So after watching this discussion between Jordan Peterson and Michael Malice, I feel compelled to comment on it. First of all, I’m simply stunned that Jordan has obviously never clearly thought through the idea of the non-aggression principle. I find this absolutely stunning.

I’ve mentioned in previous posts that I have a love/hate relationship with Jordan Peterson. I’d like to explain why in a little more detail before discussing this Malice conversation. The loving Jordan Peterson part is because I admire quite a few of the things he’s done and positions he’s taken. His stance on free speech for instance, is rock solid. His being willing to lose his job as a professor by taking a principled stance and refusing to back down regarding free speech is commendable. His recognition of how fundamental free speech is to western civilization and his recognition of the horrors of communism show how deeply he’s thought about some very important issues. He’s excellent in his understanding of, and opposition to cultural Marxism.

His views on the meaning of certain biblical texts and their importance and relevance in the 21st century regardless of whether a person is a practicing Christian or not, are also interesting and fascinating. I think he’s done more to try to bridge the gap between the long-simmering conflict between science and religion for this generation of youth than anyone else that I’m aware of. His interpretation of biblical texts and symbolism has helped a lot of people who lost faith in the Bible when they studied science and felt the tension between a material world and the spiritual world. He’s helped a lot of people who were ready to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” reconsider and look at the Bible not merely as an ancient text, one that is no longer relevant and maybe just a work of fiction, to reconsider the Bible through a much more sophisticated and nuanced spiritual view. I think he has brought a lot of youth back from the brink of nihilism and meaninglessness to a point where they see purpose and ultimate meaning in their lives again. For all of this I give him tremendous credit.

At the same time, I think he tends to overthink things and unnecessarily overcomplicate a lot of his arguments and I don’t think this helps him. I realize that this is a broad statement and kind of unfair without giving specific examples, but maybe I’ll do that more in depth at another time. But I believe he does this with some of his psychological arguments as well and I know that he does it in other arguments that he makes on more secular issues.

This brings me to the hating part of the relationship. Obviously hate is too strong of a term here, but you get the point. Where I find him hopelessly in over his head are his takes on politics, foreign affairs, and economics. He’s been discussing these topics a lot lately and quite frankly, a lot of his opinions in these areas are simply mind-bogglingly bad. I’ve commented before on how bad some of his economic takes are, but I think in these areas it’s really almost impossible to separate the bad takes. And I think I understand the fundamental mistake he’s making that is leading to these bad takes. He simply does not understand the non-aggression principle. I know that seems like a simplistic argument, but I think that is the fundamental problem.

Maybe it’s just confirmation-bias on my part. After all, that is one of the main points of this blog. It’s to help me learn and to share the importance of the non-aggression principle in as many ways as I possibly can so that hopefully a few more people can understand it’s significance and all the implications to be derived from it.

So, let’s get back to the Michael Malice interview. The first half or so of the interview is centered around their discussion of Malice’s book about Soviet Communism. Here they have very little disagreement and it’s somewhat interesting, but I didn’t really learn anything new. It’s the second half of the interview where they start talking about voluntarism, anarchism, and libertarianism where Peterson clearly reveals that he doesn’t understand any of these terms clearly. You can see him trying to understand what Malice is saying and he struggles to wrap his mind around the concepts. Malice effortlessly brushes asides all of his objections without even making a concerted effort. Peterson struggles to understand the importance of private property. He struggles to define what force is. He tries to complicate the issue by adding numerous wrinkles to Malice’s arguments, for example, implying that something fundamental changes when it’s ten people having a conversation rather than just two. You can see the lightbulb starting to come on several times, but he keeps overthinking it and trying to complicate it. Malice just repeatedly destroys every objection that he has rather effortlessly.

Peterson clearly is familiar with at least some of the concepts. He talks about the idea of time preference, so clearly he is not completely ignorant about some of the foundational ideas of where economics and psychology collide. They actually have a good discussion about time preference. This is an absolutely critical concept to understand if you want to understand anything about economics or morality. But I’m simply astounded by the fact that he doesn’t seem to have ever really thought through the deeper implications and the connections between private property, the non-aggression principle, free markets, morality, Christianity, western civilization, and so forth. How could someone as educated as Jordan Peterson, someone who has studied psychology, ethics, morality, communism, capitalism, and western culture as much as he has, not ever have given this idea of the non-aggression principle more thought than he has? 

How can someone like Peterson, who has read Ayn Rand, studied evolutionary psychology, seems to understand Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society problem, understands the horror of totalitarianism…how can he not understand that the fundamental issue, the elephant in the room, and the theme that binds them all together, is the question of the appropriate use of force? It absolutely astounds me that he can’t seem to make this connection.

This principle underlies all of classical liberalism, America’s Bill of Rights, sound economics, not to mention western civilization, nature, and Christianity. I’ve always wondered how someone who is so brilliant in many areas can be so completely lost in several other areas that seem very relevant to his field of expertise. Now, I guess I know. He simply has never clearly considered them from the angle of the non-aggression principle. I find that simply shocking, but at the same time, somewhat hopeful. After all, imagine the impact it could have on his understanding in other areas, and also, probably more importantly, if Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand this, how many other people don’t understand it? 

It means that we are among an incredibly small minority that understands this. It means that there is a tremendous need for all of us to try and understand this principle better so that we can better share it. It means that if you understand it, you have a moral responsibility to understand it more clearly and help to disseminate it. That, is incredible, and simply amazing!

I’ll end with a Mises quote that I’ve often used before, but which seems appropriate here:

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards de­struction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result.”