HEATED DEBATE: Tim Pool Vs Jay Dyer on God, Rights, Justification

Summary

---

Jay'sAnalysis: HEATED DEBATE — Tim Pool vs. Jay Dyer on God, Rights, and Justification

Date: March 1, 2026

This episode features highlights from an intense and philosophical debate between host Jay Dyer and guest Tim Pool on the foundational subjects of rights, God, and the justification for private property. The conversation quickly moves from economic models to deep epistemology, with both participants defending distinct worldviews: Pool’s ambiguous but pragmatic moral structure and Dyer’s explicitly Christian foundation.

---

Overview

The main theme centers around the origins and justification of human rights—particularly private property. Is the foundation for rights utilitarian, pragmatic, theological, or something else? Tim Pool and Jay Dyer clash (sometimes heatedly, often humorously) over whether pragmatic success or divine command offers a more coherent and “grounded” rationale for rights.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Grounding and Justification for Rights

• Jay Dyer pushes for epistemic grounding: a coherent, consistent philosophical or theological basis for rights.
• Tim Pool initially references moral intuitions derived from religious (primarily Christian) tradition, but without a full faith commitment—invoking a pragmatic, results-based argument.

Notable Moment (01:07):

Tim Pool: "Well, I believe the Christian worldview, and I would defend that."
Jay Dyer: "But it's coherent. It's consistent, right?"
Tim Pool: "How?"
Jay Dyer: "Well, if you don't have that worldview, you are immediately caught in a bunch of contradictions."
Pool: "Like what?"
Dyer: "Like picking and choosing."
— On the necessity of comprehensive worldview for consistency (01:07–01:19)

---

2. Company Towns, Capitalism, and Communism

• The debate veers into the historical development of company towns, their economic nature, monopolistic tendencies, and parallels (or lack thereof) to communism.
• Tim argues for the right of private property and voluntary contracts; Jay critiques the exploitative aspects likened to "wage slavery" and points out the pragmatic limits of choice in isolated economic environments.

Memorable Exchange (03:32–04:27):

Tim Pool: "If I personally own a piece of land and hire a bunch of people, and there are no restaurants, so I build one—Is that communism?"
Jay Dyer: "It's not communism, but it's also not free-market capitalism... If everybody has to shop at the company store, it might be monopolistic."
— Distinguishing between monopoly and communism in practical economic setups (03:32–04:27)

---

3. Marxism, Liberalism, and Historical Definitions of Left-Right

• The conversation shifts to the origins of left vs. right in political philosophy.
• Jay argues that classical liberalism is a leftist position rooted in the Enlightenment, while Tim distinguishes between various strains, pointing to the French Revolution as the divide between socialists and monarchists.

Notable Quote (09:40):

Tim Pool: "The origin of the left is the left aisle in the French Revolution... the right wanted a top-down monarchist system."
Jay Dyer: "The French Revolution wanted a constitutional monarchy on the right and they wanted private property..."
— On the roots of political spectrum terminology (09:40–10:06)

---

4. Moral Epistemology: Utilitarianism vs. Divine Command

• Tim Pool leans on pragmatic justification—rights and moral systems are “good” because they produce beneficial outcomes for society (e.g., property rights ensure survival, prosperity).
• Jay Dyer critiques this as insufficient, charging Tim with making "utilitarian" and "pragmatic" arguments, both of which lack transcendental grounding and end up circular or subjective.

Exchange (14:50–15:58):

Jay Dyer: "So just utilitarianism. So because it works, well, that's utilitarian, you're wrong."
Tim Pool: "If you don't have an argument for what I said, stop trying to blanket it with something else as a straw man."
— Debating the philosophical validity of utilitarian and pragmatic justification (14:50–15:58)

---

5. The Question of Universality and Subjectivity in Morality

• The heart of the debate turns on whether moral imperatives are universal (binding at all times in all places) or relative/subjective.
• Tim claims some objective grounding while admitting he draws upon Christian values without a full Christian confession. Jay insists this is incoherent and ultimately “picking and choosing.”

Notable Exchange (28:25):

Jay Dyer: "Universal means it applies at all times, at all places, to all people. They ought to do this."
Tim Pool: "They should ought to do this."
Jay Dyer: "Okay. What is the basis for the ought in your position...?"
— Probing the foundation of ‘ought’ (28:25–29:06)

---

6. Scripture, Consistency, and Worldview

• The closing segment hones in on scriptural coherence.
• Jay asserts that he accepts the entirety of the Orthodox Christian paradigm, not “picking and choosing,” while Tim challenges the adaptability and diversity within Christian practice and morality, citing differences among denominations and practices.
• In the end, both agree that private property is instrumental for fulfilling certain “divine” mandates (like having families), but diverge on the ultimate justification.

Key Moment (32:03):

Tim Pool: "...in my moral worldview, I believe there is a basis in private ownership. Because if you are to fulfill God's will of having children, having families, you need a way to control your resources so that you can do that..."
Jay Dyer: "I do. Yeah. Yeah."
— Conceding agreement on outcomes, despite different justifications (32:03–32:04)

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• "Well, to say that we do it because it works is a contradiction... Because that's a fallacy... works to do what?"
  — Jay Dyer, (01:19–01:35)

• "You can always choose to leave. If you're out in the middle of nowhere... you didn't have the ability to just leave." — Jay Dyer, (08:00–08:25)

• "If the core of your Argument is there's a private landowner. Twenty years later, there's now 300 people working in this land. We now transfer the private rights from the landowner to a communal function..."
  — Tim Pool, (11:04–11:20)

• "So you appeal to Genesis and God. What God? What principles of Genesis tell you that?"
  — Jay Dyer, (13:45–13:50)

• "So it's not a universal principle, it's just subjective?"
  — Jay Dyer, (14:01–14:04)

• "I'm not a utilitarian."
  — Tim Pool, (15:32)

• "Well, let's go back to the origin of what we think we know again. Because everything we think everything is rooted in what we think we know, right?"
  — Tim Pool, (18:04–18:25)

• "That's a good story, but it doesn't get to grounding or justification for why the right is actually something that is grounded in God."
  — Jay Dyer, (23:05–23:14)

• "It's a consistent position to believe that humans should be fruitful and multiply. I didn't argue that I believe Jesus died on the cross."
  — Tim Pool, (23:33–23:39)

• "But you can't just pick and choose elements of the worldview as a grounding for rights."
  — Jay Dyer, (23:39–23:43)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Grounding, Coherence, and Contradictions: 01:07–01:35
• Company Towns, Monopoly, and Communism: 03:09–05:58
• Political Definitions (Left, Right, Liberalism): 09:40–10:44
• Justification for Rights: Utilitarianism vs. Divine Command: 14:50–15:58
• Universality and Morality: 28:25–29:01
• Agreement on Private Ownership: 32:03–32:04

---

Conclusion

This episode distills a classic and often fiery philosophical exchange. Jay Dyer insists on transcendental, faith-based justification for rights and morality—emphasizing the need for totalizing, consistent worldviews—while Tim Pool offers a pragmatic, probabilistic, often partial appropriation of religious moral structures. The debate underscores both the depth and the stubbornness of disagreements at the intersection of theology, rights, and political economy—leaving the resolution as open as the episode itself.

---

Transcript

[Host]

Busted appliance. This is your sign to upgrade Shop

[Commercial Announcer]

at Lowe's to get up to 35%

[Host]

off and next day delivery on hundreds of major appliances.

[Commercial Announcer]

Lowe's we help you Save.

[Host]

Valid through 318 while supplies last selection varies by location. Order by 4pm available Monday through Saturday, subject to availability, fees, exclusions and restrictions apply.

[Commercial Announcer]

See Lowes.com appliancedelivery for more details.

[Host]

Visit your nearby Lowes on Colorado street in Kennewick.

[SpinQuest Promoter]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots. Live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[Host]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino. Void where prohibited.

[Debater]

Visit spinquest.com for more details. Maybe you're not familiar with what grounding is. That just means giving an epistemic justification for why that's the case. Good reasons, not just.

[Host]

And so what's yours?

[Debater]

Well, I believe the Christian worldview, and I would defend that.

[Host]

And now explain it.

[Debater]

But it's. It's coherent. It's consistent, right?

[Host]

How?

[Debater]

Well, if you don't have that worldview, you are immediately caught in a bunch of contradictions.

[Host]

Like what?

[Debater]

Like picking and choosing.

[Host]

Like what?

[Debater]

Like picking and choosing. Well, I believe this thing, and then I won't believe this thing. That wouldn't be.

[Host]

What? Things are contradictory. What are you talking about?

[Debater]

Well, to say that we do it because it works is a contradiction. Why? Because it's a fallacy. Works to do what?

[Host]

Explain your idea.

[Debater]

I explained the fallacy. Right there.

[Host]

That's a fallacy.

[Debater]

Explaining it.

[Host]

I don't have to. It is. You've contradicted yourself. How? Because. Because that was a contradiction. It's paradoxical. Well. Well, you said. You said one thing was and one thing wasn't. So you're wrong. I'm not going to elaborate.

[Debater]

I mean, I have been elaborating. So if you're characterizing my position as not elaborating. I've been. It's very explicit. Neoconservative is out of the uk. Bernard Lewis, who is the father of Leo, father of Samuel Huntington, who wrote books that influenced the Bush administration. So the Bush, Cheney, those are like sort of the arch neocons, but it's actually out of the UK From Bernard Lewis and Then they are also influenced by Leo Strauss, who was influenced by Hitler. But they're all. They also have an influence. The guy that made jeans. No joke. It's a joke. It was an angry joke. Jeans were made, actually, I think originally for. For communist purposes.

[Host]

No, no, no. It was.

[Debater]

The suits were.

[Host]

Jeans was like American. It was like mining and.

[Debater]

Well, they. They wanted to have a standard for, like, in a company town. Like, everybody had the same outfit. So I'm not saying. I'm not saying they make profits. I'm just saying, like a company town. You could say it's. It's.

[Host]

Levi Strauss invented blue jeans, and it was in the United States, denim work pants. But it was made by San Francisco.

[Debater]

Company town. He made everything. What? Are you kidding me?

[Host]

You mean in the US it was like company towns?

[Debater]

Like, a company town is not really a capitalist institution. Like, they make money, but, like, you have to buy everything from the company town.

[Host]

Well, I. I disagree with that. I mean, if there's a barren wasteland and a company's like, we need to import a bunch of people and there's no industry here, then they have to create means by which people can choose to buy food.

[Debater]

But it's not classical libertarian free market. If everybody has to shop at the company town, it might be the.

[Host]

But, but, but again, the point is, if no town exists and they build it, they're sure it's like a commissary.

[Debater]

There's other options. Right?

[Host]

So I wouldn't call it communist. Well, it's called monopolistic.

[Debater]

Okay, but I mean, if you're a libertarian, monopolistic capitalism isn't classical libertarianism. Also.

[Host]

Again, so, like, if, if, if, If I personally have a private piece of land and I hire a bunch of people and they're like, hey, there's no restaurants anywhere. What do we eat? I go, all right, I guess I'll have the crew come and open up a restaurant. But you got to pay for the food. Is that communism?

[Debater]

It's. I mean, again, monopoly capitalism isn't really.

[Host]

Hold on. This is not. This is. This is not an issue of. There's no competition. Like, it's an issue.

[Debater]

Is. There is no.

[Host]

I mean, it's an issue of there's no competition, not forcing people to do anything. That. So is the alternative. I just go, you know what, guys? I'm going to open a restaurant where only I get to eat. You're actually not. Not allowed to eat. I don't want to be a communist.

[Debater]

Right, but this is the same argument as to why people would own, like, an entire water supply. Right. So if you privatize water, then no one has a right to the.

[Host]

But, but I'm not talking about that.

[Debater]

I'm saying there's a company town could own the water. Indeed.

[Host]

What right do you have to take it? That's communist.

[Debater]

It's not communist to have publicities.

[Host]

Wait, what?

[Debater]

It's not.

[Host]

I own a swath of land.

[Debater]

Right.

[Host]

And I invite you to come work on it.

[Debater]

Right.

[Host]

I have to now relinquish my right to the water body and my property.

[Debater]

No, I'm saying if you're going to create a society or civilization and you have. If you own the entirety of.

[Host]

We're talking about company towns. We're talking about company.

[Debater]

Well, that's the beginning of a civilization. Right. It's no different.

[Host]

Right, so. So the point you bring up is that if I own, let's say, 100 acres and I have a grain mill on it, and then I can't produce that much, so a handful of people are like, howdy, good sir. We could increase the output of the grain if you give us. If you let us come. And I say, all right, you know what? I'm going to. Actually, I'll pay you guys a share of the grain that you mill. Thank you for voluntarily coming and offering this service. They then say, there's nowhere to eat for miles. And I go, well, unfortunately, if I were to create something by which you could purchase food, that would be communism. So.

[Debater]

No, it's not communism.

[Host]

So, so then if I. If I, as the landowner and the company owner, then say, I will open a restaurant on the property for you from which you can purchase goods. That's the beginning of communism.

[Debater]

So. But you're describing a situation of a small microcosm where there's no competition.

[Host]

Like a company town.

[Debater]

Right, where there's no competition. Doesn't capitalism require competition?

[Host]

And who's stopping people from opening a restaurant across the street?

[Debater]

Well, you would. If you. If you have a common.

[Host]

No, no, no, no, no. If I own property.

[Debater]

You said monopoly capitalism. That would. You would be. Then stopping the competition in a monopoly capitalist situation.

[Host]

No, no, no. We're talking about a company town. Right. Privately owned property. So do they have to relinquish their water rights?

[Debater]

If the city, if it grows to a certain size, where you begin to have competition, that's literally communism. No, it's not.

[Host]

Seizing the assets from the private landowners.

[Debater]

No.

[Host]

Literally, going to a guy who owned land and says, there's too many people here now so your water is ours. That's Compton.

[Debater]

Sounds like communism. No, no, if it's. If. If you grow to where you have a society that requires competition, then the

[Host]

people can seize your assets. Agreed.

[Debater]

We're communists if there's competition. But first of all, by the way, Marx was a libertarian, so it gets

[Host]

really what we're talking about. I don't care about Marx.

[Debater]

Marx was a little bit. Well, you're accusing me of communism then?

[Host]

No, no, I'm. I'm not accusing you. I'm arguing that the argument is communist. If your argument is private land ownership is void upon excess population, that's literally a function of communism. That's what the Venezuelans did.

[Debater]

What you're describing is literally just communism itself. A company town is essentially the same as a communist setup.

[Host]

It is. It is not.

[Debater]

It is identical.

[Host]

It's completely.

[Debater]

I don't know.

[Host]

So. So the people own the land in a company town. In a company town, the people are the people. The people have. If we're talking about the structures of communism by which there is a private committee and there's two ways we can look at it. Your argument seems to fuse together both the authoritarian dictatorship components and the economic.

[Debater]

That's monopoly capitalism. That's where you're arguing.

[Host]

If the argument is people can voluntarily choose to come and work for a company, but there is no competition because there's no market reason for it. It's not communism. It's just a monopoly. But there's no oppression. And it doesn't matter because you can always choose to leave.

[Debater]

You can always choose to leave. If you're out in the middle of nowhere, why did you go there in the West? And then like again, bro, I got.

[Host]

I got to tell you, if the argument is I have no choice in my circumstances, therefore I should get public rights.

[Debater]

It's literally not what I said. This guy's a communist.

[Host]

So then leave, right? Why can't you?

[Debater]

Well, you can say that, but in a company town, especially like in situations when the 1800s company towns are being set up, you didn't have the ability to just leave.

[Host]

Why not?

[Debater]

Well, they're holding you at gunpoint. I mean, well, if you're under a contract, you might have to be there.

[Host]

Why did you sign the contract? Well, again, is it communism to voluntarily enter into an agreement with a company?

[Debater]

Yeah, but you can call it voluntary even. There's situation where something can be voluntary that you're actually locked into. Right? I mean, I can.

[Host]

You chose to enter into a contract.

[Debater]

If Amazon owns an Entire area and it's the only place to work than to say, well, you can move and you can. But it's. Yeah, but it's still a form of wage slavery. Right? You don't think there's such thing as.

[Host]

No, I don't. I think that's commie talk. Well, I think this is quite literally the arguments of Chavez and the arguments of Bernie Sanders. And my point that I often bring up to these leftists is what's stopping you from just being a vagrant on federal land.

[Debater]

There's no difference.

[Host]

You want from my system without input. And, and that is the component of the left that I disagree with this.

[Debater]

Your argument is a leftist argument, actually

[Host]

that people should have to work.

[Debater]

Classical liberalism is a leftist position. You argue classical liberalism. That's a what I'm arguing this position,

[Host]

what I'm arguing for merit based capitalism is leftist.

[Debater]

Yes, Classical liberalism Out of the Enlightenment.

[Host]

That is incorrect.

[Debater]

No, out of the Enlightenment class.

[Host]

The origin of the left is the left aisle in the French Revolution, referring to those who, who wanted a socialist anti monarchist and the right wanted a, a top down monarchist system. Okay, so you're arguing the French Revolution. No, it was the French Revolution. It was the left and the right.

[Debater]

The French Revolution wanted a constitutional monarchy on the right and they wanted private property on the right. Leftist wanted communism.

[Host]

Indeed. So when we say left and right in an economic sense, it refers to left meaning communal. Right, meaning that's closer to laissez faire.

[Debater]

That's classical liberalism, which is against the traditional position of church and state. And this is the state.

[Host]

This is the argument that, that Carl

[Debater]

makes about, about liberalism. Now what, what's the argument that Sargon of Akkad. This is. Oh, I'm only saying that there's, they're, they're similar. That, that liberalism is actually a, a creation of the left and that the ultimate form.

[Host]

I'm not, I am not advocating for in this circumstance, classical liberalism. I'm advocating for private rights.

[Debater]

Yeah, yeah, but the point that I'm, the only point that I'm making is

[Host]

that his perspective is similar to Carl's perspective. Sure. But that's immaterial to the argument being made.

[Debater]

It's not. Because what you're, you're saying that you're a socialist, you're a Marxist. But what I'm arguing would be the same as any medieval village philosophy. And they weren't Marxists or socialists back in the Middle ages. Like if you went to a French village.

[Host]

Okay, again, if the core of your Argument is there's a private landowner. Twenty years later, there's now 300 people working in this land. We now transfer the private rights from the landowner to a communal function.

[Debater]

Again, it's complex where you have something like the total ownership of something, like a water supply, right? So when you have people that need that, that's different than a situation where Nestle's trying to buy an entire country's like, private water supply.

[Host]

So again, the issue was company towns. I have 100 acres. I own the body of water on that land. I invite a bunch of people to work. They say, I'll work here. I need a place to stay. I say, I'll build you a house. They say, where do I get food? I'll build a store. And they say, we need water. I say, I'll set up a water pump for you. That's communism.

[Debater]

Well, let's, let's go to the rights then, because you're arguing that this, you have this right as a, as a company owner, and I would agree, but on what basis do you have those rights? Because classical liberalism lost this whole argument when it came.

[Host]

I don't know why you're bringing up classical liberalism. It's not.

[Debater]

That's your position.

[Host]

No, it isn't. Your.

[Debater]

You're not aware of that, but it is your position.

[Host]

You're throwing a blanket to encompass one point and combine it with a bunch of other points.

[Debater]

Because your arguments come out of that ethos, whether you know it or not.

[Host]

They're classical liberal, and you can have varying ideologies mix and match. Let's make an argument what I actually. Basis for the rights, the basis for the right to own private property. Well, now we're your ethos. So I argue that the rights of man are derived from the will or the duties God bestows upon man. The requirements that we have from God, which is be fruitful and multiply, requires a handful of things for which we recognize in the United States that we allow other people to do fully, recognizing that other groups have different ideas of what rights are. So I would argue rights are. We need to be able to communicate, we need to protect ourselves, and we'd be able to. We need to be secure in our possessions. These are principal rights that we struggle to survive without. As the basis of this is look at communism in general in the Soviet Union. And when you don't have property rights, congratulations. Look what happens when you have mass monopolization and oligopoly. You get something similar. So in a simple sense, certainly it is my moral Worldview and faith based structures that define what I think someone has an inherent claim to. Progressives think you have an inherent claim to someone else's labor, which would just. I would describe as slavery. So when it comes to the idea of private land ownership, the argument is fully understanding population expansion can come to a point where some people will never own land. But the idea is I need to be secure in my possessions to know and prepare for harsh winters, for instability, so that I can survive, so that I can be fruitful and that I can multiply.

[Debater]

So you appeal to Genesis and God. What God? What, what? What principles of Genesis tell you that?

[Host]

What are you talking about? I'm not a Christian.

[Debater]

Then how are you going to base this argument for rights and God? What do you mean what God?

[Host]

My God, my moral worldview.

[Debater]

So it's not a universal principle, it's just subjective?

[Host]

Well, I think to a lot of people they have a moral worldview and a philosophical understanding of some things and not others. And I base mine largely on. First, I would, I would argue that perhaps there are greater moral philosophies than the Christian moral structures. We just don't know them yet. I would say historically, based upon what we have seen throughout the world and what we think we know, the Christian moral worldview has been dramatically superior to other moral structures. That being said, I am not a Christian and I don't believe in the faith structures they have. However, I have recognized that the moral structures of a Christian society tend to make life more successful for individuals, which is ultimately beneficial to the standard function of life, which is organizing complex, organizing free energy into complex systems.

[Debater]

So just utilitarianism. So because it works well, that was utilitarian, you're wrong. That's utilitarianism. No, argue that it works well.

[Host]

If you don't have an argument for what I said, stop trying to blanket it with something else as a straw man.

[Debater]

The argument was utilitarianism. I'm you.

[Host]

It's literally not. I did.

[Debater]

We can talk about is it not utilitarian?

[Host]

Well, we can talk about deontological ethos. We can talk about.

[Debater]

Nothing to do with this.

[Host]

No, indeed. My point is enlightenment. Instead of arguing what I said, you're going, you're arguing thing. I'm like, well, I gave you a specific outlook.

[Debater]

I'm giving you the problem with utilitarian utilitarianism. I'm sorry that you're not aware with of the problems with that.

[Host]

I'm sorry that you can't actually address what I told you.

[Debater]

I'm addressing it now. Which is you're not utilitarian. Arguments are pragmatic and it's not a justification.

[Host]

I'm not a utilitarian.

[Debater]

But you made a utilitarian argument.

[Host]

A component of some. Perhaps so. I don't believe in utilitarianism because that would sacrifice individuals. Again. Do you know what deontological moral ethos is? Yeah, it's okay, great. So when you say something like. And then I bring up. We do not. We do not take immoral actions against an individual for the betterment of it. I know.

[Debater]

So why are you bringing up.

[Host]

You are making an argument the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Which I did not say.

[Debater]

You can have different types of utilitarianism.

[Host]

Sure.

[Debater]

Have to have that.

[Host]

Instead of arguing the point. I made a point.

[Debater]

You argued a pragmatic point.

[Host]

Argue. Argue the point I made. Stop trying to blanket into other how

[Debater]

does pragmatism justify the rights. That's what you argued.

[Host]

Okay. I made an argument about private land ownership as a benefit to human survival.

[Debater]

Pragmatic.

[Host]

Okay, so address what I said.

[Debater]

How does appeal.

[Host]

I made a point. You make yours addressing what I said.

[Debater]

Yeah. That's not a justification. It's a bad.

[Host]

Explain why.

[Debater]

Because appealing to things that work or pragmatism isn't a justification.

[Host]

Explain why I'm wrong about the requirement of private land ownership for survival.

[Debater]

You grounded the right in utilitarianism and pragmatism. And I'm saying that's not a good justification. It's a bad argument. So explain anything that works could be all over the place. That could be subjective. Indeed.

[Host]

That was my point in which I said there are probably relatives that work better we have not discovered yet.

[Debater]

Then it's not a justification. You don't know. So if it's a future thing that you haven't figured out yet, then you don't know right now that it would be a justification.

[Host]

I understand certain principles of gravity and the speed at which things fall. But we don't know for sure how the structures work.

[Debater]

And it wouldn't.

[Host]

We operate based on probabilities.

[Debater]

But it would. Then that would not work to justify the rights as grounded in an unknown.

[Host]

Then go jump off a building and see how it works for you.

[Debater]

You told me I have to.

[Host]

So I have to go jump off a building and see how it works. Because you don't know gravity. It's a future thing you haven't figured out yet. We operate on probabilities based on what we think we know because we actually don't know.

[Debater]

But that doesn't grant a right. That's the point. In future probabilities, I asked you for the grounding for the right to private property.

[Host]

So far human history has proven private land ownership is beneficial to human existence.

[Debater]

That's a circular argument. It benefit. I'm asking how you know that it benefits it. What does it mean to benefit? And you're saying because it was good,

[Host]

it makes more of it.

[Debater]

That's a circular argument.

[Host]

Why?

[Debater]

Well, why? Maybe making more of it's bad. It's certainly not okay, but why not? That's the point. That's why it's a circle.

[Host]

Well, let's go back to the origin of what we think we know again. Because everything we think everything is rooted in what we think we know, right? Some people think the earth is flat. They're probably wrong. But honestly I've not done the experiments myself to a great degree. I've just been in a plane. So if we go back to again roots of science, we can take a look at a few things.

[Commercial Announcer]

Are you a fraud paying American? It's a fact that one in four honest, hard working taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. With Lifelock Identity theft protection though if your identity is stolen, they fix it guaranteed and get you your money back. Last year the IRS flagged over $16 billion in refunds for identity fraud. That's billions of dollars that could come from your salary, overtime or second job. But this year you don't need to stay a victim. Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. And if your information does fall into the wrong hands, we only LifeLock has US based restoration specialists who are backed by the million dollar protection package. Because this tax season fraud paying American is something no American should have to claim. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[Debater]

What's up baby? It's Bretzky and I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free free sweeps coins. All you gotta do is purchase a ten dollar coin pack and guess what? They're gonna give you the coins from a 30 coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like Blackjack, Wanted, Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes baby. Spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited visit

[Host]

spinquest.com for more details. Free energy tends to to coalesce into complex systems, starting with the baser elements or we can say quirks, I'm sorry, quarks into particles, into atoms, into elements, into compounds. At some point, for some reason you get gravity. Likely because if you're familiar with our current understanding of gravity, mass creates attraction, et cetera. And this, this results in certain masses coming together. Eventually you'll get something like a gas giant, you'll get something that compresses, then ignites fusion and you get a sun, we get all this stuff. Then you get an Earth. Earth is the result of certain things slamming together, creating a bunch of complex elements through process of fusion, et cetera. And then at some point on Earth, for some reason, again we don't really know for sure, these molecules and compounds start forming self replicating proteins. The the again, in modern science, the one thing we recognize is that there is greater entropy and limited entropy. Negative entropy can only exist in a slightly greater entropic system. But we do see free energy organizing into complex systems through throughout the earth and in the universe. That's what we monitor. Eventually these complex systems ultimately become multi. They become cellular organisms, single cells and multicellular organisms by which they then create complex organism systems. They create ecosystems. Now you've got a squirrel planting a nut, growing a tree, the tree then drops the food for the squirrel. And now you've got two distinct life forms that form a complex system within its own free energy. And then we get to the craziest part with humanity in the creation of abstract complex systems. That is, humans give names to things that don't exist anywhere in reality except in the and the energy transference between the mind and the vibrations between their mouths. So what we then see is the function of life is negative entropy within a larger entropic system. If we as life which are driven to reproduce and are, and we typically associate all of those things with being good and enjoyable, like having kids, having Christmas morning, then we track based on what we have seen throughout the Earth, what is the most beneficial to that? There are a few answers for this. Islam could be one of them. They've certainly been massively successful, have lots of kids. We can take a look at Africa and say certainly that is beneficial. However, I would make the argument that the European cultures that developed science, space travel, cures for diseases, and then effectively colonized the whole planet, as well as the Asian cultures have proven greatly that these moral worldviews lend themselves greater to the ectopic system within the entropy and then we would say, well, it's maybe a toss up, but I do think that the American Judeo Christian or just Christian moral values, which include things like private property, have lended itself to the formation of complex systems, that is Life, expansion and all the things that we cherish in the world. And thus those are the things we aim for. Certainly these things are very subjective and some people believe other things. Some, Some people might think it's better to watch the whole world burn because humans are a virus that spread like a plague. I don't believe that. But I do recognize I can't convince other people, nor do I know everything. So in the end, I ultimately conclude if we want people to have families and have kids, private land ownership is probably the best thing we can do.

[Debater]

That's a good story, but it doesn't get to grounding or justification for why the right is actually something that is grounded in God. So storytelling is one thing.

[Host]

Yeah, right. It's grounded in God because God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. And the, the.

[Debater]

But you don't accept that revelation. So it's just.

[Host]

I do.

[Debater]

Well, you said you're not a Christian.

[Host]

Indeed. Just because you're not a Christian, you can't believe some things Christians believe.

[Debater]

Well, but I mean, it would. You could do that. But it's not a consistent position is all I'm saying.

[Host]

It's a consistent position to believe that humans should be fruitful and multiply. I didn't argue that. I believe Jesus died on the cross.

[Debater]

But to pick and choose elements of the worldview as a grounding for rights

[Host]

and private property is something that everyone will do.

[Debater]

But that. That's enough. That's another fallacy. The fact that people do it.

[Host]

I don't have to confine myself to one of someone else's books.

[Debater]

These are fallacies. The fact that people do things doesn't have anything to do with whether that's correct or whether that's right.

[Host]

I agree.

[Debater]

Then you're admitting it's a fallacy?

[Host]

No. You're arguing that if I believe one thing from Christianity, I have to believe everything.

[Debater]

No. Again, it was an argument about grounding the idea of private property. So maybe you're not familiar with what grounding is. That just means giving an epistemic justification for why that's the case. Good reasons, not just so.

[Host]

What's yours?

[Debater]

Well, I believe the Christian worldview and I would defend that.

[Host]

And now explain it.

[Debater]

But it's coherent, it's consistent.

[Host]

Right? How?

[Debater]

Well, if you don't have that worldview, you are immediately caught in a bunch of contradictions.

[Host]

Like what?

[Debater]

Like picking and choosing.

[Host]

Like what?

[Debater]

Like picking and choosing. Well, I believe this thing and then I won't believe this thing. That wouldn't be considered. What?

[Host]

Things are contradictory. What are you talking about?

[Debater]

Well, to say that we do it because it works is a contradiction.

[Host]

Why?

[Debater]

Because it's a fallacy. Works to do what?

[Host]

Explain your idea.

[Debater]

I explained the fallacy. Right there.

[Host]

That's a fallacy.

[Debater]

Explaining it.

[Host]

I don't have to. It is. You've contradicted yourself.

[Debater]

How?

[Host]

Because. Because that was a contradiction. It's paradoxical. Well. Well, you said. You said one thing was and one thing wasn't. So you're wrong. I'm not going to elaborate.

[Debater]

I mean, I have been elaborating. So if you're characterizing my position as not elaborating, I've been very explicit.

[Host]

So what makes. What makes the Christian moral worldview on private land ownership?

[Debater]

Well, we're made in God's image, so we have the Ten Commandments. It has a position where you can't steal. So that's a basis for private property right there. But I can't just pick and choose.

[Host]

You can't explain it.

[Debater]

What do you mean by explaining?

[Host]

Is your answer just? God said no?

[Debater]

The answer is that your worldview is inconsistent and contradicts. That's a transcendental argument. That's the argument.

[Host]

What is inconsistent about my worldview.

[Debater]

You gave no justification for why rights are a thing. You just said because literally did. That's not a justification.

[Host]

It's a fallacy that I explained. Function of existence.

[Debater]

That's not a good argument.

[Host]

Explaining function, that's not an argument at all.

[Debater]

Explaining functions, that's not a good argument. Justification.

[Host]

That's a bad argument.

[Debater]

So you're just saying things?

[Host]

Well, you're just saying things to me.

[Debater]

I'm explaining to you how it would work in a college class if you took an epistemology class. You're getting the same critique.

[Host]

Is your argument God wills it?

[Debater]

No. Then what is argument is that the worldview as a whole is coherent and gives a justification and a grounding for the ethics for these things.

[Host]

And. And why explain the coherence of it?

[Debater]

Well, if the world is made by God, if we have ethics being made in the image of God based on the Ten Commandments, these kinds of things, then it makes sense why things are wrong and right.

[Host]

Are there other religions?

[Debater]

Of course.

[Host]

Do they think you are wrong?

[Debater]

That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter.

[Host]

So why.

[Debater]

So why are there people that don't believe two people. Two is four.

[Host]

Yeah, sure, sure. My point is it does have anything

[Debater]

to do with any. Does that have anything to do with.

[Host]

Let's try this before we actually go to the next segment. If your argument is I am right and other worldviews are just wrong and don't matter.

[Debater]

That's not what I argue. They're contradictory.

[Host]

Okay? I argue yours is contradictory. And you.

[Debater]

That's not an argument.

[Host]

It is.

[Debater]

I gave you argument.

[Host]

The argument you gave to me.

[Debater]

I showed your contradiction because you said, what's the contradiction? You said that it's true because it works.

[Host]

I didn't say it was true.

[Debater]

You said that that's why you believe it.

[Host]

That was the I said, based on what we think we know right now, and there may be better structures we discover in the future, this seems to be the best course of action for promoting human existence.

[Debater]

It works. That's a it works argument.

[Host]

It. I think that's an oversimplification of. We act upon probabilities to do the best we can.

[Debater]

But again, none of those things work to ground why private property should be something everybody should accept.

[Host]

I think my argument is it helps people survive better than any system we have.

[Debater]

So it works. That's a pragmatic argument. And that doesn't work to justify or ground the position.

[Host]

Certainly does.

[Debater]

No, not why should we not in episode.

[Host]

Why should we use a fire hose to put out fires?

[Debater]

You keep thinking that working means that it's a justification. That's not what grounding is even asking for. It's a different type of question.

[Host]

I understand, but you're not actually making any point at all other than God wills it.

[Debater]

That was not the argument. The argument was that the whole worldview.

[Host]

Your argument is I have a Christian worldview.

[Debater]

That is a transcendental argument for the whole worldview.

[Host]

And I have. I have that same exact thing.

[Debater]

No, you didn't argue that at all.

[Host]

I do.

[Debater]

You argued utilitarianism and pragmatism.

[Host]

I argued that the. The structure of life is organizing free energy into complex systems.

[Debater]

But that doesn't tell me what I ought to do. That just says, what is it?

