All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:18:25
2746 Government: Please Stop Helping! - Peter Schiff Radio Show July 11th, 2014
| Copy link to current segment

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 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, brothers and sisters.
Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Sitting in for Peter Schiff, I hope you are having a phantasmagorical morning.
I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it involves kaleidoscopes and hallucinogens.
So, we're going to talk today about the family.
The bedrock, the keystone to the arch of civilization, the institution that has been relentlessly under attack from progressive socialists, cultural Marxists, and all other assortment of human toxins.
The family, the family, the family.
something which not hugely talked about sometimes in freedom-loving-slash-libertarian circles, but which I think is an essential component to fixing the world, to making the world a better place.
I'm very happily married, have been for 11 years, and I have a daughter who's five and a half.
I've been a stay-at-home dad with her because I believe that if I follow in John Lennon's footsteps sooner or later, A pro-capitalist Imagine song is going to just pour out of me, perhaps even on the air.
Well, I will tell you when you need to brace yourself for my singing.
Not yet, but perhaps soon.
So the family is a complete mess at the moment.
And we're just going to focus on America here at the moment.
It's slightly better, though not a huge amount better, in Europe.
But let's just focus on America.
And I would argue that the most foundational mess that the family is in is fatherlessness.
Fatherlessness.
After basically a generation and a half of relentless anti-father propaganda coming out of the cultural left, right?
The Hollywooders, the sitcom writers, the cultural left.
We now have a generation of women who think that other than donating eight minutes perimen of snooze, they can do it all by themselves because they are the sisterhood, the powerful, the independent.
They don't need no man!
Well, okay, so they need a couple of cops to go and collect all the money that they need from the state.
That's for sure.
They need some more cops in the IRS to go and pick up all their free healthcare from Obamacare.
They need that.
I guess they need some more cops to pick up the money from people to pay for their free education for their children.
They need some more cops to go and pick up the money to pay for their subsidized housing and all the other things that they receive.
But other than that, other than all those men going to get them resources, they don't need no stinking men.
And it's been a long time since we've seen a really positive and necessary father role model in the media.
Because the Cosby Show way back in the day, Family Ties, well, Family Ties, the kids were usually smarter then.
See, the media, definitely over the last generation, has been focused on the children, because the children manipulate the parents into buying the stuff.
So they focus on the children, which means they appeal to the vanity of the children, not to the necessary moral lessons the parents want.
Which is why, in Disney movies and Disney sitcoms and all that, the kids are always smarter and wiser than the parents.
Sort of reminds me of when Peter Schiff was out interviewing the Occupy Wall Streeters.
I don't think Peter knew what the word meme meant.
And one of the protesters...
Rolled his eyes.
Oh, Peter, how could you not know what the word meme means?
Okay, so on one hand, we have a highly successful entrepreneur who has worked his butt off to build a huge business and to be on the media and to be a successful and passionate and powerful advocate for freedom.
On the other hand, we have a guy living in a tent in a park who knows what the word meme means and is somehow proud of that.
Ha, ha, ha.
A friend of mine when I was in college knew in 27 languages the phrase, bring me a beer, my friend will pay.
I don't think that made him smarter than me.
He probably even knew what the word meme meant.
So let's look at some statistics.
And I really do want to get your thoughts on this.
I mean, did you grow up without a father?
I did.
855-472-4433.
I really wanted to get you in on the conversation about this.
What was your dad like?
Was he there?
What is the attitude of the women in your life around the necessity of fathers?
Because they're always portrayed as bumbling idiots.
You know, I have two kids, but three children because my husband is just a...
I mean, all this sort of vanity stuff where husbands are bumbling fools who avoid contact by hiding out in the garage and so on.
They're probably just hiding the contempt that society has for fathers as a whole.
So in the US, these statistics are fairly recent, but they range a little bit.
43% of US children live without their father.
Shocking, wretched, unprecedented.
90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
71% of pregnant teenagers Lack of father.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live only with their mothers.
We used to know this.
The skeleton in the Bates Motel was not of a father.
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions have no father.
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail, four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.
63. Sorry.
Children with fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Thank you.
Children with fathers who are involved, 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with fathers who are involved are more likely to get A's in school, more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
The number of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers who come from fatherless homes is 10 times the average.
A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.
Adolescents, particularly boys in single-parent families, were at higher risk of status, property, and person delinquencies.
Students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents were also at risk.
Even if you are an intact two-parent family, if your kids are in a school where there's a lot of fatherless children, Their problematic behaviors will spread to your children as well.
A study of almost 14,000 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father.
42% grew up in a single mother household and 16% lived with neither parent.
So there is an epidemic of fatherlessness across the great nation of America.
Why?
Why is it happening, and why do the children turn out so badly?
What are your thoughts?
855-472-4433.
We will be right back after the break.
I'm looking forward to you joining the conversation.
Stefan Molyneux for Peter Schiff.
You're now enrolling in the Peter Schiff School of Advanced Economics.
Twice the education of a Harvard MBA. For one one hundred sixty-eight thousandth the cost.
Good morning, everybody.
It's Stefan Molyneux from the World's Biggest Philosophy Show, Free Domain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I hope you're having a wonderful morning.
We're talking about fatherlessness and the curse and the plague that it brings to society as a whole.
But there are people who pay the bills.
I'm not one of them.
You, the listeners, are, in fact, the people who pay the bills.
So let's turn the conversation over to you.
Evan, I think you are on the line.
If you'd like to bring comments, questions, issues, problems, perhaps even interpretive mime dance to the conversation, that would be fantastic.
Sure.
Well, I just want to say that it's a real pleasure to be talking to you, Stephan, and thank you very much for taking my call.
Thank you.
So, yeah, I originally had written down a question about money and Bitcoin for you, but I certainly don't want to get off topic.
So, I just really wanted to say thank you for all the work you've done on peaceful parenting.
I think it really is the most important issue we could be talking about with people who promote liberty and freedom.
I just feel like I'm really sorry to hear about all the backlash you've had from libertarians on this issue because it just makes so much sense to apply NAP in a way that is something that's in our control.
Like you say, it's the most prevalent way we can exercise it in our life is to not spank our children.
And I just really wanted to say thank you for Well, and just for the new listeners, what this basically means is, as a philosopher, I work from first principles, and the non-initiation of force, right?
You can't initiate force against another person.
You can use force in self-defense, in an extremity, and so on, is a principle.
The non-aggression principle, respect for persons and property, is foundational to I think all ethical philosophy, there's not a huge amount of philosophical principles that say, you know, wake up, have a cup of Joe, strangle a hobo.
Oh, wait, I'm about to start rapping.
No, no, I'm sorry.
I'm hearing from my producer that that is absolutely not allowed.
He's claiming FCC regulations, but I think it's just talent levels that deny that.
So the non-aggression principle says don't initiate force against others.
And as a philosopher, I obviously work with the principles, most of which I've inherited, a few of which I've tried to refine and expand.
And then what you do is you say, well, okay, so what's the most prevalent form of aggression in the world?
If you are a nutritionist who wants to help people, go to where the unhealthy people are, right?
I mean, oncologists see cancer patients.
Dentists see people who want to get their teeth cleaned or fixed.
And so if violations of the non-aggression principle are immoral, which I accept that they are, then you look for where are most of these violations occurring?
What is the most common violation of the non-aggression principle?
Well, it's hitting children.
It's yelling at children, it's aggressing against children, it's neglecting children, which produces equally negative effects in their personalities as being hit.
And so I have worked for many years, I guess seven or eight years now, attempting to bring this message, I think with a good degree of success.
I think based upon sort of napkin, back of the napkin calculations, hundreds of thousands of children are not being hit as a result of the work that I've done, which is not a bad way to spend your time on the planet above ground.
So, I have made the case repeatedly, philosophically, and personally, I've had probably a half-dozen number of experts on my show talking about the science behind it, and spanking is very bad for children.
It reduces IQ, interferes with social development, causes problems with peer relationships, obviously causes problems with parents, particularly when the children become teenagers and the power balance shifts, because if the parent has been hitting the children, the parent has said, might makes right, basically.
And then when the power dynamic shifts, when the children become teenagers, they tend to act out and become rebellious.
And there's been some pushback, for sure, from the libertarian community.
I mean, they want to talk about the Fed, which we can't do anything about.
I mean, to me, if you come up with a substantial philosophy, which then people can't really act on, I think you're sort of missing the point.
Here's a great diet for Klingons.
Do you know any Klingons?
No, but you study this diet anyway, even though you're never going to be able to implement it because the diet is not for you.
Well, the diet of reducing violence, the goal of reducing violence, is something that is actionable by most people in the world.
We all either have kids or know people who have kids or know kids or...
Have some relationship with someone who is a parent, and we can, of course, focus on convincing them to follow virtue and not initiate the use of force against their children.
And there's lots of reasons to believe that this is the single biggest issue which freedom lovers can take on to build a more peaceful world.
We are not able to influence foreign policy.
We can't change The currency-printing habits of the Fed or the actual Federal Reserve itself.
We can't influence Congress directly, but we can talk to the people around us and encourage them to follow the virtue of the non-aggression principle in their own lives.
And that mostly means parenting.
I don't know anyone who hits their spouse, but there are a lot of people who do hit children, and we can do a lot to change that.
So I just wanted to sort of put that in context for other people.
I myself have never hit my daughter.
I have never raised my voice against my daughter.
And she is a real delight.
She is very empathetic.
She's very curious.
She's very sensitive.
And we have very, very few conflicts.
So I'm glad it worked.
I've been talking about it long before I became a parent and it turned out that she was turning into some narcissistic monster.
That would be, I guess, a whole lot of apologies I would have to make, but it's not the case.
Sorry, Evan, just to jump back to you in case you're still there.
Do you have kids yourself?
I don't.
I'm engaged and I plan to have children with my wife, my future wife.
One day, and honestly, you've had a tremendously positive impact on my life, and I definitely wouldn't have been a peaceful parent if it were not for your show.
My childhood was pretty rough, but I just really wanted to tell...
All the Peter Schiff listeners.
I mean, I heard of you through the Peter Schiff show, and now I go to Freedom Main Radio every day for the past few years, and their work is just amazing.
And I was hoping maybe you can talk more about the dangers of step-parents and also circumcision as well, because those two issues, again, they're pretty personal to me.
I just feel like those are like...
Like, step-parents can be definitely more likely to abuse than the biological parents.
And also, I think, just circumcision.
People don't really understand how negative the effects of circumcision can be.
And maybe you could just break that down for the Peter Shipp listeners.
And I just really wanted to say thank you again.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate your kind words and congratulations on your engagement and congratulations to your future kids who are going to grow up in a peaceful environment.
You know, there's a wonderful thing that happens when you eschew or reject the use of force.
You know, as a libertarian, and I've been a libertarian slash objectivist slash voluntarist for, oh my goodness, over 30 years.
You know, obviously I'm only 30, so I was convinced in the womb.
But there's wonderful things that happen when you give up on aggression.
Wonderful things that occur.
We'll talk about those right after the break.
This is Van Molyneux for Peter Schiff.
We'll be back in a sec.
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.
We are chatting about peace and freedom within the family, and the degree to which I think we, as a community of Souls committed to non-aggression, to the non-initiation of force, the degree to which we could talk about it within the family.
And we started talking about fatherlessness.
So now, naturally, the next topic is going to be rodents.
I mean, do I even need to explain it?
I guess I do, because that's a bit of a left turn at Albuquerque.
So some research has recently been done following mice who are raised without fathers.
Why are we talking about mice?
Because when we fix the mice people, we fix the world!
No, there's nothing to do with that.
Because they obviously can't experiment on human kids that way.
All those gosh-darned ethics committees.
You can't experiment on kids.
But they have tried raising mice without fathers.
And the brains of the mice who are raised without fathers develop differently.
And the main impacts appear to be in the prefrontal cortex, as the part of the brain which controls social and cognitive ability.
