Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 6, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:47:52

2140 The Government Cannot Homestead Your Ass! The Freedomain Radio Sunday Show, May 6 2012

A rather graphic and stunning description of the origins and nature of property rights, from Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello!
	It's the Sunday Show.
	It is the 6th of May 2012.
	I hope you're doing very well.
	Just a note that if you like the Corbett Report and you are not impartial to the big chatty forehead, then I will tell you that we will be starting to do...
	I will be starting to take over the Corbett Report because...
	Jibby Jambo Bobbyhead is on vacation.
	He's going to Europe, actually.
	And so I will be taking down.
	I will be doing May 14th, May 21st, May 28th.
	I will be holding onto his show.
	And with any luck, as is usual, I will be leaving it a smoking wreckage of its former self with advertisers fleeing in droves and spam attacks on his website.
	I always get these things offered to me once.
	Just once.
	So, I wanted to mention that.
	You can do a search Corbett Report.
	And, James, do you know what the website is for that?
	If you find it.
	If you could let me know, that'd be great.
	But, again, I will be taking over the Corbett Report because he's on vacation.
	And he has the co-host sense of Cheestring.
	Also, I wanted to mention that in two weeks, count them, two weeks, on the 20th, we are going to try something kind of funky.
	We are having...
	A guest co-host, the charming and vivacious and brilliant Lorette Lynn will be joining us for co-hosting.
	So if you have questions about what a misogyny bastard I am, please direct them to Lorette.
	Actually, she's going to be answering questions about whatever's on your mind, though her specialty is education and homeschooling and so on.
	So I hope that you will check it out.
	It's corbettreport.com, C-O-R-B-E-T-T, report.com.
	And you might want to check me out.
	It starts at midnight, so I'm going to put on my young man's clothing, which doesn't fit anymore, of course, and pretend that I can stay out that light and still stay coherent.
	And look also for this week, I'm going to be posting a podcast that I did, hopefully answering once and for all why A stateless society will not create a power vacuum that will produce another state.
	Hopefully we can put this one behind us, although it seems unlikely.
	Anyway, that's it for me, the news, the weather, the reports, and I hope that, I know we have some listeners, so spreken Sie up to the stratosphere, and I will attention to catch a few raindrops of questions, and that's the end of that metaphor.
	Talk, if you have a question.
	Hi, how are you guys doing?
	Great, how are you doing?
	Good, thanks.
	I don't really have my question totally clear, so bear with me, but it's dealing with that I've been listening to a lot of people.
	Derek Jensen is one of them, and can you maybe just talk about, if you're familiar with him and his kind of stance on Love doesn't change anything.
	People coming from a place of love and the love isn't going to change the people that are building the dams and the infrastructure and the things that people are sort of fighting against.
	And then mixing that, of course, with the non-violence and then violence towards infrastructure versus violence towards people.
	Sorry, I can't get anything.
	Perhaps it's because I've only had a coffee today.
	I can't get anything coherent out of your questions.
	I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to comment on.
	Love can't change anything because of infrastructure.
	I'm sorry, can you try that again?
	Explain it to me like I'm three years old and be patient.
	Are you familiar with Derek Jensen?
	No.
	He's an environmentalist activist, and he criticizes people, or he bashes on people that come from a place of, oh, if we just come from a place of love that can fix everything.
	And, you know, he's saying, if you just are loving the people that are doing bad things, that's not going to change them from doing the bad things.
	Oh, yeah, okay.
	Well, of course that's true.
	Yeah, I mean, yeah, of course.
	I mean, that seems to me indisputable, and this is actually fairly factually known.
	You know, people who are doing bad things are doing so as a result of a combination of a number of things.
	A stressful environment within the mother's womb, abusive or neglected environment.
	Early childhood experiences and a continuation of the bad habits that sets in motion.
	Love does not go back and reduce the stress in the womb that they were growing in.
	Love does not go back and rewire their brain to produce a different personality or different mindset from their early childhood experiences.
	No, of course, of course.
	But love is one of these words, like, there are some words That people, they invoke like a magic spell of abject subjugation and foolishness.
	And they invoke this word, which is, some of it is God, some of it is the state, some of it is love, some of it is loyalty.
	They just, they use these words.
	And what they're basically saying is, I don't have a clue how to fix this problem, but this problem is making me anxious.
	And so I'm going to cough up like a cat coughs up a hairball.
	I'm going to cough up a word that is going to cover the supposed solution to this monstrous problem.
	And that word is going to make my anxiety go away while doing absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
	In fact, making the problem worse because the illusion of an answer, as I've always said, is worse than no answer at all.
	And so people say, well, how should we make bad people better?
	Love!
	And I mean, I'm not saying this is completely impossible.
	I mean, there are some, I think, prisons in the Netherlands where they Give prisoners more positive experiences, and that seems to have some effect.
	And certainly, you know, locking them in cages and so on is not, I think, particularly helpful in the long run, given the recidivism rate.
	But people don't know how to solve the problem of evil, and so they just create these words which are like magic spells to drive away the demons of stress and anxiety.
	And you see this all the time.
	People say, Who will build the roads?
	The state must build the roads.
	Well, I don't know how the roads are going to be built.
	I kind of need roads, so I'm going to invoke this magic world called the state.
	And that's designed to push the questions away.
	It's not designed to actually have an answer.
	It's just designed to push the questions away.
	And you hear this all the time, too, with things like family loyalty.
	You must be loyal to your family.
	Well, that eliminates the need for a moral examination of the family, which is kind of important.
	You know, I say the state...
	Sorry for the ramble, I'll stop in a second.
	I say the state is an effect to the family.
	Here's one example.
	The welfare state is not the welfare state.
	We call it the welfare state, we think it's aimed at the poor, but it's not the case.
	The welfare state is almost entirely devoted to single mothers.
	That is the welfare state.
	90% or more of welfare payments in the US go to single mothers.
	It's a single mother state, which is exactly what you would expect when You have families where one of the providers is not there or has been driven away or was not worthy of being a father to begin with.
	It doesn't remove the need for resources.
	If you get rid of one parent, all it means is that other people must be forced to provide the resources or at least are currently forced to provide the resources.
	And so, you know, people talk about the welfare state and it's really, it's around single motherhood.
	And, of course, single motherhood is a choice.
	It's not an absolute.
	It's not, you just happen to be born poor.
	Single motherhood is, I did not use birth control.
	And I had sex, probably more than once.
	And so it's different.
	People talk about the poor, and you get the sense of involuntariness, and that's why we need a welfare state, because there are just these sad-eyed poor people who just don't have a chance.
	But when you realize, of course, that the welfare state is 90% or more aimed at Single moms.
	And that's just the welfare state.
	We're not even talking about Medicare or I think, I can't remember which one's for the poor, Medicare or Medicaid.
	And, you know, public schools and public parks and all the other things that have to be paid for, subsidized housing, food stamps, all that.
	So the welfare state is the substitute daddy state because women are having children out of wedlock in record numbers and therefore everyone else has to pay and pay and pay and pay because the children are, economically speaking, Hostages which must be paid for and so that that changes the whole right once you understand that the vast majority of what the welfare state goes to is the voluntary choice to have children and usually more than one then you understand that I mean the state is an effect of the family
	you start having kids out of wedlock and suddenly you need a welfare state and of course you create once you start having lots of kids out of wedlock then you create a situation where The voters will start to want lots of subsidies for children because they don't have a debt around.
	Anyway, so, yeah, these sort of magical words that people cough up in an attempt to, quote, answer questions.
	Love is one of them and, you know, compassion is another one.
	The state, where did we come from?
	Well, I don't know.
	Let's just say God did it.
	Drive away the question.
	And a lot of what passes for thought is this, it's completely magical thinking.
	I've said a word and I've solved a problem.
	It's nonsense.
	Anyway, so I hope that is somewhat remotely useful or helpful, but that's my thoughts on it.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you.
	And I appreciate your rambling.
	Well, good, because there's more where that came from.
	Well, to tie on to that, then, can you maybe address, you know, property rights and the people that are, you know, breaking down the infrastructure from, you know, large corporations that are doing stuff to their property, but, you know, they're breaking stuff that's not their property, or is it their property?
	So, basically very radical.
	Can you give me an example?
	Oh, okay.
	I don't doubt you.
	I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
	Gosh.
	I mean, like, You could go to sort of fictitious things like blowing up bank buildings to the people that want to blow up dams that are causing salmon to not be able to run.
	Oh, do you mean the environmentalists who destroy property?
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, it's...
	It's not the right way to solve the problem, right?
	I mean, violence is, you know, except in an extremity of self-defense, violence is not the way to solve social problems.
	It's not the way to resist social problems.
	And the way to solve social problems is to promote voluntarism.
	That's the way.
	Because once you promote voluntarism, what happens is people suddenly become accountable for their own actions.
	Because there's this mistake that people make around the state.
	It's a very common mistake.
	They think, of course, that things like corporations, limited liability and so on, that this has something to do with the free market.
	But, of course, this has nothing to do with the free market.
	In the free market, if you were a polluter, then you would lose your house.
	The very first thing That people would go after would be your personal property if you were the CEO of a company that, say, spilled a whole bunch of oil in the Gulf.
	Of course, that's the only sensible way to do it.
	And these are the rules that we apply to little children.
	To little children.
	I mean, if we were to recreate corporations in school, it would be completely mad.
	What would happen is...
	Every grade that you got that was good would be yours, and every grade that you got that was bad, you would still get to keep your great grades, and you still get to maintain your high GPA, but everybody else's marks would go down proportionally, right?
	So if you got an A, you'd get to keep an A. And then if you got an F, then everyone else would get a B, and you'd still get to keep an A. If we tried to run the kindergarten the way that we run the economy, it would be revealed as sublimely ridiculous and farcical and comical.
	in about 30 seconds of thought because these rich guys they get to take all the profits out of the corporations that they want and then when the corporation does something bad they get to keep all their money and the quote corporation pays the bills of course there's no such thing as a corporation all that means is that employees get fewer raises fewer employees get hired some employees get laid off and or the prices of the commodities they sell goes up so the customers end up paying for the mistakes So you get to keep
	all the good stuff, and then whenever any bad stuff happens, everyone else gets to pay.
	So, you know, if this is the way it should work for adults, then of course this is how it should work for children.
	We have to prepare our children, you see, for life in the corporate world, for life in the modern fascistic pseudo-capitalist economy.
