Political Authority Is Illegitimate | Michael Malice

Watch the full conversation with Michael Malice on our main channel - www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeter...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[@thealchemist9025]

I really like how JP and MM seem to be just simply trying to understand each other and not try to convince each other or "win" the discussion

[@ironheadedDoF]

Exactly. It's a quest, not a contest.

[@windycityjohn400]

Yes. There are no winners in a discussion. Only arguments have winners. Peterson works hard at having honest, open discussions as a means to the overall development of knowledge and understanding.

[@johnjames5405]

You'll never see this type of conversation in mainstream media which is why they're dying.

[@Niacin1]

thanks for your banal analysis

[@roycehuepers4325]

What true debates are.

[@menoyuno8430]

Bringing up anarchism in public conversations is a service to society, it rarely gets the attention it deserves and Michael does a great job of it.

[@therainman7777]

It doesn’t get brought up much because most people can see its obvious flaws.

[@FanGardinen]

he has a really right-wing idea of anarchism, Any Rand is no anarchist a real anarchist would also abolish hierarchies in companies and rich people

[@therainman7777]

@@FanGardinen A real anarchist would “abolish” rich people? That’s a Marxist concept and goal, not an anarchist one. The meaning of anarchism is “lack of government.” That is the fundamental core of what it’s about. There is nothing inherent to anarchism that opposes people becoming wealthy in a just manner. It’s also ironic that you would criticize him for having a “really right-wing idea of anarchism,” when you clearly have a really left-wing idea of anarchism yourself and don’t seem to realize it.

[@FanGardinen]

@@therainman7777 " The meaning of anarchism is “lack of government.” " No you distort the meaning. It means soceity without rulers, no hierarchies... people getting wealthy means giving them power it is fundamental against anarchism "when you clearly have a really left-wing idea of anarchism yourself and don’t seem to realize it." No it is the true meaning of the word. Read some real anarchist (and not Any Rand, she still regards elits as a collective and group and not as individuals) He just uses the terms, but not the core idea or twists it as if being wealthy does not count. Anarchists literally wrote about the "The Conquest of Bread" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread

[@stevendouglas3781]

⁠@@FanGardinenlol so a “real” anarchist would interfere with my wealth, but thats okay because they don’t call themselves the state.

[@L.I.T.H.I.U.M]

Best JBP clip in the last 6 months. This type of content isn't common but needed. It makes your map of the world much more navigable by eliminating options. Still won't eliminate Anarchism unless I hear his argument fully. Waiting.

[@spikelou]

It's a long haul with Michael Malice. I have watched and listened to him for maybe 10 years and I can't recall an instance of him laying out his pitch for anarchism from top to bottom. He has had a few talks with Glenn Beck and with Lex Fridman where he talked a lot about his views on anarchism.

[@sillygoose4472]

He's always intentionally withholding and fills the gap of information with charisma, it's suspect

[@spikelou]

He would agree with you. He is quite charming.

[@Purple_Freedom_Ninja]

@@sillygoose4472 The central planner wants an answer for every single minutia whereas the individualist is often satisfied with the answer, "freedom would probably do it better, and it would DEFINITELY do it more morally."

[@davejoe75]

"Where's it been tried before by a nation state govt..." is the typical statist retort to anarchist claims.

[@manaceschavez7165]

Excellent discussion, thankful that Dr. Peterson is willing to wrestle with what he doesn't understand on the fly. Thankful for Micheal Malice who also came incredibly prepared.

[@ironheadedDoF]

I like that Peterson is still in search for meaning, answers, and wisdom and unafraid to share that quest with people. I think it's endearing.

[@rocketpig1914]

​@@ironheadedDoF naturally. He's trying to save the world

[@Wholly_Fool]

Listening is often more important than talking. Nietzsche has a quote where he says something like "Why would I need to think long on something that can be intuited quickly?"

[@SubvertTheState]

Right ok ok ok that's fair, I want to elaborate this completely

[@Wholly_Fool]

@@SubvertTheState thats NO JOKE.

[@tabithaheiydt6888]

I think Rand's Book ,The Virtue of Selfishness, should probably be read in conjunction with her other books. I would love for Dr. Peterson to read it and then revisit this conversation with Mr. Malice.

[@cd43]

“Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own NEEDS and values.” - Ayn Rand

[@thomasdequincey5811]

This is why I love Jordan Peterson. It's the exploration of knowledge to get to something deeper that interests him.

[@ironheadedDoF]

Mmhmm.. the Quest and Journey, not lording over the destination.

[@windycityjohn400]

Literally on the edge of his seat with excitement about the possibility of a good discussion leading to better, more thorough understanding.

[@CleverGirlAAH]

@@windycityjohn400 yeeeeess. Hehehe. My favorite part. He's nearing his crescendo hahaha

[@gramofancapisce2208]

I've never been so excited for a podcast in my whole-ass life.

[@therainman7777]

What’s an ass life?

[@luckyrockmore2796]

You and your brain have just won the internet

[@spaced-outbutterfly4680]

11:14 guiding way I learned to differentiate between individual and hedonism is that in the kasi people are socially integrated and all forms of passion are reduced to encourage average brilliant self expression. In the urban areas, there is still a need to integrate individuals into societal expectations outside of occupational and socioeconomic culture and a high passionate expression, somewhat too passionate 12:02 recognize is the protagonist that leads to interest. There's different forms to supporting 14:23

[@drcrowlee]

How do I simultaneously agree with both of them 100%. I'm having an aneurysm

[@jodag3475]

I'm so glad Malice is back on JBP!!!! I was afraid he wouldn't return after a previous video... for some reason I thought they didn't click together. I'm wrong again

[@blitzblade7222]

I love these clips Jordan please keep em comin!

[@flirm777]

What a treat. Love both of these guys.

[@saturnfivehynrgrc581]

Fascinating conversation.

[@russ8001]

100% with MM and appreciate the genuine attempt to convey his problems with Rand from JP. I have many friends who, to oversimplify it, went anti-Rand because they did not perceive the difference between selfish without soul from selfish with integrity. To many selfish automatically means cruel and even another hero of mine, Christopher Hitchen's seems to have made this error regarding Rand. Rand is, I think now, far more of a prophet and far more of a person of integrity than so many intellectuals of today. Sort of like how JFK would be rejected out of hand by today's democratic party for being too conservative.

[@gregorywitcher5618]

I want it elaborated completely as well. Looking forward to the whole shabang.

[@ivanideanow]

Can’t wait for the full episode!

[@Razear]

Reminds me of the OG Wolf of Wall St. where Garden Gekko delivers his "greed is good" speech. Self-interest has always been the primary motivating driver of progression. Without an incentive, there's no progress.

[@_s.4785]

I think there's a distinction people fail to make, and thats between short and long term self interest. Long term self interest diverges wildly from short term self interest and encompasses a great deal more care and concern for community and relationships than short term self interest. I've heard it presented before defined as "self interest properly understood". As Dr. Peterson is fond of saying, "the devil is in the details" and this is true for what acts or qualifies as an incentive regarding one's self interest as well

[@ericguynga]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 The chairs! I'm dying...🤣😂☠💀

[@stevendouglas3781]

A third party enforcement arm is still the state. Its either complete darwinism, or the same system we just don’t say the word government when dealing with people who do that job.

[@OmarFKuri]

0:25 "I 100% regard myself as an anarchism"

[@magdalenasharee2551]

He considers arbitrarily-imposed grammar rules to be a violation of his personal self-interest.

[@bigboymamba]

me giving a presentation why lobsterism is my politic point of view to a class of half a sleep kids in junior high at 6 am.

[@adamlee2550]

I 100% regard myself as an anarchism. Malice is the best

[@TheVeillin]

This is the best duo

[@alanschaub147]

I’m really enjoying these conversations.

[@nadagainagain4987]

It means "without rulers". Good ideas dont require force. The only authority is earned and situational , you dont ask a carpenter to fix the toilet. All things should be voluntary.

[@stevendouglas3781]

Who is going to enforce me to not enforce you?

[@extremeTV001]

I cant friggin wait to hear the rest of this beautiful conversation, I think Im way smarter than I currently fully realize but am also and always have been aware, that my mind is simply much different than your average person, I love this, thanks to you both so much :)

[@danielfurgason770]

Remind yourself that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.

[@anacc3257]

Using the comments to compliment yourself😂

[@brandonvanl9002]

Thinking your smarter than the averages is a good sign that the complete opposite is much more likely. Try reading about the Dunning Kruger effect smartypants

[@extremeTV001]

@brandonvanl9002 wow lol I was stupid enough to think their was like minded folk here, you all react to the first reply, go back read my comment with a compassionate mind and a soft non arragent voice and maybe just maybe youll see it in a non selfish way. I was lifting myself up thinking i was around others like myself that parts on me Take care man, all the best

[@danielfurgason770]

@@extremeTV001 Dude relax, bragging about your own intelligence is a bit cringy that's all. I'm sure you are smart just tone it down a bit.

[@user-yr3hu1ug7r]

i enjoyed this entire interview/discussion. The older I get..the more I see Michael's point of view.

[@brianliebel3257]

The only things that are necessary for “Anarchism,individualism, Voluntarism to work are humility and love of neighbor.

[@gabrielWachong]

This is perfect timing as Im writing my comic book about anarchism! I have been following Mr. Malice for a while and am a big fan of his views. Also Chomsky has a great video essay about the importance of anarchism as a functional and necessary part of a healthy society. 💪💪🔥🔥

[@sleezyclips8068]

Isn’t every government in the world just the natural result of anarchism? It seems fairly obvious that anywhere anarchism existed, tribalism formed out of it and out of tribalism came imperialism and so on and so forth until you inevitably have governments as big as technology allows. Not that I’m advocating for current systems by any stretch, just remarking on their inevitability. I don’t see how getting rid of government would achieve anything. It wouldn’t be long until some group takes over and institutes tyranny.

[@gabrielWachong]

@@sleezyclips8068 that's a very interesting insight! 🤯🤯 I don't deny there is a repeating cycle of creation and destruction for every civilization, maybe for anything in general. However claiming that it is the product of anarchy seems not entirely correct to me. You see, from what you are proposing, it appears you are taking anarchy to be equivalent to chaos. If so then I would agree with your statement, since I do believe there is a cycle of chaos, order, chaos and so on. However I don't associate anarchy with chaos by default and in fact propose that anarchy is a form of functional order. The association with chaos is by design, to make people scared of freedom since they associate it with destruction and chaos. However I can't deny freedom can definitely degenerate into chaos very quickly, if there is not a proper code to follow. But if you must follow a code are you truly free? Well for that I would point you to Natural Law. If you understand these ancient principles, then you will see that ultimate freedom means ultimate responsibility, you are free to act whichever way you wish but you are not free from the consequences of your actions. It is my belief that if we were all to learn and practice this principles we could fashion a system where freedom exists and people are still responsible enough to properly function as a society. But the whole rabbit hole of "anarchy" goes very deep, hell even the the term itself and its original proposition is muddied with conspiracy and likely it was conceived as way to create social chaos in the revolutionary france or Russia or maybe its a concept that goes farther back in time perhaps with a different name. Anarchy is derived from the greek An Archon, meaning no masters, but Archon is also closely related to Gnosticism and their creation myth, that proposes a group of higher dimensional beings highjacking creation and making us believe in them as Gods, this can also be related to Hebrew myths of fallen angels and so on. Sorry for the super long reply 😅😅 you made a good observation and got me thinking, this is a fascinating subject to say the least. Just a little edit: the founding of the US and its constitution, as well as pretty much all of the symbols like in the flag, bills, crests, monument's etc is riddled with symbolism and imagery of Natural Law, so its clear the founding fathers were aware of it and held it very dear to their principles. This is the same for many other counties as well.

[@sleezyclips8068]

@@gabrielWachong my basic understanding of anarchy is that, at its core, it requires the absence of government and relies on humans acting in their own self interest. In a world where people act with integrity and think of self interest in the long term (multiple generations) I think anarchy makes sense. My perspective is coming from looking at historical forms of anarchy. For example, native Americans before the arrival of Europeans basically lived in a form of anarchy. There was no centralized government. When left to their own devices, they formed bonds with groups of about 120 or so people. It’s interesting because that seems to be the upper limit for groups of people to be able to live in harmony. There are some books on the matter written by psychologists. But if that pattern is a result of innate human behavior as it seems to be, what happens is those groups tend to work really well amongst themselves, but then they tend to war quite vociferously with other groups to fight over resources. I don’t know how that behavior is avoidable without altering the entire genetic makeup of humans. And if we’re doing that, we may as well just theorize about being able to fly, right? Edit: the number is actually 150. The concept is called Dunbar’s number if you’re interested in researching it. The general thing I propose is that, once you form a close bond with your inner most group, you will act only in the best interest of that group, even to the detriment of rest of the world. So the closest sub group is typically about 12 close friends/family. You’d probably kill 2 one of your other 150 closest associates to save one of those 12. You’d also probably kill 2 fandoms to save one of those 150 and so on and so forth. This is basically the evolutionary force driving us into tribes. Once tribes form, it is basically inevitable they will war with other tribes. As technology increases, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that, in order to protect your tribe, you need to ally with other tribes. As your alliance becomes bigger, you need more resources and you need a system to unify the larger group that isn’t inherently tied together like the original 150 were. So on and so forth until you get to today and wherever else we’re headed. I think a global government is basically unavoidable barring some catastrophe that causes a technological reset.

[@gabrielWachong]

@@sleezyclips8068 I had observed that anarchy worked best in small groups as well, I didn't know there is a name for that behavior. I'll definitely look it up! 🙌🙌 I don't deny there are innumerable pitfalls that would degenerate any society that is anarchical in nature into tribal wars. However that is why Natural Law is so important, it provides a set of universal values that exists regardless of any ideology or societal formation. If different tribes, regardless of their practices and beliefs, are aware of natural law and provided they are not self destructive or pathological, then the different tribes of 150 would be able to co exist peacefully. Bear in mind Natural Law is an ancient teaching that has transcended multiple great civilizations and is a core of the founding of our current "great" civilization, however its our departure from these teachings that is deteriorating our society. I also agree that currently anarchy is not functional, as it would require multiple generations of proper education in values and natural law of course. In the meantime however there are ways of implementing anarchy in more functional ways, one such way is anarcho capitalism, which proposes the free market as the way to regulate society. Of course there are always pitfalls, after all how free is the free market really? 😅

[@gabrielWachong]

@@sleezyclips8068 also please not a centralized world govt! That would be the worst outcome of all 😅😅

[@name._..-.]

2 minutes before upload of interview, i am excited

[@tarzaan2603]

Now this content is quite interesting to me, i really want more of this guy! We think a lot alike.

[@ironheadedDoF]

Do you mean Michael Malice? Please investigate his books, his podcasts, and his self-proclaimed twitter trolling. :D

[@Bhanna4d]

Malice is Legit....by far my favorite author right now

[@humanreactionpod]

We want the whole episode!!

[@tjwoosta]

The full episode came out before this, it's just on the main channel, this is the clips channel. It's linked in the description.

[@brumbybailey6599]

Ooooh, interesting * making notes for my allegory *

[@Bloodstoner]

The hilarious part about the "social climber" type is that they will typify the "ends justify the means" personality type to a tee but if you sit them down and ask them what exactly that "end" is there isn't one. It never ends; the goalposts disappear to the horizon as long as someone in the world has more than them. The meanest means toward absolutely no end at all with no end in sight!

[@Sandra_Speddro.]

Homage to Catalonia (Spain), by Grorge Oewell. A tribute to the anarchist revolutionaries during the Spainish Civil war (1936-1939).

[@lightborn9071]

I believe in the existence and the influence of the seven deadly sins. Even when you have a commune of people who only follow their own goals, there will be those who envy them and they will either try to take from others or disable them from using or possessing their goods.

[@JackAtkins-xz5wi]

No human doctors, priests, Allah, God or Jesus Christ will ever cure a permanent psychosis.

[@veehope2702]

You've just described the government.

[@heydudebroman]

AMEN if you got the highest agreement in that conversation.

[@BillPark-ey6ih]

Doed anyone know where that place is? It looks cool

[@CleverGirlAAH]

I imagine this is how a stage play of Jefferson and Adams writing each other would look. Two men silhouetted in light in their desk chairs parrying dialogue for and hour and a half. Hehehe.

[@TimBitts649]

Michael Malice is someone I need to hear a lot more of. A very original mind. Why isn't he writing a book about Harvard? If he crowd funded to come up with a project like that I'd put money in the collection plate.

[@tuckerbugeater]

he's boring and unoriginal

[@TimBitts649]

My brother hates potatoes. @@tuckerbugeater

[@Hiberno_sperg]

​@@tuckerbugeaterhe is a hack. Angela Nagle penned "Kill all Normies" about the Alt Right and message board culture and he came out with a shitty libertarian version of the same book "The New right".

[@sourcedirect4467]

just like you @@tuckerbugeater

[@ronpaulrevered]

You should talk to Michael Malice's friend Tom Woods about Libertarian Anarchy for an entire show. I think you would enjoy conversation with him.

[@waynemortimer5968]

Rationalization is a process of not perceiving reality but of attempting to make reality fit one’s emotions. - Ayn Rand

[@dalibofurnell]

Wow. Excellent

[@zn9861]

Love Michael Malice!

[@jtjones4081]

So no breaking up big tech then?

[@8Mev]

That is a level of intellectual exchange of the highest value

[@davionknight4074]

would you mind to add the caption? my listening is not that good.

[@patrickgravel9261]

Always insight full and thought provoking .

[@jairsan08]

Some of my interests may be altruistic and others selfish, but in any case they are my interests, and it is not advisable to be either completely altruistic or selfish. In the end, even the completely selfish has incentives to be altruistic to some extent. Furthermore, you cannot force someone to be altruistic, the only thing you can force someone to do is respect other people's private property.

[@robertflyingheart2427]

Some live a completely 'selfless life' and get targeted by the selfish💯 socio-psycho-paths

[@jtjones4081]

Always. I forget, how much did Christ charge per speaking engagement?

[@chesterg.791]

I wish this discussion revolved around Rothbard's philosophy. I believe the Misesean praxeological approach combined with natural law theory is much more logical and epistimologically centered. It lays a much better groundwork for an ethical argument than Rand's philosophy. Mises and Rothbard herald over Rand when it comes to intellectual thinking IMO. I think Malice stays away from Rothbard because he doesn't want to be branded as "anarcho-capitalist".

[@stuarthenry3157]

I believe Malice is very fond of the praxeologic method. He includes a Rothbard essay in The Anarchist Handbook. Likewise, he has also spoken at the Property and Freedom Society in 2018 where he personally interviewed Professor Hoppe.

[@BboyKeny]

Finally Malice + Peterson

[@overtexpression2299]

While I would like to see an independent perspective from Malice, I have never seen it expressed by him. There is definitely value in critique, but it only goes so far unless there is something to replace what it being critiqued. I think that Malice can be put in the same general category as people like Tim Dillon: extremely funny people with amazing wit and knowledge, but ultimately focused on provocation and derivative critique, which again, has value. Still, as is said again and again by those in this sphere, deconstruction is much less difficult than construction. I would very much like to see these types express a system of positive belief.

[@Mooja12]

He literally describes his perceptive in the first minute of the video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/apyYgn-Dh817Z6c

[@overtexpression2299]

@Mooja12 I'll just go ahead and quote the first minute of that video, and maybe you could tell me which part presents an independent perspective in place of mere critique: Malice: 00:20 "Well I don't know that I have a vision per say. I'm not a social planner, but what anarchism means to me-and I do regard myself as an archist(sic)-is it is an approach to life. It is an approach to treating people peacefully; it is a recognition that political authority is inherently illegitimate (athough somtimes it is powerful); and it is regarding our existence as an amazing opportunity and to live life to its fullest, and to realize that to take that away from somebody else is a huge moral outrage. So that is kind of what anarchism means to me". Peterson specifically asked if he could present any viable alternatives, to which Malice immediately responds by saying that he doesn't have any, then goes on to state that "political authority is inherently illegitimate". Given this claim, one would wonder at the now-cliche basic questions of viable national defense, infrastructure management, prevention of interpersonal violence, etc. These are just a few of the most basic of questions which I have seen Malice constantly dodge, leading me to see him as a mere provocateur and critic. Even to the point of being nieve. Just as the communists are able to make legitimate critiques of the Capitalistic economic systems, they fail to present viable alternatives. But in the end, maybe you can point out what I am missing in that first minute.

[@Mooja12]

@@overtexpression2299 His perspective is that central planning doesn't work. Government is non-consensual and therefore evil. Everything that government does can be done better and more efficiently via voluntary exchange. But it doesn't sound like you want his perspective. You want him to solve specific societal problems in a way that doesn't use threats of violence against otherwise peaceful people (i.e. government). If he could do that, it would be a really good argument that he should be made King Ruler. Because no one has that knowledge. You call that a dodge. I call that reality. Have you heard the "Who would pick the cotton argument?" It goes like this. Imagine yourself back in 1850's and I tell you "Slavery is non-consensual and evil and it should be abolished." Your first question would be. "But who would pick the cotton??? I want you to tell me a exactly how you would provide a viable alternative to picking cotton that doesn't involve slavery before i'm going to get on board!!!" Like that even matters. Slavery is evil. I don't feel any need to lay out detailed plans on how the cotton will be picked without slavery. Just stop being evil. BUT if back in 1850 I could see the future and I told you exactly how the cotton would be picked it would go something like this. "No worries friend, the cotton will be picked by enormous metal machines that each cost as much as an average house. The machines run by exploding dead dinosaur juice that we pump out of the ground. The machines will navigate by receiving invisible messages from other machines that orbit the Earth in outer-space.." !!! If I told you this back in 1850 you would call me insane and would try to have me committed. But that is exactly the reality of how cotton will be picked. The voluntary free market figured out how to do this and none of it required threats of violence against peaceful people. So when you ask "But how will this specific thing be done without government?" I would answer "1: Voluntarily. 2. If I told you exactly how it would actually be done in the future you would likely call me insane."

[@overtexpression2299]

@Mooja12 The answer to this hypothetical question seems simple to me: In 1850, the Capitalistic model of economics had already largely succeeded in revolutionizing the relations between owners and workers. This is one primary reason why the South had already been in drastic economic decline for decades in contrast to the gross productivity of the North. Slavery was not only a moral outrage, but was irrational given the observable productivity of the Capitalistic wage/labor model. When slavory began, it was seen as necessity, but by 1850 it was largely maintained as a dying point of cultural pride and tradition among many Southern landowners. I would argue that the elimination of slavory was yes, taken up by many as a point of moral principle, was also possible only because there was in fact a very particular viable alternative, being the wage/labor model. As for feeling no need to provide viable alternatives to those systems which are seen as "inherently immoral", would you see an essential difference in method between the anarchist approach to this issue, and that which caused the famines which ended in starvation of five million Ukrainians after the Soviet blockade of their agricultural regions? These were done in name of moral principle, that being the communistic theory, which was seen as morally evident by many, while at the same time no viable alternative was found to replace the economic systems which it destroyed in order to satisfy this "moral clarity".

[@overtexpression2299]

@Mooja12 As one more opinion, I would say that we live in a world in which we are simply obligated to live with certain moral comprimises, and that an unwillingness to accept those comprimises is what makes up the "Utopian minset", which lead to the worst atrocities in history, and which Malice often rails against. True moral courage, in my opinion, is found in those who work to find viable alternatives so that we are able to make those comprimises less morally ambigious.

[@DanIel-fl1vc]

Their intellectual strength in so far as it is a strength is extending simple stuff into long monologues. Could take the entire transcript of this, feed it to an AI and ask it to explain it in a single paragraph with a toddler's prose.

[@SuperChrisDub]

The world' may be chaotic, at least to a human mind, and it seems to remain chaotic despite and maybe even because of our best efforts to bring order to it. I sometimes think that it is not chaotic but its patterns are too complex for us to understand. Our need to bring order can be seen as putting forth low-resolution theories about high-resolution topics. But it seems we don't like chaos but we need chaos as much as we need the order. But it is an eternal balancing act. Too much order results in stagnation at which point we subconsciously create chaos. Look at the world now if you don't believe me. The most ordered societies are being made more chaotic because we instinctly know we need some chaos but don't know how express that constructively. But it will be hell if there is too much chaos. One of the things I agree with JP on is that we humans tend to organise themselves into hierarchies. People tend to forget that we are still mammals and not apart from the animals, existing as pure intellect. We all like to think that we have total free will. It is very self-flattering but psychologists agree that 70-80% of our motivations are subconscious and, in my view, subject to our evolutionary animal motivations. We have hardware as well as software. And the hardware is much more deeply rooted than the software. The software is subject to restrictions of the hardware.

[@stillraven9415]

How about ignore right/left and just go by good/bad.

[@ianx-cast6289]

Self-interest is subordinate to morals, therefore the best society is one where people pursue a virtuous life.

[@mr.bright_side]

Here's a lead for Jordan: Hedonism leads to self-destruction. Self-destruction is self-interested? Hedoonism is not selfish.

[@David-rk5jy]

Why did it have to end when the conversation was getting interesting 😂😂

[@jmeds94]

Acting in self-interest is still adjacent to hedonism. Even if it isn’t predicated on need.

[@johns9969]

I like these discussions more than Peterson's mental gymnastics to make some Old Testament story universal.

[@frigoff1841]

By mental gymnastics, do you mean reading? Something you haven’t bothered to do.

[@CVsnaredevil]

Malice! 🙌🏼

[@alz.7716]

One problem with self-interest is that people aren't perfect (or sometimes any good at all) about predicting what actions actually result in fulfilling their self-interests. It's not a formula for Utopia as Michael Malice implied in this discussion.

[@bruceblizard1491]

Maybe. But a society based on pursuing self-interest comes closer than the statist model, which by definition has to blunt a good person's self-interested inclinations.

[@alz.7716]

@@bruceblizard1491 I'd phrase it as a society based upon voluntary action rather than the more nebulous concept of self-interest. Of course, there's the issue of what is voluntary when so many people are so susceptible to making decisions made based upon manufactured consent.

[@Tenebrousable]

Yeah it propably is better that you ask Cocaine Mitch McConnel and Joe Biden, what should you do with yourself.

[@Mooja12]

"People aren't perfect." Is an argument for an individual deciding for themselves. If "people aren't perfect" then there is no reason for them to be deciding things for others. And FYI - he's not arguing for Utopia. He's arguing for voluntary and consensual relationships between individuals. It's not a Utopia because people will still do bad things. It's just that the people who do bad things won't be able to hide behind a legitimate government to do those bad things. They have to do bad things WITHOUT the protection of "authority".

[@alz.7716]

@@Mooja12 go back and listen to him quote Ayn Rand stating that there would be no motivation for people to act deviously, in a system based upon self-interest. Then ask yourself what the difference is between people acting voluntarily versus people acting upon "self-interest". Were the mask Karens acting voluntarily? Were they acting based upon their self-interest?

[@MrJesseBell]

The most important conversation you ever had in your life

[@nickpaul3623]

Say $ equals resources, I am but a poor amazon delivery driver. However my true currency is knowledge. Just like my knowledge there is vast vast resources on this earth and being poor I have very little in comparison. I also consider my self a philosopher of sorts in the original meaning however out of all the vast knowledge out there on this planet I have less knowledge in my mind then resources in the purse.

[@LoveOneAnotherHeSaid]

Rule of Law, Buster. I wonder what having 100% of knowledge would feel like? A Hindu sage said we would explode if we had that totality of awareness. Kaboom? Michael Malice is the best of listeners, and is thinking while listening, a very rare capacity in anyone. He would be a fabulous friend.

[@keldsports8337]

The issue with self interest is that it can fall into utopia status. For example, if everyone were to follow their own self interest today, we’d have nothing but entertainers and influencers and not enough plumbers and bricklayers. An actual issue in modern western society. I guess the counterpoint is that not everyone is acting on said self interest and everything will fall into place. This is further complicated by the internet. For example, if you were the son of a bricklayer, that’s the only world you knew and thus followed in that path. It provided a good living, that’s what you’re fated to do in life. You had no idea what being a filmmaker would entail, even if you occasionally went to the movie theatre. And even if you had the inclination, cameras and film stock and lighting were exorbitantly expensive and impossible to accomplish without said resources. But, now, anyone can do it with just a smartphone and cheap Amazon lights. So, the question is how to we balance self interest and the overall needs of society so it doesn’t disintegrate? It’s something we never asked ourselves and it’s something the Musks of the world, who are stand-ins for the John Galts of Rand’s work, don’t even contemplate. Unfortunately, compared to more pressing issues threatening us with annihilation, this topic is but a drop in the bucket.

[@kusler67]

I think maybe the issue with this example is that your definition of self interest doesn't allow for reward. Kids will become very self interested in bricklaying when they hear the wage is $150,000 per year. The market insists that reward will be placed in the right area. As soon as there is an imbalance between influencers and bricklayers, the bricklayer wage will rise quickly. We are already seeing this with the ever increasing wages of skilled tradespeople. (Call a plumber and see how much they're charging) Also the influencer model is one in which 99% of individuals will make zero dollars and most people will drop the interest in it rather quickly. (Most youtube channels have closer to 0 views than 1000.)

[@keldsports8337]

@@kusler67 I think you misunderstand my point, though I wasn’t exactly clear. I allowed for reward in my example. The point is that brick laying is brutally hard work that the new breed doesn’t want to adopt. No amount of money makes a difference if you can’t perform the task at hand. Now, truth be told, there are those who will be bricklayers and have no interest in fame, but I think that proportion is warped now. For example, home ownership is at an all time low in western countries, fulfilling the wef’s agenda. Truth be told, many younger people could own homes if they lived outside major urban cities. I live in the middle of nowhere Canada and when I was young, there were homes every half mile. My closest neighbour now is five miles away and his, another five etc. Land in such areas are relatively cheap and small homes can be built affordably also. Small towns are dying as kids flock to major urban centres. Even if they took lesser paying jobs in these towns, financially they would be better off and could own homes. But, the fame and glitter entices them. I know this from firsthand experience. Self interest is driving a lot of this, the phenomenon of the grass is greener and the stigma of rural centres as less then and ignorant and bigoted. It’s not a simple issue and definitely multi-faceted. The implementation of the digital economy has crushed the analog economy, even though the digital one produces little, if anything, of value. And in this space, the culture shifts dramatically and self interest becomes an albatross. It’s akin to Marx’s worker paradise - a utopia that can never exist. And in the span of a generation, the knowledge and tools to maintain infrastructure and society at large can be lost and with it, the end of civilization as we know it. And no amount of reward can help when there isn’t even enough food to feed even half the population. Hyperinflation has gutted countries in the past and seems primed to repeat on a global scale. Now, obviously this is not what Malice intents but I believe it’s what JP is getting at. Rand didn’t believe in altruism, as the self interests of these super elites are meant to be their spoils, but as JP had mentioned before, the balance of society falters when the disparity between the richest and poorest reaches a disproportionate level. Without some kind of balance, the wicked can prey on these deficiencies in society to their benefit. As self interest can be inherently individualist, it can also be perverted to be Marxist. These wicked elites used identity Marxism to twist self interest so lived experience trumps basic truth and facts. So, long story short, be careful in your interests, the self may very well be at stake. Thanks for taking the time to read my long winded pseudo parable

[@kusler67]

Hey I appreciate it, that's one hell of a parable! Interestingly enough I grew up the exact same way in rural Canada with homes every few miles! Weird. I can agree with what you're saying especially about small towns. The difference I see is that I think we have reached peak urbanization and will see a resergence of the small town. Mostly because the numbers will force it if we keep allowing 1.5 million immigrants per year into Canada. The affordability of the 5 cities in Canada will be unattainable for most and the small town will be very enticing. "No amount of money makes a difference if you can't perform the task at hand." I can't abide this line. Because if we take it to an extreme of say, $250,000/year salary, everyone and their dog will be lining up to learn bricklaying. The next generation isn't so dense that they will turn down that kind of money. Keep your stick on the ice!

[@keldsports8337]

@@kusler67 Hopefully your view becomes the prevailing one. I’m not so optimistic as you can tell 😂 I’ll keep my stick on the ice, you never know when the puck will stray your way, good day!

[@WisdomFromAshes]

Dr Peterson, I think you read Ryand too fast. It took me 6 months just to get through Atlas shrugged. And that is because it required that I go over and over some of her points until I deeply understood it. I understood she was making very philosophical points, which you seem to have missed.

[@via_negativa6183]

Two of my most favourite people on the planet. You just need to drop this idea pf everyone having to have a digital ID. JP. it can only lead to a dark place..

[@VelkePivo]

One has to say, Malice was pretty light on what an anarchist world would look like. "Emphasis on the individual is what anarchism means to me" isn't especially convincing as an actual model.

[@spikelou]

This was a fluid conversation rather than a interview so I think it may have been fleshed out more during the entire talk. If not, he has had many discussions about anarchy in many different conversations with many different people.

[@degenerate82]

what the hell else is there if not individual rights?

[@imnotanalien7839]

Fascinating interview on Ayn Rand. Her atheism, I don’t think can work for a society as a whole. That is what the U.S. is encountering. A multitude of individual self interests, with no moral or ethical underpinning. There has to be a cultural glue. In Africa also, the society is fragmented, their is no common cultural glue. They are forever corrupt, and break apart and fight!

[@Killer_Kovacs]

My experience with people is that most of them don't pursue mutual interest, ethical interest, or selfish interest.

[@therussianbot1237]

Ayn Rand is attractive on the one hand but there’s also something off. Interesting conversation!

[@ElHolyBoy]

Is it my birthday? Cuz this is quite the gift. Michael is #anarchistbae

[@purplemashine9122]

I honestly don't know what they are talking about, but I love watching smart humans talk lol😂

[@wscottcarter]

Did Doc dye his eyebrows?

[@thucydides7849]

Classical liberals, like myself, tend to sympathize with anarchists due to our shared value of individualism. The key difference is that the classical liberal gives value to political authority when it is by the consent of the governed. What we can all agree on, however, is that the government is doing a great many things without the consent of the governed. The way they see it, we voted for them, so anything they do is justified and for our best interest.

[@waffleswafflson3076]

Its funny arguing who is left or right when these words dont actually mean anything

[@stuartlamothe9368]

Left foot, right foot as we stumble into the future

[@JackBeNimble-fb1fn]

Self-Interest works within a social structure, and translates to simple 'Rational Action' relative to the law abiding individual. Anarchists lack a foundation of big picture economics, and don't act within the bounds of social integrity rationally. Therefore, by default they lack personal integrity in the eyes of society, and are social outcasts. The solution to that condition is to seek out exhaustive education in the field of business & societal economics. But if they did that, they'd have to sacrifice their own belief in their innate genius (narcissism)... so they'd rather listen to themselves talk, no matter how incompletely their ideas describe the world.

[@Andrei99k]

Roarke was the Nietzsche`s ubermensch. A will in itself.

[@TheOraclesPearls]

Ayn Rand, have not heard that name since I read her books decades ago. Awesome.

[@TheOraclesPearls]

Thanks for the correction.

[@rodrigoribeiro387]

Cucuteni tripyllian entusiast!

[@jonschmitt232]

Wish the great man would let Michael speak for longer moments.

[@jerubaal101]

To be fair Michael said a lot of things that needed a lot of unpacking.

[@afarwiththedawning4495]

Crucial discussion here as we are now in a time of flux politically in the US. A complete overhaul is coming.

[@hhhhippo]

Malice has an emotional block that doesn't recognize violence/mechanical force as an emergent law. Organisms are bound to it and must incorporate it, it's a law of physics. Use violence to prevent suffering, or use it to increase suffering, there's no third option. His own consciousness is forced on the cells of his body, society is forced on human cells. Malice has a need for separation from reality because of how much trauma he's seen/experienced. Saving a person from violence is more rewarding than escaping to an island and ignoring it, someone needs to help Malice see this.

[@brianomoli4]

This is just meaningless mental masturbation. Using violence to prevent suffering? Thats mighty white of you. According to Buddha, LIFE is suffering. You aren’t as smart or clever as you think you are.

[@bobnevels9125]

No. I'm a United States citizen defending the rights of Citizens of the United States through logic and experience.

[@wyredmusic]

I love how MM is such an intellectual agent of chaos. He makes the world’s intellectuals stumble to try to prove him wrong

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

Just saw on andy ngo a judge mocking this guy "you need to get a taste of something else" and the guy jumped her and beat her. I laughed so hard. She only has authority because of guys with guns. But she was not being professional. And we all deify judges as if they're the penultimate authority, amlost godlike. Criticizing a judge is a no-no, despite teh fact they have so much power over others and are still fallible, sometimes evil, humans.

[@andrewhobbins1915]

To me

[@ResoluteRonin]

We have created a society that cultivates ego.

[@markwren8260]

cool

[@bd6912]

Why should I go to the *_Left_* where nothing's right Why should I go to the *_Right_* where nothing's left

[@devinmillican2873]

Randian philosophy falls apart in pretty spectacular fashion the moment it comes into contact with the fact that there's no such thing as objective moral truth. In fact, pretty much every ideology crumbles in the face of that reality. Ultimately, might makes right. I understand that this is an incredibly difficult and inconvenient pill to swallow for 99% of the world's population, but it's objectively true. No matter how you cut the cake, you will inevitably wind up with people who have irreconcilable values and are therefore incapable of coexisting peacefully with one another.

[@DMilbury]

If you had a 6 year old daughter and she was raped, beaten, and left to suffer and die alone in a remote forest, would you consider that to be objectively morally wrong, even if there was a neighbouring culture that considered it morally right to do that to people outside of their culture? Do you believe there is any kind of objective truth?

[@devinmillican2873]

@DMilbury Of course, there's objective truth, but there's no objective moral truth. Morals are guided by our values, and values are inherently subjective. The closest thing you can have a relatively objective standard of morality is if you have a culture of people who all share the same fundamental hierarchy of values. A particular moral/ethic can only be relatively objective in so far as it serves a specific value and/or set of values. Even then, it's only "objective" in a utilitarian sense.

[@DMilbury]

@@devinmillican2873 I can see why you wouldn’t want to answer my question in regards to the scenario I proposed, but it really just exposes the emptiness of your view of morality. Cultural agreement on a moral issue doesn’t make it objective. Objectivity rises above culture, which is why I posed the scenario above. A moral good or bad is still a moral good or bad, regardless of its utility.

[@devinmillican2873]

@DMilbury I figured your question was rhetorical because the answer to your question was in my first comment. In fact, I just spent 2 full posts explaining that there's no such thing as objective moral truth, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your question was rhetorical. My only other option was to assume that you don't know how the English language works. You would make the same assumptions if I asked you what your favorite color is in response to a post where you clearly explained what your favorite color is.

[@DMilbury]

@@devinmillican2873 The point was for you to take subjective ownership of what most people would consider one of the most heinous things that could be done. Ok, so you think that raping, beating, and leaving a seven year old girl for dead is morally good as long as the culture or society it happens in thinks it is good. Noted. Just claiming there is no moral objectivity doesn’t make it so. Explain why you think my scenario is morally subjective and would not rise above a subjective cultural opinion into the realm of objectivity. You have nothing to say about my point that cultural agreement on a moral issue doesn’t make it objective? That is the whole point of something being objective, but according to your comments you seem to think objectivity can be reached by consensus. You have nothing to say about my statement that a moral good or bad is still a moral good or bad, regardless of its utility? Usefulness is not the measure of whether or not something is right or wrong, but hey, that is what happens when you’re stuck in nihilistic world view. Talk back about my points instead of just ignoring them and suggesting my understanding of English is lacking.

[@Shlogger]

"Give em' hell Joker.."

[@dalelerette206]

Good equals Good, and there is no other way. When we freely share our concerns, our reciprocal cooperation phases through any mental blockages, discovering what lays past the fourth wall of what we know. Many fellow Catholics got it all wrong. God judges us in proportion to that which was revealed to us. To the one much has been given, much will be expected. Stan Lee probably said it best, "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility." To those who demand we must believe there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe, I say to reject their view for the toxic wasteland it is. You don’t just assume everything is meaningless, or that we can invent truths to suit or whims. Evil would be the privation of Good. Good defines itself. And good does not require evil to know it exists. There is no evil. And evil will certainly not be able to save itself as it burns away forever into its own non-existence. The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. -Flannery O'Connor

[@ElroyMunson]

A teaser would call this a teaser ...

[@eviljeanyis]

A lot of interesting discussion. But the idea that implementing anarchism world wide would eliminate war is ridiculous.

[@candycanessongs]

Book sales.

[@JadedHunter]

It's funny that JP just doesn't get it.