So the study published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, which is a fine neuroscience journal and also a medium to good name for a punk band, found that those mice raised without a father displayed signs of abnormal social interactions and were far more aggressive than mice raised with both parents.
The difference was far more pronounced in daughters than in sons.
And females raised without fathers also had a greater sensitivity to the stimulant drug amphetamine.
The head of the research said, quote, the behavioral deficits we observed are consistent with human studies of children raised without a father.
These children have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behavior, and in particular girls have been shown to be at risk for substance abuse.
In other words, a predilection for a drug use as a teenage girl would be a form of self-medication for the hole in your heart, roughly the size of your heart, left by an absent father.
He goes on to say, this suggests that these mice are a good model for understanding how these effects arise in humans.
The report said the behavior of the mice was consistent with studies in children raised without a father, highlighting an increased risk for deviant behavior and criminal activity, substance abuse, impoverished educational performance, and mental illness.
It added, our results emphasize the importance of the father during critical neurodevelopmental periods, and that father absence induces impairments in social behavior that persist to adulthood.
Dr. Gobi said that the results suggested both parents are vital for children's mental health development and hope the findings would spur researchers to look more deeply into the role of fathers.
Thank you.
Some of the poorest parts of the country, this is in the UK, are becoming men deserts because there are so few visible male role models for children.
In the UK, more than a million British children live without a father and have no adult male role model.
Those two are together as the double whammy, a figure that's rising by 20,000 children a year.
In the Manor Castle Ward of Sheffield, a very poor part of England, 75% of households are headed by a single parent, most commonly a woman.
This is something that has actually been known since Roman times.
The dissolution of the family was a big problem in ancient Rome as well, as no-fault divorce and alimony and all that kind of stuff swelled, and with the rise of single-mother households comes significant, and if this brain science is right, possibly permanent social problems.
One of the most amazing things about human beings is our capacity to epigenetically develop, to adapt to an environment dynamically.
You know, like snails are snails, right?
But human beings can be different species depending upon the cues that the fetus receives and the infant receives from the environment.
If the mother is stressed, then the fetus develops for a combative world.
Now, a mother who is facing birth without a father, without a partner to raise the child with, is stressed by definition, if she's got half a brain.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the stress hormones go into the fetus's developmental system and cue it up for, you are going to enter into a resource-scarce-win-lose world.
A mother who is in a happy, comfortable, loving relationship with the father of her child is giving all the happy joy-joy hormones and brain juices to the fetus saying, hey, you're going to be born into a resource-rich, win-win, negotiation-based, peaceful world.
And the child develops in that direction.
We create different species depending on the infant's and the fetus's early developmental experiences.
You can grow a hyper-aggressive, win-lose, highly competitive child simply through stress and aggression.
It produces a different brain.
Can that brain change later on in life?
My understanding is that it can.
Neuroplasticity, or the capacity of the brain to reform itself, is a lifelong capacity.
However, However, there are developmental windows that, if missed, provide significant challenges later on in life.
The development of mirror neurons or our capacity to feel what other people feel.
The difference if you see, you know, those videos where guys take shots to the groin from balls or bats.
Whether you wince or whether you laugh has a lot to do with the development of mirror neurons, which is our capacity to put ourselves in other people's shoes literally and feel what they feel.
There's a developmental window, as far as I understand, for those, and if you miss it, it's a real challenge.
You can change the brain from here to eternity, but the part of you that wants to change the brain for the better can be the first part that is broken.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't matter how light or heavy the box is with two broken arms, you ain't lifting anything.
So the decisions that we make about how children are conceived, how children are born, and what kind of environment they grow up in, Our decisions that are made to fundamentally shape what the future of society looks like.
Now, the problem with democracy is people are voted in and out two years, four years, and some, of course, a majority of people in Congress are repeat offenders, so to speak.
But democracy has a very short window.
Get votes now!
To hell with the future!
This is the whole problem of national debt, right?
Buy votes now, pass the buck, kick the can, defer the day of reckoning.
And a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock, she needs resources now, and she'll vote for a politician who gives her resources now.
The fact that in 15 to 20 years, that kid has a far higher chance of being a criminal, a drug addict, fathering, or being fathered, or getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Well, what on earth would a politician who wants to win the election in three months from now, what would he fundamentally care as an economic incentive-based life form, as we all are to some degree, what on earth would he care About the single mom criminal factory conveyor belt that dumps kids out long after he's retired.
There's a fundamental mismatch of incentives in all democratic societies.
There's an old argument from Hans Hoppe who says that At least when you had a monarch, the monarch wanted to retain the value of the kingdom to provide to his child, so he wasn't going to run up too much debt.
I'm not saying that monarchy is better, I'm just saying that comparing those incentives which are multi-generational to retain the value of the kingdom, compare that to the average piranha on a cow predation that occurs from your average democratic politician, and you can see why.
For instance, in New York City, more than half of the children born are born to unmarried moms.
There is statistically no single predictor, no single greater predictor of a negative outcome for a child than being born to a single mom.
And I'm saying single mom, I'm aware that there's a tiny percentage of single dads out there.
But given that women basically get custody 90 to 95% of the time, It's slightly lower, but basically men only get custody if women don't contest at all.
We're just going to talk about single moms.
There is no statistically more significant negative outcome for a child than being born to a single mom.
It's a more powerful predictor of a negative outcome than race, gender, Socioeconomic status, class, employment of parents, non-employment of parents, neighborhood, environment, school, you name it.
There is no single worse outcome predictor for children than being born to a single mom.
And this is not talked about a lot.
We all want children to be treated better.
The last caller was talking about growing up with a stepparent.
Let's look at some of the facts about that, shall we?
So this is in England, right?
So using the baseline of one, this is the prevalence of serious child abuse.
Using a baseline of one, biological parents married, you've got one.
Mother married to stepfather, six.
Six times more times.
Serious child abuse.
Biological mother alone, 14.
14 times more violent child abuse, significant and severe child abuse.
Biological parents cohabiting but not married, 20 times.
20 times.
Biological mother cohabiting, in other words, some man who is a step...
Boyfriend or stepdaddy.
No, unmarried.
So just cohabiting with a guy, 33 times more likely for there to be severe child abuse.
33 times more likely.
The safest place for children is in a biological married parent family environment.
That is the safest place for children.
And if we care about the safety of children, and all decent human beings, of course, should have this as a very high priority, We should really, really focus on that.
In England, a child whose biological mother cohabits was 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse than a child with married parents.
And again, it's dose dependent, right?
As the biological connections to a child diminish, childhood danger increases exponentially.
Looking forward to your calls about these issues.
855-472-4433.
We will be right back after the break.
We keep walking Babylon.
There is no wisdom to your freedom.
The rich is mine in Babylon.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
Nine out of 10 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.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are talking about safety, security, and peace in the home.
I would argue is the foundation for stability, security, and peace in the world.
Marriage has received a pretty bum rap in the media, in general, for about the last 30 or 40 years.
I mean, I remember when I was a kid, I mean, seeing shows like Father Knows Best and My Three Sons, Leave It to Beaver and so on.
Okay, there were reruns.
I'm not quite that old.
Hey, what?
Speak up, sonny!
But...
Fathers were portrayed as the stable bedrock, as important importers of wisdom and all that for their kids.
And the role of the father was hugely respected in society as a whole.
That really kind of began to change around the late 60s.
When a lot of Marxism crept in through feminism and through other movements, the sort of free love movement, the pro-drug movement, and suddenly it was no longer father knows best, but father is the white male oppressive patriarch who has kept his hobnailed Steel-capped boot on the neck of women and children throughout history and suddenly liberation for
women was getting away from men.
And so for generation and a half, it depends how you count generations, generation and a half or so, you could maybe say two depending on average age of women having kids.
Women have sought, in general, freedom from the patriarchy.
However, marriage is an institution that developed over many thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Almost every option, I'm sure, has been tried, if my penthouse letters remind me correctly, almost every option has been tried throughout human history.
Short-term cohabitation resulting in kids, polyamory, polygamy, almost everything has been tried, and society generally, in a state of freedom, gravitates back to two-parent, biological offspring, stable pair bonding, and so on.
It's not a patriarchy.
It's not.
And it certainly is true that women had fewer economic rights in history But men also had responsibility for their wives' debts.
If the wife got into debt, it was the man who would go to debtor's prison.
And remember, what was it?
I think at the turn of the last century, like 1900, average life expectancy was like 40 to 50 years.
Now, a lot of that was infant mortality and so on.
But women would get pregnant, usually in their late teens, and they would stay pregnant and breastfeeding.
For 10 to 15 years.
Because a lot of kids did die, of course.
And so, what was really the point of equal rights when they basically were home, being pregnant, giving birth, or breastfeeding, or raising young children, which is a very concentrated full-time job.
I mean, I only have one!
Granted, she has the energy of a...
Double-espressoed ferret snorting cocaine, but it is a full-time, hyper-concentrated job.
And of course, if it was a patriarchy, then men would just trade in their wives when their wives were no longer futile, and most scientific resources would be devoted to cloning L. McPherson.
But no, I mean, the whole point of the pair bonding is that the man brings resources to the woman who's disabled through childbirth and breastfeeding and raising small children.
And then when she is no longer fertile, he must remain committed to her until death do they part.
She gives him the eggs, which are higher value than the sperm, and he gives her economic resources even after her eggs are no longer viable.
That's just the deal.
And that's the way that it evolved.
And it is what is best for kids.
And, and, and, which you won't hear a lot of in the media, it is what is best for women.
So this is a...
A 10-year study, analysis of 10 years' worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted since 1973, mothers who are or who have ever been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.
Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers.
In fact, the rate of spousal boyfriend or domestic partner abuse is twice as high Among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married, including those separated or divorced, twice as high.
You know, if something cuts cancer risk 3%, everyone is all over it.
You know, the media, don't do this or do that, you know.
But here's something which cuts violence against women and children by 50%.
Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general, or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers.
So here's something which reduces violence against women 50%.
Well, how often do you hear feminists saying, listen, sister, to stay safe, you've got to get married to a good man.
That is going to be the safest place in the world for you.
And there is no safer place for women than being married to a man.
Certainly no place.
There's no safer place for children than for their mother to be married to the biological father.
So as far as child murder, fatal child abuse, if we take as biological parents married as one, mother married to stepfather three, biological mother alone nine, biological parents cohabiting but not married 18, biological father alone 27, biological mother cohabiting 73.
In other words, a child is 73 times more likely to suffer fatal child abuse We're the biological mother cohabiting.
And what the leftists do is they combine these two things.
They say, well, women suffer from X amount of violence, both married and intimate partner violence, which is sort of like saying X number of people are killed by car crashes and puppy bites.
Well, we've got to separate these things and get a clear view of the world.
Love to hear your thoughts on this or any other topic that's on your mind.
Please give us a call.
855-472-4433.
We'll be right back after the bridgey 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.
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.
Hope you're doing well.
Welcome to Hour 2 of the Peter Schiff Show.
Hour 1, if you woke up late.
So I hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio sitting in.
Let's talk.
Oh, yes.
Let's talk about Hobby Lobby, birth control, Obamacare, taxation, and the feral fascist expansion of government power.
It's called Reproductive Freedom.
But first, let's listen to the experts on the subject.
Gentlemen, if we could cue up cut 12, please.
And really, we should be afraid of this court, that five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not.
I mean, let's not even go to that.
It is so stunning.
And then, of course, this is more like the Wheaton decision a few days later, which was also problematic.
But that court decision was a frightening one, that five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss.
It's not her boss's business.
Well, sometimes people are so full of nonsense they can't even complete their own sentences.
And I'm glad that Nancy Pelosi has, I guess, a slight shred of rationality that interferes with her vocal cords from time to time.
You notice she couldn't even complete the sentence whether it's legal.
You know, some men are going to decide what birth control is legal.
That, of course, has nothing to do with what is occurring.
Nothing to do with what is occurring.
Oh, but let's get back to that.
Let's hear from one more expert if we can do cut 13, please.
Now think of the difference.
You're born with a religion or you adopt a religion.
You have to obey the precepts of that religion and the government gives you a wide penumbra.
You don't have to form a corporation.
We wouldn't tell the owners of Hobby Lobby to convert to a different religion or disobey their religion.
But we don't say that they have to open up a company and go sell toys or hobby kits.
We don't have any of them in New York, I don't think, so I don't know what they exactly sell.
Well, actually they do, but it's about as much expertise.
See, it's so fascinating, oh, when politicians, they find their principles.
They find their principles.
I mean, I seem to remember, I'm sure he's a Christian, there is a biblical commandment called thou shalt not steal, yet still there's taxation in the Federal Reserve.
So let's just leap over that whole...
Mountain of hypocrisy and talk about what's actually happening here.
Okay, there's so much that's wrong here, I'm going to try and fax you.
I'm going to compress this into a rant that you'll have to unpack later.
Okay, first and foremost, birth control is not a healthcare issue.
I will say this again for people who are confused.
Birth control is not a healthcare issue.
If you want to have unprotected sex and not have a baby, that's something that you just kind of want.
You don't get sick if you don't have birth control.
Again, there's a very tiny minority of women who need it for various reasons.
But by and large, for the vast majority of human beings, it's like saying, if I don't have icing on my cake, I'm gonna die!
No.
Icing isn't nice to have.
Protein, fat, those are have-to-haves.
Icing is a nice-to-have, and birth control is not a health care issue.
I mean, why does this even need to be said?
It's true they may give condoms out in health class, but that doesn't mean you have to wear them to stay healthy.
Wanting to have unprotected sex is not a health care issue.
Chemotherapy Healthcare issue.
Absolutely.
Unprotected sex?
Nice to have.
Not in the category have to have.
Okay, it may feel like that sometimes, but philosophically, it is not a have to have.
So for women to talk about this as control over their own bodies and a healthcare issue, and I don't want my employer telling me what to do, hey, I think that's a great idea, ladies.
I think that's fabulous.
Let's have a philosophy where we stop telling other people what to do.
Now, why is it that your eggs trump my hands every single time?
No, it's not what you think.
It's not what you think.
Why is it that...
A woman's right to choose trumps my right to choose where my income goes.
My body, my choice.
Well, my income produced by my body, my choice.
If I don't want to fund contraception, that's my choice.
If I don't want to buy women pills that kill an implanted fetus in the womb, that's my choice.
Where's my choice in all of this?
It's my hands and my voice that produce the work that get me my income.
Why are women all about my body, my choice, when it's my body that produces the income that the women want to take by force?
Why do their eggs trump my hands?
My body, my choice.
First of all, it's not your body after there is the implantation of the fertilized egg.
That is no longer just your body.
That's your body, but there's not a human being inside it.
Right?
If I take a hostage and shoot us both, that's not suicide.
That's called a murder-suicide.
Well, it's my body, my choice.
I was holding that person really tightly.
I guess they were part of my body.
No, they weren't.
They were separate human beings.
Your body, your choice.
Absolutely.
If I want to go get a vasectomy tomorrow, my body, my choice.
When there's another human being growing inside of me, well, it's slightly different.
It is your body, your choice.
And you know what?
With choice comes responsibility.
I would love to choose a Maserati.
That would be great.
But I actually have to earn the money for the Maserati.
My body, my choice.
You want choice?
You want adulthood?
Great!
You know what comes with adulthood?
Bills!
Bills you have to pay!
I do not charge my daughter for her meals because she's five years old!
And she's a terrible tipper!
If you want adulthood, my body, my choice, fantastic!
Then take adulthood with all the attendant responsibilities that come from being an adult human being, which means paying for your own sex!
If you want to have unprotected bang-a-thons, fantastic.
Go to it.
Enjoy yourself.
Use the ceiling hooks and all the baby oil you want.
But you pay for the ceiling hooks and you pay for the baby oil.
It is not a healthcare issue and it is not something that through Obamacare, which is basically a giant subsidy for women and single moms' healthcare needs...
Where is the choice of the people who don't want to pay?
Oh, ladies and lady politicians, if you're so into my body, my choice, great.
Earn the money and make your choice with it.
The moment you run to big daddy alpha male government, And force the government to take other people's money, mostly men's, mostly responsible women's money who got married before having kids.
If you want to run to the government and force the government to get other people to pay for your stuff, that is not your body, your choice.
That is your body, your predation.
That is your body, your parasitism.
That is your body, your initiation of force against peaceful and voluntary people who want to live their lives as responsible adults, which you are not doing.
Yeah.
Take your choice.
Take what you want, said the gods, the ancient Rome, and pay for it.
Take your choice.
Take your bells.
Stop forcing other people to fund your recreational activities.
Until I get tax money for my surfboard, no birth control for you.
Stefan Molyneux, we'll be right back after the break.
Thank you so much for listening.
Every promise We'll just run around Since
the Peter Schiff show was last on the air, the national debt added another 7.89 million dollars.
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.
Oh, good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
Let's talk about sex, baby.
So we're going to talk about the Hobby Lobby, and I'm happy, happy, happy, overjoyed to take your calls, particularly if they originate from a 900 number.
855-472-4433.
What do you think?
Of all of this.
Now, Hobby Lobby does, I think it's about 16 forms of birth control they cover.
They don't want to cover the forms of birth control that kill...
What is an implanted egg, right?
The prevention, yeah, okay, they'll fund that.
But cure, quote, cure, which is basically the killing of a developing fetus, they're not that keen on for ethical religious reasons, which is, I understand, I sympathize, and I respect the stand that they're taking on this issue.
But how are Again, this is not all women.
Most of the women I know are extremely responsible and get quite annoyed with these other kinds of women, so I want to say all women.
But how has this been framed in the media?
Well, let's look at The Guardian, which is, I think, a British newspaper.
This writer, this woman writes, Democrats aren't wasting any time making sure that the GOP's anti-contraception reputation sticks.
Well, see, no, that's, uh...
They're not preventing women from going out and buying their own stuff.
They're not saying this stuff should be made illegal.
They're saying don't force me to pay for something I find morally objectionable.
Don't force me to pay for something I find morally objectionable.
Well, isn't that a basic human right?
To not be forced to go against your conscience?
So no, it's not anti-contraception, it's don't force me to pay for stuff that is against my deeply held principles.
So, some politician said, women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services.
You can't be serious.
How can people put this in the same sentence?
Oh, no.
I should not be shot for walking down the street.
Therefore, people should be forced to give me a Lamborghini.
First of all, you don't have to ask your bosses for a permission slip to access whatever birth control you want.
You go and buy it.
I mean, that's so insane.
Women have this stereotype that women argue emotionally with no reference to principles or facts.
It's just manipulative language and all this kind of stuff.
Oh, please, ladies, stop confirming this stereotype.
I'm begging you.
I'm begging you.
Please, go counter to the trend.
Talk me out of my stereotypes.
I'm open and willing to hear.
Birth control or other critical health services.
I'm dying.
I need antibiotics.
I like unprotected sex.
Oh no.
Oh no.
Can you imagine?
I mean, so, you know, the poor kids who have cancer, you know, you help them out, you provide the charities, the stars go and sit by their bedside and, you know, let's make your dream come true.
Make a wish.
I guess for these ladies it would be a fairly naked and well-oiled Brad Pitt sitting by their bed saying, Well, you poor person suffering from a critical health care deficiency.
I can make your wish come true.
Oh my God, how can people say this with a straight face?
I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions about their own health care and their own bodies.
Okay, so as I mentioned, it is my body that produces my income.
Why am I not allowed to make my decisions about where that money goes?
Because mail.
If you don't give me free stuff, you're violating my human rights.
That is so deeply deranged and shows such a pathetic anti-understanding of the basis of Western political and economic freedoms That we can only assume that this person, this woman, was raised in some Marxist bio-bubble with no contact with the market, reality, logic, numbers, math, or any other number of things generally developed by men her entire life.
Academia?
I'm guessing so.
The intent of their bill, since it clearly won't pass, is to shine an incredibly unflattering spotlight on the GOP's problem with women and sex.
And it's good for Democrats on that.
Score.
The conservative narrative that paints women who use birth control as sluts, first widely posited by Rush Limbaugh in 2012, but which gained wider currency since will be just about as popular with female voters as then-Representative Todd Akin's legitimate rape comments.
Well, no.
See, I mean, all women who use birth control are not sluts at all.
Could be fantastic reasons why a woman wants to use birth control.
Maybe she's already had the number of kids she wants.
Maybe the guy doesn't want a vasectomy or can't get one or whatever for whatever reason.
Fantastic, wonderful reasons why women can use birth control.
If you want to ride the carousel in your 20s, so to speak, and you want to go and have sex with a lot of guys, Hey, I mean, I think that the prevalence of STDs and their explosive growth within America is quite significant and sort of a healthcare issue.
And as far as I understand it, these women's contraceptive devices do not prevent the spread of STDs because they are around unprotected sex.
Don't see a lot of condoms in this category of essential health services.
Nothing for men, right?
I mean, can the man go to the employer and say, fund my condom use?
I need a 24-pack for this weekend because I have the stamina of a 18-year-old stallion?
I don't know how old horses live.
Anyway, but men can't go to their employers and say, give me condoms.
Now, condoms actually do quite a bit to prevent the spread of STDs.
These forms of birth control do not.
So if you want to go and have sex with a lot of people, I'm not going to get in your way.
Well, I guess I might if I want to be one of those people.
It's not really in your way.
Well, we'll talk about that another time.
But go for it.
But take what you want and pay for it.
Life is a buffet with a bill.
You can go and take what you want and then you pay for it.
And if you want to go and take from the buffet and have other people pay for it, then you are an ignorant person supporting the use of violence against peaceful people.
Forcing me to pay for your birth control is initiating the use of force against me.
If that birth control violates my moral principles, then you are not only violent and supporting violence, supporting the forcible transfer of wealth, but you are also an extreme hypocrite because you're saying women must be free to choose.
But those women who want other people to pay for their irresponsible choices, well, those people cannot be free to choose.
And the idea that this is a war against women is complete nonsense.
It's complete nonsense.
A stable family structure Marriage, monogamy, these are the ingredients of the environment that is the safest for women.
So the idea that we must pay for your choices is not freedom.
It is coercion fueled by irrational estrogen.
Stefan Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
We'll be right back after the break.
855-472-4433.
We now return to the Peter Schiff Show.
Call in now.
855-4SHIFT. That's 855-472-4433.
Rebel Radio.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
Peter will be back on Monday.
I believe if you watch him in the studio, he will be wearing a giant hat with fruit on top.
He's decided to try and expand his Brazilian audience by auditioning for the role of the Carmen Miranda replacement in the parade, you know, the massive parade that they have there.
So I guess he'll be wearing his usual outfit of two coconuts and a prolific round of chest hair.
So...
Let's talk.
I guess we've got two more segments to go.
Still happy to take a call or two, but I am full of rants this morning, my friends, and I hope that they will be of value to you, as always.
So if you want to call in, 855-472-4433.
But let's talk a little bit about racism and sexism.
The new Nazi.
You know, there's an old Internet meme or joke which says that the first person to bring up Hitler...
Loses the debate.
So let's listen between the lines, if we can.
If we can play cut one, let's try and figure out what's going on here.
Anyone interested in a border visit is interested in pumping the brakes.
The president is acutely aware of the dire situation facing the children and their families crossing into the United States, as evidenced by his tireless effort to help them.
The president's push towards positive and crucial change was met with treasonous accusations.
The tipping point in this drive towards impeachment for me has been the illegal immigration issue, the crisis created by Obama.
Impeachment is a message that has to be sent to our president that we're not going to put up with this lawlessness.
It also means lying to the American people and it means fraud.
I really want Congress to do its job, the constitutional power that they have, to halt an imperial presidency.
Well, good for her in a lot of ways.
Good for her.
The president is, let's say, exercising extra-legal, judicious decision-making processes.
There's strong arguments to make that Obamacare itself is unconstitutional.
It was a bare majority that tipped it into legality.
But what are the accusations continually leveled against the Republicans?
That the Republicans are sexist and the Republicans are racist.
The Tea Party is assumed to be racist and there's a war on women, whereas the Democrats are pro-woman and pro-minority and so on.
Sexist and racist.
Now, you really can't find a lot of actual sexism and racism coming out of the Republican Party.
So some years back, there was a photo that was aired by the mainstream media, which is again the left-wing media, wherein there was a And they were supposed to be armed because they basically were scared of a black president and wanted to be armed.
And actually, when people found the original photo, it was actually a black guy with a gun at the Tea Party gathering.
There was supposed to be a Tea Party as the Republicans were supposed to have cast racial slurs at a black congressman, but...
Copious footage of the event revealed absolutely nothing.
So there's just this made-up stuff.
Now, the history of racism is the history of the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party consistently opposed racial progress, which was generally proposed by the Republicans throughout history.
The KKK was an offshoot of the Democratic Party.
So the group with the greatest history of racism is the Democrats.
But this is something that's just fired at the Republicans.
And it's unfair.
I believe it's unfair and unjust.
So I'd like to propose a new standard.
Unless someone is actively wearing a KKK uniform and strangling a woman, racism and sexism signal defeat in a debate.
The first person to use sexism and racism loses.
Now, What's interesting is that the Hitler argument, you know, whoever uses Hitler first, whoever compares you to a Nazi or to Hitler first, loses the debate.
That works in very limited circumstances.
Like if you are currently debating someone who is a Nazi or a neo-Nazi, who has a signed picture of Hitler over his shoulder on the webcam, well, you can call that person a Nazi.
You haven't lost the debate.
So, in situations where sexism and racism Or pro-Hitlerism, a very clear and evident if the person has said horrible things about the genders or horrible things about racism, minorities, or horrible things about white people, which happens quite a bit as well, well then you can say sexism, racism, but you don't actually have to accuse someone of sexism and racism if they're actually sexist and racist.
You simply have to quote them.
I think women should be barefoot and back in the kitchen and have no legal rights whatsoever.
Well, you don't have to call someone sexist who says that.
You simply have to quote them.
Right?
Whatever people say that is overt can be used to repudiate their position.
You don't have to call anyone names, right?
I don't have to call Tom Cruise short.
I just have to show a picture of him next to a normal-sized human being.
And the shortness is revealed.
So I get kind of tired.
Bone-weary, in fact.
And I wish the human race as a whole would get tired of sophistry, because then we could actually start reasoning together and appealing to critical thinking, evidence, facts, you know, all the things that are like holy water, the vampire brains of sophists.
I'm pretty tired of hearing sexism and racism all the time.
If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.
Well, I guess that's going to change if Hillary Clinton runs.
Suddenly you're a sexist if you oppose Hillary Clinton.
But I thought the whole point of anti-racism was to forget about racism.
Morgan Friedman says, can we just stop talking about it?
Can we just not care?
And my approach is, I don't care what race you're from, I don't care what gender you're from, I'm going to treat you equally.
That, to me, is the point of anti-racism and anti-sexism.
Now, everybody knows that if it was a Republican doing these kinds of things, the left-wing media would be calling not just for impeachment, but possibly direct imprisonment.
But because it's a Democrat in the White House and they then can level charges of ghost racism at people who oppose their Democrat, suddenly it's a whole different set of standards.
It is not treasonous to demand that an American president, or any president for that matter, follow the law.
Allow Congress to pass the laws and not create his own imperial presidency.
When George Bush tried to do that, The left went insane.
Now that Obama is in, they have a different set of standards for him, just as the feminists had a different set of standards for Bill Clinton's exploitation of his intern, basically treating her as his own personal disposable Kleenex Geisha.
There are double standards.
When the Democrats are in power...
Which means that you basically have to cry, sexism, racism, prudery, repression, anti-sexuality, whatever.
Because you can't actually make arguments that don't take down your own position.
When the Democrat is in power, you have to hurl slurs.
This poisoning the well that goes on in human thought and human dialogue is really the most pathetic confession of intellectual impotence that can be conceived of.
Name-calling is what immature three-year-olds do.
Ghost sexism, ghost racism, I'm going to read between the lines, there's a war on women.
If my daughter was three years old and was name-calling, I would say, that is inappropriate, you need to not do that.
She never did.
She's never called names.
She never has called anyone any names that are negative.
Other than she says, Daddy, you're not pretty.
You're a little handsome, but not pretty.
Okay, that's fair enough, I guess.
But if a three- or four-year-old calls names, we intervene and we say, that is inappropriate.
That is not true.
That is not right.
That is mean.
That is not substantiated.
That is not factual.
You have no evidence.
Maybe not all of it to a three-year-old, but that's basically what we're saying.
If the three-year-old points at a fat person and says they're fat, we may say that's not polite, but we won't say that's incorrect.
The name-calling...
It's a confession of intellectual impotence and a confession that the person has spent the vast majority of his or her life developing verbal abuse skills rather than critical thinking skills.
The moment I see unsubstantiated accusations, I lose every single shred of respect for that communicator.
And the vacuum of respect is filled with a near bottomless well of contempt and hostility.
These people are the enemies of the species.
Those who poison the well, those who slander, those who libel, those who slur, without providing evidence, are dragging mankind into a pit of tyranny.
And they're making good people afraid to speak up and tell the truth.
And it is pitiful, and it is dangerous.
It's like calling a cure for disease deadly, with no evidence, It causes people to question and pull back from the cure, which makes them sicker and sicker and sicker.
And I think it is contemptible.
I think it is disgusting.
And I think we should try and run these people out of the public discourse through voluntary disassociation.
They are harmful.
They are toxic.
They are a form of environmental pollutant.
And I think it's vile.
I think it's absolutely disgusting.
There are legitimate concerns about the legality of what the president is doing.
And if people want to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card because he's black or half-black, that is evidence of racism, having different standards, because he has a half-black gene pool.
No, no different standards for the racists.
We'll be right back.
We've got one more segment.
I will be right back after the break.
Thank you so much for listening.
He's George from Baltimore.
He's a hustler making money on the street every day.
What he does with his dough, some say.
It's a shame, P.D. Red think he's gambling.
Everybody knows George is getting high.
But he'll swear on his mother's grave.
That he spends all his dough on the horses at the Pimlico.
Hit him for 700 last night.
Now we got his hands out, so maybe I...
Since the Peter Schiff show was last on the air, the national debt added another $7.89 million. dollars. the national debt added another $7.89 million. dollars.
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.
Hi, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
You can check out my website, freedomainradio.com or YouTube slash freedomainradio.
So let's leave us today, this is my last segment, with a plea for laziness, a plea for inaction, a plea for people in the government to stop helping us, stop trying to help us, stop doing stuff, please!
Let's listen to Obama with Cut 5, shall we?
So, rather than wage another political stunt that wastes time, wastes taxpayers' money, I've got a better idea.
Do something.
If you're mad at me for helping people on my own, let's team up.
Let's pass some bills.
Let's help America together.
You know, it is lonely me just doing stuff.
I'd love it if the Republicans did stuff too!
Government!
It's all about doing stuff!
Vote for me!
I've got stuff to do!
Okay.
Reality check.
You know, view from orbit check.
America has the most laws of any country in the world, and I would wager it has the most laws of any country throughout history.
Federal registrar, the tax code, the criminal code, you name it.
Regulations, licensing, controls, tariffs, taxes.
It has the most laws of any country throughout history in the world.
They win!
America number one in the coercive maze of tax, legal and criminal regulation, legislation, freedom!
Just a few more laws, just a few more regulations, and it will be perfect!
Now, Obama is making the case that they need to pass some more bills.
See, that's active.
That's proactive.
Let's do stuff.
Let's pass some more bills.
Please, dear God in heaven above, stop being busy.
Stop passing bills.
Do you ever hear him say, you know what would be great?
We have the most laws of any country in the world throughout history.
Let's pare that back a little, right?
Because we're continually saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
And we have far too many laws.
Nobody can possibly know them all.
The average person commits three felonies every day and doesn't even know it.
And I'm not just talking about the people in Congress.
I'm talking about the average citizen.
So we have something way too complicated, way too big.
I'm a constitutional law professor, at least that's what it says on my blank resume that was scrubbed when I got into office.
So let's take some laws down.
Let's undo some of these laws.
They can't all be great.
They can't all be perfect.
No, no, no.
Let's get some stuff done.
Let's pass some bills.
Let's pile more laws on the throats and necks of the future.
Stop doing stuff.
Please stop helping us, whatever you do.
Take a day off.
Sleep in.
Watch the birds.
I don't care.
Surf the web.
Stop being busy.
Every time you guys get busy, my daughter loses another year of her economic life through debt and predation.
Please stop being active.
Nobody likes the guy who puts cocaine in the coffee of the serial killer.
You want the serial killer to be the laziest guy around.
Well, I could go and strangle some people, but...
Oh man, this couch is really comfortable.
That's the guy you want.
You want the lazy, nasty guy around.
Not the guy who's like, I'm a serial killer.
I really, I have a...
I just read the seven habits of highly effective serial killer people.
I'm going to get busy.
I got a plan.
I got a strategy.
I'm going to do this.
I'm going to do that.
I got a whole Gantt chart.
I got an org chart.
I got everything prioritized.
I'm going to be so efficient, it's crazy.
But your efficiency is getting other people killed.
Stop doing stuff.
Start undoing stuff.
We invite all governments in the world.
Now, I know this is, as I talked about yesterday, political power is a physical addiction in the brain.
So this is like the guy, this quote, this speech is like the guy who goes to the Narcotics Anonymous meeting and And says, I got a better idea.
Rather than just sitting around here, why don't we do some coke?
Why don't we get some coke?
Why don't we cut up the coke with credit cards and snot it into our eyeballs in some ridiculous reverse-Narwell fashion?
Let's get busy!
We're just sitting here!
Let's go do some drugs!
That guy would be like, I think you may not be fully grasping what you're saying here.
Let's get busy.
Oh, those words from the government are absolutely terrifying.
Let's get together and do stuff.
Well, your stuff is my cage.
Your activity is my diminished capacity.
Your energy is my depletion.
Your activity is my inhibition.
Your freedom is my enslavement.
The slave owner says, I want to be free to do what I want to my slaves!
And the slaves are not very happy with that.
Freedom for the police is enslavement for the citizens.
Freedom for the magistrate is imprisonment for the majority.
Discretion and freedom on the part of the government is enslavement and diminishment of the freedoms of the citizens.
So the idea that Obama is frustrated With the government's inability to pass even more laws, even more restrictions, even more predation, even more tripwires to the infinite cages of the prison industrial complex where America has the highest criminal population the world has ever seen,
where they have more people in prison in America than were stuck in Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Apikalago, the concentration camps of Stalinist Russia.
Ooh, a couple of more laws and freedom will be perfected.
Can't you taste the free air of your tiny cage?
And every time the government breathes in, you lose air.
And every time the government expands, you lose foot space.
And every time the government passes new laws, there are new guns pointed at you for things that you cannot comprehend, that you could be enslaved and imprisoned for that which you do not understand, which nobody understands.
During the break, I tried to find out how many laws are there in America.
Do you know what people say?
No idea!
Can't be calculated.
Can't figure it out.
I mean, we have crazy supercomputers that claim to be able to predict the weather 100 years in the future.
We can't even remotely calculate how many laws Americans are oppressed by.
More is less.
More government is less freedom for you.
More activity from the government is less capacity for you.
Let's keep reminding people of that and take back the future one step at a time.
This is Stephen Molyneux for The Peter Schiff Show.
Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection