Latest / Words & Numbers / Episode 465: No More Karens

Transcript

Episode 465: No More Karens · Words & Numbers

0:00
This week on Words and Numbers, marijuana, the 3.5% rule,
0:04
marijuana and marijuana, all this and more.
0:10
Coming up next on Words and Numbers, which is the civil
0:12
original production. Check us out at civil.com.
0:15
That's civl.com. Hi, I'm James.
0:19
And I'm Anthony and. This is words and numbers.
0:26
What's new and interesting in your world this weekend?
0:29
James, have you heard of the 3.5% rule?
0:33
I have not. This is this is a political
0:35
science thing. Well, that was doing what I'm
0:39
I'm ignorant. Yeah, I gather it doesn't date
0:41
back that far. But here's the thing.
0:44
Some researchers have looked at 323 violent and nonviolent
0:51
protests in countries from 1900 through 2006, and they asked the
0:58
question, how often do these protests result in success?
1:04
Where they define success to mean that the movement achieved
1:08
the aims it was looking for within one year of the peak turn
1:13
out of the protests. Oh, and that it's to be
1:16
nonviolent, the achievements of the means.
1:20
This is going to be almost never.
1:21
No, they they find a bunch, but here's what they find.
1:24
Interestingly, more than half of the nonviolent revolts were
1:29
successful and only 1/4 of the violent revolts were successful.
1:34
All right, so I misunderstood. You're talking about revolts,
1:38
not about protests, Yes. Well, yeah, I mean, they use
1:42
both terms. What they're what they're
1:45
talking about, it appears, is is some organized protests that
1:51
causes the government to they use the word failed.
1:55
But I, I gather it's not in the, in the, you know, off with their
2:00
heads version, but rather more in the, in the, what do you call
2:04
it, not constitution, the parliamentary version of the
2:07
government falling. I see.
2:08
So it will be wholly irrelevant to the United States.
2:12
Well, maybe, maybe not. Here's the interesting thing
2:18
that they found. They're asking the question what
2:22
fraction the population needs to be involved for it to be pretty
2:27
much guaranteed that the government capitulates, slashes,
2:31
falls to these protests. And what they find is that with
2:37
5% of the population participating, the probability
2:43
of the government falling is virtually 100%.
2:46
And furthermore, they say that that 5% is a theoretical upper
2:51
limit because of the free rider problem.
2:54
That is that, yeah, if you've got enough people out there
2:57
protesting already, there's no need for you to go out and
3:00
protest. So you you become a free rider.
3:03
You benefit from the protest without participating.
3:05
Well, if in fact that's what you want, right?
3:10
Yeah, a lot of assuming that's a lot of.
3:12
People a lot of people on will be on and other side not notice
3:16
they didn't say the other side, but and other side ultimately
3:20
what what's at heart here with the root that you're you're kind
3:25
of hacking at is that the 5% is indeed a random sample of the
3:30
entire populace. I don't necessarily think that's
3:33
the case. They're simply saying that 5% of
3:36
the population turns out for the protest.
3:38
Yeah, but it would have to say, yeah, I, I, I phrased that
3:41
inelegantly. It would it would have to say
3:43
something about the other 95%. Now it wouldn't be a random
3:48
sample because they're of course self selecting to go out and and
3:52
and do whatever it is they're doing.
3:54
But in Venn diagram terms, there would have to be a lot of bleed
3:59
over between the two circles. What are the two circles of
4:02
people who are protesting and people who are not protesting
4:05
but want the same thing? Oh, I see what you're saying.
4:08
I see what you're saying. Yeah.
4:09
I don't I, I don't know. It I.
4:12
Couldn't getting into the weeds on the paper?
4:15
It would simply have to be that way because no government would
4:18
look at a 5% population demonstration and say, well I
4:22
guess we all have to quit now. They would look at it and say
4:25
this means a lot more than just 5% of the people out whining
4:30
about something. We we have to dissolve the
4:32
government. Right.
4:34
Yeah, I I think that's the key that.
4:37
And, and for the for the, for our American friends who who
4:40
don't really, we don't speak this language.
4:42
In the United States, to dissolve a parliamentary
4:45
government doesn't mean that the entire thing just goes away.
4:51
It, it means that a new government shows up under the
4:57
old institutions, right? So the part the, the Prime
5:01
Minister and all, all of the executive officers, well, they,
5:06
they all get fired and then a coalition government comes in or
5:12
one party wins enough of the seats that the government is
5:17
just refreshed. It's kind of like people in
5:20
power every that's right. It's, it's what we do every four
5:23
years. They do very irregularly.
5:26
Now there are also rules that they have to have elections
5:29
after a certain amount of time, etcetera, etcetera.
5:32
But when you say the government fails, that doesn't mean the
5:35
government disappears, it just means it's replaced by a new
5:39
one. Yeah.
5:39
Now again, I haven't read the paper, so I can't say how broad
5:44
that term fail or how narrow the term fail is.
5:48
I could just tell you that's the word they're using.
5:50
But all of this is a lead up to the following.
5:55
In June 2025, the No Kings protest it's estimated caused 1
6:04
to 1.5% of the population to turn out.
6:09
The most recent October 2025 No Kings protest, which was just a
6:14
few days ago, it's estimated that 2% of the population turned
6:19
out. That's 7 million people across
6:21
2700 events throughout the country.
6:24
Well, on on that one day, if they keep going at that rate,
6:29
the next No Kings protest may hit that 3.5% mark.
6:35
The implication being that at that point, there's going to be
6:40
some serious questions about whether Donald Trump's
6:43
administration should continue. But you started by saying it was
6:46
5%. Now it's 3 1/2 percent.
6:48
No, no, no. It's three, 3 1/2 percent.
6:51
According to their study, almost all governments fell at 5% is
6:57
virtually 100%, and that's the theoretical upper limit.
7:00
I see and and I will contend that in the United States this
7:04
will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.
7:08
I don't know. Will it or will it not?
7:10
Would it, would it be enough to push for a motion for
7:15
impeachment? Would it be enough to push for
7:17
someone invoking the 25th Amendment?
7:20
Well, impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives
7:23
says it is. Yeah, but they've got to
7:25
actually get off their butts and say something.
7:28
Right. And they're not going to do that
7:29
because it's a majority Republican House right now.
7:33
If it switches the Democratic hands in the midterms, which it
7:36
might, then you might see impeachment.
7:39
But then you have to take a look at the Senate and ask, are they
7:43
going to ever convict Donald Trump in the Senate?
7:46
And I do not think the Senate will slip into Democratic hands.
7:51
It might, but I don't think it will and it certainly will not
7:56
have the numbers needed to impeach to, to, to convict on
8:01
the impeachment, to be precise in the use of language.
8:04
So that's not going to happen. And I, I can predict with near
8:09
100% certainty that what I, everything I just said is, is
8:13
going to work out about the way I just said it would.
8:16
Now the 25th Amendment is another animal entirely, and
8:20
that that falls into The Who the hell knows category.
8:24
You want to do you want to take a minute to talk about the 25th
8:26
Amendment? The 25th Amendment is a
8:30
mechanism by which a president can be removed.
8:33
It requires the his cabinet functionally to remove him.
8:40
And it it's designed for people, presidents who have significant
8:46
mental impairments or some such thing, right?
8:49
What if, what if the president gets shot in the head but
8:52
doesn't die? He's still the president.
8:56
Well, we can't have that. So now we have the 25th
9:00
amendment. All right.
9:02
What if the president has advanced Alzheimer's?
9:05
Who gets to decide whether the president has advanced
9:08
Alzheimer's? Because I will tell you that
9:11
when Biden and when Trump make public, to the extent they do
9:16
their medical examinations every year, they're always fit like a
9:21
superhero. And in the case of Biden, we
9:27
absolutely know that's not true. And in the case of Trump, we're
9:29
pretty sure it's not true. So I don't know.
9:33
I mean, is JD Vance going to step up in a cabinet meeting in
9:36
which Donald Trump is not present saying we got to get rid
9:40
of the old guy? He might.
9:41
But if he But if he does and he doesn't get the numbers he needs
9:45
to make it happen, he'll be vice president for about 5 more
9:48
seconds. Right.
9:49
Yeah, yeah, You throw all your cards on the table at that
9:52
point. Yep.
9:54
We're happy to announce that Civil members can join me and
9:57
James for a new lecture series, Words and Numbers Live.
10:00
Words and Numbers Live is a members only series in which
10:04
James and I talk about issues in politics, philosophy and
10:08
economics. We take a deeper dive and then
10:10
invite listeners for a live Q&A session in this week's session,
10:14
which starts this Thursday at 5:30 Eastern Time.
10:18
We'll talk about the knowledge problem.
10:19
To participate in this exclusive series, subscribe to
10:22
civil@civil.com. That's civl.com.
10:26
When you log into civil.com, you'll find an archive of our
10:30
past lecture series, as well as the collection of all of our
10:33
episodes of Words and Numbers and announcements about upcoming
10:37
lectures in our new Words and Numbers Live series.
10:40
Subscribe to Civil for $5 a month or $50.00 for an annual
10:44
subscription. Let me throw out one other poll
10:48
I saw recently and it sticks in my mind because I was astounded
10:52
by the results. This was approval rating of the
10:56
president and it was whatever I believe it was coming from Pew.
10:59
Don't quote me on that, but it was whatever the recent one was
11:03
in his past few weeks. Approval rating for the
11:06
President amongst Republicans hold 98% approve amongst
11:14
independents 35%, amongst Democrats 1%.
11:20
And and that's astounding that you can actually both the
11:23
Republican and the Democratic numbers are astounding.
11:25
By random chance, you would not expect that you would get that
11:28
close to the extremes of 100% and 0, but nonetheless those
11:32
were the numbers. But if you, if you think about
11:35
that in terms of the fraction of the population that is
11:42
registered Republican or Democrat, look at the
11:46
Republicans in this case, the last time I looked, it was
11:48
something like ±28% of the voters are registered
11:55
Republican. So we've got virtually 100% of
11:58
that 28% approving. And that leaves whatever 100 -,
12:04
28 is, you're in the 73 percent or so 72% range.
12:10
Now there's a chunk of those who are approving, but it's small
12:14
enough and I haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be
12:17
surprised if the number of voters who disapprove of the
12:21
president isn't pretty close to a super majority at this point.
12:25
Well, no, I don't. I don't think it is right.
12:28
You, you conflated Democrats and independents when you threw the
12:32
numbers out, right? So we've got the Republicans who
12:35
love him, the Democrats who absolutely hate him.
12:38
And, and, and then it's, it's weird, right?
12:41
Because the, the independence come in at about 3536% approval
12:45
rating and his overall approval rating has been bouncing between
12:49
36 and 40% for months. So you know, that's about what
12:55
you end up with. And we've been living in this
12:59
world for a long time, right at minus the time George W, George
13:05
W Bush in the wake of 911 had like a 95% approval rating,
13:10
right? You just kind of take that out
13:11
as an outlying event that's not going to repeat, or at least we
13:16
hope it won't. And you look at our presidential
13:20
popularity for over years, it's really not that that big.
13:25
It's not great. We haven't we haven't had
13:28
somebody that captured the public since Reagan.
13:32
Now every president obviously has captured the public to, to a
13:36
degree, enough of a degree to win the presidency.
13:39
But, you know, we all know what a convoluted mess that is from
13:43
primaries to Electoral College. And it allows for people who are
13:50
on the fringes and it has for a while now, people who are on the
13:56
fringes to find their way into the Oval Office.
13:58
And, and I've long said I I would prefer smoke filled rooms.
14:04
And for a long time people called me crazy.
14:07
But people are starting and it started last week.
14:10
As a matter of fact, people are starting to say, just tell us
14:13
more about this smoke filled room business because it sounds
14:16
much better. So, you know, maybe I'm getting
14:19
somewhere with this. You never know.
14:22
This is how change happens, right?
14:23
A guy says something and somebody else says, hey, that's
14:26
not a bad idea. And they told two friends, and
14:28
they told two friends and so on. Right.
14:31
And if you know what I just referenced you're you're old.
14:34
It used to be a shampoo commercial anyway, and I want to
14:37
get us over to marijuana, but I'm I'm going to do it in a very
14:42
strange way. The Supreme Court will be
14:44
considering a case asking the question Can pot smokers legally
14:51
owned guns? You know, I saw the, I saw that
14:56
in the first thing that runs through my mind, of course, is
14:58
the Second Amendment. Congress shall make no law.
15:01
So I'm very interested to see what kind of hoops people jump
15:03
through. Well, there there's always that
15:06
when you talk about guns, right? It it said Congress shall make
15:10
no law. And we selectively incorporate
15:13
things from the Bill of Rights. And we have deselected that part
15:18
until the Heller case at the Supreme Court where they said no
15:22
owning a gun like every other thing in the Bill of Rights.
15:27
I want you to hear me. Like every other thing in the
15:30
Bill of Rights is a personal right, period.
15:36
And if it's a personal right, well, there you go.
15:39
You have the right to keep and bear arms and look right from
15:42
the start. If that's true.
15:45
And, and I would stipulate that it is every time.
15:49
How far does it extend? I, I know I have a right to a
15:52
long arm because as an originalist read, I know that
15:56
that's what they had during the constitutional period.
15:59
All right. And leaving aside all the
16:02
details of long arms, do I also have the right to a, a handgun?
16:07
And I think it's very clear that yes, I do.
16:12
What? Why is it so clear?
16:14
Right? Because that's generally what
16:17
guns became. All right, so now we're drifting
16:20
off the originalist farm a little bit here.
16:24
Do I have the right to a flamethrower?
16:26
Because man aunt, I want a flamethrower so bad.
16:32
And actually I think I can build 1, so I probably have the right
16:35
to that. Do I have the right to a
16:36
tactical nuclear weapon? At some point in in this
16:42
progression, you and everybody else is going to say, OK, OK,
16:45
hold it, you've gone too far. So just intellectually, we know
16:50
there's a limit and we're going to disagree about what that
16:53
limit is. Right.
16:55
Right. I, I think automatic weapons,
16:57
for example, probably should be permitted, right, That that's
17:02
about as far down that road as I'll go.
17:05
After that, it becomes very problematic for me.
17:08
But I'm a reasonable human being, right?
17:09
I'm I'm an idiolog on the one hand, but I'm a reasonable human
17:12
being on the other. Let me clarify something for our
17:15
listeners because you know this and I know this, but I want to
17:17
make sure our listeners are getting it.
17:19
You use the you, you ask the question, do I have a right to?
17:25
And I want to underline the Constitution is not about
17:30
defining your rights. It's about defining the limits
17:34
on the government. So the right question is not, do
17:37
I have a right to own a handgun? The right question is, does the
17:40
Constitution empower the government to prevent me from
17:44
owning a handgun? It doesn't prevent the
17:46
government from telling you you can't.
17:49
It doesn't prevent the the government from anything in
17:53
terms of weaponry, right? Because we, we already know that
17:59
the Second Amendment in an absolutist way will ultimately
18:02
fail because it will not protect your right to keep and bear
18:06
nuclear weapons. So we already know there's an
18:10
outer limit on it, and a sensible people are going to
18:15
disagree about what that outer limit is.
18:17
Our friend Clark Neely, who actually was part of the team
18:22
that argued the Heller case, I put that question to him once
18:27
about the nuclear weapon and he said there's a fundamental
18:31
difference between a handgun and a nuclear weapon, and that is
18:37
that the handgun or the long gun or what have you.
18:41
Even if you want to talk about cannons, which people did own
18:44
personally in back in the revolutionary days, those things
18:49
can are targeted at one at at whatever your target is.
18:55
Whereas a nuclear weapon is is indiscriminate.
18:58
It just blows up everything insight and to that extent, if
19:01
you, if you buy that argument, use the same argument can be
19:04
made for hand grenades, for example.
19:06
I think the government would be on good footing to prohibit
19:09
those. Right.
19:10
And and I don't want to get lost in those weeds because we've got
19:13
other weeds to get lost in here. Now the question is can if the
19:19
word was habitual pot smokers? Can they keep?
19:24
And bear arms too, right? Right.
19:26
Well, which? Means the fundamental question
19:29
here is is there a behavior or maybe a characteristic that the
19:36
government can look at and say not you, everybody has this
19:41
right but not you. And it gets kind of interesting,
19:44
right? Because I think most people have
19:47
come to some sort of agreement that we don't think the the
19:51
lunatics among us should be able to keep and bear arms because
19:55
they go off and they shoot up a bunch of places.
19:58
And, you know, look, I've been at gun shows where dealers have
20:03
looked at somebody and said, I'm not selling this to you, right?
20:07
I'm. Just I'm just.
20:08
Not and. OK, I get it.
20:12
I really do get it and if you've got somebody who's
20:15
schizophrenic, the last thing you want to do is put a weapon
20:18
in his hand or or allow him to go buy one.
20:25
And that's a. Clear, thoroughgoing violation
20:27
of his Second Amendment right. And I'm relying.
20:31
On another. Right.
20:33
My right to be safe from obvious potential harm.
20:39
And can you say? Obvious potential.
20:42
Those two words don't exactly go together here, right?
20:45
There's potential harm which is not obvious and there's obvious
20:48
harm which is not potential. But you know, here, here's where
20:51
we live on this issue and it's it's very difficult.
20:57
So now what about pot smokers? Now, every pot smoker I've ever
21:02
met, and I mean this literally every pot smoker I've ever met
21:07
has been kind of happy, go lucky, jovial, maybe lazy.
21:11
These kinds of things. What are they not?
21:14
They're not violent. Yeah.
21:17
So. Why?
21:18
Why on earth is this an issue? I'm not exactly sure, but this
21:22
is the issue that people want the Supreme Court to address
21:26
now. But you know who?
21:28
Who often is violent? People who usually use alcohol?
21:32
Yeah, Drinkers. So are.
21:36
Are are we on a slippery slope here?
21:41
Is it going to? Be the potheads first, and then
21:44
the drinkers, because there's way more of them.
21:46
Or maybe the potheads first and then the heroin addicts who tend
21:50
not to shoot the place up either.
21:52
But then the cocaine users and the meth users.
21:55
Oh, and what about Sedera, who's on antidepressants?
21:58
Well, that that's going to come into sharper focus pretty soon
22:01
too. Right, because.
22:04
They are. People on antidepressants are
22:07
for whatever the reason, more prone to violence.
22:10
You, you could sensibly make the argument, well, of course
22:14
they're why do you think they're on antidepressants?
22:16
They're already not doing well. But I don't, I don't know that
22:22
any good is going to come out of this case.
22:27
It it might. Be the case that no matter what
22:29
gets decided here, it's a step in the wrong direction one way
22:34
or the. Other clearly people who are in
22:37
favor of gun rights see the danger of the court saying,
22:42
yeah, the government can restrict gun ownership amongst
22:47
pot users. What's what does the person who
22:51
is against gun rights what what is the downside to that person
22:57
if the court says OK, I mean, how do things change versus what
23:01
they are now? If if.
23:03
The court says OK then you know the the the anti gun people are
23:08
are going to suffer a significant set back or they're
23:11
granted but but but the. Play the game doesn't change
23:14
versus what it is right now, The status quo.
23:16
No, I don't think so. Yeah, I, I think everything kind
23:19
of just stays in place and we, we might get back to this
23:23
because we've got marijuana again as the foolishness of the
23:28
week. Imagine this, imagine it's been
23:32
like a, a marijuana extravaganza today, hasn't it?
23:35
And, and we've got the foolishness, which is a case
23:38
coming out of I believe it was New York City.
23:41
At any rate, I read it in the New York Post, so.
23:46
Chris Wilcox, one of our listeners, sent me that, and I
23:50
just put it down on my list of quick hits to talk about in the
23:53
next episode. Well, you better take it off
23:57
your take it off your list because here we are.
23:59
A woman got really, really testy.
24:02
An older woman got really testy that she could smell the stink
24:07
of marijuana smoke from her neighbor into her house and she
24:11
she she sued and won. And now that man can't.
24:16
Smoke weed in his own house anymore.
24:19
Yeah, see. And I don't have a problem with
24:21
that. Well, do.
24:23
Is Are you sure? Yeah, I I'm pretty.
24:25
Sure, because if indeed let's, let's take it on face value.
24:30
If indeed the smoke was infiltrating her apartment, and
24:33
let's assume for the sake of argument it's not because she
24:36
had her windows open and his windows were open, let's suppose
24:40
that she did whatever reasonable thing one might do to mitigate
24:45
that. And suppose the smell still
24:47
leaks through. In my book, that's pollution.
24:51
So guy who's smoking is violating her property rights?
24:55
And that was largely the argument used whenever cigarette
24:59
smoking came up in public areas, right?
25:02
That it it was such a pollutant that everybody was going to get
25:06
sick blah blah blah. Which turned out to be a bug in
25:08
that one I have heard a problem with.
25:11
Turned out to be a bunch of. Lies.
25:13
But now you're you're making an aesthetic argument that it
25:17
stinks and I don't like the smell, therefore you can't do
25:21
it. Yeah, now.
25:22
It's fine. If she doesn't like to.
25:24
Smell in the hallway? Forget it.
25:26
She doesn't have the right to that.
25:27
But if it's well, these are the confines of her apartment, she
25:30
does. I believe these.
25:31
Were separate homes really they weren't even apartments.
25:35
An adjoining home is the word that's used.
25:38
The word says likely. Sharing a wall.
25:42
Sharing. They're going to.
25:43
Share a wall. So it's it's probably something
25:45
like an old timey brownstone. I'm looking at the pictures but
25:48
they they close up her face so I can't see the building.
25:51
But she lived on one side and he lived on the other.
25:54
There's apparently a shared wall.
25:57
What if he doesn't like what she's cooking?
26:01
Same deal. Or her perfume.
26:04
Same deal really at. What point has it become?
26:07
Unreasonable, I would say. In my mind, the line of
26:10
demarcation is have you the the person who's being offended?
26:14
Have you done everything reasonable to mitigate the
26:19
problem? You close the window, you maybe
26:22
you got an air fresh or whatever it is and still there's a
26:25
problem. I'd say, yeah, that's it's
26:27
pollution When I when? I lived in California.
26:30
On one side of my apartment was an Iranian family who cooked
26:35
with spices that were so foul that whenever they cooked, I
26:39
would leave. And on the other side.
26:42
Of me was a a very young woman, 2223 and I I literally, because
26:48
I have a very, very sensitive sense of smell.
26:51
I could smell her perfume in my office.
26:55
So you think I have a? Legitimate case against both of
26:57
them, yes. You see, I really don't.
27:01
I think it's a violation. I think you have to find.
27:03
A way to live together when smells enter into the picture
27:07
but having said that, I will concede that people are
27:12
complaining almost everywhere where marijuana is legal about
27:16
the smell. Yeah, right.
27:18
So, so something's going to end up giving here, but this brings
27:22
us to our, our broader thing to think about today, right?
27:25
Broader before. We go well, this is the.
27:28
This is the broader thing, right?
27:29
You, you said something. That is worth repeating, that
27:35
being neighbors, they should work this out.
27:37
They should. And I think absolutely that's
27:40
the first thing that should happen.
27:41
You work this out and 90% of the time it'll work out amicably.
27:45
You only involve the government and the courts when you have
27:48
exhausted every possibility. But.
27:51
You know how I love to sit outside and smoke cigars, right?
27:55
And you know that other human beings, I don't understand this,
27:58
but I know it to be true. Other human beings think that's
28:01
an unpleasant smell. And occasionally somebody named
28:06
Karen stops by and says something like, do you need to
28:10
smoke that right now? And and I say.
28:14
Why yes, yes I do. That's why I'm that's why I'm
28:18
smoking it right now. See how easy this?
28:21
Was in. In see the interesting thing
28:24
here, you change, you change the question when you're outside
28:29
because there's not. The property rights aren't
28:33
clearly defined. Who owns the air?
28:36
And so the smell wafts into your neighbor's backyard.
28:40
It's unclear that your neighbor owns the air in his backyard.
28:44
Now it's very clear within the confines of his house.
28:46
He's closed the windows and the doors.
28:49
What's in there is his. Yeah.
28:51
I mean, I'm, I'm kind of with you on most of this, right?
28:55
But, but I, I get it. I, I get that people don't want
28:58
certain smells. I understand.
29:00
James and I are delighted. To be working with Civil For
29:02
years we have been pushing people to think about how we can
29:06
make the world a better place. Civil's mission of upgrading
29:09
society fits exactly with what James and I have been talking
29:13
about for years. Civil helps us by allowing us to
29:16
do what we do best, which is researching topics that are
29:20
important and communicating these to our listeners in a way
29:23
that we hope they find enjoyable.
29:26
To see Civil's extensive list of content, including our podcast
29:30
Words and Numbers and our new lecture series Words and Numbers
29:33
live, visit civil.com. That's civl.com.
29:38
To people who will listen to this in say, well, you guys are
29:42
are splitting hairs of how many angels condense on the head of a
29:45
pin. Let me point out that the
29:47
underlying principle here is vitally important because it's
29:52
at the root of that entire argument we had in this country
29:56
for months about wearing masks. The question is, well, if if a
30:03
person is infected with COVID and that person's walking around
30:09
outside, that person is is doing economically the same thing he
30:14
would be doing if he were walking around throwing trash
30:16
out in the street. He's polluting the environment.
