Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Thank you for joining us today. I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society, introducing our senior scholars, Richard Salzman, and founder David Kelly, discussing why hypocrisy is not an argument. Uh, we'll let them get the conversation started. And while they're offering their thoughts, you know, just feel free to raise your hands with questions. We'll bring you up to the stage to ask, uh, once they're done, uh, with their opening discussion. And, uh, I encourage everyone to share the room. So, with that, I'll let you two get into it.
Speaker 1 00:00:33 All right. Um, I will, uh, I will start, uh, just by asking Richard a question here. Um, you know, this term, what Bism, uh, which is, uh, we're gonna be using a lot tonight. Uh, it's actually one I wasn't, um, very aware of. Uh, but once I got the meaning of it, I understood completely because it's, um, involves logic, uh, that I know pretty well. So, but Richard, uh, can you give us a little of background, uh, about what this means? Um, we'll get into how it relates to hypocrisy, you know, good time, but, um, where did, what is what Aboutm
Speaker 2 00:01:15 Very good, David. Thank you, uh, for that. And, and just so everyone knows the structure we're gonna do tonight, we basically, what is it? What is this? What aboutm and why does it relate to hypocrisy? Then David and I are gonna try to discuss why we think it's prevalent. We're gonna give some examples too, to try to concretize it, and then we'll finish up with something, you know, something deeper, like, is there some deeper philosophic reason? Here's David's real contribution here, uh, as well as the logical. David has written a textbook five additions on logic, so he knows this very well. But we thought we'd end with, you know, some suggestions as why, philosophically this might be widespread, but we first have to suggest why it's widespread. Then I think we'll stop at 30 or 40 minutes, David w Right. And leave it for the rest.
Speaker 2 00:02:00 Yeah. Well, I, um, I, I think notice this most in politics, but it, it amounts to something like, you see two people debating and, uh, one of 'em makes a claim. And, uh, the other one, instead of treating the claim directly looks for an inconsistency in the person's argument. Like, well, you advocated a today, but you last, uh, election advocated non-A. So it points out an inconsistency in the person's argument and the, and the, the, the principle seems to be not something we would ne necessarily disagree with, cuz we don't want inconsistency. But rather it doesn't go far enough. It never does answer to the fundamental question of, well, what are we actually debating here? It isn't enough to suggest that I'm, that I'm either inconsistent in my argument. The point is my current argument isn't legitimate or not what is the evidence for or against it?
Speaker 2 00:02:54 So, uh, I think it comes up a lot in, uh, political debate, but you and David and I have worked out some many, uh, personal examples as well. But that's the basic issue that, that people aren't directly addressing the issue at hand, and they're either, you know, trying to escape, uh, getting caught in a, a bad argument or they're just deflecting. Uh, but we'll leave that for why it's prevalent. But, um, that's the basic idea. And then what about ism? It's interesting that Da David found the item this first came up in the seventies. People were using it to explain what the Soviets used to do. You would, you would complain that the Soviets had an illiberal system, that they had slave labor camps and, and they'd say, well, you guys had Jim Crow and you guys has racism, and you guys had slavery. So, so notice the, the issue was not is slavery good or bad, but, you know, gotcha.
Speaker 2 00:03:46 So to speak. Kacha, you, you know, you can't, you don't have an argument against me cuz you're guilty of the same thing. So, uh, I think you, there, you get the idea. What about ism? Uh, we found is, uh, more recent, but, uh, David knows the Latin term. Is it, is it too Coquet David? Is that how you pronounce it? T u uh, q u o, yeah. Q u O q U E. It's a part of ad homina, uh, is part of the ad hom argument, right? You're not attacking and addressing the argument directly. You're saying something about the person in this case, you're not really smearing them, you're just saying, Hey, you're an inconsistent person, therefore your argument doesn't hold. So that's just as an o opening. We can use examples soon, but what do you think, David?
Speaker 1 00:04:30 Yeah, that's, um, that's the essence of it. Um, Kuku, um, actually the spelling is t u yeah. And then the second word is Q u, uh, O q u, um,
Speaker 2 00:04:45 E
Speaker 1 00:04:46 E, yeah. Q u e. Yeah. And it, what it's a, the Latin just means you're another or you too. Yeah. Um, it's very simple and, but it let me set a broader, logical context. It's, uh, a form of that hominem, which is a fallacy of, in an argument, you attack the person rather than the argument that person has offered. And, uh, the two <inaudible> is a special form of it, because you are attack, you are attacking the person as inconsistent. Um, but it, it's that inconsistency that it makes this a separate subcategory of that hominem. And I mean, think of it, think of the logical structure here. Person A, um, to use Richard's, uh, uh, format pictured a person a has made some claim, uh, for example, uh, in the Soviet case, he mentioned, um, the Soviets, uh, in American says the, the Soviets are, uh, invited like human rights all over the place.
Speaker 1 00:05:49 They have, um, the Google Ag, they have, uh, some slave labor hidden behind, uh, the, uh, iron curtain. And, um, and the Soviets come back by saying, yeah, well, you had, uh, you had slaves too. Um, the Chinese are now making this argument as well. Uh, when people say, look, look at all the, uh, Muslim, uh, uyghurs that you have in prison. Um, and they, you know, whether it's Russia or commun or, or China, they're saying they're trying to displace the argument. So the structure is person A makes a statement, uh, a claim, uh, hopefully backed by some argument. And in the case of the Soviets would be this abundant evidence that they are guilty of, you know, of, of, uh, violating human rights. And person B, in this case, the Soviets doesn't address the argument. Um, it doesn't address the, the argument that, um, were making against the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1 00:06:53 And it doesn't address the, um, truth or falsity of the claim or the propriety of slavery in the first place. All it does is say, well, you're, you've done bad stuff too, so boo on you. Um, which is both irrelevant to the argument that person A has made, but also it, uh, it, it distracts from the argument. It, it doesn't, um, it just is dis is in that respect is you could see it as another logical fallacy of red herring that is addressing an issue that is not the one under discussion. Uh, so it is a fallacy, um, although, we'll, it, it, it, uh, it turns on a natural, normal human good desire for consistency in our own thoughts. And in those of others, it's just a kind of logical shortcut to that at best and often is not even that. It's just, uh, a debating technique.
Speaker 2 00:07:58 Yeah. Let me, uh, from David's, uh, art of Reasoning, 1988, I'm just reading a couple of excerpts here. Uh, counter accusations of inconsistency may well be true, and they may help clarify the issue in the end. However, you cannot establish your position mely by showing that your opponents are inconsistent. That's their problem. Your problem is to find some actual evidence to support your view. I love that. Then from the 1998, uh, edition, this is, uh, unto quote, it's a species of the fallacy of ad hominin. The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't prove that you're innocent. It may be unseemly for the pot to call the kettle black, but the kettle is black, nonetheless, unquote. That's, that's terrific. And, uh, David, I know you noticed, uh, in the last edition, the 2021 edition in quote, in politics, um, this approach is often used, um, citing inconsistency between the speaker's position and positions he had taken previously.
Speaker 2 00:08:59 Democrats and Republicans alike do this. But again, the fact that someone took a different position in the past is not a re refutation of his current position, unquote. So, pe people today, the, the language will be something like, Hey, he's a flip-flopper, right? So someone needs to be accused of flip. You used to believe X and now you believe antix and you're just an opportunist. It's, again, it doesn't address the issue address, uh, directly. Maybe some examples David might concretize. I think the most recent one I found my body, my choice would be, you know, a woman typically called a liberal on abortion and noticed during the covid controversy, the conservatives would say, well, you're forcing a vax on me. The vaxx mandates my body, my choice. And, and so, but they both, a, they, they both raised the issue to each other, but one is advocating the V and the other one is advocating bans on abortion.
Speaker 2 00:09:54 And again, it, it, it shows the inconsistency of each, but it doesn't get to the root issue of should either of these things be mandated by the government or not. So we're kind of enc David, we're kind of encouraging the idea of, one, don't commit this fallacy yourself and be able to detect it in others coming at you. Right? And then also the next step is get to the issue. That's really the, the, the lesson, right? Get to the what you think the fundamental issue is. And that could be a good thing pointing out to a, to a sparring partner that, well, what is the deeper issue? What's your actual view on the deeper issue?
Speaker 1 00:10:31 Yeah. The, um,
Speaker 1 00:10:34 When you, when you're the, the victim of a <inaudible> argument, um, you know, the, the reason that they work and that they're so prevalent, and we'll get to the prevalence, um, shortly, but, um, the reason, one of the reasons they're so prevalent is that it, it's a conversation stopper. It's an argument stopper. Yeah. Uh, I accused you of inconsistency, and so what are you gonna do? I'm putting the burden back on you, right? To, uh, defend not only the argument that you may have made in the first place, but your entire outlook. Um, and, uh, and so I'm making an accusation, accusation against you. You are not answering that. You are just deflecting the issue by turning it back on me and putting me in a position where, oh, shit, I have to answer this now. Yep. And so one, we, we'll talk more about proper responses later, and, and I wanna, uh, you know, I know some people have questions about that, so we'll cover it partly in the q and a, but the thing, the proper thing to do is to say that's irrelevant. That's an ad ho argument. You got anything better in your, in your quiver
Speaker 2 00:11:49 <laugh>. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:11:52 Um, and just not, you know, fall victim to it. Um, but it's very hard to resist, be in the heat of argument, especially the kind of, I short term, um, arguments that take place in political debates and Yeah. Uh, talking head shows and so forth.
Speaker 2 00:12:09 Yeah. So one example, David, you used, I noticed, uh, a few more than a few times in your additions doctor to patient, you should stop smoking patient to doctor. How can you tell me that when you smoke yourself <laugh>? Yes. So the issue here is, I, I think of it as what I think of these as what's left unaddressed, and I'm thinking here, what's left unaddressed here is whether smoking is good or bad for your health. Right? And the idea that, that the doctor doesn't take his own advice might make him a hypocrite, but it doesn't mean the advice is wrong. Right? Is that the way to analyze it? That's the assessment. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:12:46 Exactly. There's always a substantive argument, uh, issue at play, uh, which is being evaded
Speaker 2 00:12:56 Yeah's. Yeah. So now, now here, here's a ca how about someone like Sally, who's known as a pathological liar? Sally says to Sam, um, you just told a white lie and sa Sam's like, look who's talking? So the whole, the whole look who's talking thing is kind of that right here. Unaddressed is whether lying, well, in any degree is proper or not. So the look who's talking one is, uh, is kind of vernacular for this, right?
Speaker 1 00:13:24 Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. And, um, you know, another one that I, I'd like, uh, you, you alluded to it, uh, is from my book that, you know, um, when a Democrat is in the office, Republicans will say, oh my God, you're expanding presidential powers the executive branch. That's really irresponsible. Yeah. And the de Democrat comes back and says, yeah, well, when your guy was in office, uh, when you had a Republican president, you, you had no problem with that, right? Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:13:54 Right. So, yeah. Um,
Speaker 1 00:13:56 Again, the issue, the real issue here is what should be the proper scope of the executive branch in our, in our government system. And the way, you know, the proper evidence for that is the Constitution and Supreme Court decision, et cetera. Yeah. But none of that gets, uh, all that gets washed aside in that, um, I I, I, I keep thinking of it as talking heads debates. Um, yeah.
Speaker 2 00:14:25 I remember in the eighties when I was, uh, advocating Reaganomics, uh, and in the beginning, not in the end, but in the beginning, the Reagan program did generate budget deficits. So the, the keynesians who hated the fact that Reaganomics and supply side economics came along, would, would denounce the deficit spending at Krugman and others at the dis deficit spending is reckless, is bad for the economy. And too many supply hires would come back and say, say, Hey, you Keynesians, you've been advocating deficits for, uh, decades, and you used to claim they stimulated the economy. That that sounds like the same, if that sounds like what about isn't because they, the underlying unaddressed issue would be something like, well, is deficit spending proper or not? You know, and what, what effect has it on the economy? Not, uh, you know, or is this a Keynesian episode or a supply side episode? So they would do that to each other, I remember. And it felt unconvincing because it wasn't, it didn't go deep enough, you know?
Speaker 1 00:15:23 Exactly. And one more example, uh, that may resonate in particular, uh, with this audience, uh, I Rand, uh, wrote to the effect the welfare state is immoral and ought to be abolished. That was certainly her view. And, uh, there's a whole a little cottage industry of critics who say, um, but you took social security payments, and after all, don't you walk on public sidewalks. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:15:53 <laugh>.
Speaker 1 00:15:53 Um, and I love that one. And, uh, you know, but with your analysis here, what's unaddressed here is whether the welfare state is immoral or not, whether it's a proper function of government or not. And that is just completely lost in the, um, uh, acrimonious, uh, exchange. Actually, it's not an acrimonious. It was all after ran step when they Yeah. These or accusations kept arising.
Speaker 2 00:16:26 Yeah. And now, if people, like, uh, here's another way. If people like, uh, John Kerry or Al Gore, they'll say, uh, we have to solve global warming by, I don't know, reducing our carbon footprint. So instead of addressing that, the critics will say, Hey, you just took a jet, a private jet to the environmental summit. You hypocrite. It's, uh, that sounds like the same approach too, with the, with the unaddressed would be, well, is global warming actually a problem or not, you know, is lessening the carbon footprint, uh, solution or not? It's, it, Al Gore might be right, but he's not wrong because he took the jet. I mean, he could say, I'm taking the jet cuz I need to get my message out. But is that close to this, David, or is that not, is that an example? No,
Speaker 1 00:17:13 That's a, that's that's a great example. Um, it isn't a clear example of a too quick way argument or what about, um, um, actually, I, the, uh, you come up with that example, but I, it set off a memory that, uh, there was a cartoon maybe 10, 15 years ago with, uh, uh, just a picture of Al Gore very large southern plantation type house in Tennessee. Yeah. And a huge black footprint <laugh>, that was his footprint. Uh, and that just, that cartoon, it didn't have to say anything. It wasn't a too argument. Yeah. Hey, you're not, you're not acting by your own standards. Yeah. So, um, yeah. But now let's, let's talk about why, um, why is it so prevalent, do you think? Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:18:06 What do you think?
Speaker 1 00:18:09 I think, um, well, I partly I think it ha when it happens in politics and also in heated personal exchanges, um, arguments, you know, marital arguments or arguments between lovers or good friends. Um, it, it's happening in the heat of argument and where it's very easy to slip from, I wanna have discovered the truth to, I wanna win this goddamn argument. Hmm. And I'm gonna put you down. Hmm. So, um, you know, and, and that's a, that's a form of short, short run thinking. It's very concrete bound. Um, I'm not trying to analyze the underlying issue, the unaddressed issue. I'm not, may may not even be aware of it. I just, I've been attacked by you and I'm going to get you <laugh>. Um, and here's the way to do it. And it, you know, it is so common, um, that, and, you know, it's so easy. I, I mean, you know, I mentioned to you when we were, uh, working this, uh, this clubhouse out that Richard, uh, you know, I sometimes I found myself tempted to do that. Um,
Speaker 2 00:19:24 Yeah, me too. You
Speaker 1 00:19:25 Know, the Conan, oh God, the Conan, well, Kant was this, uh, really weird guy, uh, northern German, uh, really, you know, screwed up. Um, well, no, it's not relevant. His theories are either true or false. And, but anyway, um,
Speaker 2 00:19:41 Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:19:42 I, I I gave you a, a kind of highfalutin philosophical example, but it, it happens in, uh, I've had it happen in personal situations too. Um, and, you know, because no one likes to be accused of inconsistency. And I think that's a good thing. That
Speaker 2 00:20:02 Is a good thing. That is a good thing, isn't it? So that, that's part of it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:20:08 So it, it's tapping into something we care about, even though logically it is not relevant to this, to whatever is the issue at hand. And it leads us to ignore the underlying issue. That's mm-hmm. That's why it's fallacious.
Speaker 2 00:20:21 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Now, it's interesting the way you put this, because emotions seem to be part of it, uh, heat of the moment, as you say, going after the person because, because to Cowe, you said it's itself in your books are part of ad hoan. So you're attacking that. You are either attacking the person or defending yourself, you know, it's like the boxer in the ring he's doing, doing the rope of dope. He's not, he's got his hands up. He's, he knows he's being attacked. He's not really fighting back. He's just, uh, or fighting the wrong thing. He's not got the right strategy. But that's interesting cuz Hamman is, ta is attacking the man, not the argument. Um, I, I wonder, David, whether you think also this is more prevalent, I think this is my theory, it seems more prevalent in, what would I call it today?
Speaker 2 00:21:14 These very short term, um, talking head shows where the attention spans are very limited. You have, you know, 13 seconds to make your point. It's not like it's a, an acade academic conference where there's, you know, long answers and deliberations. I mean, you, and I know it's not that it doesn't go on there, but is that part of this, that we're simply observing it in highly charged, highly emotional, you know, the fast talking debaters we see today, I don't know if that's a fundamental reason why it's more prevalent, but I wonder that's where we see it most.
Speaker 1 00:21:54 Well, I, that's my experience. Um, you know, anecdotally, I don't have, um, numerical evidence. Uh, but it, um, that is a, that seems to me a context that is ripe for the use of this fallacy. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and I, I would add here, we're we're talking specifically about what about, or too quote, but as a form of hammann, um, there are other forms of that Hom, and those two are pretty prevalent. Uh, for example, how many times have we seen, um, you know, someone on, um, environmental or industrial policy, quote unquote, uh, issues, someone on the right, a free market person saying, you know, this, that, or the other thing. And the comeback is, well, you're funded by Exxon, or you get contributions from this company, they've got a vested interest. So it, and they're, what you say, you're just a mouthpiece for money. So we can't trust that. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 00:22:57 Yep.
Speaker 1 00:22:57 And it doesn't, that's another way of evading an argument. Yep. Um, and that's pretty common. I've seen, seen quite a bit. Um, but the <inaudible>, yeah. Um, it is, it is very short run. I think that's our first, uh, level of analysis that it, it, it, uh, uh, and tends to happen in situations that limit the amount of time you have to say, or the amount of words you can use, like on Twitter, um, or personal examples, um, of, you know, people who are close, engaged in some argument. Like, um, you know, an example would be, uh, uh, a guy, uh, one spouse says the other, it's outrageous that you cheated on me. And the sp other spouse comes back, well, you cheated on me the first year we were married. What do you talking about
Speaker 2 00:23:53 <laugh>? Yeah, yeah. You know,
Speaker 1 00:23:56 You know, that's the issue here is when this fidelity in sexual fidelity in in marriage, you know?
Speaker 2 00:24:04 Yeah. Yeah. And maybe, maybe the more, the more intimate and the personal, the relationship. And this could be true in a political debate too. You know, your opponent inside out, you know, all the, um, inconsistencies over the years, you know, it's not like this is not a total stranger to you. So, um, you know, OPO research and politics, hey, you flip flopped on that view. Part of it is an intimate knowledge of the other person's positions. And if people, this is a deeper philosophical thing we'll get into, but, but if people are more concrete bound today, uh, less principled, more short run in their thinking, uh, in the background, there's this value still, or virtue that people think that integrity and consistency and logical coherence is good, but they don't practice it. They're, they're unprincipled. And, um, so they're committing the fallacy. Um, we talked earlier, David, I wanted to ask you about this too.
Speaker 2 00:24:59 The, and because it's epistemology, maybe we, maybe we shift into philosophy more, that sometimes you'll hear someone say, your view is incoherent. So it's an interesting phrase cuz instead of just saying it's fallacious or it's wrong, or it doesn't tie to reality, isn't there a, uh, if I recall, isn't there a distinction in epistemology? There's something called the correspondence theory of truth, and the other one called coherence theory of truth. And the first one's supposed to be, do your ideas connect and tie to reality? And the second one focuses more on the consistency between ideas, you know, the right, the quote, logical cons, regard. I wouldn't say regardless of whether they're tied to reality, you know, that distinction, is that playing a role here? That people are focused, Hey, you're incoherent, you're inconsistent, and they're less focused on the correspondence part of it? Or is that too farfetched
Speaker 1 00:25:56 Far? No, it's interesting. I hadn't thought of that. But, um,
Speaker 1 00:26:01 The, I mean, on the one hand, I would say no, because even on the correspondence theory, consistency is, uh, required because there are no contradictions in reality. A is a, it's not non a, and that's an axiom. So, um, if you, uh, if you have two, two conclusions, you've drawn from evidence, uh, you know, ultimately from reality through perception, if you reach two conclusions, um, that are incon logically inconsistent, then you got, you have a problem. You have to resolve it somehow. Um, but it's the worst problem for the coherence theory because, uh, coherence is all you've got. And, um, so, but I think
Speaker 1 00:26:53 It may, this is just a immediate kind of, uh, top of my head response, but I think it may be easier for, um, coherence there is to deal with issues like these, because they can always introduce some additional point that, um, obviates the objection. And, um, you know, coheres more or less, you know, the clearance theory ultimately is based on, there's no basis for anything. There's no basis in reality for any of your beliefs. The only standard is are they consistent or not? Yeah. Well, you can invent all kinds of things that are consistent with the other things that, you know, and, um, you know, so the current theory doesn't really have a, I don't think ever developed a, um, thoroughly cons, you know, rigorous way of saying, okay, you can do this, but you can't do that. Uh, epistemologically, um, there's a degree of arbitrariness about it. And, you know, in the correspondence theory, which is a realist theory, that is our, we take our knowledge to be about reality, right? And, uh, reality has to, uh, provide, provide us with the evidence and verification of what we believe, you know, we're, we're bound by, uh, so to speak, a stricter taskmaster, <laugh>, you know, reality is there. It's, it is what it is, you know? Um, yeah. So, um,
Speaker 2 00:28:24 I wanted to ask you also, David, you know, um, objectivist audience will know that integrity is one of the, one of the seven objectivist virtues. And to the extent it council's, you know, unity of thought and action, how does that relate to hypocrisy? I've often wondered whether always looking for the counters to the objective as virtues, you know, is the opposite of pride. Humility is the opposite of integrity, hypocrisy. And, but here it seems, we're talking, we are some to what talking about, Hey, I found you talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Yeah. So that does sound like, but it's also in inconsistency in argument. So I don't know, do you, do you find an, a correspondence that hypocrisy is the opposite of integrity? Or is there more, is a little more subtle than that, maybe?
Speaker 1 00:29:14 Well, I think the essence of integrity is that you, um, is the alignment between what you believe and what you do or say mm-hmm. <affirmative> outwardly. Yeah. And, uh, that viola, that alignment can be, um, broken in several ways. Hypocrisy is maybe the most common. Another, another, uh, counter or another opposite of, uh, integrity in that sense is, uh, compromise in the sense that Randolph and talked about, you're giving up a principle Yeah. By, um, saying, well, you can buy, you can, I'll, I'll agree with you that we'll go forward based on only half my principle or whatever, or, and it, that compromise is not always bad. Sometimes it, you know, it just, it is necessary, but not on essentials. Not on principles. And that's what we're really getting at here, is that
Speaker 1 00:30:11 Consistency. Um, I mean, it applies to every level of knowledge and belief, but it really starts with consistency in your fundamental outlook on the world. So, you know, people, when when people are engaged in at, uh, uh, at Honu or to quote way accusations, they are raising a relevant standard, you should be consistent. Yeah. And if you're not consistent at this level now, that, that's a fallacy on the part of the accuser, but it, it points to a vulnerability, um, in the targets. And I think the proper response is a, identify what the other person said as a fallacy, but B, look more closely at your own set of beliefs, get, get to the underlying principle that, um, if you, if you hold with, uh, you know, deficit spending in under one regime and, um, not, and attack it under another, um, what, what is your real thought about deficit spending? I mean, what is the real principle here? Does it or does it not? Um, is it, is it, or is it not inappropriate function of government finance?
Speaker 2 00:31:33 Yeah. And then, and, and, uh, if consistency is, it's almost like something like it's a sufficient, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. I don't know if that's proper, but the, the, my body, my choice example, the vaxxers and the abortion. Now, if, yeah, if the vaxx people said, listen, um, uh, government should not mandate what I put in my body put in or take out. Let's, let us say, yeah, <laugh>, and then, and then the abortion, the pro-abortion person says, well, they shouldn't. Now, the cons, if you ram through consistency, you'd have to say, it can't, the, the anti-VAX would have to say, it can't mandate me taking vaccine, but I have to, I have to confess, I'm, I'm now pro-choice on reproductive choice. And the other side would have to say, well, no, women have a right to choice, uh, choose on reproductive.
Speaker 2 00:32:23 And I have to confess, they shouldn't mandate VAEs. So, so, but that at least forces them to go to, well, are you for government mandates or not? Right. Instead of just, uh, fashioning a And I like your bringing in the compromise that that issue of the opposite of integrity. It, it involves hypocrisy, but also compromise, but on essentials, not on well, non-essentials. And I wonder whether we're also talking here about that. What about ism comes up? It's easy to bring it up on non-essentials and what, where really counseling is get to the essentials and then make sure you don't make sure, you know, that's anchored in reality and don't compromise on that.
