Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 12, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:18:25

2745 The Dangers of Conformity - Peter Schiff Radio Show July 10th, 2014

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You 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 Bentley.
	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, everybody.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	So I hope you're having a wonderful, wonderful week.
	I will be sitting in Peter's slightly warm and moist chair today and tomorrow.
	I'll be back, of course, tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in the morning.
	That would be in the morning, in case you hadn't heard that.
	And we have so much to talk about, but I also, of course, want to hear your calls.
	Just call in and we'll chat about whatever is on your mind.
	I guess I'm a philosopher by occupation, so I have calculated about 35,000 hours of investment in philosophy available for you to tap into with a simple phone call.
	So we have lots of stuff to chat about today, but...
	To start with, my friends, I would like to ask you a question.
	And if you want to call in and let me know your thoughts on this, I am absolutely happy to hear those thoughts.
	But let me ask you a question.
	Have you ever been described as difficult?
	Have you ever been described as cantankerous?
	Are people's Vision of you, like maybe the free market Boo Radley down the street, who's constantly shouting at the neighborhood kids, Hey!
	Get off my rights!
	And my lawn!
	Do people have the mental image of you as someone, perhaps, who's an extra in the movie Cocoon, with your pants hoisted up around nipple height?
	Pair of tight suspenders over the top and complaining about people with accents.
	Anyway, if you ever have been described as cantankerous or difficult or problematic or kvechi, well, I am here to make you feel better about that.
	So this is an experiment that was recently run about an experiment that was one of the most, if not the most famous, experiments in the history of psychology.
	So famous, in fact, that the silken voice Peter Gabriel, in fact, sang a whole song about it.
	So in 1961, the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who was, of course, one of the masterminds of the Holocaust, was underway, and a lot of psychologists and writers and so on were trying to figure out the nature of evil.
	Germany was by far the most educated country in Europe during the time when it succumbed to the mass genocidal, nationalistic, socialistic hysteria of the National Socialists, who have to be called the Nazis because otherwise the socialists recognize that Mussolini was on the left, Hitler was on the left, and so on.
	But there was this huge curiosity.
	How on earth could such...
	A civilized and cultured country, how could they have descended into the rank-and-file mass slaughterhouse of Nazism?
	So, a fellow named Stanley Milgram devised an experiment.
	An experiment which would have challenges passing the ethics commission or committee these days.
	And you probably heard about it, so I'll just touch on it briefly.
	The experiment was basically this.
	He sat some people down.
	I screened them for mental problems and then those who passed who were considered normal.
	He sat them down in a room and a guy in a white suit and a clipboard said that, hey, you guys are going to be involved in an experiment around learning.
	So we're going to try and figure out what are the negative consequences, what are the effects of negative consequences on people's learning.
	So they could see Through a window, a person in a chair strapped up to a bunch of electrodes.
	And they were told this person was a volunteer.
	They were happy to participate.
	They also wanted to help people understand the negative consequences of electrical shocks for learning.
	And they were told, look, every time you push this button, that person receives an electrical shock.
	So this person was supposed to read something or do something intellectual.
	Every time you saw them making a mistake, you're supposed to give them an electric shock.
	And there was a dial, and the dial went from mild to possibly fatal.
	Now, of course, they were just actors pretending to be heard and so on, but as far as the participants in the experiment knew, this was the real deal.
	And there were various guesses ahead of time about how many people would go to the Almost fatal or potentially fatal dial when told to by the person in authority.
	People thought maybe two or three percent of people would go that far.
	But as it turns out, the majority of people are willing to go that far.
	The majority of people, when told by someone in authority to shock someone with a near fatal dose of electricity or potentially fatal or fatal dose of electricity, We'll do that, even if the person is screaming and begging them to stop, and they could hear the actors in the other room.
	And this was chilling, the degree to which people in America were willing to do this.
	This study, these findings have been replicated in virtually every country in the world, in virtually every culture in the world.
	The vast majority of people Sorry, a significant majority of people are willing, if ordered, to basically participate in the execution, the agonizing execution or potential execution of another human being.
	And when they moved this to Harvard, they found that even more people complied.
	The people who were told, the people who were being told, were being told to do this by people who were not yelling at them, not berating them, simply mildly and repeatedly instructing them, now you need to turn the dial up and you need to apply more shock.
	You need to turn the dial up and you need to apply more shock.
	The experiment requires, they never were told to say, you must, you have to, you better, you promised, you're part of the experiment.
	They were just simply mildly told, the experiment requires that you turn up the dial and apply, right?
	And people completely abandoned Their conscience.
	They completely abandoned their conscience to participate in a potential murder.
	Now, I'm sure a lot of the people felt conflicted and a lot of the people were very upset.
	A lot of the people, of course, when they found out what was going on, were shocked.
	But, of course, a lot of people would doubtless have thought, well, I mean, if it was really horrible, they wouldn't be allowing this experiment to occur.
	In other words, they ceded their own integrity and moral authority to someone else, to a structure, to an institution.
	It's Harvard!
	They wouldn't let me kill someone at Harvard, would they?
	And the degree to which people can extract with a psychological apple cora and project their conscience into an authority figure, into someone else, When it's just a guy in a lab coat, imagine how much further it is, how much more people can abstract and project their moral conscience onto an institution or a structure like the state, like the army.
	Because people in Harvard, people who were doing this experiment, were subject to the laws of the state, but the state is the law of the state.
	The state is the law of the land.
	So when you have a state, you have a giant vacuum of conscience that people are willing to defer to that entity, to that agency, and do what it says.
	To the tune of 250 million people murdered by governments just in the 20th century alone.
	So I'm going to tell you the antidote.
	And I'm pretty much guessing as a listener you have this antidote.
	So right back, 855-4SHIFT, give me a call.
	I will tell you the antidote to conformity and save you from collusion with evil.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	show.
	We'll be right back.
	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.
	It's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, sitting in for the one and only Peter Schiff.
	Thank you for your time and attention, as always, this morning.
	So we're talking about an experiment that was performed in 1961.
	Which tested people's willingness to murder others to deliver 450 volts of electrical shocks, a potentially fatal dose, in a mock experiment where it was supposed to be about how electricity would affect people's learning.
	The experiment has been replicated worldwide and between 61 and 66 percent of people are willing to go to the fatal dose.
	Psychologists and psychiatrists predicted that maybe 2% of people, right, the 2% or 3% of sociopaths in society would be willing to go to the final dose, but almost two-thirds, almost two-thirds of people were willing to go to a fatal dose if told by an authority.
	And most women, the statistic was higher for women, Now, the fact that this didn't give people enormous pause as to try and figure out how are we producing these Nazis in waiting, this giant horde of people who are willing to abandon moral conscience and harm other human beings because some guy in a white lab coat gives them the go-ahead, why this doesn't give us enormous pause and give us the incentive to massively re-evaluate how we are raising children?
	It's beyond comprehension, but of course we're so full of followers in the world and followers are specifically created through particular forms of government indoctrination in public schools.
	I think followers are also created through particular forms of religious indoctrination, though not all.
	Obey!
	Obey!
	Raise your hand to go to the washroom.
	Sit in rows.
	No, you can't do that now.
	You have to do this now.
	You get your 15 minutes prison break out in the fresh air.
	Go fight with the other kids and submit to the alpha bully in the playground now.
	Come back in!
	Sit down.
	Line up straight.
	Right between the lines.
	You've got to have neat handwriting.
	Because, you know, who wants to be a doctor, right?
	Here's the bell.
	Now you have to switch to a new topic.
	Government schools are prisons for the evolving brains and the fact that people are willing to submit to those in authority is a direct result of how we raise children.
	The public school system was developed by a bunch of Prussian toilet trained at gunpoint Megatron overlords to produce compliant soldiers and factory worker drones.
	And like all things wrapped In the barbed wire embrace of the state, it stops.
	It stops.
	It stops in time.
	Whenever you encircle something in coercion, like government schools, forced to pay for them, forced to attend, forced to follow curriculum, it stops in time.
	It stops in time.
	150 years ago, before governments took over education, you had, based on the technology of the time, 20 kids, 30 kids, 40 kids sitting in rows with a teacher and a blackboard.
	Fast forward 150 years, we've gone to the moon, we've split the atom.
	We've got this technology which allows us to talk all the way around the world.
	We can implant pig valves into human hearts and have them crap bacon.
	Again, I'm no doctor, but it's something like that.
	And what has happened?
	To government education.
	Well, you still have 20, 30, 40 kids in rows.
	With a teacher up at the front.
	Oh, wait, no.
	Let's give credit where credit is due.
	It's not a blackboard in some cases anymore.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's a whiteboard.
	Ooh.
	Multicolors!
	So, the vast majority of people around you, a few of them, If you're in a room with 30 people, 20 of them will administer near-fatal or fatal electrical shocks if told to by an authority figure to a human being they know has done no wrong.
	But there is one antidote to this.
	A new Milgram-like experiment published this month in the Journal of Personality has taken...
	Milgram's experiment to the next level, trying to understand what kinds of people are more or less willing to obey these kinds of murderous orders.
	So the researchers ran the experiment, but what they did was they studied people's personality for eight months beforehand.
	What did they find?
	Well, they found that people like, well, people like you and me, who think against the grain, who swim against the current, who question the dominant ideologies of the culture...
	We come surprisingly equipped not just with dinner party-stopping inconvenient thoughts, but life-saving non-compliance capacities.
	Those who are described as, quote, agreeable, conscientious personalities are more likely to follow orders and deliver electric shocks that they believe can harm innocent people.
	While, quote, more contrarian, less agreeable personalities are more likely to refuse to hurt others.
	So for an eight-month period, researchers interviewed study participants to gauge their social personality as well as their personal history and political leanings.
	When they matched this data to the participants' behavior during the experiment a distinct pattern emerged.
	People who were normally friendly followed orders because they didn't want to upset others while those who were described as unfriendly stuck up for themselves.
	So the writer wrote, The irony is that a personality disposition normally seen as antisocial, disagreeableness, may actually be linked to pro-social behavior.
	Isn't that amazing?
	Non-compliance with society is compliance with conscience.
	It is no mark of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
	The writer goes on to say, This connection seems to arise from a willingness to sacrifice one's popularity.
	To act in a moral and just way towards other people, or animals, or the environment as large.
	Popularity in the end may be more a sign of social graces and perhaps a desire to fit in than any kind of moral superiority.
	The most chilling condemnation of a child's personality is the sentence, gets on well with others.
	Well-groomed for cog-like participation in a fascist human disassembly machine.
	Just horrendous.
	Now, does this cause the psychological profession to re-evaluate?
	Their DSM-5 now, I think it is?
	Their categorization of mental illness?
	Oppositional defied disorder!
	Does not listen well to authority!
	Does not fall in line!
	Wears red when they're supposed to be wearing blue!
	Raises their hand when no hand raising is allowed!
	Antisocial!
	Bad!
	Well, these people who go against the grain, these people who think for themselves, these people labeled by society as disagreeable, problematic, oppositional, antisocial.
	Well, I tell you what, people, if your society is willingness to kill when pointed at and told to, I am thrilled, honored, and delighted to be noncompliant and to be antisocial.
	These people that are called antisocial and difficult and problematic and cantankerous, oppositional, unfriendly, the worst, the mark of the beast, he's unfriendly.
	Well, these are the people who are going to save your life.
	These are the people who are going to fight the powers that be and resist the growing fascism in the West, resist the growing totalitarianism in the West, resist the growing state power.
	The state has grown 20 times in 100 years.
	These people you call antisocial, these people you call cantankerous people like you and me, dear listener, we are going to save the world.
	We won't get any thanks, but we will get moral pride.
	We'll be right back after the break and talk to the fine listener.
	Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We now return to The Peter Schiff Show.
	Call in now.
	855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
	The Peter Schiff Show.
	Good morning, ladies, gentlemen, and those who mysteriously tick the box other.
	Welcome back to The Peter Schiff Show.
	I'm Stephan Molyneux.
	I am sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	And looking forward to your calls, seriously.
	Bounce a few questions off my giant chatty forehead, and let's talk about that which is important, meaningful, deep, and true in your life.
	855-472-4433.
	Ashley, darling, are you on the line with me this morning?
	I sure am.
	How are you, Seth?
	I'm very well.
	How are you doing?
	I'm pretty good.
	I had a question for you.
	I have been seeing a major influx of a certain parenting technique, and I wanted to get your input.
	My question is, what are your thoughts on parents who use public humiliation to discipline their children?
	You mean the parents who put their kids in the median of a highway and say, I flunked algebra, throw eggs at me, or something like that?
	Yeah, or what I've seen today, a mother is shouting at her daughter as she's taking her to school, like, oh, this is what happens when you're bad.
	Your mother has to take you to school, just publicly humiliating them.
	Yeah, it's sort of like when I was a kid, there was the dunce cap.
	I don't know how old you are.
	You sound closer to the crib than me.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay, great.
	So, do you want to put more input in?
	Because I can feel a lava bubbling of ranting arising from near my bowels.
	So, but I don't, if you have more to sort of say, or what do you think of it?
	Because I don't want to interrupt your excellent question with my rant.
	Well, I've seen these videos posted on my YouTube, on my Facebook feed, and I commented on it saying I found it completely disturbing and healthy and downright abusive.
	And I was attacked by these views, saying, oh, well, it worked, and my parents did it to me, and that was really my only input.
	I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were.
	Well, get comfortable, because I do have a few thoughts on the issue.
	Alrighty.
	There is an absolutely brain-meltingly astonishing arrogance in society Wherein a completely messed up adult universe has the temerity to look at children fresh out of the womb, innocent, curious, ethical, empathetic children fresh out of the womb, who cannot conform or will not conform or have problems with a highly dysfunctional adult society.
	And we have this astounding arrogance to say to these children, you done be broken, you done need to be fixed right there.
	What's the matter with you?
	You all don't like going to school.
	You sit in rows.
	You can't pee.
	There are metal detectors.
	And stabby other children.
	And crazy children.
	And teachers who are just sitting there gathering dust waiting for their pension.
	Why you don't want to go to school?
	It's dull.
	You've got to get up early when you don't want to as a teenager.
	Why wouldn't you want to go to school?
	What's the matter with you?
	Oh, and also I wanted to mention too, we done buried you in a couple of hundred thousand dollars worth of national debt when you're born.
	Because, you know, we need to bribe people to get votes in the here and now.
	We can only print so much money, so we use your brain, blood, and futurist collateral to borrow a whole bunch of money from foreign bankers.
	Basically sell you an indentured servitude.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	Well, don't you like society?
	It's beautiful.
	It's wonderful.
	It's magical.
	Oh, by the way, you're going to hell.
	I could literally do that for two days until a bunch of genuinely and appropriately outraged Southern people attack me for making fun of their accent.
	But trust me, I'm not competent enough to even do a good Southern accent.
	There is something fundamentally wrong with society.
	There are many things fundamentally wrong with society.
	A study recently came out that showed moms...
	Hit their children 930 times a year, on average, in America, middle-class moms, from the age of seven months to three and a half years.
	930 times a year they're hit.
	Hit!
	Hit!
	18 times a week.
	Smack!
	I mean, basically, this isn't parenting, this is whack-a-mole.
	The schools are terrible.
	The content of the curriculum is brain-rottingly unimportant.
	You know, you can slay people with a knife, or you can just slowly collapse their lungs with trivia.
	And that's what we do with children.
	We hit them, we terrify them, we use them as political pawns, their economic futures are sold off to buy votes in the here and now.
	And then we as a society, after hitting them and selling them off at auction in international money markets, burying them in national debt and $180 trillion of unfunded liabilities, we say to these children, you're broken and we need to fix you.
	That is absolutely monstrous.
	Children are like the sculpture of society.
	If I'm a sculptor and I spend a couple of years making a sculpture and that sculpture turns out to be, let's say, ugly, do I then put that sculpture on a street corner with a big sign around its neck saying, I'm ugly!
	It's my fault!
	That would be the actions of a crazy person.
	We sculpt our children.
	We interact with our children.
	We build the psyches of our children.
	90% of a child's mind develops with reference to external influences over the first five years of life.
	Doesn't mean everything's fixed, but that's what the science says.
	Strangely enough, Muslim kids tend to adapt to Islam.
	Christian kids tend to adapt to Christianity.
	Left-wing kids tend to adapt to left-wing kids.
	Jewish kids often grow up to be Jewish.
	They adapt to their environment.
	And for parents to say, I am going to shame my child for non-compliance, for badness, for wrongness.
	Well, you are the parent.
	You are the sculptor.
	You created the sculpture.
	Only a crazy person A tax?
	A sculpture for being ugly when they themselves created that sculpture.
	Shame, humiliation.
	We have so much to apologize to children for.
	Sorry about the environment.
	Sorry about the terrible political system.
	Sorry about the national debt.
	Sorry about the crappy schools.
	But it's really important to buy votes from public school teachers rather than actually invest in a quality education for our offspring.
	Sorry that school ends at 3 or 3.30 and your parents don't get home till 6.
	Sorry about that.
	But, you know, public sector unions give a lot of money to politicians.
	We've got to change that.
	Sorry about the summers off where you're so bored.
	You'll go mental.
	But, you know, teachers like summers off.
	And a lot of those teachers have kids themselves.
	They're not really that convenient.
	Sorry.
	We have so much to apologize for.
	The idea that we would then shame children For not complying to a genuinely insane society is how we know the society is genuinely insane.
	Hey kids, you should conform to a society that produces two-thirds of people willing to be mass murderers if told to by someone in authority.
	Isn't that a great selling point?
	Join the mindless, faceless horde who will kill on command.
	Yay!
	What a great sales brochure we have for our children.
	Join the system that buries you in a quarter million dollars of debt before you were even born.
	How don't we have the moral authority to shame children because we're so great and so right in our society?
	We have a president who writes his own laws.
	We have undeclared wars.
	Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are killed because a bunch of Saudis.
	Hijacked some planes.
	What did we do, miss?
	It's not that far.
	America spent more than 10 years in Iraq, and now it's sliding into the sectarian hellscape of warring tribalism that was inevitable from the beginning.
	All the blood and treasure, all the lives, the radioactive dust that destroyed genetics of the Iraqi population as a result of the use of Semi-radioactive weapons.
	We have so much to apologize to our children for that the idea that we as a society have the right to shame them for non-compliance and non-obedience is deranged.
	Collectively, we have that responsibility.
	Individually, for parents to shame their children.
	If your child is doing the wrong stuff, as a parent, you need to look in the mirror.
	Were you there for the child when the child was born?
	Did you have a pretty stress-free pregnancy?
	Did you breastfeed your child for the recommended 18 months to help build their brains and immune system?
	Did you keep them home?
	Did you allow a pair bond?
	Did you give them lots of eye contact and skin contact and all the stuff which helps build mirror neurons, empathy and sympathy within the child's brain?
	Did you put aside your own material ambitions and personal ambitions to actually be there and care for your child?
	If your child grows up not respecting you, did you earn that respect?
	But no, as a society, we think somehow that we just deserve respect from children because we're bigger.
	What nonsense.
	Any rational society must humble itself towards the experience of children and have the humility to say, maybe the kids aren't just all right.
	But fundamentally right about their skepticism of the political hellscape and financial Armageddon zone that they're born into.
	Let's listen to their skepticism, because the only people who should be ashamed in a crazy world are the parents, are the adults.
	The idea that we're just going to shame the children is, to my mind, Reprehensible to the first degree.
	Humility is the beginning of wisdom.
	We do not have enough ethical notches in our collective belts to hit children with it.
	We just don't.
	We use violence to raise our children.
	We encase them in these terrible schools.
	We burden them down with debt.
	We give them electronics rather than conversations.
	We give them iPads rather than eye contact.
	We refuse to talk to them about any deep misgivings we have about the society we live in.
	We inflict our ancient superstitions on their tender and budding brains.
	We bore them.
	We confine them.
	We distract them.
	We drug them.
	We drug them.
	We drug them because we can't fix the system.
	So we drug the children.
	This is Soviet.
	If you're a dissident in Soviet Russia, you got horse tranquilizers up the butt.
	So let's have a little humility, recognize that the kids have as much to teach us as we have to teach them.
	This is Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We'll be back right after the messages, and we've got more callers.
	Looking forward to your calls.
	Thank you so much for listening.
	Mama's in her kitchen.
	She's turning her pot.
	Daddy sits there waiting to see what she's got.
	He's sitting by the fireplace with his hands.
	To President Obama, Madam Pelosi, and all of the socialist econ professors across America, and all of the socialist econ professors across America, we're sorry.
	We're sorry.
	Peter Schiff is back on the air.
	Good morning, everybody.
	It's the Ben Molyneux from Freedomain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	You can catch more of my show at youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
	And...
	After having dealt with fascist overcompliance in psychological studies and the deep bended knee respect and humiliation that we as adults should bring to our children whose world we are granting such a mess in the inheritance of, we now turn to the always easy to chat about topic of immigration.
	Gino, are you on the line?
	Yes, I am.
	What's on your mind, my brother?
	Good morning.
	Well, I started reading up and talking to my brother, my little brother, about this, about how President Obama is letting all those illegal immigrant children into the United States.
	I kind of want to see your view and get a better understanding of how it's going to affect America in the long run, and how it's going to destabilize the country even more than it is.
	I guess it's just a simple question.
	I'm a little nervous.
	Excuse me.
	I'm a big fan of yours.
	I just want to hear your view on that, please.
	Well, what are your thoughts about it, just before we dive into mine?
	I don't want it to be a springboard to rant for every caller.
	What are your thoughts about it?
	Well, I like hearing your rant.
	That's why I'm a fan.
	Okay.
	Do you want me to just rant, or do you want to give me your thoughts?
	I really just hear you.
	That's why I called in.
	I'm a big fan and I'm just nervous.
	I'm just going to sound like an idiot.
	All right.
	Well, listen, let me sound like the idiot then.
	If one of us has to take the eye bullet, let it be me.
	So, for those who don't know, there's been a massive, I'm sure everyone knows, a massive influx of unaccompanied minors coming over from Central America and Mexico.
	I think since last October, it's 40,000 or 50,000 of these kids are pouring over the border.
	Many, many times more than has occurred.
	And partly, the theory is that this is the result of President Obama talking about how unaccompanied minors won't be sent back.
	And coyotes, which are the people who help people get across the border, are charging $1,500 plus.
	Plus, plus, plus sometimes to get kids across the border.
	And they are generally staying.
	A few of them being sent back, but they're generally staying.
	And they're being put up in army barracks and public housing and other places where there's a massive clampdown on...
	Information coming out.
	The people who are taking care of these kids, the nurses, the doctors, and so on, their cell phones are taken from them.
	They're not allowed to take photographs.
	They're being threatened with prosecution if they do publish any information.
	Reporters are allowed in, but they're not allowed to take photographs.
	They're not allowed to talk to unaccompanied people and so on.
	So it's this weird kind of immigration gulag that is springing up.
	There's a lot of resistance when busloads of these illegal immigrants come to towns.
	People are standing in front of the buses and not letting them in, saying we don't have the budget to care for these people.
	The federal government is talking about sending troops in, basically, to clear the way for these buses.
	It's a giant mess.
	Now, the first thing to understand, of course, is that any sane and compassionate human being really feels for these kids.
	I mean, that's the first thing that...
	I mean, they're not just anonymous, illegal, alien, immigrant things.
	I mean, there's human beings with hearts and minds and desires...
	Who are fleeing or being sent away from some pretty terrible countries.
	I mean, let's just be frank.
	It's not a whole lot of fun in the backwaters of the Honduran economy or Mexico or any of these places.
	So the first thing I think to understand, which I just want to really be clear about, is that it's a terrible situation that these kids are in.
	Now that having been said, the government doesn't care about them.
	Come on.
	If the government cared about kids...
	They changed the whole school system.
	They changed the tax incentive to provide greater incentives for one parent to stay home full-time.
	They wouldn't be, say, calling in drone strikes, which often take out children in foreign lands.
	They wouldn't be destroying the economy and environment of Iraq and Afghanistan if they cared about kids.
	So the first thing to understand is the government doesn't care about the kids at all.
	Kids don't vote.
	So the question is, why is the Democratic Party...
	So pro-immigration, so pro an influx.
	Well, I mean, the simple matter is that immigrants are almost overwhelmingly going to vote Democrat.
	They're importing a power base.
	They're importing a voting base.
	They're importing political power.
	A path to citizenship would guarantee millions more Democratic voters, likely by a three-to-one advantage, swelling voter rolls over decades, say a researcher.
	And I think, if I remember rightly, off the top of my head, but I think that among the recent immigrants, those who are interested in voting Republican is about 2%, 1.7% to 2%.
	A lot of them are unaffiliated and so on, but...
	Significant chunk of them want to vote Democrat.
	The Democrats have not had any luck convincing Americans of the righteousness of skeevy socialism.
	They have not had a chance as progressives, as semi-Marxists, as socialists.
	They've not had any success convincing most Americans, most Native Americans, of the righteousness of massive government, massive income redistribution, and the attendant corruption and destruction of the economy that always results from that.
	They can't make the case!
	So when you can't make the case, you pad the jury.
	If you're an incompetent lawyer, you pad the jury, or you bribe the judge, if you want to win your case.
	The Democrat Party exists fundamentally because of two institutions, immigrants and public sector unions.
	Public sector unions overwhelmingly give money to the Democrat Party and it's huge amounts of money and immigrants generally vote for the Democrat Party and there's lots of immigrants.
	And so the Democrat Party can't win the war of ideas, so they're just basically appealing to the immigrant base and bringing in immigrants who overwhelmingly are responsible for the increase in employment.
	Two-thirds of the employment growth since 2008 have gone to immigrants.
	Drives down wages and so on.
	And it's more complex than that, but fundamentally the important thing to understand is it's not a battle over the souls of the innocent children who are being swept across the border.
	It's playing to a voting base in order to ensure a continuance of political power.
	That's all the Democrats are interested in, so don't get distracted by any of that other stuff, at least when talking about it with people from a political standpoint.
	But we'll delve more into this topic.
	Looking forward to your calls, 855-472-4433.
	We'll be right back after the break.
	Greg, thank you so much for listening.
	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 bentley.
	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.
	Oh, good morning, everybody.
	It's DeVan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're having a magnificent, magnificent week.
	Let's see if we can add to that magnificence a tad, shall we?
	So, I'm the host of Freedom, Maine Radio, the largest philosophy show on the web.
	You can check this out.
	We can talk a little bit about immigration, and I would like to hear your thoughts on that, so call in 855-472-4433.
	I'm actually working on a whole big presentation on immigration, so these are mostly forumed thoughts that I can abandon at a moment's notice.
	I'm still hammering out the final perspectives, but that's going to be up later this week.
	So immigration to me is a really fascinating topic.
	Immigration really only matters because there are border controls in countries.
	A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as a passport.
	You could move, live anywhere.
	The fences were low in the human zoo.
	It really wasn't that hard to get around.
	And as long as you weren't actively coughing up a lung when you dropped in past Ellis Island, you could pretty much go in and find your clan.
	The stories are, I arrived in America with a quarter in my pocket, and I found my cousins, and the next thing you know...
	We own an anachronistic car wash in 1912 or something.
	So I think that I would certainly love to live in a world where I don't care about immigration.
	I don't care.
	I don't care when my neighbors move, right?
	Some guy moved in three blocks over.
	Some guy six blocks over is moving away.
	Ah!
	Not a huge part of my brain power is devoted to the migratory patterns of the human mammal.
	But when we're all lashed together on the ship of state, then it matters.
	I'd like it to not matter.
	I'd like to live in a world where I don't care.
	But we have to care because of taxes and regulations and controls and subsidies and all this kind of stuff.
	There are challenges when it comes to the contribution versus deduction of Low income, low education, immigrant households.
	Immigrant households where there's no high school diploma pay an average of 10k and change in taxes but consume an average of over 31k in government spending.
	On the other hand, the illegal immigrants often end up paying into Social Security without being able to withdraw from it because they use fake Social Security numbers.
	So you can't really...
	I mean, the cost-benefit calculation, who knows?
	And again, who cares?
	I mean, you can't do much about that.
	But I will tell you one thing that is important, and I think it's really, really important about immigration.
	Back in the day, about 100 years ago, 86% of American immigrants came from Europe.
	This was prior to communism and, of course, the whole Eastern Bloc, so...
	It came from Europe.
	There was somewhat of a quota system.
	Most of the immigrants came from either England or Ireland or Germany.
	And so they came from what you could colloquially call the Freedom Club.
	For about 2,500 years, Western European Mediterranean culture has been fighting the state.
	The fruits of that multi-millennia labor arose, were planted and grew in America in the late 18th century when it was founded as a result of The Age of Reason,
	the Enlightenment, the Renaissance recoiling from the horrors of the Dark Ages, the separation of church and state, small government, minimum government, maximum freedom, the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness, and a visceral anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy muscle.
	And the muscle that goes against Big government, powerful government, a government big enough to promise you your heart's desire and take away your arm's freedom.
	This battle has been fought for dozens of generations by Western thinkers.
	This battle has not been fought really in many other cultures to speak of.
	Now you show me The Adam Smith, the Socrates, the Ricardo in, say, Pakistan?
	And you've got my attention.
	You show me the Plato and Aristotle in Africa?
	You've got my attention.
	But Western European culture has produced incredible philosophy and really invented the major boons to mankind.
	Namely, the free market.
	The scientific method, and in particular, medicine.
	So that's the Freedom Club.
	And America used to have immigrants who wanted usually even more freedom than was available in Europe a hundred years ago, which was a level of freedom that's incalculable.
	Compared to where Europe is now, governments in Europe are like 5% of their current size 100 years ago, and even that was too much restriction for the people who came to America from Europe 100 years ago.
	They had a freedom club that we could only dream of, but it wasn't enough freedom for them, so they wanted to go to America.
	Where prior to the Federal Reserve and prior to The Department of Homeland Security, there was really no government to speak of.
	I mean, you could roam your whole life around, and as long as you didn't obviously break any laws, you'd barely even know it existed.
	So America was a freedom club, and the people who came to America from Europe were generally members of the freedom club, wanted more of the freedom club.
	Can you have a freedom club when you bring a whole bunch of people into your country who have no particular intellectual history of anti-statism?
	Of anti-aristocracy, of anti-religious fundamentalism.
	Religious fundamentalism always had a strong part to play in America, but a lot of the founding fathers were skeptics.
	Benjamin Franklin barely darkened the doors of a church.
	A lot of them were agnostics, which meant that they were undecided, or deists, which was that, yeah, there's a god, but he don't do that much anymore to interfere with the game.
	The dice are no longer loaded.
	Separation of church and state, where is that occurring?
	Certainly in occurring in the Islamic countries.
	The only laws that are outside of Sharia are the ones that have no religious significance, like traffic signals.
	Where is the fight against the aristocracy?
	Where is the fight to separate the church and state?
	Where is the fight for the free market?
	86% of immigrants used to come from the Freedom Club.
	From 1980 to 1993, that dropped to 13% came from Europe.
	13% came from Europe.
	Latin America, 42%.
	Asia, 39%.
	Canada, 2%.
	So the proportion of those who came for the Ultimate Freedom Club from the other freedom clubs has vastly diminished.
	And we'll talk about some of the implications and talk to you about your thoughts on immigration right after the break.
	Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	We'll be back.
	...crossed lungs and stepped up on the deck.
	What say was a camel...
	With princesses aboard me And jewels round my neck Once I was a dancer And once a necromancer I even was a viking With helmet on my head You're
	now enrolling in the Peter Schiff School of Advanced Economics.
	Twice the education of a Harvard MBA. Four won one hundred sixty-eight thousandth the cost.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I'm the host of Free Domain Radio, which is the largest philosophy show In the world, I guess.
	And I'm going to go out on a limb and say we're probably number three in the solar system.
	Ah, maybe number two.
	We just crept up a little.
	Those Aldebarons.
	Those chatty, proboscis, foreheaded monsters.
	So I hope you're doing well.
	We're talking about immigration this morning.
	I was just talking about how most people who immigrated to America about 100 years ago, 86% of them came from Europe.
	And Europe is kind of part, at least it was 100 years ago, of the Freedom Club.
	The free market club.
	The small government, the rely upon yourself, rely upon your community, and earn charity through your goodwill rather than your voting.
	Isolation and resentment.
	And if you're going to have a country that's basically a freedom club, like America, and you're going to get most of your immigrants from cultures that are certainly not the freedom club, how long can your freedom club last?
	If you have a Hispanic club, can you invite a whole lot of anti-Hispanics in before your club just collapses?
	No.
	I mean, you can't even invite people in who are indifferent.
	If you have a stamp collecting club and then you invite a whole bunch of people whose only obsession is duck carving, then your stamp collecting club isn't going to last too much longer either, right?
	So there's a freedom club.
	America was founded as a freedom club.
	And the Democrats in particular are...
	Pretty obsessed with bringing in people who are going to vote Democrat.
	I have my problems with the Republican Party, but a vote for the Democrat Party is not a vote for the free market.
	It's a vote against the free market.
	It's a vote for progressivism, socialism, redistributionism, and preying upon the lives of the unborn through national debts.
	So, can you...
	Have a freedom club when you keep bringing in people who aren't really that into your freedoms.
	I don't think so.
	I think culture and the history of anti-state and anti-state religion, anti-superstition, pro-reason, pro-individualism, pro-free market.
	I mean, it was a republic, not a democracy.
	And now it's just become a democracy, which is mob rule prior to economic collapse.
	Anyway, let's go to the source.
	Javier, are you on the line?
	I just wanted to make a comment about all these immigrant kids from the border.
	I'm an immigrant myself.
	I was brought in here by my parents at an early age.
	And, you know, I don't understand why parents, you know, in the Central American country We're sending their kids, expecting them to have a better life, as opposed to being with them and their families, even in an impoverished, you know, violence-filled country.
	Because, you know, for an experience, it is very, very hard being an immigrant kid in America, especially being in the school system, being looked at a second class, and A lot of other immigrants that I've known through my life here have ended up going back to their country because their life is just way worse here because they don't have the same freedom as an American does.
	When you say immigrants, you mean illegal immigrants, right?
	Right.
	Right.
	So can you tell us a little bit about what that's like?
	I know that there was one guy in Canada who was here illegally and every time he drove, he was completely paranoid.
	You've got to go the speed limit, you can't break any laws because you get pulled over, next thing you know, right?
	I mean, there is a fear.
	You don't have a reliance on authority that a lot of people claim or just have naturally by being legal.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, it is very stressful.
	Like you mentioned, it is paranoia 24-7.
	Every time you leave the house, Every time you're in a public place, even in a government building, a bill with the law a few times, and I've been very unlucky.
	I was close to being deported if it wasn't for the deferred action passed by Obama.
	But, yeah, it is very dangerous.
	You might get pulled over for not stopping long enough at a stop sign, making you know you're in a bus back to Mexico.
	It's very sensitive.
	It's very risky, especially trying to find employment.
	Not a lot of companies will take on the risk and hire an illegal immigrant just to have cheap labor.
	Lucky for me, I was able to start my own business and have my tax ID and do things legally, but there are other people who are unfortunate who cannot have the same knowledge about these things.
	And there's a terrifying element of people who prey upon illegal immigrants because they know they have no legal recourse.
	Right, yeah.
	I mean, like I said earlier, you look at it as different.
	You look at it as a second citizen.
	People can take advantage of you.
	They don't have to treat you the same way as they treat everybody else.
	And a lot of people end up going back to Mexico.
	My sister, she came with us Went through high school.
	She was a top student in high school.
	And she decided to go back to Mexico.
	She didn't want to pursue college here because she didn't feel like she was going to have the advantage being legal and being in a state university.
	So she went back to Mexico, and she ended up being very, very successful.
	Ended up getting free scholarships, grades, ended up being top of the class, and her graduation.
	And now she has a fantastic job.
	So just coming to the United States doesn't mean we have a better opportunity.
	You know, it's very frightening.
	And I would probably say to these parents, don't send your kids here.
	It's not any better.
	Not for them.
	And what are your plans, if you don't mind me asking?
	Well, I'm the only one left here from my family.
	My mom was reported.
	Last year.
	My dad left about two years ago because he couldn't find any jobs.
	I started a family here, planning on gaining my legal status, you know, through the legal system.
	And like I said, I have my job.
	I'm financially secured.
	I'm in community college, planning on getting a degree in engineering and move on with my life, trying to make it the best I can here.
	Look, I'm incredibly sorry that we have a system that puts you in this constant state of anxiety, fear, exploitation.
	It's strange.
	I mean, it's like you're walking through a movie set where everyone has a script and you've got to improvise.
	Or it's like you just don't live in the same world that everyone else does.
	And I'm incredibly sorry.
	I mean, you sound like a smart, ambitious, fine fellow.
	fellow, and I'm incredibly sorry that there is this magical property called citizenship that really should be a birthright for existing on the planet.
	I'm not a big guy.
	I'd like to live in a world where immigration was just called moving.
	You know, you can move from New Jersey to Sacramento, which is just moving, and you can do it anytime you want, but you can't move across some imaginary line without going into all kinds of alienated hell.
	So I'm incredibly sorry that we live in a world where this occurs.
	One of the reasons why Central American governments in particular are interested in getting citizens into America is those citizens send enormous amounts of money back To their families.
	And in Central America, significant portions of some countries' economy is based upon money being sent back from people who've made it into America.
	And sometimes people want to send their kids to America so that the money can be sent back.
	And it's a tragic situation all around, and I think it's just an example of how you simply cannot use the giant Odin hammer of the state to solve delicate problems like where people should live and how they should work and what communities they should be in.
	You can't solve those problems with the state.
	We'll talk more about this when we come back from the breaks to Van Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	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.
	Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Thank you so much for spending some time with myself and the fine crew.
	This morning, we are talking about immigration, and we've got room for a caller if you'd like to call in 855-472-4433.
	Now, I myself...
	I'm an immigrant.
	I moved from...
	I was born in Ireland.
	Ireland!
	And then I grew up in England from shortly after birth to about the age of 11.
	And then my brother and I, we moved to Canada.
	Interesting.
	In 1977, we moved to Canada, and 1977 was one of these unbelievable white-out years, like the biggest storms that they'd ever had.
	So my first impression of Canada was basically it was just God's frozen fist enclosing itself around your tender little British body.
	I loved it.
	I loved it.
	And I still live in Canada.
	And there's lots to recommend the country to you as long as you can leave it in order to get any kinds of quality healthcare that you need.
	I go to America.
	A standing policy now to go to America anytime I need any of that kind of stuff because the waiting lists here are, well, you know, healthcare is bred in Soviet Russia.
	You know, you stand in line and maybe you'll get a few moldy crumbs if you're lucky, but most often you'll just get chronic pain in a casket.
	But I am a big fan of...
	Human mobility.
	I'm a big fan of moving.
	You know, one of the great things about allowing people to move from country to country is that countries then have to compete for people, which means that there's a restriction on the amount of terrible laws and licensing and so on that they can implement.
	Like a third of Americans now require government permission to work.
	They need a license or something like that.
	America has more laws than any other country in the world.
	Oh, it's just such a horrifying tragedy.
	You know, in the long view, all irrational human hopes turn to ash in your mouth, and the hope of a small government...
	Which was the late 18th century plan of the Founding Fathers.
	Let's create the smallest government the world has ever known.
	Now it's the government with the most laws the world has ever known, with the capacity to destroy human life on the planet many times over, with the biggest and most extensive military the world has ever seen.
	And it is...
	It's a horrible tragedy.
	How the American experiment turned out.
	And we need to examine and understand what went wrong with that experiment.
	And I'll talk about that more tomorrow because there's a lot I want to say about that.
	But I like the idea that people can move.
	You know, everyone talks about free trade as if people are not traders.
	There was a Free Trade Act, North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, And it did precious little to allow for human capital mobility, you know, so you can more easily buy and sell goods, but you can't more easily buy and sell your services across the borders.
	And I think that's really, really tragic.
	Competition breeds excellence, and competition is the natural limit to the growth of state power.
	And so when governments wish to grow, the first thing that they must do is restrict Emigration and immigration.
	And this is part of the great lie that people say, well, if you don't like this country, you can always leave it.
	Well, and go where?
	Where on this planet can you go as a human being and experience freedom?
	Saying, if you don't like this country, you can leave it, and therefore, if you stay, you're okay with it.
	Well, first of all, this is an argument that Socrates made, I think, partly his vengeance against his accusers 2,500 years ago, after the trial, but before the hemlock.
	But saying, if you don't like this country, you can just leave it, is literally like saying to an animal in a zoo cage, if you don't like this cage...
	Just move to another cage.
	You don't want to?
	Well, clearly, you love cages then, don't you?
	Well, if you don't like me hitting you with my left fist, I'll hit you with my right fist.
	So you must love being hit, because I'm giving you a choice.
	Well, I would like to see a world where there was no restriction on immigration, on human movement.
	Why can I move to the north, to Nunavut, to the north of Canada, thousands of miles away from where I live, but not a couple of miles south?
	Why is this electronic dog collar called citizenship?
	And the other electronic dog collar called licensing?
	Because we all know that when you go from Canada to America, the human body completely changes.
	So how could you possibly be a doctor?
	In Albany, but not Saskatchewan.
	I mean, people in Saskatchewan, they have nine heads, they have Klingon hearts, 12 fingers.
	I don't even want to get into their genitalia, but I think it mates by implanting an egg in the face of space travelers on distant planets.
	Right?
	So there's all this madness.
	We are tethered.
	We are...
	We have the electronic dog collars of citizenship and licensing to keep us in place.
	Because if we can move easily...
	That provides a check on the growth of government power, so governments don't want that.
	Governments want to grow in power.
	Power is an addiction.
	Power has been shown to be a more potent addiction in terms of brain chemistry than cocaine.
	Political power, the desire for political power, the thirst for power over your fellow man is an addiction.
	And like all addictions, if unchecked by reason, It escalates to collapse.
	If you're a coke addict, or a sex addict, or a gambling addict, a drunk, then you're either going to find some way to check your self-destructive impulses, or you will stop because you're in jail, you've lost your house, you've lost your wife, you've lost your kids, you've lost your job, you've lost your money, and then maybe, maybe, you'll change.
	Political power, or simply having power over another human being, has been shown to depress our capacity for empathy.
	Empathy dies when power grows.
	Which is why all people who pursue, and particularly those who achieve and maintain political power, are basically heartless monsters.
	This is not just theory.
	I mean, this is fairly well established in brain science circles.
	Political power releases endorphins.
	It is an addiction.
	It grows to collapse and it destroys our capacity for empathy.
	We're not dealing with the moral instructors of mankind.
	We're dealing with people who literally, if we say that the soul is empathy, which I think you can make a good case for, people who have sold their souls for power, for prestige, for publicity.
	They have given up the most elemental gift and grace of the human condition, the empathetic conscience, in return for maybe getting their flat visage pasted on a postage stamp.
	If you don't know what a postage stamp is, you might want to check with your grandparents who sends letters anymore, who's not a bill collector or a junk mail deliverer.
	Political power is not something that is rationally thought out from first principles in a pragmatic or utilitarian goal of the greatest good for the greatest number.
	It is something feverishly pursued by people with shattered histories and broken childhoods, something assiduously gathered and gripped to the chest like a boa constrictor with a deer, not like a philosopher king with a bouquet of wisdom.
	We are dealing, when we look at people holding political power, with those who have sold their souls and their empathy for The polysyllabic control of the invisible gun of the state.
	People who read the teleprompters put up by the devil himself to woo and lull the general population into slowly surrendering their humanity, autonomy, freedom, and their children's futures for the sake of a few feel-good brain chemistry joy juice hits in the here and now.
	The other famous experiment that was done in the 1960s was done by Philip Zimbardo and he took a bunch of college students and he divided them into two groups and he created a simulated prison and half the college students became the prison guards and half the college students became the prisoners and this experiment was supposed to last for a couple of weeks but he had to stop it after only a few days.
	Because the prison guards became sadistic and brutal and began to torture and beat the prisoners.
	The prisoners became staring at the sidewalk, sloping shoulders, shuffling around, not making eye contact, clinically depressed victims of the sadism of the, quote, guards.
	And this is what a thin veneer we have between ourselves and totalitarianism, between what we call civilization and the brutality of Stone Age hierarchical, ape-like, jawbone-swinging, puncturing-the-skull brutality.
	Humanity is like a Stanley Kubrick film 2001 in reverse.
	We have such a thin tissue-lined paper between...
	Our civilized neighbors and club-swinging apes ready to obey whatever shaman is currently in control of the political narrative, that we really do need to assess how we raise people, how we parent, how we educate our children, that we produce such malleable monsters, such potential ghosts in human form who are willing to feast upon the flesh of others if merely given permission.
	Merely given the structure, merely given the hierarchy with which to turn sadistic.
	This experiment also has been replicated in many places.
	You take a bunch of random people, you arbitrarily assign some as guards and some as prisoners, the sadism flourishes, the brutality flourishes, they become...
	the latent sadism flourishes into full homicidal torture capacities.
	And this is why those of us who care for the future of humanity really work hard to make sure that the structures that enable brutality are kept at bay.
	That the water that flowers the demon seed of human cruelty is kept far away from the human heart in dry and sunny skies.
	We will be right back after the break.
	We have a caller.
	Thank you so much for listening.
	Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
	I was slicing up an avocado when you came up behind me with your silence.
	If knowledge is power...
	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.
	I am going to burst into a water fountain of frozen tears at the moment, my friends, because it is the last segment before we close down for the day, and basically they unplug all the equipment, but I just keep talking.
	So I guess I'll keep talking until 22 hours from now, but we'll be back at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, which I will, of course, be looking forward to your calls as well.
	We do have a caller in at the moment.
	Greg, are you with us, my friend?
	Yes, I am, Stephan.
	Good morning.
	Good show.
	Thank you.
	If there were no borders or completely freedom of movement, I would want to move to the area that has the best morals or the people that most follow what's right.
	And my question is, if you did have such a situation, how would they preserve that state of being?
	Yeah, it's a fine question and an important question.
	Obviously, it's somewhat theoretical.
	We're still a couple of generations away from what I would call a truly free society, but that doesn't mean we can't lay the groundwork now, the journey of a thousand miles and all that.
	But it's really, I mean, it's important to understand, which I'm sure you do, the degree to which having a welfare state requires control over the population and its importation and exportation has to be tightly monitored and controlled.
	If there was a free society, which would mean that charity would be communal, family-based, community-based, church-based, private, whatever, then if people moved into a country and they couldn't make it for whatever reason, maybe they weren't competent, maybe they weren't hardworking, maybe they just got sick or whatever, right?
	And they didn't have a charity to support them, then they would move back.
	Right?
	Tide goes in, tide goes out, tide goes in, tide goes out.
	And it wouldn't really matter to us as a whole.
	I mean, I would care about people.
	I give to charity, and I enjoy helping people.
	But fundamentally, if people don't have their hand in my wallet, I don't care what they do with their hands.
	They can be doing entirely unholy things to goats, I suppose.
	But if people don't have their hand in my wallet, I don't care what they're doing the rest of the time.
	So if you have a more free area, then the people who go to that area are going to be people who want freedom.
	Right?
	If you have a Hispanic club, mostly Hispanics are gonna want to join it, and they're gonna be pro-Hispanic, right?
	And, you know, the KKK doesn't let a lot of non-racists, I assume, into the organization.
	So if you have a freedom club in some particular area that's the biggest freedom club, then the people who will move there and stay there will tend to be those who both want and flourish from an environment of freedom.
	So I'm not sure, again, I don't think you'd have to do a huge amount of work to maintain that kind of situation because people who want to get something for nothing...
	I don't just mean materially that.
	Charity comes in many, many different forms.
	If you help out your neighborhood kids, if you have lemonade for them and sit and tell stories and play, then let's say you get sick, the parents are going to come over and help you.
	There's completely non-financial forms of charitable reciprocity, which is how society used to work before the government came in and started mailing anonymous checks to voters to buy their votes.
	So if you have a free society, then the people who are going to want to aggregate there tend to be those who value freedom the most.
	And those who want something for nothing, which is really the welfare state, those who want something for nothing are going to find that they are going to be rejected by the people who act in a just and reciprocally charitable manner in that area.
	So I think it's going to have its own natural parasite repellent in the air, which is freedom.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah, well, I do have a follow-up question.
	I understand that side of it.
	But what about, say, that this area is so moral that people don't have locks on their doors and, you know, kids go out and play wherever, and then, let's say, a child molester or a thief moves in, and what would that society, how would they deal with that sort of situation and put up such a strong deterrent that that type of predator wouldn't even dare go there?
	Well, I mean, so let's just talk about harm against children, and this is something I've been talking about for many years, and the science seems to be catching up with the philosophy, as is so often the case.
	So if a child is molested in an environment, then that child is going to immediately change, because it's a traumatic and horrible experience to be molested, so the child is going to immediately change.
	And the parents are going to ask the child, what happened?
	Why are you staying in your room?
	Why can't you sleep?
	Why are you crying?
	Why are you so sad?
	So the parents will know.
	And then the child will tell the parents what happened.
	So the person will be identified, at least from the child's point of view.
	Then there would be a trial and all that kind of stuff.
	And people who don't want to participate in those trials, in a truly free society, like a stateless society, a society with no government, Because they would be moral, everybody would stop economically interacting with that person.
	They wouldn't be able to get food or gas because everything would be privatized.
	There would be no sidewalk they could walk on.
	There would be no groceries they could buy.
	They would basically have to either leave the society or submit to the justice within that society.
	And there are brain scans which can very easily identify child abuse.
	Not conclusively, and again, it's not like you just want to...
	If parents were to bring their children in, in a free society, you'd want insurance against child malfeasance or wrongdoing or accidents and so on, and you'd get the cheapest insurance if you brought your children in for brain scans, and your children would get brain scans, and you can very easily tell whether a child's brain is developing in a healthy manner or whether the amygdala, which is a fight-or-flight mechanism, is overdeveloped in the neofrontal cortex, a seed of reasoning, is underdeveloped, and you can see patterns of trauma within a child's brain.
	So in a free society, any child who's being traumatized either within or outside the house would be very easy to identify and then remediatory practices would be put in place.
	You know, parents would be offered free education and lower insurance costs for their kids and all that kind of stuff to make sure they were doing...
	The best way to keep children safe from sexual or other kinds of predation is for there to be an incredibly strong bond between the child and the parent.
	In my show, lots of people have called up who've been victims of various kinds of child abuse, and the one thing they all have in common is they do not have a strong bond with their parents.
	The lack of bond between child and parent is the gap in which slither the child molesters and the other kinds of people who do harm to children.
	The stronger the bond between parent and child, the more the pedophile will avoid preying upon the child.
	When a pedophile chooses a child, they're taking a huge risk.
	If the child just goes straight home and tells the parents, then the parents go to the cops, the pedophile goes to jail, and he's going to have a very unpleasant time in jail, as we all know.
	So they really are very good at identifying their prey.
	And the best way to keep your children safe is to have a strong, close, tight, loving bond with them.
	Oh, we're out of time.
	I'm so sorry.
	But we'll be back tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
	Thank you so much for listening.
	Freedomainradio.com.

▲