Description

This is episode 135 of You, Me, and BTC – your liberty and Bitcoin podcast!
If you’ve listened to our show before, you know that we have a love-hate relationship with philosophy. In many ways, it’s fascinating, but it can also feel incredibly pointless because professional thinkers rarely agree. This episode is all about trolley problems – some of the toughest philosophical questions in history.
In the original problem, a trolley is about to slaughter five people tied to its tracks and we are given the option to direct it onto a different path where only one man is tied down. So we could save five lives, but in a way, we would be responsible for the death of the sixth man. What would you do?
But the fun doesn’t stop there. We’ll dive into the Trolley Problem Memes page on Facebook, which has a huge list of similar conundrums. The dilemmas include Harambe, Buddhism, the non-aggression principle, and much more. Some are comical, some are confusing, and all of them are interesting.
Tune in for all kinds of mind-bending hypothetical situations! Your hosts are Daniel Brown and Tim Baker. Enjoy!
Leave a comment and tell us if you would pull the lever!
We’d also like to thank this episode’s sponsor, Crypto-Games.net.
If this Bitcoin podcast was interesting, entertaining, or anything else, please use the share buttons to let others know that it exists! Every little bit of support helps.
And if you want to support YMB more directly, buy a Bitcoin Ultra Ball T-shirt!
Tips appreciated: 1Kiy8x4pwMS7RQuH7xDeVcfqeup7gUTqA

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • What was the first issue you struggled with or were a champion for with regard to libertarianism? This can be any topic that you ran into whether you had just realized you were a libertarian, or it was part of your transition.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • A lot of my favorite libertarian literature is on the shorter side; more like long essays or pamphlets rather than book-length treatises (I love those for my own enjoyment, of course, but it’s nigh impossible to recommend an hour-length lecture to a friend, let alone an actual book). A couple of my favorite examples are Against Intellectual Property (Kinsella), Chaos Theory (Murphy), The Production of Security (Molinari), and The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (Boetie). I would like to find more works of similar length, especially for the purpose of recommending short yet mind-blowing reads to friends/family. What are your favorites?

    Jump to Discussion Post 12 replies
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • On libertarianism, reaction, and Trump Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Whenever a person who opposes the military-industrial complex speaks out against it, neocons predictably say that this person is criticizing the people who are giving him the right to say such things. Hopefully, everyone here knows that this is nonsense, but how best to explain it? I want to write an article on this and make sure I cover all the bases.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies