Has Welfare DESTROYED US Culture & The Family? w/ Fabian Liberty & Conor of CounterPoints
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Conor @counterconor (X) Fabian Liberty @FabianLiberty (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
With the latest moves from Doge, there are deep concerns among Democrats that they will begin to slice off Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
And the conversation around cutting the federal budget, people often talk about entitlements and how this is a large portion of those funds.
But we here at TimCast, we like to talk about how culture is substantially more important than policy, because culture will dictate what the policy ultimately becomes.
Which leads us to the initial opening point here, the question over welfare, how it's impacted families, crime rates, and feminism.
So we're going to start with this debate, and we'll see where it takes us.
We've got a couple gentlemen joining us to debate this idea.
Yeah, I would say that I have an uphill battle because we have been brainwashed and propagandized on the effects of welfare for a long time.
I would say historically we had systems that were far better than the welfare state when looking at fraternal societies, what they were able to achieve, what they meant to people, how they gave purpose to men, how they created leaderships, how they fostered family. I would say that social capital is at an all time low.
Looking at things like Robert Putnam's kind of work on that and social capital theory.
I would say that looking at social capital Sociological theories such as, you know, um, anime and, um, you know, Durkheim and things that, you know, looking at it from a functionalist structural functionalist position, I would say that welfare has destroyed, um, the traditional provider role of males has destroyed the gender balance.
You know, when we talk about taxation, you know, we talk, Oh, taxation is theft.
You hear that, you know, Oh, taxes are too high.
I think the most important thing to recognize when we talk about taxation is that we're talking about welfare period, right?
Social Security entitlement spending for, you know, 600, that is 61% of our federal budget.
Wow. The debt is 13% of our federal budget.
Okay, so 74% of our entire federal budget is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security entitlement spending.
Okay. And when you look at inflation as a form of taxation, and you look at all of the taxes we have carried interest and, you know, um, It's hard to tell how much it is but it looks like over 50% of all of the money you make is taken by the government and overwhelmingly that's welfare.
Who? All right, so I'm trying to dig into it without getting it too academic.
That way we can actually, I don't know, dig into like the philosophy behind it or whatever.
Hold on.
You're saying that 70% of the federal budget goes to entitlements?
Okay. Well, 61. Sorry.
Okay. So a substantive amount of it is going to the interest on our debt and we have a substantive amount of interest.
Okay. But at the same time, what we're talking about is, you know, we talk about rights and responsibilities, right?
In the United States of America.
So we're all about rights.
I do love rights, you know, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, right to self-defense, limited government, all that kind of stuff.
I think that's awesome.
But when we're talking about our responsibilities to each other, I think that the kids who are coming up, they can't fend for themselves.
The old people who are dying, they can't fend for themselves.
And so it is the role of us through a collective agency like the government to make sure that children and old folks and disabled folks are taken care of.
And that is a perfectly fine role for the government.
You're saying two-thirds of it is spent on social welfare.
I'm saying that these are things that the government should do.
What's the problem with the government doing these things?
As a libertarian, as an ANCAP, I would be remiss if I didn't, like, again, say, you know, taxation.
You're way more aggressive on primary reverie, man.
You can tell me to fudge myself.
Well, no, no, no, no, no.
So, no, but hear me out here.
Listen, I think before we can even have this conversation, we have to understand what has happened historically.
Okay. Right?
There is this lie that is like, well, if the government won't do it, who will do it?
And the thing is, is that in the 1800s and the early 1900s, we did it without the government.
And we did it so fucking well that the government had to come in and regulate and destroy what we were doing because healthcare costs were too low.
That is what our government did.
They destroyed fraternal societies.
In the 1920s, one in three men in America were a member of a fraternal society.
By 1912, 1 in 25 men in America were a member of the Loyal or the Moose.
You might hear like Loose Moose Lodge, right?
And for a half week's salary in 1912, you would get an annual membership and be a member of the Moose Lodge.
What did you get for that?
You got sick pay.
You got unemployment.
If you died, your kids went to an orphanage in Maryland where the people that graduated, males made 70.9% more than the average American male.
Females made 62.5% more.
You had everything that you had, elderly care.
There was tons of these organizations.
But there was one problem historically, which is that health care costs were too low and doctors weren't making enough money.
So they used the state to crush these.
institutions. This is a little conspiratorial for me.
It's not conspiratorial, it's a fact.
You're saying that because it was so cheap that the federal government had to destroy the fraternal societies in order to replace them.
Okay, yeah, you're you're taking facts and then you're like, like, assuming motivation.
No, sorry.
Hey, buddy, listen, you talk for like four minutes.
I want the opportunity to talk as well.
Okay. We said I wasn't aggressive.
It's true.
I know.
That's my fault.
So anyways, the the point is that there are also a whole bunch of narratives from the 19th century in the early 20th century.
And those narratives were that the working class had to work in industrial tenement housing, that they worked in effectively like corporate housing, that the corporations were fleecing their own workers so they couldn't get by.
They had subsistence living.
The only way that they were able to survive was through these social networks, and it was a miserable existence.
The whole reason why we started these – there was a public outcry for this legislation in the first place was because there weren't the things that you were talking about.
There weren't workers'protections.
What legislation are you talking about?
What was their public outcry for legislation as it pertains to fraternal order societies?
I don't have the name of the specific legislation passed a hundred and some odd years ago.
I know for a fact that the living conditions sucked.
I know that the pay sucked.
And I know that there was an outcry that basically what happened when you were a worker in the late 19th century or early 20th century, that basically if you got If you lost your fingers to an industrial machine, the corporation told you to pound sand.
And it's tough luck.
That's why these programs were created, was because the corporations were telling young working families to go fudge themselves when they got screwed.
So none of that is an argument against what I stated.
What you have said is that in history, at the turn of...
You said it was a federal conspiracy in order to destroy the fraternal societies.
Yes. And what you said has nothing to do with what I said.
Well, what I would say is this is how they destroyed the fraternal societies because it was insufficient.
Well, you already admitted that you don't...
understand the history of fraternal society, which is fine because like, like you just made up a position, Did I make up that position?
Are you saying that you did?
Did you hear me say into this microphone in the past five minutes?
I don't understand the history of fraternal societies.
Did I say that?
Well, you said that you don't, you're not aware of what the legislation was in terms of like, and what those laws were or that process.
Was there a law in the early 20th century?
Hold on.
You're saying that it's a conspiracy theory, right?
And then you're saying these laws were passed by public outcry.
I'm saying you're assigning motivation that you haven't evidenced.
Okay. So, so let me, so let me get into it then.
Okay, so again, as I said, one in three men in America were in these fraternal societies.
I gave one example.
There are a lot of other examples.
But when you're talking about all of these things that are occurring within corporations, as we move from an agrarian lifestyle into industrializing, etc., yes, all of those things are true.
What you said is that's absolutely true, but that's not an argument about why we need social security or welfare.
That is an argument about what we were doing and what America looked like and what were our trials and tribulations in that time, right?
Yes, things have gotten better, but that doesn't mean that welfare is the reason that things have gotten better.
We invented tech.
We became more industrialized.
More people moved to cities.
There's a lot of other factors that occur here.
My argument specifically is that I did a curse research.
A cursed research suggests, I'm not saying it's correct, that the Social Security Act was largely favored and ultimately passed because of the Great Depression and elderly individuals had no access to retirement or means of supporting themselves because the stock market had crashed.
So what would you say to that?
I mean, you mentioned it's welfare and Social Security wasn't the most effective way to do it.
Do you believe that it was a temporary band-aid, a mistake to do?
Should the elderly have just figured it out on their own?
No, so what I would say is that The Fraternal Order of Societies Because I'm speaking historically about what happened.
I agree with you, had the federal government not already began the process of destroying fraternal societies in the early 1920s.
Okay. Right?
So we're talking about multiple things occurring here.
So the problem is, right?
And so just to get into this, right?
So when we're talking about the history of what happened with fraternal societies, is that That's great.
which there was a protection now through cradle to the grave, right?
Like everything that they were doing was they were creating hospitals for the elderly.
Like that was the whole point.
You pay a half, Thanks for Medical associations began petitioning the government for loss.
Okay, they began to say we have to regulate these people.
This is super super dangerous these people that they were many of the arguments that they were making was that health care costs are just unsustainably low that this is going to cause an economic problem because doctors aren't making enough money because the collective bargaining power of people working together in a you know to to have the lodge doctor system was making health care costs go down so much so they Petitioned,
you know to bar doctors that use these services from let me see if I can Well, I also thought it's here.
It's fun I have no problem finishing this train of thought but I also thought we were gonna talk about how like welfare created like the modern woman or the modern society or whatever, which I'm sure we'll get to but I'm yeah, yeah, well, I I want to establish the history of what happened and why we have welfare and and understand because there's a dual element here, right and It was cheaper, it was better healthcare, and government regulation destroyed it.
Specifically with the National Fraternal Congress, they basically, in order to stop having doctors taken out of licenses and no longer being able to work with them, they worked with Congress in order to negotiate rates.
I'm going to jump ahead to something that might be potential agreement then, okay?
Okay, yeah, sure.
So basically, if you're saying that since the early 20th century, we had a privatized system that was built Better.
The federal government stepped in during a time of great economic depression.
That's kind of when a lot of this, you know, got cemented into the American fabric.
The two aren't necessarily connected, but they happened at similar times.
Sure. But basically the reason why I'm resistant, as somebody who is pro-welfare, I guess you could say in some way, that it would be better if we went back to the Lodge system or we went back to the Fraternal Order system.
Okay. Yeah.
Do it.
But here's the thing.
It's illegal and the government is providing these services with taxes.
It's illegal for you to become a part of the Masons and then as a part of the Masons or another fraternal society, it's impossible for you to pay dues into a system that gives you cheaper health care.
So what was made illegal and what is, you know, like, is it illegal to the...
You're right.
You're right.
It's not technically illegal to engage that services.
It is illegal for them to own hospitals.
It is illegal for them to negotiate for doctor salaries without following specific rates set by the government.
It is illegal to, um, like there's massive loopholes in regulations, the healthcare industry, right?
Like it is the most regulated industry in America is, is healthcare and, and, and, and drugs, right?
So the government stepping in on behalf of doctors because health care costs were too cheap and they were under threat because in Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, Maine and Vermont, doctors associations and medical associations are doing everything they could to get rid of these people.
Now, you said you want to tie it to the culture.
And here's the thing is that it's what what is what was the health care lodge doing?
It wasn't just giving people insurance.
It wasn't just giving people, you know, their medical care.
You're I love mutual aid.
I love community.
I love all the things that you're talking about.
But the thing is, what I think Tim jumped to, which would be my point, is that we had something Pre-World War II, which was the Great Depression, which was like a insane economic moment.
We're probably experiencing one of those insane economic moments now.
We did experience an insane economic moment in 2008.
And the truth is that the fraternal orders were not enough in order to deal with it.
So there was like public outcry.
Hey, there's old people starving.
Hey, there's young people starving.
Hey, there's people who can't get medical care.
We need a bigger organization in order to step in in order to provide services.
So what is the logical reason, what is the functional mechanical reason, that we should create a government system to protect the lives of individuals who are unable to take care of their own?
Okay, so you're gonna have to give me a little bit of latitude.
Okay. All right.
So This is part of my problem with libertarianism.
This is part of my problem with individualism.
I'm not a collectivist.
I'm a communitarian.
I think there's a balance between the individual and the collective, okay?
We are not born alone.
We are born with nurses, doctors, family members taking care of us.
We also do not die alone.
Ideally, we have doctors, nurses, family members taking care of us as we die.
And so what would happen in a healthy, reciprocal society is that we would say that We know we are born.
We know that we die.
We know there's a whole thing in between.
We want to make every single aspect of a human life the best that it maximally can be at every step of the way.
Therefore, we're not just talking about rights, we're also talking about responsibilities.
And so one of the responsibilities—I have grandparents, they have passed on now—one of the responsibilities of children is to see their parents out in a good way.
One of the responsibilities of a community is to take care of old people when they're on their way out.
Okay, can I respond to that?
Yeah, of course.
So I agree with everything that you just said, which is why you should abolish Social Security and go back to private systems.
Pass. So let me explain, right?
The best data that we have, because we're not looking at elderly poverty rates until, we're not tracking most things until the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, right?
So economic data is scarce, right?
But the best that we have, you can look up, Cato Institute did a piece on the support of the elderly before the Depression, right?
And if you want to look up more about fraternal societies, read David T. Beddoe's book, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare of State Fraternal Services and Social Services, 1890-1967.
We know from like, you know, internal surveys, the best stuff that we can find, right?
That elderly poverty, where people were in need of assistance, depending upon the different groups and sites, it looks like it's somewhere between 10 to 20% of elderly were in desperate need of help.
Okay? Now, in 1935, when we establish the Social Security Act, right?
It's April, I believe.
Elderly poverty rate was about 40%.
Okay, so during the Great Depression, you're right, things got so much worse.
Now, of course, Fraternal societies were being already shut out, destroyed, overregulated by about 1910 is when they really start coming in, pushing them out, things get worse.
But of course, the Great Depression occurred as well.
Now, the claim to fame of people that say, well, Social Security has helped us so much, is that between 1935 to 1960, it fell from 40% to about 35%.
And then from 1960 to 1995, it went down to 10%.
And now today, it's at 11.3%.
So the claim to fame to Famous is that...
Elderly poverty, as we are now $37 trillion in debt and counting, as we have destroyed community, destroyed the natural provider role of men, destroyed communal bonds, created enemy, fucked up gender roles, moved wealth from young men, made it impossible for them to build wealth, to single moms, to the elderly, to all of these other institutions.
Their claim to fame is, it took us 100 years and we got everything.
Why? That's insane!
Why? You just literally said that it went from- It took them a hundred years to get right where they fucking started, that they fucked up, and by the way, the social consequences and the debt consequences have been some- have been horrendous!
But hold on, I reject this, okay?
What do you reject?
So I reject the fact that a hundred years ago, the fraternity and community bonds of America were, you know, magical and better and like all this kind of crap.
I fundamentally- You didn't make that argument.
I made a factual argument that one and three- I made a factual argument- Okay, I don't care.
I'm gonna- I've been listening to you basically run us through the history of the early 20th century fraternal orders versus the welfare state, okay?
So what I'm arguing is that all these things that we're talking about, the lack of community, the lack of fraternity, the dissolution of gender roles, which by the way I think is what I want to talk about a little bit more, is the fact that we are responsible for this.
So whether or not we want, for instance, there's this like a anarchist concept of basically creating parallel structures to the state in order to evaporate the state's power.
If you want to talk all this smack about how the welfare state is destroying society or whatever, then what you would do if you were a rich person, not that you have a whole lot of money in your checking account, but you would take that money and you would put it into creating parallel structures in order to evaporate this power.
But what I hear and see consistently from very rich people who complain about these problems is they don't put their money where their mouth is.
They don't give a shit about community.
They don't care about creating parallel structures in order to dissolve the power of the state.
No offense to any particular streamer, but streamers mostly just jerk off and make money, and spend money how they please.
Okay, but your argument is, if you believe this, or if libertarians as a whole are right, why aren't we creating parallel systems?
To evaporate the power of the state.
If you gave a shit, then that's what you would do.
Yeah, so there's a couple of things here.
Number one, right?
15.2% of all the money that you should be making is immediately stolen from you out of every paycheck.
So that you can just for social security.
I reject the word stolen, but continue.
Well, I didn't fucking choose to have them take my money.
Okay. Stolen.
I'm going to use a Stevenism.
Okay. No, no.
What the fuck is a Stevenism?
Oh, uh, sorry.
Uh, I, I'm going to, I'm going to use a phrase from another creator.
Okay. Uh, there is no thief that breaks into your house.
and takes 15% of your paycheck and then gives you something in return.
There's no thief that does that.
So it's fundamentally a different social phenomena.
I'll address the first question, because trees were planted whose shade that our ancestors knew they would never sit beneath, and you are requested that as you were born into that society, you keep watering those trees.
But again, I mean like she you can leave like we can yes, I I want you know, I plant seeds of which the trees the shade I will know what I'm saying is your ancestral homeland and I'm trying to answer your question and get your answer People came here they built infrastructure.
They said son when you were old you must take care of what we have built for you You were so you are born to this world And the same imposition is applied.
And the best way that you can do that is to fight to get the government that is stealing so much money and funneling it to, I don't know, condoms in Africa.
Because when our ancestors planted trees and said, please water this, the implication wasn't, and also you're gonna have to go to Africa and water their trees, too.
Because I don't want to talk about early 20th century fraternal societies.
I want to talk about this, okay?
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.
You didn't do your research, so you want to talk about like, you want to do like a basic wing it thing because you're arguing against libertarian philosophy.
And I actually came prepared with historical, psychological, sociological.
Well, dude, I didn't sign up for a two-hour conversation about the early 20th century.
I wanted to talk about whether or not the welfare state created a laundered woman.
Yeah, and so we have to talk about what came before it.
The first thing I want to add, totally unrelated, I find it funny that it really was like cut the leg off or not when they could have just poured whiskey over the wound.
And they didn't understand the concept of antiseptics?
Sure. You literally have a thing of rum or moonshine.
Yeah. Pour the alcohol on the leg and you don't gotta cut it off.
So the whole point is that when we have access to, if we're the new Rome, if we're the global empire, if we have access to all these exterior markets, then the easiest way to get into these markets is by exuding soft power.
In West and East Africa and South Africa, there are problems like HIV, lack of parental figures in the home, et cetera, et cetera.
And so condoms, you can get to them for cents on the dollar and you are helping them build up their societies.
So what happens is when South Africa, East Africa, West Africa have minerals, they have gold, they have oil, they have whatever.
They're like, oh, the Americans gave us access to contraception so we could build a better society.
We'll sell it to them at a reasonable rate.
That is the most beautiful.
That is cents on the dollar.
That is the most beautiful.
That is the most beautiful.
I would love to hear your remark.
That is the most beautiful interpretation of how the State Department does foreign policy.
But what happens often is I end up talking to people and they think you're referring to general foreign aid policy versus an institution that was doing a variety of issues.
What we were talking about is we were talking about one of many programs that is, you know, enmeshed with the State Department, the CIA, you know, corporate interests, etc.
that want to push, you know, Western liberal democracy to all of these other nations.
And they kind of don't care how much they fuck up those countries, fuck up our economy, steal money from us, make the world a less safe place.
So long as the Belt and Road Initiative doesn't get there first.
I literally retweet every single thing that I see.
But no, so as an example, you could point to these things, we're talking about hard power, soft power, and I don't care if we bring it back to welfare in the modern woman, that's fine.
But real quick, if we're talking about like foreign welfare in order to build soft power with these countries, one of the things that USAID got in trouble for was creating a social media app in the state of Cuba in order to help people--Zunazel.
Yeah, in order to help foster pro-democracy revolutionary sentiment in the state of Cuba.
Well, guess what?
Cuba's a communist country.
They're right off of our border.
They wanted nukes from Russia.
They wanted to blow us up 70 years ago.
And I, generally speaking, think that freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, democracy, and all that stuff is good.
I'm not a big fan of foreign intervention, but if you were to come to me and make that argument, I'd be like, it's interesting.
The only issue is that U.S. foreign policy has been more interested in turning countries into gay race communists than actually bringing them to democracy.
I'll address it probably almost the same way that you would.
So first of all, the Zuniseo thing, the problem is, even if you're not a libertarian like me, and you're willing to pay some taxes for soft power or for whatever reason, it's fraud because they lied.
To whom?
They lied to the American taxpayer.
They lied to everyone, right?
Like this money for Zunazale that was broken by the AP in 2015, I believe.
When none of this was in any documents, it was leaked, right?
It was a whistleblower that showed that we were doing covert operations in trying to take over dictatorships.
And we're doing it under the guise of USAID, which obviously Tim Pool pointed out is USAID, right?
Because it's layers of bullshit to make people think that they're doing humanitarian work when really what they're We're good to
go. Covert.
Okay, not every single thing that the government does they're gonna be like hey, we're gonna go topple the government of Cuba now It's like no, they're gonna they're gonna operate through soft power organizations in order to spread pro-democracy messaging.
That's not a problem That's a serious problem when the budget says this money's for USAID and it's to help people Okay, if you if you love that listen if you love that shit so much then just have the CIA Get the actual amount of money that they use and then say like look we can't tell you what it's for But this is how much money we have now And all of a sudden people will be like, that's too much fucking money!
So the question is for you, the American people largely don't know about these black budget operations, and sometimes they're not overtly black budget.
Why doesn't the US explicitly tell its American people, we are going to take your tax dollars for use in overthrowing the government of Cuba?
What I said is- You asked me a question and I want to answer it.
Just give them a fucking budget if you agree with it so much.
He asked me a question and I want to answer it.
So you said that the American people weren't consulted on this.
Every single time that we have a neoconservative, which I guess I'm a little bit of it, I'm like a rhino neocon a little bit, we have neocon people who say, I love democracy, I love republicanism, I love freedom of conscience, I love freedom of speech, and we're going to go to war with all the dictators of the world.
I would love to get back on the topic, but I'll just say this, right, because I feel like my point was missed.
If you are a genuine believer that the State Department CIA needs to exert soft power, right, and needs to use, you know, money in some regard that we don't know about, right, and you believe that the people would support it.
And that that would be okay because you believe in democracy and these things need to be done, then you don't need dark money.
You can literally just say, hey, look, here's a bank account.
Here's our budget.
We're doing covert shit, but this is how much money we need for covert shit.
So we can't tell you what it's for.
What they don't need to do is lie to people and say that this is humanitarian aid, and then they're actually doing it with the State Department and working with other people.
I'll do it right but the problem is is like the modern woman I'll answer for you if I want to if I want to do it So if I want to do it with I won't if I want to do it within the context of the conversation that we're having Right what I would say is that the modern woman is a is the is someone that is affected deeply by anime Someone that is is a person with so many choices that it is a crippling level of choices that they lack cultural norms Bye!
so that they could actually achieve their goals and be happy and content.
I'll just tell you that the 70% of millennial females vote for the Democratic Party and support their party agenda, which is defined as strong welfare states, what we would describe as social justice or intersectional issues, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and a smaller portion of the modern woman believes in traditional family conservative values.
So it's usually to say that they are more goal and career oriented than in the past.
of today as opposed to 100 years ago, and more politically active and more left economic leaning and left cultural leaning.
A social conservative victory would be the abolition of abortion.
Abolition. I agree.
Yeah, 100%.
But the point is that we live in a society, we're in a democratic republic, there's a whole bunch of different tribes that all vie over how to live in the future, and I think that women are advocating in their own self-interest, which makes sense.
This is something that I thought about.
I disagree with it, but conceptually I understand it.
Men, relatively speaking, have bodily autonomy.
There's a reduced ability for us to get raped and murdered because we have a larger capacity for violence, in my opinion.
With women, you're almost at constant threat through the society that you can be raped, you can be physically abused, you can do this, you can do that.
And so you're constantly surrounded by potential threats.
And one of the ways that you can assert control is that if you somebody rapes you and impregnates you, then you can assert control over whether or not you can carry out that pregnancy.
So that might feel like some level of control in a potentially hostile society.
So that's probably why they want to grab onto it as like a measure of control, while I still disagree with it.
Human beings are naturally self-interested, selfish creatures.
And so there's always going to be abuse.
There's always going to be neglect.
There's always going to be malevolence.
The state has the ability to step in and assert some level of justice.
Yeah. So there's a lot of things I want to get into.
So, like, I don't necessarily disagree with you that women have the perception of a lack of bodily autonomy.
You know, obviously Roe v.
Wade. I don't like that kind of univariate analysis of a policy.
Yeah, I'm sure it had a swing towards Gen Z being more in favor of the Democrats, etc.
But I think this problem is so much deeper, and I connect it to welfare.
I think welfare is the predominant issue with the breakdown of gender issues within our country.
So what is the traditional role of men in most societies, right?
It is a provider-protector role.
When we look at evolutionary psychology work in terms of attraction, we can look at David Buss's work in the evolution of desire, right?
And, you know, he kind of puts forward that kind of gender theory or that social role that you often hear from a lot of podcasters, even though they're not sure that they're referencing it, which is that, you know, men tend to be attracted to females for fertility signs.
Right. Women tend to be attracted to men for signs of resource provision.
Right. There's other work in terms of Simon Cohen's like extreme male brain theory of autism, which is a fairly controversial work with a lot of citations.
And like he breaks it down as females tend to work towards empathizing and men tend to work towards systematizing.
Men look at tools.
They look at hierarchy.
They look at like how to do things with things.
Women look at maintaining relationships, things of that nature.
And so what happens when your society.
Systematizing. We're good.
role of being a provider out of the social safety net that men did for so long and then funnels that to women.
Well, I'll tell you what happens.
What you end up with is you end up with young men who cannot have capital accumulation because the government takes their money now.
They can't invest.
They have less money to invest.
They have less money to build wealth.
Women are no longer seeking them to be providers.
They're boss bitches.
They're independent.
They have their own money.
But half of the money that everybody is making is taxed in some degree to move towards other people.
It has completely destroyed the natural dynamics in gender and those relationships.
A specific example that came up quite a bit in the past few years was a study that came out and a subsequent story by the New York Post that women are struggling to find men who will date them who make as much.
If there's a 35-year-old man who makes $70,000 a year, he's not going to date a 35-year-old woman.
he's going to date a 22-year-old woman because that amount of money to a 22-year-old is more.
And so we've seen this phenomenon with dating apps in particular where young men are cut out of the dating market because as the story goes, your dating pool used to be your sphere of influence your friends, your schools, whatever, your work.
Now it's even on the internet.
Now it's everything.
So what happens is a 22 year old guy at a university, his dating Sure. Women, those young men in college are now competing with 30-year-old guys who make, you know, $80,000 a year.
And when the...
It's actually quite simple.
The young woman gets a message from a guy and he says, do you want to come hang out in my dorm with my buddies?
We're going to order pizza.
And she goes, that sounds fun.
She gets another message from a 30-year-old guy says, how about I pick you up in my convertible?
We go out for a movie and a dinner and then go drive by the lake.
Which one does she choose?
She's going to choose the more fun, more luxurious adventure.
The result has been that right now, The highest rate of virginity for men 30 and under and increasing.
This was actually in the past five years.
So now the virginity rate up to 35 is about one-third.
And these are not guys who are, you know, Seamus Coghlan, he's a Catholic.
I can explain this without a univariate analysis, but I'll let you go first.
Thank you.
So you tied it to welfare.
And I basically, I want to address your point.
And then I want to get into this because I feel like this is the what the meat is what people came for, so to speak.
You wanted to tie it to welfare.
Well, in preparation for this conversation, I went ahead and took a look at like, international welfare, the different states that have different, you know, issues.
And it seems like every single country on the planet is facing similar issues.
Increases in single-family homes.
They are experiencing a birth rate that is plummeting towards two.
There are all the anti-social programs, anti-social issues of like violence and all that kind of stuff.
This is happening like worldwide.
And then looking at developed countries versus non-developed countries or developing countries, so to speak, welfare didn't really correlate with whether or not people were experiencing these sexual issues.
As an example, Mexico and Costa Rica have some of the lowest GDP spent on welfare.
They also have, like the per capita rate is incredibly low, and they still experience these sexual...
I'll call it dysgenic, dysgenic issues, right?
But then you also go to places like Germany, or Norway, or Sweden, and what's funny is these countries have more welfare, but they actually have moderately less dysgenic issues compared to the United States.
And so I would still agree to all of these problems, but I wouldn't tie it to welfare.
And the things that I would tie it to, which you guys mentioned, is the Industrial Revolution, The sexual revolution.
And I would say we are currently in the information age revolution, where you can, as an example, like you just said, you can date, you're not dating your community, you could date the entire city, the entire state.
Anyone that tries to do a, like I said, a univariate analysis on anything is a snake oil salesman or they don't know what they're talking about.
Right. Like nothing is ever one issue.
Sure. Right.
My issue is the growth of the state supplanting cultural norms.
Right. So there's so so to weave this thread, we have to I got to get into a little bit more psychology.
Right. So, you know.
Obviously, I brought up Durkheim, right?
You know, he wrote Division of Labor, 1893, or Division of Labor and Society, 1893, and then later his most famous work probably is Suicide, 1897, right?
Where he discusses the concept of anime, right?
He was the first guy to discover that like- Can you define anime because you've said it two or three times and I have no idea what it is.
Yeah, so an anime is a sense of normlessness when culture changes or institutions change too fast and people are- they're less understanding of what is expected of them and what the status Standard ought be.
Sure. Right?
And so, you know, there's a lot that goes into this, right?
So you can look at Robert K. Merton's kind of work, right, in structural functionalism.
You don't hear much about structural functionalism because it's the only conservative aspect of sociology, right?
So obviously they don't talk about it, right?
But he's the guy that invented broken windows theory.
He's the guy that came up, coined the phrase unintended consequences, right?
You know, there is, when you have welfare that supplants communities, that supplants, you know, like it supplants social capital, right?
When you said this, and you're absolutely right, that like power and systems, right?
They abhor a vacuum, right?
And you're absolutely right.
When the government steps in, they take in that space, right?
And what they have supplanted is they have supplanted Social capital they have supplanted neighbors looking after their neighbors kids because that was necessary at one time because if you didn't belong to to
make this simple, right?
If I live in a society that says 1 through 10 are bad things and you shouldn't do those bad things, right?
But I'm really fucking good at number 7 and I'm talented and I really care about number 7. What I do is I break norms and I go do number 7 and I do it so fucking good that I come back with number 7 and I go, Look at the value that I have done with number seven.
But when you have a society that says, do whatever you want, be free, there are no cultural norms.
Multiculturalism is great.
There is no community.
You don't know who your neighbors are.
You go off and you do seven, but you get distracted by, well, should I do one or should I do 10?
And then what you end up with is you suck and you're engaged in all these degenerate things that should have kept a cohesive society together.
So so and by the way, like so liberal democracy is done, but that's a separate point, right?
So liberalism, I think is a perfectly fine, especially in a free society.
I think it's a perfectly fine governing society or governing philosophy.
However, I think it's a very terrible, like personal development philosophy.
I don't think it gives you enough information on how to be a man, how to be a woman, how to grow up, how to be a good person, etc, etc.
Liberalism should be a general governing framework, but we should be fighting within the framework of liberalism for how men should grow up.
And also how women should grow up as well.
I'm going to give you a rebuttal to one of your points, and then I'm going to talk about a solution, I guess.
So you said that the government is in here stealing 15% to 10% of our checks or whatever, and therefore— No, that's just Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Just give me a moment.
Social Security, Medicare.
So Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Entitlement programs are stealing all of our resources, and therefore we don't have enough capital in order to develop ourselves, in order to become men, etc., etc.
But what I would say is, since power abhors a vacuum, this was all happening in the 19th century.
And you can go back and find the abuses in the late 19th and early 20th century from capitalists.
And I don't mean that as a derogatory term.
I mean that from the people who ran corporations.
The people who ran corporations, similar to Google, except for maybe Google's a little bit nicer, is they created like compounds for workers to live in.
And then they charged them exorbitant rents for their living conditions.
Then they charged them exorbitant rates for the food consumption items that they had at the local grocer.
And they also made the locals sign contracts saying that they would purchase all of their goods first from the local grocer.
And so while it's private and it's privately negotiated, power seems to, especially nefarious power, seems to always want to manipulate its subordinates into giving every excess amount of energy into the above system.
Anybody who's worked, sorry, I'm ranting, but I'll try to be brief.
That any person who's worked in corporate America understands that.
That takes all of your energy.
That way you basically give your soul to the company.
And if you're unwilling to give your soul to the company, they drum you out.
Right. So Hayek has a wonderful quote that I've in the road to serfdom that I think accurately depicts the counter argument here, which is just centralized systems destroy spontaneous order.
Right? You're not wrong that evil people have existed and done bad things or done it.
Now, I do think that your characterization is a little, like, lefty of, like, you know, some of these corporations, right?
You know what I mean?
The problem would be misinterest.
Well, you know, I think it's a little silly because, you know, specifically when we're talking about Pullman Town, I think is what you're mostly referencing.
We're talking about the grocery store.
There's that famous quote from where, you know, he says, you know, I live in a Pullman house.
I work a Pullman job.
I eat Pullman food.
And when I die, I'm going to be buried in a Pullman coffin.
Right? Yeah, yeah.
You know, relative to the average American, we're making double, sometimes triple the wages of other people.
Their children were getting education that agrarian farmers could never have gotten.
You know, they did have a home.
Those homes were showcases some of this, like the brilliant age of capitalism, because these homes were nicer than any homes any regular poor people could fit.
Now, were there problems?
I think Google would be saying the same thing, though.
Google would be like, look at the great, we have a sushi bar, guys!
We got this, we got that!
I agree that corporations took advantage of, you know, the large amount of capital that they had, you know, to make more and more.
Like, I agree that there are always going to be bad people in any system.
But what I am talking about and what I am arguing is not here some examples of bad things happen in past, therefore welfare good.
I'm making an actual argument here, right, which is that I'm talking about from a praxeological position looking at the economic impact of creationism.
Creating a society where the government takes your money now for a presumed good elsewhere.
So there's a couple of issues here.
I want to have a back and forth.
I don't want to listen to like a...
You went on a rant and I'm going to make the argument so I'll try and make it quick here, right?
So anyways, the point is that if Left-leaning people are going to continue voting the way that they're going to vote.
It doesn't matter if you say, we need to eliminate the welfare.
We need to eliminate the power of the federal state.
It's not going to happen.
Okay? It's not going to happen.
And so the question is, what do we do now?
And the truth is that I think that even if you got what you wanted, which was like the evaporation of the welfare state, I still don't think that you would see the pro-social benefits that you're looking for because of the three other things that we mentioned.
The industrial, sexual, and information revolution.
And so now I'm talking about pragmatic solutions.
When we're talking about pragmatic solutions, I hope that Valor Media Network, the people that I represent, are a part of the solution, which is that...
You represent so many leftist organizations these days.
Is that another one?
Well, they're liberals, but anyways...
I know you got paid by Progressive Victory and a bunch of other people.
Don't keep hawking your shit or I'm going to attack you for the fact that you take money from leftists.
Calm down, brother.
Listen, man, I've never made it a hidden thing that I am a never-Trumper.
So we need to get together, we need to get our stuff together, we need to have these complex conversations, and we need to push each other to be better, and we need to help those 18 to 20, uh, 18 to 30 year old men who are virgins right now.
Pragmatic solutions aside, that is not an argument as to whether or not did this thing cause this thing.
So we have completely gone away from that argument.
We have a big functional problem in, uh, one of the things that came up in the debate was, uh, welfare, the modern woman, uh, women overwhelmingly vote towards the left.
And I think there's, As you mentioned, they sympathize and men systematize.
And so, women take the approach of, we want to be protected.
One argument made by many people is that they've effectively replaced the role of men with the state.
So, however, that does create an interesting conundrum.
Men allow the women to vote, essentially.
And I don't mean to say that they had the right to restrict that in the first place.
That with women's suffrage, the men who run the country could have simply said, nope.
But they decided, no, no, no, women should vote.
Here's the problem I have with the system we're currently in.
If we were to remove all technologies, dating apps, industrialization, then all of these issues are solved.
In a society like that where we live in the wilderness in little mud huts, women are largely going to defer to the men because the risks.
These psychological tendencies have not gone away.
They've just industrialized themselves to the point where women overwhelmingly right now are voting to send men to die.
So with the current state, it is true, the female vote tends to be exceedingly pro-war, and they themselves are exempt from the consequences of what those wars would be.
Certainly, but the argument is, it's fine to vote in favor of war because I'm not on the front line, the men will have to die before I do.
True. And so the argument still is, women rely on men for protection to maintain the society, but with voting power, the women can collectivize and then force the men to do things that men may not do.
It's a gentleman, sorry, it's a brief aside, but basically like a very powerful, wealthy, strong warrior gentleman in ancient Greece is talking smack about how democracy is the rule of the weak.
And then Socrates or Plato, I forget who, but he basically rebuts.
It's like, okay, well, if the weak bound together in order to become something stronger than you, then are we not still living in a society where effectively the strong are still ruling?
And so that's part of the reason why I'm not a Democrat, even though I'm temporarily working for Democrats, because I hate Trump so much.
But the point is, I'm not philosophically a Democrat, because I think the average person—no offense to the Democrats in the audience, but they're mostly stupid.
So that's literally what I was going to say, is that a lot of women joke about this, but I think that this would be actually, if we deem this a societal problem, I think this should be a thing.
If we see consistently that women disproportionately vote for war for men to go die overseas or whatever, then I think that we need to make selective service equal.
Where all women over the age of 18 have selective service, because the truth is, you see TikToks all the time about gay men and women or whatever, when they're like, oh, when the draft comes up, I'm going to pretend that I'm something, so I avoid war.
But I want to bring this up because I think it's important.
It's actually the heart of the conversation.
Fabian, you're saying that the protect and provide role has been eliminated for young men, okay?
Not eliminated.
It's been, it's substantively muted.
Yeah, for sure.
So here's the thing.
When it comes to protection, Um, protection involves a lot of things for young men.
Uh, if you are not physically fit, if you don't have any cardiovascular ability, then nobody's going to trust you to protect them.
If you are not capable of knowing the laws and, uh, knowing how to operate a firearm and knowing how to conduct yourself in like a hectic environment, then you're not going to be able to protect anyone.
And I think that women subconsciously read on that.
So what I would do if somebody gave me a million dollars is I would literally create a program for young men to do for free in which we treat, we train them how to be physically fit.
How to conduct themselves in security situations, how to conduct themselves during a mass shooting, how to do basic first aid, and how to operate firearms.
I 100% would throw myself behind an educational effort in order to get young men educated on those topics.
When it comes to provide, which protect could be partially financial as well, I'm just gonna say it, we're fudged.
So I think that we are at a crossroads in neoliberal economics, and the welfare state, where male workers, middle class and working class males, have effectively had every dollar that they can make squeezed out of them, and you cannot bleed a stone.
But I wouldn't put that solely on the state.
I would also put that on the corporations, who also do very nefarious things to squeeze every ounce of productivity out of their peons while not giving them a living standard.
Yeah, so I think there's, so you know, You would talk about Temple, right?
You would talk about the concept of like collectivizing, um, you know, their control and, and, and, you know, of, of like resources and redistribute them, redistributing resources as they vote for the left.
There's a few problems here.
One is, is that your average woman has, you know, as much as your average man being dumb, right?
They don't know that.
Right, like your average woman doesn't recognize that the entire system of the state is built to give her wealth and to give her security.
They think men and women are equal because they've been told, you know, bullshit about equality and equity, right?
And they don't realize that, like, divorce laws are in their favor, family court laws are in their favor.
You know, you have literal politicians coming out and saying that, like, how dare men sit on their couch and play video games?
You know, these welfare systems are built for single moms.
It's like, Fucking what?
Like, what do you mean?
Like, well, like, why ought young men be bled so that single moms can be like, Oh, because the children, et cetera, but they're no longer connected to it.
See here, this is where it really gets down to the philosophy of what is a sacrifice and why that is such a meaningful difference between social security and like fraternal order societies is that sacrifice is evil.
Outro ism is evil.
Okay, it is absolutely evil when someone tells you that you need to give up what you have.
Not because you value something or that you value a person, be it your grandmother, your friend, someone that you know is on hard times, but because it is your moral duty to give up what you have earned and what you value for the better of society.
It is the most evil thing that a person can say.
It is the entire thesis of Atlas Shrugged.
The idea that you must give up for welfare because poor people exist or because Africans have AIDS somewhere is evil.
Why? What the hell are you talking about?
Sacrificing what it is that you value, what you care about, what you as a reasoned man have achieved through your success as the ability to be able to shape your world and your universe and your property for an amorphous person that you have absolutely no value or understanding of.
They're not amorphous.
They're real flesh and blood human beings.
If they're real flesh and blood human beings and you value them, then absolutely.
That's what fraternal order society is for.
That's why we have the incentive structure of welfare is it destroys work, it destroys value.
You just took like a really bold stance that I think we need to unpack.
Absolutely. I will defend libertarian ideas and Ayn Rand.
Absolutely. Until you die and it's going to be very frustrating.
So hold on.
So evil to me, there's bad and there's evil.
Okay. Bad is negative consequence.
Evil is knowing there will be negative consequence and then continuing down that path.
Absolutely. Okay, all right, cool.
Now I'm probably Evil from your regard, but I don't view myself as evil.
Okay, what I totality of you as a person is evil, right?
Sure thing.
When you when you say?
advocacy Things that are evil.
Okay, so so hold on you said why ought young men be bled?
You know, that is evil.
And why must they give themselves to these broader institutions that they don't understand the part of that that I actually agree with is I think the modern institutions have done a Terrible job.
I cannot overstate this.
Justifying the American commercial empire, justifying internationalism, justifying foreign war, justifying welfare.
I think that our states have done almost no work whatsoever justifying the social institutions that presently exist to the next generation that must perpetuate them.
And therefore, this entire generation of young men are saying, why?
Why do I have to die in the Middle East and North Africa?
Why do I have to be a part of Selective Service?
Why do I have to work at Publix for...
Publix is a grocery chain.
Why do I have to work for $10 an hour, have 15% of my check taken, when I could just sit at home, goof off, and play video games, and smoke pot, and just do nothing, right?
I understand why young men are saying why, but the truth is that I don't think that, like, suffering, or sacrifice, or altruism, you know, for these institutions is bad.
I think that you need to give them purpose.
You need to give them a mission.
You need to tell them why.
Why the United States is good?
Why freedom of conscience?
Why freedom of speech?
Why the Second Amendment?
Why the Fourth Amendment?
Why limited government is good?
And you need to justify that effectively through propaganda.
Well, okay, hold on a minute, you're selling, okay, first of all, let's dispense with all of the things, sorry, I'll get closer, dispense with all the things that have nothing to do with welfare, like Second Amendment, First Amendment, and not actually on the topic.
When you were saying, we need to sell foreign wars, and we need to sell your money and your ability You want your computer, right?
Listen, people turn to those things, people turn towards materialism when you create a culture via the state and via social security and welfare of high time preference.
When you take away resource accumulation and instead supplant it with capital Consumption, right?
You create a group of people that is materialistic, that just wants to buy the Funko Pop and the PlayStation, that doesn't have hopes of buying a home because every successive generation has destroyed the fucking market via asset inflation and Social Security and over $37 trillion in debt.
They have no purpose and it's not because you haven't sold them a good enough purpose.
It's because you're stealing their future.
Okay, but here's the thing.
This is actually my frustration with the right.
This is why I get pissed off at Republicans, is because they talk all this game about social conservatism, the family being the most important thing, all that kind of stuff.
They're not going to enable any of it.
They're going to use the same Darwinian fiscal conservative BS in order to slash the minimal social safety net that we have in order to screw people over even more.
And as soon as they slash the social safety net, they're not suddenly going to be like, oh, hey, grocery store worker, suddenly I don't have to pay 20% taxes.
I'm going to go ahead and include a dignified wage for you.
That's never going to happen.
Republicans You have the corporations fleecing people.
You have a government, according to you, fleecing people.
I'm not necessarily saying that.
And here's the thing is, guess what?
It sucks to be a man, but that's what being a man is.
Being a man is not having to have your fucking wealth stolen.
I have a fucking super safe with guns.
What the fuck are you talking about?
But it's giving your pair a tug and sucking it up and doing what's required anyways.
So because I don't value blacks and women, I can just not pay taxes?
Pause, pause, pause, pause.
I'm using sacrifice from an objective this perspective.
Not necessarily the way that we might use sacrifice colloquially.
And I apologize, right?
When I say sacrifice, what I mean is that you are giving up something because you have a moral duty or responsibility, even though you don't want to give up something.
When people are saying, I call that growing up.
That is not growing up.
No, listen, listen, you're not, you're not getting it.
What I'm saying is that it's perfectly fine to give up something that you want now because you value what you will get later.
You said, it sucks to be a man, grow up, deal with it, something to that effect.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
It is the nature of men to stop being whiny bitches and realize you are going to get pushed in the mud Trampled over and stepped on every step of the way, and you have to get up and crawl through it.
That will always be the case.
I see a lot of guys on the internet saying it's unfair, women have it easier, and they don't like it.
Exactly. My response is, and grow up, be a man.
That being said, it is also the historical fact that men in these positions revolt against their systems and burn them down sometimes.
My point would be that if you want men to not revolt, men are capable of suffering, they're capable of going through sacrifice positive.
Put parentheses positive after that word sacrifice.
They are capable of enduring so many things as long as you give them a purpose in order to endure those things.
And so when I say, you're saying like, well, sacrifice in the objectivist sense is I'm giving something up for something that I don't ultimately value.
What I would say is, well, we need to value poor people.
We need to value the marginalized.
We need to make sure that they're productive.
We need to make sure that our soft power and our hard power are all over the world because I don't Can people opt out of that system?
No, so, so, so again, listen, I'm trying to, I'm trying to connect these, I'm trying to connect these things and it seems like maybe I'm not communicating it.
Well, you haven't actually argued against anything, so that's fine.
Um, I'm, I'm talking about a process here and you're saying we need to give men purpose.
I agree.
But the thing is, is that you can't centrally plan cultural change and the way that genders are valued.
Like you can't, like what has occurred is that you have taken away their role and you can't just go, well, I'll teach classes that teach men to be bad-ass or I'll sell these ideas.
You literally just said that the what contradiction that government has That's not a contradiction.
Yeah, it would be because...
No, they robbed people and the consequence...
Leave them to budge alone and that could be a central plan.
No, I'm saying they robbed people to solve this presumed problem that they fucking created with regulations in the 1920s.
I reject what you said.
I reject what you said.
There was a real problem in the 1930s, which we all agreed to, which was effectively that the de-palatable...
Howard Fraternal orders were insufficient to deal with the economic moment.
Yes government caused regulations and then government reacted poorly in the in the in the great depression.
So you're saying then they came in with a fucking band-aid.
So you're saying I'm a hundred years tens in 20s The fraternal orders had continued to exist the fraternal orders would have been able to bounce back the Great Depression.
I think that there is a Overwhelming amount of evidence that policies such as the New Deal and FDR elongated and made the Great Depression worse.
I think that is absolutely true.
Underwhelming amount of evidence that the Fraternal Orders would have been capable of dealing with the Great Depression.
I think that Keynesian economic theory and this concept of prime the pump has failed us many, many times.
And that individuals ought to research the Austrian business cycle.
You say this, we are inside a room covered in international goods in plastic.
What the fuck does that have to do with it?
Because we're in the most successful, rich society that's ever lived.
So why are we saying that we failed?
Brother, brother.
We didn't fail.
I've made so many arguments and then all you have responded to is disappointment.
And so my point is, when you argue that we are the most successful in history, I wonder if that is, if we were to quantify what it means by success, could we argue that we've become the most decadent, but arguably self-destructive through our wealth?
The Rome, I think we, I do anyways, I watch Gladiator.
And I see the patriot that is Maximus, and I'm like, God, that looks cool.
Like, armor, gladius.
I know fire arrows weren't a thing, but they look fantastic.
And, you know, riding horses, Spanish estate, like all that kind of stuff.
And I'm like, man, that is a cool society to live in.
But the truth is that Rome was corrupted and ultimately destroyed through its decadence, through perpetual war, through colonialism, through imperialism, through corrupt senators and corrupt consuls of Rome and all that kind of stuff.
And so the thing about it is I'm really proud of what America has achieved already, but the truth is that there is a spiritual rot.
I think we all agree that there's a spiritual rot and liberalism, capital L, the governing system.
I agree.
That's my whole argument, yeah.
But I don't think that eliminating the federal government is going to solve that spiritual rot.
I actually, I feel like I'm kind of in between both you guys and your points, but I think you just made a really great point that one could argue that welfare does enable certain things.
But the issue that I largely see, often discuss, is spiritual rot or a cultural decay, I would refer to as such.
We don't have community anymore.
People don't come together.
This is not just a governmental thing.
It's a technological thing.
It's, you could argue, I think you guys are, you know, it's like that problem where there's the six and the nine on the ground and you're looking at it and you're looking at it.
The debate is the debate topic is about welfare, right?
That's why I'm focusing so heavily on welfare again.
Like I said, I don't want to ever do a univariate analysis, you know again when I bring up Amelia Durkheim right in in in functionalism, right?
he, anime is, is not, it's about, you know, like the, the concept of normalness is about, you know, the division of labor and society is about the industrial revolution.
It's about moving away from an agrarian lifestyle where there are extended families into cities where now we have the nuclear family and we're less connected.
Like these, these things all interweave and interplay.
It's a chicken or egg scenario.
My argument, let me be quick, right?
Like my argument is that welfare is a component of this and that it's not helping and that there are better ways to do it and that the market does it better.
I'm not arguing that welfare is the sole reason feminists exist or modern prostitution Let me ask you a question.
The estimates are around 2.5 to 4 workers need to enter the system for every Social Security recipient.
So, should we implement your system, where we say, 18, you know, from this point on, no more Social Security, you don't pay but you don't get, that would still collapse the system largely.
The question is, if we were to end Social Security in any capacity, would it result in any number of increased deaths of elderly individuals?
So you recognize that there is some level of pain when we've been getting fucked over by other countries that say, "Okay, now we're ready to play ball.
unidentified
We're going to have to have some pain in order to play ball." Indeed, my question was about the death.
If we were to shut down in any capacity Social Security today, I believe that would increase, it would decrease the lifespan for the existing elderly, would likely result in death.
I have no problem with admitting these things are likely to be for simple reasons.
I just think that people need to be honest about what you get from them.
The challenge, of course, is then humans are largely scared to admit that they'd be willing to accept death to correct the system.
Even if old people die because the social security goes away, I'm willing to say not only that they die, I'm willing to say that it was more just than social security existing and keeping them alive because taxation is theft and it's evil.
What I am saying is that I can't commit one way or the other that taking away one of the biggest tax burdens on the entire economy is necessarily going to Right, right, right. It might be better in the long term.
Right, I just don't want you to think I'm being dishonest.
And I'm sure you would taper them, et cetera, right?
This is perfectly metaphorical.
So, so for instance, like in Switzerland or whatever, they have clinics that are state supported, that effectively give you the exact amount of dose that you need in order to get through your day.
But in the meantime, they're trying to help them with all the things that have addiction issues, like You know, employment or re-engaging with their family or becoming a part of the community again.
And so what I would say is that, like, government can be intelligent.
We are used to a very dumb, very ineffective form of governance in the United States of America, but I still think that government can be done in intelligent ways.
And then one of the things that I wanted to bring up was we were talking about the spiritual rot that's inside the United States of America.
I think that what would happen if we cut Social Security, even if we tapered off, we are such a self-centered, hedonistic, nihilistic culture that I almost guarantee you that if there were like 20-year-olds who were going to school and getting their first job and grandma is like on the side of the road being homeless and they had to make a choice between buying the PlayStation 1000 or feeding grandma, they're gonna pick the PlayStation 1000.
Yep. Because the PlayStation 1000, I only have gross feels.
Right. Hold on, that is not necessarily a moral indictment, that is also like a physical reality.
We are trained this way by not just the environment we're in, but also by nature.
This is why I was trying to elucidate the role of anime and structural functionalism, right?
What these systems do and how systems affect society.
And so it's important to recognize that I don't disagree with you that if you cut off something immediately, that there would be social consequences.
I mean, we saw, for example, in China, they had the one-child policy and people were leaving babies in the market to die and starve to death over days.
And then they got rid of the one-child policy and they're like, the birth rates will come back, right?
Except you can't.
You can't just make a culture magically think having babies is good when for years you made them think it was evil and you punish them.
That's a multi-generational problem that doesn't get solved overnight.
I'm all for us having a conversation about how do we get rid of welfare?
How do we shrink the state?
How do we be more intelligent about the services that we do use?
What I'm just trying to get to initially is an understanding that welfare is a part of this problem, and we have to recognize that.
But the decentralization of media, no, has shattered American culture.
Multiculturalism is not functional, doesn't make sense.
It doesn't.
The argument, initially, of multiculturalism was predicated upon a single umbrella culture, like the American Constitution, for which others exist within, so long as you abide by the top.
But that breaks.
And so when you get too many different distinct cultures, and I'm not referring to Christian and Muslim, I'm referring to anarchists, leftists, communists, tanky, libertarian, right, you get paleo-christian and orthodox, and all of these different moral identities conflict with each other, then you don't have a cohesive structure of governance.
The way I like to describe it is that if everybody had And I always use Seamus Coghlan because he's a devout Catholic.
If everybody had the same moral worldview as Seamus Coghlan, this conversation wouldn't happen.
There would be no need for police.
There'd be no need for standing armies.
None of it would matter.
But of course, the world is comprised of a bunch of different moral worldviews, declaration of rights, etc.
And when you start bringing those things into one government, the government starts to fracture.
And then you are going to get An anarchist who says, why am I paying for you?
Whereas if this was a singular, but it's true, it's true.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm saying if we were a singular Christian nationalist country, where everybody was devout Catholic, people would be like, I am honored to give my money to the state because the state funds the church.
But what I find interesting in this conversation that I also want to share before we move on is, so this is basically like, if we're analyzing I'm a Roman soldier veteran.
And I'm saying that you need to fight and die for the glory of Rome, but Rome is corrupt.
And the Holy- well, I would at least take back Constantinople.
But anyways, the point is that, like, you have to have purpose, you have to have a vision, you have to encourage the next generation, and you have to acknowledge the rot.
There's spiritual rot in our society, okay?
But hold on, I have two more points.
Fabian, I think, is more of like a- I know you're a veteran, but you're a citizen of Rome who is saying that, I don't think the system works, I think we should let it all burn, relatively speaking.
Since we're talking about Rome, my channel name is Fabian Liberty because it's an inverse of the socialist organization, the Fabian Society.
It's named after Fabius Maximus.
It is named after the strategy that I don't think accelerationism and dismantling everything instantly and like, "Oh, it'll be great once the system is destroyed." No, I think we have to slowly sell these ideas.
As you said, great men plant trees of which the shade they will never sit in.
I'm trying to push an idea that says, hey, maybe a little less welfare, right?
Hey, maybe a little bit more privatization.
Hey, a little bit more efficiency.
And then eventually I think I want to change the culture.
I want to change it so that it does happen slowly, so that we move to a better- I think none of it really matters.
Not that it makes right, it's just that people with power will enforce whatever they want to enforce.
So, for example...
I had this argument the other day with Tiffany Cianci, where she says she's a free speech absolutist, as the Founding Fathers prescribed in the First Amendment.
I don't think they did.
They did not.
They certainly did not.
The Second Amendment never applied until 2008, and technically not even until 2010 with McDonald v.
Chicago. The First Amendment didn't even apply up until the 90s.
George Carlin was arrested for swearing.
You couldn't even swear on TV, which is public airwaves.
The government regulated your right to speak what you wanted to speak.
So the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, The right of the states and the people reserved to them has been trampled over tremendously.
So my point is, everybody comes out and says, this is the way it should be, this is how the system should operate, and the only thing that has ever really mattered is that a large enough group of people lend their power to a moral ideologue who decided to enforce it in a specific way.
Yeah, so so might doesn't make right but might does make reality and that's that's exactly right now.
I would I did want to brush upon one thing where you're talking about, you know, the dangers of a multicultural society right where people no longer share values and they're not connected within the same community.
You're absolutely you're absolutely correct.
I mean, I would also like to point out that one of the reasons that I think we have such a big immigration issue in this country is that corporations and NGOs work to push immigration because they need to prop up a failing welfare state.
Like, we have brought in- They're also propping up a failing birth rate as well!
I agree.
That's what happens when you destroy resource accumulation.
That's what happens when men start waiting until their 30s before they can finally start dating young women.
This is what happens when the dating market is...
This isn't the welfare state, though.
This is the sexual revolution.
This 100% has to do with contraception and condoms.
When we're talking about, because the entire world, there's plenty of different areas of the planet that don't have the same welfare stuff, they're still experiencing the same problem.
Right? And so Mongolia does that because they're right next to China and they, let's face it, they like banging and riding horses and stuff.
And then Israel does it because they feel like they're constantly under threat because they underwent like a genocide or an ethnocide at the early of the 20th century.
I almost guarantee you if you gave them an environment in which they weren't under threat in suffering a recent ethnocide or genocide, their demographic replacement would drop.
Hold on, you made the argument, right?
It is this thing.
The answer is never univariate, right?
Like, I agree that birth rates and family planning are made possible- Sure, but it's not just to support the welfare state, it's also to support our economy.
I agree that when you have contraception, right, when women enter the workforce, when, you know, when, when modern hygiene for women products, uh, you know, become available, when indoor plumbing becomes available, when the birth control pill, that all of these things have an effect on the growth of families and the birth rate.
Right. What I am saying is that there is a chicken and egg scenario that like, I agree that these things allow women to wait a longer time to have children, which lowers the range of time that they are fertile, which of course lowers the amount of children that they tend to have over a period of time.
Obviously, technological innovations in IVF and things like that extend that window to a certain degree.
So both of these things are true.
But what I am saying is that When men are no longer seen as providers because they work nine-to-five jobs and massive chunks of their taxes Go to prop up women and go to protect women and then on top of that They don't have the same resource accumulation and also on top of that.
There is no There's no necessity for men, right?
They, I absolutely agree that men have to go through trials and tribulations in order to become men, but there is no necessity.
The state does everything for you.
Whereas before men knew that they needed to go out and bust ass that they wanted to make sure that they could take care of their parents.
And if they wanted to have a family and all of these things being devoid of them have changed the way that women view men, women do not view men in any level of respect, partially because they've checked out, but partially because they're I hear what you're saying, but one of the things that you said was, prop up and protect women.
Now, this is through the state, through taxation, and therefore it feels more ephemeral, and therefore it's the negative sacrifice that you were talking about.
You're paying for an altruism that you don't necessarily agree with, okay?
Yes. I hear you.
However, what I am here to say, which is going to be uncomfortable for young men, is suck it up, buttercup.
Your previous generations also went through a bunch of garbage.
The generation before that went through even more.
The generation before that went through even more.
And on top of that, if enough men check out of society...
You just gotta sit around and do nothing because the entire economic system is gonna collapse.
So what I'm saying is, if you do like eating good food, if you do like good entertainment, if you do like the ability to date women, if you do like a peaceful society in which you don't murder people, then you need to get up off your ass.
I agree with everything you're saying, but quick point, right?
I'm sorry, am I annoying?
No, quick point, right?
I agree with you that we need to teach that message to men.
I agree that it's important.
I agree with everything that you just said.
You're just stealing from them.
No, what I'm saying is, is that the problem is, is if we're going to talk about pragmatics, then we have to be honest about pragmatics.
No amount of education, no amount of like, you can spend billions on like, don't smoke cigarettes ads.
Over the introduction of vaping, it changed to some degree, but the thing that has immediate impact, what we're talking about is incentives and behavior from the state, right?
You can put out campaigns, you can talk to young men, you can do what you want with them and you're going to have some effect.
And I hope you do.
I really hope you do, because I believe just like you do that those messages need to be sent to young men.
But the problem is, is just like a gas tax, just like a cigarette tax, a tax on working, which is what we have, a gargantuan tax on building wealth, working businesses, etc., massively disperse.
I think it is perfectly fine if there are young men out there that say, I'm going to argue for the same position as Fabian Liberty, because you want to fight for your country and you want to fight to change it.
I accept that.
I also think that some people may say, you know what, I've decided to protest by sitting around playing video games and smoking pot.
But I also think that there are people, I've met them, who complain but don't want to engage.
And my attitude for them is, my friend, You can easily go down to Mexico.
You can go to Alaska.
There's a great movie about it, Into the Wild.
There is no requirement that you live within the system of roads, military, police, EMTs, clean running water, air conditioning, and water.
Most jurisdictions have laws requiring that they provide water to you.
Well, maybe not most, but it's because it's typical.
I believe Arizona has a law.
I could be wrong, but these Mojave States, if you walk into an establishment, they must provide water if they ask for it.
Because you die.
So, you know, I look at this like...
We all have clean running water, even if you're homeless.
You can walk into a Taco Bell and ask for a cup, they'll give you one.
That's tremendous luxury.
Man, people used to drink beer all the time because the water was dirty.
And now we have clean running water everywhere.
So there's a wealth, even if you just decide to do nothing.
So it is fascinating to me when I encounter...
Again, I'll say for your position, I want to stay in this country, I want to fight to change it.
Absolutely commendable and respectable.
You disagree with how the system operates, and you're going to stay here, and I assume you pay your taxes.
unidentified
Well, I mean, I don't pay that many because I'm poor, but yeah.
I like civilization more than I like this analysis.
Like, I'm all for...
Sorry, real quick.
I want to talk about the protesters who were smoking pot and playing video games.
So here's the thing.
I'm not a religious literalist.
My mom will be disappointed in that.
I'm like a deist, okay?
But I think that religion oftentimes shows you the moral systems in which to live that will make your life, generally speaking, better if you follow the system versus not following it.
So with the protesters who are checking out of society, smoking pot, playing video games, or whatever, the main thing that I would say to them is you are the one who's gonna suffer.
There have been hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution and human beings and all that kind of stuff that led to your creation.
As far as we know, we only have this one life guaranteed, and you are wasting your time, you're wasting your energy, you're not finding your wife, you're not having kids, you're not perpetuating Let me tell you,
There was a terrifying moment in this film where, as John Lithgow terrorizes his people, Geoffrey Rush asks another man why he won't speak up so they can put a stop to it, and he says, I don't want my children to see me differently.
