support at any level on Patreon gets an ad-free RSS of the show, as well as the stickers, pens, t-shirts that we send out for whatever the tier is. Thanks for helping the podcast keep going. I hope you love the show today.

So a question that's worth asking of these anarchists we've been talking about, you know, the kind of anarchists that would say we're better off without the police, without laws, without a central authority, with a military warding off other countries invading. A question a skeptic has to ask these people is if all these ideas of yours are so great, why in recent history, every time they've been tried, have they eventually failed?

I mean, we mentioned the Seattle Strike last time, the Ukrainians post-World War I, the Spanish Civil War, and Peter Gelderlus in his book mentions dozens of other moments in history with anarchist principles in action. But one common theme among all these examples is that they all ended up collapsing. What does an anarchist have to say about the fact that their track record here isn't exactly great? Well, the answer to that is that there's specific reasons each of them went south when they did. Admittedly, sometimes it was a tactical error by the anarchists themselves.

Other times, like in the case of the Seattle strike, sometimes things just reverted back to the way they were before there was a need for people to organize themselves. Most of the time, though, in recent history, regardless of the specific reasons each of these experiments ended, you could say that a major factor is that there's really just been a lack of solidarity with other anarchist societies. You could say that many of these examples from history would still be going on today if there just happened to have been more international support at the time for bottom-up organization like this.

In fact, if the reason you're even asking that question is because you're actually interested in the viability of anarchism in the world we're living in today, needs to be said, a lot of anarchists out there would say that far from anarchism being the strategy that's been totally debunked, on the contrary, we're in about as prime a territory as we ever have been for these ideas to catch fire.

I mean, there's certainly some promising things you could point to. How about the fact that 20 years ago, a lot of publishers wouldn't even consider printing a book on anarchism. Nowadays, you got bestsellers on anarchism. Nowadays, we're talking about anarchism on a show like this. And, you know, short of a few emails from people saying, I must be huffing Elmer's glue to be even covering something like anarchism. Short of that, there's not really as much of a social cost that people have to pay anymore for considering these ideas.

Another promising thing that an anarchist might bring up is that one of the biggest barriers for this bottom-up, direct democracy style ever working in the past is that people have said that the level of communication that's required to make something like this work is just impossible. I mean, it's a fair question. How do you coordinate between this ever-growing, federated network of communities that themselves are constantly changing shape?

But some anarchists say that in the world we're living in now, the technological climate with Web 3.0, decentralized technology like blockchain, cryptocurrency, digital democracy platforms, these sorts of things make the communication that's required for anarchism something far more feasible than it's ever been before.

So yeah, some anarchists think this is definitely a possible direction that things could be going in in the future. Big question you gotta worry about if you're them on the other side of all this is, if this is a set of ideas that takes off one day, exactly what kind of anarchists do you wanna be? Because as we've mentioned at multiple points on this series so far, there's many different kinds of anarchists,

And not all of them like each other. In fact, ironically, there's a bit of a turf dispute that's been going on among anarchists in their ranks. The totally non-hierarchical horizontal ranks, that is, of course. My friends, today I want to tell you about the plight, the sad situation of a particular kind of anarchist out there right now. It's a type of person who thinks of themselves as an anarchist, but most other anarchists don't think of them as a real anarchist. Maybe you've heard of them. I'm talking about someone who calls themselves an anarcho-capitalist.

If all the other anarchists are kind of like Santa's reindeer, you know, not letting one of the reindeer play in all the reindeer games, this is Rudolph the anarcho-capitalist. Really is excluded from the party sometimes. Reason being is the kind of anarchists we've been talking about on this series so far, again, the kind that doesn't like police, laws, private property, many of the people that think this way fall under the very broad category of what's called anarcho-communism. And that would make them anarcho-communists.

And as anarcho-communists, they don't really like anarcho-capitalists, for many reasons we'll elaborate on in this episode. For now, though, it's just important to say, try not to get too thrown off by these titles, communist and capitalist. Because as we'll also talk about, when it comes to the anarcho-version of these two things...

This is not your grandpa's capitalism, and it's not your grandma's communism either, for the record. An anarcho-capitalist would certainly not be a fan of any of the capitalist systems that are going on today, and an anarcho-communist would certainly not be a fan of any of the communism that went on in the 20th century. I mean, obviously, how could they be? They're anarchists. They don't believe in the legitimacy of the state. How could they ever be a fan of the communism of the 20th century that was dominated by a massive state and government?

We'll hear more from the anarcho-communist side of things here in a second, but first, a few questions got to be answered at the start of this. What is an anarcho-capitalist? Why would they call themselves that? And how exactly do they differ from other people who call themselves anarchists? And maybe the best place to start explaining that is to say that to an anarcho-capitalist, one of the ways that they're different is that the type of anarchist we've been talking about on this series so far has a bit of a problem that they really haven't laid out a clear solution to yet.

The problem is, once we remove the government from the equation, how exactly are we going to organize society on the other side of that? They say they haven't answered that. I mean, they could talk about their decentralized hypothetical ways the world might be organized in a totally different world once people's values change into something where these things are possible, but that's not really answering the question. Sure, if everyone was like me, then we wouldn't need any laws, would we?

But look, if we could guarantee that almost everyone is going to have a set of values where they're peaceful and hardworking, you can structure a society basically any way you want to. But how do we actually have what David Friedman calls a system of anonymous coordination among millions of people that all have different subjective takes on what is valuable? To an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communists have not given a sufficient answer to that question yet.

And the good news to an anarcho-capitalist like David Friedman is that we already have a system of coordination we know about that helps us efficiently distribute and allocate resources. It's a system that becomes a mirror for the value that society is placing on things. It's a self-regulating system that can meet every need a person may have in a society, and that is the free market system combined with the wisdom of capitalism.

that once we're living in this world, we've removed the unnecessary hierarchy of the government, free markets are what we should be steering into and trying to make better to provide the services that government used to provide for people. Now you may recognize the name David Friedman. He's the son of the world-famous economist Milton Friedman, God rest his soul.

And Milton Friedman believed that having a government was necessary. A small government. A government that provides certain basic human services: national security, police, the enforcement of contracts. We need a society, he thought, where people feel safe enough for something like a free market to ever truly be free. If everyone's fearing for their life all the time, then you can never really have people feeling comfortable enough to make consumer choices.

Point is, most things, he thought, are better off without the government involved in them. But there are some basic things we benefit from when a government does them for us. Well, his son David just takes this one step further.

It's a bit like that argument that an atheist will make to someone who's religious. They'll say, it's like if there's a thousand gods out there, both of us don't believe in 999 of them. I just take it one step further, don't believe in any of the gods, and think maybe you're just doing the same thing you think all those other people are doing. You apply the same kind of argument to the government. And as David Friedman says, just take the smallest level of government you can possibly imagine, where everything else is being fulfilled by the people themselves or the private sector, and

and then just take it one step further. In other words, police, enforcement of contracts, national security have these things provided by the private sector as well. The thinking is that the private sector is just generally better at doing everything than the government is. You ever drive by a construction site and it's something you drive by every day so you just see the thing being built at every step along the way? Is that a government building that's going up? Or is that a new business coming to town?

Well, don't think too hard. Just wait a few weeks and you'll know exactly what it is. Because if it's a private sector contract, that building will be done in two months. If it's a government contract, you'll be driving by that same site two years from now. Five dudes will be standing around in reflective vests. One dude will be shoveling dirt. The other four will be standing around ensuring this is a safe operation that's going on. And to an anarcho-capitalist, the reason this happens, obviously, is that the government has a monopoly on government.

The government doesn't have competition like a business does. The government isn't going to lose the job. They don't have customers that are going to leave and go somewhere else if they aren't happy. As Michael Malice says, what other arrangement do we have in society where it is locked in for four years or whatever the term limit is? And if at any point you realize this is a bad situation for you, you can't decide to go elsewhere.

When is it ever like that? When would we ever put up with something like that? What we do when it comes to the government? And this idea is part of the core of anarcho-capitalism as a potential solution. They'd say that maybe not all hierarchies are a bad thing. Maybe there are definitely hierarchies that are bad, like the involuntary monopolistic control of the government, for sure.

But isn't it just stupid to not consider that we have other hierarchies that are not monopolies that are entirely voluntary for people to participate in? Things like capitalism. And wouldn't it just be stupid to throw all that out? Here's what we can be certain of: there is no service out there that has a monopoly at the head of it that is better off for the customer than something without a monopoly.

So this is why the services that government has a monopoly on providing are never really done that well. As Michael Malice puts it, this is why the police can shoot somebody in the streets and the penalty is just to get a leave of absence and a pension. This is why you see people high up in politics and the law just doesn't apply to them in the same way it does for people like you and me. Celebrities can literally kill a person, face very little consequences. Look at the geopolitical decisions that are made with everyone's lives hanging in the balance.

To an anarcho-capitalist like David Friedman, the politicians that are suggesting these solutions to supposedly fix our social problems, these are people who are entrenched in a system that has horrible incentive structures.

Think of what it's like to be a politician oftentimes. There's some problem that faces us socially. We want to find a way to fix it. And the politicians who make the decisions can suggest anything they want. It costs them literally nothing to suggest anything, actually. Just spend $100 billion and build a sanctuary for koalas. That seems like it might work.

And then after their brilliant suggestions, on the other side of it, when people are dealing with the backlash of whatever policy it was they put in place, these politicians often live far away from their constituencies in some gated community where they don't bear any of the cost of the bad policy they supported. In other words, to David Friedman, these people have no skin in the game. And the result for us as citizens is that things get done that are usually not as good as they could be. The government is the problem here.

In an anarcho-capitalist society based around free markets without the government, to suggest something as a potential solution to a problem people are facing, like a koala sanctuary, that takes an initial investment by the person that's suggesting it. More than that, if their product or service fails to meet the needs of the consumers, or the koalas, they bear the negative cost of that failed investment, not the taxpayer. People can talk about the woes of capitalism and what often happens in our current systems,

But to an anarcho-capitalist, what we have is not capitalism, but crony capitalism. What we have is some weird Frankenstein monster where governments embedded in free markets to the extent that they're no longer free. Subsidies and bailouts for certain companies over others. Not regulating certain companies the same way we regulate other companies. Contracts and licenses exclusively given to a certain company that just has a better lobby. But when you let the free market truly be free,

It has a very beautiful sort of self-correcting mechanism built into it that's driven by human behavior. Because when consumers engage in totally voluntary exchanges with each other, when two people agree to trade this good or service for that amount of money, that's not just a trade that's going on. To an anarcho-capitalist, that is more deeply a manifestation of individual preferences and consent. It is a statement about what people subjectively value in a society.

And from that information, and through many of these voluntary transactions, it not only becomes a signal we can read for how to efficiently allocate economic resources without central planning, you know, we don't need a team of people planning out what our society should look like. On the contrary, human behavior will show us what society is. Not only that, but this spontaneous order that emerges out of a bunch of different voluntary exchanges between people, this can produce a natural decentralization of power to an anarcho-capitalist.

When a company produces a good or service trying to meet the needs of the citizens, and then that company does a bad job at doing it, unlike when we rely on the monopoly of the government and there's no choice in the matter, people in an anarcho-capitalist society can just choose to not do business with them anymore. Then, the companies that are actually meeting the demands of the citizens will be the ones that people naturally buy from.

So to an anarcho-capitalist in a truly free market, what would emerge is not a centralization of power, but a lot of different parties holding power that's more spread out because a lot of different consumer choices would be being made. And just so we don't kind of interrupt the show at any point beyond this, I want to thank everybody that takes the time to support the sponsors of the show today. Today's episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.

So it's February. Valentine's Day is coming up. Which means you have a culturally approved opportunity to reflect on how things are going when it comes to all the relationships in your life, not just the romantic ones. Maybe your friend is bugging you. Maybe your family. Most likely your family. Maybe you're just living in an anarcho-capitalist society and you're having a dispute with one of your neighbors. Whatever it is. Therapy can be a great way to work through any of the challenges you may be having. You can have someone give you a second opinion, help you work through what the most painless way might be to navigate these situations.

If you're a long-time listener of these ads, then you'll already know I'm a big fan of therapy as one crucial aspect of a mental health regimen. Maybe you already have a therapist that you love, and that's wonderful. But for anybody having a harder time finding the Robin Williams to your Will Hunting, or for anyone thinking of starting therapy after a long break and you just want it to be as non-awkward as possible...

BetterHelp provides a service that's pretty great. I use it. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire and you get matched with a licensed therapist. Switch therapist at any time, no additional charges. Become your own soulmate whether you're looking for one or not. Visit betterhelp.com slash fill this today to get 10% off your first month. P-H-I-L-T-H-I-S. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash fill this.

The last sponsor of the show today is Factor. You know, when I heard that Factor wanted to support an episode of the podcast, I was pretty excited because I've been a fan of them for years and all that they do. And they've only just recently started appreciating me and all that I do.

No, but I've tried a lot of different meal delivery services over the years. I love the convenience of it with kids. And again, Factor's the one that I landed on about two years ago now. I really enjoy them. They have chefs that design the meals, apparently, dieticians that approve them. And since I'm supposed to talk about it, the big differentiator for me with Factor from all the other services that I did is the vegetables. There just seems to be more diverse vegetable options with Factor than any of the other ones I've tried. Just

Just seems like I'm getting all the different colors of vegetables, as they say. And look, when you get home and you've already made two other meals for all the people in your life that day, you've already done all the dishes for those, and you just want something quick that's actually whole foods, not frozen or anything, Factor is a great choice. They have over 35 different options a week from keto, calorie smart, vegan, veggie, whatever you want.

They have snacks, smoothies, pause or reschedule deliveries at any time, no problem. If you want to try them out, it's also a really good way to support the podcast. Head to factormeals.com slash pt50 and use code pt50 to get 50% off. That's code pt50 at factormeals.com slash pt50 to get 50% off. Now let's get back to the podcast.

Now, combine this vision of there being no need for economic central planning with a world where basic services like the police are provided by private companies as well. It may seem a little strange to imagine at first, but it's actually not that far from what's already being done. Michael Malice gives an example. He says, imagine a bar late at night. Can a bar really rely on the monopoly security service provided by the government to resolve every conflict that may come up?

No. No. So what do they do? They hire private security. And the result of that is that everyone around that security is safer for it. That bar late at night becomes ironically a safer place for you to be than something like a public park late at night that it's the government's job to police.

So far from it being chaos, an anarcho-capitalist society could have an abundance of security, a constant overlap of one security detail over another. We could handle disputes between people the same way we already handle most disputes we have between each other in our private lives, that is, privately, without the government being involved.

Now, a natural question that comes up here is what happens when my security guard and your security guard don't agree on how we should be securing things? Do they rock, paper, scissors? Do they both pepper spray each other at the exact same time? Well, no, because this entire anarcho-capitalist society that I'm suggesting is founded upon an ethical principle first devised in this way by the philosopher Murray Rothbard, what's known as the non-aggression principle.

Murray Rothbard would want to stress that any organization in this type of society would need to be founded on a principle of non-aggression, where each person, understanding how important it is to respect the natural rights and property rights of others, understanding that that's what allows for society to be able to function at all. In this world, the vast majority of people would agree that initiating force against others is inherently wrong. That you can argue with people, you can completely disagree with how they live their life, and

You can hire private arbitration companies to mediate a dispute between you and them. But there should never be a situation where initiating force against someone else or their property is seen as the correct course of action. And this obviously comes with everybody else having that same respect for you. But hold on a second. I got a stupid question. What if people just say no?

What if people just don't believe in this non-aggression principle of yours? It's very fascinating, Murray Rothbard, but I too have a principle. It's my own principle I just came up with. It's called the aggression principle. My principle is I just take your stuff and I beat you senseless in front of your family if you try to stop me. What happens when 10% of society doesn't believe in the non-aggression principle? Well, there's answers to all these questions, much like we've seen anarchist answers in the last three episodes of the show.

The bottom line is, it takes imagining a world that's structured in a very different way than our present world currently is. For example, when it comes to people not going along with the non-aggression principle, I mean, you can imagine the anarchist communities emerging of like-minded people we've been talking about. Well, if there's someone that doesn't respect the rights of others, they're not exactly going to be accepted into one of these communities of people that believe in non-aggression.