[Host]

It indeed tells you what you ought to do.

[Debater]

Why?

[Host]

How is it universal you are to be fruitful and multiply?

[Debater]

Is that universal indeed?

[Host]

How that life procreates and creates more life?

[Debater]

Well, that's a universal claim. But you said that it's subjective to you.

[Host]

So how people are. I recognize that other People believe other things.

[Debater]

Mm. That's not what universal. It just means is it binding everywhere at all times?

[Host]

You said it was subjective to me and I said.

[Debater]

You said that.

[Host]

I said, no, I recognize other people believe other things.

[Debater]

That's not what universal.

[Host]

Other people could perceive that as subjective.

[Debater]

Universal means it applies at all times, at all places, to all people. They ought to do this.

[Host]

They should ought to do this.

[Debater]

Okay. What is the basis for the art

[Host]

in your position, the basis for why

[Debater]

people should have children and have private

[Host]

property or whatever God wills it.

[Debater]

But you don't believe in God any. In any specific way. So how does that have any.

[Host]

I literally do believe in God.

[Debater]

But you said it's not the Christian God, it's just parts of Genesis.

[Host]

Correct. I don't believe in the Christian God

[Debater]

because what's the principle of this God?

[Host]

Principle? God is largely a Christian God.

[Debater]

So you do. But don't. I don't get it.

[Host]

What do you have the ability to understand that there are different faith structures?

[Debater]

Yeah.

[Host]

You. By all means you're allowed to say my religion is wrong, but it has to be coherent to argue that I don't have to be a religion. Certainly my religion is consistent.

[Debater]

Okay. What is the basis for when you know when to pick from what text and which ones to reject?

[Host]

I'd ask the same question of you.

[Debater]

Well, that's a two quote, but that's

[Host]

a fallacy to ask you to define. So you.

[Debater]

Can you ask me the question I just asked you as a fallacy in a bit? Yeah.

[Host]

Can. Can. Can you do it or no?

[Debater]

Yeah. Then I don't pick and choose. So I don't have that problem. I accept the totality of the Christian paradigm. So for me, it's not a problem to pick and choose orthodox.

[Host]

So are there things in the, in the Bible that you do not adhere to?

[Debater]

No.

[Host]

Explain to me like there's modernization. Correct.

[Debater]

Of what?

[Host]

Of, of. Of the, of the Christian. I don't know, I guess moral structures, what you're supposed to do, what you're not supposed to do. Like. Like talk to me about Leviticus.

[Debater]

What about it? It's a typology.

[Host]

Do you follow it? Are there things to be followed?

[Debater]

Yeah, there's principles in Leviticus. Sure. Jesus references those. Yeah.

[Host]

Do you. Is. Is it okay to not follow some of them? Is okay to follow some of them?

[Debater]

Well, Jesus being the one that gave Leviticus as the law, would have the, the ability to decide how it's interpreted. So. Yes.

[Host]

Are there things in the Bible that you are supposed to do that. You don't.

[Debater]

There are temporary ceremonial commands that are fulf. Fulfilled. So you're talking about like sacrificing animals. Sure.

[Host]

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

[Debater]

If the principle is that Jesus gave the law and he says how it's exercised and fulfilled, that's not inconsistent.

[Host]

What I don't understand is there are Christians that don't eat meat on Fridays.

[Debater]

That's just a fasting position that Catholics do.

[Host]

Yeah. Is that, is that right or wrong?

[Debater]

But what does that have to do with Leviticus?

[Host]

I'm, I'm now moving forward and asking you about a specific thing. I don't understand that there are Catholics, they don't eat meat on Fridays. Is that. Is that not so? So again, I think you don't view Catholics as coherent.

[Debater]

Right.

[Host]

That is. Well, and the argument there, you view your religious structure as the coherent structure and other structures are incoherent. Okay, I disagree. And we are allowed to disagree that we have two different moral religious worldviews and that is the inherent disagreement. So in my moral worldview, I believe there is a basis in private ownership. Because if you are to fulfill God's will of having children, having families, you need a way to control your resources so that you can do that without it being taken from you. I actually think we agree on that point.

[Debater]

I do. Yeah. Yeah.

[Host]

So I don't know why you were arguing when we had completely agreed on that, other than to say I'm not a Christian.

[Debater]

Because it's not just a question of having the right position. But what are the good reasons for.

[Host]

That's arguing for the sake of everything.

[Debater]

No, it's not. That's what epistemology.

[Host]

Let's go talk to talk about Trump, State of the Union and cnn. And it was fun debating though. I appreciate it.

[SpinQuest Promoter]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live craps with a live DVD dealer. New players 30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[Host]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited.

[Debater]

Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Commercial Announcer]

Are you a fraud paying American? 1 in 4 tax paying Americans has been a victim of identity fraud with lifelock. If your identity is stolen, they fix it guaranteed or your money back. Last year year billions in refunds were stolen could be from your salary, overtime or second job gone. But this year you don't need to stay a victim because this tax season fraud paying American is something no American should have to claim. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock. Com Iheart terms apply.