Speaker 1 00:33:06 Um, yeah, exactly. Um, but here's the problem.
Speaker 2 00:33:11 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:33:12 A lot of people don't think in principles, they don't get to that level. Uh, every issue is just this concrete issue. Rent controls, abortion, uh, foreign policy, you know, they, and, you know, they have their views, they can back it up with some evidence if they're, you know, following the news if they're reasonably intelligent. But if they don't have an underlying framework, what I would, we would call a philosophy to navigate that. Yeah. Yeah. Then, um, they're kind of at, at at sea in terms of consistency. And I think the, um, the inability to think it, or the absence of thinking and principles is itself a cultural phenomenon. I would connect it and, and say it's with pragmatism as a philosophy, which, um, you know, it's, you had its, uh, philosophical heyday in, uh, the early part of the 19th century with, um, uh,
Speaker 2 00:34:18 John. So is that James that, uh, James and Dewey. John Dewey, and William James.
Speaker 1 00:34:24 William James. Yeah. And, uh, so,
Speaker 2 00:34:26 So for those who don't know, David, remind people what pragmatism is. Cuz sometimes people think of it as, so that's the practical philosophy. That's a philosophy that says be practical. It's doesn't really mean that. Right.
Speaker 1 00:34:39 But pragmatism with a capital p as a philosophical theory Right. Felt that, um, uh, one central tenant was, um, that the truth or false of this statement is dict is determined by whether it works if you put it into practice.
Speaker 2 00:34:59 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:34:59 So it's not that there's evidence for, for against it. And Mindy, the pragmatists, for example, were, um, critical of 19th century thinkers who said, look, we have a constitution that says, here's what government can do, here's what it can't do. Those were principles. And they said, no, you can't, you can't be except rigid principles or be doctrinaire or be, uh, yeah. Uh, ideological about this. And we still hear that kind of stuff today. Yeah. So, and on top of which Dewey was the, um, had a special interest in education and was the father of the so-called progressive schools, which taught generations of students less about thinking and, um, discovering the truth than about acting and acting. He was a collectivist acting in a socially, uh, you know, harmonious way. So, um, you know, that was a long time ago. Education has gone through many different fads, some of them opposed to Dewey. But there's still, I think, the residue of pragmatism that people don't, don't, just don't think in principles. Like, you know, the government should not be issuing regulations on, on business, uh, choice business o operations, unless there is some harm that those operations cost. Uh,
Speaker 2 00:36:24 Yeah. And the, and, and the pragmatist might say, well, uh, okay, I get that Kelly, but, uh, how about in finance? Okay, maybe in oil, but not in finance, and not in finance. In this sector, there's so, and then again, the concrete bound, but also the, the inability to see the principle of the thing. If you don't have that, you're gonna be more inclined to having inconsistencies. And if, if all sides do it, there's plenty of opportunity them to point fingers at each other. <laugh>.
Speaker 1 00:36:53 Right. You're
Speaker 2 00:36:54 Right. Because the deeper philosophical problem is everyone has been trained in this pragmatism trial and error. See, try it and see what works. If it doesn't work, we don't really conclude anything from it. Try again. I think the poem, uh, postmodernist would call there everything is radically contingent. Yeah. Right. It's also in epistemology, you're talking about, I think, uh, the practice of integration, connecting our knowledge and not only say, call it horizontally, but vertically down to reality. And interestingly, the root, uh, the ethic is the virtue, I should say, is integrity. So you got integration as an epistemological standard, which would give you principled thinking and accurate.
Speaker 1 00:37:43 Ah, yes.
Speaker 2 00:37:43 And then this virtue of integrity has the same root, so ed etymological roots. So it's also a virtue, I think that's interesting.
Speaker 1 00:37:52 Yeah. Uh, the, the root of, uh, both integrity and integration means making whole, um, making
Speaker 2 00:38:00 Whole, yeah.
Speaker 1 00:38:02 We make whole our, our knowledge by, um, uniting it in higher level abstractions and principles that, um, uh, so that, you know, you know, we're consistent across all, all the sub issues. And it means, uh, as a virtue it means the, uh, the wholeness of, or, uh, between your thoughts and your actions. And, um, so it's, it's, it's a real desire. It's a, it's a, it's a virtue of unity. Um, in, in a way, although we're getting into some deep water here, but just, I mean, I, you and I have both been, um, out there as advocates, um, political activists for a long time. Yeah. How, how often does it happen? We, you know, we're talking about rent controls. Yeah. And, you know, someone is, is proposing rent controls, and we say, no, here's why that won't work. It's been established economically many times. And they say, okay. Okay. I guess I agree. Uh, what about, um, price controls?
Speaker 2 00:39:09 <laugh>? Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:39:10 On oil. Yeah. Oil. I mean, gasoline is gone, skyrocketed the price of skyrocket. Can we, can we control that? Well, do you, do you see the connection here with rent controls? Is there any common issue? <laugh>? Um,
Speaker 2 00:39:25 Yeah, that, that, that version David, so that version, when you look out contemporaneously and they'll mix up two different sectors and not see the connection. But the other common one I hear is, um, well, I can, maybe in the 1880s, we, uh, this policy or that policy was, oh, less say fair was like, but not anymore. So, but, but a pragmatist would really be prone to that too. Right. The world has changed so much.
Speaker 1 00:39:55 Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:39:56 What are you, and Neanderthal, you know, still in the 17th? So the, I and, and, and that really eats away at the principles of the founders, right?
Speaker 1 00:40:05 It does.
Speaker 2 00:40:05 Okay. Come on. 17 seven. We we're, we're not living in a world with the buggies and candles and, you know, um, so that one, yeah. The pragmatists are, are, can chip away at the idea of principles over time, if you will, that are f fixed and stable versus principles, uh, in real time today, across sectors, across issues. Um, so that you're, you're talking about, uh, Dewey and James, at least a hundred years ago, talk about the trailing influence of philosophy. It shows the power of philosophy, doesn't it? Has it trailing influence?
Speaker 1 00:40:42 It does, it does. Although, um, I must say my, my my dissertation advisor at Princeton in the 1970s was a big fan of Dewey and, uh, pragmatism. And, uh, he was a well known philosopher. So, I mean, yeah. The ideas are still alive.
Speaker 2 00:41:00 Is that Richard? Uh, Richard Rorty. Richard
Speaker 1 00:41:02 Rorty, yeah.
Speaker 2 00:41:03 Richard Ty. Yeah. Yeah. He was famous. Well, I don't know, you sounds, I don't know how you get out. How did you get out of, uh, Princeton without being a pragmatist? Well, I think I know the answer to that, but,
Speaker 1 00:41:14 Well, he liked challenges and I, I sort of gave him, yeah.
Speaker 2 00:41:18 Should we turn? Scott did. Scott, are you still there? I I thought you, uh, you sent us earlier some, um, some questions, which are, which were very David and I thought were very cool. You wanna bring up some of them? Sure. Uh, absolutely. Uh, and
Speaker 0 00:41:32 I wanna encourage other people to come up as well as, as well as sharing the room. But, um, you know, I, I'm not a hundred percent in agreement with all this. I, I wonder if it's possible you're being too noble. I mean, you know, Rand was quick to call some questions dishonest, even from the audience. She's famous for that, maybe too quickly, according to some, but I mean, there is such a thing as, as dishonest questions. And please. Well, yeah.
Speaker 2 00:42:04 Okay,
Speaker 1 00:42:05 Scott, I let you finish. Um,
Speaker 0 00:42:08 I'll just say, uh, you know, when you get those from someone who's not arguing in good faith, and Richard, even to what you said about someone you've argued with before, and, uh, you know, they're just, they're always trying to just get you to concede on their points and, and even using your own principles against you.
Speaker 2 00:42:27 Yeah. I wonder if you're thinking, Scott, of the, the two, uh, uh, major public appearances she had on TV with Phil Donahue, this came up twice. Are you thinking of this, like, the questioner would stand up and say, they would say something like, um, Ms. Rand I, uh, read your books when I was a teenager when I was in college, and then I grew up and matured and her, then her, and I don't believe any of it anymore, something like that. And her head would explode. I mean, she was just nuts. And it, it was kind of embedded, uh, an embedded insult. So instead of, does this relate to what aboutm in the sense of the person's not really taking on her philosophy directly, the person is saying, this is an immature philosophy that only, you know, untutored kids would follow? Is that what you mean? That kind of thing? And is that part of
Speaker 0 00:43:23 No, I mean, that was more of a side point, just to say that there are dishonest questions. I heard stories from Fort Har forum where she just like attacked the questioner, um, you know, and really go after them. But, uh, I, I, but more it's, it's the idea that, you know, sometimes, and, and, you know, you talked about these quick talking head shows, it's even more prevalent on social media where you've got these people and, and sometimes they're the same people and they're, you know, coming at you on something and it just, they, they totally are being hypocritical on, uh, you know what, they, it, it's like they, they aren't being principled about it. They just want you to concede on your points.