And if they were to ever try to disrespect the rights of one of those communities, they'd be going up against an entire community of people and whatever security measures they decided to set up.

Anyway, it needs to be said here. I personally have come across very few serious anarcho-capitalists that talk about this hypothetical world as though it's obvious we should be doing this and that the path to get there is simple. Nobody talks that way. They all pretty much acknowledge that this transition is going to be a tricky one, that nobody has all the answers, and that like anarcho-communism, it ultimately is going to require a pretty substantial shift in the values of the average person than what we have today.

But that although the world certainly wouldn't be a problem-free place on the other side of these changes, to an anarcho-capitalist, the incentive for considering these ideas is just too great to ignore. That said, what would an anarcho-communist have to say about this whole strategy? Why do they see anarcho-capitalists as fake anarchists? To the point that some people say that the entire movement of ANCAP, as it's called, uses anarchism in its name to deliberately obscure the strength of anarchism as a movement more broadly.

Well, the reason ANCAPs are not real anarchists is because to a lot of anarchists out there, the entire point of anarchism is to remove forced hierarchical authorities from the way a society is organized. And to the ANCAPs point, there certainly are hierarchies out there that are pretty harmless. The ranking of sports teams comes to mind, rankings in games that people play. Like when someone says, you know, I'm a level 37 woodsy vegan blood elf emotionally conflicted in this board game that I'm playing. There's places where this stuff doesn't hurt anyone.

But to an anarcho-communist, the hierarchies of capitalism is not one of those places. An anarcho-capitalist can talk all they want about how capitalism is voluntary. How if you don't like it, simple, just don't participate. That's a little bit like saying if you go to prison for 40 years, you don't have to join a gang. Just stand by your morals and deal with the consequences of that.

To say that capitalism is voluntary is to ignore the reality of what it is to be in a capitalist system. You know, take the popular conservative intellectual position where you're a fan of capitalism, and you say that capitalism is actually a brilliant way to set things up because it's essentially forced morality. The thinking is, look, we're trying to manage a society here.

And there's no guarantee that anybody gets off the couch and does anything to contribute to this whole operation. So what capitalism does is it forces people to either find some way to contribute a good or service that other people want, or else you starve to death. They'll say this is a good thing. This is a way to get people doing the things we need people to do. Now, an anarchist would obviously see that as coercive and not how society should be set up.

But they would no doubt agree with the idea that the choice people really have is either to participate in the capitalist system or starve to death. But that's not really a choice, they would say. So this whole idea that this is all voluntary, so it's not really a hierarchy we gotta worry about, is just inaccurate. Another problem anarcho-communists are gonna have with all this is that capitalism is not in fact a system that naturally gravitates towards a decentralization of power.

The entire thing, they'd say, is built around an imbalance of power. You have a small handful of people who control the means of production and private property, and then the rest of society who works for them creates a surplus of value with their labor that the capitalist then takes and justifies it as their payment for taking all that risk to own the means of production. But then consider what always seems to happen. That wealth is then used to acquire more wealth. Nothing wrong with that.

And then that wealth is used to further dominate the market that the company's currently competing in, squeezing out their competitors. This is what happens in a competitive system like capitalism. And then just keep following this domino effect into the future far enough until you arrive at the reality of companies then using their market dominance and abundance of resources to use media to influence consumer decisions. You know, what companies usually do when they advertise. Again, the capitalists can say all they want that the market is self-correcting.

That when there's a bad company, people can just go shop somewhere else. But what happens when we have something like what the media has become in today's world? Where it's grown into something so powerful that it's capable of shaping the very preferences and perceptions of the people that are making these consumer choices? Is that liberty? Is that a free market where consumer choices are going to self-correct and guide us in the right direction? I mean, right now, if you just look at the media and what it is, there are just a few massive corporations that control most of the media that people consume.

Now consider that for a second. If there was that much centralized control over the media in some other way, say it was controlled by the government, we'd just call that a ministry of propaganda. But under capitalism, it's just called good business.

See, that's maybe the more general critique here from the anarcho-communist to an anarcho-capitalist, that the anarcho-capitalist has focused so hard on how dangerous the government is as a hierarchy that they practically ignored all the other glaring examples of hierarchies that are staring them in the face that are most of the time more dangerous than the government.

So many things we've mentioned on recent episodes since we've been covering modern day philosophy. An anarchist that's truly committed to finding these in the world around them doesn't have to look too far. What are the things that really have control over people's lives? Is it the government? Well, yes, to an extent. And corporations like we're talking about for sure. You know, they're often so powerful that they control the government just through successful lobbying. How about financial institutions in particular? How much power do they have when it comes to determining what's possible?

Again, how about the media? Is that something with a level of power we have to worry about? Media has the power to control someone's entire worldview. It not only gives them the information they use to construct a worldview, but then it also gives them the opinions they're supposed to have about it. How about technology, our digital panopticon and its increasing ability to lock people in little algorithmic cells that they can't see out of? Or tech's ability to run surveillance and keep a record on practically everything that you do?

How about our schools and universities that control what type of bias is going to be academically endorsed on this particular decade? The same universities that control who gets tenure, who will be a thought leader in the coming years for us to look to for guidance? How about religions or ideologies? Or how about examples of power that's held over people simply because of their group identity? See, we're not living in a world where government's the only form of power we have to worry about.

In fact, you could say that a necessary skill for survival in our modern world is being able to pay attention to all these different mechanisms of control as though they're predators. Noam Chomsky says that what an anarcho-capitalist is truly advocating, though they often don't even realize it, is what will eventually become a pure corporate tyranny.

It's funny because it's based on good intentions as he says and caps say that freedom is essentially people being able to do whatever they want But their mistake he thinks is that they're not fully playing out the consequences of what they're suggesting He thinks what we're gonna end up with are companies that have security services quote-unquote that have transformed into armies We'd have domination over media and corporate monopolies and technology and we'd have these going on in a new world where we no longer have a government to be able to protect us from them and

See, this is why someone like Chomsky advocates for using the power of government that we still have to regulate these other forms of power. Let's use government to regulate technology, media, financial institutions, economic policy. And then once we get these things under control, then we can start having the bigger conversations about getting rid of the government and organizing things in a more bottom-up way. And that all sounds really great in theory. You know, sometimes you need power to take out a more dangerous form of power.

But to a lot of anarchists, including Chomsky, that solution's filled with a bunch of potential problems as well. Take for example the reality of how regulation currently fails in today's world. Governments already try to regulate companies. But it's not a coincidence that a lot of people in high-ranking government positions used to have high-ranking positions in companies.

It's not a coincidence that K Street and lobbyists are a thing. It's not a coincidence that regulatory capture is something that commonly goes on. And so at the very least, this is all much easier said than done. But then if we can't rely on the government as a tool to bring this stuff about, what should we be doing? It can be tempting to think that if companies are so powerful, should we all just start a company? Become a billionaire? Buy a social media platform and start spreading the gospel to people?

Well, that's one way, I guess. But how about for the rest of us that can't do that? I mean, anarchists throughout this series so far have certainly provided a lot of reasonable alternatives to most of these powerful institutions in society. For example, instead of companies, they might suggest worker co-ops. Instead of central banking, they might support community lending. Instead of universities, they might support alternative schooling or unschooling. And the list goes on.

But as we've said before, to get to the world where these sorts of anarchist alternatives can even work, it's going to require different values and different social norms than we currently have.

And it can seem to some people on the outside listening in to these sorts of conversations that to even talk about this hypothetical world of solutions without first talking about how we're actually going to change people's values, it can come off to some people as disingenuous, self-indulgent. Like some anarchists are not concerned with the real world as it is, they're just interested in having an overly intellectual discussion that should only go on in an academic seminar, as Chomsky says.

But if you're somebody looking at the state of the world and you want greater levels of liberty, equality, and solidarity, there's a point in these discussions where you've got to start talking about the real, actionable things that people can do if they want to be on the right side of that change. And what you'll often hear from the reasonable people on this side that aren't talking about a violent revolution is the same sort of starting small conversation that we already addressed on the Bookchin episode. That if you want to change people's values, start small. Start by just supporting critical thinking.

Support after-school programs and communities that try to foster critical thinking. Support any individual person you come across that genuinely wants to learn more about these social issues. Support anyone that genuinely wants to develop more empathy for the perspective of the other. Support any program that tries to make it a priority to care more about your fellow human beings around you than they do about someone salsa dancing with their dog in a TikTok video.

And I get it. I know all this can sound like I'm youth pastor Steve right now. Oh, wow. We're going to change the world one little smile at a time, aren't we, guys? I get it. And on that note, there's of course a much more cynical line someone could take with all this discussion. You know, something an optimistic philosophy podcast like this may have never even considered before. What if it's too late? What if the society we're talking about, with all of its entrenched power structures and corruption, what if it's too far gone to save?

What if all these tactics to change the values of people are really just the death throes of a desperate person who wants to help so bad, but sadly is just wasting their time because no matter how much effort they ever put into it, people are just going to keep doing what they do. They're going to keep getting their spray tents. They're going to keep buying their butt implants. They're going to keep buying their shiny watches and shoes and that this is what's going to matter to people until the entire ship finishes sinking and then everything gets a reset. You could think that way.

And you certainly wouldn't be the first person to become cynical about the way the world is and then give up. But cynicism is a drug, all right? It numbs you to the pain that's going on around you. It enables you to look at things you care about, that keep getting you to feel a certain way when you see them, and just put them off until tomorrow, and then tomorrow again. Cynicism is a lot like other drugs, where whenever you indulge in it a bit too much, you can start to blame everyone else for the reasons why you're using it.

Ironically, what some people from the outside may see as an anarchist delusion, you know, that all we need for the world to change is for everyone's values to change. Yeah. And how some people might see that as avoiding the real question. There's another way to interpret that whole line of thinking, which is that the individual values that people hold, at least where we are now, they still do have a lot of power in determining how the world takes shape, which means your values and choices matter.

Again, you can be cynical about whether most people are going to get there, but the fact is, you still exist in a world where you're making consumer choices that matter. You are supporting certain causes over others. You are investing your time. And even if it's through a refusal to consciously support anything, you still end up supporting something.

And look, history is filled with examples of things that started as small grassroots movements, things that had failed before many times in the past. But then when the right sequence of events took place, people took small steps that collectively made a difference and people were left with greater levels of liberty, equality, and solidarity on the other side of it.

So forget about anarchism for a second. Most people want greater levels of liberty, equality, and solidarity for people, whatever that means to them. And most people would agree, anarchist or not, that if we're imagining the world with the most liberty, equality, and solidarity that makes sense, that this world ain't it. See, the fact is, both of these things could be true at once. It could be true that society is past the point of no return. And it could be true at the same time that there are tons of examples from history where small movements catch fire and end up doing a lot of good.

The question that matters if you're a person living through your daily life is what sort of life do you want to live? Do you want to live a life of cynicism with no responsibility? Which can sound pretty good, honestly. Or if the ship that you're on is sinking, would you rather go out while at least putting up a fight?

And when it comes to contemporary philosophy, the conversations going on right now, this is one lens you can start to understand it all through. You can take what may at first seem like a ton of different, very fragmented goals that all these philosophers have, and you can understand them all as different attempts to address these non-governmental power structures so that the world may have even a little more liberty, equality, and solidarity. These are all people that are unified in the sense that they've decided that they're not going down without a fight.

Take thinkers like Martha Nussbaum or Michael Sandel, with their focus on civic ethics and political participation and liberty. Take thinkers like Cornel West or Naomi Klein, focusing on intersectionality, bringing solidarity to a bunch of different groups that want greater social representation, groups in the past that have seen their causes as entirely separate. Take a thinker like Judith Butler, the way she's supporting critical thinking, as per our examples from before.

And I guess finally, take another person who's supporting the cause of thinking critically about the ideologies that determine people's thinking. He's a man that many of you have no doubt heard of before. He's a bit of a character in the best way possible. And while in the coming months on this podcast, we're going to talk about all these different thinkers we just mentioned, the one we're going to talk about next is Slavoj Žižek. And as it turns out, I recently heard from his people in my emails that

And they told me that he'd be available for an interview if that's something that the listeners of the show would want. So let me know either way. Thank you for listening. Talk to you next time.