30:20
Yeah. How you deal with that requires?
30:23
Understanding. The property rights at play,
30:25
You're going to get some. Hate mail over what you just
30:27
said. People are not going to like
30:29
that. And and I'll, I'll remind you to
30:31
send it directly to Anthony. Don't send it to words and words
30:35
and numbers and, and look back back then.
30:39
Remember what I used to say all the time?
30:41
I used to say, I think this mask business is really stupid, but
30:45
I'm going to wear one anyway just to shut people up, which is
30:50
kind of like saying the two neighbors should just work it
30:53
out. Work it out.
30:54
Right, right, and. And you know, maybe the man can
30:57
be prevailed upon to delve into the edible market instead of the
31:02
smoking market, but maybe not, right?
31:04
Some somebody's going to lose here.
31:08
One one side or the other is going to get its way because
31:12
both can't. And it's part of living in
31:14
community that necessarily we're different, we have different
31:17
tastes, we have different abilities.
31:18
And necessarily we're going to collide like this.
31:20
We work it out. And it's not, I would, I would
31:23
argue it's not that one side necessarily has to lose.
31:27
Both sides could give a bit for the sake of, well, hang on a.
31:31
2nd and I've, I've just made the executive decision that we're
31:35
not going to talk about marijuana exclusively.
31:37
We're going to talk about this because this is really
31:38
interesting. There are binary situations,
31:42
right, where one side will win and the other side will not.
31:47
Because if, if I'm doing, if I'm smoking my cigar and somebody
31:52
says I don't want you to smoke your cigar, my response is going
31:56
to be, I'm sorry, I don't care what you want.
32:00
I'm in my own backyard. It's private setting that you
32:04
even walked down my driveway to say this to me is offensive.
32:09
So now you have to go. And that person.
32:12
Doesn't get what he wanted. He will never get.
32:16
What he wants, unless he sues me and some court agrees with him
32:21
or brings me through an HOA meeting or, you know, some
32:24
stupid nonsense like that. But there are all kinds of
32:27
things like this that people find offensive for one reason or
32:31
another. And the intellectually
32:33
offensive, that's the one we always think about, but we don't
32:36
really give a lot of time to these regular life things that
32:41
are infinitely more annoying, right?
32:43
Loud cars, people who alter their cars to make them louder
32:48
than they have to be. I, I want to shoot their tires
32:52
as they drive by. Why on earth would you do this?
32:56
We have all this technology to make cars quieter and and
33:00
there's a subset of our population dedicated dedicating
33:03
themselves to making their cars louder.
33:06
As a matter of fact, manufacturers of electric cars
33:09
often install engine sounds speakers.
33:15
They install. Engine sounds.
33:17
Think about that. What the hell?
33:19
We finally got to a point where a car is utterly silent.
33:21
You want to make it noisy again? Noise is offensive to me as as
33:27
is as would be flashing lights. And yet I go places and lights
33:33
flash. I don't, I don't like that,
33:35
right? I mean, where, where and how do
33:37
you draw lines on these sorts of things?
33:40
And the easiest observation. Is what you?
33:43
Probably don't, right? You, you, you probably muddle on
33:47
through because this is what living together means, right?
33:51
We have a, a, we have a, a form of pluralism here, right?
33:55
Where you can live your way and I can live my way, and then we
34:00
find a way to live our way together, whatever that happens
34:04
to be. But your way and my way may be
34:06
very, very different. There are people in the United
34:09
States who are deeply offended that I don't go to church.
34:13
I don't, I don't care. Be offended, right?
34:18
At some point, you have to say that the offense is
34:21
unreasonable. This is how a matter of fact,
34:24
aunt, we've never talked about this publicly, so more hate mail
34:28
to come. But this is how we got into the
34:31
pronoun business, right? A group of people said, no,
34:35
these are my pronouns. And the rest of us said, what
34:38
the hell is that? Well, I didn't understand what
34:42
you're saying. And then it gained steam and now
34:45
we all understand. But a bunch.
34:48
Of us don't want to play. Along I, for example, don't want
34:52
to play along and and here's why you don't have pronouns,
34:58
Anthony, Anthony Davies, you don't have pronouns.
35:01
There are pronouns. There have been pronouns.
35:05
There will be pronouns, but you don't own them linguistic.
35:11
They're just out there. And what what a group of people
35:14
is trying to do is to change the meaning over time of these
35:19
pronouns, right? And of course there that's what
35:23
a smart dedicated group would do, right?
35:26
And I can give you examples of how this has happened.
35:29
The word literally, for example, if you look it up in the Oxford
35:33
English Dictionary, means both literally and not literally.
35:39
Because people have used it so much.
35:40
They say I'm literally going to die.
35:44
No, you're not. The cancer patient in the ICU is
35:47
literally going to die. You're going to go right on
35:50
living for a while. But because people use that word
35:53
so long in this way, now the official meaning, to the extent
35:57
any word can have an official meaning, has changed.
36:01
All right. Well, how do we get along now?
