Socialism & Postmodernism For Dummies | Stephen Hicks | Modern Wisdom Podcast 171

1. 0:00 – 15:00

   Now, what the post-moderns…

   1. SHStephen Hicks0:00

      Now, what the post-moderns are going to be arguing is that we understand there has been a revolution in all of these areas over the course of the last several centuries. We think all of that has come to an end, and we need to go beyond that, uh, and then more normatively, uh, most of them will say, "We think the modern world has been a mistake."

   2. CWChris Williamson0:26

      (wind blows) I'm joined by Stephen Hicks. Stephen, welcome to the show.

   3. SHStephen Hicks0:31

      I appreciate the invitation. Thanks.

   4. CWChris Williamson0:34

      Very, very glad to have you on. So, postmodernism and socialism, right? They're words that are thrown around a lot.

   5. SHStephen Hicks0:42

      Mm-hmm. Yeah.

   6. CWChris Williamson0:42

      And yet I can't define them myself. I don't... if you asked me to tell you what are... what do these words mean, I couldn't-

   7. SHStephen Hicks0:51

      Right.

   8. CWChris Williamson0:51

      ... give you a definitive answer, and I don't think many other people could either. So, can you?

   9. SHStephen Hicks0:56

      Well, fair enough. Yes, uh, all of those are high-level abstractions, and, uh, we're, we're a smart species. We take huge amounts of information in about the complicated world, uh, and so it is a process to go through to, to, uh, to define any high level of abstraction. Now, those two are, are not unique. If you try to define liberalism or conservatism-

   10. CWChris Williamson1:19

       Right.

   11. SHStephen Hicks1:19

       ... or even Christianity or religion or Islam, ag- again, there are going to be lots of variations and, uh, uh, lots of things that are being included in those concepts. So, you should expect that it has to be some work, right, before, uh, a definition arises. Now, to take, uh, postmodernism first, the, the labeling is well-chosen. I didn't originate the term, but if you just break it down, post-modern, right? So that means we understand what post is. It comes after or it's a replacement, right, of, and then modernism. So, what do we take modernism to be? Then we start to break that one down. Well, different areas of inquiry, literature, history, philosophy, they often use labels like that differently. So I'm a philosopher by training, and I do history of philosophy. So, I am using it the way, uh, philosophers and historians will use modernism. And basically, that means the last 500 years or so of history, especially in the, uh, the m- uh, the Western world. And that makes sense because if you look at what was going on in the world 500 years ago, well, it's within a generation of Columbus crossing the ocean, and that's a game changer, right? (laughs) Uh, on all sorts of dimensions. It is the generation of the High Renaissance. So, we have Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, uh, uh, uh, Raphael, uh, Titian, and other, uh, revolutionary artists who are functioning. So, the art world is changing dramatically. It's going to be the century in which, uh, Vesalius is publishing his anatomical work. So, we have a first study of how the human body actually works. It's Copernicus coming up with the idea of the sun being at the center of the system instead of the Earth. So, modern physics and astronomy are being revolutionized. It's, uh, uh, the, the century of... actually in the 15-teens, Martin Luther and the beginnings of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. So, it, it makes sense that historians and philosophers were saying, "You know, there's a huge amount going on in all of these sectors. The world is being upended and so forth." So, we're into the modern world. Uh, we are global. We're doing religion differently. We're doing science differently. Uh, we are going to be starting to think about, uh, politics and economics differently, and, and art is changing. So, that's what we mean by the modern world. Now, what the post-moderns are going to be arguing- (smacks lips) and, is that we understand there has been a revolution in all of these areas over the course of the last several centuries. We think all of that has come to an end, and we need to go beyond that. Uh, and then more normatively, uh, most of them will say, "We think the modern world has been a mistake, or that all of those revolutions that have occurred have led to negative, disastrous, pathological results, and so we need to transform society in, in another direction." Now, um, to try to, uh, summarize even more quickly, what they will typically then say is the modern world is marked by, uh, capitalism in economics that replaced feudalism. It's been marked by, uh, an effort to have Democratic, Republican politics, again replacing feudalism. Uh, and they're going to argue that we think both of those are fundamentally flawed and/or mistaken. So, all of the leading post-modernists will be, uh, anti-Democratic, Republican, and that's why we see a lot of authoritarianism and the, the worst versions of political correctness. And rather than solving our differences socially and politically through voluntary methods, you see a, a dramatic increase among post-modern friendly people in adversarial, in-your-face, uh, outright authoritarian types of tactics. They're also, uh, to a man and woman, anti-capitalist, anti-free market. So, you will see all of those criticisms that the modern economic world is a disaster. It exploits the poor. It, uh, has, uh, dr- dramatic inequalities, all of which are, are, are sickly and so forth.... you know, the post-moderns will argue that the modern world has also been marked by high science and high technology, but they will, uh, mount an argument that, uh, science and technology, the results are negative. The dangers outweigh, or they will be making arguments that, uh, science is just a, a, a male way of thinking, or a White way of thinking, so you'll get racial and gender attacks on the scientific and technological project. But also you'll find that the modern world has been, uh, marked by a strong amount of individualism, you know, the individual rights to life, liberty, a pursuit of happiness, pursue your own dream, become an entrepreneur, high levels of tolerance for other people of different political persuasions, different religious persuasions as well. But that individualism that underlies much of modernity, the post-moderns, they disagree with that as well. That's why you find the rise of identity politics and, uh, and, and, and the post-moderns want to organise and see people as members of groups. You're primarily a member of your racial group, or your ethnic group, or your gender group, and it's your group identities that make you who you are. It's not individual choices, and so on. So, uh, modern world individualism, science, technology, freedom in markets, uh, liberal democratic politics, the post-moderns reject all of them and want to replace them with something else. So that's, uh, a few minutes on post-modernism. Uh, how's that?

   12. CWChris Williamson7:46

       Fantastic. It doesn't sound like post-modernists agree with much. There was a big list of things that post-modernists (laughs) -

   13. SHStephen Hicks7:58

       Yeah.

   14. CWChris Williamson7:58

       ... disagree with.

   15. SHStephen Hicks7:58

       Yeah. Well, right. Yeah-

   16. CWChris Williamson7:59

       Um-

   17. SHStephen Hicks7:59

       ... the modern world is this big compli- uh, complicated, you know, set of revolutions on a number of dimensions, and the, and the post-moderns are very well-educated individuals, particularly in the first generation, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, and they are taking a big picture perspective on what's happened in the, in, in the world over the course of the last 400 years, philosophically, historically, and subverting and rejecting all of it in fundamentals.

   18. CWChris Williamson8:29

       Yeah, absolutely. So where's socialism? Where's the, the differences and the, and the similarities here?

   19. SHStephen Hicks8:37

       Yeah. Well, let's start socialism differently. We can make connections to post-modernism later. Socialism is a, a, an, an ancient, uh, philosophical slash ethical slash political slash economic idea. As the name suggests, uh, we prioritise the social over the individual. So, uh, you know, if we ask, "What's the purpose of having social organisations, family, teams, businesses, political units and so forth?" Right, one basic political answer to that is to say, uh, "Well, it's, it's, it's for the purposes of the individuals involved." So we formulate family groups primarily to nurture individuals so that, uh, children can grow up to pursue their own individual dreams. Or we form business associations where we work together, uh, socially, but each of us is pursuing our own individual careers, uh, and so forth. Uh, we join in sporting teams and there's a lot of value to, uh, to following a, a sporting team as, as part of a group, but primarily we're individuals coming together and, uh, uh, uh, and we're enjoying sports as, as individuals, as participants, and so forth. So what socialism wants to do is to say that we should always prioritise the social over the individual. The group is more important than the individual. And if there's a tension between what's good for the group and what's good for the individual, the individual should sacrifice or be subordinated for the sake of the group. By contrast, individuals will say, "Look, if the group is not just working out, then we will just go our own ways soc- or go, go our own ways as, uh, as individuals." So, you know, uh, you know, an interesting example might be religion. Uh, if you're familiar with, say, within Christianity, the big split between Catholics and Protestants. So, uh, the, the, uh, suppose, you know, we're, we're, we're Catholics, uh, and we're having some arguments about what Christianity really means. And ultimately it seems, you know, you and I just can't agree on what proper interpretation of some religious doctrine it could be. The Catholic position is that you as I... uh, you and I as individuals, we should be willing to set aside our individual judgment for the good of Catholicism as an institutional religion, and that, uh, the... that, that, that the tradition as a whole should take precedence over my judgment or your judgment. Whereas the Protestants would be more likely to say, all right, suppose you and I are Protestants and we're a member of the same church and we're having some arguments about how should we appro- uh, properly interpret Christianity, and we've been back and forth a lot and we just don't agree on this. So what should we do about that? Well, Protestants are more likely to say, "Well, you really need to do your thing because the state of your soul is your primarily individual responsibility, and I need to look after my soul, so what we should do is just go our separate way, right? You'll go and start your own church, and I'll go and start my own church, and we'll pursue our individualistic path and associate only with individuals who, in their heart of hearts, agree with what we have there." So that individualism versus socialism is not only a political economic thing, it's, uh, it's a deeper understanding about whether individuals or the social takes precedence. Now, when we turn to economic matters...... uh, the individualists are more likely to end up being free market capitalists. You'll decide for yourself what your career is going to be, what you're going to make, you'll offer it on the market, uh, customers may be interested, you'll negotiate as an individual, particular individual deals. And then the same thing for me as a consumer, I'm going to take responsibility for making my own decisions about what I'm going to buy, what prices I'm willing to pay, how much I'm going to save, and so forth. So we're all autonomous free agents entering into the market as buyers and sellers, and so markets are going to be an, an emergent phenomenon. What socialists are going to argue is that we should not be functioning as individuals when it comes to economic matters, we should have, uh, society as a whole, and there should be institutions that will decide for society as a whole what's going to be made, who's going to get what and how much. And, uh, each of us as individuals, producers, and consumers should not be making our own decisions, we should be following the decisions that are made at the society as a whole level. So how's that for two or three minutes?

   20. CWChris Williamson13:26

       Absolutely, yeah. It's, um... it's so interesting, as someone who doesn't delve massively into politics other than when it's-

   21. SHStephen Hicks13:36

       Mm.

   22. CWChris Williamson13:36

       ... other than when it's forced upon me, so for instance, the recent, uh, British general election, it's only, uh, been a few months since that happened, and you have this big surgence of patriotism for one side or the other, uh, in the UK-

   23. SHStephen Hicks13:50

       Yeah.

   24. CWChris Williamson13:50

       ... although I guess there's a little bit more of an even split, at least there's numerous parties that you can vote for in the UK, whereas in America it, it really kind of is just one or the other. Um, and words like postmodernism and socialism get thrown around as slurs. You know, you accuse someone of being a socialist-

   25. SHStephen Hicks14:09

       (laughs)

   26. CWChris Williamson14:09

       ... or you accuse someone-

   27. SHStephen Hicks14:10

       Right.

   28. CWChris Williamson14:10

       ... of being a... the, the, the term in the UK is a Tory, which is a conservative. And, um-

   29. SHStephen Hicks14:15

       Yeah.

   30. CWChris Williamson14:16

       ... e- e- each side's mudslinging at the other, with terms which... well, I, I'm not actually too sure what the, w- where Tory comes from, what the etymology of that is, but, yeah, the, the, the, socialism, you know, it sounds like a, a perfectly well-thought-out system which is not just about, as you say, not just about economics, not just about political theory, but o- on a much broader scale, it's a s- sort of a philosophical position. Uh, a- and yet you can take pretty much any word, like call- calling someone a carrot or, you know, calling someone (laughs) -
2. 15:00 – 30:00

   Right. Well, yes, so…

   1. CWChris Williamson15:00

      that you're socialist. W- why does it have baggage attached to it?

   2. SHStephen Hicks15:06

      Right. Well, yes, so you're, you're absolutely right about how political debate goes, and, uh, by the time it gets to politics and election cycles, you know, that, a- in a, in a parliamentary system like Britain's or like Canada's, where I come from, you know, the election cycle is just a few months, and nobody has time for careful or nuanced positions in the give and take-

   3. CWChris Williamson15:27

      (laughs)

   4. SHStephen Hicks15:28

      ... and emotions running high. So where all of this should be happening better is in schools, in universities, in newspaper columns, and, uh, and so forth, in the years leading up to elections where people are discussing these issues in a, in a more leisurely, and hopefully less emotionalist, uh, emotionalist context. But yes, uh, you're right, though also that, uh, all of these labels have baggage attached to them a- and that's, uh, that makes perfect sense because all of them have a historical track record, and the history matters absolutely. So in our generation, anybody who's thinking seriously about being a socialist or being an anti-socialist, they should recognize that there have been, in the modern world, two centuries now of theory and practice in socialism. And before you make up your mind whether you're pro or anti-socialist, you should know something about that, that history. Now, why I think, uh, in, in, uh, Western nations and increasingly around the world, uh, socialism has a bad aura is that for centuries in the modern world now we've been committed much more to individualism, free markets, liberal democracy, and so forth, and, uh, socialism is opposed to all of those things. And then if you look at the history of the 20th century, the major experiments in socialism were in the soc- uh, in the Soviet Union, uh, and that's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, and that was a 70-year experiment from 1979 to about 1990 in trying to have a very authoritarian form of socialism. And the end result of that was quite brutal, millions of people killed, uh, and, and an, an additional hundreds of millions of people over the course of generations' lives impoverished. So the human rights track record and the economic track record of the Soviet Union was a disaster, and, uh, people who know something about the history then get worked up about it and say, "Look, (laughs) if in the con- current generation you want to reinstate socialism, um, that's a bad thing." The other major experiments in socialism in the 20th century were in China. Uh, communism is a type of socialism, and so again under Mao Zedong, a m- major experiment in socialism, and again it was a disaster with millions of people dying of starvation and millions more killed for, uh, political repression reasons as well. Uh, Cuba in the Western Hemisphere, some of the South American nations, African nations, other Southeast Asian nations, there's a long history. And I think quite rightly, people who are anti-socialist are insisting that socialists now need to confront that history and be articulate in what they say in response to that history before just in any casual way saying, "Hey, let's try socialism again."

   5. CWChris Williamson18:36

      (laughs) Yeah, that sounds... it sounds like quite a commitment. You know, if that was-

   6. SHStephen Hicks18:41

      Oh, yeah-

   7. CWChris Williamson18:41

      ... if someone, if someone said, "Hey..."... this is the, this is the track record of, of what we're in for. Do you, do you fancy a go at this? Uh, you know, the, the, it doesn't s- it doesn't sound fantastic.

   8. SHStephen Hicks18:56

      Right, yes. So, what, what, what then is interesting though about socialism and the, the way it typically has an appeal is for people who don't know very much about the history, don't know a bunch about the political theory, haven't yet taken some economics, and they're, they're younger people, and younger people are idealistic. And what socialism says to them is, "We will give a lot of power to the government, but the government will look after all of society's resources." And we're, say, in Britain, we're in a quite prosperous country, so there's enough to go around, and the government will just make sure that everyone is looked after, and it will have smart people in power, and they will make sure that the ar- the, the economy runs in, in a proper direction. And for, for naive people, I can understand, you know, that that sounds nice, you know. Who doesn't want everybody to be, to be looked after and to have wise people making the kinds of decisions? But that's just as far as you've gone in your political thinking that I would say, um, "Don't yet vote, please."

   9. CWChris Williamson19:58

      (laughs)

   10. SHStephen Hicks19:58

       "Study some history, study some politics, study some economics, and, uh, and, and, and make sure you understand how your (laughs) -

   11. CWChris Williamson20:06

       But Steven, that's, that's a lot effort.

   12. SHStephen Hicks20:07

       ... initial nice-hearted intuitions aren't necessarily going to work out in practice."

   13. CWChris Williamson20:12

       That's a lot of effort, you know-

   14. SHStephen Hicks20:13

       It is.

   15. CWChris Williamson20:13

       ... having to go and read, having to go and do research, and learn about economics. It's, it's much easier for me to just pick a side and start mudslinging, right?

   16. SHStephen Hicks20:23

       Yeah. Oh, well, for sure. So yeah, but then what we, I, I would then say if you recognize that you're looking for shortcuts and you're just emotionally, emotionally interested in, uh, attacking people on the internet, well, you're not a serious person yet. And, and again, please don't vote.

   17. CWChris Williamson20:39

       (laughs)

   18. SHStephen Hicks20:39

       But you're right. Uh, it is a lot of work, but that's, uh, you know, what this huge investment we have in education, where basically in the rich countries, what we say to young people is, "You know, for 18 years, we're going to give you relatively an easy life. We just want you to go to school, you know, clean up your room once in a while, play sports, and take music lessons. But in that 18 years, uh, pay attention in your history class, pay attention in your literature class, and do some reading, so that by the time you are an adult, you, uh, you actually know something about the world, so that when you have the vote, you can, uh, exercise that vote responsibly."

   19. CWChris Williamson21:20

       The problem, and this is the same in every election, is that the vote of a stupid or purely passionate person is worth the same as the vote of a person who is well-informed and has a concrete, grounded position.

   20. SHStephen Hicks21:37

       Yes. So, uh, one immediate response then is to say that, you know, hopefully the vote of one stupid informed person voting Labour is canceled out by the vote of one stupid uninformed person voting Tory.

   21. CWChris Williamson21:53

       (laughs) Okay. Yeah.

   22. SHStephen Hicks21:54

       Right? So that-

   23. CWChris Williamson21:54

       Unless it skews, unless it skews-

   24. SHStephen Hicks21:56

       Right.

   25. CWChris Williamson21:56

       ... stupidity one way or the other. Yeah, I get you.

   26. SHStephen Hicks21:59

       Right. And, and it does, depending on, uh, you know, the passions of the moment, and, and so forth.

   27. CWChris Williamson22:04

       Mm-hmm.

   28. SHStephen Hicks22:05

       Uh, and then also, we do know that there are a large number of people who are just apathetic about politics, uh, and they don't vote, and those tend to be the more uninformed people. Um, so, you know, they, they self-select out of the process. So, uh, my view though is that, yeah, electoral politics matters, but it is, uh, more the vote of people who care about politics and who are active. And those people tend to be more informed than the average. So, uh, you know, democratic politics, for all of its weaknesses, uh, is, is not that bad, and it certainly is better than the alternatives historically.

   29. CWChris Williamson22:45

       Yeah. It, it sounds to me like postmodernism is quite a luxury position. And given the fact that we're currently in the middle of a global pandemic, what, what does that mean for postmodernism? Does it mean that we're gonna see postmodernism receding? Is it a luxury that can only be indulged when times are good?

   30. SHStephen Hicks23:13

       Yes. Now, that's a very interesting question, because it is the case that postmodernism has been, uh, initially a high intellectual project coming out of philosophy departments in the middle part of the century, and then extending through higher education. And much of higher education now is a, a luxury good, uh, consumed by, you know, relatively well-off people in well-off countries. Uh, so, and a large amount of it is, uh, is subsidized. So, uh, that does seem to be borne out that when you go to the poorer nations of the world, they tend to be much more reality-focused. They're aware of poverty. They want their lives to be improved. And so, uh, when they look around, they're more likely to say, uh, "You know, what are the policies economically and the political systems that have succeeded at putting food on the table?" And, uh, the track record there, again, is that it's been the individualistic, free market-friendly, liberal democratic nations around the world that have been successful, so those models are much more attractive. Postmodernism is less attractive. Uh, when I was a visiting professor in Eastern Europe, uh, in Poland in particular, they had the experience of socialism. They knew what, uh, political brutality is like. They know what p- socialism in practice means. They're looking at Western Europe, they're looking at North America, where again, individualism, liberal democracy, being pro-scientific have worked. They're much more attracted to that. Postmodernism has much less...... traction there. So, I think your hypothesis has a lot to it.
3. 30:00 – 45:00

   Right. …

   1. CWChris Williamson30:00

      liberal a- liberal enough to allow individuals and groups to go and do that, but also liberal enough to accept the opinions of the dissenters and/or the people who want to exit and then leave or never even enter in the first place. Um-

   2. SHStephen Hicks30:16

      Right.

   3. CWChris Williamson30:16

      ... there's- there's a lot of moving parts.

   4. SHStephen Hicks30:17

      And that's precisely what strong socialists will say. They will... And that's why they often want to go the political route. Rather than starting a voluntary commune, they want to enact socialism politically-

   5. CWChris Williamson30:29

      Mandate it.

   6. SHStephen Hicks30:29

      ... but once it's enacted politically, then you've got the power of the police on your side, and you can make people follow your vision.

   7. CWChris Williamson30:37

      So, what happens? Where does the slippage occur from going from... 'Cause that sounds... You know, the- I might not do it for the rest of my life, but if- if you said, "Hey Chris, there's 99 other people on this- on this farm. Do you fancy, you know, a couple of years just chilling out and hoeing some ground and eating some vegetables?" I'm like, "All right. You know, that doesn't sound too bad." But at some point-

   8. SHStephen Hicks30:59

      Mm-hmm.

   9. CWChris Williamson30:59

      ... between that... and a nation state, there is, there's a, there's a, a problem. Is it that the total cumulative amount of power, um, is too easy to wield in a way which is militarized or, um, sort of dictatorial? What- what's the-

   10. SHStephen Hicks31:23

       Yeah.

   11. CWChris Williamson31:23

       ... what's happening there?

   12. SHStephen Hicks31:23

       Yeah. Yeah, one of the problems is the problem of scale. So, uh, the small sales com- communes don't, uh, seem to max out at about 150, 'cause then there's the question of the enforcement mechanism. You get, say, 100. Let's keep the numbers simple. Suppose you have 100 people and you might then say, you know, "I'm, I'm, I'm a, I'm a voluntary person. I'm wanting people to opt in and out." Eh, but you're still going to have the issue, what happens if you, you know, you talk about the issues, you get together in your local council, and 92 of people agree, uh, but eight people disagree?

   13. CWChris Williamson31:58

       Mmm.

   14. SHStephen Hicks31:59

       What are you going to do about the minority who disagree in that case? And in those cases, what seems to happen is most of the time, the eight people will, with some, you know, mild, uh, uh, pressure put on them say, "Okay, I will go along with it, uh, uh, in this case." But, uh, once you get beyond 150, it's, becomes unwieldy to be having councils, "Let's get everybody together and talk over this decision and that decision." So, you start to have delegated groups, delegated committees who are then authorised to make decisions in certain areas, and they then are a minority that has power over the majority. And then once they have the min- power of the minority over the majority, they will start passing legislation that will, uh, uh, protect their power, increase their power, and the majority is increasingly, um, uh, not able to, to respond. So, once you then start to say, "Okay, now we have 10,000 people," you know, that might be a, a relatively small town-

   15. CWChris Williamson33:06

       Mm-hmm.

   16. SHStephen Hicks33:06

       ... but there's no way you can get 10,000 people together on a regular basis to discuss policy. So, necessarily, you have a town council of 10 or 20 people and they have a lot of power, uh, and eve- and eventually that power is necessarily abused. Then when you start talking about organisations that involve a million people or 10 million people, uh, it slips into dictatorship pretty quickly.

   17. CWChris Williamson33:32

       Mm. It does seem like a very slippery slope. The, um-

   18. SHStephen Hicks33:35

       Yeah.

   19. CWChris Williamson33:36

       ... the distribution of resources requires a concentration of power in order-

   20. SHStephen Hicks33:41

       Yes.

   21. CWChris Williamson33:41

       ... to determine how to distribute those resources. And because the distribution of resources appears to be mostly frictionless, that-

   22. SHStephen Hicks33:51

       Yes.

   23. CWChris Williamson33:52

       ... the people who are in power therefore have even fewer barriers in order to be able to take advantage of the situation. Is that right?

   24. SHStephen Hicks34:00

       Yes. That's exactly right.

   25. CWChris Williamson34:02

       I've got it.

   26. SHStephen Hicks34:02

       And even-

   27. CWChris Williamson34:03

       I've got it. I understand. Yes.

   28. SHStephen Hicks34:04

       (laughs) .

   29. CWChris Williamson34:04

       Steven, you've done it.

   30. SHStephen Hicks34:05

       And even if... Yeah, even if it's not the me- minority grabbing the power and then turning it to their own purposes, uh, even to the extent that you have a majority, uh, you might say, "Okay, now we're still going to do it democratically. We have this small group. They're just going to be able to make proposals, but every time it's a major proposal, we have to put it to the electorate." Uh, you're still going to have the majority of people voting for something, and, uh, if you're in the minority, your, your rights and your individual prerogatives can be suppressed. So, you know, uh, you know, what happens if we say, you know, uh, uh, uh, a majority of people, um, are of one ethnic group, uh, and they want to vote to suppress the rights of a minority, or the majority happens to be women or males, or they're a racial group or they're a religious group, you still have the suppression of minority interests. That's a, that's a, that's a chronic problem. So, that's why the seriously liberal individualistic societies have had severe checks on the power of, of, uh, of, uh, of society. They said, you know, "We're, we're going to separate the legislative branch from the executive branch, from the judicial branch so that no one part of the government has too much power, or we will have explicitly constitutional provisions, things that we're just not going to vote on. We can't vote on whether you are allowed to believe in this god or not to believe in, in, in gods at all. Religion is off limits. Individuals can do their, their own things. If you decide that you're going to be, uh, married with a woman or with a man yet we're not going to vote on who gets to have sex with your husband or your wife, right?"
4. 45:00 – 56:46

   That's so interesting. It's…

   1. SHStephen Hicks45:00

      but at the same time, they're not socialist. So, post-modernism is, uh, having its inroads in other sectors as well.

   2. CWChris Williamson45:08

      That's so interesting. It's a little bit like a hydra, isn't it? (laughs)

   3. SHStephen Hicks45:12

      It is, yeah, for sure.

   4. CWChris Williamson45:14

      Um, so I- one of the things, again, my particular interest is more in, uh, the way that individuals operate, and as you're talking and explaining, I'm genuinely just learning along here, as I'm sure that a lot of the audience are as well, kind of, uh, treading on fresh ground here, and learning about these new areas and different ways of political thought, philosophical thought. I'm relating this to the way that I understand people to operate, right? So, I know-

   5. SHStephen Hicks45:44

      Mm-hmm.

   6. CWChris Williamson45:44

      ... e- everyone that's listening has had a discussion with someone, it might be their partner, it might be their, their friend, might just be a person on the street, but probably definitely someone on the internet where you know they're wrong.

   7. SHStephen Hicks45:55

      (laughs)

   8. CWChris Williamson45:55

      They might actually kind of know that they're wrong as well.

   9. SHStephen Hicks46:00

      Yes.

   10. CWChris Williamson46:00

       And you say, "Hey, you're wrong. Steven, you're, r- you, you don't know what you're talking about." Or, "You do know what you're talking about, but you're r- you're still wrong." And-

   11. SHStephen Hicks46:09

       Yeah.

   12. CWChris Williamson46:10

       ... those people decide to double down. They dig their heels in further. They decide to push their position even harder, and it i- it increases how militantly they believe in what they're doing. Now-

   13. SHStephen Hicks46:23

       Yes.

   14. CWChris Williamson46:23

       ... you know, when, when we're talking about I think Iron Man's better than the Hulk, and you actually think that the Hulk's better than Iron Man, or Thor is better, or Wonder Woman, or whatever, um, that's fine. I, I feel like when people are talking w- this vehemently and allowing cognitive biases that really you should have overcome with a, uh, a bit of, a bit of life experience, some learning, and a couple of hundred hours of mindfulness practice, when you have people who are able to create entire intellectual and political arenas of thought which i- have effects for generations thereafter, that, can there not be, c- is there not a way that we can protect ourselves? That we shouldn't be allow- (laughs) people shouldn't be able to have, wield so much power. It's like, it's like giving a child a nuclear bomb. You know?

   15. SHStephen Hicks47:23

       Yes.

   16. CWChris Williamson47:23

       It's like this, th- this, the individual that is wielding this incredibly powerful weapon actually doesn't have a clue what they're doing, and is completely at the mercy of all of the same idiotic primal responses that me and you have, and everyone that's listening.

   17. SHStephen Hicks47:43

       Mm. Mm-hmm. No, I think that's, uh, that's right. That's perceptive and it's well-stated about a fundamental problem that we have. Uh, now I, I'm somewhat optimistic. I think we're doing better in the early 21st century than people did in previous centuries, but it still is, uh, easy to be dismayed when we're on the internet and we realize still how widespread the problems are, and it really does come down to a, an individual moral choice that each of us has to make for ourselves, you know? Am I, no matter what I want to believe, am I really paying attention to the evidence? Doing my best to follow trains of logic, particularly on things that I know are complicated and that I've not necessarily studied for a great deal of time? Am I willing, uh, to say, "I made a mistake?" And that's, that's hard for everybody to do. But if you're intellectually honest, you know some things you've not thought a lot about, you know some things are complicated, you know that along the way when you were younger, you probably picked up lots of beliefs semi-consciously. Are you willing to re-examine those beliefs and say, "I made a mistake. Yes or no? Uh, am I willing to change my mind?" And then even more difficultly, "Am I, uh, willing to do that publicly?" So, uh, uh, uh, you know, it-... if I go on the internet and I'm having a discussion, I really would urge many people, uh, uh, to try this as an actual experiment. Get into a discussion about something and make a point to say, "Uh, you are right and I am wrong about something." You know, get in- get to it, into an issue where you know, uh, uh, someone is smart and knows more than you do, and open yourself up to that. It can be very cathartic, uh, to publicly admit that you have made a mistake, you know, on, on some issue. And if you're not willing to go that, uh, that route, then you do need to do some, some self-examination.

   18. CWChris Williamson49:59

       (laughs) Steven, I absolutely love that as an experiment.

   19. SHStephen Hicks50:03

       Yeah.

   20. CWChris Williamson50:03

       So, I had, I had, uh, Dave Rubin from Rubin Report on last night talking about v- very similar, very, very, uh, similar topics, and I said exactly the same. Eckhart Tolle says in, in one of his books that, um, the reason that we fear being proved wrong in an argument is because it is tantamount to the destruction of our ego, and that sense-

   21. SHStephen Hicks50:24

       Yeah.

   22. CWChris Williamson50:24

       ... that dread, it's like standing on the edge of a, of a cliff, you know?

   23. SHStephen Hicks50:28

       Yeah.

   24. CWChris Williamson50:28

       And you're looking over and you can feel it-

   25. SHStephen Hicks50:31

       Yeah.

   26. CWChris Williamson50:31

       ... rises inside of you. You feel it in, sort of moves up from your stomach up into your chest, and it get, you get all hot-

   27. SHStephen Hicks50:38

       Yeah.

   28. CWChris Williamson50:38

       ... and you, your shoulders start to come up, and you start to hear that slight tinnitus sound in your ears.

   29. SHStephen Hicks50:43

       Yeah.

   30. CWChris Williamson50:43

       All, you know-

Episode duration: 56:47