Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Uh, yeah. Normally when people think of, um, government funded education or government schools, I think a lot of people generally think that it's because of, um, reasons having to do with indoctrination. So I think, you know, like a lot among many conservatives and people generally, or opponents of public funded education, there is this sort of idea that government schools are bad because they're conveyor bells of indoctrination that the state by means of forcibly exercising, a course of monopoly in the field of education, sort of conscripts the minds of children and stamps it with the, um, what can I call it? The insignia of state propaganda. And, um, in effect, the brains of children are cognitively nationalized. You know, like how we can say when you Ize a business, you sort of nationalized the brains of people, of, of businessmen or women. So this is indeed true, I think, but it's not just the case with government schools because the same propaganda and I think doctrinal philosophies, which are simply idea pathogens, also in fact, private education as well.
Speaker 0 00:01:16 And, uh, more importantly, private institutions that also receive government aid. So our private schools today are just as woke and as progressive in the regressive sense, um, or that term as any leftwing school that teaches hatred of America or, or of individualism capitalism or self reliance in this day and for the religious tradition of others. So I would suggest that mind's mind's conscription is incidental and that it is made possible. I think by deeper philosophical issue that few grapple with in a consistent manner. So I, I basically think that the state can only have a coercive monopoly on education and afford to right enforcing doctrinal ideas on children. If a basic idea is left unchallenged, um, in our society. Right? Um, and that idea is the idea that we are responsible for the procreate choices of other people, um, who are responsible for not, yeah, we're responsible for the procreate choices that other people make.
Speaker 0 00:02:32 And this idea is codified into a principle that results in the fiscal enslavement of people into supporting the reproductive choices others made for themselves, which they then penalize others for as a natural, right? So public education is tax funded education, which means that parents are made to understand that they are not responsible for educating their own children. And that society as a whole shall assume the responsibility of paying for the education of your children. So why not their cribs? Why not their diapers? Why not their birthday cakes? Why specifically, should we support the reproductive choices that others have made in the educational realm? Either reproductive choices that we make in life, the responsibility of others, or are they our own, do we have a constitutional or natural right. To have children we cannot afford to maintain? Is it a form of child neglect to bring more children into the world than you can afford to support?
Speaker 0 00:03:30 And when you have children, is it fair to expect your neighbors to bear in the financial responsibility of raising them? And they may have decided not to have any, or just to have one or two or just the exact number their budget can afford over the course of a, over the course of a lifetime. So, you know, people who have sacrificed and planned their lives carefully and are already in debt and sending their children to school, we need to ask a question by what moral, right. Would anyone dare tell them that they have a right to finance the education of a stranger? Now, the answer that is given has a utilitarian upshot to it, people will say that each child brought into the world constitutes a social good for society in general. And we would have to ask a question, well, what do you mean by social good and progressives, and even conservatives often mean that would serve the public interest.
Speaker 0 00:04:28 And when you ask people to define the, the public interest, if fumble and mumble and twist themselves like linguistic pretzels into all orders of moral conundrums. So society's nothing more than the sum of each individual person. Therefore, if you reference the public good, we would first have to logically refer to what is the good of each individual person. And the answer to this presupposes a question as, and ran said, how do we know what the good is? Right? What constitutes the good, no, one of the glorious achievements of America and one that has, um, appealed to millions. The world over is that here in America, we get to choose a conception. At least for the time being, um, we get to choose the conception of the good for ourselves. For some that's having a family for others, it's pursue a career or devoting one's life to specialized hobby service to others, traveling, you name it.
Speaker 0 00:05:24 There are as many conceptions of the good as there are persons to imagine them for themselves. And in the United States, the state has no business imposing its or any conception of the good on you or deciding apriori what your conception of the good is. It leaves you the freedom to choose your own notion of the good so long as in doing so you do not violate the rights of others, the individual rights of others, and any foisted notion of the public good on, on individual means that a group of people has decided that their interest and their conception of the good should be the sum of the good of all members of a society. Now, this is an act of tyranny because it overrides your conscience and it takes you where your indubitable capacity to decide what the good is for you personally. Now, if your conscience is overridden, then its judgements are muted.
Speaker 0 00:06:18 And your capacity to act on them are Stid and deeply compromised. And you're you're paralyzed. And you cannot do anything about any kind of moral malfeasance that's committed against you. And then there's also the big lie, right? A strangest child cannot possibly be a good for me in the deepest and wider sense of the term. I can respect intrinsic dignity of the child and acknowledge her or his inviable moral worth, but the child cannot be a valuable, a value to me in a meaningful sense of what a value is and how we actually choose our values. So it's an act of great presumption to suggest that master children born each day do or ought to constitute a social good for the rest of society. Those children are good for their parents and the families into which they're born.
Speaker 0 00:07:12 I know the fact that so many children grew up to be social Ballas, right? Drags on society and sad perhaps should never have been brought into the world, actually makes a total mockery of the concept of the universal value of persons, procreated choices as social goods to society. So I think this is a gas idea, but it is the idea on which not just public funded education for government schools gains it's justification and legitimacy, but the philosophical premise and edifice on which the entire welfare state, um, arrests is case. So when individuals decide to cut through the moral Maras and identify the unnamed principle that justifies public education, then I think we'll have a wholesale rejection of government schools and much of the welfares in general, to announce to all persons that when they decide to have a child, they and they alone are responsible for the entire upkeep and support of the child. And that there is no sustainable moral principle that could secure societal support of everyone's proative choice is a daring moral act. Now, some people believe that they are their brothers keeper, a principle that if taken to its logical Terminus and applied consistently would actually leave a human being. I think financially bereft and physically depleted. Nevertheless, they're free to be their brothers keeper, but I don't think that a personal or religious belief as such odd, um, or, um, ever to be elevated to the level of public policy.
Speaker 0 00:08:54 Um, now if you seem willing to question this assumed natural, right, that everyone should have children as if human beings were, I don't know, farm animals or biologically cyclical jungle beast. So I don't know why the framing narrative predicated on an absence of clear, hard thinking, you know, something on the order of children just happen to be born mostly unplanned. And that is all right, is taken for granted, you know, home ownership, car ownership, yacht ownership are not for everyone. They may be out of the fiscal reach of some people. And so our children, and there is just no markedly, non sentimental way to look at this issue. If one cannot afford to have to properly raise a child, one has to make the rational and moral decision not to have one. And until people who make irresponsible choices are held accountable by those who do make rational choices, all the evils scribed to government schools will continue automated. So folks will continue to identify incidental reasons, right? Like doctrinal philosophies being our brainwashing or all the, what I would call incidentals of government education as the real evil. Um, when I think that, as I've said, it's the principle of financing, the procreate choices of other people, which make all the incidentals possible and they will evade the simple, obvious reason that is so close at hand that is legalized theft is justified to finance the irrational choices of others. So I think I took about 10 minutes to say all of that. So I'll stop there.
Speaker 1 00:10:47 Thank you, Jason. Really very interesting way of, of framing this. Um, not one that I had, uh, thought of before, but, uh, at least not in, in this particular context, uh, but as somebody who chose not to have children and is forced to pay for, uh, other people's children's education, it's one that really resonates. Um, David, do you have some thoughts?
Speaker 2 00:11:16 Um, well thanks. Thank you, Jason. I agree, uh, with that, the fundamental issue here is the premise of the welfare state, which applies, um, you've named the principle that underlies basically all of welfare, um, that someone is, people are not responsible for their choices in life and it applies to public housing, um, welfare payments, um, and on and on. So, but, um, I guess the, the question I would have is, um, how can we most effectively, um, make this case and make it stick? I mean, I know I don't have kids either and I hated paying, uh, taxes to support the public schools at different places where I've lived. Um, so that is particularly irritating because children having children is a huge value to everyone, to the people I know who have them and, um, a joy and, um, you know, one of the most, potentially one of the most meaningful aspects of, of a person's life, but it's a choice and, uh, I've made my own choices and I don't like paying for other people, but I, that said, I don't, I'm not wild by paying for, uh, um, any other aspect of government supply.
Speaker 2 00:12:45 You, you got transfer payments from one person to another, from the, those who produce money and pay taxes to those who, um, for whatever reason aren't benefited by the state. So I, can we make this, um, what I'm just interested in your ideas about the most effective way to make the case that you've made in principle, um, here today and most persuasive way to do it?
Speaker 0 00:13:10 Yeah, well, I think the most pers persuasive way to do it is to, um, is to shut off the logical contradictions. Because on, on one hand, we, we send a message that it's not okay, at least in America to pay for your children's diapers. It's not okay to pay for their birthday parties and it's not okay to pay for, um, other amenities, but it's okay to pay for their education because somehow this lingering idea that they constitute a social good for the rest of society. So I think the philosophical legwork has to be done consistently to show that when you make a reproductive choice, that's your fiscal response for that choice and really lay out the philosophical legwork and say that look, your procreate choices, the consequences of that cannot be passed on to other people and give con and give and give other examples.
Speaker 0 00:14:09 Like when you make certain choices in your life, like when you, when you make a decision to get married to someone you don't expect society to pay for your wedding, right? When you make a certain choice to go on a, on a vacation, you don't expect society to pay for your vacation. So why is it that when you make a choice to have a child, you expect the size to pay for the education of your child and then give them the answer? Well, because there is this idea that your child constitutes some thing of a social good for the rest of society, and then explain what that actually means. And the fallacy underlying that conception of a social good that a social good is a misnomer really explaining to people. I think it's, it's, it's, it's not going to be easy, but I think in clear, simple, elegant language explaining over and over and over again, the fallacious reasoning behind it, uh, and using examples, why in, in certain spheres of a person's life, one is not expected to pay for the choices and the consequences of the choices that people have made, but why in other areas it's because we have bought into certain species arguments and why those arguments don't pass really certain philosophical, meaning philosophical, meaning tests.
Speaker 0 00:15:35 It won't be easy because people have been habituated into thinking these, these in these manners of thought for centuries, uh, millennial, really, um, well, that's not true because actually the, the idea of a public education is quite early in America, um, in this country, but in, in, but it's, it's, it's it's has saturated our thinking. So I just, I think that, um, you know, it's something that even conservatives buy into, it's not just pro progressives or leftists, it's just, uh, cuz conservatives also buy into many conservatives buy into the idea of the idea of a social good and children, constituting, a social good and talk about the public interest and the common good. So I think in clear elegant language reinforcing this idea, um, over and over and over again is, and then backing it up with policy, just sort of, you know, shutting down, just advocating or electing officials who are not advocates of public schools and, and, and, and having fewer public schools and backing it up with elegant reasoning, um, that people can really understand, uh, it'll take time. But I think over time ideas such as the ones that we're talking about, uh, will stick. Um, not everyone will agree with them, but not everyone has to agree with the ideas for them to have some sort of traction, um, and staying power.
Speaker 2 00:17:05 Well, I, I agree with that. I'm an optimist, like you are on this score. Um, but I, let me ask, uh, just a quick follow up and you can answer it now or, or put it in the hopper to discuss later, but one of the reasons that education seems distinctive has to do with, um, uh, the idea of a social good that one of the social goods is, um, supporting a democratic form of government. And the argument has often been made democracy, requires an educated citizen rate. Um, and I, that, that was, I, I know that was an argument that was offered, um, in time for the early, uh, some of the early public education, right. So if we did not have public education, um, people still vote, um, and it might, at least has led me to wonder, well, maybe instead of public education, which, um, education should be the responsibility of parents, but to the extent that people are gonna vote and help determine, you know, policies, government policies that will apply to everybody, should there be maybe, um, um, a literacy test anyway, like there used to be in some states or, um, some kind of requirement to before you, uh, get the right to vote, to, um, have some kind of understanding of what it is you're voting about.
Speaker 2 00:18:38 So I'll just leave it there.
Speaker 0 00:18:40 And I'll just quickly say probably, but, and that's even a, more of a reason to abolish public education, because look at the sort of, um, look at the way that people who are children who are the recipients of public education, know nothing about civics, know nothing about the government and go on to make sort of foolish choices and, um, ill-informed choices as, as, as voters. So, um, yeah, maybe I just, just sort of stopped there.
Speaker 1 00:19:12 All right. Um, I want to recognize, uh, we have not only our senior scholar professor Richard Salzman up here on stage, but we also have professor Steven Hicks in the room. So, uh, Richard, did you have a question or some insights to share?
Speaker 3 00:19:29 Uh, I, uh, question, uh, and a brief insight, Jason really important topic, and it, it befuddles me as to why conservatives continue to, uh, criticize, but support public education or government schools. And I'm wondering whether the reason is they're preoccupation. It's not so much a social utility argument of the kind David just mentioned, oh, you know, an informed electorate and all that. And I hear it in economics called positive externality, which is another myth, but it, it, could it be that the conservatives here want the government involved because they're preoccupied with, uh, children, their just their view is have children, no matter what their anti-abortion stance that maybe they recognize that that would basically possibly flood the world with unwanted and UN cared for children. Therefore they're inclined to say, have the government take care of it. It's really something we should be on our side criticizing this conservatives for. But I'm wondering if you just, any thoughts on the motivation as to why we do not see conservatives doing much beyond, uh, yelling and screaming at, uh, school board meetings or trying to change the curriculum. You know, they're not against government schools, they just want their curriculum forced on public schools. So the motive of conservatives here,
Speaker 0 00:20:51 I was gonna say the, the conservatives are just as much propaganda and, and doc and, and, and interested in having their own doctrinal. Yeah. Philosophers imposed today. Look, Roe V. Rob was just overturned today. And Clarence Thomas himself just said that, you know, we need to revisit contraception among married people and, uh, possibly, um, criminalizing, um, um, homosexuality in invoking sodomy laws. Again, I think the conservatives are sometimes worse in the progressives in the sense that they, you know, I think we're heading for theocracy in about a couple of years. And so the conservatives I think are interested in, in public schools because they themselves want their own ideologies. Um, um, circa 1950 Mississippi, and the governor of Missouri came out today and said, he will, he steadfast refuse, refuses to rule out banning contraception in this state. So, um, they are as, as much, uh, in favor of, of, of having, um, what I would call these idea pathogens that you find in the public school systems. It's just their own idea, their, their own version of idea pathogens, um, spread among and disseminated among, um, among, among children on the religious variant, you know, uh, with a religious upshot to it, uh, theocratic upshot to it. And, um, and so it's, it's, it's too, it's, it's, it's what ran would call, you know, the, the mystics of the muscle. And, um, what was the other variant that she used the mystics of the, um,
Speaker 3 00:22:28 Spirit
Speaker 0 00:22:28 Spirit, the mystics of the spirit to two variants of the same coin, um, each vying for power, uh, neither of which, there, there are no innocence here, so I'll, so I think the conservatives have their own agenda and they want to, to ban certain books and introduce certain canonical texts of their own, in order to, to, to literally breed a, uh, uh, to rebrand public schools into a different, um, into a different version of pro producing of children that will spawn different kinds of values. Um, so I, I think they have, they have their own vested interests, um, in taking away from the progressive left their own bad version of ation left, doing version of indoctrination left, doing radical indoctrination and reating children into something that I don't think is any better at all. Uh, in some cases it's much, it's much worse. Um, but that's, that, that would be my answer, Richard. Um,
Speaker 3 00:23:29 Thank you, Jason. Uh, thank you. I, by the way, uh, apropo what you and David just talked about. I, I sometimes say to students or other professors who bring up the social utility argument or the, uh, positive externality argument, namely, um, an educated, populous is good for society. Therefore everyone should be forced to pay for it. I sometimes I'll say, and it's a very interesting response. You might try this, even if I accepted your criteria, which I don't, what do you make of the fact that the government schools are producing massive literacy and violence and innumeracy, at what point would you go and are using your own standard? Why wouldn't you say, get rid of these schools, defund the schools, cuz they're creating monsters. They almost never say yes, it's almost like that. That the whole thing is a Trojan horse, this, oh, we're trying to educate if you tell them and the numbers are undeniable as you know, they will not go there. They make up some other excuse. Well it's yeah, maybe it's deteriorating, but it's gonna improve. And they do it right in Singapore, but not in whatever. So it's a very revealing kind of evasiveness when you use even their own standard of social utility. Just FYI.
Speaker 0 00:24:43 Thanks. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:24:46 All right. And I, haven't invited you all to raise your hands and uh, ask a question of professor hill or professor Kelly or professor Salzman. So, uh, we'd love to make the conversation interactive. I would also love to ask a personal favor, please share the room shared on clubhouse, ping others that you know, into the room so they can join in this conversation. Scott, you're unusually quiet. So I know you have some thoughts to share
Speaker 4 00:25:18 <laugh> yeah. Uh, great topic. Thank you. Um, I'm curious, uh, if you saw about the Supreme court ruling, um, in Maine about being able to give, uh, private, uh, or kind of, you know, funds for education to, uh, private religious university or even schools, uh, for parents. And one of the interesting arguments I saw about it, uh, was they're worried that now it's actually going to make these private and religious schools, uh, more, almost like quasi government schools and, and more subject to their rules going forward.
Speaker 0 00:25:59 Abso absolutely. I mean, look, this is, this is, this is the continuation of the, of the argument that I just gave. Why I think the real evil of government schools is not has, is not the incidental argument is of course that there they impose doctrine ideas on people. It, again, it's because we are forced to support the pro reproductive choices that other people make because children constitute a social good to society. I think this is the basic idea here that we're gonna flood the religious schools with government funding, um, and make them a sort of ancillary of, of, of, or adjuncts of, of public schools. Um, universities are the same private universities that receive government funding, uh, continuing this sort of register. I mean, they're just partial government schools. They're not, they're not fully funded state schools like the K through 12 public schools or state universities, but it's still, it's still continuing in that same vein that although they're private institutions and they receive government aid, it's still continuing in that register that the state is partially funding, the reproductive choices that parents have made.
Speaker 0 00:27:23 So even parents who are paying a substantial amount of money for these private schools, it's being subsidized so that their reproductive choices are fully not their own responsibility. They're being, it's being subsidized by the state, which is a horrible idea because to David's question, how do we get the philosophical message across that your reproductive choices are yours. You're fiscally responsible for them, uh, just in the same way that when you buy a car and you take a vacation society, doesn't pay for those choices that you make, uh, when the government steps in and funds religious schools in any respect, it just makes it harder for thinkers in general intellectuals or non intellectuals or anyone who wants to convey the idea that your reproductive choices are. And the consequences of those choices are yours. They're yours alone. And the government just really, whether it's a conservative government or liberal government just really makes it, makes it really, really harder for us to get across the idea that the idea that children constitute is social good as society, as opposed to a social good or a moral good for their families or their parents that much harder.
Speaker 0 00:28:42 That's why I said earlier that, uh, in response, I think it was to, um, um, David's question or might be Richard might have been Richard's question that the conservatives himself have their own agenda of rebranding, uh, and re socializing. It would probably be the better term re socializing the students in these public schools into little minions of their own making. I mean, liberals want to make them into, uh, postmodern Marxists and cultural relatives and the conservatives, I think, want to make them into good little religious zealots who will usher in, in my view, a theocratic state both are dastardly. And we see this happening in, in the case of government funding, uh, religious schools. Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:29:33 I, I mean, I see the danger of, uh, theocracy in the sense that woke is a religion. I'm a little less worried about Christianity, but I do think you're making a great point that, you know, another issue is that that go, whatever institution is running, the school is going to have their own thing that they're pushing, whether it used to be more the Christian religious agenda or whatever the values were of that local community. And now it's much more of a, you know, C R T based kind of, uh, thing that they're pushing. But as long as the government's involved, it's like, you almost can't get away from that.
Speaker 0 00:30:12 Well, I tell you, Scott, I tell you, I mean, I, I was terrified by WN council culture, but after, after the, over, after the overturning of role today and after Clarence Thomas, someone, I actually know quite well and sat in his chambers with him for several hours and had a nice conversation after Clarence Thomas came out and talked about, you know, revisiting, uh, contraception and, and, and, and, and sodomy laws. And the governor of Missouri came out and said, absolutely, he will not rule out banning contraception. Uh, I'm more terrified now of the Christian, the, the, the, the, the Christian nationalists on the far right, that I'm about any war supremacist and cancer culture, because, um, you know, those people just look like kindergarten, uh, play things compared to what, um, these, these conservative judges are capable of wielding that is literally taking away our individual rights, confiscating them from us and criminalizing acts that are, uh, enshrined by PR that had been inured by privacy laws. So, you know, I don't know today was a, a very sad and horrific day for me, personally, as someone who supports, uh, and all of us in this room, I think are supporters of the inability clause and individual rights and, and the rights of women to, to, to exercise sovereignty and autonomy over their bodies.
Speaker 1 00:31:39 John, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 5 00:31:43 Hello. I'm sorry. I may have a bad connection. Um, uh, I think that this is, this discussion is timely because of the abortion decision. That is, um, a lack of public schooling might lead to in infanticide. That is one reason for abortion is that the, the mother or the parents cannot afford to have the child or to sustain it for the next 15 or 20 years. So, um, that's an issue with the abolition of public schooling is the public is taking on the cost as was previously discussed. So I just have to throw that out there for that, for the group to chew over. Thank you.
Speaker 1 00:32:37 Thanks, John. Jason, do you have any thoughts on that?
Speaker 0 00:32:43 Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean, it's, it's, it's sort of like, do you get rid of a, you get rid of a moral principle because of the consequence of, uh, a principle being overturned. I, I have to think about that one, because what happened today was just horrific. Um, you know, it's like Handmaid's tale, but I don't know. Do other people wanna chime in on that one? I have to really
Speaker 5 00:33:12 Think if I, if I might jump in and elaborate a little bit further, um, it's my opinion that both sides of the abortion debate are dishonest. I think it is dishonest is claim that a zygote is not a human being. One. It has two independent strands of DNA joined together, uh, becoming what will become an adult human in the future. I think it's equally dishonest for the right wing to claim that it's murder to kill a fetus that is society kills innocent people all the time, for instance, in hospice care or in mercy killing or in war, a drafted soldier coming over the Ridge feared of being shot in the back by his officers. You shoot him in the front because he is coming over the Ridge. I mean, so, uh, I, I think that the entire discussion about abortion is really one about when, when in infanticide is permitted. And so it, it, it it's, and both sides avoid that difficult question. And I, I don't mean to change the subject, but that's my point really with this discussion is that public education is about shifting the cost as we have previously discussed from the individuals who are the parents to the overall society. Um, and, and I'll leave it there,
Speaker 0 00:34:46 Right? Well, I, I must, I must give it a little pushback here and say that a six, a six week old, um, uh, number of, or a four week number of cells, conglomeration of cells is not the equivalent of, you know, uh, uh, uh, a 15 week, um, embryo and, um, the removal of, uh, number
Speaker 5 00:35:09 That's an arbitrary distinction. Jason, it's still two strands of DNA. It's a de and distinct person. It's different from the mother. It's different from the father and it will grow into a person. So now the burden shifts to you to tell me the difference between an eight month pregnancy and a one month old, tell me the difference we kill one or the other,
Speaker 1 00:35:34 I
Speaker 0 00:35:34 Guess this is some
Speaker 1 00:35:36 I would, I would add as the only woman woman up here on the, the stage that the, the difference is not about whether or not, um, you know, a potential life, whether it's a few days old or whether it's a few weeks old, uh, will become a life. It will only become a life if, uh, that woman decides to carry it to term. And the question really should be who does that decision belong to? And I, I have to
Speaker 5 00:36:06 That defines life as birth as the moment of birth. I think that's arbitrary.
Speaker 1 00:36:13 Uh, well, I think it's arbitrary to say that somebody other than a woman is going to be making a decision about what she has to do with her body. That to me is it's also arbitrary. So
Speaker 5 00:36:25 I, I agree to be in favor of, I agree, except this raises another related question. That's important for people of libertarian philosophy, which is what obligations do I have to my fellow, man, if any, that is, are we social creatures? And to what extent or are we just individuals? And to what extent and where do you draw the line there? Do I have an obligation to watch out for my fellow man, if I see somebody being mugged across the street, do I have an obligation to run over there and defend him at risk of my own life? That's the question I'll shut up.
Speaker 0 00:37:11 Well, you have, the obligation is, is if you'll have an obligation, if you want to undertake that obligation, that's it? I mean, I think John, if you don't have some sort of, there's no universal mandate that says you must risk your life to save a stranger. If you personally, I think, want to undertake that obligation, then you alone can assume that obligation. And
Speaker 5 00:37:33 Did those police officers at that school have an obligation?
Speaker 0 00:37:37 Well, they enter, they entered into a profession of their own voluntary choice that, uh, so they
Speaker 5 00:37:43 Nobody's charging them with complicity.
Speaker 0 00:37:45 They, they have, they, they on, they joined a profession, which by definition, uh, mandated that they protect the life of other people.
Speaker 5 00:37:54 So they had a duty and they failed to do it. So then Jason, you're saying they should be prosecuted.
Speaker 1 00:38:00 They, they had a actual professional contract. They, they received training and they, they signed up specifically to, uh, to fulfill the contract, to execute that training, agreed and put, put them some, but that's that's has I, I just, I'm failing to see the connection between, you know, I mean, if, if, if someone gets pregnant and decides for their reasons that they, uh, can't don't want to continue to be pregnant, they, they haven't signed a contract.
Speaker 5 00:38:35 I am profoundly sympathetic with that. I agree with you. Uh, I'm sorry, my I'm got a bad connection here. Um, I'm I'm and my battery isn't going low,
Speaker 1 00:38:46 Right. Well, thanks for mixing it out for us. Um, okay, Damien.
Speaker 6 00:38:53 Hello? Um, can you hear me? I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 00:38:57 Yes. Hello. It's always great light.
Speaker 6 00:39:00 Thank you. Thank you. No, I just wanted to chime in real quick, really, for the most part, I agree with everything, especially as hill. Um, I just say this is, to me, the reason why, um, like these philosophical conversations matter, because it's all about the essentials. And to me, when you're talking about essentials with these conversations, it all goes down to the morality of it. And really trying to, I guess, we're trying to choose, we have to choose something. So we choose we moral field is moral. And so for me, that makes the conversation about it really just eliminates the conversation about, uh, is this a or, uh, human or whatever. It really doesn't matter because it's really a conversation about the host, you know, and the host gets to make a decision actual life supersedes the potential life. So all of other conversations kind of like get shut, shut off at that point, if you ask me, um, the other thing that kind of relates to that point is I think, um, when we talking about these, these types of conversations, I understand that other people are going to see these in different situations.
Speaker 6 00:40:13 But I think it was already mentioned before that really, this is just different iterations of the same, uh, irrational or logical principle, you know, where people just don't get a, a choice to do that, what they want to do with their lives. And then they're just like, well, what about education? Uh, but what about when the, when the baby is as I go, but when about when the baby is a, this or that and the other, and I understand that some people want to hear that explanation for that specific case, but really at the end of the day, that's why I like these conversations. Cause it really relates to the, the basic more principle and that's what always should be followed. And I think that's what it's all about. That's just what I wanted to put in to the conversation.
Speaker 1 00:40:53 Really great point Damien and very clarifying Jason.
Speaker 0 00:40:59 No, I, I, I appreciate what Damien said about essentials because I think that's when I started the talk, I I'm, I tried to make a distinction between incident incidental arguments that are given for a case of why something might be evil or why something might be app inappropriate. And then the fundamental, the fundamental principle that makes, that makes the incidentals possible. So I think I really appreciate that because I think in philosophy, it's very, it's very crucial that we separate fundamentals from incidentals and, um, and that's not always easy. Sometimes we take the incidentals as if they're, uh, what ran would call irre use of the prime is, and it's very easy to mistake the incidentals, um, with the fundamentals and, and sometimes get them mixed up. So, um, that's really why I wanted to give this talk today because I'd just grown very tired of hearing people, um, give arguments for why public education is evil. And then, and I agreed with them and I thought that they're really not getting at the real fundamental issue that not just makes public education improper, but that, that makes the welfare state itself possible. Uh, and what they're pointing to are just incidentals or consequences that were derived from a basic fundamental principle, that few people really, really challenged at the core. So, so thanks. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:42:27 So I wanna raise another question which touches on education, uh, and the decision as well to have a family or not have a family and who bears responsibility and who gets to decide. But I, you know, I've noticed that, uh, it seems that many objectives, um, maybe there's a little bit more of a overrepresentation for those who choose not to have children. Uh I'm in that category, David's in that category. Uh Richard's in that category. Uh, I think Scott's in that category. Jason, I have a, you, you have a kid. All right. <laugh> and I know that, uh, Steven does, and, um, also, uh, John, who, who was speaking before does, but, um, maybe David, have you ever given any thought to that? Why, why might that be?
Speaker 2 00:43:27 Why, why it might be that, that I chose not to have children.
Speaker 1 00:43:32 Yeah. Or that that's a question that, you know, it's, it's, it's not necessarily the norm that, uh, that Objectivists have children and, and raise families and they choose different paths. And, um, I, you know, I know my own reasons, but, um, and we all have our individual reasons, but do you think there might be a reason why, you know, I Rand chose not to have children. I don't think that that objective is, are consciously following in her footsteps, but that maybe, um, they tend to value other, other aspects of their lives or other objectives, other pursuits over having a family. Well,
Speaker 2 00:44:11 Actually, actually, um, when I was married, uh, and early in the marriage, we, um, my wife and I at the time, um, did try, and it was not possible, but both of us were teachers. And we, um, uh, decided that really our, our students were our kids and we both in, you know, invested a huge amount of time in teaching. And, um, and then my writing was always the most important thing to me. So, um, life, life went on and, um, I would've, <laugh> my writing, honestly, it, my, you know, my intellectual work, would've been the most important thing in my life, even if I had kids, but, uh, I think, uh, many, many of the people I know and the objectives movement, um, have children, uh, and have thought a lot about education. And, um, and there are many second generation and third generation of activists that I, that I've met over the years.