I don't want them to pity me.
And outside of the idea of that, the issue is largely, even with children, you are in a home sustained partially by government.
What happens to the people who have no children at all?
I've been waiting for a while, but I've had my fair share of screenings.
All right, cool, cool, cool, cool.
So a lot of people hate the concept of 15-minute cities that it doesn't, you know, appeal to their sense of independence.
I think that our leaders are totally failing us by thinking about the future of society.
And so I think that if we actually designed like communities, like for instance, like a mall as an example, like if you had apartment blocks that were We're good to
So the important thing to understand in technological advancement, resources getting cheaper or technology getting better, it's a population growth requirement.
So there's two things required for technological advancement.
It's a larger population and a more efficient workforce at the same time.
Right now, the United States has, and the world, has a massive population which allows for technological expansion, but it's particularly inefficient.
If we were to maximize Worker specialty for the entire planet.
We would probably be 3,000 years more advanced technologically, but the issue is ultimately this.
There was a time in human history where a human could know everything a human could know.
Today, it's impossible in every respect.
In fact, I implore all of you watching to look at how they make i9 processors for computers, and you'll get lost so fast.
We are quickly approaching a point Indeed, we are approaching a point where technology, even among the specialists, is exceeding beyond their ability to understand it, such as making a TV requires dozens of different specialties that could not make it on their own.
As population begins to rescind, the formula actually, the math actually dictates we will see technological deflation, meaning you will get more expensive TVs, less technological advancement, things will become more expensive.
The good news is that we're in a pretty good, sorry, the good news is we're in a pretty good standard of living right now.
I yield the floor.
Okay. All right.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
I was just like, all right.
Uh, yeah.
So listen, I'm not a fan of 15 minute cities that are centrally planned by the state.
I think that's a terrible idea.
Uh, if investors want to be voluntary, if, yeah, if, if investors want to try them out and see what they work like, um, you know, maybe because I mean, like city, huh?
Seriously, if they have food, if they have shelter, if they have community, if they have all that kind of stuff, if it's a successful, vibrant community, what's the problem?
So when you're talking about centrally planning it, no.
If you're talking about letting investors do that, that might be something that people agree with.
I do think that there's a little bit too much hate towards the concept of 15-minute cities because it's being sold to them with ads from the World Economic Forum and they know that it's like, fucking eat the pods, right?
Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, right?
That is really kind of the thesis of that book, if you've read it, is the concept that social capital has been destroyed, and one of the major reasons social capital has been destroyed is because people don't work in the neighborhood they live in.
They don't shop in the neighborhood that they live in, right?
So there's all of this commuting, and so your neighbors are like this minor part of your life.
I don't know that 15-Minute Cities actually solve that in any meaningful way.
It would be an interesting experiment that I'd like to go through.
And if we're talking about solutions...
It could be hella private.
It could be, right?
Again, I think we're kind of veering off of the topic a little bit, but that's fine.
Maybe we beat it to death a little bit.
But I think that there are opportunities to do that.
I will simply say this, if you want investment in 15-minute cities, if you want private companies to do that, you're going to have to start deregulating shit, especially the housing market.
Can I expand on this, because it is really important to Groepers.
So, you go, I'll go afterwards.
I'll take a note.
No, you do need to do something about it, right?
Because every day that we don't do something about it, and then we continuously spend money, you know, there are other problems than just that, right?
We weaken our currency with inflation, right?
And we're going through so much inflation, you know, increase the money supply and things like that, which is affecting, and it's because of these entitlement spending that we have, right?
And the weaker we devalue the dollar, what happens if Saudis stopped using the US dollar to trade reserve currency, right?
Like, there are a lot of other problems that Let's hear it.
I worked with plenty of dissonant right-wing folks.
I think that they can be descriptively accurate while prescriptively insane.
And so as a result, you're saying like, well, what do we do?
We have a collapsing birthrate.
We have an economy that's based on it.
So what I would say is we try to maximize the birthrate as much as possible.
I think right now, European whites are at 1.5.
I think that Hispanics are like 1.8 or 2 point something.
It's very close.
Anyways, the point is that you would try to get the domestic population from 1.5 to 2, and then you would try to supplement with immigration.
I think one of the reasons why we have had a cultural crisis, why we've had mass immigration crises, is because the central governments of Europe and America realized that we had an economic problem.
And so as a result, they allowed these waves of immigration in order to shore up economic problems.
But they never consulted the population.
They never said, we don't have enough workers and we need them.
What ends up happening is they bring in as many immigrants as possible, they legalize illegal immigration, essentially, that is, through executive order, actions that would otherwise be illegal were deemed not illegal because we're going to call it asylum instead, but then they...
What they did was they said, we're going to give you an asylum hearing, a temporary status, but then they got rid of these court cases and just basically said, you're here.
These individuals did not integrate properly.
You can't just put a person there and say, hope that fixed the tax base.
So it's actually creating a worse problem.
So I'll say one more point to this.
You mentioned before, I like tariffs.
I do like tariffs.
Tariffs have to be strategically implemented.
Donald Trump's global tariffs, I believe, I'm skeptical on a blanket, universal tariff system, but I don't know what his exact plan is.
Sure. An argument I saw that was pretty good was, An analogy.
You may have been able to bench press 300 when you were 30, but you can't do it when you're 80. And the argument that we, as an older nation that once had this great tariff system and great wealth, could simply just go back to the bench and try and lift it, it's not gonna work.
You need, as you mentioned before, generational problems.
These things have to be resolved slowly over time.
The mass importation of migrants in Europe has not resulted in In solving the problem, it's created social decay and crises.
And so what we ultimately get with multiculturalism to this rapid system is violence and conflict, fear, anger, political recoil, and instability.
So long story short, social security cannot be remedied through immigration.
Okay. One of the words that you said that I would desperately cling on to is integration.
So my ethnicity is I'm Irish, okay?
200 years ago, 300 years ago, we were bog-dwelling barbarians who were throwing rocks at British troops, right?
Even up until the 1980s, we had very violent ethnic conflicts with the British.
However, I think nowadays, American-Irish and also Irish-Irish are more celebrated for their contributions to culture, their economic contributions, all that kind of stuff.
But that was through a process of integration.
That was through an like intentional educational effort, particularly in the Americas, in order to give the Irish like a sense of buy in into the American project.
And so I joke about this on my own channel, but I talk about the greater United States of the Americas.
I literally think that our entire hemisphere should be united in like a project.
And so I was talking about like, you know, fighting and dying for the glory of Rome.
I think you need to sell that to recent Hispanic Central American immigrants.
And you literally need to say we are a we're not a multicultural society.
We are an integrative society where these are the values that we hold.
They're also a European Christian colonial society.
Yeah, there's no young people to pay into the system to sustain Social Security as we see it.
What'll end up happening is they're going to start by dramatically reducing payments to where they will be substantially more inefficient for doing anything for the elderly.
So, by 2033 I think is the estimate where the system breaks, but it can still start paying off.
You are not going to bring in Populations from Central South America Africa, etc Largely from Central America that will be able to adhere to an American system the mass importation of a largely low skilled labor force will not create a functioning system the okay the thing that I'm gonna push back about on this though is we obviously see like a Correlate GDP going up You know, like, like a 45 degree angle.
Okay, so this is like a leftist theory that I don't agree with.
But it's like the labor theory of value, which is basically you have to have people who input into the system in order for the system to function at all.
So my thing is, if we have a system, let's say, I don't want to get too descriptive.
But basically, if we take 10,000 things from all over the world, we assemble it in the United States, and we sell it for $1,000.
And that company is making like a $400 profit or on it or whatever.
but the inputs where the laborers did something was cents on the dollar, well, then obviously what needs to happen is that the taxes need to come from the final output.
So that's where I would be saying is if our GDP keeps going, and you say that we can't afford it, We do gotta go!
We've got to raid Jeremy Hambly over at The Quartering.
However, we'll just do quick final thoughts on this, and I will just say my view is, if we keep going the direction we're going, including, yes, mass migration to try and solve this problem, the inevitable result is going to be communism.
Fabian and I fight all the time, so I'm sure we'll be doing it again shortly.
My name is Connor.
I run two YouTube channels.
One of them is CounterPoints40K.
It breaks down the wonderful world of Warhammer 40,000.
Another channel that I'm building is CounterPoints.
It's more politics oriented.
CounterPoints is a part of the Valor Media Network.
It's a bunch of first responders and
veterans I'm Yeah,
my name is Scott from Fabian Liberty.
You can find me on YouTube, Fabian Liberty.
I do some reactions, debates, you know, talk a lot about philosophy, politics, you know, things of that nature.
I think, you know, just, you know, check me out if you want to see, you know, those things.
We have to engage in reality.
And the conversations that we're having seem to be a lot of talking points and a lot of those things.
And maybe it's not as entertaining as a lot of other stuff.
But if you want to engage in reality and you want to argue with me and really get into the nitty gritty and philosophy of politics and have a good time, then come check me out.
