Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 9, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:37:22

2613 Sunlight to the Vampire - Sunday Call In Show February 9th, 2014

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	I'm not going to do the dates anymore.
	Do you know why?
	It just makes the show sound dated.
	But what you will always remember, this is being the show where my froggy Duke Nukem, Etta James, Coco Taylor voice resounded across the air.
	It's kind of weird, you know.
	The voice is the living for me.
	And it's kind of weird to be...
	It's just on the tail end of a cold.
	It wasn't really a bad cold at all.
	But just enough to give me strange dreams.
	I always have a cold.
	Whenever I have a cold, I have really wild dreams.
	Last night, I dreamt I was going to be the singer in a band.
	And it was sort of my debut.
	I was young.
	I was going to be the singer in a band.
	But it was songs I can't imagine having the ability to sing.
	I can sing a few songs, all right.
	But, I mean, it was like...
	The Who's Reino or Me, Queen's crazy little thing called Love, which is always surprisingly high.
	And man, I was like, I don't think I'm going to be able to do this.
	And I was traveling with the band in a bus.
	We were going to a gig and they were all experienced musicians and they got me as a front man.
	And I was thinking, should I tell them that I'm nervous and I'm not sure that I can do it?
	Maybe the band will play loud enough.
	I remember going to see a punk band when I was younger where they did an old song called Ten Cents of Dance, and you could barely even hear the singer, if you can call him a singer, because it was just this wall of sound.
	I said, well, you know, but some of those songs are pretty vocal intensive.
	Should I tell them?
	I'm not sure.
	And then I was floating down a hallway, you know, a hallway with perfect acoustics, nice and tiled, where your voice always sounds like ten times better.
	And I could sing the songs?
	And I was like, alright, let's get this on!
	And then I woke up, sadly, before I gave my debut in another dimension.
	That's pretty cool.
	I guess it was sort of a confidence-inspiring dream.
	Because I always feel like I'm three and a half to four feet beyond my comfort zone when I'm doing this show.
	I certainly try never to do the same show again.
	I saw a speaker recently who said he'd been given the same speech basically for 15 years.
	You know, that's kind of remarkable.
	I mean, how do you even do that?
	How do you keep...
	So I always try never to repeat myself and try to, you know, even though some of the questions in these kinds of shows can be kind of the same.
	I always try to give a new angle and so on.
	So I always feel like Four and a half to five, maybe five feet beyond my comfort zone.
	And maybe that's what the dream had something to do with about that.
	I will have my voice even when I feel it's going to be too far from you.
	In the case of Love Rain Over Me, way too high.
	Man, listen to that song.
	It's Love Rain Over Me, I guess, in homage to Shakespeare.
	And there's a note there at the end that no mortal man should be able to reach.
	I think that's base even for Geddy Lee.
	Anyway, let's move on to the brains of the outfits.
	You, the delicious, delightful, hopefully donating callers.
	Mike, who do we have first?
	Actually, before we get to the first caller, I just want to make a note.
	Some people weren't aware of this, so I figured I'd just shout it loud and clear from the top of the rooftops.
	But when you donate to Freedomain Radio, you get some cool stuff.
	We have different sections on the message board where you can access premium files.
	We have 43 Philosopher King files for the heroes and gods of Free Domain Radio that help keep the ship afloat.
	Files may not be hugely descriptive to people.
	Podcast books.
	They're empty text files, but they have PK1, PK2. No, they're podcasts, right?
	Yep, different podcasts, and there's some audiobooks and text files in there as well.
	20 diamond files, 50 gold files, 36 silver files, and 47 bronze files.
	Yeah, the $5 a month subscription will get you into the bronze section.
	$10 a month subscription will get you into the silver section.
	$20 a month gets you probably your most bang for your buck, gets you into the gold section where it has the God of Atheists audiobook, Steph's novel.
	And a sneak peek at the new parenting book, which will be coming out soon, and a bunch of other cool stuff.
	And $50 a month gets you into the Philosopher King section.
	And there are also these private message boards, right?
	We assume the people who donate are pretty advanced in the conversation, and you all can chat with each other.
	Free from general web access, right?
	It's sort of a private set of message boards which are fairly well used and I hope that people will avail themselves of that.
	I mean, yeah, you get the cake of helping out a show that I think is really, really important and I think is growing.
	Really well and really nicely.
	But, you know, we throw a little icing on the icing on the cake of good self-regard for helping out something that's important to you.
	And so, yeah, The God of Atheists, I think, is a great book.
	And you get the audio book of that and the PDF at the gold level.
	So I hope that you will check that out.
	If 2600 Podcasts was not enough podcasts for you, you can go into the donator section and get even more.
	There are some great podcasts up there.
	Oh, yeah.
	There are some great podcasts up there.
	I mean, pretty advanced stuff.
	You know, I'm always fairly aware that I'm speaking to experienced people and new people in these shows, which is kind of a tough balancing act.
	And especially since the YouTube audience has grown so much, you know, who knows, people might just be dipping into some new show.
	So it's kind of like teaching a physics course when you have newbies and PhDs in the same class.
	It's an interesting challenge, but I think we're doing all right with that.
	So yeah, that's a good reminder.
	There are some tasty treats and benefits, and a surprise awaits high-tonators, which you will receive if you do.
	So anyway.
	Alright, Johannes is up first today.
	Go ahead, Johannes.
	First of all, I would like to say I appreciate your work really a lot.
	I found out about your show three months ago and since then I've been listening quite a lot every day.
	I feel like it's time to really start to put some action, put it to action what I've heard in your shows.
	I'm stressed out by my parents and I'm stressed out by my studying.
	I assume it could be also because I just didn't have a clear mind.
	I mean, I grew up in a society where I was told what to do.
	I didn't really have much options to think for myself.
	I was always told by my parents what to do and until about one year ago I was always trying to make a compromise between what I wanted and what my parents wanted.
	And because of listening to you, I also try to dive a little bit deeper into what happened in my childhood.
	I also had the feeling I connect with myself when I was 10 years old.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	You said you got the feeling something with yourself.
	I just missed that.
	Yeah, it was two weeks ago.
	I wanted to just feel more empathy with my 10-year-old self because I know it was bad, how I felt neglected and I always remembered that I was About 10 years old when I had this fantasy of suicide and I had this plan of eating so much salt that I would die and that then my parents
	truly knew what went wrong and that I didn't like the way they treat me.
	It was just a fantasy and it was not really realistic to kill myself with eating too much salt and it would have taken I thought at that time maybe three days or something but I listened to a song I was listening at that time and I really started to cry more than I was expecting to and I hope that will help me also to become aware what went wrong and to I
	think to become myself again and to understand and also find the power to say I don't need to have a connection with my parents all the time.
	I don't need to listen to my parents all the time and it is okay that I think I'm a little bit of a failure in studying.
	I should have studied in four years and I'm in the seventh year now and that was maybe because I'm compromising and also because if you're studying you also need the motivation to follow long-term goals and before I started studying I always just were told what to do the next day And so now I'm thinking about quitting my studies and maybe starting an apprenticeship where I don't have to plan that long
	term, have that much motivation, but then I have also my own money.
	I'm still financially dependent on my parents.
	Currently I live with my girlfriend and we share the rent for the flat.
	She pays by earning her own money.
	I pay by getting the money from my parents.
	Before I do all this stuff like cut connection with my family and quit my studies.
	I have also a brother who had also problems at public school.
	I'm getting a bit of a verbal torrent from you.
	Because you've given me 10 things, each of which we could talk about for an hour.
	Have you given me the most important thing that you want to talk about?
	I don't want to focus on something that's To be honest, I myself, the most important thing, I want to change my life and I want to do it at the right speed.
	And I'm thinking about maybe it's too fast if I quit my studies and disconnect from my family and all the things at the same time and I'm not also sure if I'm Yes.
	Okay, so I was just saying that there's quite a wall of information there, and I want to make sure we're focusing on what is most important to you.
	So, of the things that I think are worth talking about, what happened to you when you were 10, I think is the most important, or your experience when you were 10, about the suicidality?
	Yes.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Yeah, that is right.
	I mean, in my memories, it's more like it was only one week where I thought this.
	And then my own story is that I just got to know to myself that my parents are not really the role models that I should depend on for love.
	And then maybe after two years or so I just saw my friends as role models or as people that I could talk to and I just shut out my parents' I stopped talking to my mother about things that I care deeply about and I just stuck to myself.
	Right.
	So is it okay if we talk about what happened when you were 10?
	Yes, that's okay.
	Okay.
	Now, I mean, there is a deep...
	I think that's...
	I mean, I'm sort of trying to...
	I remember my own experience and my own experience when I was around...
	I think nine or ten was my mom, like a lot of women, would mask or act out her bad moods in irrational and hypocritical perfectionism.
	My mom is a...
	It wasn't so much when she was younger, but I mean, and I haven't seen her in a while, but now she's just an unbelievable slob.
	And when I was a kid...
	She didn't, I don't think she ever cared about the place being tidy, but she did care about having something to crab about with us kids.
	And I remember that she had these sort of two things.
	She would say, you know, basically, clean up your room, tidy your room, and she would Use these bone-wearyingly repetitive phrases, you know, like, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, and she would hook into these little particular incidents or stories and repeat them until you really just wanted to crawl out of sight of your own brain and throw your frontal lobes into a ceiling fan.
	And I remember one time after she crapped at me about my room not being tidy, and by crapped I mean, you know, verbally abused and tiraded and all that kind of stuff, She would always come and try and talk at me.
	She had a sort of verbal diarrhea, just kind of talk at me.
	And I remember thinking, okay, fine.
	Well, you know, I'm going to say, I'm sorry, Mom, I don't have time to listen to your issues because I have to go and tidy my room.
	Like I was going to be a perfect little robot of tidying and use that to get out of having to listen to all of the crazy, creepy stuff she wanted to tell me.
	And another time I remember in terms of self-destruction, I remember it's probably around the same age, I used to paint a lot and draw a lot.
	And one time I found a door at an abandoned and half-wrecked house.
	I dragged the whole door home because I wanted to paint this giant landscape on the door.
	And one time after my mom had torn into me about something or other, I had a lovely little picture of like a sunset and beach and all that drawn on my chalkboard.
	And I remember saying to myself, I'm not going to paint again.
	Like in protest, I'm not going to draw, I'm not going to do chalk, I'm not going to paint again.
	And one day, art critics will gather around the chalkboard in my room and say, what great promise was here abandoned?
	And they would blame my mother for Taking away my motivation for art or something like that.
	And I didn't go as far as you went in terms of planning out suicide by salt, but I think it's very important.
	There is, in the act of self-destruction for an abused child, There is a desire to harm the parents, or in other words, to expose the parents and their harmful activities to the world.
	Because if you had, I'm not saying you were imminently going to follow through, but if you had followed through and you had killed yourself, then I think in your mind And I think in reality, to some degree, your parents would have been exposed as bad parents, as harmful parents, because their child killed themselves.
	And the amount of covering up for bad parenting that goes on in society is pretty much all of society.
	I just did this video on addiction.
	And addiction resulting from harm or neglect, trauma, Stressors in the developing baby.
	Now, if this was generally understood and accepted, if it's proven and becomes common in society to understand it, then the moment people saw, well, Philip Seymour Hoffman died as a result of a heroin overdose, one of the first thoughts that people would get was, my God, what a terrible...
	Infancy he must have had.
	Like that would just be...
	Maybe there'll be people who become addicts who don't have any of those stressors as a child.
	I don't necessarily believe that, but maybe that's the case.
	But that would be the exception.
	If we hear, oh, someone has lung cancer, what's the first thing we think?
	Well, they must have been a smoker.
	We know that association.
	We understand that association.
	And the amount of...
	Lies and obscurations that are invented to help hide bad parenting in society.
	It's huge.
	And by bad parenting, some of it can be circumstantial.
	It's a bad environment.
	The parents are doing well, struggling trying to survive.
	So it doesn't mean bad intent on the part of parents, but a bad environment for the child, which can be parental or it can be social or societal.
	And so, if you look at, I mean, psychotropic drugs for kids, it's all covering up bad parenting.
	Punishing children in schools is all about bad parenting.
	Covering up bad parenting.
	Oh, he's got ADHD, let's drug him.
	Well, why is he so fidgety?
	Why is his brain wired that way?
	Oh, it must be genetic.
	We have all of these, or we blame the victim, right?
	We blame the victim or we blame the genes.
	As Gabor Maté says, it's an explanation of the way things are that doesn't challenge or change the way things are.
	So I think you probably wanted to harm and humiliate your parents through these thoughts, which I think is an important thing to really understand.
	Does what I'm saying connect or make any sense or is it way off base?
	Yeah, it was also for revenge.
	There was also a story my mother told me when I was a baby and she cradled me and then there was a fight between my father and my mother and my father just started to scream out at full volume and I as a little baby shrugged together.
	So that's just one thing.
	I'm sorry, can you just go over that story again?
	I didn't quite follow that story.
	It's a story that my mother told me when I was 18 or so, when I was talking about, that I always react really, really like, I can't explain, but I'm afraid when my parents fight verbally.
