@destiny Debates @TheMinimalists About Hoarding, Capitalism, More! | The Minimalists Ep. 409

Just one of your best dialogues! More please!

Such a great podcast but I do wonder why this point on taxes being theft is never brought up. It’s not theft because you do consent, by living in the United States. You drive on the roads provided by the government and can get a free education from the government. But if you don’t want what the government provides you can leave, so there’s no theft at all really. But what a great discussion

Imagine thinking murder of innocents is a subjective preference

TK is so easy to listen to. He seems to respond intentionally and without emotion. I value his input.

Wow this was a heavy one! Did enjoy it though. Interesting. My husband also likes the moment with homer backing off in to the bushes 😂

Wow, I’ve never seen someone engage in such a good faith and interesting conversation with destiny like this.

You guys have gained a new fan for sure. My only complaint is this podcast needed to be at least an hour longer

Wow this is the LAST crossover I ever would have expected.

Def needed more than hr for these discussions. I’d like to see a longer convo with this same lineup. Nice to listen to, gents

Im so used to seeing destiny debate the redpill stremers/ podcasters. its so wierd seeing him talk to someone whos actually openminded.

Great podcast! Thanks for having Destiny on! Some feedback as a first time viewer: as a headphone user the woman laughing was very loud and distracting, and honestly added as much as a laugh track (can’t stand those). I suggest either muting when you’re laughing or turning down her volume. Thanks!

This was such a good faith debate..such a rarity these days

Man, I could probably listen for another 2 hours

Taxation isn't theft. Its necessary extortion that I am totally okay with.

The issue with these discussions is I zone out at work getting sucked into hearing every word said.

My main problem with the wealth re-distribution argument by Destiny, is that it does not work like that. If you take 300K from a millionaire and give it to 9 non millionaires, simply the prices of cars, food and electricity will go up due to inflation. Elon musk only has 1 iphone, only drives 1 car or 1 plane, and therefore he hardly impacts inflation on gasoline or phones, for instance. However if you were to redistribute his billions to the rest of society, people would dramatically increase the miles they drive, the frequency of upgrading their phones etc, until a new equilibrium is formed by a new break-even point at a much higher price, due to inflation, due to increase in money supply. So actually nothing would change after this new break-even point has been found. That's why I'm against redistributing wealth without considering these implications.

Guy on the left looks like Make-A-Wish Christopher Titus

Guy on the right looks like Disney-Remake Mr. Clean.

I knew this would be good, but damn

Love the little background laugh

Destiny fan here. Just wanted to express my appreciation for T.K. This was the first conversation I've seen on objective morality in a long time where the person that believes in objective morality has made me think and reconsider. I am still processing, so Idk if I will end up changing my mind, but we'll see.

I do think, tho, that the "taxation is theft" convo turned into a semantics disagreement pretty fast, so most of it was a bit boring.

So I think there is a vastly simpler argument against the moral realist perspective being proposed by TK, his argument is one of the most common defenses. But the issue is it is not properly analogous to perceiving things with our eyes. In the case of perceiving a chair, we know it can't merely be in our brain, because we can all independently agree on its location, and if the chair appears in different spatial locations, it doesn't make sense for it to be encoded in all of our brains in all those changing locations, along with all of the infinite variations, like if someone turned the chair and then everyone agreed the chair was turned.

For that it makes the most sense to agree that the chair objectively exists in external reality and our sense organs help us to perceive it. But with moral values, the same argument simply doesn't apply, and you can easily postulate that the moral responses people have are all the same because we basically have the same DNA and the same brain structure, so as a result of that brain structure, we will have nearly identical responses to similar moral situations. There is no reason to think that those moral responses need to exist outside of the brain as a chair does. This is basically a completely unnecessary supposition that only overcomplicates the existing hypothesis. So by Occam's razor alone you could just say, the simpler hypothesis is more likely until we get some clear evidence to show the existence of an objective moral quality above and beyond what you would expect from having a similar human brain.

Besides this it really is an incomprehensible and somewhat silly answer. What does an "objective realm of morality" really mean? Where does it exist? According to what laws does it operate? And why exactly are we taking this realm to have the objectively correct values to begin with? It all seems rather silly and fantastical, almost like magic...which makes it hard to take seriously even apart from the previous argument.

I wish you guys could have given Destiny the last word on a couple things, given that he’s your guest. It was a great conversation so it’s not the biggest deal but just a small criticism

This was good

you will own nothing and be happy




how could you ever survive without your 37th school assignment?

I'm convinced. Anti-nudism is theft and I for one am not going to take it anymore.

Great job, Minimalist… fired me up…. Totally stressed after this podcast… 🤦🏼‍♀️ 🤪

I think a better way of looking at taxation is like the entry fee for movie theater. You have to pay the fee to get inside, everyone does. If you somehow end up inside the theater accidentally, the owner of the theater isn't stealing from you if he asks you to pay the entry fee. If you don't want to pay, you're not entitled to the benefits of being in the theater, and you should leave.

Arguably, if you don't want to pay taxes you can "leave" society by not having a job and growing everything you consume by yourself, without spending money. It's not easy by any means, which is why we have societal infrastructure in the first place, so that everyone doesn't need to go chop down trees to build shelter and hunt and gather for food. Enjoying the benefits of our society's advancements means you need to chip in. It's not theft, it's a fee that we need to enforce to have a society at all.

I would have laughed so hard if their first question to Destiny was “so, does body count matter?”

I couldn't and wouldn't be with friends with the roach woman.

Woman in the back was having the time of her life. XD

Why would you guys bring him on here. His views about letting children be chemically castrated are so insane. This is really sad.

Calm, intelligent debate is what the internet needs more of!!! This was great!

Unfortunately often when ppl are told their personal hygene is shit, they tend to not want more to do with u. I know someone that seriously i have to send my car on cleance after shes been in it. She obviously struggles, but ive had to stop being with her bc its so bad, even she tells she wants to change she obvously dontbc she dont try, excuses are thriving in clutter.

Taxes stolen are used to murder other people, and take rights away from other people.

Children living with chores, the chores are not binding anybody else's rights.

Man my mom must not be most people because my mom is not a hoarder

samantha question about controversial debate:
you may want to shut your eyes and ears or move to another platform altogether BUT consequences and downstream effects from the conversations of other people may affect you.

for example, genociding moslems in hindu myanmar iirc. hindus were on facebook spreading fakenews and hindu neighbors lynched their moslem neighbors. it would matter if the moslems are on facebook and denounce the fake news, but maybe outcome would not change. if enough people believe something, even if its false, any "liberal" apathy would have negative societal effects

Who is your favorite debater?