Discussing Jay Stuart Snelson. How society should be reinvented. His lectures, “V-50” and “Human Actions Principles”. His theory on civilization, which is not based on “absolute morality,” and is a deviation from how Andrew Galambos and Ayn Rand approached the subject. His book, “Taming the violence of faith.” What is “absolute morality” and the problems with this concept. Morality is a function of social causality. Mismatch between biological and physical sciences, and volitional sciences; and the danger of mismatch to human race.  The importance of semantic precision. We defend what we want to believe in. Sustainable Civilization Institute encourages finding solution rather than fighting the problem.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • Ideal goods and services such as courtesy and trustworthiness and friendliness, to name a few, are not bound by physical scarcity and at the same time these ideal goods and services are the most desired by humans because they are uniquely human according to natural law. It is safe to assume that movement towards these goods and services will be a characteristic of the economy of an ever-advancing civilization.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • The next Capitalism & Morality seminar will be held in Vancouver on 21st July 2018. The program is in early stages, but it is easier and cheaper to book flights and hotel for Vancouver early. Here is the seminar registration link:

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Perhaps you will find this magnificent BBC documentary interesting. It tells the story of the ancient city of Caral, a little north of Lima on the coast of Peru, which is arguably the oldest city in and the beginning of civilization in the Americas. The Lost Pyramids Of Caral There are two points I would like to make about the story told therein of Caral which I think are relevant to libertarians. 1) The early civilization of Caral apparently arose purely out of commerce. This confirms the insights of the Austrian school of economics. And it may be an example of a commercially organized cooperative human society that antedates the rise of any state. 2) This contradicts the presumptions brought to the study by the archaeologists. For one example, at 7:20 one states the following. You can’t build … on the basis of consensus. You have to have leaders and followers. You have to have specialists. You have to have people who are in charge. People who can tell individual groups, alright, today you will be doing this. This group you are going to be doing something different. In other words, in his academic world, the possibility is inconceivable of that human cooperation could be organized by trade — the marketplace — rather than authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • Came across this video last night of Israel Kirzner giving a new lecture on the history of the Austrian School, but he gave an interesting response in the Q&A session on logical deduction.

    Jump to Discussion Post 9 replies
  • How does a libertarian society deal with both criminal negligence, negligent homicide, negligent driving and negligence in general? This is the point where most disputes lie within libertarianism because NAP non aggression principle assumes intentional aggression. Most of the biggest problems are not because A agresses on B but because A is either ignorant of the risks or disbelieves past warnings. Ignorant is a word people often use without thinking. It does not mean the same thing as stupid, a child or just wrong. It means, particularly in the biblical phase willingly ignorant, taking a risk that may affect others badly. Where these effects are direct its easy, sue the idiot, where they are distant, time or place, its much harder. How do you know who to sue? Should Bill have the right to drive dangerously on the road, given the starting premise that its a private road, and by his actions risk harming others and imposing a significant enforcement cost, etc, on the roads owners? At the very least raised insurance premiums, tolls and other pricing, etc. This is the root of all moral debates. Should Jenny have sex willy nilly spreading VD about the place and thus costing others via the hospital and medical costs and insurances. Its also at the heart of the vaccine debate. Are non vaccinating parents negligent or are vaccination parents risking a 0.1% chance of an Autistic kid? How does a libertarian society judge the case where there are two opposite and mutually exclusive choices. Both probably imperfect. Where you can’t sell both risk/ no risk  choices as a separate product in the market; which is the standard libertarian free market solution.

    Jump to Discussion Post 18 replies