Question 1: [1:42] - “I'm a big fan of the peaceful parenting principles you advocate. I had a rather unhappy childhood myself. I was able to grow out of the misery and get my life on track. Now happily married, and we are expecting our 5th child any day now. We are part of a growing homeschool co-op with parents who just can't bear the thought of sending their lovingly nurtured children to the sardine factory called public school. At the same time they have to grow out of the "peaceful bubble" that my wife and I provide and deal with the real world in which they have to choose their friends wisely, choose their lifestyle, set and attain their goals, and so forth. When children grow up in an honest and safe environment, will they recognize dishonest or untrustworthy people when they grow up? How can you best prepare them for the complexity of real life?”

Question 2: [53:13] – “Over the years, I have felt a deep sense of meaninglessness within myself, which has led to me adopting many different philosophies and lifestyle pursuits in order to attain a sense of self-worth. Recently, it has been harder for me to move past these feelings, and I can feel myself slipping into a deeply nihilistic worldview. How do I move past my childhood insecurities, and my low self-worth and recognize that I can in fact provide meaning to a meaningless world?”

Question 3: [1:53:41] – “I’ve heard you advocate for a society in which coercive force is universally forbidden and people orient themselves using free-market principles. When presented with this idea, much like everyone else, my tendency is to try to make assumptions about what that would mean and how it would play out, but I hear you say that we can’t do that because nobody knows, and what’s more, you don’t care. As long as everyone is acting voluntarily then whatever happens is, essentially, right.

In principle I don’t disagree with that, but I believe that we know both intuitively and based on history at least how the first moments will play out. We know this from witnessing revolutions throughout history and, more anecdotally, from watching tv shows like Survivor or The Walking Dead: 1) The majority of the people will look for a leader to follow. 2) A small minority will vie for power and look for a group to lead. 3) The remainder will go find a patch of land and insist that everyone else leave them alone.”

“If we know (based on my assertion) that most people will try to form a leadership, either by leading or by following, isn’t it safe to assume that a government of some kind will naturally emerge? how do you avoid the paradoxical notion that coercion would be required to get a group of people to adhere to the idea of a society free of coercion?”

Question 4: [2:13:37] - “You, Stefan, keep talking on your show how God is impossible to logically prove. You advocate faith to Christians, yet faith is an exercise in willpower and you know that willpower isn’t sustainable. We also can’t use reason and faith at the same time. As you said once, human is halfway between God and animal, so let’s see how we can move closer to God and further from animal. Science transforms our environment, ethics transforms relationships, but metaphysics transforms our self. My claim to defend is, I have found a way to access God via the objective definition and bodily senses. I am not the first, but I am best able to explain it, as a philosopher of metaphysics. In effect, this is a method to hard-wire a person for reward of pleasure from ethics or philosophy. Philosophy becomes an instinct, instead of a verbal discipline. The exertion of will becomes the ease of habit. Let’s make philosophy as rewarding to people as possible. Why do you say that God can’t be logically proven? I think I just did that and that it’s better than advocating for faith, so would you hear it?“

Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate