This episode is sponsored by Zano, the privacy-based crypto we use right here at the Free Thought Project.
While Bitcoin's been hijacked by surveillance exchanges and institutional control, Zano stays true to what crypto is supposed to be.
Private, peer-to-peer, and censorship-free.
It's more than just a coin.
Zano is a full-blown ecosystem.
Private transactions, atomic swaps, confidential assets, escrow trades, and even a decentralized marketplace where people are already buying and selling real goods and services.
All without a third party looking over your shoulder.
And unlike that fiat that you're forced to use, every Zano transaction burns a bit of the supply, making it deflationary over time.
Imagine that.
A cryptocurrency that gets more valuable the more people use it.
And the best part?
It just works.
No KYC.
No big brother.
Just a tool for people who actually value freedom.
Zano.
Because the Free Thought Project doesn't just talk liberty, we transact with it.
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Government should be afraid of people.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
Ideas can change the world.
An idea whose time has come cannot be destroyed by armies or governments.
It's too pervasive and we still have tools to spread the message.
Welcome to the Free Thought Project podcast.
A hub for free thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability.
Here are your hosts, Jason Bassler and Matt Agarist.
Hello again, free thinkers.
Welcome back to the Free Thought Project podcast.
My name is Jason Bassler.
And joining me is the Free Thought Project editor-in-chief, Matt Agarist.
Thanks as always for joining us.
We are excited to get into the interview today.
We're welcoming a new guest to the show today, somebody I've wanted to speak to and have on the show for several years now.
And finally the stars aligned and we're certainly grateful to finally have her joining us.
But first I wanted to remind our listeners that we had a very intriguing and powerful dialogue last week with an old friend of the Free Thought Project.
David, also known as San Joaquin Valley Transparency.
He's a First Amendment auditor, a cop watcher with a YouTube channel with over a half a million subscribers.
And David shared his perspective with us about on the ground events and protests and how people in his community are responding to ICE and the Border Patrol kidnapping of immigrants in their communities.
Now we also touched on Trump's emerging police state, the Charlie Kirk shooting, and if that was a PSYOP and what the American people need to do to be psychologically prepared for the onslaught of fear platitudes and dividing conquer tactics currently being rolled out.
Definitely listen to that episode after this one, guys. It was a great one.
And also let me remind you that this podcast is fueled by you.
If you are a longtime listener, please take a moment to make sure you are subscribed to this podcast.
Make sure you take a brief moment as well to rate and review.
And if you want to be a Free Thought Freedom Warrior, please go to the top of our website, the freethoughtproject.com, and there you'll see a tab for a TFTP membership.
So please consider that or making a one-time donation.
But of course, a $10 a month subscription is ideal.
That helps us keep our lights on and keeps our fires fueled and allows us to keep producing these powerful podcasts, these written articles, and memes and videos.
Okay, guys, well, now that that's out of the way, I will go ahead and introduce our guests for the day.
Today we're joined by Dr. Mary Ruart. She's a scientist turned freedom fighter.
She's a longtime voice for liberty.
She's an author of the book Healing Our World and has been one of the most consistent advocates for volunteerism, peace and individual sovereignty that we have on Team Liberty.
For decades, she's been warning us about the dangers of course of government power and offering real alternatives rooted in freedom and personal responsibility.
So I'm out that we have a lot to talk about today and I'm really excited to jump into things.
So Dr. Ruart, thank you for joining us today and welcome to Free Thought Project podcast.
Well, thank you. I'm glad to be here.
It's really kind of exciting to hear about your endeavors also for me because I wasn't as familiar with you as I'd like to be.
Oh, okay. Well, perfect. We're going to be breaking some ground here.
And yeah, as I said, I've been really looking forward to this.
We've wanted to have you join our podcast for literally years now.
I think the first time I heard your name and saw you speak was all the way back in 2017.
When I went with a friend of this show, Luis Fernando Mises, to a conference that you were speaking at in Austin, Texas.
And there were a few other names being there that day that I was familiar with like John Mackie, you know, the founder of Whole Foods.
Yes.
Your words that day very much resonated with me and I feel like I've been following you ever since.
Now, sometimes the universe does come full circle because after years of following you,
I've noticed that you've been kind enough to share some of my tweets and some of our work here at the Free Thought Project.
And it's a real honor to witness that. So thank you.
But even though I have been, you know, following you for years now, and I know your work,
but I think it's best to assume our audience may not be as familiar with it as I am.
So maybe in an attempt to, you know, get our audience to be a little more familiar with you,
could you perhaps share your story about how your early career in the biomedical research field shaped your libertarian views
and led you on the path of volunteerism and maybe from there we can get into a few other related topics.
Sure. Well, I actually was involved with a group that was interested in I and Rand in college.
And so that was my first, yeah, the first, I guess you could say the wake up call is probably a good way to put it.
And at the time, you know, as an undergrad, I had just gotten out of 11 years of Catholic school.
And I kind of felt that this, well, it was objectivism as it was called then, but kind of morphed into libertarianism right away
because the group I was interested in were, you know, anarcho-capitalists,
even though they were introducing me to objectivism and, you know, were very fond of I and Rand.
So I thought that the Catholic influence, which I, you know, wasn't actively engaged in in college,
but the influence was important because to me libertarianism seemed like the political expression of loving your neighbor.
And that was, I think that was a takeaway that I felt was very practical from all those religion classes.
And so I really embraced it quite quickly.
And that really influenced a lot of the way I approached libertarianism and healing our world.
And also it was, it was very different than what was happening at the time in the libertarian movement.
There was a lot of judgment going on and infighting.
So that did not seem like a good idea to me.
So I actively did some things to maybe have us question whether that was really what we should be doing.
And, you know, having a more understanding approach to people who had a very different viewpoint
because really there's a lot of propaganda out there and people have a hard time
even thinking of the concept of taxation as theft, you know, it's so ingrained.
Even we have the expression, you know, nothing certain but death and taxes.
So, you know, it's quite ingrained.
So I was trying to kind of shift the discussion to something that seemed a little more robust to me.
And that's that emerged as healing our world, which is now, and I think it's fourth or fifth edition.
I also did a book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions.
And this was something I learned on the campaign trail.
I think I've run as a libertarian candidate so many times I can't even remember how many times I've run.
And of course they give you what, 30 seconds to make your pitch.
So you have to have those short answers.
And then my most recent book, Death by Regulation, really kind of integrates my medical background.
I was in the pharmaceutical arena for 19 years, as well as academics before that.
And what I learned is that the regulations for drugs especially were kind of warped.
They really favored bad drugs and not the best ones.
And it took so long and was so expensive and is still increasing that it really drove the prices up at the pharmacy.
And that's why drug prices are so high because, you know, only one or two out of 10 drugs actually make back the cost of getting the FDA approval.
And it went from four years to 14 years after the passage of the 1962 Amendments to the Food and Drug Act,
which is what I normally talk about in great detail in Death by Regulation,
showing that it's probably shaved, you know, probably five to 10 years off each of our lives.
So that's skinny on my participation in the libertarian movement.
Well, forgive me for not mentioning those other two books.
I'm glad that you did, though.
And hopefully, our audience will check those out as well.
And when you say libertarians were in fighting, I mean, that's just so shocking to me.
I can't believe you've even back grown.
Libertarians were fighting with each other.
Big surprise, right?
Yeah.
No.
That was a great summarization.
And it gives us a little bit more of an understanding of, you know, your background and where you come from with all this.
And, you know, Unrand was a huge red pill for a lot of libertarians, it seems like.
A lot of people really took value from her thinking and her objectivism.
And I think, yeah, I think you're right.
As far as it kind of formulating a lot of modern day libertarian theory,
I feel like a lot of it does kind of rest on her shoulders and kind of is a backbone.
Of course, there are some diversions there with, you know, some of the philosophy.
But no, I'd love to hear that.
And, you know, loving your neighbor, I think you had mentioned that as kind of like what you got from at least the political assessment of what libertarianism is.
I think that's a great assessment.
I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
A lot of times we also talk about the golden rule as being, you know, a huge part of what libertarian is about.
Obviously, that's the non-aggression principle.
Both of those things kind of go hand in hand.
And it's so surprising to me how many people understand that, but still somehow don't quite apply it to the political realm.
And it feels like that is just a huge blind spot.
I mean, if you understand some of these principles, libertarian principles,
sometimes I pull my hair out trying to understand how people can just deviate from them,
especially after they start to understand them, you know.
And maybe we could get into a little bit more of that here in a second.
But I did want to touch on what you were just talking about, some of the FDA stuff here,
because I know that, well, you know, our friends on the left, they typically feel like the FDA is something that, you know, is supposed to be protecting the American consumer, the American public.
I know you've spent, you know, decades studying how these regulations impact medicine and healthcare.
And, you know, it ultimately doesn't protect patients.
I think what that tends to be kind of the veneer, that tends to be what they tell us.
But a lot of times the FDA is slow to react, has a very costly approval process that drags on some of the guidelines that they set, you know, it seems that they stifle innovation.
And it sometimes, in some cases, probably actually even costing lives.
So I was wondering if maybe you could, you know, walk us through some examples of how the FDA has slowed or blocked medical breakthroughs and why these regulations seem to persist despite, you know, the harm.
And maybe, you know, just to be good libertarians here, we could talk about what the feasible alternative solutions could be to the FDA as well.
Yes, well, you know, basically the FDA was funded by Congress and Congress, of course, hates it when some of the citizens come forward and say, oh, these drugs have side effects.
And so Congress would kind of beat up on the FDA, you know, and so what the FDA did is they tried to think of every study that could be done that, and they required this of the pharmaceutical firms starting in the 70s.
Early 70s.
And they did this because they knew that every drug has side effects.
And so if Congress heard about them and got complaints about them, the FDA regulators wanted to be able to point to all these studies and say, hey, we, you know, we looked at everything we could think of.
And so that is what caused the change from a four-year timeline from the lab bench to the marketplace to 14 years in the turn of the last century.
And of course, people died waiting for the drugs that were really helpful.
And I think probably the most helpful drugs were put out in that period.
Then what happened is the cost of getting an FDA approval got so high that there was a big merging of the pharmaceutical industry.
So now we have big pharma, and we have that because, you know, it costs about two and a half billion dollars to get a drug to the marketplace.
That actually includes all the failures, which really are the biggest part of the two and a half billion.
And then what ends up happening is with this low-cost recovery that I mentioned earlier of one or two drugs may be making back the FDA approval costs, the whole industry is now dependent on blockbusters.
And this is not a stable situation.
So what happened in 1992 is with the big pharma blessing is that Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
That allowed the FDA to charge the companies a what they call the user fee.
And that user fee allowed the FDA to hire more examiners so that the process of the FDA looking over these 13 or so years of studies would be, you know, would be going faster.
At that time, it was about one to two years that the FDA took to look over what was literally a truckload of paper that we would send to the FDA to get a new drug approval.
And so then what happened is now about 70% the last time I looked it's probably more 70% of the part of the FDA that looks at drug approvals is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry.
So now when BIOX was being considered for approval, one of the regulators told his boss, hey, we can't approve this.
It causes heart attacks and the boss said, well, we will approve it because the, you know, the pharma companies are our client.
So notice it wasn't the American consumer or Congress anymore because now the pharma companies were basically funding the FDA.
So this is how what happens when you have a lot of regulations.
It gets so tough for the industry that if they don't co-opt the regulators, they go out of business.
And that's exactly what happened in the pharmaceutical industry.
So now it's just the opposite of what it was earlier.
Basically, things are rushed through like the mRNA COVID vaccines, which were totally new.
And probably should have been considered as a gene therapy, not as a vaccine.
So, you know, this gets to be, you know, it's a mess is what it is.
I mean, for the American consumer, you know, we can't trust that there's been real good scrutiny for safety.
And as I talk about in my book, Death by Regulation, we haven't improved safety and we haven't improved effectiveness because of the 62 amendments.
So we've basically wasted all that time and money.
And of course, the FDA also has been attacking prevention quite a bit.
And it did that even before the 62 amendments.
And prevention, of course, you know, the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is a very accurate statement.
So that's another problem that we have.
Dr. Ruer, you just perfectly, you know, detailed how the so-called regulation actually shields corporations and promotes bad drugs, right?
Instead of promoting things that help people.
And you mentioned BIOX, which killed tens of thousands of people.
And it also promotes a lack of accountability, right?
And not a single person went to jail for any of this.
They just paid billions of dollars or millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, and they get to keep on going.
You know, it's like a, it's almost like a pay-to-play thing.
They could just commit crimes, harm people, and then pay a little bit of money to regulators, wherever that money goes, certainly not the victims, and keep going.
And as you mentioned, Pfizer, with their fast-tracked mRNA vaccine, that harmed a lot of people.
And the Trump administration, of course, going against everything his base wanted, just cut that golden deal with Pfizer last week.
And speaking of criminal rap sheets, Pfizer has a massive one.
But instead of this, like, everybody's cheering Trump on for that.
And if it would have been anything that was going to help the person who needs medicine, like the average American, then Pfizer's stock certainly wouldn't have shot up like it did last week after that deal was announced, right?
I mean, it's just a move that betrays his entire base, and they just keep on taking it.
It's so funny to me, but it's sad as well.
I mean, it perfectly illustrates this revolving door that you talk about, you know, on your website and stuff.
And we just discussed this on our Cratom podcast.
We had a few weeks ago how former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb now sits on Pfizer's board.
And before that, he was on GlaxoSmithKline's board.
And, you know, he used the state power to attack a natural plant, cashed in on it, and now benefits the very corporations who he works for.
And the FDA approval process itself is like an intentional slow, multi-billion dollar gauntlet.
Like you said, it takes 14 years now for the average drug to get approved.
And that is specifically designed to benefit all these monster corporations like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and the others because no one who innovates a new drug has that staying power in there.
They're paying all that research and whatever grants they have long dry up before that whole approval process is able to go through.
So they end up being bought out by these companies as well.
So they just further control the market even more that way.
That's right.
And sadly, it's not even a failure of the system, right?
This is like, this is how the system is intended to work.
It's the same racket that fuels the military industrial complex and everything else.
It proves that the state's primary function is to enrich the powerful, not protect the public.
So with all that long rant that I had to get out, because this one hits home with me,
but for someone new to these ideas, like any of our listeners who's been taught their whole life that the government is necessary, benevolent force,
how do you make the case that society wouldn't just survive but actually thrive becoming more peaceful and more prosperous
in the complete absence of not just government regulation in the market but government itself?
Well, I think that's what I tried to do in healing our world.
I don't explicitly say no more government, but step by step I tried to show, you know, that taxation doesn't work.
The regulations don't work.
Even what we call national defense doesn't work.
I don't know if your listeners have ever read the book Rogue Warrior,
but it's a really interesting read because it's by a Navy SEAL who was actually in the service,
roughly at the time that program got started and he was very prominent in it.
And he was tasked to pick, you know, five or six comrades and do a pretend takeover of the naval bases.
And the naval base commanders were told that these guys would be coming in about a week.
And yet they were so unprepared that it generally took just a few hours for this little group to take over the naval base.
And when the commanders were of the bases were questioned about that, they'd say things like,
well, he came in from the ocean. Who would have expected that?
And, you know, this is an important piece, I think, because if we can't protect our own bases on our own soil,
we don't really have a defense.
We do have an offense.
We certainly can bomb other countries and have all the way through the nuclear ones.
But, you know, if we can't protect our actual land base, we've got a big problem.
And so, you know, I, like I said, I use a lot of examples and I reference everything because I don't expect people to take my word for things.
So I want to point them to studies or books like Rogue Warrior where you really get a better feel for what's happening.
And that way people can research themselves if they have a particular agency that they love, you know, they can check it out and see what they think after they've done that research.
So that's kind of the idea of healing our world.
And as I said, I'm not explicit, but by the time you get to the end of the book, there isn't, I mean, I don't think there's any sacred cows left.
Yeah, it's basically like an illusion of competence, right?
Then only one half of the country can see the incompetence at a time whenever their party's not in power, but they perceive their party to be competent every time that they are.
And it just leads to the situation we're in today where it's mass incompetence across the board.
And yeah, we're not there's, I mean, it's been like this, you know, like the incompetence that led to 9-11.
And we just see the incompetence that led to the COVID debacle where everybody thinks that the government is some altruistic power that is going to save everybody when the proverbial shit hits the fan.
But it just never plays out like that.
And that's why you and us and everybody else talking about these ideas of volunteerism are so important.
Now it's like, but again, like you said, it's a very difficult message to get across, right?
We have a messaging problem. We have infighting in the libertarian movement, you know, their love thy neighbor is a universal theme and everybody, all Christians, not even just Christians, atheists, you can't disagree with that, right?
You have to, you have to embrace that value.
Otherwise you live in pure chaos and no one wants to live like that.
I mean, the principles of volunteerism, like non aggression, peace, consent, all these things are most, you know, most people practice and value in their own lives on a daily basis.
It's a, it's how we go about living.
Yet when you try to explain these ideas to people as a way of life or a societal aspect of it, they kind of shut down and just their eyes gloss over and they don't know what you're talking about, right?
I think that the state and its media allies have successfully branded the philosophy of freedom as it's either dangerous or naive and it's sad.
And the message of liberty, it also gets, you know, lost in translation or drowned out by status fear mongering.
It's constantly under attack.
Yet we base our entire society in America on the idea of freedom.
Air quotes, right?
And your, in your decades of outreach, what have you found to be the most effective way to cut through that propaganda?
And how do we make the philosophy of peace and liberty not just understandable, but appealing or even cool like Ron Paul managed to do for decades as a senior citizen?
Well, I know when I went into the classroom, high school or college to give a talk on libertarianism.
Well, what I did, the first thing I did was go to the blackboard and put down three things.
I put down number one, the minority should rule the majority.
Number two, the majority should rule the minority.
And number three, everyone should rule themselves as long as they don't initiate physical force fraud or theft against others.
And then I asked the students to vote if they got to play God and they could decide how the US government should act.
What would they choose?
And I would say 95% raised their hand for the non-aggression principle, which of course was number three.
And then I asked, well, how do you view the US government really acts today?
Well, very few, if any, would raise their hand for the non-aggression principle.
They were mostly in the majority ruling the minority or the minority ruling the majority.
And this told me that there is something very attractive about the non-aggression principle.
When we hear it, we automatically think it's the way to be.
And then, of course, from that perspective, I would mention that, of course, this was the non-aggression principle.
This was the principle libertarianism is based on.
And then I would move into what this actually meant in real life for taxation, for regulation, et cetera.
It was pretty mind blowing for a lot of students, but I think that worked pretty well because they already identified with the non-aggression principle.
And I think that that is actually fairly universal in our society because on a one-to-one basis, that's how most of us relate to others.
We don't go out and steal or murder and things like that.
Obviously, there are a few to do, but for the most part, most people would be important to them.
So the non-aggression principle is very inspiring.
And we've kind of forgotten that in the libertarian movement.
We've gotten so focused on trying to have a candidate win, a libertarian candidate win, rather than have our libertarian ideas win, that we have kind of lost our way.
You know, the system's rigged. Our candidates are not going to win in great enough force to, you know, do anything constructive because it's a majority rule system.
That's the truth of it.
And the Republicans and Democrats spend quite a bit of time making sure that ballot access for a third party is very difficult.
I'd say we spend 80 to 90% of all the money that we collect as libertarians, not on our campaigns, but on getting ballot access.
You know, it's a real burden.
So we're not going to be the majority in Congress anytime soon, but our ideas can be.
And to give you an example, you know, back when I started in the, you know, the late 70s, early 80s,
basically, we were the only people talking about how taxation is theft and getting rid of the income tax.
Now today, our president talks about it.
We were the only political party that came out in favor of gay rights back then.
And now that's accepted.
We were the only group that was saying we should legalize drugs.
And while drugs and the war on drugs have not ended, most states at least allow medical marijuana or recreational marijuana,
and that's important because something like 80% of the arrests were for peaceful marijuana smokers or peaceful marijuana dealers.
Because, you know, when you think about it, our law enforcement doesn't want to go after people that are hepped up on cocaine
because they're truly crazy and they might fight back.
People take marijuana generally are, you know, they're relaxing more.
They're laid back for the most part.
So, you know, we have made progress.
We just haven't recognized that we have gotten some of our ideas elected.
And that's really, I think, the way we need to proceed because most of us as libertarians are,
well, at least in the early days, we're introverts.
You know, we were nerds.
And we had to be at that point in time because we had to be willing to stand up and say things that nobody else was saying.
So if we weren't in a position to do that, then, you know, we probably weren't in the party.
Now today, the libertarian party has become more mainstream.
And that's especially true when you look at the younger libertarians.
You know, they aren't so nerdy and they aren't maybe outliers in the social structure.
They are, you know, mainstream, which is really great because obviously we need that.
And that's the next step.
It's the evolution in any movement, really.
I mean, I can only imagine the first abolitionists were shunned and, you know,
attacked for trying to overturn the natural way of things.
And yet, you know, whose ideas actually got elected.
The abolitionists, for the most part, did not.
But the ideas did.
The ideas got elected.
So that's, I think, the strategy that we need to follow.
Beautiful answer.
I really appreciate that.
That was well thought out.
I agree 100% with your statement there.
And it does feel like, yeah, we do need that philosophical foundation, which, you know,
I don't feel like the left or the right really has anymore.
They used to kind of rely on a certain level of idealism, if you want to call it maybe principle.
That might be pushing it a little bit, but it doesn't feel like that really exists anymore.
And yeah, I tend to agree as well that we do need to make more cultural headway.
We need to make liberty cool again.
And I think Ron Paul had good opportunity at that.
And he certainly made some progress there, for sure.
Especially when you're, you know, getting the younger generations to learn about economics.
I mean, I think that spoke volumes as to his impact.
Yeah, there has to be some type of cultural revolution to even get these ideas on more of the mainstream youth's radar.
And I don't feel like we've been entirely successful with that.
I think there is a shift starting to move in that direction.
And especially, as you were saying, Dr. Ruebert, about, you know, even the president is echoing a lot of sentiments and ideas that have come from the libertarian camp over the past decade.
And I feel like a lot of what created the atmosphere for Trump to win was based around a lot of the ideas and values that libertarians have been espousing for years.
But unfortunately, it's been co-opted to a certain extent by the right, by the MAGA movement.
And we just need to take those reins back.
We need to take control over it.
We might need a few more cultural figures, thought leaders who have the charisma.
Of course, you know, if you look at Dr. Ron Paul, I mean, he certainly has a lot going for him.
But I don't think he would be necessarily somebody who is labeled as cool by, you know, today's in-crowd.
So I guess they don't necessarily have to be somebody who is within the mainstream confines and boundaries, but they still have to have some type of leadership qualities.
And I think as soon as we have somebody who can do that and really resonate with people on a large scale, the ideas will speak for themselves.
And as we've all noted here in the past half hour, that these ideas are popular.
They are inherently instinctual to our species, it seems like, at least for the peaceful among us.
So, you know, I think what the problem is, is not necessarily a lack of desire.
It's a lack of imagination because people just aren't familiar with a lot of what libertarianism has to offer.
And a lot of what we do here at the Freethod Project over the past decade has been accountability within law enforcement.
And that's something, you know, that obviously has ebb and flowed as far as popularity goes, but it's something that we believe is incredibly important,
mostly because of the reasons that we've already, you know, noted on this podcast that, you know, anytime there is taxation, funding, any type of government services,
it turns into a monopoly, the quality goes down, the efficiency goes down, the effectiveness goes down.
The reason why I bring up the law enforcement aspect of this is because I'm sure you're familiar with them.
Mises contributor, he might even be a fellow there, I'm not quite sure, but he's economist Robert Murphy, Bob Murphy.
Yeah, he had this great quote that's really stuck with me over the years.
People think that they have to choose between having law enforcement and not having law enforcement.
And sometimes cops overreacting is just the cost of living in a society of laws.
He says, no, that's not the cost of living in a society of laws.
That's the cost of living in a society with one group having a monopoly on law enforcement.
Exactly.
I think that's kind of the heart of the issue here.
And I know you've spent a lot of time exploring how government policies, you know, shape our lives, including in the education system,
you even spoke on this a few minutes ago, how you've actually even taught in these schools.
So, you know, a lot of people assume that government-run public schools are necessary to educate children and prepare them for society.
But then there's, you know, an element, especially within libertarianism that believe that the government-run schools encourage conformity,
collectivism, the limit creativity, the instilled dependency rather than independent thinking.
So I wanted to ask you from your perspective, like, what are the long-term impacts of government schooling on individuals in society?
And like, how might a system based on voluntary and of decentralized community-driven education look like?
And, you know, how can that benefit in terms of critical thinking and personal responsibility?
Well, unfortunately, when you have government schools, which is what the public schools are, they're going to law government.
I mean, there's going to be an element of propaganda in the schools.
And also, because of the way the unions and everything work, they don't necessarily reward the best teachers.
And that is a problem.
In fact, in my chapter on education and healing our world, I go through some alternatives.
You know, there's a number of groups that teach after-school classes,
not just here in the U.S., but in Japan, it's a really big deal.
And what they do, the teachers who are able to teach the best in Japan are actually quite lauded,
but they're doing it as a private endeavor, not as a public school function.
And that's sort of starting to happen here in a different way,
because the Internet is allowing the best teachers to put together their plans
and basically sell them to other teachers.
And the teachers who are buying them, generally speaking, have been in the private sector
because in the private sector, performance is really the end-all.
If somebody can't teach when their students don't learn, then, you know, they don't have a job.
Whereas in the public sector, it's seniority and other non-merit-based criteria that allow them to continue.
And we've seen what happens when there's choice in schools.
We've seen what happens with the private sector in terms of performance.
I mean, even poor Catholic schools, you know, that are serving the communities
that really are struggling, you know, the immigrants, the blacks, the Spanish,
you know, they do so much better in the private schools, especially the religious schools,
because there the teachers are there because they're passionate about teaching.
And they're not restricted in the same way that the government schools restrict teachers.
And today, with the technology we have, really, it would be very easy,
and it is much easier for homeschooling to occur.
So, you know, the children can sit down in front of the computer and learn a lesson,
but if they get stuck, then, you know, the teacher has more time to work with them
and suggest things, and even the programming can do that.
When they see, for example, that a child can add and subtract and multiply,
but has trouble with division, it can, you know, automatically bring more division to that student.
And, of course, the teacher can step in if there's a conceptual problem
that isn't solved by, you know, the computer programming.
And we have so many tools today, but they aren't used in the most effective way that they could,
at least in the public schools, and even in the private schools to some extent,
their content is somewhat dictated still by the school boards.
And so, you know, this creates a problem.
I mean, in the U.S., you know, basically, when the children are in school,
they've got this boring program that they have to sit still.
You know, in other words, we're treating our children very unnaturally
and how they learn.
If a child gets interested in something, he or she wants to do it, you know, for hours on end.
But we don't allow that. We're trying to break everything up.
And this does not facilitate learning, and we know that.
We've known that for a long time.
And that's why some of the Montessori schools, which use a different way of, you know,
they get the students interested and let them work on something for a little bit longer.
But again, a lot of the things they have to do are dictated by the school boards still.
So, I think, you know, basically what I did in Healing Our World is I calculated how much progress
that a child would make in these after-school programs and how fast they're learning,
you know, and we know that because they've been tested and things like that.
So, you know, they were learning at a particular rate much faster in these after-school programs.
And if you calculate how fast they could actually graduate, they could graduate from high school at 12.
And what this means is that they would have a wonderful time to really dig into a career model
that they wanted to follow.
And really, we need that because, for example, when I was working at the Upjohn Company,
we had a program for college students, you know, to do some research in our labs.
And I remember particularly this one pre-med student who was already planning to go to med school when he graduated.
So he came into my lab and we were a surgery lab.
So, you know, we're doing surgery on rats and some dogs.
And he goes, I never realized it, but I can't stand the sight of blood, even rat blood.
Well, it's a little late to be learning that you've got a problem, you know.
And so, we don't do apprenticeships or take our young people and put them in, you know,
I don't want to say full job situations, but we don't put them as an apprentice in jobs.
And we need to do that because it's really difficult for a young person today
to know what's out there, what they should train for, what their interests truly are
because they don't have the experience of actually interacting in a work situation.
At least, you know, until they're 16, I remember I wanted to work so badly when I was young
but, you know, I enjoyed seeing if I could put a smile on people's faces
because they came in to eat a meal and, you know, for me that would have been a luxury at the time
and they seemed to be sad, you know.
Their everyday problems were, you know, weighing them down
and so my goal was to see if I could give them the kind of service that would put a smile on their face.
And I had some success at that and I really enjoyed working that way.
You know, that made a kind of what most people would think is a dead-end job to be something exciting.
And this is the kind of experience that we need our young people to have.
So they have an idea of what can be and what isn't anywhere near in their interest.
And they don't need to find out, you know, when they're graduating from college.
They need to find out much earlier than that.
Yeah, I agree like wholeheartedly with that.
And I think that we're seeing a flux in society with that.
I know COVID was a large accelerant on that fire of homeschooling
and getting people to wake up to the Department of Education and the course of nature of it, you know.
But I think now it's getting politicized yet once again with the right and the left
and that's really, you know, terrible.
But ultimately it comes down to the parent, right?
And the parent's going to make the decision for the child to either be homeschooled
or go to a state coercion school where they're indoctrinated into militarism
and everything else that makes them not question anything, right?
But I want to drill down on that concept of peaceful parenting
because it feels fundamental to everything that we're discussing so far today.
It's not just a parenting style, right?
It's a profound and political and philosophical statement that you make.
You're essentially applying the non-aggression principle at home and in the family
and raising a child to be a sovereign individual who understands consent rather than force
and isn't some compliance subject ready to obey authority without question, right?
Anyway, that's how I look at it.
That's my philosophy in our house, right?
The state's education system is contrary to that, right?
It's built on the opposite principle, coercion.
It's a factory model designed to serve the state, not the child.
But if we reject that model, you know, it seems the next logical step
isn't just homeschooling or isolation.
But like what you mentioned, something very interesting,
the network thing that you were talking about
where people pass along these things that are working,
is it seems like that's the next logical step
is to build a new voluntary ecosystem entirely.
So with that as the foundation,
what do you see as like the most critical first steps for parents
looking to create these decentralized learning networks
that you really grab my attention on that.
I love these underground, not underground necessarily,
but these networking ideas that pass this information around.
So looking further down the road,
what does a successful thriving ecosystem of this voluntary education
built on the principles of peaceful parenting
actually look like in practice?
Well, I think it can look,
well, it can look a little different in different places
simply because of the interests of the child.
But let me give you an example of something
that we're considering at Liberty International.
You know, we are working with a group that has got
AI designing courses,
but it'll design libertarian courses
if you give it the right instructions.
And you know, I'd like to see this in the private schools
of the developing countries
because in the developing countries
the public schools are even worse than they are in the U.S.
I mean, basically the teachers don't always show up, right?
So what is that word?
Does that leave the children?
So in spite of the fact that these are very poor communities,
there is a big push to have private schools.
And these are small private schools probably
in most situations maybe 30 students or so.
But you know, that's what's necessary there
for their children to learn.
And so it's going to be a little different in every country.
In the U.S., our advantage is we have the technology.
You know, we have technology that can really enable
an average parent to work with many children at one time
almost like a classroom situation
if we use the technology properly.
I described it a little bit earlier.
But of course the government doesn't allow
certain things like that.
In other words, in many states
the people who are teaching homeschooling
have to have a teaching degree,
which I can tell you is at least at Michigan State
where I went, you know, we kind of looked down
on the people who were learning to teach
because it was kind of like if they can't do, they teach things.
And this has gotten worse in my opinion.
In other words, the teachers don't seem to know
the very things they're trying to teach.
There's been some testing on this
and I cite some of the studies in Healing Our World
where the teachers themselves could not pass the finals
that the students were expected to pass.
That's pretty scary.
So if that's what we're going to have for our teachers
then the computers are probably a little superior,
especially if they're programmed properly.
But the parents have to be involved
and that's another problem the government's created.
Back in the days when I was a child
women in general stayed home with the children
and they could do that because
one income was enough to live on.
Now with inflation and everything else
two parents are working
and they're paying a lot of money that they make
to put their children in a daycare
or after school care.
The government has created a situation
where they've taken so much of our wealth.
It should have been the opposite way by now.
If the government had just stayed as the size it was
after World War II and didn't grow
very few of us would probably have to work full time
and that would be really good.
And also we could work out of our home to some extent.
There's a lot of states and cities
that outlaw working from home believe it or not.
And when COVID, everyone had to stay home and work
became quite apparent that these laws
were very destructive to home businesses
and really clashed with the instructions to stay home.
Right.
So there's that too.
The problem is, and this is what most people don't see
when the government takes so much of our wealth
it really hinders our ability to be good parents
because if we're away at work we're not with a child.
Absolutely.
Wonderful points and this is something that
we've really spent a lot of time
sinking our teeth into here at the Free Thought Project
because we really do try to
well I know Matt and myself personally
try to raise our children with that type of respect
with the peaceful parenting paradigm
and I believe it's just going to change
the course of society altogether
because we oftentimes think about
well what are things we could do to preserve our freedom?
Well we know that owning guns are important.
We know maybe owning crypto
or precious metals are important
but a lot of people don't necessarily focus
on the simple idea of how they're raising their children
because if we are raising our children
under the authoritarian principles
the authoritarian parenting paradigm
then ultimately what we're doing
is we're creating more children
who are going to be order followers
who aren't going to be able to think critically
who automatically adhere to
perceived authority
and they won't ever think or question that
and so that's not what we're trying to do
at least you know Matt and myself
and that's not what the Free Thought Project
is trying to do and we've had amazing guests
on Connor Boyack
the founder of the Tuttle Twins
to talk about this
we've also talked with Dana Martin
she's an amazing unschooling advocate
so definitely check out those podcasts
guys if you haven't listened to those
just go back in our archives, scroll back a little bit
and listen to them especially if you're a parent
so very important
because it really is going to shift
and re-correct the course
on this path that we're on
and everything that Dr. Ruart was saying
is 100% spot on
we've kind of handed over
the reins of something as important
as raising our children
and spending that time with them, connecting with them
having that free time with them
to be able to actually explain things
and share intimate details
and nuance about life
that's where the real schooling comes in
it's not the arithmetic or the
writing and stuff that they learn at these
public school indoctrination centers
some of that obviously is valuable
but the real teaching
education comes from the one-on-one time
that we spend with our children
and I think that's been entirely overlooked
as far as a
mechanism to advocate
for freedom and create more
liberty in our society
we are getting low on time here
and we do have a couple more questions
we always end the podcast on a white pill
positive note if you will
and Matt will be serving that up in a second
but I did want to kind of
maybe have a general
summarization and encapsulation here
of what we've been talking about
and obviously we know we've been talking a lot
about personal freedom
and the ways individuals can live outside
of the influence of these course of
systems but
let's get into the nitty-gritty because as we were talking
about sometimes it's not a lack of desire
it's a lack of imagination right so
some people advocate for strategies
like agorism or
opting out completely of government controlled
systems by using
voluntary markets and alternative
currencies I think I just touched on that
with crypto and stuff like that
decentralized community networks
to basically minimize reliance
on the state so I was hoping from
