Bonus Feature

Posted on

This is part two of my interview with the Culinary Libertarian. Our interview went over, and we just kept talking, kinda freestyle without any subject in particular to get to. So it's that kind of fun. (Hense the dvd-esc title.) We talk about benefit of the doubt, conservatism, family and more. There's an excerpt below. Get the whole thing, along with my eletter, here.

Dann: . . . There's more than two sides. But to keep the discussion simple, there's side A and side B, and there's propaganda on both sides A and B. If you think your side is free of propaganda and if you think your side of history is all sunshine and roses, then you're the problem, not the history. . . . It's hard to emotionally and mentally get yourself around the idea that my side did bad things and I accept that. That's a very difficult position to be in.

Penjammin: And that brings up a point about conservatism, too. (Yeah, I defend conservatism but probably not of a kind that everybody agrees with.) In principle, to me, [conservatism] is cultivating the inherited good. And I think, by definition, that has to be unobjectionable. Now, if that's actually what conservatives are doing, that's a completely different question. Often they're not. Often they're just, you know, driving liberal agenda by the speed limit as they say. But conservatism proper, I think, is cultivating the inherited good. But part of that process is discerning what you've inherited; what is good, what's the baby [and] what's the bathwater. And slavery… that inherited cultural institution needed to go. That's great, but other things maybe need to stay and you cultivate that. So with that sense of it, I think you're exactly right. Where are you coming from (your people, your tribe, whatever you identify with)? What's inherited in there? What have you received? And then Where is it good? Where is it bad?” That's the introspective self-evaluation you're talking about. What do you think about that? I know, you might have some opinions on that… Feel free to speak your peace.

Dann: Well, it's an interesting idea, and cultivating the inherited good, comes with the stated (we'll call it a principle for now) principle that there was an inherited good. What if there wasn't? What if there was not good and really not good?

Penjammin: So, it's all inherited bad, huh? Okay.

Dann: What if?

Penjammin: Okay. Just hypothetically, why not?

Dann: What if that's the case? What if there isn't inherited good. There's just inherited levels of not good to really, really, really not good. So we brought up the Constitution before, uh, and I think it requires more than just reading the document. It was written by a bunch of lawyers who were very crafty and clever with their words to make a government that protected them from the masses. It was sold as something to protect the masses from the government. But that certainly hasn't worked out to be the case in 238 years. We can certainly say today that that's not the case. So somewhere along the way it went off the rails. My question is, what if it was designed never to be on the rails to begin with?

Penjammin: So what you're saying is- if I'm hearing you're right. (I'm not going to do the Karen Newman whatever. Um, Cathy Newman, “what you're saying is” [laughs].) IF I'm hearing you right… (I not going to assume that I am-)

Dann: Jordan, his composure during that interview really was-

Penjammin: Inspiring, among other things. Yeah.

Dann: Yes.

Penjammin: But yeah. So, IF this is what you're saying, that here's something, the constitution, which is taken to be a good that's been inherited, and even it is not so good (there may be somethings [we could take out of it] but it's really, you say, muddy and very much not good), then what is their [the conservative’s] inherited good? And I would put to you that perhaps the sphere of politics would be the most minute social sphere of which conservatism is interested. That's one thing that bugs me a lot when people talk about conservatism is that it's almost defined by Republicans. And why would on earth would you let them define what this is for you? It's about family, which does not necessarily have to do with politics. It has to do with faith and other things which people are [about separating] church and state. So it seems like there are so many things that are bigger, more intimate, and have more to do with it. I think historically even politics has been peripheral at best. So now it's becoming definitive. And so yes, that might be one place; maybe everything in politics is inherited bad to some degree (just for sake of argument), but then you got to say family is good, even if it's imperfect.

Dann: So I don't disagree with you, but this is one of those things. So, um. Family. Do you remember? You're probably old enough to remember… I can't remember the actress- Candice Bergen Show. There was a news show, and as an actress, she got very hot under the collar over Dan Quail's version of family. Mother, father, two kids and half . . .

Get the whole discussion, along with my eletter, here.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Waking Them Up

Posted on

Hello. This week I had invigorating experience of watching the panel discussion / debate between Dave Smith and Laura Loomer. And I am reminded of another debate Dave did. A review of it be reposted below. Have great weekend. -Pen.

Earlier this week, I made an outline of the Smith Sarwark debate. Now you get to hear some of my thoughts. You’re welcome. 🙂

First, debates can be very helpful, but they also go bad easily. I need them to be engaging to get anything out of them, so I say debates need to be important and fun and followable… enough for the intended audience anyway. Second, someone should walkaway introduced to the whole scope of the matter at hand. Walking away with just two obscure takes leaves too much to be desired.

On both accounts, this debate did pretty well. It was easy to follow, for the careful listener anyway. Some of it seemed lost on Sarwark, but meh. Also, it was not dry. Smith kept it fun. Sarwark made it a bit creepy,1 but fun and lively it was.

Interestingly, each debater fit his message. Smith, in regular clothes and speech, stood passionately for profound yet basic principles. Sarwark illustrated his points with sales, twice, and with his suit and subtly crafty rhetoric, he fit the part. Dial them up, and one can imagine Smith pounding his fist and yelling, “Give me liberty or give me death!” while Sarwark worries about the Tory-vote.

Smith spoke to (and in the spirit of) the best in civilization. Sarwark's appearance of sincerity just clashed with his wormtonguery and the stench of b.s. on his breath. Smith won the debate. However, the line of the night goes to Tom Woods. Per Smith's quote:

We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.

Tom Woods

1. For just one example, if Sarwark took the time to pander to the audience and pet their emotions with “You’re special,” one more time, I was going to get sick. Someone from the audience should have yelled, “Thanks mommy!” His general style was off-putting as well.

2. Sarwark’s rhetorical care, dodges, and ploys were collectively and repetitively called out as “lawyering”. Sarwark even attempted to punt the label back once.

Liberty Alliance

Posted on

Below is an excerpt from my talk with Haley Heathman about the Liberty Alliance Network. The rest can be found here. Enjoy. -P

Haley: I started the Liberty Alliance Network. I think it was like January of 2021. And it was, of course, as a result of the Covid insanity. And I was a little bit disappointed in people on our side, that we were not doing enough to fight back against everything. I think by 2021, most of us on our side (in the circles that we run in), we already knew enough to know that . . . something wasn't right, and [that] this was a garbage and a hoax and whatever you want to call it. Plandemic. But nobody was doing anything, and I was really upset and disappointed that even people like us who should know better- I'm like, we've spent our whole lives (maybe not our whole lives, but since we were libertarians) railing against government day after day after day, and here's the biggest government incursion on our liberties in our entire life. And yet, everybody was just kind of sitting on their thumbs like, “I don't know what to do.”

Penjammin: Yeah, even the LP leadership was just like- the messaging was horrible if it was there at all.

Haley: Yeah. Right. Yeah. And I was just like, “Are you kidding me? … so we're all just cosplaying here or something? We're just pretending to care about liberty, but we don't really?” . . . Of course, we are not known to be good organizers or effective organizers. The left, they can organize in a heartbeat. In the drop of a hat, they can get 500 people out to protest not being able to kill babies in the womb, no problem. We have to fight and tooth and nail to get people involved and everything.

And so that's what I wanted to do, to start a network where we could start promoting each other and our organizations. My goal is to inspire and encourage others to take action because that's what we need. We can't just sit here and be keyboard warriors. You've got to get in the fight. You have to kind of get involved. And so maybe you might not be like the type that's going to go out and start your own organization, but you might want to join up with somebody else's. And you need to know where they are. Now, back in 2021, there weren't so many. People were still under lockdowns and things like that, and there were still mask mandates and businesses shut down and schools shut down. And so it was hard, harder. Now, I'm proud to say. And I would actually argue that the right, right now, is better organized than the left.

Penjammin: Okay.

Haley: And and so, I mean, I can make that argument… Now it's kind of evolved a little bit because now there's so many groups and organizations. If you can't find one, you must not be looking hard enough because they're everywhere now. (Thank goodness.) And we still need it. We still need more. We still need more engagement.

Then through that I started my podcast, which started off as a Rumble channel, which is called What Can We Do? Because I'm trying to answer that question. One of the most common questions is, “Well, what can we do?” I'm like: “Well, here, let me tell you, let's talk to this person who's doing this, and let's talk to this person who's doing that, and let's talk to them, so you can get ideas and figure out ways that you can maybe get involved yourself.” That's again: Inspire and encourage others to take action. And I think that the worst thing you could do (well, especially back then, but now, at any point) is nothing. Or . . . I know we were bantering . . . back and forth about social media before [we] got serious. [00:10:00] . . . The days of being a Facebook keyboard warrior are over. You can't just sit there and engage in pointless Facebook arguments… Let's actually do something in the real world and get involved and get engaged. That's been kind of my passion for a while: getting people [to] do something, go do something, get out there, get involved.

Get the rest our discussion along with my eletter at penjams.com/MoreLibertyHaley.

Story Magic

Posted on

Here below I talk with Paul Thompson about concerns involved in using magic in fiction. Might there be a legit concern about romanticizing activity that is evil and harmful in the real world? Must magic in fiction entail that side-effect, or can it be different enough that it doesn't go there? This is just a bit of my broader conversation with the author of a fun young adult trilogy on The Nutcracker. Get the whole thing along with my eletter at penjams.com/thompson.

Paul Thompson: The gateway to witchcraft is everywhere. Um. And solely picking out books that deal with magic and magical systems, I think is just a lazy argument, a lazy way out. And I still have not heard any well thought-out arguments for. Just bar none. Getting rid of magic in fiction.

Penjammin: Yeah. Definitely not. I do think perhaps there is a concern about romanticizing things. Someone who says it sounds cool. They may never consider witchcraft until they'd thought about it more often because it was in their their thought life now. But that doesn't mean that it has to be like- you don't get turned on to witchcraft from reading Tolkien or Lewis because the ones who are doing witchcraft are the evil ones. And Aslan uses magic. But often, you know, they talk about the old magic that created the world. It's different in kind. And so, um, so there's something to that, to all that. It's definitely not a simple matter of just saying, hey, [there’s] magic in it, so burn it, you know?

Paul Thompson: Right, right. And and much of it is, you know, what is the purpose of the magic in Tolkien's world. You know, it's actually Gandalf who uses the most magic. He's a good guy. Um, there's a certain, you know, undertone of magic. And Tolkien was less about spells and flashes of fire from the fingertips, although he certainly did use that. Um, it was less about that and more about the purpose of it, the power of it. Um, so, yes, like anything else, magic is a tool. And it can be used for good or for bad. And you certainly don't want to romanticize bad behavior in the same way you don't want to romanticize, you know, a lot of other bad behaviors, magic aside. I think magic fits in the same place as you would say, sexual proclivities where, you know, you just you don't want to romanticize it.

Penjammin: Right. And… I think I know what your answer is, but just to be thorough, um, when you talk about magic for purpose, is that what defines good or bad? [such that, say, you] have an idea of, like, a “white” magic where it's: “Hey, I'm casting spells on somebody, but it's for their protection or something like that, so it's okay!” …

Paul Thompson: So yes, I've read [00:15:00] books where you have white magic. Dark magic. Um, I mean, I grew up in the 80s. It was, you know, The Never Ending Story. There was black magic and there was white magic, and and, you know, and that was just that was a genre. I don't think that there was any more right or wrong with that than anything else. My personal, my personal enjoyment for the world of magic is that magic exists. It's there. Perhaps- like in the world of The Nutcracker, some people can utilize magic, some people cannot. There are very few who can. Um, and the majority of people just don't know about it. It doesn't really affect their day to day. And so for the people that can use magic, it really is just another form of power. You know, it's the difference of the Rock wrestling kindergartners. You know, it's wrestling, but he's obviously got an advantage on them. Um, and so they would deal with the same moral decisions that any of us would deal with. They are just using a different tool, you know, a more fantastical tool.

Penjammin: It's an ability to steward, one might say.

Paul Thompson: Yes. Right. Yeah. No, that's a great way to put it.

Penjammin: And so, I mean, I think that's also like in Tolkien, that's one thing I liked about the story was that it was a natural ability. Like the kid could just turn off and on to see the magic. I won't say too much about it, but to see the magical world and to utilize it, he could focus on it or not. It's the natural ability that he could manipulate something with. And so, in a sense, you might see, like with Gandalf or the angels (and, you know, the, the Maiar were kind of like lower, you might say, analogous to angels), um, they have different abilities than humans do, but it doesn't make it necessarily magic. It's just what they do. So.

Paul Thompson: Exactly.

Penjammin: Yeah. So and, um, and maybe you call it magic. Maybe that's just because of definitional quibbles.

So, um, but I've enjoyed this and want to hear more about the system of the magic, how the magic works in this world because it's really interesting. I enjoyed watching the main character learn about it. Actually, can we get into it a little bit before we go on? Because I really care more about that than the other questions. I want to get to those too, but this is interesting to me.

Get the whole discussion along with my eletter at penjams.com/thompson.

Ep. 4

Posted on

Libertarian Anarchy

Hey everyone, guess what? I got to talk liberty with the Gerard Casey himself! That's right be jealous. I'm dropping some of our conversation below. Enjoy. -P

Talking Libertarian Anarchy with Gerard Casey

Penjammin: Hey, this is Pen up here [at] the front to let you know what's coming next. We have an interview with the Gerard Casey. He is a gentleman, a scholar, and he's written a book on libertarian anarchy that is surprisingly, I know, called Libertarian Anarchy. It's a great book. It's been well complimented by Tom Woods himself, and we're going to talk about it. So buckle up. Here we go. Gerard Casey [mispronounces it], how are you doing today?

Gerard: I'm doing very well. How are you?

Penjammin: I'm doing great. And thank you for not correcting me. It's Gerard Casey [corrects pronunciation]. And so my apologies. I'm doing very well. I want to introduce you to all my friends and family and listeners and such. And I like your work. I like your accent. And so there we go. That's it. So if I could, I would like to introduce you a little bit and then invite you to add on things that I have so foolishly left out. Because I think it's always interesting when somebody brings a guest on their show or something and they say, “Hey, so tell everybody about yourself.” You're like, “Oh, so I get to do the work here great. One thing that what I remember about you, that comes to mind immediately, is that obviously you're from Ireland and you've grown up there, you've studied there, but you've also been around, You left Ireland for a while to work before you got into philosophy and studied eventually at Notre Dame in Indiana. And then in the process, you've gotten married, you've had kids. You've also, I guess, lapsed from faith and then returned back to Roman Catholicism as well. And also in the process, you have discovered libertarian anarchy as more of a political social philosophy. And so that's just quite a whirlwind story right there. You have your doctorate in philosophy. I'm not sure what exactly you focused on when you, when you got that. Um, but maybe you can tell me. And is there anything I've left out that you want to add?

Gerard: No. Except that I'm intensely good looking and charming. But other than that.

Penjammin: That is what people say.

Gerard: And modest… and the modest bit. [laughs]

Penjammin: Yes. Very good. Okay, let's see, there was something else. I'm losing my track of my thought here. You've also written a book that's become very popular within the liberty circles, Libertarian liberty circles, and it's called Libertarian Anarchy. How did that book come about?

. . .

For more, check out my review of his book, get his book, follow him on twitter, take his classes at the Liberty Classroom, and/or listen to the whole episode below.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.