	We have to prepare them.
	We have to teach them that all the good things that happen, if you win the race, you get to keep the trophy.
	If you lose the race...
	You get to keep the trophy and stomp on everyone else's foot as well.
	It's just mad.
	It's completely mad.
	If we tried to run childhood the way that we run adulthood, we would very quickly see how ridiculous this was.
	So, yeah, I mean, look, you can't solve the problem blowing up stuff.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	It's embarrassing.
	It is what happens when people can't think.
	When people can't think, but they have a great deal of anxiety, they panic like a cornered rat and they lash out.
	But all they're revealing is their inability to reason or their cowardliness in the face of social disapproval of that reasoning.
	It's very easy.
	There used to be things in sort of Wall Street companies.
	They used to, until I think about 20 or 30 years ago, there used to be no shield between investment losses and the personal income of those in charge.
	And so if they lost a whole bunch of money, then their personal assets would be open to being sued.
	And of course, you know, as rich people want to do, they got the politicians to close that loophole, and then they went hog wild on the spending spree.
	Of course they did.
	What else would they do?
	So, this is all nuts.
	We expect children to be responsible for the grades that they earn, and if they study and get good grades, they get to keep those, and if they don't study and get bad grades, they have to live with the bad grades.
	But that's not how it works in the economy, right?
	Politicians can make promises.
	And they don't have to keep them.
	But, you know, I mean, I was cut from a swim team when I was a kid because I couldn't afford the $7 fee to join because we were broke.
	And it was like, well, okay.
	I wanted to join the swim team.
	We didn't have the money.
	And so I couldn't join the swim team.
	And I couldn't pay.
	And that was it.
	I was out.
	Politicians can make promises and commitments and break them at will.
	And See, they enforce contracts.
	They themselves are not subject to any contracts.
	And this is all just madness and nonsense.
	And, I mean, just think about it.
	How childhood would look if we tried to run it with the same ridiculous double standards we have for adults.
	You try proposing a school where all the kids who study get to keep their good grades, and all the kids who don't get to study get to keep their good grades, and the grades the kids who do study go down to make up for that.
	I mean, people would look at you like you were crazy, but then this is how we run our economy, and everyone thinks that this has something to do with the free market.
	Anyway.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Yeah.
	No, I like it.
	That's all I got, really, right now.
	Thanks for trying to pull a coherent question out of me.
	Yeah, well, thanks for not being able to achieve a coherent answer out of me.
	It's a good question.
	Thanks.
	All right, James.
	All right, take care.
	I'm adding a phone caller.
	Hello?
	Yes, sir, my friend.
	How are you?
	Hello, this is John.
	Hey, great.
	Yes, this is John.
	I'm in Philadelphia.
	How are you?
	I'm great.
	How are you doing?
	Okay, can you hear me?
	I just wanted to make sure.
	Okay, so first of all, I wanted to say that I've been following you on YouTube and the podcast, and I I've really been learning a lot about economic policy and actual capitalism instead of the sort of strange protectionism that we actually have.
	And I've been looking into all these practical anarchy, like actual free market kind of debates, like, well, what happens when you don't have patents and copy and all these things?
	And I wanted to share with you kind of like a...
	I guess it's sort of like an accidental experiment in practical, actual free markets.
	Okay, so we have sort of accidentally started a business, and this business provides a product, but at the same time, we're also providing 100% of the information necessary to our customers to choose to make this product themselves.
	So...
	And what's the website?
	Sorry.
	I don't accept advertisements except from listeners.
	So what's the website?
	And why don't you get this out to...
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	I'm not interested.
	I don't even want to mention what we do at all.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Get some business.
	It's good.
	I'm sorry?
	Why not?
	Get some business.
	I'm not calling to plug anything.
	No, no, but go ahead.
	I'm telling you to.
	Please.
	As a favor to me.
	Oh, uh...
	My name is John.
	I run a company called Philster Holsters, P-H-L-S-T-E-R, and we make custom holsters for people.
	Excellent.
	And the website?
	It's phlster.com.
	All right.
	I like it.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	You understand.
	It's selfish for me, right?
	You get more money, maybe you'll donate.
	It's the round trip of the generosity dollar.
	Go ahead.
	Right.
	So at the beginning of this project, I got a lot of concern from the people around me.
	Like, you should really stop teaching people how to make these things because you're going to put yourself out of business.
	And at the beginning, I didn't really have a concrete answer for why I had zero concern about that.
	But I said, you know what, I'm going to go ahead and keep doing it because I think there's probably something to this.
	I'm sorry to interrupt you.
	I just missed that bit where I just crackled a sec where you just said what the issue was.
	You could just repeat that?
	Initially, people presented their concerns to me that we should potentially stop teaching others how to make this product because we're essentially inventing our competition constantly.
	Early on, I didn't really have a concrete idea of why I disagreed with that necessarily.
	However, I proceeded to do it.
	I said, well, I'm not worried about that.
	I'm just going to keep doing it.
	Without any real good idea of why that would not actually be harmful.
	So we've proceeded along, and additionally, the same people bring the concerns to me about, well, you should really get involved in patenting or copywriting or trademarking these things.
	And I was thinking, well, we're already here.
	We're already doing this business.
	What would happen if I don't patent anything or don't copyright anything or don't go to the state to help enforce my own little miniature monopoly on these things and continue to Essentially, create my own competition every day by teaching people how to make the product they could be potentially buying.
	Just to share a data point with you in terms of what would happen if we didn't have all of these state-sponsored resources for protecting our businesses, I can prove you confidently that it doesn't make any difference at all.
	Not hypothetically, not theoretically, what would happen if we didn't do this.
	I can tell you that we've had a year of total unrelenting growth while receiving no kind of copyright protection and while receiving no kind of trademark protection.
	By sharing the technical information on how to produce these things yourself, We also get a lot of feedback from people who donate tools, equipment, and resources to us in order to, you know, that would help us produce our own products better, as well as share more information to more people to help them make their own products better.
	So I feel kind of vindicated insofar as you don't need the state to You know, protect your own little miniature monopoly on everything you do.
	And I feel...
	Well, sorry to interrupt.
	You do need the state to do that if you suck.
	Right, exactly.
	Right, you know, and I've had other people, you know, people in the industry who make a similar thing talk about, you know, patents and copywriting.
	You really, you know, like how...
	It is.
	I got it in my head that a patent is basically for people who are afraid they're only ever going to have one good idea and they need to hoard that idea.
	When, in fact, you have good ideas all the time and you should just run with them.
	You shouldn't get all your ideas and put them in a little box and beat everyone off the stick who comes near them.
	You just need to be confident that you're going to have another good idea and what's the worst thing that can happen if somebody looks at your idea and makes it better?
	And what's so bad about that?
	Like, you know, if you're confident in your product, you're confident that you can withstand some real competition.
	And real competition comes from people who look at what you're doing and make it actually a better product on their own.
	Yeah, thanks.
	I just want to mention a few things about competition because people who aren't...
	I'm sorry.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I'm sorry.
	You were breaking up really bad.
	I couldn't hear any of that.
	All right.
	Um...
	People who aren't sort of enlightened business owners often have a tough time understanding this.
	I mean, I was an entrepreneur in a field which was fairly unknown.
	And when new competitors would come along, I would be like, yay, thank you, thank you, thank you.
	First of all, if no one's competing with you, it's probably not a good business to be in.
	Because it means that not any other human being has ever thought about doing this at all.
	That's not good.
	Secondly, if other people are competing with you, what they're doing is they're educating the client that this market exists.
	If you have five competitors who are all out there sending out mailings so bad, why are they all together?
	If competition is so bad, why do you find more than one clothing store in a mall?
	Why would they just not go elsewhere?
	Because they don't want that.
	They want people who want to buy clothes to come and shop.
	For people who want to buy computer stuff, they know what the customers are going to do.
	They're going to say, well, I need a USB drive, so I'm going to walk up and down the street.
	It's going to be an outing.
	I'll have a coffee and I'm going to find who has what it is that I'm looking for.
	And maybe that are very similar, pick up some other stuff as well.
	So if competition was so bad, why do stores fit together?
	Why do you see a future shop across from a Best Buy?
	Because they want to be together.
	Competition is really good.
	Now, of course, there are a few situations where I'll go buy from one store and not the other, and that's not so great.
	But the reality is that these stores do much better by clustering.
	I've had people on this show talk about starting up their own podcasts and I've encouraged them to do it.
	If they want to do a philosophy podcast, here are some tips and suggestions that people have advertised for their own shows on my show.
	Of course, every time I go on a show, I publish it so that my listeners can hear other shows.
	We're not short of ears in the human race.
	I think there are about 12 billion to go around, and so we're okay.
	We're not going to run out of people to listen to.
	And of course, more people are coming into the marketplace every day.
	Every day, there are another potential 100,000 listeners to Free Domain Radio, so we're not going to run out.
	We're not going to be short.
	So I just really want to mention that.
	People don't understand too much about that.
	I think as an employee, it's different, right?
	Because as an employee, you don't get the job if the other guy gets the job.
	But it's great if you're a business owner.
	All right, James, I'm not sure what's going on.
	A lot of background noise here.
	Yeah, sorry.
	My call dropped.
	I think people are unmuted.
	Yeah, if you just called in, you need to mute.
	It's kind of distracting trying to talk with that going on.
	It's hard for me to tell where it's coming from.
	Yeah, competition is essential, right?
	I mean, all the news programs go on at like 6 o'clock, right?
	Why won't they stagger so there's no competition because that's when people want the news, they want to go at the same time.
	Competition is really healthy and really important.
	I wish that there were more shows that did what I do.
	I think that would be fantastic.
	It would generate a real desire for people to look into wide-ranging philosophy shows and that would, you know, I would love for people to compare my show with all the other shows.
	I would love to be a little bit less unique.
	I think that would be fantastic.
	I would get to learn from other shows and, of course, the other shows I've really liked.
	You know, like Mark Stevens' show, like Brett Bernat's show, like Free Talk Live.
	The other shows that I really like, I try and promote as much as possible, cross-promote.
	I think it's fantastic.
	I don't feel somebody's going to go to Free Talk Live.
	They're never going to donate to me.
	It's like, no, that's great.
	Go.
	Go, go, go.
	I mean, I understand the sort of copyright thing, but You know, I genuinely believe that if you start focusing on enforcing copyright, you turn into a different kind of animal completely.