36:04
When a group of people demands that we use language
36:07
differently. Not over time, Not a natural
36:11
evolution, but right now. As I say, you will call me X
36:18
now. On the one hand.
36:20
That's ridiculous. No, I.
36:23
Won't on the. Other hand, if you said hello,
36:27
my name is Anthony, I would just call you Anthony, right so.
36:32
On the 1:00. Hand if you just tell me.
36:35
Something I'm going to. Roll with it.
36:37
On the other hand, if you jump up and down and scream and yell
36:40
about something, I'm going to take some other kind of notice
36:44
and. And I don't know where it all
36:46
leads. Right?
36:47
Because in a pluralistic Republic, you can't just make
36:51
demands. Yeah, but that's the key is.
36:54
The making of the demands. So, you know, I think back to
36:57
this cigar thing and the right way to deal with the cigar thing
37:01
is, you know, you, you work it out between the two of you is
37:04
all right. I'm, I'm only going to be out
37:06
here, you know, until 7:00 in the evenings.
37:09
You cook out at 8:00, I'll be gone by.
37:11
But you work out something. You give and take.
37:13
Similarly, if somebody came to visit me, I'm introduced for the
37:18
first time and this person said, look, you know, I use I use such
37:22
and such pronoun. Would you, would you mind using
37:25
them when you refer to me? I have no problem.
37:30
The problem is the demand. Somehow I have a right?
37:34
To be called. This and if you don't call me
37:36
this, you're going to be in trouble.
37:38
Well, you're a bigot, Yeah. Or or whatever you're you're
37:42
you're a. Terrible thing and and then me
37:45
and my friends are going to try and get you fired, shame you
37:48
publicly, all these kinds of things.
37:50
And that says antithetical. To the working it out as the
37:54
other extreme is of I don't care what you want I'm I refuse to do
37:58
anything to call you Yeah, that that.
38:01
Yeah, that, that's probably right.
38:03
And you know, on the pronoun thing, if you really think about
38:05
it, how often do you use a person's pronouns in that
38:09
person's presence? In the person's presence, Right,
38:11
Right. Yeah.
38:11
Oh, it is almost. Never.
38:14
Yeah. So this.
38:15
Is really. A thing about referring to
38:17
someone when they're not, when that person is not around.
38:21
This is an electronic living thing.
38:24
This is an X slash Facebook slash Instagram thing.
38:29
It's not about real life, because in real life I use the
38:32
second person pronoun you, you. What would you like to what
38:36
would you like to do today? What about you?
38:38
What about you? I never say and and what about
38:41
her? Is that that would imply that
38:44
the rest? Of us are going to decide what
38:45
she's going to do which is beyond rude right so it it it
38:51
really is about a different kind of communication and.
38:56
The rules of that kind. Of communication are unwritten
38:59
as of right now, we haven't figured out collectively how
39:03
we're going to behave in the digital world.
39:06
It gets a little more focused every day, but it's not fully
39:10
focused yet, not by a long shot. The main segment where it's
39:14
going to be. Marijuana it's going to be, but
39:16
it turned into. Community, right.
39:19
And that, that's something that people who are liberty inclined
39:23
rarely think about because their liberty inclined, they want to
39:27
see first how they're left alone.
39:30
They don't want to see first how they must integrate.
39:34
And community is about integration.
39:37
And you kind of must, must is a word I almost never use, right?
39:42
I I make fun of Bernie Sanders because everything he says is a
39:46
must. We must X, we must then XY.
39:50
So I, it's kind of a silly word, but in this case, it's
39:54
absolutely the correct word. You must integrate to some
39:58
degree, even if that only means you don't having a job and going
40:02
to the grocery store with your earbuds in so nobody will talk
40:05
to you and this kind of thing. But boy, the minute you have to
40:09
start interacting with people, problems pop up.
40:11
The very minute you start, there are all kinds of problems.
40:15
Because what you want and what I want are not the same thing.
40:20
And how can you have what you want?
40:21
And I have what I want when there's a conflict between US
40:25
and the answer is somebody's going to lose or both of us are
40:28
going to lose. And, and that's kind of it,
40:30
right? There are very few win, win
40:31
scenarios when you get to the point where person A does not
40:36
like what person B is doing. Well, I I.
40:39
I don't know, there's a larger perspective here.
40:43
It it could be a win win scenario.
40:44
And I give you a, a, an example that you're smoking your cigar
40:48
and your neighbor comes over and says, look, you know, I don't
40:51
like this. And between the two of you, you
40:56
work it out and you come to something that works for the two
40:59
of you. You've now forged a relationship
41:01
that wasn't there before. I look, I get all of things you.
41:06
You make you. Better off, I get what you're
41:08
saying. But my answer is always going to
41:11
be no, I will not stop smoking my cigar.
41:14
That's always, literally always going to be my answer, that you
41:18
don't have the right to come from afar and tell me what I can
41:21
do in my own backyard. Ah, but notice the.
41:23
Difference if I come from afar in demand that you stop smoking
41:28
the cigar, absolutely understand where you're coming from, but
41:31
how different it is when I come and I I ask, I say could you do
41:36
this for me? Could you help me?
41:38
So you you want to you want? To shame me, but by having this
41:41
fictional person bring a plate, bring a plate of cookies and say
41:45
here, take these cookies, James, I'm a good person.
41:47
You will. You're going to love me.
41:49
But I don't like the cigar business.
41:50
It's not a matter of shaming. It's a matter of, of, of giving
41:55
you, presenting you with an opportunity to be magnanimous.
42:00
And I might, I might take that. Given any number of activities,
42:06
I really might if I'm because I watch TV outside, If you came
42:10
over and said, man, that TV is keeping me awake at night, I
42:14
would say, oh, I'm I'm sorry, I had no idea.
42:15
I'll I'll make sure it's turned down or I wear headphones.
42:18
I would do that in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even think twice about
42:21
it. But anybody who came over and
42:23
asked me to stop smoking cigars would get a no for an answer and
42:26
show them the door, right? Because I'm just not going to
42:30
stop. That's what I do.
42:33
I smoke cigars outside and other people have things they do that
42:37
I wouldn't like the the the people maybe half a mile up up
42:42
wind of me have these massive parties on the weekends and I
42:46
don't want to listen to all the accordion music that comes from
42:50
those parties. I hate accordion music.
42:53
I hate it. It's awful.
42:54
Mark Twain give asked what the definition of a gentleman was
42:58
and said it's a man who knows how to play the accordion but
43:01
doesn't. Oh my God, that's funny.
43:06
Right. And then and then they they.
43:08
Put out a side of beef on a spit of some kind, and I have to
43:11
smell all of their cooking and and it smells really good and
43:14
I'm not invited and it pisses me off.
43:17
All right, man, I guess that's just the cost of doing business,
43:20
right? They own that house.
43:21
I own this house. They want to have a party.
43:23
Kids come to parties. They make a lot of noise.
43:26
What can you do? Right?
43:28
OK. I get it but.
43:30
What I do is what I do, and if you don't like it, you going to
43:33
go # sand, too. Once you get down to that level
43:36
where people become intransigent, and I'll grant you
43:39
that, that level is not nearly as high up as we think it is.
43:43
It's actually pretty far down once you start looking at human
43:46
behavior. But once you get to the level of
43:49
intransigence, then there's literally, by definition, no
43:53
compromise. Yeah.
43:55
And that's when you bring. In the courts when there's no
43:58
compromise. There will be conflict, and when
44:00
there's conflict, somebody's probably going to take a hit to
44:03
his rights. Right because you go to court
44:06
when rights. Are in conflict or in apparent
44:09
conflict. There's a group of, of
44:11
philosophically minded people out there that say it's
44:13
impossible for rights to conflict.
44:15
I'm I'm not one of them. I think that rights can in fact
44:18
conflict and do so I don't want to get into that can of worms.
44:22
I just want to acknowledge that those people are out there and
44:25
they're not crazy for thinking that.
44:27
But you know, and here we are, right?
44:32
And we talk. About human respect.
44:33
A lot. And we matter of fact, we just
44:35
did an entire presentation. On it a couple of days.
44:39
Ago and and this is the height of human respect right here.
44:43
How do you live together? And the first thing you have to
44:46
be is respectful. I mean this, this is really non
44:51
negotiable and sometimes being rude, sometimes being respectful
44:56
means that you have to put up with something you don't like so
44:58
much. And I think that's where where.
45:00
The the whole genre of the Karen's came about.
45:04
It's not that there's somebody complaining about something,
45:06
it's that the person who's complaining is is apparently of
45:11
the opinion that they matter more than the other person.
45:15
That there's yeah, they're always some of the quality here.
45:19
Yeah, these. The Karens are wholly
45:21
unreasonable and and I don't like them at all.
45:25
And and you know, the minute you hear the words, I want to see
45:29
your manager. You just know what's coming
45:31
next. You just know.
45:34
And it it has no place actually in a society like ours now.
45:40
Occasionally, people are. Going to be treated poorly and
45:43
they're going to get angry as a result, right?
45:46
It's happened to everyone. But if that's your default.
45:50
Setting the problem is you. Right it it's just that simple.
45:57
And, and only you know, if that's your default setting,
46:00
what more can you say? If that's what you wake up, if
46:03
you wake up every day thinking I'm going to get somebody today,
46:07
you're the problem if you walk. Into a.
46:10
Restaurant thinking that waitress better give me good
46:15
service. You're already the problem, and
46:18
maybe you should take a deep breath, take a look around and
46:21
figure out, dare I say it, how to be a little nicer to each
46:25
other. And on that hay note, I'll see
46:28
you next time. Yeah.
46:29
See you next time, James at. Words and numbers.
46:32
We spend a lot of time talking about what's going on in the
46:34
economy and the government, but fundamentally all of this boils
46:38
down to one thing. The greatest threat facing
46:42
modern society is a lack of respect.
46:45
The people who disagree somehow find it difficult, if not
46:48
impossible, to discuss their differences in a civil manner.
46:52
With Civil are interested in upgrading civilization by
46:55
encouraging people to engage with new ideas and ultimately
46:59
engage civilly with each other. If you share this idea, please
47:02
join us by subscribing at civil.com.
47:05
That's cibl.com.