your perspective you know like what do you
think about these approaches like how effective
is an idea like agorism
in promoting
real freedom and
what practical advice would you give to people
who want to build a more independent
self-sufficient life
outside of the traditional state system
yeah I mean
I think we need
all these different types of approaches
that's how I think
we will prevail
I don't think there's like a silver bullet
where everybody should be doing
one thing
some of us need to
teach or suggest
ways that
you know because we're
good with our words or our writing
some of us need to actually get down
a dirty in the soil and show people
how they can be totally self-sufficient
and I guess
since we're talking about
ending on a optimistic
note I'd like to say
that from my science perspective
I believe
that
with the communications we have
today with the internet
it's becoming increasingly obvious
that the way to prosperity
is liberty
physical prosperity
and you know I've always
kind of thought that if
the US goes down
there's been some certainly during
the Biden years that sure looked like it might
I would think that
some developing country
might say you know what
we're sick of being poor
and now we know how we can be
rich so let's do it
and in fact
Argentina which used to be a prosperous
country until socialism hit it
has elected
a libertarian president Javier Malay
and Liberty International
the organization that I chair
used to be known as the International
Society for Individual Liberty
and by the way
it trained people in
the libertarian thought process
ease and different issue papers
that's how I learned about
liberty you know beyond
my experience with I&Ran
we went to Argentina this year
we awarded
Javier Malay
an award
and I think that
you know like I said
we need all these approaches
and Javier
is a very outspoken
he was invited
by Schwab to the
World Economic Forum which I thought was
thought gee maybe
he doesn't know much about libertarianism
if he did that
and
Malay gave a talk
and basically
eventually
told Schwab that
the economic forum
was part of the problem
he was very outspoken
as a consequence Schwab said
that the reason that the
economic forum
the World Economic Forum could not
implement its ideas
was because of libertarians
we couldn't have gotten
better advertising than that
so what I'm trying to tell you
is
libertarianism is attractive
because it creates prosperity
it creates peace
and as people wake up to this
they're going to want it
it's part of our human evolution
you know we started out
having probably to work
with each other because we're so few humans
and then we started fighting
with each other because there were a lot
of them and we wanted what the others
had and now
I think we're coming to a point
where we see that
the pie is not
a particular size
the pie can grow
the wealth pie can grow
and the way to do that is to have liberty
and once this is all put together
and the internet is helping to make that happen
I think
we will have more and more people embracing
the libertarian ethic
assuming of course we don't blow ourselves up
first I mean I guess that is an option
but I know
that we will eventually
be libertarians as a species
because
that's what makes us thrive
you know grow and thrive
so we're going to do it
if we can manage not to blow ourselves up first
I agree very well said
Dr. Ruert
I remain hopeful like that too
and it's these ideas that give me hope
and they're rapid adoption
once they are accepted
and studied by those
willing to do that
hey free thinkers, this is Matt Agarist
and I'm going to take a quick pause to remind you of something really important
first off, apologies for the interruption
but if you're still here
that means you're resonating with what we're doing
and we need your help to keep it alive
independent platforms like ours
don't survive on corporate sponsorships
or mainstream media funding
we survive because of you
if you're finding value in these unfiltered conversations
and real solutions
the best way to support us is by liking
subscribing and sharing this podcast
with your friends and fellow free thinkers
it's a small act but it's a powerful one
it helps us break through the censorship
and algorithms designed to silence voices
like ours
this isn't just about supporting a podcast
it's about standing for freedom
exposing corruption
and building a movement that inspires real change
and if you want to go beyond liking
and sharing we'd love for you to become a member
of the Free Thought Project
just head over to the freethoughtproject.com
and click on the TFTP
membership link at the top of the page
as a member you'll be directly
supporting our mission and helping us to stay
independent your support is what keeps
this platform alive and fighting
so thank you for being
part of this journey for sharing these ideas
and for standing with us
look before we let you go
I just want to say thank you
thank you for your decades of service to
the cause of liberty you're like a factory
for these great ideas
and your work has been an inspiration
to so many of us
we'll be linking your books in the description
and I encourage everyone who's listening right now
to go down there click the links and dive in
it's ideas like the ones you've shared today
that continue to give me hope
and I'm sure others as well
in fact
this whole conversation feels like a white pill
like I'm supposed to end on a white pill right now
but Jason just asked like basically
what I was going to ask but that doesn't even matter
it was I don't think I can out do that one
we focused like
on positive constructive solutions
you know built on the non-aggression
principle this entire
discussion we've had today so
this isn't about ending on a positive note
this is a positive note us having
these discussions is the positive note
and it's about continuing
that positivity to the end right
and you know there's
your answer just killed it
the practical steps people can take to build a freer world
I couldn't possibly
follow that up but I was trying to think of a better
question to make that to top that but
you did such a great job
that was the perfect note
of agency and action to end on
so with that said
Dr. Ruer where can people go
and find your books your websites
and follow all the incredible work
that you do
well my personal website is
ruart.com
it's my last name dot com
r-u-w-a-r-t
dot com
and I'd like to make a plug
for Liberty International a lot of my time
has spent working with them as chair
and that
URL is liberty
hyphen i-n-t-l
dot org
liberty hyphen
i-n-t-l
dot org
awesome well thank you so much
for coming on today like Jason said
it's been a work in the making for quite some time
and it certainly won't disappoint
it was a great conversation Dr. Ruer
thank you
free people