Freedomain Radio by Stefan Molyneux

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Stefan is the only person I know that is laying down, for all of us, a modern-day philosophical foundation, derived from the best works of thought of previous generations. And he also practices what he preaches!

The core of his ideology takes from Anarchism, and the practical value of Capitalism. On the one hand, no person must ever be forced against their will - other than in self-defense, and on the other hand, the best approach to financial success is through free & voluntary trade.

The 47 year-old Canadian host of Freedomain Radio.

Surprisingly, even now, almost ten years into the existence of the podcast, Stefan only has three team members: Mike, James, and Stoyan. This leads me to think that the endeavor, while beneficial to millions of viewers, and true in its' ideology, is an impossible mission.

There is much evidence to say that almost the entirety of his audience treat the show solely as entertainment. The show is run by donations, at an estimated request of $0.5 a podcast, and even BitCoin is accepted.

However, it appears that less than one-percent of the audience actually donate anything. At all. Even much less than one-percent, if I have the right impression.

Ironically, Stefan, similarly to Dr. Phil, also puts emphasis on achievement through work; something he had experienced extensively in his own life. This goes in stark contrast to the likelihood that most of his audience are either living on welfare, or like many young adults in dysfunctional economies, living through their parents' funding.

Why is the Freedomain Radio so important?

Stefan is a radio-show host, author, and public-media spokesperson. He addresses & practices topics such as BitCoin, Relationships, Morality, and Liberty.

Renowned for talk shows and call-in shows.

I have personally enjoyed a better understanding of these topics, by being a listener and participating community member. The amount of positive feedback from listeners is vast, so there is no doubt that this is a good endeavor.

So, how come Stefan does not grow his business?

The show is not a charity! However, its' current business-model is a sort of honesty box. Sadly, most people are not honest, even if they want to be, and so this strategy is too futuristic - if we assume future people to be more honest.

I look at history, contemporary societies, and modern advancement, and intuit that only successful business-models actually make a positive long lasting impact. Charismatic and socially-adored people, who have not managed to also go beyond normal finances, usually impact a generation, and then lose relevance; because people aren't satisfied with ideologies, only.

People want success. Moral success is part of it, but morality is meaningless without sustenance & prosperity. A true leader leads on all accounts; moral and economic.

I would guess that Stefan will eventually expand his business model to include the [paid] training of more philosophers, who can mimic his success, and continue the cycle of benefit to themselves, and to their audiences.

I hope he does that earlier, rather than later.

Responsibility VS Ownership !

All human conflict derives from the ideological conflict between responsibility and ownership.

Responsibility is the measure of how much a person is willing to give, time or resources or even risk, in order to support his ideals. A natural example is that of investing in a child. The child is given his needs from the parents, because the parent idealizes, to a degree, the importance of their child.

Ownership is the attempt to control the ideas of other people. In order for a person to own anything, they must convince others that they (the others) have no power, over the choices of the owner, in regard to the owned object. For example, the only way in which I can own an apple, is if other people accept that my choices about the apple are superior to their own ideas about the apple.

It is possible for both ideologies to overlap:
1. Own & take responsibility, over something.
2. Not own, but take responsibility, over something.
3. Own, but not take responsibility, over something.
4. Not own & not take responsibility, over something.

The greatest conflict of interests is when one person or group decides to take responsibility without ownership, while another person or group decides to take ownership without responsibility. I first tackled this issue over at the FDR forums, here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36950-responsibility-versus-ownership/

I propose that this is best solved by acknowledging that responsibility is a higher ideal than ownership. I do not propose, however, that ownership does not have a right to exist. Only, that in the case of dispute, that side which proves the need for taking responsibility, must be allowed priority, over the side that claims ownership.

First, we recognize the fact that being the owner of something, for example a tree, does not mean that you would always have all the rights to it. If the owner does not take care of the tree, so that it is rotting and might fall on others, then it is fair for others to take responsibility, and cut the tree down, for their own safety. This is in the case of the owner not doing so, beforehand.

Second, we realize that it is not enough to simply disagree with the owner's opinions, but that actual proof is required, for intervention. If it is not evident why intervention must be required, then no intervention should exist! When an owner and an interventor (someone who wants to take responsibility) go to court, in order to resolve a dispute, then it is up to social rule to dictate the result.

This is why we talk and argue our ideas. So, that we can imply what is right and what is wrong, in society, as a whole, and so be able to trust our fellow peoples' decisions.

Eventually, I wanted Stefan Molyneux's opinion in the matter; him being a person I share a lot of views in common with and who is able to debate well, and so sent him an email and received this response:

"I think that everything that is enforced rather than inflicted is superior, [so] I think we agree."

I conclude that he, and many on the forums, sum this idea into, 'we either have a contract or we don't.'

This is my final conclusion, which I consider the most practical:

In order to enforce conflict resolutions, we must decide which person has the higher moral ground. The ideals of the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership are insufficient for the resolution of conflicts, without proper investigation into the facts and nature of each conflict.

Only when there is no doubt that one side has a clearly higher moral position, over the other, then that side must enjoy the support of the community, as a whole, and of us as individuals, in private.