	I want to focus on creating the best, most compelling, most original, most exciting, most challenging, most exciting, most terrifying, most exhilarating show that I can possibly do.
	Now, if I were to chase around the internet, trying to find everyone who's copied my work and adapted it and done this, that, and the other, Then I could do that.
	And that would be playing whack-a-mole from here to eternity.
	You don't solve that kind of problem.
	All that happens is people are anonymized.
	They go to BitTorrent.
	They put it up on Usenet.
	You'll never, ever finish that ridiculous chase.
	But it would turn me into somebody who had a different relationship with humanity as a whole.
	To a different kind of person, I would be fundamentally saying to myself that I need to keep a death grip on the past, not open arms to the future.
	It would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	I'm afraid of having good new ideas, so I'm going to view everyone as an enemy and chase everyone with lawyers.
	Hey, what do you know?
	I'm not having any more good ideas.
	Anyway, I hope that helps.
	I want to make sure we get to the call.
	We've got a bunch, but I appreciate your call in.
	It's really, really an important point to clarify.
	All right.
	Next up, we have Sleepy Salsa.
	Hey!
	Welcome back.
	Hey, Stefan.
	It's your favorite reluctant minarchist back for you.
	I did want...
	Yeah, that's...
	I see a reluctant condiment.
	Anyway, go on.
	Exactly.
	Well, today I wanted to ask you something that I've been noticing from my other, you know, constitutionalist buddies and something I'm kind of dealing with personally, too.
	But I think it's coming down to pretty much this one question.
	So and I figured you're the best man for the job.
	Stefan, does homesteading principle apply to the nation state?
	I don't know.
	Tell me more about your definitions of these things that make sure you're on the same page.
	Well, from my understanding, the homesteading principle was this notion that if you basically go and improve on a plot of land, then it becomes yours.
	You don't have to get like a title deed from the government or anything like that.
	You can just go and improve it, or at least that's how it is in principle.
	And usually the homesteading principle is usually thought of in context of Like individuals.
	So like me going out and clearing brush and planting crops.
	And also a lot of other things too, obviously, like setting up factories and doing the entrepreneurial thing, starting my own business in a brand new area, whatever the case is.
	What's interesting is that we hear a lot of rhetoric from the patriot community about securing the borders, especially the southern border.
	But of course, that only really makes sense if the nation state, our local tax farm, if you will, even if the homesteading principle even applies to it.
	So that's where I was really more coming from and at.
	I'm sorry, I'm still not sure.
	Is the question, does the government have the right to homestead a nation?
	Yes, I believe that's kind of what I'm getting at.
	Well, let's start with anal sex.
	There's another one for the remix.
	No, no, I mean this in all seriousness.
	When people start talking about property...
	Then we have to start with the body.
	Because that's the easiest place for people to understand what property is.
	So property is, of course, the right of exclusive use, right?
	Now, let's say that I'm gay.
	I know it's not a huge stretch for some people to imagine, but let's say that I'm the fruity side of the rainbow and I really like anal sex.
	So it's my butt, obviously, right?
	And I've homesteaded it, I've wiped it, I've cleaned it, I've treated it with tender care.
	Eventually, of course, I will have cameras put up and so on.
	But I have grown and nurtured and taken good care of my butt.
	I don't even use toilet paper.
	I use wipes because they're just soft and nice.
	Now, clearly, I have the right to say, no, you cannot put things in my butt.
	No, Eddie Murphy, you cannot even boogie in my butt.
	But please, I have the right, obviously, of homesteading my own butt.
	Is that fair to say?
	Yes, I think so, yeah.
	You were taking care of it, improving it, etc., yeah.
	Right.
	So, clearly the government cannot homestead my ass.
	Right?
	Because we can't have competing claims, right?
	Thumkai can't just say, I now own all the asses in the world and I can put whatever I want up them, right?
	I mean, he can, but that's just not a very valid claim, right?
	Yeah.
	And this, of course, is what the whole concept of rape is all about, you know?
	Foreign contaminant, right?
	I have a foreign object in my body that I did not want there, that I did not approve of, and that's the crime of rape, whether it's two male or a female, right?
	Right.
	And so once we understand that you can't hack out my kidney with an axe, you can't cut off my tongue, you can't take one of my eyeballs even if you're missing two, you can't insert things into my body without my permission, this is self-ownership.
	This is, of course, where property rights come from.
	Because there's no fundamental difference between my kidney and my crops.
	But just because it's inside my body, it doesn't have any fundamental...
	This is still something that I've fed, I've grown.
	Like, if I've got a cow and I've got a kidney, these are both things that I've had to feed and maintain, right?
	Yeah.
	So...
	Should I read off any of these comments from the chat room?
	I know, the guys in the chat room are just going to town, man.
	It's awesome.
	You know, I... You know, in this show, I have several times experienced Forks in the Road where it's like, well, this is my thought.
	Should I really share it?
	And I've decided that self-expression is the better part of good taste.
	So I've gone with that.
	Anyway, so when it comes to property, I don't really like to talk about intellectual property or homesteading taxes or anything like that.
	I like to talk about my ass.
	I mean, who doesn't really like to talk about my ass?
	Although very few people have seen it because I'm a heads up kind of no pants show.
	But yeah, so one human being cannot arbitrarily say that he now has the right of property over everyone else or everything else, right?
	Right.
	This is the fundamental flaw with things like property taxes.
	And property taxes is, I bought my house, but I still have to rent it from the government.
	In other words, the government fundamentally owns it.
	I have to pay the bank and I have to pay the government to squat.
	We're all squatters.
	We're all renters, right?
	The government can just take our stuff away, right, if we don't pay them off.
	We own stuff like A restaurant owner owns stuff in a mafia district where he's paying protection money.
	He owns it as long as the mafia decides not to burn it down or just take it from him or kill him or whatever, right?
	And so because no individual human being can just go and homestead other stuff, and this is a fundamental UPP fail, right?
	Because if you're going to say there's a moral rule, then by definition, the moral rule has to apply to everyone all the time, right?
	If you have a rule of physics, it has to apply to all matter, not just all blue matter.
	And so you felt it's very clear.
	If one being right to homestead everything, then all human beings have the right to homestead everything, right?
	So let's say there's an unwanted dick.
	I'm coming towards my ass because the dick guy says, I own your ass.
	Well, I say, well, I own your dick, so I'm going to move it away.
	It's like the taxation argument.
	If one human being has the right to arbitrarily impose unilateral contracts on everyone else, then everyone has that right and there's no such thing as taxation because some guy comes up to me and says, I tax you for $10,000 and say, well, I have the right too.
	I tax you for $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, it doesn't matter.
	We still both have the right to impose unilateral contracts on each other which means none of those things can be enforced.
	It cannot be achieved if it is universal.
	If it cannot be achieved if it is universal, it ain't moral, it ain't good, it ain't UPB. So there is no individual who has the right to homestead everyone else because if it's a moral principle, then everyone has that right and it fails.
	Okay, well then the follow-up to that stuff would be for people who are concerned about especially the southern border because there are some legitimate problems such like with criminal drug cartels going around and beheading ranchers in Arizona.
	Of course, you won't hear that in the mainstream media, but there are reliable reports about stuff like that and a bunch of other things too.
	How would people who actually live there, not people who are up in Minnesota proselytizing about it, but people, especially on the southern border, who are suffering from the effects of You know, violence against the physical violence against them by like street level cartel gangs, then what should be done?
	You know, because, you know, your run of the mill constitutionals will say that, oh, you know, the federal government needs to engage in their proper constitutional powers and secure the southern border, which, of course, they won't.
	But then obviously, if we're coming at this from a more voluntary perspective, it's kind of a moot point.
	So what I was kind of trying to ascertain is what can be done when you have a bunch of violent trespassers traipsing across your property and committing all sorts of harm.
	Well, that's a great question.
	That's a great question.
	And my answer would be something along these lines.
	Do you know throughout the entire 19th century, you could buy cocaine in Coca-Cola?
	They stole cocaine for like a nickel to children in drug stores all over the United States.
	You could buy opiates, narcotics, morphine, you name it.
	No controls, no protection.
	You didn't have to have a prescription.
	Just go buy it.
	And were there drug cartels coming across from Mexico and attacking ranchers?
	Well, maybe not back then, yeah.
	Well, no.
	Where were the drug gangs when you could buy cocaine in pop?
	Why are there no caffeine gangs coming across the Mexican borders and, you know, in a very jittery way, hacking everyone up?
	Well, caffeine is legal.
	I mean, the government allows that particular substance, but they quote-unquote criminalized or otherwise say that this is outlawed, meaning these quote-unquote illegal drugs, heroin, cocaine, hemp, and the rest of it.
	Yeah.
	Violence begets violence.
	This is the oldest, most fundamental lesson of human interaction.
	Violence begets violence.
	And so if you're seeing private violence that is escalating, the first place you need to look is public violence.
	And my guess would be, I mean, if I had one of these ranchers, maybe one of them would call into the show, say, oh, that's terrible.
	These drug gans are currently coming across your property.
	Do you have sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of Americans arrested and jailed for the completely nonviolent defense of drug use?
	And do you support the legalization of drugs?
	Now, if they support the legalization of drugs, fantastic.
	Huge sympathy.
	If they don't, then you reap what you sow.
	If you support the violence of the state against your fellow citizens, it will come back to you.
	You know, everyone who approves of taxation is, to some degree, depending on whether they've heard the arguments or not, morally responsible, For the tens of millions of deaths directly caused by U.S. foreign policy throughout the years.
	That's 30 million people killed, right?
	That's five holocausts.
	That is almost, that's three-quarters of World War II. Because remember, the Nazis were really, really bad.
	The Nazis killed, what, 10, 15 million people?
	Well, the U.S. is two to three times that.
	If you support the state, if you support taxation, then you are supporting violence, theft, predation, inflation, the selling off of the unborn, all kinds of things like that.
	And if you then complain about the boomerang effect, about blowback, then it's hard to understand how you could really complain about that.
	I support the Mafia.
	I love the Mafia.
	The Mafia is great.
	The Mafia is essential.
	Without the Mafia, there is no order.
	I can't believe these thugs shot my dog.
	Well, this is cause and effect.
	If you push that wrecking ball, it's going to become swinging back.
	So, if they are anarchists, then good for them.
	They have the moral right to oppose.
	But, If they support the state, look, it's blowback.
	I have less and less sympathy for people now who continue to support the state.
	We've had these arguments around for hundreds of years.
	The arguments that violence is wrong have been around for thousands of years.
	The arguments that stated them as violence have been around for hundreds of years.
	And with the rise of prominence of shows like this, thank you supporters and listeners, and other shows that are promoting this very same idea, Well, a third of Americans claim to have read Atlas Shrugged.
	And I don't believe that a third of Americans are even minarchists, let alone anarchists.
	And so if you don't Voice out your opposition to the violence in society if you let state-sucking, state-spouting, propagandize, propeller-head, toady-ass clowns dominate the discussions that you're in if you don't stand up for what you believe in.
	When people say bullshit that gets other people killed, imprisoned, incarcerated, raped, well, then you are the state.
	And you have a greater moral responsibility if you have a greater knowledge and fail to act on it.
	You have a greater responsibility, a greater moral responsibility than those who don't know us yet.
	All right.
	Well, hey, thanks, Stefan.
	I know you have a lot of other folks to get to, but I did want to at least get that across for today just because, as you can kind of tell, the whole issue of securing the borders has been a big, big issue in the Patriot community because they seem to kind of focus on that.
	I've been doing a bunch of other stuff trying to figure out, like, how can we have, like, third-party arbiters?
	I mean, there was stuff going back in the 90s with, like, common law courts and even stuff going back before them.
	And it's good to see a resurgence of that, like with DROs or whatever.
	But that was kind of the other issue, is how do you deal with basically the illegal immigrants?
	And the problem is that some of them are innocent people that are just desperate, who are trying to leave the fleeing narco trafficking hellhole that's Mexico.
	But then other ones are full blown violent criminals like the cartels and everything else.
	So and then, of course, the mainstream media, which is very statist, will say that anybody who doesn't love who is otherwise against illegal immigration is, you know, some sort of xenophobic, crazy person or whatever.
	And so it's been kind of interesting seeing a lot of reactions from both libertarians and various other types of dissidents as far as the border issue goes, because obviously some people want their borders.
	But then you also have to consider about how the role of the initiation of violence plays out.
	So I would like to thank you very much for taking my question today.
	Well, you're welcome.
	And I think one of the things that causes the repetition of violence, and this is, of course, not my idea.
	It's a very old idea.
	One of the things that causes the repetition of violence is those who do not accept and understand their history are condemned to repeat it, as Diana said.
	America still has a blind spot to the decimation of the locals.
	And like the Native Americans, the Indians or whatever you want to call them, who were here when the white settlers came and who died by the tens of millions in something that I think is fair to say was not quite genocide, but it wasn't exactly peaceful coexistence.
	This is something that is not talked about much in Western culture.
	It has a huge impact on US thinking.
	This fear of immigration is, I think, is tied into this blindness over this.
	I mean, there's a lot of these things in history, right?
	Jews are incensed and outraged and upset about the Holocaust as well.
	They should be.
	Absolutely.
	Completely and totally right.
	And Germans get blamed as a collective and somehow Palestinians ended up taking the blame or getting punished for what the Germans did, which makes, of course, zero sense outside the realm of crazy religion.
	But you can't Get the Jewish community to really acknowledge or talk about.
	In fact, I've rarely seen it talked about.
	You can find Winston Churchill has written about this a bunch of times and other people, but you really can't get the Jewish community to talk about the degree to which Jewish intellectuals unleashed the plague of communism.
	On the world and the degree to which the Jewish intellectuals, particularly in Russia, ran the communist genocide against the Christians and the Kulaks and the degree to which that warped and distorted things in the history of the 20th century, particularly around the Second World War.
	I mean, there's so many things you just can't talk about.
	Because we're all about managing effects.
	Managing effects is not that controversial.
	But when you start talking about root causes, things become very controversial very quickly.
	And, you know, we're kind of all taught to get along and to suppress conflict, which kind of makes sense.
	When you live in a society without philosophy, the only way that you can pretend to manage conflict is to squelch dissenters.
	It's religion versus science.
	Science, you can manage conflict by appeal to the scientific method.
	Who wins?
	Well, the guy who's...
	The theory actually predicts and describes the behavior of matter and or energy.
	It's pretty easy.
	How do you figure out the allocation of goods in a free market?
	It's pretty easy.
	Supply and demand, movement of money and so on.
	That's how you figure these things out.
	But the moment you put central planners in place, then you can't figure any of these things out in any objective or rational way, and so it becomes a war of all against all.
	You can't solve these things.
	In the absence of an objective methodology, you can't solve any human conflicts at all.
	All you can do is manipulate and attack and ostracize and slander, and you can't solve these problems.
	And so, yeah, I mean, when you start to look at the problems of immigration and the problem, of course, immigration is just a made-up word.
	It just means moving.
	All that people do is move.
	Immigration is just a, you know, immigration is to moving as taxation is to theft.
	It's just a cover-up word designed to make you think that there's something different going on than what there really is.
	So, yeah, you just start looking for root causes and look at where the violence is that's not seen.
	Everybody wants to play whack-a-mole with the violence that shows up that's personal, but it's the impersonal violence of the state that causes all these things.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	Thank you very much.
	Great, great question.
	Great issue.
	Next up, we have Chris.
	Hey, Stefan.
	Hello, hello.
	Alright, well I recently found myself in a discussion with a statist about free markets vs.
	state vs.
	morality, etc., etc., and usually I handle them rather well.
	I usually just rehash things you've said, adding my own not as clever wording, but it usually works just fine.
	So, but this one, I don't think I did the best possible, so I want to throw it at you to see how you would, you know, answer it as the anarchist, free market, blah, blah, blah.
	I'm sorry, if it's any consolation, I also get 20-20 hindsight.
	Oh, I should have said this.
	Oh, I should have said that.
	So I understand, sympathize, it happens to me as well.
	All right, so I'll be the statist here.
	Hey, Stefan, how you doing?
	I hear you.
	Good, how you doing?
	Economics and anarchy.
	Oh, fun.
	So in 1792, there were only six slave states in the South.
	And that's because slaves, they worked on like tobacco, rice, blah, blah, blah.
	And then in the free market, this little fella named Eli Whitney created the cotton gin.
	Free market, cotton, alternative, etc.
	And then suddenly, rapidly, the government turned into 15 slave states with 80,000 surplus in slaves.
	And it was the government who stopped the importation, not the free market.
	So what do you say to that, Mr.
	Moral Anarchist?
	I think that's a great issue.
	Let me make sure I understand this.
	1793.
	One of my favorites of the 1790s.
	1793, the cotton ginny was invented and that made owning slaves more profitable.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, because it opened up the cotton market to slaves because before it was unprofitable.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And so your feeling is that because there was a free market invention that made slaves more valuable, it was sort of the free market that caused the spread of slavery, is that right?
	In the United States, yeah.
	Okay.
	And who caught the slaves and brought them back if they escaped?
	Obviously, it was entrepreneurs who were taking advantage of the slave owner's reward money.
	No, I don't think that's the case.
	Who enforced that that was a legal thing to do?
	Okay, well, I mean, government always enforces property, right?
	And slaves were just property.
	Like, if I lose my cat, you're not allowed to just pick it up and take it.
	The government would say, hey, give him back his cat.
	Right, so if a slave escaped, you may call a bounty hunter, but you would also call your local sheriff, right?
	And you'd say, you know, Kunta Kinte has chewed through his chains and made a getaway.
	And then what would happen?
	Well, obviously he would be returned.
	Well, the state would try and catch him, right?
	Absolutely, and punish anyone who helped him.
	Right.
	So what does that have to do with the freedom?
	If the state is forcing people to pay for the capture of slaves and forcing people to pay for the punishment of anyone who is running some sort of underground railroad and trying to help slaves get out of wherever they are, how is that a free market phenomenon?
	Just help me understand that.
	Well, because the slave owners would still have been able to do it without the government.
	That was very minuscule compared to putting up...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no.
	Come on, we get into that.
	If my wife leaves me, can I call the government to go and bring her back and punish any shelter or anyone who gives her a roof over her head?
	I suppose not.
	Wait, sorry.
	When you say you suppose not, do you mean that there's a doubt about that for you?
	No.
	No, there's not.
	You're right.
	Okay, so here we have a legal situation that is closer to something moral, right?
	I mean, it's still the government, but it's closer to something moral in that I cannot treat my wife as a slave.
	Yeah.
	I mean, unless we're doing some elaborate John Carter role play, say tonight around 8, 8.15, 8.30, let's say.
	No, 8.30 will be done.
	Anyway, so I can't ask the government to treat my wife as property and therefore, sorry, I can't ask the government to treat my wife as property or as a pet.
	And so on, right?
	Yes.
	And that is closer to a moral situation.
	We understand that.
	It was not moral for the government to treat human beings as property of others, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	So the government was doing something extremely immoral, which allowed for slavery.
	Yeah, but they stopped the importation of slaves in 1808, Stephan.
	The government did.
	Yeah.
	And why did they do that?
	Because it was immoral, and slaves were filling up everywhere, obviously.
	Well, maybe, and I don't know why the hell they stopped the importation of slaves.
	My first guess would be that everyone who had slaves didn't want there to be more slaves, because that would raise the value of their existing slaves.
	Or, you know, not status perspective.
	Now, they were worried that the South would get too wealthy, buy out Congress, or like with the Three-Fifths Compromise, you know, too many slaves would just give them voting power.
	It was not out of morality.
	It was about maintaining some power dichotomy.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, so let's sit back into it.
	So the government was doing something unbelievably immoral by initiating the use of force against people attempting to escape enslavement.
	And initiating the use of force against anyone who helped them, and initiating the use of force to pay for all of this enforcement and protection, and initiating the use of force to uphold these unholy contracts around human ownership and enslavement.
	And so, with the government doing all of this unbelievably evil and immoral stuff all over the place, in every transaction involving the human ownership of slaves, you still somehow believe this is a free market issue.
	They just, yes, absolutely.
	But I feel better now because I made this exact argument almost word for word.
	So that vindicates me a little bit internally.
	But what did this guy say to that?
	Well, he then brought up how, well, slavery continued until reluctant Lincoln stopped it in the Civil War in 1860.
	And so, yeah, that's the next follow-up.
	Stefan, it was not the free market or morality or public awareness that ended the slavery.
	It was the state, reluctantly admittedly, but they came in with the guns and they stopped this immoral evil.
	So your argument is that the government decided to end slavery and destroyed Massive areas in the South caused the death, murdered, really, 600,000 people, and that this was the right way to solve the problem of slavery.
	Well, maybe not the right way, but it was the only way.
	I mean, slavery had been going on for thousands of years.
	Plato talked about ending slavery.
	Philosophy just was not getting the job done, quite frankly.
	And so, is it your contention that Other countries which ended slavery did so in a way that was so unbelievably violent and destructive.
	Okay, see, when I brought that up, he never responded to me on the issue of the Civil War game.
	Because I brought up Europe, I was like, well, they didn't, you know, kill half their population in Europe to end slavery.
	They just stopped subsidizing it.
	The government stopped making it, you know, profitable.
	And then they just, there was no massive murder.
	And I never got a response to that.
	So, that was...
	Yeah, look, I mean, you don't solve the problem of slavery with the draft.
	I mean, this is crazy.
	Yeah, that's like stopping communism, you know, government control, by saying, you know what, I'm going to force all these people in this military to go fight them.
	What?
	Seems rude.
	Yeah, I mean, the idea that you're some poor farm kid, and in order to, even if we accept the argument that this was all to end slavery, which is, of course, bullshit, I mean, it was just about the extension of federal power over the recalcitrant South, who wanted to secede, um...
	And, I mean, the idea that you go stick guns in some farm boy's face and you say, here, you've got to go and get a horrible infection by your leg blowing off in a cannonball where we've got not enough food for you.
	You'll march for days.
	Not enough water.
	You're going to get sick.
	You're going to die.
	And if you get back, you'll be a shattered husk of a man.
	And we're doing this all to protect human life and liberty.
	From government control and so on.
	I mean, it's completely mad.
	At least the slave owners didn't send their slaves to war.
	And they didn't play games about it.
	They admitted, okay, it's a prick move, but I own it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It wasn't, you know, we're going to heroically go and defend all of these, you know, benighted heathens and, well, I mean, no.
	I mean, you cannot solve the problem of slavery by enslaving people for war.
	You can't solve the problem of agricultural slavery through violent slavery.
	I mean, this is just ridiculous.
	And anyone who makes that argument is just so propagandized, they can't tell their ass from a sunspot.
	Well, thank you, Stefan.
	I mean, I didn't convey it as articulate as you, but it was the same basic point.
	I feel so much better right now.
	I'm an OMG. Tom DeLorenzo, as somebody's mentioned, yeah, check out Lincoln unmasked, which is a little more dramatic than the Shroud of Turin comes down.
	Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves he had control of within the Union, but he emancipated the slaves he had no control of in the Confederate Southern states.
	That makes no sense.
	Yeah, but it makes perfect sense if you want to destabilize the Southern states.
	It makes perfect sense if you want to divert resources from war to slave control.
	If you lob the Emancipation Declaration into the areas you have no control of, it's a disruptive maneuver.
	There's nothing to do with virtue or ethics.
	It's like calling yourself a doctor because you're catapulting somebody with a buonic plague into a town you're laying siege to.
	No, it's just a disruptive move or technique.
	Well, thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	Awesome times had by all.
	All right.
	Thanks, man.
	Good call.
	Have a good one.
	Andy!
	You are sweet as Andy.
	You are my sugar candy.
	Hello?
	Andy is not up yet because she's not on.
	He or she is not on.
	So I'm calling them again.
	While we're waiting, we have Strelvin on lines.
	The?
	The Strelvin?
	The Strelvin.
	Double A? Uh-huh.
	Hello?
	Oh, Stroudin.
	Hello.
	Thank you.
	Hmm.
	All right.
	Is it time for an Izzy story?
	Yeah, it's time for an Izzy story.
	Izzy story and questions from the chat.
	Okay, so in the continuing adventures of Izzy and UPB. Ah!
	Kids are smart.
	So Izzy Bella, of course, is still going through her saying no to things quite a lot and quite vociferously and so on, which I actually, I think is actually pretty damn adorable.
	But anyway, so we were in the car the other day and She asked something from Christina, and Christina had to say no, and she said no very nicely and explained why.
	And Isabella said, but Mama, it's not nice to say no.
	And of course, you know, I jumped on that and said, oh, how interesting, Isabella.
	Are you saying it's not nice to say no?
	Yeah, it's not nice to say no.
	Well, you say no quite a bit.
	How does that work?
	There was this long pause, and then Isabella said, It's not nice for Mama to say no, because Mama likes to say yes.
	I was like, ooh, that's good.
	That's so good.
	I can't believe I'm being trolled by my three-year-old.
	I just thought that was brilliant.
	I mean, what a wonderful wriggle-out of UPB. And, you know, when you see UPB discussions, you see this stuff coming up all the time, which tells you, of course, where people had their emotional challenges and perhaps got stuck.
	But that's a wonderful, wonderful Answer.
	And I just admire that so much because we're moving it from a statement of universal ethics, it's not nice to say no, to a statement of personal appropriateness according to aesthetic preferences.
	In other words, it's not right for mama to say no because mama likes to say yes, so she's not following her own preferences.
	I mean, that is just brilliant.
	And that a three-year-old can do that, it just absolutely blows my gourd.
	Yes, we're back.
	Well, it's, you know, it's a tough call.
	You can see, I mean, I think generally sight is better than blindness.
	And you can see, you can negotiate, you can navigate, you can work to try and illuminate.
	But, you know, you're there for the duration, certainly worth getting your high school diploma.
	But you can focus on the fact-based disciplines, you know, math and science and so on, and stay away from some of the softer kind of Propagandistic kind of situations.
	Let's see.
	I'm an anarchist.
	And I, Ron Paul supporter.
	I like that.
	That sounds like something that would be, you know, if he were able to You know, just muster the Neanderthal vote.
	They would be holding up those signs.
	I, Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul supporter.
	Lately rationalizing the contradiction.
	I know the state is immoral, and yet I'm advocating for the use of the political system to get my guy elected because I believe he will do good.
	This has been on my mind more because Ron Paul has been racking up delegates.
	So what does Steph take?
	Steph's take on my only type moral philosophical dilemma.
	Boo!
	Boo!
	Philosopher not support the Ron Paul.
	He is double plus and good.
	Small government leads to bigger government.
	Look, it's...
	The guy educates people.
	He's a smart guy, you know.
	But he just breaks people out of one matrix into another matrix.
	He breaks people out of statism into libertarianism.
	And these will not solve the problems of violence.
	The problem of violence is not caused by a lack of information about virtue.
	The problem of statism is not caused by a lack of information about freedom.
	I've written about this extensively before, but if the most knowledgeable nutritionists were the fattest people, we would never imagine that more knowledge about nutrition would make people thinner.
	Let me say this again.
	It's a very important point to get across.
	If the most knowledgeable, wise, accurate and true and compelling and popular nutritionists were the fattest people, I would never imagine that getting people to read books on nutrition would make them thin.
	Because the people who know the most about nutrition are the fattest.
	Understand?
	Just sit with that metaphor for a sec and understand that.
	It doesn't make the case as far as the politics go, but just understand that.
	Those who are the most knowledgeable about nutrition are the fattest.
	Well, how does that translate?
	You and I will most likely never get degrees, post-doctorates and maybe post-doctorate education in free market economics.
	But there are very many economists around the world who strongly support, in fact, over 90% of economists strongly support, say, free trade and lowering restrictions on the free movements of goods and services, if not eliminating them completely.
	This is an absolutely mainstream, you know, can't get any more consensus in the social sciences than that.
	And yet, Not only do most economists grab hold of a professorship if they can, including the free market ones, but there's not any general recognition of this as an unbelievably hypocritical move.
	Quality, you see, and virtue is produced by the free movement of goods and services.
	I want a monopoly for myself so that I don't have to compete with other people so I can get tenure, so I can, you know, sit on my lazy entitled free market ass.
	Ron Paul Shovels bucket loads of money from the federal government back to his constituents.
	And he knows the most about how bad this is and how wrong this is.
	And so you cannot, you cannot call for sacrifices from other people that you are unwilling to make yourself.
	Right?
	It's like the line that Lord Farquaad has in Shrek.
	Some of you will have to face this dragon.
	Many of you may die.
	But that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
	It's like, well, no, you're not making the sacrifice.
	And so, if Ron Paul thinks that government funding and spending should be cut, he knows it's going to cause enormous hardship around the world, around America, and so on, and even around the world.
	And...
	So he's calling for people to undergo great hardship in order to reduce the size and power of the state.
	Well, the first people that he needs to call on to do that are his own constituents, yet he's unwilling to do that.
	So you see, it's sacrifice for everyone else, but not for me, and not for the people who support me.
	Well, okay.
	This just tells you all you need to know about the situation.
	It tells you all you need to know about the situation.
	One of the worst things that could happen to be freedom would be for the minarchist position to get in.
	Because minarchism leads to maximism, right?
	The tiny state leads to the most enormous state.
	If you are standing on a spring, this is a pretty good metaphor.
	So let's say You're standing on a giant spring that is slowly, it's at the top, it's slowly uncoiling and pushing you higher and higher and higher.
	And you say, I really need for someone to get me off this giant spring that is moving me up into the sky.
	And you get a bunch of libertarians and Ron Paul supporters and whoever, some anarchists and so on.
	And they jump on your spring and then they put boat anchors and wrecking balls and Michael Moore and Newt Gingrich and all these other massive objects on the spring.
	And the spring slowly creaks and begins to go down.
	Well, what's happening is you're building up a huge amount of potential energy in that spring.
	And what will happen is you will get that spring down by about 90%.
	Let's say you can get that spring down by about 90%.
	What's happened is you've got this enormous amount of energy coiled up in the spring, which will never hold.
	Because as you push the spring down, the resistance and the potential energy that's stored up within, the spring is about to give, is about to go.
	Spring!
	Up goes the spring in some hellfire solar flare of slinky propulsion madness.
	And all that happens is you go way higher than you ever did before.
	You understand?
	As long as you have the spring called the state, you can tamp it down, you can weigh it down with the constitution and minarchism and whatever you want to do.
	But all you're doing is creating more energy to push the state even bigger.
	That's, for me at least, pretty incontroversial, historically.
	Remember how, boy, for those who are, I guess, in their 40s, remember how dangerous Japan was?
	Oh, Japan!
	Where's the Asian tiger?
	There were movies made about it.
	But George Bent, I think, from...
	I remember seeing this one.
	There was, you know, some Japanese company comes to some Detroit...
	Area to make cars takes over a car, and they all start to work the Japanese style, and they're all, you know, it's a bit of racism, and, oh, it's learning to live with these new cultures, and so on.
	Japan was going to beat the West.
	It was going to just toast us all, because it was so productive, so powerful, such great management style, so efficient, so safety conscious, so, such high quality.
	They're going to toast us all.
	And what happened?
	Well, Japan is now mired in greater than 200 percent See, they were very productive.
	They pushed that spring down.
	The government got smaller and smaller and smaller after the Second World War.
	Boing!
	Up it comes, right?
	Ireland, the Irish tiger, were luring all of these companies over to Ireland and was going to, you know, just wreck, take a wrecking ball to all the other economies, and it was just going to take off and this and that.
	What happened?
	Well, the government got smaller and smaller, just pushed that spring down.
	Boing!
	Up comes the And now the government got even bigger, and now young people again for the 1200th time in 1200 years are fleeing Ireland to other places.
	And you could go on and on, but you understand this is all that happens.
	Government gets smaller and smaller, the spring gets pushed down, bling, and you end up even higher and higher.
	After the Middle Ages, after the Enlightenment, the Renaissance and so on, Renaissance and Enlightenment, The Enlightenment thinkers got together and said, we're going to push this spring all the way down.
	And we're going to call this spring America.
	We're going to push this spring all the way down.
	Squish it all the way down.
	You now have the very biggest government that has ever existed in the history of the fucking world.
	With the most destructive power, the power to destroy life on this planet many, many, many times over.
	That is what happens when you push the spring down to the minimalist state called the American Constitutionist Republic.
	Forget about pushing the spring down.
	Forget about pushing the spring down.
	You know, people say, well, I'd rather have one toe cut off than my hand cut off, and that's why I vote for small.
	No, all that's happening is you're pushing the spring down.
	Even if you could, of course, the spring doesn't, even if you could, and there have been times where it's gone down, even if you could, all you're doing is you're building up even further energy because what happens is when the government gets smaller, when the spring goes down, productivity increases, the government uses that as leverage to borrow against.
	It uses the productivity of citizens as collateral to borrow and bribe and expand and grow.
	And you end up with a far bigger state than before it was pushed down.
	So, no.
	No.
	You cannot push down this spring without creating an unbelievable catapult into the cumulus clouds of monstrous statism.
	No.
	You're going to step off the spring.
	Forget managing the spring.
	You can't.
	It's either going up or you're pushing it down.
	It's going to go up even more.
	Forget it.
	Forget it.
	Step off.
	Step off.
	All right.
	We have 39 minutes.
	Unless we don't.
	Unless we decide to go over.
	There was a pretty good question in the chat.
	Let me go find it.
	Somebody has noticed, he says, I've noticed the frightening trend of popular movies that are being critically acclaimed for idolizing and glamorizing child murder.
	Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Twilight, all monster hits, but all predicated on child violence.
	What is happening to movies these days?
	I'm sure one has to only think for a moment they'll couple up a dozen on their own without even trying.
	Why do you think this trend is building so fast?
	Well, it's fear of retribution, of course, right?
	Look, Those we aggress against, we fear.
	Right?
	Those we aggress against, we fear.
	And a huge amount of what passes for culture and art in society is an expression of that fear.
	Now, the boomers, the other generation, what have they done?
	They've sold off the young to avoid conflicts among themselves.
	The people in the private sector, the boomers, were facing the people in the public sector since the 70s.
	The power of the government sectors, the unions really, really grew in the 60s and 70s.
	Why?
	Because there was a big fucking boom and because there was a big boom, you ended up with all of these things being handed out to the public sector unions.
	You couldn't give them that much more pay because pay is something kind of obvious and you kind of have to raise taxes pretty quickly to deal with that.
	But if you say to somebody who's 30, well, I'm going to give you a massive pension when you're 55.
	Well, that's a quarter century away.
	The politicians are all retired and dead and gone by that point.
	Nobody has to fight that.
	But you know that's going to come out of the taxes of the children.
	Social Security is a classic example of the wealthy elderly eating the impoverished young.
	And it is the guilty conscience Of the aged, that is the secret physics of the world.
	And the old now, what real leg do they have to stand on?
	What kind of world are they giving to their children?
	Oh, a world of incarceration and torture and death, unemployment, eviscerated opportunities, massive entitled and well-armed Government dependence, a welfare state that keeps on growing, medical care costs that keep on riding, a disemboweled family structure.
	Half the women, half the kids being born to women under 30, being born without stability of wedding, marriage, family structure.
	Weddings have nothing to do with the state.
	Weddings are the public declaration that the community damn well needs to make sure you stay together.
	Rather than we're having a flame.
	It doesn't matter if we will break up.
	Religiosity.
	Extreme religiosity on the ascendancy.
	Cultural relativism on the ascendancy.
	The West lost its spine really after World War I, but it really became clear after World War II. And this is the world that is being left to the young.
	If I Have contracted with someone to take Isabella's kidney when she gets to be 18.
	I am going to be very tense and I'm going to be very stressed as she gets older.
	I'm going to be hair trigger and I'm actually going to look for reasons to get angry at her to justify what I'm about to do.
	I'm going to look for ways to have problems with her.
	I'm going to look for bad behavior on her part so that I can claim in some mad corner of my mind That the kidney contract is somehow justice for her misbehavior.
	And so when the aged view the young as really bad, It's because the aged have been really bad, right?
	Because the aged have raised the young.
	It's like this ridiculous thing you see where parents are making their kids hang signs in front of, like by the side of the highway or whatever, saying, you know, I'm disrespectful to men.
	I'm bad.
	I do these things wrong.
	Who the fuck trained these people?
	Who raised them?
	I do not get to spend an entire day carefully shaping a clay pot.
	And then somehow detach myself from my creation and say, this clay pot is so ugly I could spit.
	Whoever made this clay pot, I'm going to blame the clay pot for being ugly.
	You should have worked out.
	You should have jogged with your little clay feet up and down the treadmill.
	You should have eaten better.
	I can't believe you're this ugly and shapeless.
	That would be the actions of a crazy person.
	We shape our children.
	We mold our children.
	Who our children are.
	Is 90%, scientifically and statistically, is 90% the result of their womb environment and the environment in their first few years primarily.
	Who they are, their genes even, the epigenetics, their neuroplasticity, who they are is the result of what we have done or haven't done to them.
	And so for the elderly to say, well, you know, there's a big problem with kids in this society, that's projection.
	It's called projection.
	It's the bad conscience of the elderly who damn well did not stand up in a social sense for the same values that they inflicted upon their children.
	Ah, children!
	Democracy reflects the will of the people!
	Oh, okay, so Social Security reflects your will?
	Okay, well then, since there's nothing here, you have to accept the consequences of your actions and there's no Social Security fee.
	Well, I didn't like that.
	I didn't approve.
	It's okay, well then, society doesn't reflect the will of the people and it's just a kind of dictatorship.
	Well, then why did you lie to me and tell me that society did reflect the will of the people?
	Because I didn't want to get in trouble with the people around me by questioning the system that we live in.
	It's like, wait a minute, didn't you tell me to think for myself and not follow the crowd?
	And if everyone was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, should I do it too?
	Then you're telling me that you didn't want to speak out against the system because you're afraid of disapproval from other people?
	What?
	I mean, you could go on and on, and this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...
	Yeah, I mean the child murder thing is, it appeals to children because they know that their futures have been nailed to the cross, right?
	They've been sold off, they've been cheated, they've been robbed, they've been enslaved.
	They're going to work for half of their adult lives paying off communist bankers in China for Christ's sakes.
	Because remember, the U.S. is really standing firm against communism.
	Unless they have the money that we need.
	What is it?
	America wants to put some commitments to Taiwan to protect it from China.
	I mean, that's completely insane.
	In order to put any military boots on the ground to protect Taiwan from China, where is it going to have to go to the money to pay the troops?
	It's going to have to go to China.
	Listen, I wonder, Mr.
	Chinese Premier, would you mind lending me some money so that I could send some of my troops against your troops?
	Because I really need to pay them.
	They need some meals ready to eat.
	They need themselves some underwear changes.
	I got no money.
	Can you lend me the money to put...
	Hostile troops on your own border.
	Would that be okay with you?
	I mean, God, this is unbelievable.
	The world that we live in is so completely insane.
	I mean, you put that in a movie.
	Can you imagine that?
	Hitler.
	We really, really want to invade, you know, D-Day.
	We really need to get down in Calais and in France.
	So what we need for you to do is send us some of that good old Nazi gold so we can pay our troops.
	They're not going to work for free.
	You don't have to pay people.
	And so, oh, Hitler, could you just send us, you know, here's PayPal, eBay, Bitcoin, we don't care.
	Send us some money so that we can come and invade France, if you don't mind, because we're all about liberty from tyranny.
	I mean, Stan is completely mad.
	But this is the...
	I mean, this is the world that we live in.
	I mean, sorry to laugh, because it's just so mad.
	It's just so completely insane.
	I mean, this is why...
	Anyway, it doesn't matter.
	So, of course, the children recognize that they have been crucified.
	By the elder generation, of course.
	I mean, this is a smoking ruin of an economic system, massive debts, unbelievably powerful and entitled fascistic powers within society, a crumbling infrastructure.
	This is another thing that's going to hit, of course.
	I mean, there's the real estate bust in the commercial sector and also the infrastructure, right?
	Politicians like to cut ribbons on new projects.
	Nobody cuts ribbons on repairing a sewage system.
	The infrastructure in the U.S. is in horrible shape, as it is in Canada.
	And this is another sort of bill that's going to hit.
	And so, yeah, everyone gets that this, you know, the Wee's Last Bastard generation, in order to avoid standing up for even one of the goddamn values that they inflicted on all of us as children, When they told us all about honesty and integrity and standing up for what was right, and they went to go and see all of these movies about the heroes who stood up for what was right.
	Well, they just bribed whoever shook their fists in their face.
	Not even with their own money, but the money of those who came afterwards.
	They defended the system that has indebted the young, enslaved those overseas, caused the deaths of millions of people.
	That they don't have half a weasel moral leg left to stand on.
	So, of course, the children are going to be drawn towards movies in which the elders sacrifice the children, yea, verily, unto the point of death, because that's what it's going to come to.
	And, of course, the elders would find something of a kind of unholy salvation in that depiction.
	So, I hope that helps a little bit.
	We have Nathan on the line.
	Hey, Steph.
	Hello!
	So you segwayed right, all of everything you were just saying segues beautifully into this question I've been meaning to ask you whether you have seen this wonderful new slideshow from the Obama campaign about the life of Julia.
	I don't think so.
	Oh, you have to see it.
	It's brilliant.
	Maybe somebody in the chat...
	Oh, really?
	Do I have to see it?
	I mean, please.
	I have a tough enough time seeing propaganda full on.
	It's very naked.
	And it's...
	All of those kids who are faced with no future for all the reasons that you just described, it is such a direct bribe for vote.
	I mean, it's classic, your take on democracy, 100%.
	I mean, I just couldn't believe it when I saw it because it's so completely transparent.
	Because it says...
	Here's a little girl, she's three years old, and the Obama administration's program lets her go to daycare.
	And then the next slide is, then she's six years old, and now she gets to go to school.
	She wouldn't get to go to school if this other guy was in office.
	And it's like this all the way through to her death.
	It's just incredible.
	Well, and who's that appealing to, right?
	Who needs to put their kids in daycare?
	You think it's just the parents?
	I guess it doesn't matter.
	The three-year-old can't vote.
	That's a fair point.
	No, it's the single moms.
	I mean, they are a massive constituent.
	In American society, very, very brief aside, and then we'll get back to your point, right?
	So, I mean, again, those roles.
	I've mentioned this before.
	I remember Dan Quayle and the Murphy Brown thing.
	I think it was in the 90s where Murphy Brown was this fictional character played by Candace Bergen.
	Not a very good show, if I remember rightly, but she decides to have a kid in her 40s with no dad around.
	And Dan Quayle said, you know, that's not really a very good idea.
	It's not very good for the kid and so on.
	And, of course, he then got pilloried.
	Immensely, he got eviscerated.
	And it went on and on and on, like literally year after year.
	Then he became the running gag for the stupidest guy ever on the planet and so on, right?
	And even in the Oscars, like a year later, oh, no, sorry, in the Emmys when Murphy round one, it was like, we fought against this right wing.
	And all he was doing was pointing out basic facts about the outcomes for single moms.
	But see, if there's a small enough contingent of single moms, they don't represent a market.
	That people will strive to satisfy.
	But as soon as you get a large enough group of single moms in society, then you can't ever then criticize according to the facts of single moms because there's enough people to rush to...
	They've created a need market for justification and enablers and people start swarming to do that for them in return for advertising pay or whatever it is.
	So that kind of stuff, I mean, because he could very easily say, right, he could have said, hey, to two parent households, I'm going to cut you your taxes so that one of you can actually stay home and be a parent.
	But that's not what he's saying.
	He's saying, we'll take the kids off your hands.
	Hey, hand over your children to the state!
	Because the state is just so wonderful and so great at everything.
	And so you hand us your children, and that's good.
	But of course, who wants to hand over the children are people who don't have enough resources to raise them.
	And that generally is single moms.
	Sorry, did I put you to sleep?
	No.
	No, but it was...
	I'm glad you mentioned as to who it appeals to because it's so done in this style.
	Again, you have to see it, because it's so transparent, it's unbelievable.
	And I think there's a surprising amount of backlash towards it, and a lot of the backlash isn't saying things.
	There's some of it that's sort of the traditional Republican, you're mischaracterizing our programs or whatever.
	There's a lot of it that is just straight, oh, look, it's a cradle-to-grave program.
	But there's a surprising amount of people going, wow, that's just naked bribery.
	Sure.
	Just people who are stunned at how transparent it is.
	The conversation would make a lot more sense if you've seen it.
	Well, look, I mean, to me, maybe this is not the perfect analogy, but it's sort of like this.
	Raising my child is like sleeping with my wife.
	That's my job.
	Right?
	So, Obama's like, hey, do you ever find that you want somebody else to come and sleep with your wife?
	Because you're just kind of tired.
	You want a night out with the boys.
	Maybe you want to go golfing for the weekend and you want someone to come over and, you know, sex up your wife.
	You know, leave her satisfied, relaxed, unshrill, upset for a little while.
	Well, We've got an entire political party who's really willing to do that.
	Take your wife off your hands or, you know, take her out for a nice dinner, buy her some flowers, maybe a romantic movie, and then make slow, sweet love to your wife all night long so you don't have to.
	I mean, that to me is the equivalent of, hey, we'll take your children off your hands so you don't have to worry about raising them.
	I mean, it's the equivalent.
	I mean, I had the damn child.
	I'll raise her, thank you very much.
	I do not find the enticement of, you will take her off my hands, to be a big enticement.
	That's not good for me, you know?
	We've got an entire group of people who will masturbate, so you don't have to.
	It's like, no, no, no.
	I mean, for a lot of people, that's not a bad thing to be doing with their time.
	So, there is this implicit thing.
	So, you know, we'll raise your children for you can only really appeal to people who don't really want to raise their children themselves.
	And it's like, well, why did you have them?
	Anyway, sorry, go on.
	It's just, the daycare thing is only the first slide, right?
	So there's like, I guess there's about a dozen different pages that encompass all programs across...
	All right.
	So let's somebody, sorry, sorry to interrupt.
	Somebody just posted it.
	Okay, so let's see.
	Take a look at how President Obama's policies would help one woman over her lifetime.
	Now, of course, it's women, right?
	But women in significant, I think it was 70% voted for Obama.
	And as far as single moms go, it's way higher than that.
	Under President Obama, Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help her get ready for school because of the steps.
	President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one.
	Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.
	Under Mitt Romney, the Romney-Ryan budget could cut programs like Head Start by 20%, meaning the program would offer 200,000 fewer slots per year.
	Right.
	Because, of course, there's no overhead, right?
	I mean, if they cut spending, because they're bare bones, there's no excess overhead, there's no bureaucracy and so on, right?
	But, of course, what they could say, the other side would be, hey, look, we're going to cut your taxes by 20% so that you can stay home, raise your kids while your husband goes to work, or your husband can stay home while you go to work.
	Wouldn't that be better?
	Right?
	So there's no choice, right?
	So who has no choice in staying home or not?
	It's single moms.
	Look, and I say single moms.
	I know there's some single dads in there, too.
	And I know that some single moms are there because they were widowed.
	I think it's 5% or something like that.
	But here, you see, your child has to go somewhere.
	You can't stay home.
	Who does that appeal to?
	Well, it appeals to people where there's only one parent.
	Or where, you know, for whatever reason, they both have to work, in which case, well, you shouldn't have had children, right?
	If you can't stay home with your children, you damn well shouldn't have had them.
	Anyway, so the life of Julia.
	Under President Obama, Julia takes SAT. Wait a sec.
	Hang on.
	Did we just go from 3 to 17?
	Younger.
	Yes, we did.
	What?
	What happens between 3 and 17?
	That's quite a lot of years.
	Because the Obama administration doesn't want to take ownership over the No Child Left Behind Act.
	Julia takes the SAT and is on practice to start her college applications.
	Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program implemented by President Obama.
	Wow, that guy gets a lot of stuff done.
	Their new college and career-ready standards means Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.
	Well, okay, of course.
	So not only will I raise your child when she's an infant, but I will also educate her for you.
	You don't have to lift a finger, right?
	Well, actually, I really enjoy educating my daughter.
	I really enjoy sitting down and doing math with her.
	I really enjoy teaching her about ladybugs.
	I really enjoy teaching her about dinosaurs.
	I really enjoy that.
	She's got great questions.
	She's really engaging to To learn with, you know, we went out today to a pond and caught some tadpoles and showed them how to fry them up with a little butter sauce.
	No, I mean, we just, you know, told her sort of the journey from fish to amphibian and so on.
	It was really cool.
	And so now it's like, you know, we will educate your child for you.
	And of course, that's something that parents should be doing for themselves, of course.
	But anyway, so let's see here.
	18 years old, under President Obama, she prepares for her first semester of college.
	Julia and her family qualify for the President Obama's American Opportunity Tax Credit, worth up to $10,000 over four years.
	Julia is one of blah, blah, blah.
	The tax credit would be allowed to expire.
	So, yeah, bribery.
	So, we'll give you $10,000 for your kid.
	Now, of course, where does the $10,000 come from?
	Well, it comes from the parents.
	It's like, we'll drive you into the workforce with really, really high tax rates and then we will give you back about 5% of what we tax for you to pay for a college tuition for your daughter.
	Said college tuition is vastly increased in price because of all of the other status meddling and monopolies and subsidies that we've given to a higher education.
	So yeah, this is just, give me $10,000 and if you vote for me, I'll give you $10,000.
	I mean, I understand it's completely illegal unless you're, you know, doing something called campaigning.
	During college, Julia undergoes surgery.
	It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in healthcare reform that lets her stay on her parents' coverage until she turns 26.
	Under Mitt Romney, healthcare reform would be repealed.
	Romney says he'd kill it dead.
	Now, this is a very strange thing here.
	I could be wrong about all of this stuff.
	The very strange thing here is that why on earth would it be cheaper to insure someone, let's say her parents had her when she's 30, so her parents are 56 and she's 26.
	Under what conceivable situation would it be more expensive to provide health insurance to a young active 26-year-old than it would be to somebody who's 56 or 60?
	Well, that's because the health insurance has been so screwed up by allowing everyone with a special interest grudge or necessary medical whatever they want to get to keep all of the costs on the young.
	The reason that health care and costs are so high for the young is because everyone gets their own little pet disease, which is, you know, obviously very important to them and maybe life-threatening to them, and I can understand why they do this given the system, but they put all of their diseases on the young.
	And now, what is so ridiculous recently that that woman was saying that she wanted the pill to be covered under healthcare?
	I mean, my God!
	That's like going to an insurance company for your car and saying, I need to cover oil changes.
	No, because you don't have to have oil change.
	You don't have to have birth control.
	Of course, birth control is not a medical thing.
	Now, of course, they're rare people.
	They've got cysts or endometriosis.
	I don't know.
	Maybe the pill helps with that.
	It's sort of a different situation than a tiny minority of people.