Speaker 2 00:44:03 Yeah. So, so you are saying there's a, you, you are saying, isn't there a morera legitimate argument for pointing out people's hypocrisy, right. And not, uh, but not that alone, right? Or you, or you're saying No, that's enough. In some cases people are just so, so brazenly, unprincipled about they're flip flopping that they're not even worth engaging. I don't, I don't know. Maybe David, yeah,
Speaker 0 00:44:28 Go ahead.
Speaker 1 00:44:31 I, I would, I would add here that, um,
Speaker 1 00:44:36 You know, I've given a lot of thought to issues of toleration and benevolence, um, <laugh>. Yes. And I think, I think they definitely have a, a bearing on the conduct of arguments and any kind of discussion. But, um, there are people whose who make it clear, not intentionally always, but make for whom it's is you are very clear that this person is hostile. Um, they are not even trying to go by reason. And that, to me is a conversation stopper. I, I won't talk with them. Or someone who opens a, um, I mean, there, there are other conditions. There are some people who, like, I know people who, uh, accused open objectivism in any advocate of it, um, me in particular, um, as engaged in a fraud, stealing the term objectivism. And, uh, they, you know, uh, adulterating it and someone who starts with an insult, um, that that's the end of the conversation until they come back and, and can start in a more, um, you know, in, in valid way.
Speaker 1 00:45:51 I mean, a more, yeah. Um, open, open themselves, uh, way of, of handling it. So there are cases where I think the, um, the proper response to, um, certain arguments, including, um, a lot of the two cau ways that happen in reality is to say, first, if possible, say, first of all, that's a fallacy. And secondly, do you have anything better? You're ignoring the issue, you're sidelining the issue. Mm-hmm. You wanna talk about the issue or not mm-hmm. <affirmative> and just, you know, don't, don't get defensive. Just, um, say, call, explain what the person's doing. And if they don't wanna be rational and don't wanna be reasonable, walk away. Um, so Scott, I think you're absolutely right that there are some points, some people that, um,
Speaker 1 00:46:45 I don't know. I, I'm, I'm very hesitant to say a question is dishonest, but it's easier to say, um, cuz I don't know what the person's mind is, like, what's going on in the mind unless I know them really, really well mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But, um, I can tell, you know, we just have, you know, kind of a basic ability to tell 'em when someone is, is hostile or open or neutral or friendly. And, you know, we, we had that knowledge starting when we were babies. It's some kind of, uh, gift of our, uh, you know, a a ape ancestors, uh, primate ancestors. But anyway, um, that's a long way of saying, I I think you've got a good point, and I agree with that up to a point.
Speaker 4 00:47:34 Okay. Hey, this
Speaker 2 00:47:34 Is Jack, you know. Hi, Jack. Welcome.
Speaker 4 00:47:38 Hey, thank you. Yeah, sorry, I was another interview and so missed the beginning part of this, so I'll go back and I'll re-listen to that, um, at a later time. But, um, I, when I think about hypocrisy and political, uh, argumentation, two of two examples come to my mind. And so wanted to put those out to you and evaluate, um, you know, what's the proper way to, uh, you know, whether or not it's, it's proper to point out the hypocrisy. And, um, in what way would it be most constructive? So one example is, uh, politicians who oppose giving poor people the opportunity to send their children to private schools, um, the vouchers, education savings accounts, but they themselves send their children to private schools. Yeah. So I that's, that's one example. That's a good one. It's worth, you know, I think acknowledges, let's say in this case that the school is failing and send their kid example hypocrisy course was during lockdowns and mandate various people that, um, violated their own, you know, mask mandates. And you'd see these pictures of, you know, politicians newsom, dining out at the French laundry. Um, but, uh, you know, not allowing that to other people, Nancy Pelosi, uh, hairdresser during, you know, maintain for, know hypocrisy.
Speaker 4 00:49:56 What's interesting is that they actually don't believe <laugh> or it calls into question how, how much they actually believe, uh, the kinda premises behind the mandates. Right. So terribly dangerous wearing, uh, this cloth over face gonna a big difference. Save lives. Why yourself, you differently?
Speaker 2 00:50:30 Those are good ones. The the other one you hear sometimes is you'll, they'll say, well, these politicians or leaders who are want for severe gun control and maybe defund the police, but they have well-armed security details, you know, gated, gated protection and stuff like that. What is, does it strike you, David? These are jag's examples, also examples of, uh, what about ism?
Speaker 1 00:50:55 Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. When, when, when they are pointed out, that is when someone says, uh, if the issue, uh, under discussion is the mandates, and, uh, a person is defending the mandates. And I say, well, what about Nancy Pelosi? She went to a hairdresser without a mask. Yeah. What do you think about that? Um, uh, are you gonna come down on her head too? And then that, that the person, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not addressing the underlying issue, which is, are the mandates proper? And, but there's also the point that, um, because this is a political issue, you know, under the rule of law, politicians are subject to the same laws as citizens. One law, everyone is equal before it. They have certain rights, certain job descriptions to do as, as, uh, functionaries of government, but that doesn't exempt them from, uh, universal mandate. Uh, so there's an issue here, and I think it's valid to raise the issue. Um, are there, okay, how about these mandates? You, you're, you, you're defending these mandates. Um, tell me, uh, what do you think, are there exceptions to it that certain people should not be governed by that mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and if so, why eeg? The speaker of the house at the time? Um,
Speaker 2 00:52:33 Yeah. So increasingly we hear about a two-tiered justice system, or me, maybe three or four tiered, which strikes people as fundamentally unjust. But yet, I mean, the Nancy Pelosi case, when I hear something like that, my first thought they say, a conservative says it. My first thought is, what are you actually saying that Nancy Pelosi should be mandated to not go to the hairdresser? I mean, are, are you advocating that it be extended to her as well? Uhhuh, why don't you go the other way? The consistent approach would be no one should be mandated. She should be able to go to get at the hairdresser, but they don't go that route. It's almost like they're conceding the prevailing view and then, then they're just demanding consistency. So if they had their druthers and you said, good, well mandate and arrest Nancy Pelosi, they'd be for it.
Speaker 2 00:53:21 But that's not their fundamental view. That's the problem I have with these unprincipled approaches. You can't really get out of people what the fundamental position is and a and a good defense of it. You know, same thing with the vouchers, the Jag, that's a really good one. Yeah. Obama sends his girls to Sid Wells or whatever it was, and well, what's the issue that every parent should be able to send their kid to whatever school they want, regardless of income and, um, drop the, uh, you know, the mandates that they go to public schools, they're all, there's a lot of these aren't there, David? They're all over the place.
Speaker 1 00:53:57 Yeah. Yeah. And that school thing, uh, that's been around for a long time. Yeah. Um, and it, that one in particular is what makes me want to engage in two <inaudible> argumentation, <laugh>. It's, yeah. Cause it's so infuriating. A politician is not willing to sacrifice or put his own kids at danger or risk their, uh, under development, uh, or failure to reach their real potential. And so insist on, they go to good schools, but he's willing to sacrifice the, the students of all of the inner city and the ghettos and the people who have crappy, crappy, uh, public schools and, um, are, are gonna be experiencing and the, the exact same things that the politician is worried about for his kids. So that, um, it, it's maybe cuz it involves children and education that it really gets my goat. But, um,
Speaker 2 00:54:51 Yeah. So no. Now, man, David, imagine a Republican or a conservative passing a law saying, okay, here going forward, no president, uh, should be able to send his kids to a private school. He must send them to the rat infested, uh, local DC public school. Well, that would, it would be consistent, but <laugh>, but it would be wrong. It's just wrong. It's, it's, uh, for, for the point of consistency, they're mandating that everybody be abused. Um,
Speaker 1 00:55:24 Yeah. Well that it, in the case of public education that is, uh, all over the place, uh, they, you know, the, the teachers unions and other defenders of public education wanted to use, um, all children as means to the ends of the state. That is, you know, the rationale has always been, well, we needed an informed republic to make democracy work. Um, but we also need, uh, you know, people in STEM fields to, uh, work in the economy. We need all kinds of talents and, um, the public schools are, uh, but they're willing to recruit and forbid parents from going elsewhere, uh, coer, you know, using coercion of the, you know, through the government. And that, um, whether or not that just on its own, we're not, I'm beyond talking about ad ho arguments here. Um, that just seems to me, you know, especially vicious. But anyway, back to the subject. Um, uh, maybe Scott, I'll back
Speaker 0 00:56:38 To in the, I mean, Richard, in the case of my body, my choice. Yeah. I mean, they're using the pro-choice principle. Yeah, yeah. You know, to say why they don't want a vaxx after it's been trumpeted as this universal principle. I mean, are people wrong to want a single standard?
