Description

Entrepreneur, podcaster, free thinker and BFF Jeff Till joins me to expand on a Facebook post about “doublespeak” or “doublethink” where a policy idea is mistaken for (or purposefully replaced by) a more genuine objective or desire. Here we talk myths about school, the law, the military, welfare, and regulation. Enjoy!

The post the episode is based on:

Just about every argument for school is actually an argument for the value of education that proves nothing about the value of school.

Just about every argument for law is actually an argument for the value of order that proves nothing about the value of law.

Just about every argument for welfare is actually an argument for the value of compassion that proves nothing about the value of welfare.

Just about every argument for the military is actually an argument for the value of security that proves nothing about the value of the military.

Just about every argument for regulation is actually an argument for the value of safety that proves nothing about the value of regulation.

Doublespeak is alive and well. Those who succeed in making the name of their pet policy linguistically interchangeable with a basic universal value always get to play offense.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

I'm an entrepreneur, thinker, and communicator dedicated to the relentless pursuit of freedom. I'm the founder and CEO of Praxis, an intensive ten-month program combining real world business experience with the best of online education for those who want more than college.

discussions

  • It appears to me that one of the biggest drawbacks to the current model of cryptocurrencies is the lack of reversibility in transactions. Historically, third parties such as banks have enabled transactions to be reversed, such as refunds or guaranteeing purchases. I think that if cryptocurrencies want to avoid third parties as much as possible, they should adopt a method for reversing transactions for the purpose of dispute resolution. Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Its completely ok to have an opinion. It actually is pretty important. But teachers shouldn’t teach their opinion as the truth. I have to face this behavior everyday at my school in switzerland. As a proud libertarian, i was very shocked as my teacher showed the anticapitalist, enviromentalist movie called “tomorrow”. There were no discussions about the problematic points the movie made. It was taught as the truth. The only truth. The tides turned, as i got to speak to a journalist, who was interviewing me about a political event, i went to. I described my problem and the whole thing got published. Of course it was shortened and the most important points were cut out, because they were probably to “aggressive” . But then (after the article appeared in the newspaper) the leftist/socialist behavior of my teacher disappeared, meaning we stopped watching “tomorrow” and about all the future controversial subject, we held debates with the whole class.   The main point of my little essay is, that we don’t have to make non-neutral-teaching illegal, but expose them with newspapers and television. In switzerland, this works perfectly.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • For the past few years, police departments have been on something of a power trip in the United States. Only citing the lesser-known instances that come to my mind, cops have assaulted autistic teenagers and murdered unarmed civilians, and were subsequently cleared of all charges and let back on the force. A zealous, dogmatic conservative “fanbase,” alongside a legal system that actively defends police from facing charges of murder, manslaughter, or assault, assures that these men and women never see justice for their actions. It’s awful what police are doing in society, but it’s even worse that they can get off scot-free for it. Of course, most of you already know this. So here’s my question: has any United States representative or senator proposed a bill designed to fight against unjust acquittals or introduce charges that are harder to to be overturned? As an agorist, I’m partially convinced that this has never happened and that anyone who gets elected for public office in this day and age is a vapid authoritarian, but a sliver of hope remains for me somewhere. Have any of you heard of such legislation on a federal level? If not, then what about on a state level?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Suppose a group of Ancaps are on the verge of overthrowing a government somewhere and imposing a libertarian social order. Suppose there was a debate in the US about whether to use the military to help them, stop them, or do nothing. Which do you choose and why?

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • Its seems they always skip over the issue. There is always this refusal to acknowledge or “give-in” in to the reality of what its happening on their part Does anyone know why this mentality exists? Is there anyway to stop it? Or try to get through to these people that’s its tyranny that is the enemy?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies