We are celebrating Studio’s 1000th Podcast! Today, Jeffrey talks about what “The Revenant” Shows About Morality: It’s Not Possible without Markets.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  •   This was required reading at Lewis and Clark Law School back in 1976. It poses some interesting issues. Might be a good basis for discussion.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The next Capitalism & Morality seminar will be held in Vancouver on 21st July 2018. The program is in early stages, but it is easier and cheaper to book flights and hotel for Vancouver early. Here is the seminar registration link:

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • How does a libertarian society deal with both criminal negligence, negligent homicide, negligent driving and negligence in general? This is the point where most disputes lie within libertarianism because NAP non aggression principle assumes intentional aggression. Most of the biggest problems are not because A agresses on B but because A is either ignorant of the risks or disbelieves past warnings. Ignorant is a word people often use without thinking. It does not mean the same thing as stupid, a child or just wrong. It means, particularly in the biblical phase willingly ignorant, taking a risk that may affect others badly. Where these effects are direct its easy, sue the idiot, where they are distant, time or place, its much harder. How do you know who to sue? Should Bill have the right to drive dangerously on the road, given the starting premise that its a private road, and by his actions risk harming others and imposing a significant enforcement cost, etc, on the roads owners? At the very least raised insurance premiums, tolls and other pricing, etc. This is the root of all moral debates. Should Jenny have sex willy nilly spreading VD about the place and thus costing others via the hospital and medical costs and insurances. Its also at the heart of the vaccine debate. Are non vaccinating parents negligent or are vaccination parents risking a 0.1% chance of an Autistic kid? How does a libertarian society judge the case where there are two opposite and mutually exclusive choices. Both probably imperfect. Where you can’t sell both risk/ no risk  choices as a separate product in the market; which is the standard libertarian free market solution.

    Jump to Discussion Post 18 replies
  • This question will surely drive minarchists crazy. Procedural image generation is computer generated imagery based off of algorithms and formulas, like x=y. Here is a blog which describes it,, mundane things like asteroids, zebras, buildings. I don’t know if procedural child porn is possible today, or if so, if it exists, but it there were such a program, is it morally acceptable to restrict that speech? Computer rendered child porn images are already illegal, but that is just the images. Procedural programs would just be a program that looks like any other program text. If it is morally permissible to restrict that speech, then what about a program that generates encryption, or algorithmically generates a slanderous poem?  

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • I recently published an article challenging two common arguments made my moral relativists and subjectivists. I’m interested in hearing some more thoughts on the positions, and any arguments supporting or refuting the positions.

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies