Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 14, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:19:35

2695 Epigenetic Political Hostilities Exposed! - Peter Schiff Radio Show May 13th, 2014

Stefan Molyneux guest hosts the Peter Schiff Radio Show and discusses genetics, environment, political ideologies and brain development. The productive combating against the greed of the majority, preventing worker exploitation, monopoly hypocrisy, crypto-currency, anger over male rape statistics, the NFL, subsidies and gay rights and the right side of history is wrong.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
	One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next boom.
	Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your bent.
	Are you with me?
	The revolution starts now.
	Starts now.
	We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
	Turn those machines back on!
	You are about to enter The Peter Schiff Show.
	If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
	This is the last stand on earth.
	The Peter Schiff Show is on.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
	Your money.
	Your stories.
	Your freedom.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	I hope you're doing magnificently.
	This is Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're doing very well.
	We are going to have, oh, a very exciting show this morning.
	We are going to talk about the brain, biology, reproduction, politics, pretty much the A to Z of potential human experiences.
	But I really want to get your thoughts joined the conversation.
	You know the number.
	So, left and right.
	Left versus right.
	Left versus right.
	A lot of people don't know, and there's no reason why you would, but left-right comes from the French assembly.
	This is where, like in the 18th century, this is where the people who were conservative would sit on the right of the assembly, and the people who were more liberal or socialist would sit on the left.
	And many people have theorized over the years that the Democrat versus Republican paradigm, the left versus right paradigm, which seems to replicate pretty consistently across society, Might, just might, have its basis in biology.
	I think it's a very interesting question.
	Now, biology is a really challenging topic to deal with, so I will do the best I can, but I'll recommend that you Google all this stuff and listen to the real experts.
	But it's tough because when I was a kid, and maybe you had the same experience, when I was a kid growing up, It was genes versus environment, right?
	Biology versus environment.
	I remember this metaphor from an early psych textbook in college, that genes and environment, hereditary and environment, were like the length and width of a football field.
	You could change one, change the other, but they were intimately related.
	Well, we've found out since, or scientists have found out since, how much more intimately related these topics are.
	Because environment is genetics in many ways.
	It's called epigenetics and it's the argument which is very well established that your environment will turn on or turn off specific genes.
	And this doesn't just occur in the womb and it doesn't just occur in infancy or toddlerhood.
	This can occur throughout your life.
	Your life habits, your environment, the people you choose to surround yourself with, It affects your genetics.
	It's not carved in stone.
	It's not written in granite, not traced by the fingertip of God onto the very living rock.
	Your genetics are flowing back and forth with information from your environment.
	Moms who experience a lot of stress in the womb or who produce a lot of stress hormones in the womb tend to produce more aggressive children.
	Kind of an interesting fact.
	And it makes sense biologically.
	If the mom is stressed, it means that resources are most likely scarce or there's a time of conflict, which means nice guys will finish last in that environment.
	So if the mom's going through a lot of stress, that's a signal to the developing fetus that it better be kind of punchy.
	It better be adept at inflicting win-lose negotiations on others.
	If the mom is peaceful and calm and so on, then...
	Impulse control tends to be easier for the baby.
	Neofrontal cortex, seat of reasoning, top of the front of the brain, tends to be better developed.
	And the child is better at negotiating, because if the mom is calm and peaceful, that means that there's no war, no famine, no disease, or less of it.
	Food is fairly plentiful, and therefore negotiation is the way to get ahead, to succeed.
	Whereas if you're in a time of war, or if there isn't enough food to go around, Then being selfless will get you killed.
	You will die.
	Here, you have the last piece of bread known to existence.
	Well, other person's going to do better and you're going to die.
	If there's not enough food to go around, you grab what you can and you eat it quick.
	And you don't worry too much about the other person.
	You become selfish to survive.
	But in a time of peace, negotiation is the key.
	So this question of genetics versus environment is very complicated and we can't sort of say, I don't think there's much that can be said to make the case that there's pure genetics in personality that is unaffected by environment.
	At least that hasn't been found to my knowledge as yet.
	So when I talk about in this show about the genetics of something, what I'm talking about is the genetics that are there and that are influenced, turned on and off by the environment.
	So let's talk a little bit about the left-right brain.
	So there's this great stuff you can do with the brain these days, right?
	So you hook it up to these machines which can figure out what's going, where the blood flow is going, where the electrical activity is going on in the brain.
	And they have found quite consistently that people who self-identify as conservatives Have a stronger threat reaction to dangerous stimuli.
	Right, you flash a picture of a leaping lion at a conservative, their fight-or-flight mechanism goes, flood body with adrenaline, kill, run, die, fight, and they get kind of pumped.
	Whereas, you know, the hippy-dippy marijuana-chewing lefties are like, hey, man, Cool lion.
	I can dig that.
	Oh!
	Yes, there's more stereotypes on this show than you can possibly imagine.
	So they found that the fight-or-flight mechanism is stronger in the conservative brain.
	That to me is very interesting.
	Now this information is generally portrayed in the media as, and therefore they're paranoid.
	Bunch of cranks.
	I mean, it's just a picture, and they just go crazy.
	They can't manage their own stimuli.
	They freak out, man!
	They should be more mellow.
	Really?
	Really?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so, because I hate to shock people in the world, but there are threats on the planet.
	Really, there are.
	It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you.
	There are huge, huge dangers in the world.
	What do Republicans, what do the right-brainers want to do?
	Want to control and minimize and restrain and bind down, as the saying goes with the chains of the Constitution, the state.
	Well, guess what, my friends?
	I'm sure you don't need to be told.
	The state is kind of a big danger.
	State is kind of scary.
	State, in the 20th century alone, even outside of wars, the state got a quarter of a billion people killed.
	It's called democide.
	States murdered a quarter of a billion people, not even counting war, in the 20th century alone.
	They are the greatest human predators of the species.
	For me, it wouldn't be a lion leaping out of the picture.
	It'd be, a ballot box!
	Oh, no!
	No!
	Run!
	Take it!
	Fight or flight!
	Fight or flight!
	And so, people who are on the right, Republicans, Libertarians, are perceived to be crazy for responding to massive debts, budget increases, dysfunctional and decaying social...
	And physical infrastructure, threats of war, threats of outside attacks.
	They're called crazy.
	Does this happen to you?
	You know, call in, let me know.
	Does this happen to you?
	Where people are like, oh man, he's bringing up the Fed again.
	You know, we should really just lock him in the attic because he's like our crazy uncle who is always talking about how bad and dangerous the government is.
	He's like this Ron Swanson stereotype.
	Tell me, does this happen to you?
	Do people think you're crazy for being worried about government?
	We're going to talk more about this right after the break.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We'll be back in one New York minute.
	To treat me mean Every promise We'll just run around I should've known it Yeah, you're gonna let me down And it's over now, you see It's the last time you're gonna hurt me
	Since the Peter Schiff show was last on the air The national debt added another $7.89 million Oh!
	Luckily, Peter's intelligence is growing twice as fast.
	That's incredible.
	Welcome back to your source of sanity in an insane world.
	It's the Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I will be here all week looking forward to your calls at 855-472-4433.
	So we're talking about left and right brain differences.
	And we're going to dip into a little bit of biology, and I'll tell you at least a little theory that I have about it.
	So...
	In America, liberals around 20%, conservatives around 40%, and moderates around 37%.
	This has been held pretty constant since the early 1990s.
	Hard left Democrats, 9%, hard right Republicans self-identified, 21%.
	So, one of the differences in the left-right paradigm, to my way of thinking, and I think it's fairly true, but again, let me know what you think.
	So, Republicans are very keen on the military.
	Self-defense!
	A strong military.
	And that's because they perceive threats That Democrats don't.
	Democrats, you know, back in the 70s, at least when I was growing up in England, there was this, you know, lefty, hippy-dippy unilateral disarmament and kumbaya and all that kind of stuff.
	And so people on the left don't really perceive threats very well, and people on the right perceive threats very well.
	They don't make them up.
	I mean, when they show the pictures of the lion jumping at the psychological test subject, well, that is something that our lizard brain, right, the amygdala fight-or-flight mechanism, would recognize as a threat.
	So what is the difference?
	Well, it has to do with gender.
	It has to do with gender and dependence.
	There are many more female Democrats than female Republicans, and there are many more male Republicans than female Republicans.
	And if you sort of look at the way we evolved as a species, the men went out and gathered food And protected the women from external threats, from predators, both human and animal.
	Not that humans aren't animals, but you know what I mean.
	So yeah, the guys had to be kind of alert to threats, because that was kind of the job.
	Because throughout history, women were disabled through pregnancy throughout most of their life, you know, starting from the early to mid-teens until the fertility drop-off in the late 30s.
	Women were big with child, dropping children, and had children hanging off their food bags for most of that time.
	And so men were involved in looking for threats, detecting threats, preventing threats, fighting threats, averting threats.
	Yes, sorry, that was our job.
	We're pretty good at figuring out where threats are.
	Sorry, that's Darwin.
	Blame him.
	Women, on the other hand, were involved with caring and nurturing and feeding and so on, right?
	So what do the Democrats want to do?
	Well, they want to take care Of the old, they want to take care of the poor, they want to take care of the sick, they want everyone to be nice, and they don't care about defense.
	Why?
	Because that's outsourced to the men, right?
	Men didn't have to worry about feeding the infants, and women didn't have to worry about defending the tribe from interlopers and attackers.
	Things that go bump in the night and throw spears in the daytime.
	Not the province of the evolving female brain, kind of the province of the hair-trigger male brain.
	So the Democrats are all about, let's take care of people.
	And we don't really have to worry about external physical threats, war, violence.
	Okay, I get it.
	That's why more women are Democrats.
	That's how your brain's evolved.
	I got it.
	Most people don't know that or think about it.
	They cloak over biological development and self-interest, evolutionary psychology, with ideology.
	And so you get Democrats who get into power who always want to expand social programs.
	When did social programs come in?
	When did social programs come in?
	Right after women got the vote.
	Not saying women shouldn't have the vote.
	That's a topic for another time.
	I'm just saying, and studies have shown this fairly consistently, that when women got the vote, what did they want?
	Well, they wanted the government to take liquor away from their men.
	Prohibition.
	Women's Christian Temperance Union.
	And they wanted the government to take care of the old, which was kind of the job of women in the past.
	They wanted health care.
	They wanted subsidy support.
	They wanted more alimony.
	They wanted more child support.
	And the government, responding to the requests of the voters, did just that.
	It's just the way biology plays out in politics, folks.
	Whereas the Republicans are kind of the tough love guys.
	Stand on your own two feet!
	Nothing wrong with that either.
	It's not appropriate for babies because they can't even stand, let alone on their own two feet.
	So women's view of the world as populated by dependents comes from the fact that they give birth to babies born way too early, right?
	Women give birth to human infants just before the brain gets so big that they get split apart like a pair of chopsticks grabbed by a hungry kid.
	So we're born like a semester early.
	There's a whole...
	Sequence early.
	Trimester.
	That's the word.
	It should be quattromester.
	Trimester.
	We're born early.
	I mean, baby horses, foals, they can walk within a day or two of being born.
	We take close to a year.
	So yes, for the women evolving in society, in the tribe throughout history, the world was populated with dependents, babies and old people.
	They didn't have to worry about protection from external threat.
	That was the job of the men.
	But they needed to take care of a whole lot of people.
	And so when women get the vote, they tend to shift Democrat and they tend to really care about taking care of people.
	Whereas Republicans are more, well, stand on your own two feet, people.
	Be independent.
	Work for yourself.
	Oh, and by the way, we need a military almost literally bigger than the entire planet.
	If we could turn the whole planet except for the air around my tribe into a bomb, I couldn't be happier.
	Yay!
	That's what I want, because my amygdala keeps firing up.
	And that's why Democrats never met a social program they didn't want to make bigger, and Republicans never met a defense budget that couldn't use some significant enhancement in its death-dealing capacities.
	Rain hellfire on the world!
	And we'll get that saber-toothed tiger that's somewhere out there.
	I really believe it.
	Whereas the women are like, there are people out there who need to be taken care of.
	Don't you care about them?
	Why are you focusing on these missiles when we could feed the poor?
	This is where you get these statements like, the world has this much money to spend on arms, but it can't feed these people.
	The Republicans are like, yeah, we need that many weapons, those people should fend for themselves.
	And the Democrats are like, but that's not very nice.
	Most of what you see in the world is personal history, biological evolution masquerading as some sort of intellectual hobbledygook.
	I mean, you can't understand policy, you can't understand the society that we live in and how it plays out if you don't understand how we evolved and if you don't understand how political parties, in general, reflect gender differences.
	And, you know, maybe we can overcome and change these gender differences, I don't know.
	But this is the way things are.
	Maybe human beings can live to 200 right now.
	They don't.
	We have to sort of go to war with the reality that is.
	Right?
	To paraphrase Rumpf felt about Iraq.
	We have to recognize the facts of reality as they are.
	And the fact that the Republican brain is worse at dealing with conflicting information and that the Democrat brain is better at dealing with conflicting information.
	Right!
	That's because the Republican brain is developed to win wars against interlopers.
	To fight!
	Not a win-win, not a very ambiguous situation.
	Nazi gets me or I get the Nazi.
	Boom!
	One of us is going underground.
	I hope it's not me.
	Or is that great Patton quote?
	Purpose of war?
	Not to die for your country, but to make sure the other poor bastard dies for his country.
	Well, there are ways out of this, but first of all, we have to recognize where we are.
	Give me a shout, brothers and sisters, 855-472-4433.
	We'll be right back.
	We now return to The Peter Schiff Show.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	And now is the time in The Schiff Show where we turn the airwaves over to the glorious army of hyper-intelligent listeners.
	Andre, are you on the line?
	Hello, Stefan.
	Hi.
	I think you're definitely right about what you said earlier in the show about right-wing people, sort of having more of a sense of responsibility and danger.
	But the reason I'm calling is I was interested in your libertarian thoughts on anti-slavery legislation, because it occurred to me that we've got these laws that prevent people from being taken advantage by employers, but If I, as an employer, wanted to invest $50,000 in developing someone's career, I can't then force them to keep working for me.
	They can just disappear with all the training, work for somebody else, and there's nothing I can do about it.
	So we don't have a situation with people that we do with, say, housing, where people We'll scour the country for undervalued properties in order to invest in them.
	We don't really have that for people because it's so easy for people to take the money and leave.
	So I was just wondering if you have any libertarian thoughts on that issue?
	Yeah, no, I think that's a very good point.
	My own father is a geologist and he got his PhD because a company funded his PhD in return for him committing to work with them for a certain number of years.
	Now, that's not slavery, because that's a free contract.
	It's like saying, I really want to buy this car, and I'm going to borrow $40,000 to do it, but I'm a slave for having to pay it back.
	It's like, no, if you take money for your education from a company, then the company has the right to have you sign a contract saying you're going to work for them in good conscience for a year or two after you graduate.
	And if you don't like that, then don't take the money.
	Don't take the money.
	If you don't want to sign the contract.
	I mean, I am not a slave to my cell phone company because I signed a contract to be on the plan for two years, right?
	I mean, I'm paid for that contract in that I get a subsidized, well, I guess it's subsidized with future payments, but basically I get a subsidized cell phone.
	I don't have to pay the six or seven hundred bucks to get a cell phone because I'm willing to sign up for the contract for two years and they amortize the price of that cell phone over the two years.
	It's not slavery.
	The government, though, is in a really tough position because employees outnumber employers, right?
	Many more workers than there are bosses.
	A lot of Indians, not so many chiefs.
	And so the government, which is a democratic system, in the West at least, gets a lot more votes by appealing to the interests of employees.
	We'll give you pensions.
	We'll give you ways out of contracts.
	We'll subsidize.
	We'll give you whatever you want.
	We'll force the employers to give you health care.
	Well, whatever, right?
	And that gets you votes.
	But the problem is, when you serve the interests of employees, very often that's at the expense of employers.
	And without employers, there aren't a lot of employees.
	Now, I'm saying these things like they're racial categories, you know, or gender categories, like you can't cross over.
	I've been an employee.
	I've been an employer.
	You move between the two, I mean, if you have any degree of economic ambition and competence.
	And of course, if you're an employer, I mean, the employer only looks like he's in charge because you're not him or her, right?
	An employer is someone who has many bosses.
	An employee is someone who only has usually one or two bosses.
	And so employees want to get stuff and then get out of the contract, for sure, right?
	And so they're constantly appealing to government to change the contract, right?
	I don't want to pay these exorbitant, predatory cell phone bills or bank charges or visa interest payments or you've got to come in and change the contract with the bank because I signed in at low interest, interest rates changed and now they're kicking in higher.
	And governments who rely on votes, politicians, have to listen to those people.
	But at the same time, if they're given too much to those people, then you get this kind of California business flight situation happening where every productive person starts looking for places, even though the weather may be crappier, that aren't buried in this third-world regime uncertainty regulatory quagmire that always seems to afflict Sunny places, right?
	We've got great weather, so you'll put up with a terrible government just to get to the great weather.
	So it's a challenge.
	If you allow employees to break all their contracts with employers, though, then employers will find it less valuable to be an employer and will either abscond or just, say, retire.
	So the most productive people, who are the minority, are always at war with the greed of the majority.
	And it's a delicate balance for a rational politician.
	But since there's no such thing as a rational politician, it's sort of like saying a rational mystic politician.
	Then what they generally do is cave to the majority who are the employees with silly things like minimum wages and we'll give you a great pension and we'll bail out your employer and all that if it's like a car company or a bank or whatever that's going through trouble.
	They play to the majority and they are literally killing the geese that lay the golden eggs who are the employers.
	Does that make any sense at all, Andre?
	Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
	I was wondering how you might enforce...
	The contracts, because obviously we don't want it to be too kind of brutal.
	I mean, we probably have anti-slavery legislation for some good reasons, but do you think people should go to prison, or do you think there should be a lifetime ability for employees to be able to recoup funds without people being able to declare bankruptcy?
	And even is bankruptcy itself a non- Sort of a bad idea, because it allows, in general, people to get out of obligations too easily.
	Oh, there's a whole series of complex questions there.
	Let me redefine it to suit my own purposes, if you don't mind.
	Which is, you're looking at the tail end of the problem, and I'm into philosophy, and philosophy is kind of like nutrition, versus like emergency surgery.
	So you're sort of like asking a nutritionist, what do I do with a heart attack?
	And the nutritionist will say, well, you probably should have changed your health habits 20 years ago.
	Right now, go to the emergency room.
	And somebody's going to crack open your chest and put defibrillators on your heart and attempt to restart it or whatever, right?
	And so for me, the real question is, how do we avoid employers preying upon employees?
	Right?
	And to me, the simple and elegant and sustainable answer is not to figure out how we punish employers who prey upon employees, which certainly happens, of course, right?
	Just as employees sometimes prey upon employers.
	And the best way to ensure the best treatment is to create the greatest competition.
	If you want employers to treat employees well, the best way to achieve that is not to regulate behavior, but to create an environment where the most possible employers are competing for the workers.
	Right, so, if you have, there's this old nonsense thing that people like, there's a town in the Aerondacks.
	There's only one grocery store in that town.
	And they just decide to start jacking up the prices.
	Isn't that unfair?
	Therefore, government.
	Right?
	Well, I mean, people have choices even in the town in the Aerondacks, right?
	They can order groceries to be brought in by truck.
	They can grow their own food.
	They can move away from the town.
	Someone can offer to buy out the grocery store and then make lower prices.
	Lots of options, right?
	But they create this scenario.
	And the scenario only works when there's only one provider.
	When someone has a monopoly, then people are treated worse, goes the argument.
	Great!
	So let's make sure we don't have monopolies.
	Right?
	So let's open up and make it real easy to start a business and we'll get rid of licenses like a third of Americans now require government permission to do their job.
	That's insane!
	Make it very easy to start a business.
	Make it very easy to hire people.
	Get rid of the corporate complicated legal and tax code and just say someone can go start a business and they can go hire people and that way you'll get more and more people wanting to be employers vying for fewer and fewer employees.
	And wherever you have to compete for someone, you've got to offer them something better.
	So if you want employers to treat employees well, get fewer employees and more employers and that's to do with opening the field so that people can become entrepreneurs easily.
	That's how you actually and sustainably improve human relations.
	Because there's this insane thing, I'm not saying you're suggesting it, Andre, but there's this insane thing that people say, which is, a monopoly in the private sector is really terrible.
	It's exploitive, it's destructive, it's greedy, it's predatory.
	It rolls people over and rifles through their pockets and steals the kidneys of their children.
	Those evil monopolists.
	Hey, you know what would be great with dealing with that?
	The government.
	Because the government, somehow to these people, is not a monopoly.
	Monopoly in the private sector.
	Ooh, that's bad!
	That's like mustachio-tweaking, laser-shock-assigning, bald monocle, James Bond villain, ho ho ho ho, evil.
	That's called a monopoly in the free market.
	And the way that we deal with that, say these insane people, Ah, I know.
	Let's create a legal monopoly of violence.
	Not a free market monopoly that never really exists anyway, but let's create a legal monopoly on violence and let's use that to solve the problems of monopoly.
	Monopoly, private sector.
	Ooh, mad!
	Monopoly, public sector.
	Angels sing.
	Unicorns fart rainbows.
	All good things happen in the world, and people can walk on water, and you can turn loaves into fishes.
	Because a violent monopoly is somehow the heartstone and fountainhead of human virtue, but a voluntary monopoly, a free market monopoly, whatever that means, is somehow really, really, really bad.
	Which is like asking Mr.
	Guillotine to solve the problem of a mild headache.
	The problem appears to be solved, but you got a lot of blood and bodies around.
	So for all of those who say, let's get the government to solve the problem of monopoly, I say, you keep using the word government.
	I do not think it means what you think it means.
	It is not a magic wand with which to solve all ambiguous or challenging or problems that may exist or may not exist at various places, times, and locations throughout the world.
	Government is a monopoly of force.
	If you're against monopolies, you've got to question the value of that, my friends.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	Give me a shout when you can.
	Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Peter Schiff is back on the air.
	Good morning everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're doing very well.
	We are covering a wide variety of topics this morning.
	Anything that your brain wishes to shoot out in the stratosphere of radio-based excellence, we are more than happy to catch your dreams and send them skyward to Ponyville.
	Steve from New Jersey.
	You wanted to talk about alternative currencies?
	How are you doing?
	Yes, I actually do.
	So I came across this about six, seven months ago and they've been postponing this forever and it finally got released.
	There's something called PureCoin.
	Are you familiar with protein folding?
	No.
	So I wasn't either.
	So protein folding, I guess a bunch of universities around the world There's a program that somebody created, I think, in the 70s or 80s.
	And what it does is, it's called folding.
	It takes diseases and it takes different types of molecules in your body and it just tries to figure out what happens when a certain infection hits your body and it just produces all these different scenarios.
	And then that's how cures come from.
	That's how we get They figure out how everything works through protein folding, and that's how they figure out cures, more or less, from what I understand.
	Years ago, I used to do this thing called the SETI project, search for extraterrestrial something or other.
	And you let your screensaver run, and it would analyze radio signals looking for patterns and so on.
	And you can do the same stuff with the protein folds, I think, was another one that occurred as well.
	Is that right?
	Yes, yes, that's 100% correct.
	So Stanford University, some guy in Stanford, figured out, all right, well, all these people are mining for Bitcoin.
	Wouldn't it be nice to get all that hashing power into something that could actually help humanity?
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	I love Bitcoin.
	I love the whole blockchain scenario.
	I love how it's all decentralized.
	But at the same time, when people are done with their GPUs that can't mine for Bitcoin anymore, This guy figured out a way to get everybody on board and starting to fold.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	We may have raised the head of the general population.
	Very, very briefly, right?
	So the way that you create a Bitcoin is you solve increasingly challenging algorithms.
	And this is why Bitcoin is limited.
	There's going to be like 21 million, which are dividable by 100 million, which is about the number of pennies currently in existence in all currencies around the world.
	So what this guy is saying is like, it's great to have a way of making currency harder to create.
	But all of the GPU cycles or the ASIC cycles that are used to create a Bitcoin are an artificial, quote, waste of resources that is simply designed to limit the creations of Bitcoins and make them more difficult over time to create new ones.
	He's saying, let's take that computing power and put it to something good, right?
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	So PeerCoin is limited in its production, and the sort of dam that limits its production can also be used to figure out disease cures, right?
	Yes, that's correct.
	What he did was, he also, instead of, so you could take your GPUs and CPUs to do the folding, but then he took 20% of the coins, so 80% of the coins are going to the folding side.
	20% of the coins are going to the people that are going to secure the blockchain with their ASICs.
	So people that have ASICs can get involved with this, and people that have just regular GPUs at their house can get involved with this.
	So it basically takes both worlds and just makes it into one.
	And at the same time, it just got released like a couple days ago.
	And out of nowhere, I looked this morning, and it's got over 100 terahertz already.
	There's no altcoin that ever got that much power behind it within two days.
	So, I mean, the word got out.
	But the only problem that I see with this is that it's still centralized.
	You know, there's still, like, if the government wants, they could go to Stanford University, shut everything down, and there it goes.
	Well, wait a second, wait a second though, but isn't the blockchain, Peercoin's blockchain, blockchain is like the public ledger that people devote CPU cycles to validate and in return they may get a Bitcoin.
	Is the ledger not decentralized or is it centralized in Stanford?
	So the ledger is decentralized, but the folding isn't.
	So supposedly there is a 70% pre-mine to give the coins out to people that are folding.
	So what happens is when you're Mining, like when you're securing the blockchain with your ASICs, yes, that part is decentralized.
	Those 20% of the coins that are there is decentralized.
	But the 80% of the coins that they're going to be giving out for people solving these problems when they're doing folding, that's not decentralized.
	This man, Stanford University, is actually giving these coins out to people that are solving These folding protein problems.
	So yes, half of it is decentralized and the other half isn't.
	People around the world are doing this for free, which was amazing.
	I didn't even hear about this.
	I looked at the charts.
	There's thousands and hundreds of thousands of people that are actually folding for free.
	Just, they're folding.
	And when I saw this, I was like, oh my god, what a great idea.
	Like incorporating a coin to folding.
	So, you know, use people's greed...
	To do better for humankind, you know, for the better of man.
	So I thought it was awesome, but the whole point of it being like a Stanford University project kind of like turns me off.
	It would be a nice way if everything was decentralized, but I just wanted to hear your thoughts of like, you know, maybe this is the first step of somebody maybe down the line is going to figure out a way how to have everybody I think, look, I tell you, I think it's delightful.
	I think it's wonderful because it is creative human intelligence used to create a different cost-benefit scenario.
	You know, it's sort of like saying, well, I have this investment portfolio which is You know, low return, low risk.
	And I also have one that's high return, high risk.
	You know, which is better?
	Well, I don't know.
	I can't make that decision for other people.
	Depends on your station in life, your capacity for handling stress, on your resources, how much mad money you have.
	I can't make that decision for other people.
	Do people want to devote their GPU cycles or ASIC cycles to the production of bitcoins, or do they want to have some of those cycles be devoted towards the solving problem?
	I don't know.
	There are costs and benefits to both.
	So, as you point out, Bitcoin is completely anonymous and decentralized with a few basic steps.
	With this one, it's probably a little less anonymous, and it certainly is centralized, which means it's open to seizure and control.
	So if you're willing to give up the decentralized aspect in order to help people cure disease, I think that's fantastic.
	If people would rather have things decentralized in order to maintain the integrity of the network despite what governments do, I think that's great too.
	This is just one more example of how creativity in the realm of currencies is producing a multiplicity of solutions that are incredibly compelling.
	Is one likely to become sole and dominant?
	Well, maybe, maybe not.
	I don't know.
	But the reality is, in the realm of cryptocurrencies, anything is possible.
	We are limited by nothing.
	And let's pursue more of that.
	This is Devan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We will be right back after the break.
	Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
	One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next boom.
	Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your bent.
	Are you with me?
	The revolution starts now.
	We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
	Turn those machines back on!
	You are about to enter The Peter Schiff Show.
	If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
	This is the last stand on earth.
	The Peter Schiff Show is on.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
	Your money.
	Your stories.
	Your freedom.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, all you beautiful people.
	I hope you're doing very well.
	This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	Peter's incredibly sorry he can't make it this morning.
	Apparently, there's an opening for the sunscreen applicator for the Hawaiian Tropics bikini team.
	Peter's obviously out auditioning.
	He's showing his skills on a couple of beach belugas.
	They're going to work on to the ladies, so he will be back.
	We'll see, depending on whether he gets the gig or not.
	So, we have a wide variety of topics.
	I am dying!
	Literally.
	Well, I guess we all are, but I'm dying to hear from you.
	855-472-4433.
	We have Andy from Tokyo.
	And you have a question, my friend.
	What would that be?
	Well, hello, Stephen.
	How are you?
	I'm well.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing great.
	I just have a question about reactions people have when you...
	Well, when you say what you think is a fact, and you get an irrational response to it.
	So, let me give you the situation.
	I was out having a few beers with a couple British friends, American, Canadians, a few Japanese around.
	And they brought up the topic of marijuana, and I brought up the quote by, I think it was, maybe you can correct me, I think it was Dostoevsky.
	You can judge a nation by the way it treats its prisoners or something like that.
	Yeah, that was Dostoevsky.
	Okay.
	And I just brought up the quote, or the fact that you had mentioned that I heard on your show earlier was that more men had been raped in U.S. and women.
	And that was carried in The Guardian and The Telegraph.
	I checked it just to make sure.
	Not that I don't trust you, but I just checked it.
	And I mentioned that stat to one of the British guys, and he just...
	Something in him clicked.
	I mean, it was like an emotional something, and he started fuming at the mouth and screaming and pointing and There's no way that's true.
	It can't passively true.
	I'm like, have you seen this guy?
	Wait, wait.
	Sorry to interrupt you, Andy.
	Was this, I guess what you would say, an upper-class British person?
	No, he's a, I don't want to say it, a blue-class worker, but he's definitely more of a labor-type supporter.
	I was going to say, if he was upper class or if he'd actually gone to boarding school, we could have some explanation as to why statistics on male rape might be upsetting to him.
	But go ahead, anyway.
	Okay, no, no, no, that's fine.
	That might be the case.
	I don't believe it was.
	My question was, well, basically, I've been reading a lot of Rothbard and Listening to Mises Institute's presentations by Tom Woods and other speakers there.
	And you learn these things that we haven't learned anywhere else.
	And that when you say something, and I try to verify the facts as well as I can, but you say something, and if you say it to the wrong person at the wrong time, you trigger an emotional response that I just don't want.
	I mean, I don't mind saying the I don't mind giving them my opinion.
	I never get angry at their what they say is opinion.
	I'll go home and check it.
	What is this default?
	What is that based in?
	Where is that coming from?
	I try to be as rational as I can, and I'm not saying he's irrational, but it seems like a lot of people...
	This is a great question, and it's something that people who aren't offended by facts face this constant problem of the landmines.
	That are hidden in other people's personalities.
	So the statistic about men being raped more has a lot to do with prison, of course.
	But you can get this from Slate.com.
	Last year, the National Crime Victimization Survey turned up a remarkable statistic.
	In asking 40,000 households, and households, not prisons, about rape and sexual violence, the survey uncovered that 38% of the incidents of rape and sexual violence were against men.
	The number seemed so high it prompted the researcher to see, made a mistake, changed the terminology, and so on.
	But no.
	And this is male-on-male rape.
	It's also female-on-male rape.
	So it is tough.
	Now...
	The fight-or-flight mechanism gets stimulated, particularly if somebody doesn't have self-knowledge.
	Like if they've gone through a prior trauma, right?
	Maybe this guy had been raped as a child.
	Maybe he'd been raped as a teenager.
	We don't know.
	But we do know this hyperreaction comes from a retriggering of early trauma.
	And when you have an impulse from the base of the lizard brain, you know, that real primitive fight or flight part of the brain, the brain is built on layers.
	It wasn't sort of designed from a blank slate.
	The brain is built on earlier evolutionary layers, and we have this sort of basic lizard brain at the bottom.
	And when an impulse arises from that, which usually has to do with the triggering of early trauma, in other words, the activation of fight or flight for past harm, You have about one quarter of one second to tamp down that impulse with the seat of your reasoning, with your neofrontal cortex at the top.
	Bam!
	You've got so little time.
	It's like impulse.
	An impulse to action without interference, without restraint, is the root of most what are called sort of crimes of passion.
	And in a way, this was a crime against philosophy, a crime of passion.
	So they get this stimuli, is activated, and the fact that he was activated by male rape would indicate that most likely, I can't know for sure, but most likely the explanation is that he'd experienced it or maybe he'd done it.
	He'd either been raped, maybe he was a rapist, maybe someone in his family had had it happen or was or whatever, right?
	And so he gets this, so the base of the brain says, fight or flight!
	Now, if he doesn't have self-knowledge, if he's not gone to therapy, if he's not worked these things out and has understood where his trigger points are, right?
	Self-knowledge is just all about figuring out your trigger points and then building the capacity to intercept them and understand them before you act on them, right?
	So acting out is when people like, I had the impulse to hit someone.
	Boom!
	I've hit them.
	And then afterwards, you're like, what did I do, right?
	That's somebody who's not worked on self-knowledge, not worked at intercepting the fight-or-flight mechanism, the acting-out mechanism, has not worked at intercepting that and understanding it.
	Does that make any sense?
	No, it makes sense.
	It just seems that that seems to be...
	I understand in a childhood that it could have come from some trigger in his past, right?
	But it just seems like the more...
	I don't know how you came to where you are in your philosophical belief, but I started basically as a socialist, and then I moved to a Republican just because I believed in the free market aspect of it.
	I always dismissed their social stuff as, you know, that's just them being them.
	But the more I started learning from, I guess you'd say, the libertarian thinkers, I started learning stuff that All the visceral responses couldn't be just from childhood triggers.
	It must have been something in the culture that's been put in their head that causes them to react.
	It just seems it's more than, not more than, something that was placed later on.
	I don't know, either through their schooling, I hate blaming the media, but it seems like there's a million triggers out there.
	Some trigger points are based upon prior emotional trauma, unprocessed trauma.
	Some trigger points are deliberately planted there by the powers that be.
	To make sure that whenever anyone hears an argument that is counter to the interests of those in power, they have an emotional reaction.
	Racist!
	Sexist!
	Whatever, right?
	Misogynist!
	So when you can create a knee-jerk reaction in people to dismiss ideas threatening to the powers that be, then propaganda has done its lovely work.
	We'll see this in the next election, when everyone suddenly turns from a racist to a sexist by being skeptical of Hillary Clinton's virtues.
	But we will talk more about this right after the break.
	This is DeFan Molyneux for Peter Schiff.
	Jeff, we'll be right back, my friends.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm a party house, I'm afraid to come outside.
	Although I'm filled with love, I'm afraid they'll hurt my pride.
	So I play the part I feel they want to meet.
	If knowledge is power, then the Peter Schiff Show is a uranium-enriched 10,000 then the Peter Schiff Show is a uranium-enriched 10,000 megawatt nuclear reactor.
	Stay plugged in.
	Stay brilliant.
	This is the Peter Schiff Show.
	We're back.
	Ladies and gentlemen, hope you're doing very well.
	Let's talk about the NFL, shall we?
	We haven't really...
	Talked much about the NFL, at least when I've hosted this show.
	And I find that nothing endears Americans to a radio host more than hearing about the national sport talked about in a vaguely fruity British accent.
	I say, what?
	Colonists are rather rough with their sports.
	What?
	Hey, what?
	So Matt Lauer was talking about the NFL. If we can play Cut 7, we'll talk about it a little more.
	The big picture here in terms of the NFL, is this a sea change or is this a one-off?
	Is this the league moving to the right side of history?
	Which, by the way, they really can't do unless more players come forward.
	Right, so the big issue in the NFL apparently is whether you can be out and gay in the NFL. Okay, now listen, I don't need any gay creds because I spent two years in theater school, so I have no issues with that.
	But why, oh why, and you know, almost to ask this question is to answer it, why don't we hear anything?
	About these giant steroided refrigerator-sized pickpockets in America.
	Oh, dear Lord in heaven, can someone in the media please talk about the degree to which they are pounding the taxpayers up against the wall, knee to the throat, hands in the pockets?
	You know, if the NFL owners, they couldn't be more gay by having their Hands in more men's pockets than you could imagine.
	Taxpayers fund most stadium costs for the NFL. The NFL itself is taxed exempt.
	Is it a charity?
	No!
	The television images that are made in these publicly funded stadiums are privatized with all gains kept by the owners.
	Oh, it's lovely.
	It's not that hard to make money.
	When you can socialize your costs and privatize your profits, the entire organization of the NFL is walled off in a maze of antitrust regulations.
	70% of the capital cost of NFL stadiums have been provided by taxpayers, not the NFL owners.
	That's just lovely, isn't it?
	Bread and circuses!
	NFL! And boy, Kim Kardashian has a big butt!
	Oh, what was that political thing?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Bring back our girls!
	When the ongoing costs are included, 12 of the league's 32 teams turn a profit on stadium subsidies alone.
	Yeah, I guess I can make more money if somebody else builds my country estate.
	In Minnesota, the Vikings wanted a new stadium.
	The Minnesota legislator, although facing a $1.1 billion budget deficit, and with the prospect of continuing to live in Minnesota, quote, gave $506 million from the taxpayers as a gift to the team, which covered about half the cost of the new facility.
	The team's principal owner, and truly Bond villain named Zygmunt Wilf, It had a 2011 net worth estimated at $322 million.
	With the new stadium deal, the Vikings value rose about $200 million.
	That's nice.
	It's just wonderful the degree to which the NFL is socialism to the rich and attacks on idiots.
	So, the NFL Broadcasts in publicly funded stadiums, on public airwaves, keeps all of the profits for themselves, and aggressively sues the crap out of anyone who violates their copyright.
	Man!
	That's astounding.
	A 1966 law allowed pro football leagues to merge.
	And gave them specific exemption from antitrust regulations.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm not a big fan of antitrust regulations, but when you massively subsidize stadiums, when you give the profits of these massive subsidies and the public airwaves to private individuals, and then you exempt them from the laws That other organizations have to work with, and you make them tax exempt!
	You might as well just give them the license to print money, which is kind of what they have.
	I mean, if you want, I've got a whole presentation on this.
	I won't bore everyone with the major statistics that you can go to Free Domain Radio.
	YouTube.com slash Free Domain Radio.
	You can do search for the truth about the NFL. But it's truly, truly astounding how much money these people make.
	In real dollars from 1998 to 2013, NFL television revenues doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion.
	The great US sports spectacle of the early 20th century, the 32 Los Angeles Olympics, had cost $40 million, constant currency.
	By 2012, annual NFN total revenue of about $10 billion was 250 times the number for the 1932 Olympics.
	In 2011, Gatorade signed a 10-year, $2.3 billion contract with the NFL to ensure that it would be a bucket of Gatorade and not some other drink poured over the victorious coach's head as the scoreboard clock reached all zeroes.
	Gatorade, let me tell you something.
	You and me.
	Let's talk about it right now.
	I host this show from time to time.
	For $2.3 billion.
	Let's say you can do it over 10 years.
	$2.3 billion.
	You can pour Gatorade over me.
	You can get that pig's blood they use in the Carrie movie.
	You can pour it all over me.
	I won't even give a limit on what horrible things you can pour all over me at the end of this.
	You know?
	For $2.3 billion over 10 years.
	Just waiting for Gatorade to call me right now.
	Why?
	Why are they not...
	Look, I have a giant melon head.
	It's not hard to hit.
	Really.
	You could basically throw it from across an airplane hangar and hit my forehead.
	But they're not going to call me.
	Why are they not going to call me?
	Because I don't have massive subsidies from the taxpayers.
	I don't have a granted monopoly exemption from the state.
	I'm not tax-free!
	Oh, my God.
	So, that you cannot talk about any of this stuff but focus on the gay rights issue is just part of the nonsense that we're constantly spoon-fed.
	Soma is the media.
	You know, we're constantly spoon-fed this pablum that distracts us from any real issues, anything that is of any substance or consequence.
	Your children are being sold into debt slavery to foreign banksters so over-steroided monsters can buy Porsches and video hoes.
	I mean, come on!
	What effect is it really going to have on your grandchildren?
	How long it takes gay players to come out in the NFL? But it really is going to affect your grandchildren.
	The amount of human potential and intelligence is diverted to the idiot spectacle of watching giant battering rams in various costumes run into each other and crush the skulls of the taxpayers between their pounding kneecaps.
	I think that's going to have a little bit more of an effect on your children than how long it takes to watch NFL players come out onto the field in assless chaps.
	But because it actually has relevance and has meaning and importance to your life and is a moral issue, well, we can't talk about that.
	Good heavens, no.
	All right.
	I'm going to go get my usual inter-show cold compresses applied to my forehead to cool my jets for the next rant.
	But I'm looking forward to your calls.
	855-472-4433.
	We still have time to get you in under the wire.
	Gatorade will be put to the head of the line.
	Any NFL quarterbacks will be second.
	Actually, if you're gay, you'll be first, too.
	So give us a call.
	855-472-4433.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for the Peter Schiff Show.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	Sometimes I can't believe it.
	I'm moving past the feeling again.
	I can't smell to be so hard.
	We now return to The Peter Schiff Show.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Hello, hello, hello everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I actually got to tell you, I've had this really weird urge to do the rest of the show, like the really quiet voice those people use at the end of those legal announcements to make sure that you get all the possible syllables about all your possible legal risk.
	I'll do the rest of the show this way.
	Okay, we have a caller from Tallahassee, Florida.
	His name is Greg.
	What's on your mind, brother?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I didn't realize I was on.
	I kind of zoned out there when you were talking that way, Stefan.
	Be careful about that.
	I was interested to get your thoughts, not just about the whole diversionary circus of the whole gay thing in the NFL, but particularly on Matt Lauer's phrase that he used of being on the right side of history.
	I don't think I've heard any phrase invoked so many times, and certainly in that context, but you have a better understanding of history than I and can probably identify All of the tyrants, whether they were, you know,
	Bolsheviks or others, or Obama, or Matt Lauer, or whoever else has an axe to grind that wants to persuade all of the sheep following them to get on the right side of history, which basically means, look, just fall in line, shut up, do what you're told, do not have an independent opinion.
	It's the most...
	It's fraudulent of all possible arguments, and yet, you know, it yields results because people don't want to be on the wrong side of history on the whole.
	Oh, Greg, Greg, why is it that you don't want to, with me, build a bridge to the 21st century?
	Why don't you want to join me in the sheep pen of empty phrases designed for emotional intimidation rather than rational analysis?
	See, the right side of history is a great way to get people to fall in line without actually having to say or argue anything.
	You know, it's like saying, that's an over-exaggeration.
	Well, first of all, that's kind of redundant.
	You hear that all the time.
	It's an over...
	It's reactionary.
	Really?
	Do you have an argument?
	No!
	Because it's reactionary.
	There are words that are invented by people who can't think but want power.
	Look!
	Extremist!
	You're an extremist!
	That's right.
	And you're an extremist on the wrong side of history, and you are a troll under the bridge we're trying to build in the 21st century.
	And apparently, with the NFL issue, it's a rainbow bridge.
	Look, you've got to watch out for these phrases that people use, which are designed as slander.
	Now, the left does this a lot more than the right.
	And that's really, really important to understand.
	The left, they're verbal abusers.
	The right kind of wants you thrown in jail for drugs and stuff, and they have their own issues.
	But in the left, it's more verbal abuse.
	Right?
	And in general, sort of, ooh, look, we're looping back to the beginning.
	Right?
	To go back to the beginning of the show, if the left is more feminine and the right is more masculine, then you would expect the left to be more adept at verbal abuse and the right to be more adept at the physical abuse of throwing people in prison.
	Right?
	Women can have the poison tongue and men can have the ham fists.
	But when you see these kinds of phrases being used, It is really, really important to understand that people are attempting to bypass your reasoning centers and attempting to hook into your emotional, tribal, lizard-brain conformity.
	We all have that.
	We are a social animal, and in the absence of people brave enough to fight against the irrationalities of history, we would still be pounding coconuts against our heads in some jungle somewhere.
	Because we all want to conform to the tribe.
	We all want to do that.
	We're all chameleons who blend into the local culture.
	Everyone in Malaysia is kind of like everyone else in Malaysia, and they're very different from people in Pennsylvania, who are all kind of like other people in Pennsylvania, right?
	So we blend into our culture.
	It's like those weird Japanese game shows where you have to contort yourself into some shape as it comes rushing towards you in a human Tetris game.
	That's what we do.
	We contort ourselves and...
	Adapt.
	Like when I used to do business in the South, I'd come out sounding like some bad cliché of Blanche Dubois from A Streetcar Named Desire.
	Why, Lord, I do believe I need to make it there to the airplane to get on the giant box in the sky and get my mint julep.
	I mean, it would just be terrible how much I would adapt to those accents to the point where people thought I was mocking them.
	It's like, no, I'm just a linguistic compromise.
	I'm really not trying to mock you.
	And so we have this desire to merge with the tribe, to blend with the tribe.
	Because throughout human history, we needed the tribe's protection in order to survive.
	Someone needed to guard over us while we slept.
	When we were kids, we needed our parents' approval.
	Otherwise, they didn't give us food or they'd sacrifice us to the local deity or something.
	So we want to please our parents.
	We want to join the tribe.
	We need the protection of the tribe.
	And the tribe will offer you protection in return for your conformity.
	Whether that protection could be from hell or foreign invaders or from the stress of disease with some magical witch-doctor dance routine, they will offer you security in return for conformity.
	I think it's too high a price to be paid, but that's different because I can survive without the tribe.
	I can choose my own tribe, the internet and being able to move.
	I can actually choose My own tribe.
	And therefore, I can have rational, empirical, universal, philosophical values.
	I have the ability and the skill to broadcast those in a way that people enjoy consuming.
	Therefore, I can find the people who are rational and empirical and virtuous and alive, which to me, they're all the same thing.
	And I can choose my own tribe.
	Now, throughout most of history, you couldn't choose your own tribe.
	And you certainly couldn't go join another tribe.
	You'd be killed as a spy.
	So we have this base of the brain, conform or die, and there literally was a choice throughout most of human history and most of human evolution, but now we have a different choice and we can wake up to the possibility of a tribe that is not accidental, that is not historical, that is not conformity based on fear masquerading as adherence to some philosophical ideal.
	But it's tough, and all of these Verbal tics and verbal cues that are used to get people to conform.
	They're all just trying to bypass your critical thinking and hook into your lizard brain.
	I'm trying to think of others while I'm chatting.
	A few will pop it into my head, Greg.
	Are you still on?
	Can you think of any other ones that are used a lot?
	Oh, he's gone?
	All right.
	Well, if you can, if people can think of other phrases that can be used a lot, that people just kind of conform to, 855-472-4433.
	But what is the right side of history?
	Generally, people make that case to say, well, you don't want to be against slavery.
	Sorry, you don't want to be for slavery during the abolitionistic movement, right?
	So like in 1850, only 2% of the American population were abolitionists.
	But those 2%, we kind of look now as moral heroes, like they were on the right side of history.
	I kind of get what the argument means.
	You don't want to be some sexist pig In the 21st century, because the right side of history is, you know, equal rights for women, which of course we're still working towards.
	Pendulum swung a little bit too far, but we're, as you know, we're trying to sort of work it back a little bit towards the middle.
	So I get what they're sort of trying to say, that there are these trends in history.
	That are around the expansion of ethics to formerly excluded groups.
	Minorities, blacks, women.
	Whoa, boy, we're still working on kids.
	Oh, that could be a whole show unto itself.
	But a study just came out recently that American moms, while they claim to only hit their children 18 times a year, are in fact hitting their children 18 times per week.
	That's 930 odd times a year that children are being hit.
	And the average time of conflict to hitting escalation is 30 seconds.
	And imagine that.
	Imagine you have a conflict with your boss at work and you have 30 seconds to explain yourself, or he's going to roundhouse you to the head.
	And this occurred on children as young as seven months and as old as four, at which point the researchers listening to the tapes committed seppuku and fled to a better dimension.
	So the extension of rights to formerly excluded groups, fantastic.
	I think that is the general trend of history.
	But the extension of something like property rights and freedom from the initiation of force is most relevant to the realm of taxation and national debts and fiat currencies.
	Right?
	Currency is debt.
	Productivity is slavery.
	Economic excellence is collateral for further debt enslavement.
	So I think, look, I think it's great that gay people can come out.
	I think, you know, great.
	I'd love to live in a world where we don't care about it.
	Doesn't matter.
	Right?
	Like Morgan Freeman said about race, can we just stop talking about it?
	Can we just stop talking about it?
	Well, not yet.
	Not yet.
	Hopefully soon.
	I mean, I don't know what the evolutionary...
	Impetus to homosexuality was for the tribe.
	My guess, you know, if I had to guess, and it seems to be genetic homosexuality, my guess would be that you needed...
	There are warriors who could range far afield and wouldn't want to give up on romantic love.
	So if you have a tribe and you have warriors who can go far afield to fight others and to get resources, well, if they're heterosexual, then they don't want to leave their girlfriends and wives behind and go on these extended trips.
	But if they're gay, then they can go on these extended trips To go gather resources and fight enemies and not miss their lovers and so on.
	Now my guess is that in the tribe, having homosexuals in the tribe enhanced the genetic survival of the tribe as a whole.
	And I would guess it would have something to do with that.
	I don't know.
	I mean, this is all conjecture.
	But it would be great if we didn't have to, you know, I don't sort of announce people and say, I'm slightly above average in height and I'm bald.
	People are like, why are you telling me this?
	I don't care.
	It would be great if we had a world where people could say, I'm gay!
	And people could say, so what?
	Unless I'm actively planning an ABBA reunion, I don't care!
	But it would be great if people could say, I'm black!
	And people could say, I can see that.
	You don't have to tell me.
	And I don't care.
	I don't care.
	It's unimportant.
	It's not something worthy of my attention.
	That would be wonderful.
	Right now, we're not there yet.
	And unfortunately, these differences, with the power of the state to shovel benefits back and forth, to create money at will and bribe special interest groups, these divisions can be milked for vast profits off the backs, the tiny backs of the unborn in terms of debt.
	But we will work towards that goal.
	I'm from the government.
	I don't care.
	There ain't none.
	Mmm!
	Tasty.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	music
	music Nine out of ten historians agree.
	If Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were alive today, both would be Schiff Radio premium members.
	Somewhere up there, Thomas Jefferson is looking down with great pride.
	Schiff Radio continues right now.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	You can get more of my rants at freedomainradio.com, youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
	It's our last segment.
	Oh, my heart is breaking.
	But I'll be back tomorrow morning to chat with you further.
	Please call in.
	I love chatting with you all.
	Let's exit our show with some fun facts, shall we?
	20% of all government workers and 26% of all Obama supporters consider the Tea Party to be, quote, the biggest terror threat.
	That America is facing.
	Now I actually, I kind of agree with their perspective.
	It makes sense to me.
	Because the Tea Party wants more free market and less government.
	And that will be terrifying to most Obama supporters.
	Because they'd actually have to compete in the free market with competent people.
	Not to mention government workers.
	I mean the Tea Party is terrifying to government workers.
	What, what, what?
	I can be fired?
	I have to focus on the customer?
	I have to do a good job?
	I don't get six weeks off in the summer?
	I don't get free diabetes treatments for my steady diet of government cheese and donuts?
	Yeah, it's terrifying, the idea of the free market.
	Like if somebody wants to have influence, you can either work really hard.
	I put in, I calculated it a couple of years ago, about 40,000 hours, history, philosophy, economics, all that kind of crap.
	So you can work really hard to get good arguments, good information, absorb stuff, find out ways to effectively communicate important ideas to people, and try and get influenced that way, which is really tough!
	I mean, I was broke throughout most of my 20s, just kept going to school.
	Reading books!
	God help me!
	But then...
	There's the other side of the coin, where you can just lie to people, get political power, and have ideas so good they need to be enforced at the point of a gun!
	Whoa!
	That's much easier.
	I don't have to study facts, learn how to effectively argue.
	I can just learn how to lie to people with a straight face, get political power, and I can influence people the way a mugger influences your wallet.
	Wow, that guy's really generous when I have a knife to his ribs.
	I really care about the poor.
	I want government to use more force to help them.
	Approximately 30% of all American workers have a thousand dollars or less saved up for retirement, at which point those thousand dollars will be able to buy approximately one cup of coffee.
	A worldwide survey conducted by the worldwide, I guess that's sort of redundant, independent network, found that 24% of people around the world consider the United States to be the biggest threat to peace.
	Pakistan was in second place with just 8%.
	Well, you know, 720 plus military bases around the world, the biggest arms dealer on the planet, the biggest proper up of despotic foreign regimes, the biggest destroyer of local markets with massively subsidized food dumping on third world farmers markets.
	Massive amount of bribery of dictatorial governments to pursue what are perceived to be the Americans self-interest, which really is the American elite self-interest through foreign aid, which is the taking of money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. which is the taking of money from poor people in Yeah, I can sort of see where they're coming from there.
	60% of Americans report feeling angry or irritable.
	Before I started this show this morning, that was at 50%.
	Oh, sorry, I misread that.
	Two years ago, that number was at 50%.
	Good!
	Oh, it's about damn time you people got angry!
	Man alive!
	How far down the shark's gullet do you people have to be before you start struggling a little bit, grabbing a couple of gills and starting to hoist yourself back out?
	It's about time you people got angry!
	29% of Americans believe that cloud computing involves an actual cloud.
	No, no, no.
	You see, the immaterial thing is the space between your ears, not where computing occurs.
	A survey of employers that currently pay minimum wage to at least some of their employees found that 38% of them would start laying off employees if the minimum wage were raised.
	62% of them expect to go out of business because they're retarded.
	One survey found that 56% of Americans believe that it is okay for the government to track the telephone records of millions of Americans in order to keep us safe.
	When George Bush was president, 61% of Democrats considered NSA surveillance to be unacceptable.
	But now that Obama is in the White House, only 34% of them consider it to be unacceptable.
	I guess civil rights are...
	67% of Americans support the use of unmanned drones in homeland security missions inside the United States.
	One survey found that 51% of all Americans agree with this statement, it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.
	Close to one-third of all Americans would be willing to submit to a TSA body cavity search in order to fly.
	About 10% of them would welcome it.
	5% of them would really like it, and 1% of them would propose.
	65% of Americans are dissatisfied with the U.S. system of government and its effectiveness, the highest level of dissatisfaction that Gallup has ever recorded.
	Only 8% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good or excellent job.
	Isn't that amazing?
	Eight per cent of Americans think that Congress is doing a great job, but the vast majority of them think that the government should increase its surveillance to keep them safe.
	Let me help you a little, my brothers and sisters.
	The same people are doing both things.
	This dentist is really incompetent!
	This dentist should work more on my teeth!
	It's the same guy!
	The same people who are implementing all these laws are the same people you think are doing a terrible job!
	They're the same people!
	There's not a shadow Congress out there that's competent that is somehow fronted by the idiots you see!
	You can't reach through their cloud idiot heads and find these founding fathers in the background and reanimate and reactivate them and bring them back like brain enlightenment zombies to rule the land with a fist of grace.
	They're the same people.
	The same people.
	Ahhhh.
	According to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37% of all Americans in the 18-24 year old range can find the nation of Iraq.
	On a map, almost 25% of all Americans do not know that the U.S. declared independence from Great Britain, and 29% of all Americans under the age of 35 are living with their parents.
	24% of all U.S. teens that have a sexually transmitted disease say they are still having unprotected sex.
	Well, the state of the nation is not great, but we are working, my friends, to fix it as best, as fast, and as positively as we can.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	Thank you so much for listening, as always.

▲