Speaker 2 00:45:15 I, I think, um, we've, we've, um, former colleague of, of, of ours, uh, will William Thomas wrote about, um, uh, having families and kids and the value from an objective as an individual's point about it. And, you know, it was really, um, kind of moving and I think a lot of people respond to it. So I, I don't know. I, I just think Objectivists are maybe more willing to take advantage of choices in life given, um, the, uh, now, including, especially objective as women who are, have the same ambitions in work and achievement as men that, um, it's, it, it is definitely a choice and, um, like everything else, people are gonna differ on it. It's not, it's not objectives tend not to be just, uh, well, everyone has kids, you get married, you have kids, I'm gonna follow the pattern. Um, I think we're more independent. And, uh, but I do know that many, many, many people have over time, uh, in, in object among objectives have thought long and hard and deeply about the value of children and raising them with good values. And, uh, there's actually a lot of, uh, a lot of things that objectiveism could teach about job raising. So I'll, I'll just leave it there.
Speaker 4 00:46:52 Yeah. I wondered how much of it had to do with just academics or intellectuals more broadly than just objective
Speaker 1 00:47:02 Could be. But I, I think David raises a good point is, is that as, at, as a matter of principle, we don't accept tradition because it is tradition and we question it. And so, you know, for many people, um, they, there, there may be very deep, personal reasons for having a family, but maybe they are feeling pressure from parents or they are feeling like it's a religious duty or, or, or whatever. It's, it's not, you know, their own first desire. And also that, uh, objectives tend to value productivity as, as one of the highest virtues. Um, and that sometimes means tradeoffs, you know, can I be really productive in my chosen career path or, uh, you know, do I, do I need to make compromises?
Speaker 0 00:47:56 I th I think that's true if
Speaker 2 00:47:58 I could just tell a, a short, short story here, uh, in 1996 at our summer seminar, my father and mother, um, came and in the final banquet, um, my father got up to talk and he said, you know, over the course of these, um, electors, we've heard, we've heard a lot about production. Um, but David was produced in the normal way. Uh, it brought down the house <laugh>, but it, it kind of realized that reproduction and child raising is itself a very, very productive, important, um, project in life. And I really respect you will have done it, done it. Well,
Speaker 1 00:48:48 Scott, did you have something to say?
Speaker 4 00:48:53 Uh, no. I just, um, you know, I was just wondering about, uh, with everything that's been going on with, uh, the, you know, with, with today's news, um, just how much of that is just, uh, maybe, uh, to some degree conservatives, like lashing back. Like they just, it, they feel like as they're losing control over so much of society, they just wanna feel like they have control in at least one area. And that's why this just seems to be so, you know, cathartic to them. Uh, and, and, oh, the, the main thing I wanted to bring up was, uh, you know, can we at least see there are pro-life Objectivists and pro-life libertarians, and can we at least see that going back to, you know, just ideas versus action that there can be good reasons to be pro-life that they can be good people and still be pro-life and believe that life begins at conception?
Speaker 0 00:49:59 Uh, yeah, but I, I, I tend, I don't like this. I don't, I don't, I don't like the idea of abortion, but I would never for, for, for, for simple, for the simple reason that I think that it's a, it's not a human being at, at six weeks, but there's something there that's growing, but I do not believe that something that's a potential, as Damian said, a potential human being should supersede a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to bring it to full, to full life. So I, you know, I wrote a book, I wrote a book about, uh, 12 years ago, my third book, uh, uh, called civil disobedience and the politics of identity when we should not get along. And I do not think that we should get along with people who are pro-life, who then think that their belief should be elevated to the level of policy where you legislate a wo you, you enact legislation over a woman's body.
Speaker 0 00:51:14 I think it's perfectly okay to get, get along with people are pro-life or pro-choice whether their objectives or not, but when they take that belief and they try to legislate interaction and exercise, and supersed the sovereignty and the autonomy that a woman has over her body, I think it's time for war. Some kind of, I don't mean physical war, but I think it's kind, it's time for a moral war. I don't wanna get along with a pro-lifer who thinks that he or she is now going to enact that in policy and elect the governor of a state that is going to criminalize a woman's body basically, and politicize a woman's body. I don't wanna get along with that person. I don't,
Speaker 4 00:51:57 But there are pro-life, uh, libertarians that want to get rid of public education. Should we not work on them on that single issue?
Speaker 1 00:52:06 Well, I, I think that's a different point, Scott, in, in a way, um, that we can disagree vehemently with somebody who wants to, uh, force women to, to bear children against their will. Um, but at the same time, organizationally, uh, you know, <laugh>, we're, we're going to form coalitions and continue to push forward on groups, uh, on, on fronts where we can, and I'd also say, you know, uh, those groups with whom we disagree, it's really, really important to engage with them and be able to let them know where we're coming from and, and why they may wanna, um, you know, not necessarily just adopt the position of their group or their church, or, you know, or their family, and to think it through from a different perspective. And, and we'd lose that if, if we shut people out
Speaker 4 00:53:01 Good points,
Speaker 0 00:53:05 But don't you think don't you think that some rungs are so EG? I mean, I think, I think that's right, like coalition building is good, but some rungs are so egregious that they invite a kind of moral break. Like I, I think the abortion issue is, and I'm, and it is so egregious. So nefarious that to try to, I mean, really what you're doing is really, really exercising enslavement and jurisdiction over woman's body. That to me is one of the most heinous things that you can do to another human being that don't you think, Jennifer, that, that really invites some kind of moral quarrel with another human being.
Speaker 1 00:53:49 It definitely invites a moral quarrel. And I do agree with you. I, I, I'm completely with you in terms of how we both view, um, a, a woman's right, her moral right. To, uh, have autonomy over her own body. But I would also say that, you know, in the spirit of open objectiveism, uh, you don't necessarily change people's mind by saying I'm at war with you, <laugh> you talk to them, you know, and you say, wow, I really, really disagree with you. And, um, and, and this is why, um, and at, you know, if, if nothing else, uh, that you might get them to not view people who take our position as murderers. So, um, so I, I guess that's where I would, would come down, Richard.
Speaker 3 00:54:41 Yeah, I might, I, I just want to, uh, hardily endorse Jason's stance and I feel the same way, but I would reverse it and say, I feel granted, I'm not a woman, but I still think I can say this objectively that people are at war with me, who presumed to tell me what to do with my body. So I understand Jason's language, you know, we should be at war with them, but to me, it is a war. This is a, an egregious violation of individual rights. And, and to go on the positive side, uh, APO what Scott said, I think we should say objectives more than anyone, especially as Aristotelians should know the difference between a potential and an actual, I I've, I've talked about abortion before, but I, I think it's just absolutely undeniable that anything in a woman's womb is a potential and not a human being period.
Speaker 3 00:55:35 So all this quibbling about zygotes versus embryos versus fetus is it's not until there's actual birth and individuation that there's an individual human being. So I understand why conservatives wanna murky this up. I understand even liberals, even the ROLI RO decision put in trimesters, which is not recognizing a right, but, but, um, circumscribing it by certain estimates of the gestation period. So that wasn't even a clean decision, although I'm go, I'm mad that it's been overturned, but, uh, just to appealing to the idea, well, can objectives be pro-life, it's not, pro-life, it's anti the life of the woman who, uh, who was contemplating whether to birth or not. So that's just my 2 cents words.
Speaker 1 00:56:21 I agree with you on that, Richard. Um, so on that note, uh, this was a really great, very fundamental conversation, Jason, and, um, I appreciate your framing, the discussion around government schooling in terms of, uh, whether or not people should be forced to subsidize the reproductive choices of others. Um, I'd only add to that work that I did at Cato when I was their director of education policy on, uh, the history of government schooling and how, um, at our nation's founding, we had, uh, widespread education. It was not government mandated and funded. Um, but we had literacy rates in many states that, uh, that are higher than what we have today. So, um, I think even the founder's argument about the, the, the need to have an educated population, um, it doesn't mean that that needs to be at the, the, of government, which has so miserably to educate people.
Speaker 3 00:57:28 So Jennifer, could I, could I just add quickly the Horus man, a N who, uh, basically the father of public education in America, the 18 hundreds famously said, quote, we who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause. So much of this is not educating children, but making them, um, you know, robotic representatives or whatever the government is in power. And I think a government was, which was limited in ho Mons time. People might have fallen for this, but the idea that they would fall for it now that our children now are hostages to government schooling system, which is brainwashing them and, um, crippling them is horrendous. So there's ho man a big, big, uh, hero among the public school people.
Speaker 1 00:58:24 Uh, and I think it's all the more true today at the, the, the language about hostages. When you think of what, um, have been placed on children in terms of placing, uh, this huge burden of, uh, enforced masking and, um, in, in many cases, uh, vaccine mandates on, on society's children. So it's really terrible. Um, on that score, I invite you guys to visit the ATLA society site I had, uh, or any of our social media platforms. I had a great interview, uh, with Ian Miller author of unasked on Wednesday, uh, unasked, the global failure of mask mandates. Next week, we have a busy week I'm going to be interviewing James Lindsay on Wednesday. Um, our founder, David Kelly, uh, has a clubhouse that I think Damien, you will enjoy on Thursday on induction and deduction. And, uh, and so I hope to see you guys, uh, next week, please, uh, check out the link that I put here. If you wanna sign up for our newsletter, you will always get, uh, first notice about our upcoming events. Thank you, everyone. And, um, have a great weekend.
Speaker 0 00:59:42 Thanks, byebye.