	But the idea of needing to cover the pill Healthcare is supposed to be for catastrophic, unimaginable, unpredictable stuff.
	It's like saying that if you start paying for life insurance when you're 80, it should be cheaper than if you start paying when you're 20.
	It's mad.
	Anyway, I can't talk about any of that stuff.
	So, 23.
	Okay, I don't know if I can do all of these because they're all just too ridiculous.
	Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she'll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay.
	She starts her career as a web designer.
	Right, because she doesn't have to stand up for herself and demand better pay.
	The government is going to do it for her.
	If she doesn't have to learn assertiveness, she doesn't have to learn her own economic value and worth, the government is going to negotiate for her.
	I mean, how pitiful, how insulting to women is that?
	That without the government shaking guns at people, they just can't get a fair shake when it comes to, uh, to, and of course, this is this, the fact that women earn less, uh, has nothing to do with the free market or economics college aged women.
	In the workforce almost exactly the same as college-aged men who've been in the workforce for the same amount of time.
	The reason that women earn less is because they have kids and breastfeed and stay home.
	And try as you might, you cannot blame the free market for basic biology.
	Health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care.
	Okay, so let's see here.
	For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer.
	Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care.
	Letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.
	What the fuck does birth control have to do with your health?
	I mean, I do not understand that at all.
	What on earth does birth control have to do?
	You skipped the loan payment one, by the way.
	I skipped the one?
	The loan payment one at 25.
	Oh, sorry.
	After graduation, Julie's federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low.
	She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.
	Yeah, okay.
	So she can borrow for the overpriced as the result of the government education, and then they will cap.
	The payback, and this means that other people have to pay more.
	But see, the college-educated people who make more should be paying less.
	The college-educated people make about twice what non-college-educated people make.
	But the people who don't go to college should pay higher interest on their loans because the college-age people who are making a lot more should pay less.
	Oh, that's really, really great.
	What a lovely, lovely tender concern for the poor is shown there.
	Oh, that's pretty funny.
	Okay, so she's 31 now, right?
	Okay, let's just enjoy the sentence, shall we?
	Under President Obama, Julie decides to have a child.
	What is she, urging him on with her claws?
	That's just quite funny.
	Under President Obama, Julia decides to have a child, so he's actually going to impregnate people as well.
	That's the kind of dedicated person he is to help people with their tax livestock replenishment.
	That's, I think, just absolutely wonderful.
	That's just a beautiful amount of dedication, and we should all be really proud of how well that works.
	Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under healthcare reform.
	Yeah, okay.
	You get a bunch of stuff for free.
	So the government makes everything overpriced.
	We're giving them restrictions on everything.
	And then, you know, they end up giving you stuff.
	Let's see here.
	Oh, God.
	37 years old.
	Under President Obama, Julius and Zachary Stark's kindergarten, the public schools in the neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama's investments in education and blah, blah, blah.
	Okay.
	Yep, because Lord knows the federal government's incursions into education have just done wonderful things for everyone.
	Oh, she starts her own web business.
	She qualifies for a small business administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business.
	President Obama's tax cuts for small businesses like Julius help her get started.
	You know, small businesses, they do generate a lot of work, but they're very unstable.
	They contribute a lot to unemployment as well.
	The big companies have relatively stable employment.
	Small companies are very, very unstable.
	And you know what's interesting here?
	There's no mention of Julia's husband.
	Under President Obama at 65, Julia enrolls in Medicare, helping her to afford preventive care and the prescription drugs she needs.
	She retires.
	She received monthly benefits, helped her retire comfortably.
	This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.
	Where presumably she has to grow her own vegetables because she can't afford the ones that are in the grocery store anymore.
	Did you notice that when she was three she did stuff under President Obama and when she's 67 she does stuff under President Obama?
	No, it's amazing.
	I mean, he's not only going to raise children and impregnate every female who wants a child, but he's also going to be dictator for life.
	And apparently, you know, at the year 2300, it'll be President Obama's brain in a fish tank that will still be issuing commands or something like that.
	Yeah, so yeah, the state is her husband.
	I mean, this is, I think, very, very important.
	The government has taken the place of the state.
	And this has created a vicious cycle.
	You know, there's a lot of talk about, you know, why are men so afraid of commitment?
	Why are men so afraid of getting married?
	Well, I think for pretty obvious reasons.
	It's incredibly risky for men if it doesn't work out.
	They can be basically alimony slaves and child support slaves for the rest of their lives.
	And it wrecks their chances for remarriage, lowers their marketability in the marriage market.
	And what's that old joke?
	Next time I feel like getting married, I'm not going to do it.
	I'm just going to find someone I really hate and buy them a house.
	And, you know, as the government shoulders its way more into the role of dad, then it continually shoulders more and more men out of the way of dad.
	I mean, you can damn well be sure that if the government wasn't there to provide all these benefits, women would be a little bit more careful about who they opened their legs to.
	I mean, that would just be a basic reality.
	Women control the procreation.
	And if there are problems in procreation, it's the responsibility and the fault of women.
	Because women is the one who finally decides whether the sexual act is going to occur or not.
	And yeah, I mean, this is a direct appeal to single moms.
	Direct appeal to single moms.
	There's not, I mean, this woman is going at entirely, there's no mention.
	There's no mention of a father.
	There's no mention of extended family.
	There's no mention of a community of any kind.
	It's a woman, a child, and the state.
	And this is the...
	Daniel Crittenden wrote a book many years ago called, I think, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us or something like that.
	And she talks about how the state has basically taken over the functions that fathers used to have, you know, providing and And making sure that people get treated fairly, trying to raise the kids properly.
	Remember there was a V-chip that was supposed to turn off the TV if violence came?
	Well, that kind of used to be the job of dads.
	And now the government has to make sure that your children are doing their homework.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	But it's what happens.
	When women have kids without dads, I think it's later on they realize, just because you get rid of the dad doesn't get rid of the resource requirements that are necessary to raise children.
	It just means that The least responsible are then enforcing their irresponsibility on the more responsible.
	And, you know, whatever you subsidize increases and whatever you tax decreases.
	And so it is kind of a weird negative eugenics.
	Thanks for the fun, Ron.
	Yeah, it's a bit sad.
	And it is, of course, you know, just naked-ass bribery, naturally.
	Somebody says, I think men have responsibilities as well.
	It takes two to make a child.
	Yes, yes, absolutely.
	Of course it takes two to make a child.
	But to my, you know, again, this may be conditioning, this may be who knows, right?
	But to my knowledge and understanding, the woman is the one who is going to have the kid, and the woman is the one who's going to breastfeed the kid, you know, biologically, sort of speaking.
	And there is a male reproductive strategy that's fairly common in the animal world called spread your seed as wide as possible and just see which one grows.
	I think it's more common for the man to abandon the children than for the woman to abandon the children.
	Again, this is sort of just biologically speaking.
	There's in some ways a stronger bond.
	The woman carries the child inside and the breastfeeding and so on.
	And it has traditionally been the case that there are Two gatekeepers to procreative sex in society.
	The first gatekeeper is the girl's father.
	And the reason that the girl's father takes a very special interest in whether his daughter gets impregnated and the girl's mom, of course, is because if the girl gets impregnated and does not give the child up for adoption in a non-state society, then it will fall to the parents, the grandparents of the child, to raise that child, which is why Since they probably don't want to start over raising children again when they're in their 50s, they work hard, of course, to prevent this from happening, and it's fairly easy to prevent teen pregnancy.
	Just don't abuse your children.
	It's quite easy.
	Understand that if the state ameliorates the effects of child abuse, it is only going to cause more child abuse.
	So if people understand that if you abuse your daughter, if she does not have a good relationship with her father, then she's much more prey to Pregnancy out of wedlock and teen pregnancy and so on, then that's a strong incentive to treat your child well.
	If you can't find the moral, you can at least find the pragmatic as a motive for your action.
	And, of course, the woman herself.
	Now, if you can do fairly well by getting pregnant without having the dad stick around through a variety of government incentives and programs, then that weakens these gatekeepers.
	We can just see that statistically.
	Yeah, of course.
	I mean, the man is responsible, too.
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	But I think the woman has to be the final gatekeeper because she's the one who's going to be having the child.
	So there are much more consequences to her than there is to the man.
	Well, you know, the other thing, too, is that because there are all of these programs to support women in the case of divorce, women have to be a lot less nice.
	I mean, the women can basically complete hellions to the men, and the welfare state will take care of them.
	They're less dependent upon the men, so they're less picky about who they sleep with, and they can then be much harsher when it comes to separation because they don't need the men.
	But the state is going to go get the money, and the state is right.
	Whereas the majority of men who are called deadbeat dads are actually not paying because they're not getting access to their children.
	From the mom.
	So, yeah, you should teach your sons not to have sex with women they can't trust.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I think I've got an entire podcast on that called It Really Matters Where You Point Your Dick.
	And I did not mean Richard Nixon, although it matters there too, I guess.
	But please, this is turning into the women are to blame for the state.
	Well, no.
	Look, I mean, this is show 2400 or something like that.
	I don't think that's been a constant theme of mine.
	I've certainly talked about male responsibility for it, but we can talk about women's responsibility without saying only women are responsible.
	It's just this is an underreported and under-talked-about aspect of it.
	And look, if 90% of the welfare state is going to single moms and single motherhood is a choice, it does remain a choice, then there isn't responsibility there, right?
	I mean, we always talk about the male philosophers, the male politicians, the military-industrial complex, which is largely men.
	And, you know, we've talked a lot about that, foreign policy, war, and these are pretty male reasons for statism.
	And I don't think I've ever had anyone say, well, now you're just blaming only men.
	It's like, no.
	I mean, there are two sides to the equation.
	There's the men and the women who are both draws for state power.
	Well, I think we're almost coming to the end.
	Sorry if this recording is a little choppy.
	I just noticed my recording stopped at about 25 minutes.
	I think James has some that may have been a little cut up.
	So I'm sorry if this is a bit discombobulated as it comes to the end.
	But it's, for some reason, my recorder stopped.
	That hasn't happened for I don't know how long, but I guess occasionally it does.
	And sorry about that.
	But yeah, thanks so much, everyone.
	How much?
	Let me just type this in the chat window.
	Thank you so much, everyone.
	Great set of questions.
	And really, really enjoyed the conversations.
	As always, it's a real, real pleasure and an honor, as usual, to have chats with you guys.

▲