	And even when I'm 18 and I know they are fighting with each other, I'm not involved.
	But I guess it's really triggered.
	It just reminds me of this when I was a baby.
	I was in the arms of my mother and then he started to scream at full volume at my mother and I as a baby just shrugged together and I think that This made me into a person that is really stressed because I was in the stressful environment to hear these loud voices screamed into my ears and feeling probably all the
	fear in my mother.
	And this would have occurred Before you were born as well, you would have heard these screamings going on coming through your mother's skin, right?
	What was going on with your dad that he was doing crazy stuff like screaming at your own Yeah, my theory is that...
	I mean, he's a little bit a mystery for me.
	I think he behaves a little bit like Putin in his way of never being really fun, just always being a person that exudes authority.
	And when he thinks he himself is attacked, he gets loud.
	That's what my mother told me.
	But I think he was just not in love anymore with my mother.
	I was born before they married and they married, I think, because they felt responsible.
	If you get a baby, you have to marry.
	And so he probably felt trapped in the marriage and just didn't have any fun at being a husband, I guess.
	That's what I would guess why he was angry.
	And my mother also has really mood swings and is not fair in her assessment of other people.
	And that's also why I got sometimes angry at her, but that's of course no reason to scream at this volume in front of your baby.
	So none of what you say has anything to do with the childhood of your parents?
	I know that my father was born like when the Second World War ended and I don't know if it's directly related but that's what my mother yesterday told me.
	She thought it's relevant but it didn't make any sense to me.
	She told me she was He's the firstborn and I know that he is disconnected now from his brother and his sister and I know that he was sick for one year and couldn't go to school when he was about seven and I know that his two parents were living under the roof of the farmer's house of the grandparents and the grandparents We're dominating everything.
	And his mother didn't have anything to say in the marriage.
	If she was angry with him, he always ran to the grandparents who helped him and said, no, no, no, he didn't do any wrong.
	And so his mother never was able to discipline him.
	I know that, but I cannot make any sense.
	I don't know what...
	Did he grow up in Russia?
	Is that why you referenced Putin?
	No.
	No, he didn't.
	It was in Germany.
	In Germany, yeah.
	Now, of course, in Germany, after the war, I mean, it was...
	A complete mess, as you know.
	And look, this is not to say that it's fine or it's okay or anything like that.
	Because it doesn't really matter.
	See, when we're in a terrifying environment, when we're babies and toddlers, the history of the parents doesn't fundamentally matter.
	And from my experience, As a society, as a whole, we don't really pay that much attention to context.
	There are very few defenses in law called, I had a stressful babyhood, and therefore, right?
	So, I mean, again, I just go by what society says.
	Now, what society says may not be entirely correct.
	It may not be entirely valid.
	But certainly all the people who inflicted that on me as a kid have no right to disagree with my analysis if I'm using their moral conclusions as well.
	So for instance, when I was six, five and six, since I went to boarding school when I was six, and I'm telling you this because The issues with your parents, I believe, have a lot more to do now with your issues with society as a whole.
	Parents are history.
	Society is our future.
	And if we come to conclusions about society based upon our relationship with our parents, then we are going to have problems going forward because we go further into society as we get older.
	And so when I was, say, 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 or 15 years old, Well, let's say I was 16 years old.
	So when I was 16 years old, my brother and I were on our own.
	We took in roommates, we worked jobs to take care of the household, and we'd had a terribly stressful childhood.
	But that didn't matter to any of the teachers, to any of the policemen, to anyone around.
	We were treated the same as everybody else.
	So that's what society does.
	They don't care about your childhood.
	Some people had nice parents who encouraged them to study and help them out.
	I had a mom who would sit down and tell me all about her dating life when I was trying to study for a math test and if I protested she would scream at me and throw things.
	But we all sat down in the same classroom and I was...
	Judged exactly the same as all the other kids.
	Now, I don't believe that's fair at all.
	I don't believe that's right at all.
	I mean, we wouldn't have Olympic running where some people started 10 feet from the finish line and some people started in Paraguay.
	But that's the way it is with childhood, right?
	And this is why when I say to people, I mean, I'm curious about their parents' childhoods, It doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to how they act.
	Now, I believe that it does in reality, but parents themselves cannot possibly complain about that, and people as a whole cannot possibly complain about that.
	Because we treat children as if their childhoods don't matter.
	Right?
	Right?
	We mark children down.
	I would get a fail or a pass exactly the same as the guy next to me whose mom and dad were super nice, who helped him study, who got him tutoring when he went awry.
	And no one has a problem with that.
	No one invokes childhood until bad parenting comes up.
	And then people say, well, but your parents had a bad childhood.
	And therefore, therefore, therefore.
	It's like, if people are so goddamn concerned about bad childhoods, let's start talking about children rather than parents.
	See, it's just another one of these knee-jerk reactions that comes up.
	When bad parenting is exposed, everyone rushes to cover it up.
	Because maybe if their own bad conscience or the basic reality, their system is built on bad parenting.
	Bad parents are fundamentally the cause of almost all the ills that happen, all the moral ills that happen in the world.
	when your dad was screaming at you or your mom was doing something that was negative and so on, was there no society around you that you could talk to or who could intervene?
	I mean, there were teachers that I was not afraid of, but I felt like...
	I didn't see anybody.
	Nobody comes to mind.
	Now I think my smaller brother could have been more on my side, but my mother liked him the best, so he was also more on her side, and I felt like I'm the I'm the only one fighting against this problem.
	At school they give me grades and if I get a bad grade my parents don't like me and all their love is based on the school.
	I didn't know where to go.
	So, I mean, so you're looking to go into a society that didn't help you and in fact blamed you for some of the negative consequences of your bad upbringing.
	Is that fair to say?
	Yeah, I mean, no, but what do you mean with blame?
	Society didn't blame me, but I'm just not compatible with society as much as children from parents that didn't reduce children to grades at school and who didn't go to the first four years of their school with children that just We're mobbing any person that knew more than they knew at school.
	Sorry, I just don't quite understand that last part.
	In retrospect, I was going to school with a lot of children from households where the people were just probably not interested in education and not interested in talking and I was more the child that was forbidden to To use violence and always talk nicely.
	So I was bullied a lot just because I wanted to solve everything with words and I was the know-it-all in class.
	I was also conflicted because at school I shouldn't be good and at home it's expected that I have good grades and I didn't get any love anymore when my grades tanked.
	Sorry, that's what I mean when you say that you were blamed for the effects of bad parenting.
	Why do children not do well in school?
	Why do children not do well in school?
	Well, children don't do well in school for one of three reasons.
	Either the school is terrible, which is certainly not the child's fault.
	Or the parents are not instilling a love of learning and helping the child to learn, which is certainly not the child's fault.
	Or the child is not intelligent, just lacks physical capacity, which is certainly not the child's fault.
	So what I mean is that we use this whip called free will, and we hit our children with this whip called free will.
	And we assign the greatest amount of free will and moral responsibility in society to children who are 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 or 15 years old.
	Those children exist as morally isolated Nietzschean superheroes, objectivist superheroes, who can make any and all choices outside of circumstances and are 100% responsible for everything that they do.
	When a child receives a failing grade on a test, it is the parents who should be called in and chastised.
	When a child is 10 and gets a failing grade on a grammar test, then it is the parents who should be brought in and said, you have failed because your child has failed to learn.
	So you as parents need to fix this issue.
	Well, we don't do that.
	See, parents have legal independence, authority.
	They can complain.
	They can make your life difficult.
	So we don't do that, right?
	What we do is we say to the child, bad child, you should have studied.
	Bad, bad, bad.
	You failed.
	Because, you see, children in this abusive paradigm are 100% perfectly free, independent of environment, moral agents.
	And everything that they choose is outside of history and outside of circumstances because they're 8 or 10 years old, you see.
	So we don't ever look at and say, well, the child is failing, therefore the school is failing.
	Therefore, society is failing.
	Therefore, the parents are failing.
	No, no, no.
	It's 100% the child.
	100% the child.
	And then when we grow up and we say, you know what?
	My parents kind of failed.
	And people say, no, no, no, no, no.
	It was their environment.
	It was their history.
	They were doing the best they can with the knowledge they had.
	It's not their fault.
	Forgive them.
	Fuck that.
	Fuck that.
	I will start forgiving adults when adults start forgiving children who have far less independence, power, and authority.
	So when people say, well, you see, it's childhood and circumstances that make the difference and we can't really hold people responsible who are 30 and hitting their children or screaming at their children.
	We can't hold those people responsible.
	I will know when that is not just self-serving, parent-excusing bullshit.
	I will know that when people don't even imagine applying that to parents.
	When the first thing they say is, wow, you know what?
	People aren't particularly responsible for what happens to them in their childhood, or the effects of childhood are not particularly the responsibility of the individual.
	Therefore, the first thing we need to do is completely reform the educational system.
	Because those children are actually in their childhoods.
	And I'm pointing this out, not to have a rant, although that obviously has something to do with it, but just because I need you to understand that with this knowledge, with the knowledge that we're talking about here, comes an inevitable contempt and disgust with society as a whole.
	I mean, we all understand it is insanely evil to assign more responsibility to a 10-year-old child than a 30-year-old adult, right?
	And you as a child were failed or castigated or punished because you made, quote, bad choices.
	And then when you say, well, you know what?
	My parents made bad choices.
	What do people say?
	Oh, but they had these childhoods.
	Oh, they were doing the best they could.
	They were stressed.
	Fuck, I was pretty stressed as a kid.
	No one cut me any slack for it.
	Now, of course, we should cut slack for children when they're children.
	If we're going to cut slack for anyone, it should be for children when they're children.
	But this cut slack because of childhood only ever occurs when we assign moral responsibility to parents.
	They're the ones who need to be forgiven because they had bad childhoods or they were undergoing stress or the husband left them or whatever, right?
	It's like, well, I was the goddamn kid going through infinitely more stress than any other adult around me because they had choices.
	I had no choices.
	And we blame and castigate children.
	We spank and punish children.
	We fail children in school.
	We give them failing grades.
	We hold them back a year sometimes.
	Because children are 100% morally responsible, you see.
	But then when that moral responsibility focuses on parents, all of these excuses start popping up.
	And it's vile and it's disgusting.
	And it's deeply, deeply evil.
	I mean, this prejudice against children is so deep-seated.
	It's like gravity.
	It's something you don't really think about unless you really work to concentrate on it.
	But moving forward, that is the society that you're going to be entering into.
	And it is one of the most difficult burdens of philosophy or self-knowledge at the moment.
	It's realizing that all of these ethics are invented to harm children and excuse their abusers.
	Ethics and moral responsibility is the handmaiden, slave, servant, and master of child abusers.
	The idea of moral responsibility is only and forever applied 150% to children and minus 150% to parents.
	Punishment, ethics, reward, free will, virtue, good, bad behavior, these things are all invented to punish children and then completely reversed to excuse abusers.
	It is a tool of abuse.
	And if we internalize this in terms of self-attack, Well, I was a tough kid.
	I didn't listen.
	I didn't study.
	I was disobedient.
	I was disrespectful.
	I fought.
	All we're doing is we are internalizing the foundational tool of child abuse, which is ethics, which is virtue, which is what is called responsibility.
	My mom would scream at me that I was irresponsible.
	It's like, well, mom, the fact that you're screaming It's much more irresponsible than anything I could ever have done.
	The fact that you chose to have a second child in a disintegrating marriage with a guy you loathed was a little bit more irresponsible than me misplacing a cup somewhere or dropping a glass and it breaking.
	The fact that you've alienated everyone around you who might possibly give you support through rages, hostility, and vindictive vendettas Might be just a little bit more irresponsible than anything I've ever done.
	The fact that you've dragged two kids to a new continent at a time when they might actually be able to find some support from society, from extended family, from friends and friends' parents from the vicious abuse they're experiencing, have to drag them off to a new country to break any kind of contact they might have with people, break any kind of support with people.
	The fact that you moved us to separate us from any support and any intervention and any salvation from the abuse we were suffering might be a little bit more irresponsible than I forgot to put my braces in last night.
	But you see this irresponsibility and laziness and lack of attention and lack of concentration.
	See, the children are diagnosed with ADHD. It's not possibly that the school system is deficient and that the parenting is deficient or abusive.
	It can't possibly be anything to do with that.
	Because teachers and teachers unions and parents vote and have authority and can make people's lives difficult.
	The children don't vote, don't have authority, and can't make anyone's lives difficult, really.
	And so we say not that the school lacks stimulation, but that the children lack attention.
	And therefore we drug them to the profit of all except the children who will inherit the debt for all of these foul pseudo-medicines and who will have to live with brain deficiencies that can be triggered by these medications.
	But this is why when you talk about self-destruction at the age of 10 you are hoping to expose Your parents to criticism.
	But it wouldn't have worked.
	When children go off the rails when they are 13 or 14 or whatever, as I started to do, significantly heading down a bad path with some pretty bad people.
	Well, when I was arrested The cop gave me a long lecture on what I'd done wrong and how bad it was and how I need to be responsible and respect people, respect their property and be good and obey the law and all these kinds of things.
	But nobody ever, of course, said to me, well, he's doing the best he can with the knowledge he has.
	He's had a really difficult childhood.
	No, I was just a bad kid doing bad things.
	It was nothing serious in particular, but I mean, this is the reality.
	And that's the world that we live in.
	The children get no excuse and endless punishment, and parents get endless excuses, and society and schools get endless excuses.
	Can you imagine paying a child To do badly in school?
	Well, if you get an A, you get 50 detentions.
	But if you get an F, you get $5,000.
	But that's exactly how the school system operates.
	If the school is doing badly, it makes the case for increased funding.
	We pay schools for doing badly.
	If teachers don't know enough, they get free days off to go and attend seminars.
	So I just sort of wanted to point out that when children go off the rails, the parents get sympathy.
	Oh, you know, he must have some brain chemistry imbalance.
	Ooh, he mysteriously fell in with the wrong crowd.
	It's his friends, his peers.
	Video games!
	Video games, the internet, pornography!
	Marilyn Manson, drugs!
	You poor parents having to deal with this rebellious, sullen, difficult teenager.
	And nobody ever says, gosh, I... I wonder if the teenager has anything to actually be sullen about in society, in his family, in his schools.
	And that is the reality.
	If you had killed yourself when you were 10, your parents would have received bottomless sympathy from those around them.
	Oh, it must have been some chemical imbalance in the brain.
	Oh, you know, he must have accidentally stumbled across a website of Satanism or, you know, something.
	They would have invented something to be able to provide the parents sympathy because that's the world we live in.
	Whenever anything goes wrong in a family, the children are blamed and the parents receive sympathy.
	Almost always.
	Every time I point out the degree to which childhood negatively affects adulthood, if the childhood is stressful, traumatic and abusive, I get deluged with emails from extremely articulate bullshit artists.
	Who say, well I knew a kid, he had a perfect childhood, was loved by everyone, perfectly happy, and he became a heroin addict, so what do you say to that?
	I say bullshit.
	That's not even an argument worth considering.
	First of all, how the fuck do you know whether that person had a perfect childhood or not?
	How the fuck do you know?
	Anyone who makes that claim with a straight face automatically disqualifies themselves from any rational consideration at all.
	I don't know who had a perfect childhood.
	There are lots of people who put on a great front, a great facade of having it together.
	Christ, I was the class clown.
	Made everybody laugh.
	I mean, I had jobs.
	I had girlfriends.
	I was in a garage band briefly.
	I mean, I did lots of cool.
	I did plays.
	I was on the debating team.
	I was on the water polo team, the swim team.
	I was a cross-country runner.
	Played soccer, tennis, squash, worked out.
	I mean, man, I looked like I had it together and a half.
	Nobody had a clue.
	People say, well, if I had gone to drugs, I said, I knew this guy.
	An all-star athlete.
	He did well in school, had girlfriends.
	He looked like it was great.
	Bingo, bango, that stiff guy got into drugs, crime.
	Anybody who says they know for sure somebody else had a perfectly happy childhood, It's a bullshit artist.
	It doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a happy child.
	There is.
	But not if you're in public school, for God's sakes, right?
	I mean, public school.
	Somebody who says that, you know, with the exception that they were, their parents were forced at gunpoint to pay to a school that they were probably forced at gunpoint to go to, which had nothing to do with any interest or profit in educating them.
	Or, you know, with the exception that they were told that they were going to burn in hell if they had any sexual thoughts at the age of 13, or whatever, they were told.
	With the exception that they were bored out of their gourd for most of their childhood, stuck in a mental prison they were unable to leave.
	And I get all of this stuff.
	This stuff just comes pouring out because people need to find exceptions.
	People need to find exceptions because the idea that a problematic child indicates a problem in society, in the school, in the home, in the church is incomprehensible.
	And the relationship between child abuse and adult dysfunction is far stronger than the relationship between smoking and dying from smoking.
	Like a third of smokers, they don't die from smoking.
	That's a third of people who smoke heavily and they don't die from smoking.
	But the first time we see Leonard Nimoy, the Star Trek actor, recently diagnosed with a sort of chronic lung problem.
	He was a heavy smoker.
	I think he quit.
	He's 82 now.
	I think he quit like 30 years ago when he was in his early 50s.
	First thing you go, lung cancer or chronic lung problems.
	Oh, he was a smoker.
	Even though people, Andy Kaufman died of lung cancer, apparently was never a smoker.
	But this knee jerk reaction that we have to just find excuses and find exceptions, that would have occurred if you'd killed yourself.
	People would have said, oh my goodness, you poor parents.
	Yeah.
	And a cousin of mine, the only male cousin I had, he killed himself when I was maybe 12 and he was 14.
	So that's my father's sister.
	And I could see he didn't have any impact on society.
	I mean, he just stopped his life and all that he could have changed or something.
	Nothing happened and he's just now gone and the reason that it was talked about was that he was blaming himself that his parents are going to divorce.
	I don't know, but I was happy I didn't kill myself.
	I'm now happy that I didn't kill myself because you can't change anything when you're dead.
	No, and it just vanishes from people's brains and then they come up with these self-serving sympathy misses for themselves and everyone rushes to provide them comfort for these terrible things.
	That has happened, right?
	I mean, Rick Warren, one of the most famous American megachurch preachers, his son committed suicide.
	And, you know, you can just look at, you know, Rick Warren on guns, God and son's tragic death, his son's tragic death.
	He opens up about his son's suicide, how painful it was for him, how difficult it was for him, how incomprehensible it was for him, how he tried to give his son every conceivable level of support and help and blah-de-blah-de-blah, right?
	Yeah.
	Now, I don't know the story of this.
	I mean, I don't know what the hell do I care or know about this sort of stuff.
	Right?
	It starts off.
	This is from CNN. Rick and Kay Warren stood outside their son's home, sobbing in each other's arms.
	They knew.
	They had talked Matthew 27 off the ledge many times, but not this time.
	A nod from a police officer who inspected Matthew's house confirmed their worst fears.
	I just hit the ground, Kay Warren said.
	On April 5th, Matthew Warren killed himself with a gun after a lifelong battle with mental illness.
	You see, the family was just struck with mental illness.
	It's terrible.
	The day I had feared might happen one day since he had been born, and the day that I had prayed would never happen, happened.
	Rick Warren told Piers Morgan in an exclusive interview.
	For the first time since Matthew Warren's death on April 5th, 2013, I think there was, Rick and Kay Warren are speaking out about his troubled life, how the tragedy changed their faith and their new mission to draw attention to mental illness.
	Now, do you see how clever all of this is, right?
	I have a question like...
	Hang on a sec.
	Let me just finish this part and then I'll be quiet because, I mean, there's so much about this that's just beautiful, nasty propaganda.
	The day that I feared might happen one day since he had been born.
	We were born with a son prone to suicidality.
	Since he had been born.
	They were born with a child Maybe the child came out with two fingers and a thumb cocked, pointed straight to his forehead.
	But they were born, you see, with a child who was mentally ill.
	And they were born with a child who ended up killing himself.
	And all they could do was try to...
	Stave it off, said their son.
	Matthew Warren struggled with borderline personality disorder and deep depression for much of his life.
	He had a loving family and access to mental health care, but not even that could spare him.
	Matthew was a young man with a tender heart and tortured mind, Rick Warren said.
	If love could have kept my child alive, he'd be alive today because he was incredibly loved.
	He says, I never questioned my faith in God.
	I questioned God's plan, Rick Warren said.
	God isn't to blame for my son's death.
	My son took his life.
	It was his choice.
	It was his choice.
	And, you know, the fact that his father is a professional liar, and the fact that his father...
	Runs a church that regularly inflicts mental torture on children.
	And the fact that he says, my son was born this way.
	Since he was born, he had these problems.
	And he had mental illness, you see?
	See, this is what he says.
	He had mental illness.
	But none of this hangs together, even remotely.
	Because if Rick Warren's son had mental illness, if he was born that way, if he was genetically programmed to kill himself, then what sense does this make?
	When he says, I never questioned my faith in God, Rick Warren said, God isn't to blame for my son's death.
	My son took his life.
	It was his choice.
	It was his choice.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Which is it?
	Is it mental illness?
	Was he born that way?
	Or was it his choice?
	See, none of this makes any sense.
	Because if it wasn't his choice, then it has to be something...
	Like, if it was genetic and you're religious, it has something to do with God.
	God designed this person to kill himself.
	Right?
	Because God could have fixed the genes like that.
	If it's original sin, if it's an original genetic sin, then God is to blame.
	If God wasn't to blame, but it was bad parenting, bad environment, then...
	Rick Warren and his wife are to blame.
	If mental illness was the fact then God is to blame, but neither Rick Warren nor his son are to blame.
	You see, under no configuration are either God or the parents responsible.
	This is why the story just changes.
	When the parents are focused on its mental illness, When mental illness is focused on, it's not present anymore and it's the son's pure choice to kill himself.
	Nearly half of evangelicals say that people with serious mental illnesses like depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia can be cured by Bible study and prayer alone.
	60% of Americans overall disagree.
	You can pray Child abuse away.
	Unless, of course, prayer is child abuse, in which case you will probably end up much worse than before.
	So, this has not harmed his ministry.
	I'm sure he's got lots of donations and sympathy, and how terrible that you had to deal with this strangely unfree-willed individual who was born to kill himself, yet who was still 100% responsible for his choice.
	It's just tortured inventions to excuse Environment, society, parenting, and so on.
	And I bet you they took this kid to a lot of Christian counselors, unless his problem was Christianity.
	I don't know, for sure.
	I mean, I think that religion and superstition as a whole are not beneficial mental health practices, but this, I'm afraid, is the society that you're going to be going into.
	You know, it's a little worse in America, but it's all over the place.
	And...
	So it is tough to find your ambition in that world, if that makes any sense.
	Yes, it's tough to find my ambition.
	If I think about it, I want to change the world for a little bit to the better than when I came to this world.
	But when you were talking about this child who committed suicide, the question came into my mind, is it normal that I don't feel really that much?
	I feel like maybe I have a blockade like a soldier.
	So I was in the war and this child died and I have to carry on.
	I shouldn't focus too much on...
	On your cousin you mean?
	Yeah, on my cousin and it's also my brother.
	He's still alive.
	But the last five years he just spent in his room afraid of society and Living with his parents but just last one year he was just living in the night and my parents were living in the day.
	I can't really sympathize with him.
	I feel responsible when he calls me.
	I try to give him solutions how to get out of it because sometimes he wants to get out of it but he doesn't have the power really to do something.
	Three, four days ago, I was talking to him to blame also his parents for his failure, not just himself, or only his parents, not himself, and that he has to get out of the war zone.
	You mean our parents, right?
	Sorry?
	You said his parents, you mean our parents.
	That's an important distinction, but anyway, go on.
	They're my parents too.
	So I'm just focused on how to combat this evil, but I don't feel any sympathy, and maybe that's also just weakening my motivation, because I... No, no, listen, sorry to interrupt, but look...
	Can you imagine a war where people had sympathy for the enemy soldiers?
	No.
	No.
	Such a war would not occur.
	Can you imagine a war on drugs where people had empathy for drug addicts and recognized them as mostly self-medicating people attempting to overcome brain damage caused by a traumatized childhood?
	Could you imagine a war on drugs that rested on empathy for addicts?
	No, of course not.
	Can you imagine a parent spanking because they had deep and abiding empathy for their child's preferences and needs?
	No.
	Can you imagine a church operating where the parents had a deep and abiding empathy for their children's preferences and desires?
	Do you want to go to church?
	Do you want to hear more about how Jesus died for your sins?
	To be honest, I chose myself to be Catholic but I quit like one year ago.
	I was free to go to church and I went for a longer time to church than my brother did.
	He quit church maybe when he was 10 and when I was 15 really to go to church every Sunday.
	Right.
	But I can't imagine that children want to be told how sinful they are and how Jesus died for their sins and needs to go into a formal suit and sit on a hard pew for an hour, right?
	Yeah.
	Can you imagine a government-run school system, or any school system, that would look like it does now if it had deep empathy for the needs of children and their parents?
	Nope.
	Barack Obama the other day said, Well, we've got free Wi-Fi at Starbucks, so we should at least have free Wi-Fi in our schools, right?
	Of course, you know, big fucking difference, right?
	You can leave Starbucks.
	You can choose not to go there.
	How about we bring choice to the public school systems before we worry about the goddamn Wi-Fi?
	But of course, that's not going to happen.
	So the reason that you don't feel empathy for the victims is that society as we know it could not conceivably stand in the presence of empathy.
	Empathy is the sunlight to the vampire of culture.
	Sympathy is sunlight to the vampire of statism.
	Sympathy and empathy is sunlight to the vampire of public schools and of war.
	And of unjust imprisonment.
	So the fact that you don't feel empathy for victims is exactly how it's supposed to be in society.
	Empathy would unravel all of the knotted cords around our necks placed there by irrational authority.
	Right?
	A deficiency in empathy is a necessary engine for exploitation.
	The development of empathy is like saying to people, faceplant in this bowl of maggots and it will be a great meal.
	The development of empathy is so hard because the world is so fucking horrible in so many ways.
	The development of empathy is painful in the extreme.
	Empathy feels like masochism in the beginning.
	And so the fact that you wouldn't have a lot of empathy for the victims of families and of cultures, religions, schools, the fact that you wouldn't have empathy for this and the fact that you're aware that you don't have empathy is fantastic.
	Most people are not even aware that they lack empathy for the victims of power.
	The fact that you have empathy, have an empathy deficiency and know that is a fantastic first step.
	So, it's inevitable and natural and it's much bigger than your family.
	Much bigger and deeper than your family.
	Your family is just one manifestation of it.
	The family is in many ways the primary conduit of how this is achieved.
	You know, how many kids want to go to school?
	I don't know.
	I don't think that many.
	I sure as hell didn't.
	Nobody I knew wanted to be there.
	So, how could a society that has empathy want to send their kids to school?
	Well, You know, because for moms, spending time with their children is not even in the top ten of things they want to do.
	You know, I want to go shopping and see movies and spend time with friends and have lattes and stuff.
	But having empathy for the children?
	It's a terrible scene from my childhood.
	My brother went to boarding school for a year before I did.
	I was five.
	I was too young.
	And my mother and I went up to visit him.
	And I think it was for a weekend.
	And my mom got the date wrong about when the school was supposed to open again.
	So we drove back to the school expecting everyone to be there to pick my brother up.
	And my brother would have been, I guess, seven, seven and a half.
	And we dropped.
	We drove up.
	We were in a cab and we drove up.
	We didn't have a car.
	We never had a car.
	We drove up to the school and And there was nobody there.
	I don't know if we were there on a Sunday and it opened up on a Monday or something like that.
	But we drove up to the school to drop my brother off.
	A boarding school.
	Like on its own estate.
	It was not on a busy street.
	There was nobody else around.
	It was in a walled off thing.
	I guess the gates were open.
	We drove up.
	Knocked on the door.
	And we had train tickets to go back home.
	We knocked on the door.
	Big ass giant brass knocker.
	Nobody answered.
	Nobody answered.
	My mom would call out.
	She started running around the building screaming for people because we had to get back to the train station apparently.
	Tickets, right?
	Cab driver's like, hey, we gotta go.
	And my mother left my brother on the steps Of that closed up, sealed off boarding school, and drove away.
	And my brother was hysterical, sobbing, screaming, don't leave me.
	I remember so clearly I was five, looking out the back at that.
	I remember the dirt patterns on the back of the cab window.
	And I was looking at my brother on these steps, sobbing.
	He was sobbing, screaming, crying.
	Hysterical and rightly so.
	My God, what a horrifying thing to do to a child as we drove away.
	I remember thinking even at that time that too much sympathy in this world was a very, very dangerous thing.
	That feeling for the victims was like a target to your head.
	My mother did not have empathy.
	What an insane thing to do, to leave a seven-year-old in the middle of nowhere.
	And I never knew what happened.
	I'm sure that eventually some janitor or caretaker or someone came by.
	It's like a time when my mom dropped me off someplace saying, just take a bus home.
	And neglected to give me any money.
	I started walking home.
	It was too far.
	I had to start going up to people to ask for change.
	The nice bearded guy eventually gave me the money to get on a bus.
	But the idea of having empathy for victims is...
	It would change everything.
	It would change everything.
	So it doesn't surprise me that you...
	Lacking in empathy for the victims, but it's very encouraging that you're aware of that, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah.
	I absolutely have to move on to another caller.
	Thank you very much.
	I hope this was helpful.
	This is, I think, the stuff that needs to be looked at.
	If I were in your shoes, I hope that that will help.
	But it's pretty deep stuff that you'll be working with.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to get to it again.
	And thank you for your call.
	All right, Andrew, you're up next.
	Go ahead.
	Hello, Andrew.
	So, hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you having this show.
	And one of the recent videos you did about a month ago was on who owns the United States.
	And after listening to it, I had a few questions I wanted to ask because I'm not totally convinced about the argument you made about the difference between Government and private ownership.
	Okay, go for it.
	Basically, you made about three distinctions between private ownership and government that I could tell.
	The first was that government is basically murder geography.
	They did not legitimately Claim the property by purchasing it or voluntary transaction.
	And the second was that the people living there did not voluntarily move there in a government and their children are forced to live there and go to schools and whatever versus a private property where you could just move there.
	I'm talking about like that USA government company example that the reader gave you.
	You know what I'm talking about, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so like in that particular situation, if you were setting up some kind of socialist or experiment or community or whatever, then people could just voluntarily move there.
	And then the third distinction was that there's no owner of the government.
	Mm-hmm.
	Sorry, in a democracy in particular, you could make the argument that in an aristocracy, there is an owner of the government who is the king or queen who wishes to retain the value of the tax base in perpetuity and so on.
	But particularly in a democracy or a republic, there's no owner.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Okay, so with the point about not acquiring the property legitimately because you murdered someone or you stole their land or whatever, I don't see how that's any different than the example you gave where you said maybe 500 years ago my Irish ancestor had his land stolen by a British guy,
	but then the British guy made improvements to the land So, he, at some point in time, not exactly clear, he became the legitimate owner of the property by homesteading it, even though he wasn't at the time that he acquired it.
	So I'm not totally clear.
	Was there some process?
	Is it just like a gradual thing?
	Or was there some point in time where you can say, oh, now he's the owner.
	He wasn't the owner yesterday, but he is today.
	Or is it more of a...
	No, but hang on.
	You're talking about two different things.
	So you're talking about an individual versus the government, right?
	So you can't transpose those two as if they're the same thing.
	Okay, but a government could just be like a dictator or a king or whatever.
	Yeah.
	So wait, we're not talking about a democracy now, we're talking about an aristocracy?
	Well, I mean, yeah, government comes in many different forms.
	But if that only applies to a democracy, then I understand.
	But what I still don't get is that, I mean, a king taking over a large region of land with his army and then spending other people's money, tax money or whatever, on improving the land, building aqueducts or farmland or whatever, I mean, that doesn't seem to me a whole lot different than A wealthy merchant hiring a mercenary army to take over someone else's land and doing the same thing.
	And have you got examples in history where wealthy merchants hire mercenary armies to take over other people's things?
	Well, I mean, it's kind of what happened when the original colonists came to the United States.
	It was a for-profit venture where they were going under the authority of the English government, but they were still doing it to make money.
	Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	You said private merchants hiring armies to take over land, and then you're talking about a state-sponsored terrorist attack upon a new continent.
	That's not the same thing, right?
	Okay, that's fair enough.
	But, okay, so I don't have off the top of my head an example of that, but except for, I mean, the example that you gave, where, I mean, it doesn't even have to be an army.
	It could just be a single person doing it, but it just seems to me that it's a matter of scale.
	The point is that even if you take over, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that even if you illegitimately take over property, then you can still Gain legitimacy by improving the land.
	Well, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Because, look, I mean, illegitimately taking over property is our understanding of property transfers now versus the past.
	Look, almost all land property fundamentally resulted from conflict.
	I mean, there were very few places where you could go where there wasn't anyone.
	I mean, there were some places, of course, right?
	But those places tend to be pretty crappy.
	So people wanted the best land, and whether it was tribal conflict or government conflict or monarchic conflict or whatever, I mean, the entire Roman army, you know, sort of the western and the eastern Byzantine-based Roman army, I mean, gave huge plots of land as a result of conquest.
	But at the time...
	The technology of morality was extremely primitive.
	So it's like calling them bad scientists in the Neolithic era.
	Well, they didn't have the scientific method.
	So we look back now and we say, like, slavery was morally illegitimate.
	Of course it was.
	But these are not laws of physics, right?
	These are laws of morality, which is a form of technology and a form of knowledge that needs to be developed and applied.
	And so, for my own experience, I accepted the non-aggression principle and statism for about 20 years.
	Now, that's pretty retarded, in hindsight.
	But I simply did not have the arguments, did not have the knowledge, did not have the conclusions that allowed me to consistently accept the non-aggression principle and to reject the state.
	So as I've talked about before, when people...
	Don't morally know something.
	They're kind of in a state of nature.
	Now, once you make moral arguments and you put the moral arguments, once people have been exposed to a moral argument, then they need to either refute it, live by it, or accept the consequences of conscious immorality, right?
	So if somebody tells me slavery is moral, I either have to refute it, accept it, or if I cannot refute it but still accept it, or reject it, either way, Then I'm a moral hypocrite.
	So, as far as, you know, my ancestors took some land from...
	I mean, I don't know.
	I mean, my ancestors came over with William the Conqueror in 1066, and I'm sure slaughtered their goodly portion of blue-painted Britain savages, and then were sent over to Ireland, where they slaughtered, I'm sure, a good bunch more, and I'm sure some of my ancestors were slaughtered by those selfsame people in Ireland, and so on, and there was some land...
	And then that land was, you know, we had a drunken great-grandfather who then drank away all that land, and that's all gone now, and so on.
	I mean, saying, was the property legitimately acquired in 1066 when the Normans invaded England?
	To me is, I mean, who cares?
	It's what happened.
	What matters now is property going forward.
	Now, there's no possible way of unraveling and writing The property violations of history.
	It's simply not possible to do it.
	Because it's creating an alternate universe and imagining that you know the outcome.
	Well, what would have happened if my ancestors hadn't taken that land?
	So, maybe the peasants were better off.
	Because it wasn't like they were all living in a free, lovely state of nature.
	You know, with freedom and property rights and free trade and the scientific method and rationalism and so on.
	And then nasty savages came along and blew that all up there.
	So, you know, maybe, I mean, a lot of people under the Roman Empire, I mean, it's a great Monty Python skit about this.
	Thank you.
	What have the Romans ever done for us other than brought peace, combated disease, cleaned up the water, built aqueducts, built roads, facilitated trade, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
	Right?
	I mean, some people are better off being conquered.
	So, I mean, there's just no way to unravel all of that stuff in history.
	Now, as far as the present goes, you know, there's some unraveling to be done, which is the first recognition that it's just a universally preferable behavior.
	It's just a universalization thing.
	If any individual can arbitrarily claim entire sections of land, then all individuals can arbitrarily claim any section of land, which all cancels each other out and you've solved nothing, right?
	Well, I have the Western Hemisphere, says I. Well, I have the Western Hemisphere, says you.
	And what does that mean?
	We just made some noises and nothing is actually resolved.
	Anything.
	Now, two people cannot simultaneously really practically work to develop the same land at the same time.
	Because if they both start, they won't continue until property is resolved.
	Right?
	I'm not going to build a house right next to somebody else who's building a house in the middle of nowhere until the property is resolved.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Which is one of the reasons why that sort of homesteading can be universalized.
	So going forward, what happens to government-owned lands?
	I mean, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I mean, my guess would be that the most just thing to do would be to auction it off and take whatever proceeds you could and use it to make sure that the people who couldn't vote Ended up with less debt or less deficiencies.
	Everyone who votes is morally responsible for the government.
	And certainly people before the age of voting should receive restitution because they sure as hell didn't vote to be in the government schools.
	They didn't vote for government debt or anything like that.
	So the kids would get Money from the sale of government lands in a just system.
	But, you know, that's not going to be enforced in a democratic system because kids don't vote.
	It requires the development of the empathy that we talked about in the previous call.
	But that's, I think, the only just way to do it.
	You know, another way to do it would be to simply open the lands, you know, cancel all the debts and open the lands and say they're now officially unowned and go homestead as you see fit.
	I don't know.
	It's sort of like the war on drugs.
	Let's say they legalize marijuana tomorrow.
	What happens to the millions of people whose lives were destroyed because of the war on drugs because they were in possession of a substance that is now legal?
	Do we pay them restitution?
	Well, how can we?
	Because the only way to pay them restitution is to steal from people in the here and now.
	And so, I don't know.
	Obviously, it's a huge problem.
	Of course, the legalization of drugs, nobody ever talks about restitution.
	I mean, we can talk about restitution from slavery 150 years ago, and we can't talk about restitution for victims of the drug war if it ever gets legalized.
	Governments don't like to talk about that at all.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, that's, I think, a much more important issue than how my ancestor's land was distributed 1,000 years ago.
	Does that help at all?
	Yeah, and so the other thing I wanted to ask was in the case of the hypothetical person buying a bunch of land and then setting up some democratic society that was based on private ownership.
	So, I mean, yeah, everybody who moved there You know, the owner built homes and leased them out or whatever.
	Everybody who moved there originally would be a voluntary owner.
	But then, you know, a few generations in, their kids would be born there and their kids' kids.
	And they would be going to the same schools or they would be going to public schools that were funded by these lease payments and whatever premiums in the form of taxation required to live there.
	No, it's not taxation if it's a voluntary contract, right?
	That's to say that condo fees are identical to taxation, which I think is morally unsustainable, right?
	Right, but the only reason that it's not voluntary is because people who live here, or tell me if I'm wrong about this, is because you're paying taxes even though you didn't actually choose to move to the United States, you were born here, as opposed to people living in that USA government company.
	Well, of course, children in general, sorry, children in general don't pay, they only pay time tax by being stuck in the prisons of public schools.
	They don't pay tax tax in general.
	Buy a candy bar or whatever, right?
	But it's, yeah, so if you're born in some place, like if you're born to a place with condo fees, let's just take a condominium because it's the closest, right?
	So when my wife and I had a condo, we paid, I don't know, 200 bucks a month in condo fees.
	That was not a tax.
	Right?
	That's like saying, well, I've got a house, but if I have to pay for heating it, that's a tax.
	Like we paid for maintenance of the common areas, we paid for repairs, we paid for, you know, the security guard at the front, all of which we knew going in, and we could have chosen a place with cheaper condo fees and so on, right?
	Now, if my daughter, if we still lived in that place, and my daughter did not like those condo fees, then she could move when she grew up, right?
	She's not paying those condo fees when she's a kid.
	But doesn't that apply to somebody living in the United States?
	I mean, people say this all the time as a rebuttal to anarchist arguments that, oh, well, you could just move if you don't like it, if you don't want to pay the tax or the fees or whatever.
	Well, first of all, you can't move.
	You can't move.
	I mean, how do they think you can just go move to another country?
	I mean, this is only idiots who've never thought about it and certainly never tried.
	Just, you know, look up.
	How do you move to Germany?
	Well, you have to have a lot of money because...
	But it's not...
	The mechanics of it are not really different.
	You just have to be...
	No, no.
	You have to apply for...
	You have to go live there.
	You have to buy property sometimes.
	You have to apply for citizenship.
	It can take years.
	And you can still get taxed when you go to Germany from America.
	I mean, the fucking guy moved to Singapore, the Facebook guy.
	And they still taxed his ass.
	It's literally like saying we can take an animal from one zoo cage to another, and that's the same as setting him free.
	And in Germany, you will still be taxed.
	You know what it's like saying?
	It's like saying the condo fees are ridiculously high.
	They're like 75% of your condominium rent, right?
	So you're paying $1,000 in your condo mortgage a month and then you have to pay $750 for condo fees.
	And 90% of those services you'll never use and don't want, but you can't undo that.
	And everywhere you move in that country, There are condo fees.
	And you are never allowed to not own a condo or you're thrown in jail.
	And if you go to another country, it's going to take you years.
	It's going to cost you tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	And when you move to that country, you also have to pay condo fees and you are never not allowed to not own a condo.
	You always have to own a condo.
	And everywhere you go in the world, you're forced to pay for condo fees or get thrown in jail for services you neither want nor value.
	Oh, and by the way, The money that you use for those condo fees is used as collateral for intergenerational debt.
	So you have to pay for all this money for services you neither want nor value, and that money is then used to borrow money, the debt of which accumulates to your child against his or her will.
	So when your child grows up, they have to pay those condo fees and all the interest on the debt that was accumulated on the collateral of the forced condo fees that were paid in your name.
	You know, if that's moral, let's just fucking apply it to condos.
	and see how well that works.
	Okay.
	Well, I see your point, but I'm still not convinced, but I under...
	Tell me where you're not convinced.
	Well, I mean, anywhere that you move, that you live in, you're going to have to pay for services...
	And you can't just, I mean, it's more economically efficient to bundle a lot of services together in one at once than to pick and choose.
	I'm sorry, what the hell does economic efficiency have to do with anything?
	I mean, kids cost over a million dollars to raise.
	It's economically efficient for parents to strangle their own children.
	What the hell does economic efficiency have to do with anything, even if it were true?
	Maybe it doesn't, but I don't know.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Is it economically efficient to have pets?
	No.
	No, so by this argument, we should all be flushing our goldfish down the toilet and strangling our cats.
	Right, but I mean, what I was getting, it was anywhere that you live, you are going to have to pay for basic services, which you might think are too high, but it's not really avoidable, is it?
	I don't know what you mean.
	I mean, it's like saying you can choose to get married or not, but if you had a country where you had to legally, you were forced to get married, right?
	Then that would be immoral, right?
	And I'd say, well, but you could avoid being forced to get married by the government by moving to another country where a different government would force you to get married.
	And that's the same as having the choice to get married or not.
	I mean, that doesn't make any sense, right?
	Right.
	Lots of people do want to get married, for sure.
	And lots of people like security guards and buffed floors and TV rooms in their condo, but some people don't.
	Right?
	I mean, some people have kids and then are responsible for educating those kids, and some people don't have kids and are damn well not responsible for educating kids, right?
	Yeah.
	Some people want cars and some people don't want cars.
	Some people like to bicycle.
	And People providing services, first of all, you can choose the level of services, and second of all, you know that economic efficiency is being achieved when you have the maximum competition of people who are vying to give you your services, right?
	How do I know I'm getting a really good price when I go to Walmart?
	Because Walmart works really hard to grind down the bids of people who want to sell through Walmart.
	Because Walmart has so much volume, In terms of what they sell, that they can demand a very small profit on the part of the people who sell to them or sell through them, right?
	So if you're, I don't know, whoever makes that damn Slap Chop thing, right?
	If they're being sold through Walmart, you know for sure that Walmart got pretty much the best available price because Walmart offers the widest possible distribution, right?
	And everyone's competing to sell through Walmart.
	And so the people who can successfully sell through Walmart are the people who've got the greatest economic efficiency possible.
	I mean, give or take, it's your best guarantee, right?
	You don't have that guarantee when you go to get a car license or a driver's license, right?
	Or government schools.
	There's no economic efficiency in coercion.
	Coercion, by definition, is win-lose, right?
	The Thief gets your wallet and you get to not get shot by the thief.
	It's win-lose, right?
	So wherever coercion is not present, it's win-win.
	And if my daughter grows up and doesn't like the condo fees, she can leave.
	Now, does that mean she won't need heat?
	No.
	But nobody's coercing her to stay and nobody's forcing her to enter into an unjust contract That is coercively implemented wherever she goes.
	She has the choice.
	And everybody who's interacting with her has the choice.
	In the face of taxation, it's coercive.
	It is not analogous to a private contract.
	It is the complete opposite of a private contract.
	Now, both involve contracts, to some degree, although there's no such thing as a contract with the government.
	But both such things involve the exchange of services, And the exchange of money.
	Right?
	Absolutely.
	A private condo fee is paying money for services, and property taxes is paying money for services.
	Absolutely.
	But so what?
	You know, both lovemaking and rape involve a penis and vagina, but they're not the same.
	The element of coercion makes them completely opposite.
	The opposite of lovemaking is not abstinence, but rape.
	And the opposite of a voluntary contract is not no contract, but a coerced contract.
	They're moral opposites.
	Charity is the giving of money to people voluntarily.
	Now, if somebody sticks a knife in my ribs and says, give me 50 bucks, you could say that I voluntarily choose to give them 50 bucks because I want to not have a knife in my ribs.
	But it is not the same as charity.
	Theft is the opposite of charity, even though They both involve the exchange of, like, the voluntary transfer, one-sided voluntary transfer of goods.
	It's the element of coercion.
	You're getting lost in all these complications of, well, you still have to pay for services and so on.
	It's like saying to a rape victim, well, you're still going to have to have sex, so just get raped.
	No.
	No, the element of coercion, the knife to the throat, means that you can't conflate it with sex.
	You cannot conflate it.
	With a voluntary interaction, a coercive interaction.
	The fact that there may be similar mechanics, who cares?
	It's the knife to the throat that makes it rape.
	And it's the threat of prison that makes it theft and immoral.
	And to try and analogize that with some voluntary contract, I think is really missing a foundational element of ethics.
	Okay, so...
	I just lost my train of thought.
	Okay, so even if there were no government, let's say you could just reset the world free of all governments, then couldn't the wealthiest people corner the market on certain goods and services and then essentially coerce you into paying inflated prices for those things and then it would amount to the same thing?
	Or is that different?
	Wait, so are you saying like some company buys up, I don't know, like a bunch of electricity companies and then they charge more?
	Yeah, like that.
	I don't know what you mean when you say inflated price.
	Well, if they have all of the supply, then they can charge you more money because there's no competition, because they bought up all the competition, so they cornered the market.
	Well, that's the government, right?
	So, obviously, you're not talking about the free market.
	The only example you have of that is the government.
	You cannot get a monopoly in a free market.
	I don't know if you've ever been involved in business.
	No, I haven't.
	Okay, first of all, there's no such thing as an inflated price.
	Let me tell you something.
	Everything I buy has an inflated price.
	Why?
	Because I want to pay zero for everything.
	In fact, I would like to get paid for buying stuff.
	I would like someone to give me a million dollars for getting an iPad.
	No, a billion dollars.
	Wait, I have to pay 600 bucks for an iPad?
	Well, that's a billion six hundred different than what I want.
	Every price is inflated to the purchaser, and every price is depressed for the seller.
	The seller always wants more, and the purchaser always wants to pay less.
	There is no such thing as an inflated price.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so using that term is to say that there's some metaphysical fair price, and higher than that is unfair.
	That makes no sense.
	Right?
	It's...
	Whatever you accept as wages on the free market is what you're worth.
	Now, you can say, well, I should be paid ten times the amount.
	But, I mean, I don't even know what that means.
	That's like saying Angelina Jolie should have married me instead of Brad Pitt.
	I mean, we recognize that as an irrational fantasy, right?
	There's no such thing as who Angelina Jolie should have married, right?
	I mean, she married who she married, right?
	So there's no such thing as an inflated price.
	Now, if some company wants to go around...
	some entire country and buy up all the electricity suppliers that will be completely impossible because the moment anyone suspects that you're trying to gain a monopoly the price of all the remaining assets will go up enormously because those people will know that the major reason that the company is buying up all of these assets is because they want to have a monopoly which means the first guy will sell for a small amount the second guy will sell for a higher amount And the 500th guy will sell
	for, like won't sell because the price will be out of reach.
	So the amount of, like if there are five companies each worth $100 million, you don't get them for $500 million.
	Because each time you get one company, the next company's value and price goes up.
	Because they know you're trying to get a monopoly, which means that they know that your end game means that it only works if everyone sells.
	So the moment anyone thinks you're trying to get a monopoly, the price of those companies goes up.
	Because, and I'll tell you why, because let's say you want to get four of those five companies, you have to start raising prices to pay for the debt you've taken on to buy those companies, right?
	And so if you buy five, there are five companies in a market, you buy four of them, let's just say you magically get them for $400 million.
	Well, you've got $400 million worth of debt that the fifth company doesn't have, so you've got to raise prices.
	And the fifth company is going to make a killing because they don't have to raise prices.
	You've just priced yourself out of the marketplace, you've shot yourself in the foot and you basically granted a huge advantage to the one company you can't buy or won't buy or earn too much in debt.
	And everybody knows this in the free market which is why companies very rarely go for monopolies and the occasional companies who try fail and generally go out of business.
	And the other thing that happens, too, is that companies enjoy a healthy rivalry.
	Why do you think Coke has never bought Pepsi?
	Because you get a huge advantage from other people advertising in your market space.
	Pop is good.
	Pop is cool.
	Pop is great.
	And then you go to the restaurant and say, I'll have a pop.
	I'll take a Coke.
	And they say, well, we only serve Pepsi here.
	What do you say?
	Fuck that.
	Bring me Gator piss instead.
	No, you're like, okay, I'll have a Pepsi, right?
	Because Coca-Cola is good.
	I'll take one or the other.
	Right?
	Monopolies are not, they're not hugely valuable.
	I mean, because if you want to start rent seeking because you're a monopoly, you're just opening yourself up to competition.
	And in a free market world, that competition can come from anywhere.
	Anywhere in the world.
	So, no, it's, you know, I think you're, you know, if you've got a problem with monopoly, don't worry about the free market, don't worry about the government.
	That's the only place where monopoly can ever be shown to work, even temporarily.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah, and so one last thing that I wanted to say.
	I think you've said on previous shows that you don't encourage people to try to get too involved in politics to change the way that society works and rather to be focused on better parenting and child raising.
	Is that Because I know someone called you about asking about libertarian politics, and you said, well, they've been trying for 40 years to educate people and change people's views, and it hasn't worked.
	So is that a fair...
	Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of arguments, but those are fine arguments, yeah.
	Okay, because, I mean, I personally think that it is worth getting involved in political views because I think one of the reasons you opposed it or were discouraging of it is because you said that people...
	It's already too late for adults if they haven't been exposed to the ideas of freedom from their parents.
	But I don't really see that because...
	A lot of the people that I know who have anarchist views or have been – they didn't get that from their parents.
	I mean they discovered it on – from other people after they were adults already.
	So I do think it is possible to influence people's opinion on the subject.
	Let's say people get skeptical about the Federal Reserve because of Ron Paul, right?
	Yeah.
	So what?
	Is that going to make them not hit their kids, or not circumcise their kids, or stay home with their kids, or breastfeed their kids?
	I mean, what's that going to do?
	It's going to mean they're knowledgeable about the Federal Reserve.
	So what?
	It might make them vote for somebody who would dissolve the Federal Reserve and stop printing money.
	Okay.
	Let's say they do that.
	How on earth is the government...
	Look, first of all, the government can't function if it stops printing money.
	I mean, that would require at least an immediate 50% reduction in government spending.
	At least.
	Probably more.
	I mean, they can't even slow the rate of growth.
	And you're talking about, well, maybe voters can get the government to cut 50%.
	So you're saying to the voters, vote for some guy, and immediately your income will drop down significantly.
	Well, if people...
	And there's a test for this, right?
	So, if you're saying to people, act on free market principles and lower your income, you can test that.
	You don't need to go to voters and theoretical, right?
	What you should do is you should write to free market economists who are currently employed in universities, right?
	And you should say, on principle, you should quit working for the university, which is a statist institution, and you should take a significant drop in your income and...
	And your retirement.
	And you should then, you know, become a podcaster or you should go and work for a purely private institution or, right, on principle, you should take a significant drop in your income and you should start paying for your own healthcare.
	And you should give up your retirement benefits.
	And those people should do that, right?
	Because they are deeply knowledgeable about the values and virtues of the free market, right?
	Well, that doesn't really work unless everybody's doing it.
	I mean, if only one person does it, then of course they're going to lose it.
	No, no, no.
	First of all, waiting for everyone to do something is just a way of saying, I never want to bother having it done, right?
	Well, that's what the politics is.
	I mean, I go get a haircut even if other people around me have long hair, right?
	I mean, if someone around me doesn't brush their teeth, I don't say, well, shit, I guess I'm going to lose my teeth.
	Oh, what?
	That guy doesn't floss?
	Shit.
	Now I can't floss.
	You do what's right because it's the right thing.
	If you say, well, everyone has to do it, and then it's going to work, or a majority has to do it, therefore it's going to work.
	I mean, it just means you don't want to get anything done.
	But if you're arguing that politics results in increased knowledge of free market principles, which will then cause people to act against their own self-interest in pursuit of those free market principles, easy peasy.
	Test that with the people who have the greatest knowledge of free market principles.
	Listening to a couple of Ron Paul speeches is nowhere comparable to getting a PhD in Austrian economics, right?
	So this is a testable hypothesis.
	You write to all of the people who get state benefits, who have a deep knowledge of free market economics, and you say you need to give up 50% of your income to live in conformity with your values.
	And if they say, shoot, you know what?
	That never really occurred to me, but you're absolutely right.
	I'm going to hand you my letter of resignation tomorrow.
	I'm going to go be a podcaster and talk to people and live with integrity and not take government benefits and blah-de-blah-de-blah, right?
	Well, then you have an example which says that if you can give people PhDs in free market economics, then they may act against their economic self-interest for the sake of their principles, right?
	Yeah.
	And therefore, that would be a necessary but not sufficient test of your principles.
	Now, what do you think would happen if you tried that plan?
	Well, but that's the whole point.
	What do you think would happen if you tried that plan?
	No, they would not do that.
	But that's just like asking someone to stop paying taxes because if you pay taxes...
	No, it's not like asking...
	I'm not asking them to do anything illegal.
	Asking people to stop paying taxes is saying go to jail.
	Saying to free market economists stop sucking at the state tit is a purely...
	It's voluntary, non-jail, non-illegal.
	It is not illegal to quit your job as an academic, right?
	And it is much more in conformity with your principles.
	So you are not asking people to do anything illegal if you're asking them to give up government benefits, right?
	What do you think would happen if you ask free market economists employed at universities or political think tanks to go into the free market and stop accepting government benefits?
	Well, they would say no because they like their job and they like getting paid as much as they can.
	Right.
	So even if you gave everyone a PhD education in free market economics, it wouldn't change one goddamn thing about their addiction to state power and money, right?
	So the idea that political education is going to bring us freedom is disproven completely and totally.
	And it didn't even take that long, right?
	Well, I don't think the reason that free market economist professors work for universities is because they like working for universities.
	It's because the government has cornered the market or they've monopolized the education system to an extent.
	So, that's...
	Well, you haven't...
	Have you asked them?
	Walter Block says he gets paid, what, $150,000, $170,000 a year?
	And he gets sabbaticals and summers off and he works three to four hours a week.
	The government has not monopolized the education system.
	I mean, do you understand?
	You're talking to somebody who educates people, right?
	I mean, you're telling me the government has a monopoly on education.
	I educate people.
	Or rather, they educate themselves, right?
	I mean, I'm not an educator.
	I've got no license in anything.
	But I bring facts and arguments and evidence to bear on the public discourse.
	I mean, you're telling me I don't exist while talking to me.
	No, I meant that, well, okay.
	But they can obviously make more money at their job than they can doing it as a private enterprise.
	How do you know?
	Well, I don't know.
	I don't know, but I guess they think they can, so that's why they do it.
	I'm assuming they're— Well, yeah, but they think they can.
	Of course, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
	People will hold on to the financial advantage they have rather than risking something new, other than entrepreneurs, right?
	They're not entrepreneurs.
	I mean, they're bureaucrats.
	So, of course, they think they're going to do better hanging on to state privilege, which is exactly why political education will never work.
	Because people would rather hold on to the benefits they have than take a cut and risk for a better life.
	Look, a free market economist can go write some book and, you know, Tom Woods got like, what, four New York Times bestsellers?
	Probably making some pretty good money off that, right?
	But then they'd have to subject themselves to the free market, right?
	Rather than handing out more Free passes to state goodies in the form of mentoring people through PhD programs, right?
	I mean, free market economists, they have no fucking clue whether anyone's interested in the topics themselves or whether they just want the free goodies that they have too, right?
	I mean, I know people who listen to me really care about philosophy because I've got the Churchill argument.
	I have nothing to offer you but blood, tears, toil, and sweat.
	Right?
	And so I know the people who are interested in this show are really interested in philosophy.
	I can't give anyone a free pass to make $170,000 a year for working three hours a week.
	I can't give anyone tenure.
	I can't give anyone summers off.
	In fact, what I offer to people is a pretty miserable existence for quite some time.
	So I am fully confident that the people who listen to this show Really, really care about philosophy and virtue.
	You know, if I offer you an iPod and a blowjob by Kate Moss, I'll never know if you have any interest in the iPod.
	Right?
	If I say, well, I'll teach you economics, and in return, you can get the kind of sweet state-subsidized coerced ride that I have, I'll never know if you're ever interested in learning or if you just really like the idea of becoming an academic, which is a pretty sweet right, right?
	I mean, other than the fact that you're a complete fucking hypocrite, it's a pretty sweet right.
	I mean, if you can stomach that, if you can stomach that, being an abolitionist who buys and sells slaves, if you can stomach that, okay, well then, I guess it's a fit position for you.
	But the idea that education and free market principles is going to get people to give up status benefits, I mean, you know, you can solve that in five minutes.
	Now, you obviously want to hang on to it, which I can understand, but you understand that the argument is a smoking crater, right?
	Now, as to why it's seductive, I completely understand why.
	Talking to people about the Federal Reserve is a whole lot easier than saying don't hit your children.
	Don't circumcise your children.
	Child abuse is immoral.
	That's the initiation of force we can do something about.
	You can tell your cousin, your uncle, your father, your hairdresser's cousin, second roommate, death star occupant, don't hit your kids.
	And they can do that.
	Waiting until 51% of people want to vote for a guy who's actually, rather than just say he says he is, is actually going to shut down the Fed, means you never have to confront anyone on any actionable moral item.
	And they can lie to you.
	Oh yeah, I voted for that guy.
	You don't know.
	But if your brother's hitting his kids and you talk to him and you say, listen, dude, what you're doing is immoral.
	You've got to stop hitting your kids.
	Well, you know whether he's still hitting his kids.
	This is something he can actually do.
	And it's a hell of a lot harder than talking to him about the Federal goddamn Reserve, right?
	And I mean that with sympathy.
	It is incredibly harder.
	Go give a speech to some young Americans for liberty about the Federal Reserve.
	It's a fine thing to do.
	I've done it myself.
	Why not?
	But I don't imagine that them hearing that speech is going to change one location of any bullet in the world and its proposed destination.
	It's interesting knowledge to have.
	It's useful knowledge to have.
	But the change is confronting people on their personal immoralities, not the abstract immoralities that we've inherited that no individual can do anything about.
	Right?
	Saying...
	To a person vote for peace is exactly the same as saying pray for a cure.
	No.
	You want a cure?
	You roll your goddamn sleeves up, you get into the lab, or you fund a lab, or you start working on a cure.
	But prayer is about as efficacious as politics.
	Prayer is, I don't really want to do anything, but I don't want to confront that I'm not doing anything, so let me make up something I'm pretending to do.
	And again, I mean this with sympathy and I mean this like I was trapped in this for years.
	And that's not an argument.
	That's an annoying thing to say and I appreciate it.
	But what I mean by that is I completely empathize with it.
	I spend a lot of time talking to people about politics and economics and I still enjoy it.
	It's fun.
	It's like a hobby.
	You know, I like squash.
	I don't think it's going to displace Putin.
	Right?
	It's a fun hobby.
	It's a good mental exercise.
	But if you want to get a sense of how hard it is, Next time you see a parent yell at or hit their children, talk to them gently and say, listen, this is not good.
	What you're doing is impractical and immoral.
	It's harming your child and you're initiating force against your child.
	That is a heart-stoppingly difficult thing to do, which is why everybody wants to talk about the Fed.
	But I really appreciate your call.
	And look, I sympathize.
	You may not believe me now.
	You may not believe me for five years or ten years.
	But at some point, you'll get it.
	Which again, I know is not an argument and is an annoying thing to say.
	But it's true nonetheless.
	Thank you so much for your call.
	Mike, I guess we can do one more.
	Sorry for everyone who's waiting.
	All right, Vasil.
	You're next, my friend.
	Go ahead.
	Hi, Steph.
	Hello.
	Actually, I wanted to talk to you.
	It's not actually a question.
	It's more like an elaboration on your ideas, which I heard from your podcast.
	So first, my admiration.
	I know you since last summer and you totally made a difference in my life because previously I've never heard someone talk As logically and as consistently as yourself.
	So actually I was a Zeitgeist follower for a couple of years and I never got the idea To practically implementing Sideguys.
	So I was trying to see how it could be done and so on.
	And then I discovered your works and it fit like the last piece in the puzzle.
	And I understood why Sideguys was just a utopia which cannot be practically applied.
	Well, thank you.
	Look, I appreciate all those very kind words.
	I just wanted to say that really means a lot to me.
	And I really appreciate what you're saying.
	I appreciate that a lot.
	But please, go ahead.
	Okay.
	So, in your podcast, you talk about these DROs, the Dispute Resolution Organizations.
	And I don't know if you're still with this idea, but I was thinking about it and about the Stateless Society.
	And I actually realized that stateless society is not necessarily required in order to have freedom.
	And actually what we now have with the governments is we're almost there.
	It's just this element of force and compulsion, which everyone is forced to pay taxes, everyone is forced to be a citizen of specific government.
	So governments actually operate just as the private companies.
	We can imagine it as a corporation with shareholders.
	And the only problem which I see is that the governments are of forced monopolies.
	Sorry, you know that, yeah, I mean, the forced monopolies thing is, you know, let's pretend we're on a date when you're locked in the back of my van.
	It's not a date, right?
	Yeah.
	So the forced monopoly thing means that you can't think of it in terms of a shareholder-based corporation, right?
	Yes, that's the difference.
	That's the only difference with shareholder based cooperation, that the shareholders are free to sell their stock or they are free to elect Actually, there's only this difference.
	There's many, many differences.
	Sorry, there's many differences between owning corporate stock and being a citizen.
	First of all, corporations to some degree are state entities, but let's not even worry about that for the moment.
	Let's pretend that they're purely private.
	So I am not forced to consume the products of any corporation.
	I am not forced to buy the stock of that corporation.
	The corporation cannot use my stock as collateral to indebt People who have nothing to do with the corporation, right?
	So if I buy $500 worth of Apple stock, I don't know, can you even buy?
	I think it's even higher than that now.
	But let's say I buy $5 million worth of Apple stock with someone else's money, I then don't get to pass that debt on to your children, right?
	I cannot buy Apple stock right now on a bond that will force other people to make good my debt 30 years in the future.
	A corporation cannot kidnap my children for 12 years and indoctrinate them on how wonderfully great corporations are, and that particular corporation in particular.
	Corporations cannot declare war.
	There's so many things.
	Corporations cannot issue their own currency and then shoot people who don't want to use it.
	No, no, I'm totally with you.
	If you allow me to elaborate a bit more on this.
	So, actually, we are kind of three different classes of people.
	We are customers of this corporation, we are shareholders, and some of them work in management, like in employees, public workers.
	And people often confuse these different roles.
	But actually, everything you said is true completely.
	And I would propose a very simple change, which would take us to where we need to be.
	And this change is, everyone needs to have signed a contract with the government in order to be a customer or in order to be a shareholder of the government.
	And if people can create their own governments or maybe become sovereigns without any citizenship and they will freely decide to be a citizen and pay taxes or be a citizen of a different government or maybe just use the services of the government by paying their price and not be a citizen.
	Okay, but sorry, but then you can't use the word government anymore, right?
	It's like saying, well, you know, rapists can ask their victims if they want to be raped, and if the victims say yes, they can rape them, right?
	If somebody says, yes, I want to have sex with you, it's not rape.
	Like, you can't then use the same word, right?
	So if you're saying, well, we can voluntarily enter into contracts with governments, and we can choose to leave, and we can pick and choose our services, or we can choose no services at all, then it's not a government anymore, right?
	Okay, I don't insist on the word government, but I say that if we have a similar structure to what we have now, but it's completely voluntary, then we don't need to change the structure radically, we just exterminate the compulsion from that, and the initiation of force, and then we get to where we need to be.
	Actually, we're not that far from there.
	Well, I certainly agree with you that all we need to do is eliminate the compulsory aspect.
	You know, whether you think that's a small change or a big change, I think it's a big change.
	I think it's a pretty foundational change.
	But if you think it's a small change, I'm not going to particularly argue with you about that as long as we're in agreement with the goal.
	No, I'm completely on the same page as you.
	And actually, if I can get to my question, so I was thinking about practically applying such a concept.
	So we might have a couple of governments which are in competition with each other, and they operate...
	No, see, the moment you start talking about competition and voluntarism, you can't use the term government.
	That's very confusing.
	Let's name it something else.
	How about a DRL? Okay, let's name them DRL. Okay.
	So if those DROs can operate even on the same territory, they don't need to own the territory, they can just operate there.
	But they can certainly, as a private entity, they can own some territory.
	And neighbors need to respect each other's rights.
	So what would happen to a neighbor which decides for...
	Not decides, but my neighbour, for example, infringes my rights and I somehow need to make him comply and don't infringe my rights.
	How do I do this?
	Well, can you give me an example?
	Okay, let's say I am a sovereign.
	I'm not a citizen of any DRO or I'm not a customer of any DRO. And my neighbor is also a sovereign, but we as a whole have...
	We created a kind of alliance, a sovereign alliance, and we said everyone will respect the rights of others and we create like a trade organization.
	We trade freely with each other.
	And then my neighbor, for example, likes to smoke and I think that this smoke will cause me lung cancer, for example.
	On the one hand, my neighbor needs to respect my rights to free, to unpolluted air.
	On the other hand, I can abuse my rights and make Make up some problems which my neighbor causes me in order to blackmail him for money.
	How do we handle this situation with your proposal?
	So, is your issue that you don't want to breathe somebody else's secondhand smoke?
	That's sort of an example.
	Like this.
	He creates pollution.
	I think he's infringing my rights.
	I need to enforce my rights.
	Or, on the other hand, I lie...
	So if you're in a neighborhood and there are 10 houses in some little street, then what happens is when you buy the house, the condition of sale is that you don't pollute other people's stuff.
	And if you pollute other people's stuff, then you have to go to an arbitrator and you agree to abide by the decision of that arbitrator.
	And then you get to buy the house, right?
	And the reason that somebody would build 10 houses and require that as a condition of sale is because they don't want idiots and jerks moving into a neighborhood, right?
	Because he can make more money if he sells people this house on the condition of compliance with a particular set of community standards, right?
	Yes.
	And so if you then end up polluting somebody else's house, or you blow in smoke through their mailbox window or something, Then the neighbor is going to say, well, no, you can't do that.
	And you keep doing it.
	Then you say, okay, well, I'm going to have to take you to the arbitrator.
	And the arbitrator is going to come and is going to say, well, no, you're doing the wrong thing here.
	You've got to stop.
	And if you don't stop, then you lose title to your house.
	That's the contract you signed when you bought the house.
	What if they have, for example, this situation, if...
	I'm a sovereign.
	I decide to take care of all my stuff and I don't need to be a customer of this DRO. And some other neighbor is also a sovereign.
	And initially we are in good relations.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	So you're saying that you're not going to participate economically in the society?
	No, I will participate in the society, but I will not be...
	Then you need someone who's going to help you resolve disputes.
	So if you order electricity, which I assume you would, then the electricity company is going to be aware that you might not pay your bill.
	And so they're going to say, well, who am I going to talk to if you don't pay your bill?
	And you say, well, I don't have any economic negotiators on my behalf.
	And they're going to say, sorry, we're not going to supply electricity to you.
	Because their DRO will say, you don't supply electricity to people who don't have any DROs.
	Or if you do, your insurance costs are going to go through the roof.
	And then let's say that the person wants heating.
	Or let's say that the person wants water to come to their house.
	And they say, I'm not going to have any coverage whatsoever.
	Why would anyone want to do business with someone like that?
	They've openly stated that they don't want to pay a few bucks a month for economic protection for whoever they're doing business with.
	So they're openly signaling that they have no intention, fundamentally, of keeping their contracts.
	And they have no protection.
	And they're so clueless that they don't even know that to do business with other people, you're going to need some insurance and protection.
	Nobody is going to want to do business with that person.
	So there's not going to be anyone in a neighborhood.
	Now, you go live in the woods, nobody gives a shit, right?
	I mean, if you want to go build a cabin in the middle of nowhere, fine.
	Nobody cares, right?
	But if you're going to live in close proximity to other human beings, then you're going to need that kind of stuff.
	And if you don't have that kind of stuff, you won't be able to live in proximity to other human beings.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Sorry for interrupting you.
	Maybe I misunderstood your ideas because I was thinking that for each trade relation which I come into, I will need to choose an arbitrator, but I don't necessarily need a constant arbitrator for everything I do.
	I don't understand what you mean.
	You know there's a complaint center for visa, right?
	If you feel that you've been treated badly by some vendor, you can go to Visa.
	But the idea that you call them on every transaction doesn't make any sense, right?
	Okay, yeah.
	So basically, you say it will be like a permanent contract.
	I have a telephone number and I have a permanent contract with my telephone company.
	This will be exactly the same relation to the DRO? Well, no, no.
	I mean, the DRO is invoked in case of a conflict which cannot be resolved through normal channels of negotiation, right?
	Yeah.
	Right, so I have conflicts with people and companies in my life, and I call them up, right?
	And I say, listen, I didn't like this or I didn't like that, and we have a negotiation, right?
	Right?
	So I had some problem with my internet service provider.
	I called them up.
	I said, this isn't working.
	I'm not satisfied.
	And they said, okay, we're not going to charge you for this month, right?
	That's fine, right?
	Now, through normal channels of negotiation, most conflicts between reasonable human beings can be resolved, right?
	Yes.
	But if there are other conflicts, in other words, either both people are irrational or one person is irrational, then you need somebody who is going to, um, Negotiate and enforce the conclusion, right?
	But it's very rare.
	I mean, I think maybe twice in my entire life I've had to go beyond negotiation to enforceability.
	And I have had a life of an unusual set of circumstances.
	So it's incredibly rare.
	I mean, I don't know, do you have a credit card?
	How many times have you called requiring for arbitration?
	None.
	Right, so...
	And this is with a world of crazy people.
	In the world of the future, when we have a free society, people are going to be negotiating.
	My daughter negotiates from the age of two onwards.
	She's going to know how to negotiate, right?
	I mean, Mike, you've seen it, right?
	Yeah, something actually popped into mind.
	We were playing Monopoly Junior yesterday, and she passed Go on the board, and she was negotiating with the bank about how much money she should get.
	Two dollars is not enough.
	I feel the need for more.
	Don't let me call her the union.
	Yeah, everything.
	When we say, you know, you can stay up for 21 minutes, I think, what does she say?
	21, 22, 23, 25.
	And occasionally she'll get confused, right?
	Yeah.
	And go down.
	Okay, not 29.
	How's 28?
	Occasionally, but most times she's up.
	So everything for my daughter is not a statement of authority, but the opening salvo in a fairly lengthy negotiation process.
	I mean, you have the same thing whenever you're with her, right?
	Oh yeah, everything's a negotiation.
	And that's great.
	I really like it that way.
	It allows you to get creative and figure out something that works for both people.
	Yeah, and of course it trains her on how to find win-win.
	Situations as much as possible.
	Now, of course, she's five, so she's focused more on her own pleasure than win-win, but, you know, she's five, right?
	So we're just working to sort of steer that a little bit more towards one direction than another.
	So by the time, in a free society, I mean, this is how you raise children.
	Why?
	Because, A, it means you don't get to impose authority, which is, you know, occasionally tempting, but generally sucky.
	And B, because it's my job to prepare her for success in the world.
	And success in the world means negotiation, right?
	Which means that other people's needs are never going to be an absolute for her, but a statement of preference which she can then negotiate with, right?
	And yeah, it's time consuming, but not nearly as time consuming as coercion or authoritarianism.
	And so, yeah, she's got my cold last night.
	I was tired.
	It's midnight.
	I wanted to head to bed, wanted to be rested for this show.
	She got up.
	And I ended up getting to bed around 2.
	And, you know, but that's just the way things are.
	So when she grows up, she's going to have, you know, when she's 18, she's going to have 16 years experience in negotiating.
	And so she's also going to know what not negotiating looks like when somebody's just...
	Inflicting something, right?
	And she'd just back away from that kind of person.
	You know, like if I talk to someone on a bus and they answer me in fluent Cantonese, conversation's kind of over.
	Because we don't speak each other's language.
	I'm sorry.
	I can't even say, sorry, I can't chat.
	And so she's going to know what negotiation looks like.
	She's going to understand it.
	She's going to be almost infinitely experienced in it.
	And all that does not...
	Teach children negotiation contributes to the tyranny of this planet.
	Negotiation is the opposite of coercion.
	And it is the inoculation and antidote to coercion.
	It's the inoculation against coercion.
	All that does not promote negotiation among children is the recipe for tyranny and exploitation.
	And if you look at the number of institutions around the world that do not promote negotiation among children, you will understand why coercion and tyranny and exploitation is so prevalent.
	I mean, do you think a Muslim school promotes negotiation among the children?
	No.
	Do you think a Jesuit school does?
	What about a government school?
	What about a church?
	Does that promote negotiation among children?
	What about parents who spank?
	Do they promote negotiation What about parents who put children in timeouts?
	Does that promote negotiation?
	No.
	Punishment and consequentialism are the roots of tyranny in the world.
	If you're not promoting negotiation with your child, you are creating a future fascist.
	You're creating a future dictator.
	I know that sounds strong, but it's true.
	What is coercion but a failure to negotiate?
	And what is a failure to negotiate but a lack of experience in the practice and value of negotiation?
	So in the future society, there are not going to be a lot of assholes blowing cigarette smoke through your mailbox slot because they will have been taught how to negotiate.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, so actually I find your educational methods really wonderful.
	They do wonders for me.
	I have a daughter, by the way, she's four years old and recently I started using your methods and she's wonderful.
	I give her the chance to earn money to buy sweets.
	So we don't have arguments.
	We don't scream at each other anymore.
	And when she needs to eat something sweet, I say, you have to pay for it.
	And that's a wonderful way to regulate the amount of sweets which she receives.
	And she's very calm.
	She can...
	I behave like an adult in this way.
	I'm totally amazed.
	Yeah, I mean, do you remember, Mike, what happened when we were coming back from the last play center we went to?
	We went for dinner.
	Remember what the waitress asked her?
	Yeah, she asked her, would you like a juice with dinner today?
	And she paused and had to think to herself, and she's like, no, I won't have juice today.
	I'll have water because I'm having ice cream for dessert.
	Yeah, we were at a restaurant, they have these three tiny little ice creams and Mike and myself and my daughter had one and she's, I didn't say anything, she's self-regulated.
	I'm going to have more later so I won't have any now.
	She loves juice and she just had water.
	And that's what happens when you don't bully your children.
	So were you having lots of conflicts with your daughter before?
	Yeah, actually it was a problem because kids love sweets.
	We all know that.
	And she wanted to eat too much.
	In my opinion, they should be very restricted in their intake because this will create problems with the health.
	And that's why we had these arguments and we screamed, no, you may have this amount, but not more, and she wanted more.
	And then I decided, why not let the free market just play in this regard?
	So I created GumiBear dollars.
	I printed them out.
	And now he can earn them by doing something, for example, watering the plants and so on.
	And when she earns the dollars, she can buy gummy bears with them.
	And when she's out of dollars, she cannot eat more.
	Right.
	How old is she?
	She's four.
	Now, see, because you're not coercive with her, you get to explore all of these other opportunities, right?
	Exactly.
	And now she's getting effort, labor, prioritization.
	You know, if you want to expand the currency beyond gummy bears and you can buy anything she wants with it, I mean, that's pretty cool too, right?
	Yeah, she even...
	She can negotiate, as you said.
	So, sometimes she...
	She can require more dollars for the same work and sometimes I will say yeah, okay, sometimes I will say no, this is too much.
	So she learns negotiating and recently she discovered that her mother and I love her paintings, so she optimized her paintings Nice.
	Nice, nice, nice.
	Yeah, I mean, this is all what happens, right?
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I wanted to talk to you about another topic.
	It's from another show of yours, which really annoyed me.
	You talked about the theft and sometimes they say theft can be Justified because you may need to steal something in order to feed your child and in this case this is not a crime.
	But then I was really outraged because you don't know whatever you steal if you can cause the death of another child, for example.
	For example, if your neighbor is poor and you're poor and you steal from your neighbor to feed your child, but your neighbor's child will die, is this not a crime?
	I mean, you don't know what side effects you're causing with your theft.
	So this is what I really needed to share because people somehow justify, ah, in some situations it's okay to steal, in some other situations it's not.
	You don't know if it's okay because you don't know the side effects of your actions.
	Yeah, and look, I mean, in a free society, if somebody steals and it turns out they were starving, that society is not going to throw that person in jail.
	And even if they did, and even if there was such a thing as jail, at least they wouldn't starve to death, right?
	Somebody who ends up starving on a street has so many life problems that a free society would help that person.
	And the idea of just...
	I mean, can you imagine?
	I mean, they have no family, they have no friends, they have no skills, they have no negotiation capacities, they have no human capital...
	And they don't even have the common sense to say, you know, as that old song goes, two hours of pushing brooms gets a nine by twelve two-bit room or something like that.
	King of the Road?
	Yeah, you push a broom for two hours and you've got a room to stay in for the night.
	And somebody who ends up starving to death is the end domino.
	That moment is the end domino in a life of such unbelievable tragedy and horror.
	That, first of all, there's no way in any reasonable, just, fair, compassionate society that that person would end up in that situation.
	Everybody just starts in the middle, you know?
	Like, let's say you're perfectly healthy and then you're immediately completely diseased.
	It's like, hang on.
	Right?
	I mean, so, I mean, how does someone end up?
	I mean, the kind of childhood that somebody would have to end up in a situation of stealing through starvation It would never occur in a free society unless people were just completely outside of that society as a whole.
	Society really wants peaceful children.
	Governments, police forces, prison profiteers, warmongers, the military industrial complex, they all want traumatized children.
	All who profit from human evil are motivated by human evil.
	Like, we all understand that oil companies are not searching madly for an alternative to oil.
	Because oil is their profit, right?
	We understand that.
	We truly understand that.
	Somebody who says he's blissfully happy with his romantic partner is not out there trolling for other people to sleep with.
	Right?
	The people who make shaving kits are not investing madly in promoting beard growth.
	People tend to promote that which they profit by, and the government profits from evil.
	Without traumatized children, the government wouldn't have any cops, wouldn't have any police, wouldn't have any criminals to frighten you with, wouldn't have dysfunction.
	There'd be far fewer single moms.
	And they wouldn't fundamentally have any teachers.
	You know, to want to step into a classroom Where all the children are forced to be there and don't want to be there?
	Means to be a teacher, you've got to have a giant empathy center already missing in your brain.
	I mean, it's literally like a woman is forced to go on a date with you.
	And if you want to go on that date and you pretend like you're having a real date, I mean, you're kind of screwed in the head fundamentally to begin with.
	I mean, I would never, ever show up to teach anyone anything if they were there at gunpoint.
	I would not disrespect the entire institution of teaching by showing up to a place where everyone was there at gunpoint.
	Somebody says, I'm going to force this woman to go on a date with you.
	I mean, even if I wasn't married, I would never in a million years go.
	And so you wouldn't even have teachers if people had empathy.
	Because they'd say, well, I'd really like to go into a teaching profession.
	But the kids are forced to be there.
	They don't want to be there.
	And I can't really fix any of the problems.
	And I don't agree with this bullshit curriculum.
	I'm going to end up teaching kids no valuable economic skills, which means they can't compete with the upper classes.
	They're going to be bored.
	I won't be able to confront the parents.
	And I'm going to have to fail children.
	For failures of society, education and parenting.
	I mean, who the fuck would want anything to do with that?
	So, the entire power structures in the world are entirely invested in childhood trauma.
	Could you have religion if you had empathy for children?
	Of course not.
	Which is why you don't see the Bible overflowing with a rich wave of empathy for children, right?
	Or women for that matter.
	Or anyone who's not a Christian for that matter.
	So in a free society though, everyone profits from happy children.
	Because difficult, abusive, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, sociopathic, psychopathic, People are incredibly expensive to dispute resolution organizations, so they're going to be right in there promoting as much peaceful parenting,
	giving parents incredible economic breaks for peaceful parenting, giving them even cheaper insurance if the kids can go through an unobtrusive brain scan or two to make sure the neofrontal cortex is developing properly, which is the seat of emotional restraint and our capacity for negotiation.
	You will have a society that profits from peace.
	And therefore, peace will be promoted.
	Even in the absence of a moral imperative, there will be the good old stand-by financial incentive.
	Which, if you can't get them with the heart, get them by the wallet.
	But right now we have a system and a variety of hierarchical systems, abusive systems, that profit from child abuse.
	And this is from parents to priests to governments to teachers.
	And the idea that these people are going to be heavily invested in reducing child abuse is insane.
	I'm not saying that's your belief.
	It's mental.
	And that's why when we have a future society, it's going to be so fundamentally different that it's going to be like looking at The Roman economy and then looking at the software economy of the 21st century and trying to find some common ground.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah, definitely.
	I could sign my name under every word, you say.
	And actually, as a practical human being, I am wondering how do we get there where we need to be?
	We cannot preach to, for example, as your previous scholar said, We cannot preach to the classes that profit from this coercion of government because they would not give up their benefits.
	Actually, who we need to preach to is the people who are Disadvantage who are taking advantage of to the people who pay taxes and that are actually enslaved by all this by the whole scheme and I think what you do is wonderful and I think all people should do the biggest donation which they can to your show in order to enable
	you to continue I'm working and educating all people because I doubt even if 1% of all people can use their brains in this way.
	Yeah, well, I mean, as far as how we do it, I mean, you're like somebody, you know, it's like people phone me when I'm climbing a mountain saying, how do we climb the mountain?
	It's like, well, join me.
	You know what I mean?
	Just talk to people about peaceful parenting, talk to people about the evils of child abuse, talk to people, recalibrate people's expectations.
	Get them to understand that force is force.
	Yeah, but people who I talk to are so close-minded, so I'm always, when I start talking to someone, there's always these objections, and they start talking in cliches, they somehow, so in my opinion, there are two explanations for, at least two explanations for each issue, and there's a superficial one, and there's a deeper explanation.
	No, sorry, but you don't, I mean, I'm heavily influenced by feminism.
	And feminism had this great answer.
	They said, don't hit your wife.
	Right?
	And they appealed to, you know, it's wrong.
	It's immoral.
	It's abuse.
	Spousal abuse.
	Don't hit your wife.
	And some assholes said, well, I'm going to keep hitting my wife.
	Fuck her.
	Doesn't listen.
	And then, did they keep talking to the men?
	No.
	Who did they talk to?
	To court?
	No.
	Police?
	Who did they talk to?
	No.
	To the wife?
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	They said to the wives, well, you know, you don't have to stay if he's hitting you.
	Well, they went a lot further.
	They said, a lot of them said that all marriages abuse and all women should leave their marriages, which is, I certainly don't say that about families.
	I mean, not all families are abusive and not everyone has to leave their family.
	But I do remind people that if they are being abused by their parents and they cannot resolve that abuse, they don't have to stay.
	I learned this directly from the feminists.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	This polarization, I'm very annoyed when I hear stuff like, don't hit your wife.
	I would say, don't hit anyone, because all people are equal in rights.
	No, no, no, I agree.
	The feminists needed to appeal to women, and so they talked about liberty for women.
	They did not talk to women, don't hit your goddamn children.
	Because they wanted to get money from women, and they wanted to get the allegiance of women.
	And so they portrayed women as victims, and there's something in people that likes being perceived as a victim, particularly in a state of society.
	You get lots of money.
	Feminists, as far as I know, did not confront women on, stop hitting your goddamn children.
	I mean, you think being hit by your husband is bad, you can leave.
	You're an adult.
	You chose to marry the asshole.
	Your kids can't leave and they sure as hell didn't choose your bitchy ass as a mom.
	So stop hitting your children.
	Of course not.
	Of course not, right?
	Again, women's vanity, insecurity was the source of their income.
	They're not going to confront women on their capacity for child abuse and say, well, women, you're the primary caregivers of children, so stop hitting them.
	You know, good lord, 80% of you moms are still hitting babies and infants and toddlers?
	Are you insane?
	Stop that!
	Stop that!
	You've no right to complain about a goddamn patriarchy when you're fucking well hitting babies.
	It is ridiculous, embarrassing, and morally contemptible for women to complain about patriarchy without talking about the fact that women are hitting babies.
	I mean, do you really think babies being hit by moms are really getting indoctrinated into patriarchy?
	Or do you think it's more a violent matriarchy that they're experiencing?
	Hmm, I wonder.
	And then we wonder why society is so deferential to the irrational whims of women, thus feeding those irrational whims and making women even more irrational.
	It's because we get hit by women as kids.
	And we get hit by dads too.
	I understand all of that.
	That's all well known.
	We've already been indoctrinated about all of that.
	What we haven't understood is the degree to which women contribute to the cycle of violence, because feminism appeals to women's vanity, strangely enough, by portraying them as victims.
	I think real vanity would want to be portrayed as heroic rather than victims, but the evidence is the evidence.
	And so if you can't tell the kids, fine, talk to the adult kids.
	I say, you don't have to be in abusive relationships.
	You can't choose the state.
	You can choose your parents when you're an adult.
	As I already said, if you can't get them by the hearts, get them by the wallet.
	And if you can't get them by the virtue, get them by the gene pool.
	Promote volunteerism in all relationships.
	And then say, look, if you want to spend time with your parents, if they're abusive, I think that's masochism, but masochism is not immoral.
	It's impractical, I would say.
	It's wrong.
	It's a desperate cry for help, but it's not immoral.
	It's immoral to cut other people.
	It's not immoral to cut yourself.
	But you cannot expose your children to abusive people.
	That is where the immorality starts.
	As an adult, you can choose to expose yourself to abusive people, but you cannot choose to expose your children to abusive people.
	And if people believe me on that, Then abusers don't get to imprint grandchildren.
	Gosh, what an amazing leap forward that is.
	To take the influence of abusive grandparents out of the world of children?
	What a fantastic way of stopping the disease in its tracks.
	You know, the key to moral progress is quarantine.
	May I ask a question, please?
	Yes, last one.
	I gotta go, but after this.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Alright, it's about your principles.
	So I'll give an example.
	You say you have the right to harm yourself.
	Does this right extend also to your children?
	Because if your child does something which is clearly very dangerous for the child, I don't understand.
	When do you leave the child to decide for themselves?
	And when do you counter to the will of the child to stop it from harming itself?
	I don't understand.
	Let's say I catch some teenage girl cutting herself because she was sexually abused.
	Do I get to punch her?
	No.
	Why?
	Yes?
	I don't know.
	No, of course I don't.
	Of course I don't.
	The fact that she's doing something harmful to herself does not give me the right to initiate force against her, right?
	Yes, okay.
	Now, if I leave a steak knife on the floor and my toddler cuts herself with it, do I get to hit the toddler?
	No.
	Why not?
	Because it's my fault.
	Exactly.
	So if your child is doing something dangerous, you either have left a dangerous environment around that child, or you have failed to adequately protect and prepare your child to not do things that are dangerous.
	I'm not talking about an accident or whatever, right?
	But if your child is doing something dangerous, that's your fault as a parent.
	No, no, I was thinking about something else.
	For example, if my child doesn't want to brush her teeth, and I know that this would cause tooth decay, but I somehow need to make her brush her teeth, and I cannot find any sensible way.
	What's the right thing to do in your opinion?
	Well, you You reason with the child and you explain it and you diagram it and you show them videos of bacteria on the teeth and you show them pictures of people with bad teeth and you talk about how painful having bad teeth is.
	It's what I do.
	You just make the case.
	They'll get it.
	They're not stupid.
	I'm not saying the child is stupid.
	I'm saying maybe I'm too stupid to make it because I've never learned parenting at school so I need to learn on the job.
	Yeah.
	No, you just keep making the case.
	You just keep making the case.
	And the child will understand very quickly.
	And then if you can't make the case, you bribe.
	No, you bribe.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	We all live on bribes.
	Every time I get a donation, ooh, kibble!
	Right?
	I mean, how many people go to work for the pleasure of it and how many people go to work as they get paid?
	We all get bribed to do stuff we don't want to do.
	So you bribe and you reason.
	But you don't force, right?
	Great.
	Okay, keep up.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you so much, everyone.
	I appreciate it.
	It's a great set of calls.
	I really appreciate everybody who brings all of these essential topics to this conversation.
	FDRURL.com forward slash donate and help me to buy a throat lozenge.
	And I guess I will speak to everyone Wednesday.
	And yeah, we got cool stuff you were just talking about.
	So we're going to do some...
	I'm going to this Bitcoin conference in Texas.
	We're going to try and do something live with Alex Jones, something live with Joe Rogan again.
	And yeah, the conversation continues apace.
	Thank you.
	Thanks to your support.
	You know, if you haven't donated yet, yeah, you know it's time.
	Come on.
	Do the right thing.
	You know it's time.
	FDRURL.com forward slash donate.
	Thanks everyone so much.

▲