Speaker 2 00:56:58 Exactly. No, I agree with you. Uh, the, I remember seeing a bumper sticker years ago from a libertarian and it said, um, I think it said, I'm pro-choice on everything. I thought that was cute. That was very good <laugh>, very consistent. You know, why aren't you guys pro-choice on everything? Um, yeah, I mean, I wrote an essay at the time saying, my business, my choice, how about that? Why should I have to close down my business due to, uh, lockdowns? So my body, my choice, my business, my choice, my mind, my choice, my kids and their school, my choice. Scott, are you saying Yeah, I think I see what you're saying, Scott. I don't think David and I are saying don't point out inconsistencies. It's rather that ain't enough. That's that, that doesn't go to the issue. Actually, to put a, a positive spin on this, David, I think we could treat, we could treat it as this is a wonderful opportunity since the mistake is so prevalent, it's a wonderful opportunity for principled people to bring principles to bear and to remind people that there's a deeper issue here. You can, you can say, by the way, you're being very inconsistent here. I assume you thinks consistency is a virtue. Uh, let's try to get there. But isn't the deeper issue here whether parents have a right to send their kids to school? Right. You could go to it so quickly and yeah, distinguish yourself as someone who's thinking and principal and isn't just engaged and a, I gotcha. Uh, emotional volley. I dunno if that makes sense, but
Speaker 1 00:58:30 Yeah, no, that's a great, great point, Richard, because, uh, you know, I think, but part of the approach that we're taking is that, um, the, what aboutm, uh, response to someone's statement is, uh, a fallacy, but it's also, and the proper way to deal with it is to name the fallacy and then go to the deeper issue, um, at stake. The one that is, that is not being addressed, but should be. Um, but you, you're making me think, uh, that actually given the prevalence of that hoy, and you know, it, it, when p when people engage in, in a two quick way argument, their mind is focused on a certain issue. So that's a great opportunity Yeah. To say, you know, run with it. Um, it's kind of, um, philosophical jujitsu in a sense that you, you take an attack as a means of, uh, not, not weaning an argument per se, but getting to the underlying issue. And yes, yes. You know, you may convince a person, you may not, but you'll at least be talking about something real.
Speaker 2 00:59:43 Yes. And it's what, uh, it's what Ms. Rand used to call philosophic detection. The ability, and you don't have to be, uh, you know, we don't have to be PhD trained philosophers, although that helps on the logic fallacies, but people just as the laws of logic, David aren't maybe even taught anymore. Neither are the fallacies, the common fallacies. If people were just armed with these and be aware of them, they'd be much better in, not only in debate, but in just in their own thinking and structuring their own thinking. Right. Um, yeah, the, the other I wanted to throw out here for those who see this, cuz another version of this, although this is an entirely separate, uh, debate or discussion I see all the time, is it'll go like this, that's crazy. Or that's crazy talk, or That's crazy town, or that's nuts, or You are insane. The psychologist, what, what's called psychol is very common these days and people just sneak it into their conversations a lot. That is obviously at hominem, it's, it's worse. It's like playing armchair psychologist. But, um, it's, it's maybe even David Cruder and then just saying, by the way, you're inconsistent or you flip flopped on this issue. But I, I am finding that all over the place that is very common now from all sides. The other, the one side just refers to the other is crazy as if the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
Speaker 1 01:01:14 Yeah.
Speaker 2 01:01:15 And it's, and that's, I always think to myself, no, it's not. Come on. Yes. Some people are philoso, uh, psychologically deranged. I get it. Uh, Michael, what's his mic? Michael Savage has a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. I mean, he's being, he's being funny and he's trying to be funny and cute about it. But that kind of thinking, if it's called that is, is also quite prevalent. And I think very, uh, unfortunate that people just go to, I don't have to answer this question, you're nuts. Or that's, yeah. Have you seen that? Have you noticed that? I've noticed that a
Speaker 1 01:01:48 Lot. I haven't noticed it as, um, as often as I guess you have. Um, but it, it, it is an, an ahoy uh, not quite a qu way, just saying, um, you, you're expressing this idea. It's not worth considering cuz it's crazy. Yeah. It's
Speaker 2 01:02:07 Crazy
Speaker 1 01:02:07 Idea. Right. So end of end of discussion. I'm attacking you as being in implicitly as being mentally disturbed. And it's, it's also, um, Rand talked about this in, in essay she called the, um, the argument from intimidation. Hmm. That is, yeah, you're putting forward a position which is so disreputable that it disqualifies everything else you might say. So I'm, I'm not even gonna listen. And, um, you know, some of us have been, uh, targets of that kind of argument before. Um, brand certainly was, and it's, uh, it's, it's, I think it is in our context we're talking about, uh, right now, I would say it's a form of Van Ho. I mean Yeah. In this case I'm not imputing your argument because you're a bad person. Um, I'm imputing your, uh, person because you have a bad view, just reputable view, but it's, you know
Speaker 2 01:03:12 Yeah. And pretty similar. And it, sometimes it's, it blurs into, well that's an eccentric or extreme argument. So the whole idea that that's out of the mainstream, therefore it's abnormal, therefore it's crazy. So easily dismissing, uh, the unconventional view as, um, not worthy of consideration at all. She, uh, yeah, she also wrote an essay called, uh, on Psychologizing, which is in Voice of Reason. I think it came from the Ayran letter in 1974 or so. So she addresses the issue specifically of people who go at others and, uh, psychologize about them instead of dealing with the philosophy and the fundamental ideas.
Speaker 1 01:04:00 So more questions, um,
Speaker 0 01:04:02 Yeah, we wanna encourage people from the audience to, uh, raise your hand. I still have a few more as well. Um, you know, I'm just kind of going back to this. I mean, don't I have a right to say to someone that I'm talking to, you know, so this principle is important to you. Mm. You know that either the, the president not have an affair or whatever it is. Uh, you know, will you also agree to that in, in assessing, you know, candidates of your own party, for example?
Speaker 1 01:04:32 Sure.
Speaker 2 01:04:34 Yeah. I like that.
Speaker 1 01:04:36 Yeah. I mean, I don't think anything we've said is, is, um, would be against that. Um, it's, you know, we do, we do think that <inaudible> way, um, instead of being just this complete conversation, stopper is an opportunity to go deeper. And that's one, one route of getting deeper. What, what is your view about this? Um, you know, you're espousing a view that, um, takes this view in general. How, how would you, will you accept it as when it applies to this other issue?
Speaker 0 01:05:14 Right.
Speaker 1 01:05:15 That's
Speaker 2 01:05:16 Scott. I, I, I wanted to, uh, sometimes this might help the, uh, cuz what you said reminded me of the kind of phenomenon we see today, which is, I guess a form of tribalism. I'm in my tribe, others are in their tribe, I'm in my party, uh, my party, right or wrong, others in the other party. And there's a kind of a knee jerk, therefore emotional like reaction to something. And the more interesting people I've noticed, intellectuals are the ones who question their own party. You know, they try to make the Republican party more liberty oriented in areas they're not, or people on the democratic side, Alan Dershowitz and others who are trying to do that. It's a, it's a test of their principles that they're willing to, you know, do some kind of internal house cleaning to have their side stick to the principles.
Speaker 2 01:06:06 But I've always been interested in the idea of partisanship, political parties, the idea of being partial is a form of non-objective, uh, approach. The, I mean, the impartial approach, right, is not to see just the parts of something or the piece of something, you know, the tale of the elephant, but not the whole elephant, I think is, is is relevant here too. And back to David's point about pragmatism, pragmatism, uh, you know, ews the integration. And so it's, it's prone to saying, just look at the part, the the partial aspect, the literally the party aspect, my team versus the other team. It's not focused on one ideas to the truth or validity of ideas, but rather who's espousing them. What, what party is espousing them? What group, special interest group, right? That kind of thing. Uh, I don't know if that's what you're getting at, but I see that as well. And, and if you can in a debate like that, say to people, what is the principle? I don't care whether you're a Republican or Democrat, I don't care whether you're rich or poor, do you believe in, you know, x
Speaker 0 01:07:11 Right? But
Speaker 2 01:07:12 Is a good, good is a good approach, I think.
Speaker 0 01:07:15 Can it still be objective to have made an assessment that one side is a much greater threat than the other, if only by virtue of, of how many cultural institutions they've taken over in the last generation. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And then as a result of that, uh, you know, deciding that yes, I'm still gonna be objective, I'm still gonna look at what's going on, but I'm not gonna nitpick the, uh, smaller problems of the party that I don't see in that, you know, new religion kind of light.
Speaker 2 01:07:52 Good question.
Speaker 1 01:07:52 I'm not sure what you're getting at Scott. Quite, could you elaborate a bit?
Speaker 0 01:07:57 I'm just saying that it, I'm still being objective in the sense of making an assessment that one, uh, kind of political side is a much greater threat than the other. And as a result, I'm not being a blind partisan, but I'm making a conscious choice to, uh, you know, just still notice the bad things that are happening on that side, but, you know, weigh it in the, the bigger picture within the hierarchy of values.
Speaker 1 01:08:29 I think that sounds perfectly reasonable. Uh, good use of of one's mind. Um, I mean, uh, you know, if, if you're gonna take an action of voting and participant participating in the democratic process of choosing, um, the people who are gonna be governing you, uh, then you should vote on your, your best assessment of who will do the best job and the job that closely, most closely corresponds to your views. And, you know, we, we now have this elaborate, uh, political infrastructure of parties. So that shapes a lot in, in how you go about it. But I Why would anyone, um, I mean, coming from, from our point of view, not disagree with it, you should make judgements about, um, which ideas you're gonna support, which people expressing those ideas you wanna support, even if in the context of an election, it's a real mixed bag. Um, so you're sometimes just choosing the least of the evils, lesser of the evils.
Speaker 2 01:09:40 You know, Scott, I I agree with that David Scott. I think if I know what you're getting at, you know, say, say Objectivist, get in a room and they say, what is the greatest threat to the, uh, the free society, the Marxist, uh, Democrat left, or the uh, religious right? And uh, you know, to the extent pro capitalism argument, pro liberty arguments have generally been seen as right wing, um, there is this debate. I know you're involved in it as, uh, you know, should we be purifying the right and criticizing them more cuz they're in our camp, uh, even though the left and the Marxists may be more, uh, threatening, which I think they are by the way. And so they're, is there some kind of, uh, phenomenon where they're left wing objectivist or something like that, Scott, where they're simply, they're, they're giving a pass to much on the left and and are really, really harsh to the right.
Speaker 2 01:10:34 And then it might relate also to the schisms within, I think David and I are talking about the idea of if you're really principled about this, that would actually prevent, not prevent, that would basically ignore schisms, right? The, the more principled you are, I think you wouldn't be involved in these very hair splitting schisms and over and, and exaggerating the differences, especially related to the broader context are, are we losing the free society or not? Is that what you're getting at Scott? That the kind of hair splitting that goes on at intramural battles, civil wars that are more black women,
Speaker 0 01:11:11 I'm not all that's involved. I was really just making the point that one can have partisan leanings and yeah, still not necessarily be tribal.
Speaker 2 01:11:22 Hmm, I see. Yeah.
Speaker 0 01:11:24 So, uh, but we're, uh, very pleased to have, uh, professor Steven Hicks with us. Uh, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 6 01:11:32 Hi. Thanks guys. I'm coming in late, so I hope I'm not repeating something made earlier, but I'm interested in a phenomenon that's, uh, partly psychological and partly, you know, cognitive epistemology, uh, about, uh, uh, uh, this hypocrisy issue. Um, I noticed when I'm observing debate, sometimes participating in debates online that people are very sensitive to, uh, hypocrisies in their outgroup where whatever, uh, ingroup they're part of, they have their religious, political or whatever, uh, adversaries, and they're very sensitive to inconsistencies in the points that are being made by the outgroup. Uh, they notice them and then they, uh, you know, they attack them and then say, well, what about this? Right? And so on. But it gets more complicated when you turn to the ingroup. Cause you know, very often there are, uh, hypocrisies and inconsistencies in the points that are made by ones ingroup.
Speaker 6 01:12:30 And then, uh, there seems to be, uh, either an oblivious to the inconsistency more on the ingroup, or if the inconsistency is noted, uh, reluctance to, uh, to call it out and to do anything about it. So there's, there's these two elements. One is cognitively being able to identify the inconsistency or hypocrisy and then the willingness to do something about it. Um, so my question is, uh, do you guys, since, uh, you know, this is your, your topic, uh, when we are doing in group, uh, say house cleaning, I think Richard used that word a little earlier. Do you think the greater issue is, if there is, in whatever groups you identify with, uh, inconsistencies or people who are on your team and they are hypocrites, uh, is there greater difficulty just seeing the inconsistency? Or is the greater difficulty, uh, being willing to do something about the inconsistency once you've noticed it?
Speaker 2 01:13:38 Hmm. That's a great question. David, do you have a thought?
Speaker 1 01:13:43 Yeah, I think that's, um, uh, Steven, I wanna say yes and no <laugh> to those questions because, um, at times, uh, you know, in the objective, I'm, IM, and let me take the objective is movement as our, um, example to talk about, because, you know, anything we say about tribalism or groups or controversies in general, we should apply to our own ingroup, um, <laugh> as well. And, uh, for, for the sake of consistency. But, um, you know, there is a pattern in objectivism of people being hyper sensitive to small differences and being fearful about, um, raising them. Um, we all know the background of that. And, um, it's, it's not good On the other hand, um, you know, it, it, it's very easy for a group to be kind of have a, a big tent outlook so long as you are, um, have this, have the same points of reference, the same basic understanding.
Speaker 1 01:14:54 Um, the ideal thing is what I think we had at our old summer seminars, um, Steven, you know, this, uh, from experience that people got together, um, and for a week of intellectual, uh, lectures and talks and, you know, conversations all night. And they loved it, in part because people had the same basic principles. They all agreed there was a reality that you should pursue yourself interests, that capitalism is good. So we didn't have to debate those arguments. Uh, we could get down to finer points and there was a lot of healthy, I think, pretty healthy discussion, um, and some good ideas that came out of it. So that's kind of my image of the way things should be. Uh, but I think it's, it is a little harder to be, you know, if you have an in group with a lot of people knowing each other, uh, with friendships and, um, uh, sometimes, you know, business connections or, uh, uh, involvement in, you know, discussion groups, organizing discussion groups, uh, involved with an organization like the Atlas Society.
Speaker 1 01:16:09 We have personal relationships as well as, uh, and professional relationships. And so we're not, you know, we we're operating in that context where it, there's certainly a willingness or, or a temptation to ignore, um, you know, what we might otherwise have spotted as an inconsistency, uh, or if we do spot it in, unwillingness to make an issue out of it. Cause there's a friendship involved or a professional relationship. So I didn't know, I didn't know where the balance is, uh, honestly, even though I've been part of this movement for, you know, um, 40, 40 some years. Richard, you have any thoughts on, on this?
Speaker 2 01:16:53 I do. It's a really good question, Steven. I, I interpret it to mean is it easier or harder to detect hypocrisy within the ingroup? I love that to express the ingroup versus the, and then to do something about it. I, I think there's a certain myopia that develops with the ingroup, especially if we're in the minority, especially, especially if we're, oh my gosh, we're a minority within a minority within the liberty movement. And, um, I have noticed that I would go, okay, the easier side would be, it's easier to detect and do something about an inconsistency in the ingroup. If you have a wider frame of reference about, uh, is this so important an issue that it relates to the broader world? Na uh, I don't know an example of this, I'm trying to think of an example of this would be, um, I don't know, suppose there was some wrangling about whether the way to privatize education is just abolish private schools or do vouchers, you know, so the Friedman Knights had vouchers and Ayran would criticize that for, well, that's a compromise.
Speaker 2 01:17:58 That's a halfway measure. You're not getting rid of the public schools, you're just giving people a check to spend on the public schools. I, I would look at it as if you looked at the broader context of, well, that's better than nothing. It's better than what we have now. You wouldn't have as much infighting, but if you, you were looked at the purity of it, you'd, you'd fight internally forever and never get anywhere, which they haven't actually in vouchers. Another example of this I think is foreign policy, but maybe the most interesting one is open versus closed, which you debated recently. I know Steven and David has been involved in this for a while. Notice on that there's a lot of, uh, retrospectives that can be done, especially by those who know the players, which we do, right? So you go back and you say, Hey, wait a minute, this person X was actually basically advocating open until they changed their views because of this book that came out, or this personality clash that occurred <laugh> though that are, that is so intramural and so inside baseball, so to speak.
Speaker 2 01:19:01 And yet, um, we know that that's an example of, well, hey, it's what about ism? But it's within our own group. Hey, what about when you said, you know, in 1988 it should be open, and now you're saying it's closed. That happens a lot. But my, my basic answer is if you have within your in group a perspective of how do we stand in relationship to the broader culture, um, do we have an answer to the broader culture, in which case, who cares whether we have air splitting differences about X and y? We're so much better than the alternative. Um, there's no sense fighting about this. I don't know if that makes sense, but
Speaker 0 01:19:39 Yeah. Um, I was gonna say, uh, the beginning of the Atlas society was David questioning some inconsistencies. So, uh, <laugh>, uh, the, um, I just wanna go back to something you said earlier, Richard, the, the supply siders, they, they were asking the keynesians in the eighties, you know, why they weren't being consistent with their beliefs of, of overall government spending. And I mean, it was probably cuz it, there was a Republican in the White House. Yeah,
Speaker 2 01:20:08 Yeah. And there were deficits and yeah, so the, when the Keynesians ran deficits under L B J and jfk, their view was this stimulates the economy. So with the, but the way they did it is they spent more than tax revenues. Well, the Republicans finally figured out, we're never gonna win another election unless we advocate tax cuts. Well, the tax, but without spending cuts. So the, the 1980s prescription was, you still had deficits only it was, uh, in part due to tax cuts. So the deficits still showed up and the keynesians hated the tax cuts. So they tried to ding the Reagan knights for spewing out deficits. And of course that they were inconsistent. And the supply side has a right to say that. Um, ultimately that debate was one because people said, let's discuss whether deficits are, uh, detrimental or not. Not I gotcha. On your inconsistencies, you see why a supply, a supply sider could say, you can't criticize me keynesians, cuz you've always said deficits are great. Now we have huge deficits. So that should be great that that didn't work.
Speaker 0 01:21:18 All right, well, what about the issue that, you know, part of woke is the double standard. We talked about, you know, double standards in the justice system, but this idea that, you know, uh, historically marginalized groups, um, you know, basically almost can't be bigoted depending on how they phrase it. And so that takes away, you know, if we can't address that type of thing, we're just at a, a complete disadvantage and unable to, to argue for our position.
Speaker 1 01:21:51 Well, I, there's, that is an example of something that's very pervasive and has many other examples, and that is, um, kind of poly logic. Uh, the Marxist made a thing out of this. Mm, if you're a bourgeois, um, nothing you say can count because you are, your ideas are governed by your class membership and you're on the, uh, at the wrong end of the stick for that buddy. So, um, yeah, only proletariat logic is valid and that your freudians did something like that. You protest a pian, um, thesis and the Freudians come back and say, well, you just have a, uh, uh, the subconscious complex about this issue. So, you know, get wise, get, go to a therapist, and you know, now we see that in the work group. Um, I mean, it's a standard tech, uh, tech tactic of people who, um, wanna have, uh, a kind of un unreputable position that is unre something.
Speaker 1 01:23:05 They, they set up a, a fence that says, you cross this fence, you're gonna be electrified. So, um, only the only, there's only outgoing traffic here, we'll tell you what to believe. And, you know, Steven could, you know, tell us a lot more about this and a lot, uh, a lot fuller context. But, um, there are, I mean, the one aspect of the wokeness is a complete double standard by the, at least by the, uh, standards of, of universal, you know, claims about human beings because, uh, the victim classes ha can do say things and do things that the oppressor classes are, are not allowed to culturally and now occasionally politically, uh, through cancellations and so forth. So, um, yeah, that is, uh, but that whole pattern that I described from March to Freud to, uh, the, some of the postmodern w wus, um, is a kind of fancy ad ho right? You, your arguments are not worth even considering because of your class class membership.
Speaker 2 01:24:20 You know, I've heard it said that, uh, the relativists, you know, have no standards. And so someone said, well, at least they have double standard, at least there's two, the two standards, but still they, here's another opportunity I think for us to make a difference. It you, you immediately think when you hear someone say it's a double standard, what would be the singular standard? What, or as David put it, the universal standard, what would be the objective standard, you know, that all should, uh, adhere to, and that is so resistant today, right? What do you mean a singular? You mean a a what are you a mon you know, there's only one answer, one ideology back to that point, David, right? It's a pragmatist pushing against that. But it's nice. I, I think it, I like the fact that people are saying double standards. There's something wrong with double standards.
Speaker 2 01:25:09 Yeah. And, but they still have to go to the root of, okay, what is the singular standard that's defensible. That's true. I, I'm thinking of, uh, when the Supreme Court, uh, on Dobbs a year ago over through Roe v. Wade, um, I <laugh>, I remember one of the critiques from the, uh, other side was, Hey, I thought you guys believed in judicial restraint. I thought you guys were judicial passivists. You know, all of a sudden you're active and you're overturning things and overthrowing things. And then of course, and of course the right said, yeah, but you've been doing that for decades. They, here's the, what about is I all over the place again? What? Okay, so what is the singular standard? Is the, is this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court or not? Are the states or not? Is this an indi a thing of individual rights? I find the same thing you can get in debates with libertarians about this, um, uh, fellow travelers possibly say, what is the singular standard to gauge what a government should do, protect individual rights. Not every libertarian would say it that way. They would say, that's a bit narrow, that's a bit rigid. It's a bit strict. What do you mean by rights? Um, but anyway, it's a good question, Scott. The double, triple, quadruple standards that are out there ubiquitous.
Speaker 0 01:26:26 Yeah. And that's just going back to what you said about, you know, when someone brings up brand social security or they just, you know, maybe it's an objectivist that decides he doesn't like libertarians. And so, you know, this could be a, you know, bringing up the social securities. Often a lefty who's decided they don't like grant's ideas, so they're just looking for excuses to trash her, but they even go to the private journals. And so, you know, that's the type of thing where if I get the sense someone is coming at it from that angle, they're not looking to like learn about her that I do want the right to like, at least identify that and see how they react and maybe move forward if, if they're, they're not that type of person.
Speaker 2 01:27:12 You remember, David, in our discussions, uh, we talked about it was I think Emerson who said, uh, consistency is the hobb goblin of Little Minds. Yeah. <laugh>. Well, so the, to the extent the Emersonian, uh, spirit is still out there, this is not considered a virtue in a lot of some people, you're very small-minded Kelly Salzman brand for wanting consistency. You need to be more, you need to be more profound would say, we would say an academic nuanced, subtle. I, I would be in, uh, graduate seminars and the, the, uh, professor would say, you know, because I would try to centralize and simplify my assessment of something John Rawls or something. And the, the, the feedback I'd get is they would say, Salzman, you have to complexify
Speaker 0 01:28:09 <laugh>.
Speaker 2 01:28:11 They're not, simplify was simple tin to them, sim simp to simplify or get to the essentials or be consistent was not pro. It was not profundity. Profundity was obscurity, was profundity.
Speaker 0 01:28:29 <laugh>. Well, that is a good profound note to, uh, end things. Uh, thank you so much. This has been a great conversation. I really enjoyed it. I hope, uh, everyone did too. Uh, coming up next week, uh, we've got a current events with Steven Hicks and Richard Salzman. That's gonna be Wednesday, July 19th at 5:00 PM Eastern. And then next Thursday back here on Clubhouse, uh, Richard will be back here with an Ask Me Anything at 6:00 PM Eastern. So looking forward to that. Uh, our Gulch Gulch summit is coming up, uh, in Tennessee. We look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks again to, uh, everyone who, uh, joined us, and, uh, we'll see you next time. Thanks, Scott. Thanks for hosting. Thank you. Thanks Dave. Yeah,
Speaker 1 01:29:18 Thanks Scott. Thanks Richard. Take care everyone for listening.
