Dec. 30, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
03:49:15
3165 Fatality via Female Tears - Call In Show - December 30th, 2015
Question 1: [2:56] - Stefan once wrote "The word “anarchy” may be almost beyond redemption – any attempt to find goodness in it could well be utterly futile – or worse; the philosophical equivalent of the clichéd scene in hospital dramas where the surgeon blindly refuses to give up on a clearly dead patient." I am a self-proclaimed racist, and sexist. I am not a bigot, nor a misogynist. I do not blindly follow stereotypes, or engage in blanket prejudices as if they were science. Lastly, I am not a supremacist by any means.Race is defined as a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Sex is defined either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. Ism is defined as a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. When we use words such as abolitionism, activism, behaviorism - we do not add a negative connotation to these words.Like the word anarchy, I believe the sophists have corrupted the words racism, and sexism. They have lumped numerous definitions into this one word, and have weighed it down. They use racism to mean supremacist, negatively prejudice, stereotype driven, hateful, and misogynistic.There are very real differences between race, and sex. Do you agree with my analysis of the words racism, and sexism? If so, do you believe the words can, or even should be rehabilitated? If not, I am curious to where you think I have miss-stepped?Question 2: [1:46:05] - Stefan you do a lot of negative videos, about liberals, republicans, and everyone you deem to be stupid. Being a left libertarian myself who wants less government power - and is concerned about corporate power controlling our politics and our country - how would a you stop monopolies without a government busting them up? How we can bridge the gap between liberals and libertarians?Walmart Study: http://www.fdrurl.com/walmart-study
Okay, I'm sorry about that, but really, really important and great stuff to have a conversation about.
Just before, of course, I want to put in my pitch, it's the year end.
It's the end of the year as we know it.
And we've done some fantastic stuff this year, my friends.
We, of course, can't continue to do it without you.
So please a reminder, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
We need your help.
We can't make it.
We can't survive.
We can't continue.
We can't grow without you.
It's been a good year for the show.
It's been a great year for philosophy.
I think we've had some real impact on the world.
I know we've had some real impact on the world.
And that's almost exclusively the result of your kindness and your generosity in keeping this conversation going.
So freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Please, please, please help us out.
Help out philosophy.
Help out peaceful parenting.
Save the world.
Save the future.
That's the gig.
That's the job.
So, the first caller said that he's a self-proclaimed racist and sexist.
And, okay, oh, fine.
You know, we did the flat-earth guy.
Why not do the racist and the sexist?
We had a conversation about racism and sexism that I think was very interesting.
I certainly enjoyed it, and I hope you will, too.
The second we had a left...
Leaning libertarian is a left libertarian who wants less government power, concerned about corporate power and how are monopolies and corporations not going to end up running the world if we shrink government in any way.
Real way.
How can we bridge the gap between liberals and libertarians?
It's an old idea.
Murray Rothbard wanted to ally with the radical left and so on.
So we had a good conversation.
A little frustrating at times, but a good conversation about that.
So thanks again, everyone, so much for your support.
Freedomandradio.com slash donate.
FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
If...
You want to do some shopping and help us out as well.
It won't cost you anything.
So without any further ado, after a short media recommendation, we will start.
Alright, so just before we start, a video recommendation.
There's a documentary recommendation.
It's called Making a Murderer.
It's available on Netflix, at least here in Canada.
I'm sure it is in the U.S., particularly in Wisconsin.
And I know nothing about this story.
I'm not going to tell you anything about this story.
But I'm telling you, we are going to discuss this story in an upcoming show.
So if you don't want to have spoilers bleeding like tears of blood out of your eyeballs, please watch.
It's a bit of a time investment.
It took 10 years to make the documentary.
But it is a gripping story of Dickensian proportions.
And...
Something that everyone should be kind of aware of what can happen.
It's called Making a Murderer, and you can check it out on Netflix.
That's my little pitch for that, but you really should check it out.
It's really quite an astounding journey.
All right, so let's move on with the first caller.
Alright, up first is Dave.
Dave wrote in and said, Stefan once wrote, The word anarchy may be almost beyond redemption.
Any attempt to find goodness in it could well be utterly futile.
Or worse, the philosophical equivalent of a cliched scene in a hospital drama where a surgeon blindly refuses to give up on a clearly dead patient.
Alright.
I am a self-proclaimed racist and sexist.
I am not a bigot nor a misogynist.
I do not blindly follow stereotypes or engage in blanket prejudices as if they were science.
Lastly, I am not a supremacist by any means.
Race is defined as a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc., an ethnic group.
Sex is defined as either of the two main categories, male or female, into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Ism is defined as a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
When we use words such as abolitionism, activism, and behaviorism, we do not add a negative connotation to the words.
Like the word anarchy, I believe the sophists have corrupted the words racism and sexism.
They have lumped numerous definitions unto this one word and have weighed it down.
They use racism to mean supremacist, negatively prejudiced, stereotypical-driven, hateful, and misogynistic.
If you watch any episode of the TV show Bones, you can quickly see racism and sexism should not have a negative connotation attached.
There are very real differences between race and sex.
Do you agree with my analysis of the words racism and sexism?
If so, do you believe the words can or even should be rehabilitated?
If not, I'm curious where you think I have misstepped.
That is from Dave.
Hello Dave, how you doing?
Pretty good, Stefan.
A little bit nervous, as I mentioned to Mike, but I'm excited to talk about this topic.
And every day I turn on your show, it gets a little bit more nerve-wracking because you have expert after expert after expert on this subject.
And I'm just a novice that just does a little bit of reading and wants to talk about the subject.
Listen, I mean, I love chatting with the listeners.
We do a lot more of these than we do expert interviews, so don't worry about that.
And you know, this is the last call-in show of 2015.
And I want to go out with a bang.
So please, don't be boring.
I'm sure you won't.
And I'll give you a very quick review of what it is that you have said about racism and sexism.
I don't mind, you know, the definition of the major categories based on reproductive functions.
That's fine.
Race is defined, you said, as a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.
An ethnic group.
I don't think so.
I think that race is biological.
And race is not something that you can adopt in the same way that I can go to Japan, I can immerse myself in Japanese culture, I can buy my very own army of sex robots and then not have sex with them because it's too much work.
I can learn the language, I can really...
But no one would say that I am biologically or racially...
I think that race is defined as a biological differentiator between groups of human beings who have spent at least 50,000 years evolving in very different environments and therefore have different physical and sometimes mental characteristics.
Would you...
Go with me there, or is there something else you wanted to bring up with that?
No, I actually agree with that.
When I wrote the question, it was a couple months back.
I've done some more research since.
So race is, to me, it's a biological thing.
And like you said, I'm in Africa.
Sorry to interrupt, but...
In Bones, like they say, ah, it's a Caucasoid female between the ages of Hamina and Hamina.
And then T.J. Tine goes on in some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo that I'm not even sure he understands, but is a fine actor nonetheless.
But they don't say, I believe, they worshipped the sun god Ra and spoke Croatian.
Exactly.
So they don't know anything about the beliefs or the culture or the language of the person.
They only know the biological differentiators.
Correct.
And I would amend my question because after some research, and we make mistakes about this everyday societal-wise, but you have the Mongoloid, the Negroid, and Caucasioid, I guess.
Caucasoid, I think some people call that.
And you'd add a fourth, the Aboriginal or the Astroloid.
I'm not sure exactly how to pronounce that, but some add a fourth race to the mix.
I think it's didgeridoo enabled, but I'm not positive about that.
Are we somewhat in agreeance now?
Yeah, I mean, how you differentiate the races is...
There's some issues.
And for those, if you're new to this kind of conversation, there's a reason why you have not heard all this stuff before.
Basically, human beings, you could say between 50 and 100,000 years ago, migrated into different areas of the world.
And Europe and Africa and Asia, being the big And the people who were like in Australia and so on, this is when there was a land bridge many, many years ago.
And so if you're going to say, well, the races all ended up the same, then you have to say that environments as disparate as, say, Iceland or the northern wastes of Canada...
And Australia, 50,000 years of evolution would produce no fundamental differences between these races, other than maybe some superficial physical characteristics, skin color, nose shape, and so on.
In comparison, dogs have been domesticated for about 10,000 years.
And if you look at the wide variety of dogs that have been bred in those 10,000 years, interestingly enough, they domesticated dogs by taking wild animals, wild dogs and wolves and so on, and only allowing the most peaceful and the ones that displayed the most characteristics themselves.
Of neoteny, which is to continue to play even after you become an adult.
Like wolf cubs play, and then they play at eating everything that has a pulse.
Whereas when adults, domesticated dogs play, they're...
So whichever dogs showed the most continuing characteristics of neoteny or continuing with childhood characteristics, which is very similar to how the Disney princesses are drawn with these Big, weird eyes that are bigger than their wrists.
It's just a way of making them look like infants and achieving sort of sympathy for them.
So they actually bred the most peaceful and slothful and indolent, so to speak, relative to hunting.
They bred those dogs repeatedly and then ended up with the domesticated dog.
And in other words, there was a A warfare welfare state for the dogs where the most violent got killed off and the most pacifistic independent ended up being bred.
We are in a process of 50-60 year process of domesticating the human animal, which is pretty much the end of civilization for one reason or another.
But if you look at the wide variety of dog species and dog characteristics, There are certain dogs that can recognize literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of words.
And there are other dogs that kind of go...
There is idiocracy for dogs as well.
Dog intelligence, dog abilities, dog size, and so on is widely varied.
And that's just sort of breeding for selective human preference purposes.
And that's 10,000 years of moderately selected evolution.
If you look at things like The degree to which the winter and agriculture and so on will kill off people who don't plan ahead.
You can look at arguably significantly more extreme pressures brought to bear on the human population.
And as it turns out, if you look at the variety of dogs with 10,000 years of less pressured selection than human beings for 50 plus thousand years, dogs have ended up with about twice the variance in genetics Than human beings have and so if you look at the wide variety of size shapes and intelligence among dogs Human beings have about half that variation and the variation seems to strike just about every conceivable area of Evolution as
you would fully expect that to be the case so that would be sort of my very brief synopsis on the degree to which evolution and its forces have shaped I would.
So what I would just add a little bit is I don't want to confuse race with, I guess, ethnicity, where you get some crossover between the races as the adaptations and the evolution went on throughout history.
Which is where now I think the softest get a hold of that and say, well, there's no true Scotsman of any race anymore because they've then adapted into the environment and genetically in certain areas and then even epigenetically, which we can get to a little bit further down.
So all these adaptations happen, but to ignore race as the starting point, It doesn't give you a very good baseline for making any scientific predictions or help or cures or discoveries because you're pretty much saying, well, there's no such thing as actual H2O in the world anymore.
So there's no water because there's salt in this water.
So everything's a little bit contaminated and that's okay.
We still need a starting point, a basis to work off of so we can improve, in my opinion.
Well, I think that's more than an opinion.
And of course, there are crossbreeds.
There are crossbreeds of dogs.
There are crossbreeds of human beings.
And the reason we know that crossbreeds is there are, so to speak, purebreds, and then there are interbreeding human beings that come out of that mix.
And so the idea that there's no such thing as a purebred Hamina Hamina, therefore, there's no difference between a blonde Swedish woman and a sub-Saharan African man I don't even know what to say about that.
It's like saying, people mix paints, therefore there's no such color as black and white.
How do you know they mix paints?
Is anyone perfectly healthy?
And is everyone perfectly ill?
Those terms don't really mean anything.
There's people who are healthy...
And there are people who are ill.
Like, when I got a full body scan done when I got cancer, that was, I don't know, like a little cyst here.
And it doesn't matter, right?
Oh my goodness, is he perfect?
I don't know, it doesn't matter, right?
I'm healthy enough to get through my day and get things done.
So, this idea that it's, first of all, it's not a social construct.
Race is absolutely not.
A social construct.
And I'm not going to go into all of the reasons, or I've done this before on the show, the degree to which the race is different.
They differ in brain size.
They differ in the number of vertebrae in the spine.
They differ, of course, in skin color.
They differ in skull shape.
They differ in the number of teeth.
They have big differences.
And so it's not a social construct.
I certainly will agree with you that there's no such thing as supremacy.
There's no way to ever argue that any race is superior to another race.
I mean, it makes no sense at all.
It's like saying that a human being is superior to a whale because a whale can't climb a mountain.
It doesn't make any sense, right?
I mean, whales have adapted to their environment and human beings have adapted to our environment and then Done the cool thing of forcing our environment to adapt to us with air conditioning, thank heaven, sometimes in the heat.
And so there's no question of superiority or inferiority.
There is, however, ways in which you can say suitability, right?
So there's no such thing as an inferior or superior race.
However, there is suitability to various races.
So, for instance...
If you take a European, say in the 18th century or 19th century, and you put that European in Africa, his average life expectancy, as I've said before on the show, about 11 months.
That's because that's a sort of a bio incompatibility.
If you take your average European and set him out working in the fields in Egypt, he's going to die of sunburn or at least pray for death from the sunburns, right?
Because white skin has adapted to try and extract more vitamin D from a much more watery and inconsistent sunlight.
On the other hand, if you take somebody from an Aboriginal from Australia and you park him out with an Inuit, he's Probably going to get, well, in the words, maybe not so much because they get a lot of their vitamin D from fish and so on, but if you put him in Europe, he's going to end up with vitamin D deficiency, rickets and whatever that causes some god awful thing.
And so there is questions of compatibility between the races and those compatibilities are not just physical but also intellectual in that sub-Saharan African blacks have an average IQ of 70 whereas Europeans have an average IQ of 100 and some of the East Asians have an average IQ of 105, 106 and so on.
And so if you take your average sub-Saharan black and put him say in Singapore, which is I think one of the countries or regions with the highest IQ, there's a kind of incompatibility there because that's a pretty fast-paced, fast-moving, intellect-rewarding society.
And you're putting somebody with an IQ of 70 in a society where people have an average IQ of 106.
In the same way that if you take someone from Singapore with an IQ of 106 and you put him in some Kenyan village in the middle of nowhere where he's sitting out with people with an average IQ of 70, not very compatible, to say the least.
And so the challenge is that There are societies that are developed by very intelligent people.
And some of those societies, you know, thousands of years ago, Chinese societies, they had entrance exams for the mandarins to get public service.
They had gunpowder.
They had very advanced farming methods.
They had, of course, writing and beautiful artwork and netsuke.
Look it up.
Anyway, and so...
Very advanced societies obviously are created by more intelligent races.
And the question is the degree to which other races are compatible with those societies.
And I think if we sort of look at the experience of the modern world...
It's really important to start asking those questions because pretending that everyone is equal in some weird biological way which makes no sense at all has become so taboo that actually there was a manual for breeding dogs, I think it was.
That went out.
And in it, in that manual, they talked about some dog breeds as being in general more intelligent than other dog breeds.
And people got so offended about it that they had to recall the book, they had to reprint it, they had to take out any reference to dog intelligence, because of course...
The people whose dogs, I don't know, bulldogs, I think, are a little bit lower on the scale.
And people got offended because people were saying basic facts about brain size and intelligence among different dog breeds.
So it has just become one of these things that you can't talk about.
And it really is quite recent.
It's only in the last 50 or 60 years.
There was a great statement that was made by Oscar Wilde about homosexuality in 19th century.
He, of course, was a very famous playwright, an Irish playwright who's written some of the wittiest and delightful plays.
The Importance of Being Earnest is one of his most famous plays as well.
You can, I think, also catch that on Netflix.
Just reading it is fantastic.
He wrote just some, I can resist anything except temptation.
It's just a very witty, witty stuff.
And he was prosecuted because he liked some rough trade.
He liked to go down to the docks and pick up sailors and have rough gay sex with sailors.
And this was, of course, illegal at the time.
And he was thrown in prison in what he called Redding Jail and wrote a terrifying poem I've mentioned on the show before called The Ballad of Redding Jail, which I thought was gold for a long time because I didn't know that spelling.
And he ended up dying, I think, in France.
Basically, he was broke.
He was broken physically, of course.
It's horrendous being in a Victorian prison for your health.
And he ended up dying with one of the great death lines of all time, which is Churchill had a great one.
Where he was dying and the nurse, somebody said, he's dead.
And the nurse said, no, he's not dead.
His feet are still warm.
Nobody ever dies while their feet are warm.
And he said, Joan of Arc did.
And then he died, which is fantastic.
Joan of Arc, of course, burned at the stake.
Oscar Wilde, in a clap room boarding house, he had, of course, refined, very stereotypically gay sensibilities.
And the wallpaper was god awful, you know, like, Cherubs and just vines and just hideous colors and all tattered and worn.
And Oscar Wilde leaned up and looked at the wallpaper and said, well, one of us has to go.
Genius.
And Oscar Wilde said about homosexuality, he said basically that there was a time in the past when, he said, my predilections, my Sexual preferences were not controversial and he referred to ancient Greece where of course a lot of the famous philosophers were gay and took gay lovers and and was not But he said there are phases when society goes through these various hysterias,
these witch hunts of various groups of people, and sometimes it's the people who believe that the Earth is the center of—sorry, the Sun is the center of the solar system.
At other times, it is homosexuality that has become the— The place where people project all their childhood trauma and then attack it as if that's going to make them feel better.
The place where they feel safe to set up a victim they can mutilate in their mind or physically without fear of social reprisal and that That person or that group in society currently now is white males, where white males are the homosexuals of the 19th century.
They have been set up that everyone can vent their hatred, their discontent, their disgust, their anger, their rage, their humiliation at a safe target, knowing that no one's going to come to their defense, or our defense, I should say, and the media is always going to back up whoever's attacking.
And that...
Question of differences in intelligence and differences in various biological makeups between the races used to be a common topic and was openly discussed and researched and spoken of and so on.
But as part of a general communist plan to discredit and destroy the West, it has become racist to talk about facts that differentiate the races.
In other words, facts have become equivalent to hysterical and violent I'm sure we can dig it up and link to it below.
Whole groups of people were sorted biologically, and they were identified by geneticists as to which race they built.
And then they were sort of paraded around, and people were asked to say, okay, which race is this person?
And it was like 97% or 98% of the time people got it completely correct.
Oh, this guy's Indian.
Oh, this guy's European.
Oh, this guy's Japanese.
They would just get it right.
We're very good at differentiating between The races and as a very few times people were like I don't know right but given that races tend to intermarry and if you look at a place like Detroit where there used to be a lot of white people now there are almost no white people if you look at Chinatown if you look at Greek town and if you look at the preferences that parents in particular have for children to marry within their own race and culture it's not quite as and also if you look at the degree to which at least interracial marriages tend to break down
at higher rates even than Same-race marriages and that there's more abuse in those interracial marriages, which is not to say that all, but more statistically, there does tend to be a tendency for birds of a feather to flock together.
So this degree of, you know, rainbow screwing ourselves into pure genetic diversity, I don't know it's going to really work that well.
There is, of course, a lot of coercion that is used in the areas of race relations to jam everyone together.
But if you look at something like the lunchroom test, you just go into a place where there's no forcing together and see whether racial groups are sitting with their own racial groups.
Or if you look at the fact that 80 to 90% of the churches in the United States where diversity rules don't apply...
They are 80 to 90% same race.
It is the way it tends to work out.
And unfortunately, because there are differences in, and we just, I just had a very long conversation with the extremely delightful and personable Dr.
Linda Gottfriedson, which we'll link to again below for more background on this.
You can also look at my interviews with Charles Murray and Eric Turkheimer and other people.
We'll sort of put a whole list of the sort of race and IQ stuff that we've done.
But because, yeah, James Flynn, Kevin Beaver, other people that we've talked about this and more that we've got coming up, both pro and con, the genetic versus environmental side.
But because this difference between the races has been something people simply don't talk about.
And we talk about it because I'm actually interested in solving problems and political correctness is yawningly boring.
It is knowing what everyone is going to say, knowing what you can and can't talk about.
It's just relentlessly boring, and I'm far too restless and curious to be to these little cosmic cobwebs to stop the intellectual progress of what we're doing here.
And I don't want, you know, my kid and other people's kids to grow up in a world where Because, say, blacks in America do worse than whites, the only answer is white racism, and this is not the answer.
This has not been the answer, and the proof of it not being the answer has been around for more than 20 years.
If you look at Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, they look at not race, but IQ, and they find out that blacks doing worse is Largely, almost exclusively the result of lower IQ. American blacks probably started with an IQ of 70, but as a result of 20% European genetics, they now have an IQ of 85.
They're sub-Saharan 2.0.
But that's not high enough to compete in a society designed for IQ 100+.
It's just not enough to sort of you know, they'd be really smart in Africa, but they're just not that smart as a whole again lots of exceptions, but not that smart as a whole in America and of course, you know, there are lots of fantastically successful and brilliant blacks in America, right?
I mean just because the bell curve is 85 to 100 doesn't mean everyone's on one side of the fence versus the other I mean almost 20% of blacks are smarter than the average white and they do very well in society and But because blacks as a whole, you know, tend to be on the lower IQ side, they don't do as well statistically.
In other words, they do about as well as if you have a group of whites with an IQ of 85.
If you sort of segregate that part of the white population out or the Asian population or the native population.
American population, if you just get a bubble or a bell curve pie slice of IQ 85 average people, they all do about the same as American blacks.
And so it is not racism.
It is simply genetics.
At least it seems to be genetics.
Nobody really knows for sure, but the evidence, at least to my sort of outward layperson eye, the evidence seems to be a very strongly tendency, a strong tendency towards genetics.
And So, you know, these are not racist statements because they're certainly not moral judgments.
They are simply descriptions of fact.
And these facts have been known for over 100 years.
I think it was in the early part of the 20th century when the American army began testing for intelligence to make sure that the smartest people didn't end up as cannon fodder in the trenches, so to speak.
And this was very rapidly established that the IQ is lower among blacks and average 100 among whites.
I don't know if there were a lot of Japanese and Chinese people trying to get into the American army at that time.
But this has been known and it was openly discussed.
And then in the 60s, of course, the communists kind of and socialists got into power.
And one of the things they wanted to do was start to destabilize capitalism by pretending it was unfair to minorities.
capitalism is very fair to minorities.
Capitalism is very fair to everyone who can make someone a buck.
And the only color that capitalism cares about, as the saying goes, is green.
But the state has been viciously unfair to some minorities, of course, in America.
Unfair, of course, to blacks.
Unfair to a lot of Asians.
Unfair to Irish.
And so capitalism is perfectly fair.
If you can make a capitalist money, he is going to or she's going to want to hire you.
But the government's been viciously unfair.
And, of course, the tragedy, of course, is that the people who've been treated worse by government tend to turn to governments most for fixing the problem.
And that tends to make it worse.
So I'm sorry for that long speech, but I just wanted to bring some of the newer listeners up to speed on the latest and greatest in this kind of stuff.
David, what do you think?
Anything you wanted to add?
Does that sort of give you a general overview?
Yeah, I agree with most, but I'd like to push back on just a couple of things.
And I think you would agree with me.
It's just...
Let me think back here.
So one thing, why don't we go where most of the callers could agree with, since they're anti-government or pro-free market, however you want to look at it, is one of the things that's causing a lot of the turmoil that I see is the forced association.
When you were talking about the bell curve, say you have somebody in a mixed race individual on the high end of the bell curve that would normally succeed in a society of a free market, they get trapped either through bribery of welfare in a certain area or the welfare cliff that we've talked about earlier.
Or they don't get the choice to move.
Where in a free market, if you can't survive in one location, you would move or you would gravitate towards a location that you could survive in, which would be kind of like a giant lunchroom situation that you spoke about earlier.
And there would be some diversity of the high end of the bell curve for all the races in the low end.
So maybe some of the low end mongoloids end up with the...
Caucasian or whatever.
I know people get upset about these words, but the Asians, the low-end Asians...
Just say Asian, white, and black.
I don't think we need to jazz it up much.
I'm not trying to jazz it up.
It's just that not every...
You can be close to the equator and be black, but still have...
You can be in Asia and you can be in the northern part of Asia and have blonde hair and blue eyes.
So these aren't really racial terms to me.
These are where I think the prejudice becomes when you start judging people based on the skin color because although a lot of people from Africa, I mean, if you're from Africa, yes, you have darker skin because you're close to the equator, but you can be close to the equator in other parts of there.
You have Spanish people that...
Closer to a white background.
Okay, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I don't want to get into the slice and dice.
No, I'm not trying to slice and dice.
Let's just keep on with it.
You had some pushback.
The pushback is, well, we'll move away from the pushback, but we'll talk about where we agree, where we have some understanding here, is that the forced association that's going on right now, like I said, either through bribery of welfare, Or through forced diversity with the affirmative action or the colleges where they're forcing people to deal with people or they're bribing people to come to places where they shouldn't be to fail.
I think in a free market situation, this mobility would be more organic and you would have some diversity, some crossover.
And this would bring me to where I would have my pushback.
I think you talked about this in some of the earlier shows.
You get about 50% of your personality and your genes and stuff that are carrying on this stuff genetically.
It's easier to teach you through a gene to be scared of a spider than the people that get bit by the spiders and aren't scared die off and the genes carry on.
But if you look at some of the racial things like the racial Jews, they've actually been able to use Social construct to push themselves forward, but not in the way that it's being taught in the school, but in the fact that they follow The rich people have more kids, or the successful people have more kids, and it pushes those gene set forward and weeds out the other gene set.
So in a way, there's a part of it that is a social construct where women in these societies or men in these societies aren't going to breed with the low end of the bell curve, where they breed with the high end, and this will push out some of the other genes.
And I'm not saying that you do this in a forced manner.
Because, you know, obviously everybody's going to call me Hitler in the chat anyways.
What I'm saying is I think this would naturally happen in society where some people gravitate a certain way.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so the term eugenics always comes up and people, they use it like this magic spell.
I've said the word eugenics and therefore everything you're saying is wrong.
And the moment that you hear someone use the word eugenics, It's basically the Hitler argument and it's boring and they're almost always incorrect.
Because the free market is not eugenics any more than who you choose to marry is eugenics.
Eugenics is a government program which is designed to sterilize poor people.
Or sterilize sometimes gay people or sterilize whoever is considered the least desirable in society.
That's a government program.
That's eugenics.
Now, saying that it's nice if people get smarter as a whole is not eugenics.
Not eugenics at all.
Now, taking money from smart people by force and giving it to less smart people or even to actively dumb people And paying them to breed.
That is eugenics.
That is eugenics.
Although the technical term for it is dysgenics, which means you're trying to make the least capable human beings possible.
So in a free society, smart people have more resources, and therefore smart people can afford to have more children.
Now since women are biologically drawn towards men who have more resources, it means that The most intelligent men get the most resources and therefore attract the most intelligent females because there's not many men who want to get married to a woman if they've got any brains at all.
They won't want to get married to a woman who's, say, a hot mess or a hot idiot because you certainly may have an affair with her or whatever and then move and change her name, but you wouldn't settle down for your whole life with someone like that.
It's the old saying, you can't really turn a whore into a housewife.
That seems to be somewhat true.
Hang on, let me finish.
So that's how intelligence accumulated within the Jewish community.
In the Jewish community throughout history, this is very brief, and I've got a conversation about this on the channel for more on this, but the most intelligent people who were the rabbis and the business people had the most children, and women were taught to value intelligence over mere looks, and this apparently gained the Jewish, Ashkenazi Jews in particular, about a third of an IQ point per generation, which over The last 700 years has given them roughly a standard deviation or a 15-point increase over the average for Europeans.
So smart people accumulate wealth.
They have smarter children and the smarter children accumulate even more wealth.
They have smarter children and there's some deviation Of this, right?
There's something called a regression to the mean, you know, where smarter people, two people with an IQ of 150 are unlikely to have a kid with an IQ of 150 is going to be above average, but it's going to be a low 150.
Two people with an IQ, assuming they come from the same group, two people with an IQ of 90 are not likely to have a kid with an IQ of 90, might be an IQ of 100 or 95.
There is a sort of regression to the mean, which is why people don't get infinitely taller and infinitely shorter.
There's just a general Regression to the mean so it's not determinism.
It's not going to create different classes There's a lot of spin cycle in genetics as far as this goes, but in a free market Generally the people will tend to become more intelligence and intelligent of course if you look at Europe in the 19th century 18th and 19th centuries you can see a lot of this stuff occurring at least until the world wars and Which you could argue did disproportionately kill off the less intelligent,
but also killed off people who had a lot of other positive characteristics, some of which I'm sure were genetically transmitted.
So the welfare state is eugenics.
It is complete and total eugenics.
And subsidies to single moms are eugenics.
Single moms have been reported.
There's some questions about the data, but they have reported to have an Average IQ in the low 90s.
And so normally, if you're a guy with an IQ of 120, and there's some woman there with an IQ of 90, you're not going to be able to hold a conversation.
You're not going to settle down and marry and have kids with someone like that.
You're not going to have that.
It's almost two standard deviations.
That's actually two standard deviations.
So it's really, really bad.
And so, but what happens is if you give these women a lot of resources for free, taken from more intelligent people, then their sexual market value goes up considerably because they're not liabilities, they're now assets.
Because of the amount of money that's being stolen from intelligent people and being given to dumb people, well, whatever you tax, you diminish, and whatever you subsidize, you increase.
Intelligence is being taxed and dumbness is being subsidized, which is why there's this great dumbing down.
It's one of the many reasons, government education, the media and so on, why there's this great dumbing down.
of intelligence around the world and in particular in the West.
And this is going to collapse the society as a whole and then things are going to get really hard, very case-selected as I talked about in my Gene Wars presentation.
And this is going to result in a change.
You know, of course, it'd be great if these pendulums didn't have to smash millions of people up against the wall before swinging back.
But, you know, unfortunately, we just don't seem to be that good at listening to reason.
And so there used to be all of these ways that social problems were solved through social ostracism and through plans.
And I'll sort of give you a very brief example that's somewhat related.
Bill Cosby just got, I think, charged with a sexual offense dating back to, I think, 2004.
Some woman said, oh, you know, he, I don't know, drugged me or whatever it was he did, right?
And molested me or whatever.
And the fact that men and women, of course, are capable of doing this used to be common knowledge.
And...
So society had a lot of rules in place to deal with this kind of stuff, which is, if you're going on a date, you have a chaperone.
The chaperone is there to make sure that nothing bad happens, or if something bad happens, he can intervene, or at least as a witness.
There also used to be rules in dorms, like in colleges, they used to be sex-segregated, the doors always had to be open, and the woman had to keep always at least one foot on the floor, so unless she's some kind of...
Exhibitionist gymnast, you're not going to get to even second base.
And that was because the law, even any rational legal system, cannot operate in the absence of physical evidence.
And when people say, well, 10 years ago, this guy grabbed me or did something, the law can't possibly deal with that.
And when you see sort of this massive accumulation of he said, she said stuff that's going on, law can't work.
Because he said, she said is 50-50.
And the burden of proof in a criminal trial is 95% certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even in civil cases, it's got to be more than 50.
And so the law simply, so there used to be a society that prevented these things from occurring.
And now everyone's got these freedoms, right?
And I guess some young model can say, well, I was 18 and a model.
And a 45-year-old or 60-year-old Bill Cosby was only interested in my acting talent when he invited me up in his night robe to give me drinks.
I mean, but there used to be some common sense about these things, and society worked to prevent them.
And now society, everyone's got all these freedoms, and now there's these unbelievably ridiculous situations.
And I say ridiculous, not, of course, if he did these horrible things, it's terrible and should be punished.
There's simply the reason why you go right afterwards while the drug is still in your system, while you have bruises and so on, is because that gives you some physical evidence.
In the absence of physical evidence, law cannot function.
A law is not, he said, she said, can't ever work that way.
I mean, you can set up a system like that, it's just gonna forever and ever get worse.
So yeah, right now we're in a dysgenic society and we have been for a couple of decades.
The waves of the Second World War were certainly dysgenic in many ways.
And then the welfare state has become, has really accelerated this genetic program of deterioration.
And until society gets harsher, look, dumb genes want to survive just as much as smart genes do.
And dumb genes get the same vote as smart genes and dumb genes outnumber smart genes.
It's just the reality of the bell curve.
Dumb genes outnumber smart.
Smart genes.
Or as George Carlin used to say, look at how dumb the average person is.
Well, half of them are dumber than that.
And that's, you know, dumb genes want to live as much as smart genes want to live.
And dumb genes are happy to hook into government power to do so.
And so there used to be lots of ways of that society was improving.
But this is one of the central reasons that I've sort of come to more recently because About the fundamental problem of the state is that smart people don't like using government power because smart people look at the long-term consequences.
Dumb people, it's range at the moment.
It's like tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.
It creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time.
So dumb people are just like Okay, great, 15 minutes, great, 15 minutes, great, 15 minutes.
Whereas smart people are like, ooh, I don't know, I really disagree with what that guy's saying, but man, if we put in law saying that you can ban speech you disagree with, what if I... What if I say something that other people disagree with?
So I'm not going to pull out that sword because next thing you know all these swords pointed at me.
So smarter people look at the long-term consequences.
So rights are fundamentally the product of very intelligent people.
Intelligent people who look at I don't want to satisfy my short-term lust To scratch this itch and make someone go away who's bothering me or saying something offensive.
Or I really disagree with this person's religion, but I don't want to use the state to control religion because then I may be outnumbered in the future by other people.
And also coercion in the realm of ethics is not really ethical and so on.
So really smart people create what are colloquially called rights, universalize things, and look over the horizon.
To what would be the consequences of breaking these universal rights.
And so, dumb people just want stuff now.
And since dumb people and smart people both get to vote equally, dumb people use the power of the state to take stuff away from smart people.
And the dumb people don't say, well, okay, I can go and take this money from this millionaire, but what if I end up being a millionaire?
Then other people are going to come and take that money from me, because dumb people, deep down, they know.
Not going to be a millionaire.
Might win the lottery, but probably a couple of years later, you're right back to where you started.
Which is, you know, people say, well, Donald Trump, his dad gave him a million dollars to start his business.
It's like, how many dozens and dozens and dozens of people in America win a million dollars plus every week or every month in the lottery?
Are all of them becoming Donald Trump?
I don't think so!
Their fortune is huge!
I'm still working on my Donald Trump.
I probably will never get it right.
But, um...
So, this...
Reality of the state and the degree to which the state serves the stupid.
And I say stupid, I know it sounds like a big negative, oh, dumb and stupid and so on.
It's just fact.
It's like saying short.
It's not bad people.
It's just that the power of the state is infinitely more attractive to dumb people.
Than it is to smarter people.
And this point has been made about the welfare state as well, right?
So you talked about the welfare cliff.
Well, a smart person looks at the welfare state and says, well, you know, I guess I could go on welfare and I'll be kind of getting by.
But, you know, what's going to happen in 20 years?
I'm still going to be stuck on welfare.
And what if government cuts welfare?
And, you know, I've got this scholarship.
And so smart people look at welfare and say, I can do so much better.
And so they don't generally get involved in the welfare cliff stuff.
Whereas somebody with an IQ of 90, they look at welfare and they say, shit, I get much more money for no work than I ever could get by going to get a job because I'm not that smart.
And so the welfare state in particular is causing this trap.
And where would the poor people would end up?
I don't know.
I'm sure you're right that some people get caught in that trap who had...
This is another reason why the state is so fundamentally unsustainable.
It's really the genetics of intelligence caused this massive downward trend that can be extraordinarily rapid.
You know, as I've mentioned before, one of the things that people are quite surprised about in this field is the rapidity.
Of genetic evolution.
People used to say, oh, tens of thousands of years.
No, it is incredibly rapid.
I mean, just a whole standard deviation up in intelligence in 700 years.
We're talking about groups separated by 50,000 years plus, you're going to end up with some differences.
So let's move to another part of what you were saying, if that's right, if you didn't want to add anything to there.
No, I agree with that.
That's a much better explanation than how I was trying to explain it.
There's so much going through my head right now.
I actually have Dungeons& Dragons flying through my head right now.
Oh, the strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, charisma.
I'm missing one, aren't I? Constitution.
Constitution.
There we go.
Ah!
We're missing a constitution, just like America.
This will be a good rant for you to go off on, but the...
So, you know, I don't think, sorry, I don't think you want to try to reclaim racism and sexism.
Now, did you want to talk about sexism?
It's pretty much along the same lines where there is differences, muscle structure, intelligence, high and low.
You've talked about this on the show before.
But forget about the stuff that happens in the society, but let's just look at somebody on an operating table that's just a skeleton.
You can physically tell the difference between a male and a female when they're on the table afterwards.
And even with the skin and muscles and everything removed, just on a skeletal structure.
Sorry, and I remember seeing an episode of Bones.
You can even tell whether the woman is a single mother.
And you do that by bringing a man to the table where the bones are.
And it will actually still, like, weeks or months after death, reach for his wallet and claw through it and so on.
So there are actually weird kind of quirks in the way that these reanimated bones of infinite estrogen-based parasitism work.
So, again, don't try this at home, but it's something to remember.
Go ahead.
Well, it falls along the same lines, and I was going to say this will be a fun way to bring it all together because...
A lot of times we get into these discussions and it looks as if we're putting IQ on this pedestal and we're putting other abilities such as maybe agility, strength, endurance on a lower level where if you look at something like, I know a lot of the audience probably knows Dungeons and Dragons, the older audience.
The new audience might know Lord of the Rings or World of Warcraft, but people are very open to racism In these genres where they know that an elf and an orc and a hobbit have different qualities that benefit the party in different ways and they don't put one superior to the other.
They work together as a team and they look to the best attributes of each individual to help one another.
Where a lot of times today, if you say, you know, elves are smarter and they have more wisdom and they can cast spells, people don't say, well, what about the ogre that's the great warrior?
They don't get upset about it.
They just realize...
Yeah, except, hang on, but if we're talking about gender...
Nothing changes, right?
Like, I mean, if you boot up Skyrim or something and you choose a female, I mean, nothing changes.
Your attributes remain exactly the same.
And this is where the gender stuff gets kind of weird, right?
Because, yeah, okay, orc versus elf versus dark elf versus dwarf or whatever, sure.
But, you know, I almost thought you need to create a game where if you choose a male, you get certain characteristics.
You don't have to worry about it.
You get to be attacked by everyone.
But if you choose a female, well, you get a 40% loss in body strength.
You get fewer extremes in intelligence.
You get a lawyer if you get upset, and you could win by crying.
That's sort of my way that you would change these games.
And again, that's sort of a caricature, but I just wanted to mention it.
But growing up, these weren't big deals.
you would know that if you picked a female character, you might get more flexibility, more agility from that character, but less strength.
So you might pick a female archer for her abilities.
Nowadays, if you even mention the fact that there's differences between the genders, it's, you know, Tumblr goes crazy on you, no matter where you are. - Well, and this is, you know, in the Star Wars film, which I put a review out, which people should check out, I mean, all they're doing is doing defense, they're just doing it defensively.
Like if you make what's called a Mary Sue, which is like a perfect female character with no flaws and no limitations and everything, then the social justice warriors will leave you alone.
You know, give her one fucking pimple and suddenly you're shilling for cosmetics industries.
You know, you give her one thing that she's bad at and it's like, oh, are you saying a woman isn't good at her?
All they're doing is playing defensively and J.J. Abrams is a smart enough guy.
Like there are some some video games that are developed in Japan and China They simply won't release them in the West because they're just sick and tired of all the social justice warrior bullshit right where the moment a woman has flaws Suddenly you're talking about all women everywhere all the time And of course you're only allowed to do that when talking about white males and sexism and institutionalized racism and so on and so Girls have been brought up to believe that they can do exactly what men
can do, but more!
They can do everything that men can do Plus, bleed for five days without dying and give birth to new life.
But this is all just supported by the government, right?
I mean, this is not...
In the free market, there would be what would shake out, right?
And this is the reality of anyone who's anti-free market.
It's a two-syllable cry.
Their battle cry is, I suck!
I suck.
I'm really, really, really bad at stuff.
So I'm against the free market because the free market will accurately assess my abilities and find me wanting.
I suck!
Anti-free market.
Look at all the Bernie Sanders drones, right?
I need to be released from the financial obligation of paying for my degree in basket weaving because it turns out not a lot of demand for people with degrees in lesbian feminist studies.
And so...
All they're saying is that they suck.
They suck at the free market.
And I get it.
I get it.
I mean, if there's a society that is structured around, I don't know, danceability...
The better dance you are, the more you're paid.
I'm like, you know, that dance structure is so oppressive because I've got the rhythmic abilities of a metronome tangled inside of Rihanna's hips.
And so I get it.
Like, if you're bad at the free market, if you're bad at free association, voluntary producing value for people, you're going to dislike the free market because you're bad at it.
And you're bad at it because you're stupid.
And you're stupid so that you don't understand that the free market is going to benefit you even if you're bad at it.
Like, I'm bad at engineering, but I like the free market because I love new tech stuff.
I'm a tech whore.
And so I'm not good at engineering, but I'm smart enough to know that the free market is going to let people who are really great at engineering give me fantastic goodies for ever-decreasing prices.
So if you're stupid, then the free market is not your friend in a way, right?
Or it is your friend, but you're too stupid to know that it's your friend.
And because you're stupid, you know, one of the things that goes with stupidity in general is vanity, right?
To me, this is one of the big tests of intelligence is humility.
And I don't care fundamentally what someone scores in an IQ test.
If they're not humble, they're an idiot.
And one of the things that's true, sort of bouncing back to race for a moment, is that when...
Blacks are tested for self-esteem.
Their self-esteem is through the roof.
I'm thinking of that...
Ridiculously great and catchy song, Uptown Funk, by someone, I don't care who, and the incredibly talented and charismatic and great dancer Bruno Mars.
I'm so pretty, I kiss myself.
And when blacks are given tests to rate their own abilities, they rate their own abilities through the roof.
So is this the...
And this is true even if they know they're scoring lower than other ethnic groups, like than whites.
They rate their own abilities through the roof.
And so if you are less intelligent, which according to the IQ test the average American black is, but you rate yourself extraordinarily high, it's unbelievably frustrating when you don't succeed.
Because you don't have...
And then you've got a whole society telling you that it doesn't matter.
You're equal.
It's only racism that's holding you back.
It sets you up for even more failure.
Right.
Oh, yeah.
No, and rather than going to blacks and saying, well, we've got to end the welfare state because that's really not helping the old IQ bandwagon, and you've all got to start valuing intelligence over swagger.
Right?
I mean, that's sort of the dark side of uptown funk.
You know, I hate to sort of analyze a video, and I'm not going to spend much time on it, but I've watched it a few times just because the guys in it are so charismatic and so great at what they do, and it is a fantastic song.
But...
At the beginning, you know, there are these guys all decked out like pimps, and they're in some hoodlum-based street corner, and it's like, and what do these guys do for a living?
Exactly, because I don't know any job outside of illegal ones that requires that outfit.
And so, and you know, when he's like, Julio, get the stretch!
It's like, how are you paying for this stretch exactly?
Because...
You basically all just look like hoodlums and pimps.
And that to me is sort of the chilling aspect, that this swagger, this confidence, this hyper-sexualized king-dick confidence, or what they used to call on Wall Street the big swinging dicks, like the guys who could make the giant trades and not sweat it and so on.
That valuation of confidence in minority communities, of swagger over substance, over intelligence, over education, over achievement.
That, of course, is a huge problem and one of the cultural offshoots of the welfare state.
You can pursue someone for swagger if you don't need them for resources.
If women don't have the welfare state and the welfare state as a whole buffering them up, they have to start going for guys who have resources and the guys who have the most resources are the smartest guys.
And this is the crippling dysgenic that is occurring in all sections of society but amongst illegal immigrants and blacks in particular because they have the highest consumption of welfare and therefore it is the most strongly dysgenic because they're going for swagger.
Over intelligence.
And swagger is inversely associated with intelligence.
This braggadocio, this I'm king of the world, baby, I'm the best.
And if you listen to a lot of rap lyrics, a lot of them are, and this comes, as Tom Sowell, the economist, has pointed out, out of sort of Welsh culture and southern Scottish, northern English culture.
The swagger is part of it.
Like, basically, I'm the best there ever was.
And the Muhammad Ali swagger and this trash talking and so on.
It shows verbal fluidity and extreme grandiosity.
And if you think about the average rap battle and how high on themselves these guys are, and imagine them, I don't know, Working a shift at McDonald's, which is not, I'm not saying that's where they're destined.
I mean, I worked in restaurants for years when I was a teenager, but that's not, you know, I'm the best friend I cooked.
You know, it's just not going to work out that well.
So this humility, when you're really smart, you recognize how tiny your intelligence is in the field of human accomplishment.
Now, that doesn't mean you can't do great things.
That's certainly my goal and my aim.
But thinking that you're the greatest, When you're standing on a street corner with no identified means of employment, staring at women, I don't know, it just seems kind of weird.
Sorry, what were you going to say?
And what happens is it becomes, people do what works.
Everybody's like, oh, why do these men show their abs and send dick pics and stuff?
It's obviously working somewhere for somebody.
And who gets hurt the most in this Bruno Mars video that you're talking about?
Is the virtuous or the moral or the intelligent person that's in that ecosystem there that's not being able to mate and who is falling in the shadows because that's not what people are picking.
They're not looking for the guy that could pick resources because they already have resources so they can just go for the looks like you're saying, the swag.
And the attitude.
It's the upfront, the quick fix, the instant gratification without any long-term planning or need because if you fall, you'll just get picked back up by them stealing money from somebody and handing it to you in a check and you have to work every four years for a vote and you're all set and we'll do it all over again and keep breeding people in this manner.
And I know it gets really sad.
This is why this is such an emotional situation.
Topic for me at times because there is a lot of individuals that are getting hurt and held back and trapped in these situations because of the amount of money, time, sophistry, race baiters that are all pushing them down.
How would you like to get up every day and have somebody say, you're not making it because of this person.
You're not doing it because you're this.
You're not doing it.
They're the ones that are actually Being bigoted towards these individuals and holding their success back through bribery, through propping up these individuals that are doing the wrong things in the society.
And then it's a great crutch because they can say, see, I told you, come back to us and we'll help you.
And they can pretty much perpetuate more voters and more people falling into this vicious cycle.
Yeah, I think without a doubt, and this is true across American society, but if I would have really concentrated into a bite-sized morsel, blacks are...
Vote crops on the Democrat plantation.
That's all they're dealt with as just, we'll pander to you, we won't tell you anything that upsets you, we'll tell you you're the best, we'll tell you that whites are your enemies, we'll tell you that the society is racist, and that you're exactly the same as everyone else, and the only reason you're doing badly is because of racism.
They won't challenge these people, because otherwise they won't get the vote.
And that is using people in a way that makes prostitution look positively benign.
Shit.
It makes extracting people's organs while they're passed out at a party look benign.
Because the amount of human destruction that is wrought by this rampant falsification of reality for vote-buying of vanity is...
The human destruction is absolutely staggering.
And it's hard to even measure...
Just how catastrophic.
Because what it also does is it brings the most able and intelligent of minority people into this weird soon-to-be-ended vortex of social justice warrior stances when they could actually be doing other things for their community, like starting businesses, like starting colleges that can really help.
like starting a bank, like whatever it is and loaning if they want, right?
So instead of all of that, what they do is they get signs and they get the signs and they chant mindless slogans and they create Black Lives Movements Matters which come out of the Michael Brown incident where basically it was a thug who strong-arm robbed someone and then tried to beat up a cop and then tried to charge a cop and the cop had his gun drawn what they do is they get signs and they get the Basically, it was a thug who strong-armed robbed someone and then tried to beat up a cop and then tried to charge a cop when the cop had his gun drawn.
I mean, that's, you know, I mean, that's just a stupid series of decisions that only make sense to somebody who probably is not exactly on the highest part of the IQ chart.
And so you end up, there's this giant sucking sound as the most verbally agile and intelligent blacks end up being drawn into this vortex of social justice warriors where they get well paid to act as further brakes on any potential achievement within their own communities and to turn their own communities against the dominant society that they live in.
You know, one of the signs of intelligence is adapting to Your environment.
Well, you try to adapt your environment to you, but if that doesn't work, you adapt to your environment.
So if I'm not that smart, I'm gonna move to Japan and just drum my fingers till everyone learns English.
Whereas if I am smart, I'm gonna move to Japan I'm not sure.
But he said, look, just learn Japanese.
Learn English.
Learn English.
Learn it well.
And the gates of paradise are thrown open to you in America.
Don't learn English and you're going to get stuck.
And of course, everyone's like...
Well, I guess what they're hoping, of course, now that whites are down to below 70% of the population, soon it's going to be press 7 for English and there'll be nothing left but the Tower of Babel of economic decay.
Well, it works both with females as well, this whole new Tumblr situation that's coming out of the colleges.
And Christina Hoff Summers mentioned this recently about the stem cells, I'm sorry, the stem fields, where you have females going for women's studies.
You have blacks going into school studying black history, which is great if that's what you want to learn as a hobby.
It's a hobby.
But don't come out and say, well, I went to school for women's studies and there's no women scientists.
Why didn't you go to school to become a woman scientist then?
Because you didn't want to.
That's tough.
That's hard.
That's hard.
And not only that, is the money handed to them for free now, or will be if it's not subsidized already.
So they're going to perpetuate more of this.
And really, they're just paying for more people, like you said, to fight against the community and hold it down.
So then they don't have to work as hard.
They already have a built-in set of I hate to go back to your one-hit wonders, but a group of cows attacking another group of cows in this situation, so it's a lot less work for them to keep everybody under control.
So they don't have to have as many people go out and cause issues, you know, even though the guys in blue costumes have been doing quite a bit of that lately, but you have your own people turning against you, whether it's instead of having the unity of a man and a woman, that two people that have to work together to build a family and build a community, They tear you apart and tell the other person there's an enemy and there's this void that you need to fill.
And who's going to come along and help you?
Well, here you go.
Here we go.
It's a check.
It's a caudal.
It's a take women's studies and everything will be okay.
It's not your fault.
Men are evil.
Men are trying to rape you.
Get away from men.
The state will take care of you.
And I think it just perpetuates that in the children, because the children grow up, they're smarter, they see what's going on, and you have generation and generation built on top of this in the opposite direction of where we're trying to go.
Well, can you imagine, to return to Star Wars for a second, can you imagine, because the only fathers who seem to get killed are white fathers, Like with monotonous regularity.
White father?
Why are all these lasers on my forehead?
Right?
And can you imagine if it was any other group?
Let's say that black women got killed with the regularity the white father is doing this.
I mean, everyone would be going mental.
Because if you need a villain, he has to be a white male.
Bonus points for a smoker, right?
But the white males have just become the go-to for villains.
The white males have become...
To the media what Indians were to the spaghetti westerns made in the 50s.
I mean, they're just the stark villains.
And it's a problem, you know.
But this is natural.
When you want to prey upon people, you first have to demonize them.
You have to dehumanize them in order to prey upon them.
There's no, you know, if you want to be a human trafficker, you can't have a lot of empathy for your cargo.
Otherwise, that's not really the job for you.
But it's, you know, I really, really believe that this is the end.
We're in the end times of all this stuff.
It's why I'm not, you know, I'll continue to expose the truth about this sort of scientific reality to get the experts on.
But as far as, you know, raging, it's like, you know, it's all ending anyway, right?
Like if you can get the social justice warrior, the social justice warrior phenomenon is fantastic for governments.
Because there's a few plum positions for people who make it through.
Right, so you can go and get a job as a professor, I guess, at Mizzou or whatever, the University of Missouri.
You can go and get these jobs as, you know, some feminist maven or some black activist or whoever it is going to be, right?
You can go.
And a few people, like maybe one out of a hundred of the people who started these courses, end up with these plum jobs.
And that's sort of the carrot that everyone's charging towards.
Now, if you get these plum jobs, of course, you want the government to continue to subsidize the entire university curriculum that you're teaching because there's fuck-all value of it in the free market.
I mean, there's a little bit, a little bit, right?
I mean, you know, sure, I think blacks should learn black history if they want, right?
Fine.
Of course, it's never a good...
If I were to say I want to do a course on white history, I guess they'd say, well, that's all history, you know, right?
But, so, yeah, if you want to go learn black history and if you want to do a podcast on black history, fantastic.
You know, I'm sure that there are things in black...
in history, the history of blacks that are overlooked by Eurocentric civilizations.
And you say Eurocentric like that's bad.
Wow, Europeans interested in Europeans.
I've never seen blacks ever be focused on their own group's interests or Asians or anything.
Of course, right?
Of course.
So you get these few plum positions that everyone's charging towards, and if they get those positions, then they absolutely are going to scream bloody murder if government subsidies are ever taken away.
Because people who hate the free market Hate one thing and one thing only.
And it's the same thing that people passing off fake diamonds as real diamonds hate.
And that's a genuine appraisal.
The free market will give you a genuine, honest-to-goodness, unbiased, objective, voluntary appraisal.
You think you're so good looking?
Go try be a model.
Think you're a great singer?
Go try fill a concert hall.
Think you're a great songwriter?
Go play a couple of cafes.
And I don't say anything.
Yeah, go and see.
Oh, if I think I'm really good at ideas, why don't I start a podcast?
Okay, we're doing it.
We're doing it, right?
Yes.
And I think the market is responding very positively.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
You are the market.
But...
What people hate about the free market is the free market is not open to their tantrums.
In fact, tantrums pretty much strongly discouraged in the free market.
Try pulling a tantrum at work and you'll just be sent home.
And if you do it again, you'll just be fired.
Right?
So, people hate the free market because they don't want an honest, voluntary evaluation.
Of their contributions to society.
You know, people are, I'm a community organizer.
It's like, well, if you care about the community, why don't you let the freaking community tell you how valuable you are voluntarily?
And that is something so fundamental that it's hard for people to understand.
That if you rail against the free market, you just don't want an honest price tag on what it is that you do.
My daughter wants to sell her her pictures.
I think I could charge $5 for them.
And I said, hey, everybody would love to spend 10 minutes making a picture and sell it for $5.
If you can do it, more power to you.
I said, I'm suspicious that you can.
And what happens is that if you can't sell it for $5, you either need to make better paintings or drop your price until you sell it.
And that's, you know, I'm not going to go and pretend to buy them because that's, I just wanted to mention a little joke that she made.
We went, she's so funny, we went to bargaining today, which is for those who don't live up here, icy death hill.
Sled, well greased, and approximately Mach 3, 3 1⁄2 I think we clocked at this one.
And we were standing and there's a big swirling, looks like a tornado, of geese.
Now geese normally fly in this V formation, right?
That's I guess it's someone's in the lead and they get some slipstream effect like bicyclists or whatever.
But they're just like hundreds and hundreds swirling around like this big tornado.
And she's like, I can't believe those geese don't even know how to spell the letter V. So, for all the people who can get to these little plum positions, well, they're totally state dedicated.
To all the people who try and fail, right?
They've dropped 40 or 50k at least, or 60 or 70k more likely into this, and they're in debt and so on.
And the free market is like, I don't know how your degree in...
Women's black lesbian history is going to help you make these French fries.
Rainbow Spotting 101.
Yeah, then, you know, how...
You're not going to be able to make the money to pay off your debt.
Plus, you know, and I don't want to speak for white people, of course, right?
I only speak for bald people and only the spotty ones.
But I got to think...
If you are a white manager and some black guy comes in who's just taken a whole course in black history and black power and so on, are you looking forward to a comfortable and relaxed work environment?
You've got to think that you're not going to look forward to a comfortable and relaxed work environment.
Like that crazy bastard who shot up the reporters, Vester Flanagan, I think his name was.
Boy, there's a man.
Dylann Roof, eight seconds till his manifesto is made public.
You're not finding out a lot about that guy's manifesto, are you?
Well, Vestra Flanagan, you know, somebody said, oh, these reporters are out in the field, and he got really upset because he thought out in the field like slaves, like plantation field, like, you know, he got really, you know, somebody brought a watermelon to work and he thought it was a racial gesture.
It's like, so some guy comes in to work for your, I don't know, company doing X, Y, or Z, and he's got a graduate degree in black grievances.
It's like, oh, you know, it could be a little stressful.
Yeah.
So you either get the people who get these plum positions or you have a whole bunch of people in debt who need the government to bail them out because the actual market value of their degree is not high.
And listen, I mean, there's no doubt.
I mean, I say this from experience, right?
A graduate degree in history.
And holy crap.
I mean, it was professor or bust.
That's the only career path.
I remember a friend of mine who's an economist was saying, you know, if you get your PhD in economics, there's a lot of things you can do.
But if you get your PhD in history, if you're not a professor, what are you?
And that was a very, very good point.
And it had something to do with me moving more towards the free market as an entrepreneur because I wanted to have an honest evaluation of my value.
And I get that Every day or every month with donations.
And so, yeah, the people who hate the free market, they don't want their value to be judged, to be established.
Like the vainglorious guy who thinks he's just so smart.
Does he actually want to apply to graduate school?
Does he even want an IQ test?
I don't know.
So...
Yeah, that's foundational to this.
The hostility towards the free market combined with the parasitism upon others does create a very unstable environment.
But it's, you know, government's running out of money and it's all going to start readjusting itself.
And there'll be a lot of turmoil and there'll be a lot of upset and so on.
But, you know, the further you deviate from reality, you know, you get a snapback.
You know, it's like when my daughter was young and she was playing with elastics.
Look how far I can stretch it.
It's like...
Stretching it out, I got no problem with.
Snapping back, you might have a problem with.
And I sort of demonstrated to her lightly against her arm.
And she's like, ah, okay.
Further you stretch.
When you start talking about financial collapses and all this stuff, and people are like, how come you're not stressed anymore?
Because you can't outrun reality.
If I'm correct, and we're correct in our analysis of how far we've come off course...
It's reality is going to come back to haunt you.
Eventually, it's going to readjust.
Unfortunately, for a lot of people, when that happens, and these are mostly the people that are feeding off the system right now, that's going to be a very difficult switch for them.
Is it unfortunate?
Well, I would say for them it is.
It's not for me.
Because in the short term...
No, unfortunate is one of these...
Hang on, hang on.
So, unfortunate is one of these terms that elicit sympathy.
Unfortunately, a meteor hit my car.
That is unfortunate.
I don't know that it's unfortunate in the way that you would suggest.
I'm not saying it's a great thing or anything, but I don't know that it's unfortunate.
In the long term, it'll be a positive effect for the future.
But in the meantime, you're going to go have a lot of unfortunate pain as far as I'm concerned.
I still have some empathy for individuals.
Wait!
You're a white male.
Am I going out on a limb here?
I'm a Mesopotamian, but no, yes, I'm a white male.
Okay, you're a white male.
I don't know about the Mesopotamian.
I'm just kidding.
So you're a white male.
I'm Greek, so I... Okay, good, good.
So, talking to the bloodline of the origins of philosophy, I feel a good connection, brother.
I feel it in my genes.
So, how many, how many, how much sympathy have you received as a white male from these groups, or from these people?
Understood.
I'm not going to...
Answer the question, please.
Not much.
Not much.
So, a little bit?
A little bit of sympathy?
Some.
On an individual level, but not on a collective level.
And what kind of sympathy do you receive?
Do people say, wow, I'm really sorry about the degree to which you as a white male are continually attacked in the...
In the media and how nobody ever takes your side and how you're never allowed to advocate for your own group without being called a white nationalist, supremacist, Nazi, racist, Hitler.
Not from strangers, but from people that I've moved towards that I share these ideas with.
Okay, well people you share the ideas with, that's not empathy, that's camaraderie.
You know, as a communist, I find other communists are quite pro-communists with my communism.
Okay, I get that.
What I'm talking about is society as a whole.
Have you received any empathy?
So for instance, according to the narrative of feminism, there was this patriarchy, and the patriarchy is now under threat and under attack.
And is there any sympathy for the supposed loss of all these patriarchal powers that men have used so gloriously to adapt the world to their own power and survival?
I've not seen any people who say, well, you know, men had it really patriarchal and powerful for a long time.
That power has been taken away.
You know, here's some puppies.
Here's a hug room.
We understand.
It's difficult.
So what can we do to help ease the transition?
Isn't it all like, fuck them.
They're getting what they, you know, you reap what you sow, you white privileged bastards, right?
This is an extreme example, but there was a Black Lives Movement rally where a bunch of blacks surrounded this white woman and screamed at her until she cried.
They literally said, fuck your white tears.
That's the mob mentality, the ignorant mob mentality.
If you can tell me, maybe I've missed it.
And I'm, you know, very open to new evidence and new data.
And people say, well, Steph's changed his mind on this.
It's like, yeah, there's new data.
What do you do with new data?
Ignore it, right?
And so when you say it's unfortunate, that is an empathy-inducing statement.
And so, if you feel empathy towards the people who are going to be harmed by this dislocation of whatever is coming, by the end of stolen money, because that's all it is.
It's the end of stolen money.
You know, these people are like the gangster's wife, the gangster goes to jail, and she's got to get a job.
Is that unfortunate?
Well, you married a violent asshole, and that violent asshole can no longer provide you the stolen money.
Like, these people are gangsters' wives!
Understood on a collective level.
No, seriously, because they married a violent arsehole called the state.
But let me ask you this, Stefan.
And when the state runs out of stolen money, I don't think it's unfortunate.
So, you have a gangster's wife and a gangster, and a third gangster comes in and shoots up the whole house, and a child gets killed.
Obviously, you can have some empathy for that child because they've got caught up in between the collective of that mafia.
But that individual had nothing to do with what happened.
Wait, hang on.
Are you switching to kids now?
No, I'm switching to bystanders.
No, we weren't talking.
Don't you pull the beardless switch on me, brother.
We were talking about adults.
You can't say, well, there's a kid involved.
That's a different conversation.
Well, you brought it to a family level.
No, no, no.
I said a husband and wife.
I never said anything about kids.
But that's what I'm saying.
So you're breaking...
No, no, no.
Kids are a separate question.
We're talking about people who are adults who are dependent on the system.
Understood.
So on a collective level, no, I have not seen any empathy from adults in the media, from collectives, from boards, from forums, from movies, any of that stuff.
But...
There is, and I know this is the exception to the rule, what I'm saying is I'm sure there's some individuals that are going to get caught up in the crossfire, just as vice versa, not everybody that's on the other end of the free market is going to be non-corruptible and should be praised on the like side.
There is actually some white racist guys out there that don't fit into the collective of us who want people to have equal freedoms and stuff.
There is some people that actually do want to hold people back.
And I know this would adjust in a free market, but I'm saying on a collective level, no, I haven't felt empathy, but I can still see that there's going to be some people that are fighting.
They're like, I don't want welfare.
I want out of here.
I want to get out of the system.
I'm trying to move out of here, but I can't see my kid.
I'm trying to sign these forms, and they can't get out of the situation that they're in.
They can't cross a border.
They can't get out of that situation.
There's going to be Some casualties of people that are trying to fight towards individuality and the free market that are going to get hurt in this stuff.
And for those people, I do have empathy for.
And how are you going to know who they are?
Because everyone's going to pretend to be those people.
Understood.
And I'm not going to know, Stefan, until it gets...
So it can't be applied to any individual.
It's going to be applied on the individual level afterwards.
Yes, you're correct.
And I'm telling you, we'll get to kids in a second, but I'm telling you this because I believe that pathological altruism is the downfall of civilization.
So I'm sorry if I'm sort of pushing an agenda here, but I'm really trying to push back against, there's this natural inclination that white people have to say, well, you know, it's going to be difficult, it's going to be very tough, and I'm going to have sympathy for these people, and so on.
And it's like, I think that we have to repay like with like.
It's not that I don't want to have sympathy.
I'm going to have as much sympathy for other groups and other people as they've had for me.
But if you put them on a collective level, don't you think that's kind of moving towards what government wants and away from what we're looking for, which is looking at people at the individual level?
The micro versus macro?
So are you saying that, let's just take a...
somebody who has...
I'm trying to think of a good example.
It doesn't involve kids.
We'll get to kids.
I'm not just going to blow past that.
I wasn't trying to do an emotional breakdown.
I'm just thinking of a family struggle.
So let's say someone who has made a career out of promoting the institutionalized racism called anti-whiteness, right?
Whites are racist.
You don't have to prove any racism in a white person because to be white is to be racist.
In other words, they're trying to oppose racism by striving negative characteristics to white people and they're trying to oppose sexism by only usually applying it to males, right?
So if somebody's made a career out of this and the government runs out of money and they have to get a real job, do you think that's unfortunate?
I do not.
Okay, so give me a situation where it is genuinely unfortunate that the government has run out of stolen money to give to people.
No, that part I don't think is unfortunate.
It is a huge relief.
It is a huge relief.
It's not unfortunate if the cocaine addict can't get his next hit.
Agreed.
What I'm talking about is on the individual level, the people that are trying to escape from the welfare cliff, they're trying to get out of these programs, they're trying to move.
If violence were to strike, They don't have the availability to be mobile because of interference from this government state.
And it is going to be unfortunate for those individuals.
So give me a concrete example.
Well, I'm going to get into the personal stories.
But let's just say I've known people who've been on welfare.
And I don't know what it means to say, to try and get out of these programs.
You get a job and you stop taking welfare.
This is not like trying to break out of Alcatraz.
This is not the great escape.
You don't have to like dig tunnels under the ground and pour sand out of your pockets in a German sharpshooter yard.
You just got to get a job and stop taking welfare.
I don't know.
It becomes more and more difficult.
So I don't have a lot of empathy for people that go into this knowingness and coming out, but say you've, and it's difficult, say you've built a whole life, a family structure for yourself, for your family, for your kids, for your community, for 30 years, and then all of a sudden you realize, wow, I fucked up.
I headed in the total wrong direction.
And now you want to turn around and you want to, and I remember you might have had, I think you had a Christian caller that went atheist that went through this with his family.
He wanted to turn around and make the other direction.
And now he's got a whole bunch of people that he wants to talk to in that community and say, look, like, I love you and I love the kids and I want to move in this other direction.
And they're like, no, we just moved 30 years in this particular direction.
And now that you have new information, That maybe wasn't available, or you didn't learn, or you didn't know, or you had that aha moment, that wake-up moment, and now you've got to turn around and face all that, but you're deep in the belly of the beast now, and you're looking at that light through all the garbage that you've built up around you.
I know that those individuals had choices, and they had freedom of choice, but in some of these areas, the information is controlled, so they can't get it to a certain extent.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hang on, hang on.
Internet?
Obamaphones?
Free data plans?
What do you mean they can't get the information?
So, you can get information I know that they have Obama phones.
I know that they have a public library that you could get to.
So now they would have to be in that program.
And those programs aren't going to...
I'm not making excuses for them.
I'm saying they finally wake up and they understand.
They do get this information and they wake up.
It's just that they've been...
Clogged up in a system.
I'm not blaming the system.
I know the individual has choice, but a lot of times you get on this conveyor belt, and I did it when I was younger.
When you're getting off that conveyor belt and you're pushing through people, everybody's trying to push you back into that mold.
And you are deep in that system and emotionally it's difficult.
Before we had the internet and I told the story, I felt very alone, very scared, very backed into a corner.
And people made me feel crazy, insane.
They were like, no, you're wrong.
Why are you thinking these things?
It wasn't until...
I was able to find like-minded people and share thoughts.
So 20 years!
We've had 20 years of the internet at least.
Understood.
But not every area has this technology at its fingertips.
I'm not making excuses for everybody.
Public libraries?
Dude, come on.
This is not the Middle Ages.
You don't have to be like speaking Latin to learn the Bible.
I'm not making excuses for everybody.
I'm not saying that if Barack Obama tomorrow says, you know what, I'm sorry, don't hurt me.
I was just making my way.
Obviously, he knows what he's doing and he has some idea.
I know some of these people know what they're doing.
I'm talking about...
There is people that try and dig themselves out of these holes, but if you're so far in, what if you wake up, I know that you made choices, bad decisions, and now you want to turn around and make good decisions, and you're like, okay, I'm a single mother with three children, I'm on welfare, and I work part-time, and I want off welfare tomorrow.
First of all, if she's on welfare, the odds that she's working part-time are virtually nil.
Because they'll just take all her money.
Yes.
So she's like, okay, I'm getting this much subsidies.
I need to go find a $60,000 a year job plus whatever.
She's fucked.
She's not going to be able to do that.
She's too entrenched into the system.
So even if she wants to turn around, granted, she can now go to charity.
She can go to family.
She can go to church.
No, she can be such a great partner that she can get a man.
Correct.
And now...
Now listen, listen.
Okay, let me just push back on this a little and I think I gave you some good elbow room to talk.
So, you know, when I was in the 90s, right, I got into IT and all that and I got out of it in the late 90s and there was a huge IT crash.
Was there a lot of sympathy for white and Asian male computer people who in general was white and Asian computer people and mostly men, right?
Was there a lot of sympathy for...
These people, did you hear these, did you read these hand-wringing articles about how these people have made their entire life plans and invested in their education and so on and there's another tech crash and they can't get work?
On a collective level, no, but on an individual level, yes.
Maybe it's because I'm a white male and I had family members and stuff in...
No, I'm not talking about family.
I'm not talking about family.
I'm talking about science.
No, on a collective level, I did not, no.
No.
Now, manufacturing jobs...
have completely collapsed.
In the United States for the last 10 years, they've lost like 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month, not a year, a month.
And it's a result in evisceration of blue-collar, largely white workers, although to some degree black workers in, and this, but they're men, male jobs, right?
Have you noticed a lot of outpouring of sympathy for the significant population of white males and black males who've lost manufacturing opportunities?
In the media, in societal, in the restructuring?
No, I haven't.
On the collective level.
Okay, so I'm just saying, deal back what you've been dealt.
That's justice.
Justice is treating people the way they treat you.
And if you've not received any empathy or sympathy for yourself, despite the trials and tribulations that go along with being a male, being castigated, being white, and so on, I'm not sure why you would come up with this cloudy, it's unfortunate, and empathy.
Can I give you another example?
Yes, but I just want to say, I'm not saying if the government were to collapse tomorrow, that everybody feeding in Congress, and I wouldn't be poor Nancy Pelosi.
I would say, you know, fuck them.
They made their bed and now lie.
What I'm talking about, there is going to be casualties in the wake of that, and those individuals...
That would get help, that would seek out help.
It would be difficult.
This is why private charity is so difficult.
It would be very difficult to weed those individuals out of the masses, of these collectives.
Right, so if a crime family goes to jail, there are people who miss the income.
I get it.
And there is going to be individuals that will lie and will be like, oh, you know, I'm glad this is over and I need your help.
And they'll have to be weeded out.
There will be some people that have just changed.
They're like, okay, now we have to go.
Beg the productive people again for money because they're not stealing it for us.
We have to either manipulate it ourselves or steal it ourselves now, which is a pain in the ass.
I know there will be those, but there will be people that will immediately want to get into the free market but be so trapped from past choices.
Oh my god, no, you don't understand what happens with these situations.
I'm so sorry to be annoying.
I've got to interrupt you.
You don't understand why I'm pushing for this.
There will be violence.
Yes, I agree.
And if you are, well, there's unfortunate and empathy and sympathy.
How's that going to work out?
Oh, I think we're misunderstanding where my empathy lies, because I'm not going to be like, oh, let me just check with this guy running at me with a machete.
No, I'm not talking about you individually.
There are going to be riots, and there are going to be like L.A. style, like if the welfare run out, right?
Yes.
There are going to be significant riots that are going to lay waste to entire neighborhoods.
And I'm simply speaking from a statist mainstream perspective.
Either those riots are going to be put down or they're not.
Now, if the riots are not put down, the riots will spread and increase.
That's the way riots work.
I mean, that's the way it works.
And all of this shit that we see going on in the campus these days is the result of administrators not putting down riots in the 1960s.
This is what has caused all of this festering destruction and decay of higher education.
And so...
In the Rodney King thing, some, and I've done a whole video on this and podcast on this, so I won't go into the details now, but this was a textbook case of reasonable escalation of force according to police laws against Rodney King, who was high and acting in strange and dangerous ways towards cops.
And they beat him until he submitted, and then they stopped beating him.
And then when those officers were acquitted, there were riots that caused the deaths of hundreds of people and billions and billions of property victims.
turned into a feral zoo for days.
Yes.
Now, either these riots are going to be put down, in other words, force is going to be applied until the rioters stop rioting, or there's going to be this misplaced empathy and sympathy and oh, poor dears, and it's unfortunate and they've got a perspective and poor dears, and it's unfortunate and they've got a perspective and they've got a point, in which case it's going to cost a lot of people their lives and a lot of people their property or I would agree with the mob, So I have no empathy for that mob.
But the store owner that owns the convenience store that gets trashed and it gets burnt down, that's trying to make something out of itself, that's in the wake of that riot, I do have empathy for that person.
They've gotten trapped.
Okay, then you can't have empathy for everyone else who's rioting.
That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, and I'm not saying that I do.
I'm saying there's going to be people caught in the wake of this that it's unfortunate that they are.
I don't have The people that are feeding off this when the money train runs out, I don't have empathy for those people.
Those are thieves and they can ask for forgiveness in the future and get back into society and show that they've changed their ways.
But there is people that were trying to fight their way out that are living in Detroit.
Okay, I can't hear that story again.
Okay, some people theoretically are trying to fight their way out.
You have sympathy for those people.
But not people you've identified.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over.
I don't have to identify.
So say a mob Rips through this riot and they tear apart a convenience store.
Do you say fuck that guy in the convenience store or you say fuck the mob?
What are you talking about?
The guy from the convenience store is not on welfare.
He's not taking money from the government.
What are you talking about?
I have empathy for him when this stuff hits the fan because he's going to be in the wake.
But we're not talking about people who are productive and helpful members of society.
I'm not talking about those people.
I'm talking about the people who are dependent on stolen government money.
That guy's not dependent on stolen government money.
He's not even who we're talking about.
That's who I'm talking about.
I've already agreed that with the collective part of it, I understand, but there's going to be individuals in the wake that get To get damaged.
I think we're in agreeance here, Stefan, of where the empathy should be.
No, because you were originally talking about people trying to get out from under welfare.
Now you're switching it to people running convenience stores.
They're not the same category.
So don't tell me we agree when you're switching your story.
No, I understand.
I'm switching the story now because we've gone through a lot of the story.
But there is people that are getting caught up When this shit hits the fan, if it does happen and chaos ensues, and you're in transitional phase of any point or you're already trying to, you know, is that guy who runs a convenience store in the middle of Baltimore when it riots, is he at fault?
Should he have had his convenience store?
Okay, but look, dude, the fact that you're changing a category without acknowledgments is kind of Weasley.
You started talking about single moms, people on welfare, their kids, and now you're talking about someone running a convenience store.
That is a switcheroo, and that's not fair.
I'll go back to the single mother then, if we want to go back to that topic.
I'm not saying the single mom that's collecting welfare today, she's working off the system and it claps tomorrow, that it's unfortunate for her that the money ran out.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying on the collective that any of these people attacking me on the collective level, they didn't go through and say, okay, these poor people here, these poor people here, collectively giving empathy.
There is going to be casualties when this happens of individuals that are caught in the middle, and I will have empathy for those people.
I don't think there's anything wrong for that.
that.
I'm not saying that I'm going to have empathy for the rioters, the looters.
Okay, the fact that you haven't apologized for switching categories means I'm not going to continue this part of the conversation because you're just saying the same thing again.
I do want to just finish up though with a little speech about kids because this is of course where the greatest case elected weakness is, is around the question of children.
So let me just finish up and move on to the next caller and I do appreciate the conversation.
No, I think it's been a pleasure.
No, let me, I'm going to take over this part now because, um, so when it comes to kids, right, this is the great, oh, you know, the single mom and she's got, uh, she's got kids.
And so the Well, the question is, if I had a son, this would be one of the accursed and spat-upon white males.
This would be the white male in society.
And I had a son.
Now, my son would likely go to a very gynocentric matriarchy of a school, right?
Particularly when he was younger, right?
Around the teens, so he might get some male teachers, but it's like 98% female in the primary school, primary schools, and certainly the daycares.
Having worked in a daycare for many years, it's a lot of, a lot of ladies, and some not-so-ladies.
What would be communicated to my son?
Well, what would be communicated to my son by society as a whole would be that he was part of a racist patriarchy, that he was privileged, and that he was less intelligent than the girls around him.
Because the studies have shown that when usually a female primary school teacher thinks that it's a girl's work, she marks it higher than when the exact same work is handed in and she thinks it's a boy.
So, for my son, how much empathy would there have been in society?
Or is there currently in society?
Should I have had?
I'm going to finish this part.
How much empathy would there be in society for my son?
How much empathy does society have for my son?
Now, what about antidepressants?
Or, sorry, SSRIs and so on is probably a better way of putting it.
So, the rates of antidepressants for whites is far higher than for blacks and Mexican Americans.
14% of non-Hispanic whites take antidepressants, 4% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 3% of Mexican Americans.
This is 2011.
20% of white boys in the 5th grade in 1995-1996 were receiving prescription drugs for ADHD. By the time they reach high school, nearly 20% of all American boys will be diagnosed with ADHD, which is, according to some, a pretty fictitious illness, the medication of which causes shrinkage in the brain.
6.4 million children between the ages of 4 and 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD by high school, nearly 20% of all boys, a 37% increase since 2003.
Boys are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed as girls.
And...
Caucasians or whites are more than one and a half times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants.
And...
What's going on with society's empathy for my son?
Because if people say, well, you got to have empathy for their kids, I'm going to say, well, do they have empathy for my kids?
Is there a big movement in society to bring the plight of over-medicated with children?
Destructive medications for bullshit, what I consider bullshit, non-issues like ADHD. Yeah, can't be that it's all women all the time, which is boring as shit for young boys.
Can't be anything to do with that.
Can't be anything to do with that.
that can't be anything to do with the fact that boys are viewed as defective girls because they learn more kinetically and want to actually get out from behind their chairs and do something other than braid each other's hair and pass gossip notes go out and explore the world and climb trees and learn through doing rather than sitting and listening and slowly inhaling the brain destroying chalk dust of non-education where is the empathy for the children currently being chewed up and destroyed by the system particularly the young white boys Where's the empathy?
Where is the empathy when Christina Hoff Summers writes a book called The War Against Boys?
Where is the feminist taking up that and saying, by God, it's those young children, those young white males, those young white boys are being disproportionately targeted for brain-destroying medications, are being disproportionately targeted for discipline and expulsion.
And we have a system that caters to every conceivable whim of the girls and punishes the boys for being boys.
Where is the empathy for my son?
In this society.
So when people come along and say, well, you've got to have empathy for the kids.
Why?
Why?
Where's the empathy for the children and the sons of white people?
Where is everyone's empathy for our children?
It is nowhere to be seen.
So when people say, well, you know, there's a fall of the welfare state, the government running out of money, all the stolen redistribution and so on is going to stop.
Got to have empathy for the kids.
Sorry.
I pay in the coins I was given.
You pay me in counterfeit coins, I'm not paying you back in real money.
You pay me with pyrite, I ain't paying you back with gold.
You pay me in zirconia, you get zirconia back.
That's justice.
That's philosophy.
Not girly sympathy.
And so when society comes to me and says, but the children of these poor people are going through such difficulties.
Where were you when 20% of boys are being misdiagnosed with ADHD and a lot of them being medicated for that in very toxic and dangerous pseudo-medications?
Where was everyone's sympathy when the boys began falling behind in school?
When male achievement began to fall away and self-destruct from the 80s and 90s onwards?
Where was everyone's sympathy for the white male boys during this time?
Where was everyone's sympathy for the kids who are being terrified with thermageddonites preaching the end of the world because daddy turned on a light and left it running while you went to the beach?
Where's everyone's sympathy for the kids now?
Where's everyone's sympathy for the kids who are inheriting hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities?
Where is everyone's sympathy for the children right now with the shitty schools that they have to live through with the shitty teachers and the massive debts?
Where's everyone's sympathy for the children?
It's nowhere to be seen because children don't exist in people's hearts other than ornaments and things to praise and things to punish and vanity objects.
Where is everyone's sympathy for the kids?
So I gotta tell you, when the shit hits the fan and the government runs out of money and the criminal enterprise redistributionist welfare state hits the slightest and tiniest hiccups and people suddenly wake up and say, oh my goodness, you see, the children mustn't be allowed to suffer.
Where were you when the schools went to hell?
Where were you when the kids were being over-medicated?
Where were you?
Driving up government debt at all levels, giving that Ponzi scheme of shit-baggedness to the kids.
Where were you?
Where were you when the boys were doing badly?
Where were you?
Do you care?
Do you have any legitimate reason or any legitimate claim to care for children?
Bullshit.
I pay in the coin I was given.
Alright, I'm going to move on to the next caller, but thanks so much for your call.
It was a great pleasure.
Thank you.
I had a good time talking to you, Stefan.
Alright, well up next is John.
John wrote in and said, That is from John.
John, I know you're on the left already.
Yes, I am on the left, but I am a left libertarian.
No, no, but I know you're on the left already.
I know you're on the left from the very first sentence of your question.
Yes, but I want to point out how I'm not a stupid democrat who does not take in new information.
I don't believe in PC bullcrap or any of that stuff.
Okay, let me go back to my statement, which you seem to have not have heard.
I know, John, that you're on the left from the very first sentence of your question.
Okay.
How do you think?
Yes.
How do you think I know that?
Well, I said I'm left.
So, you know, I'm left.
No, you didn't say you were leftist in the first sentence.
You said it in the second sentence.
Okay.
Oh, about how you do negative videos.
Okay.
Well, okay, negative is not, right?
I mean, they're either true or they're false.
Negative is a characterization of the videos that has no content but is emotionally manipulative.
And then you say, Steph, you do a lot of negative videos about liberals, Republicans, and everyone you deem to be stupid.
Yes.
That's very...
It's a bullshit statement.
It's very manipulative and it's...
Crappy, right?
So first of all, negative is...
What does that mean?
Oh, you're so negative.
It's like, I don't know.
Is it true or is it false, right?
There's no truth evaluation in this.
And then, everyone I deem to be stupid.
Now, I don't think I've ever done a video where I say, so-and-so is wrong because they're stupid.
Right?
So you're putting me into a category of, I'm just calling people stupid, and that's why my videos are negative, which is a bullshit non-argument.
And it's emotionally manipulative and it's insulting.
And that's how I know you're on the left.
Because that's the left's tactic.
The right have their own tactics, which are bullshit too.
But this is the bullshit tactic on the left.
Is just to create this negative view of someone and to mischaracterize their argument in an insulting way rather than deal with any facts, right?
So if you think that I have videos that are incorrect, why don't you tell me where the videos are incorrect rather than characterizing them as negative and me just calling people stupid, which is not an argument.
Alright, point taken.
So which of my videos that are...
Which of my statements are incorrect that you wanted to correct?
So...
I don't want to go on individual videos and say, okay, this is wrong.
We agree on a lot of different points.
Even in economics.
And I think the most of what we...
No, no, no.
Hang on.
Hang on.
You say that I'm incorrect in my videos.
That's what you imply by calling them negative and saying that I call people stupid.
So, where have I made errors?
This is just how you actually have a civilized discourse, right?
Rather than just insulting people.
Since I've watched your videos, I could say that, you know, that you mischaracterize countries like, you know, Finland and Denmark.
And we could go on for days about how I don't think that high taxes is necessarily a bad thing.
Okay, so hang on.
How do I mischaracterize?
Using the word mischaracterize is not an argument.
Well, you talk about how Scandinavian countries aren't really doing that well.
And I think they are.
And I think you're going on and on about how these countries are eventually going to collapse is incorrect because during the financial crisis You know, Finland, Denmark did a lot better than countries that were actually more right-wing.
So, you know, sometimes I don't quite get why you were saying things like, oh, you know, welfare states.
Not, you know, Greece, because that's not a welfare state, but Denmark.
How is Denmark doing so horribly?
You did a whole video about how...
Okay, so where in the video did I make an incorrect statement?
You're just talking around a bunch of stuff and making a bunch of noise.
Where in the video did I make an incorrect statement?
Well, your point in the video was that...
It's a long time since I saw that particular video, so bear with me.
And you can remind me...
Because you're the one who did the video, so you're the expert.
So, in the video, you were talking about how we're gonna run out of other people's money.
The high taxes are working because they're benefiting off of, you know, capitalism in the past and people making money before, and right now they're just using that money from the past and it's eventually gonna run out.
I believe that was your point, correct?
Yeah, so in general, there was some real socialist experiments in the 60s and 70s.
And then later on, a lot of the Scandinavian countries became more free market in many ways than the United States is.
And now that they're swinging back towards their socialist experimentation, there's a lot of stored up value and a lot of vestiges of the free market that is allowing them to spend But it's a result of preying upon past successful free market policies that are, in general, no longer being implemented as much anyway.
And so, do you feel that that's incorrect?
Did I make an incorrect statement regarding the fact that there were more socialist policies in the past or that there was an interim period of more free market policies?
Policies, which I described in significant detail, with sources below the video, or do you disagree that there have been some more socialist-style reforms in these countries?
This is how you actually rebut an argument, just saying, well, you mischaracterized X, Y, and Z. It's not an argument.
You have to say where I've made incorrect statements.
Yes, yes, I agree.
So, I do agree with you on that point.
point, I am just not sure about if these countries are, you know...
See I'm not trying to, you know, look at a certain sentence and say you made a certain error.
The point of this conversation was to talk to you about how left libertarians and right libertarians Can come together.
Wait, hang on, hang on.
Why are we switching topics?
Well, because I'm...
So you said that I... Hang on, hang on.
You kind of insulted me by saying my videos are negative and I just call people stupid.
So I asked you for more detail.
And you brought up a video.
And I asked you for more detail.
And you said...
And then I provided you my argument.
And now you seem to not be able to follow through on that.
Is that because it's harder to actually rebut someone's argument than just characterize their position in a negative light?
No, it's because I need to watch the video again.
No, but you wrote to me and told me that I was wrong and calling people stupid.
And then you said I mischaracterized people's arguments.
So you're putting out very...
John, let me sort of explain.
I'm not trying to be mean here.
I'm just trying to give you a reality check about what it's like being non-John, right?
Being not inside your head.
Is that you made some very serious...
Negative accusations towards my integrity.
Right?
The videos are negative.
Everyone I deem to be stupid, right?
So that makes me sound like I'm just calling people stupid and so on, right?
So that's kind of...
It's very critical of me.
And it's not critical of me like, Steph, you made a mistake or your source was incorrect.
You know, these things happen, right?
And so on, right?
But you're saying that...
There's something very negative about what it is that I'm doing.
And I take that quite seriously.
Like, I don't want to pretend you didn't say that because I'm into listening and having real conversations with people.
So I don't know if you're aware how hostile and critical you're being just in the very first sentence.
Of your communication with me.
I don't know if you're not aware of that or if you're conscious of what you're doing, but I take it quite seriously.
And so I don't want to get onto the argument until you either prove that I do a lot of negative videos about everyone I just deem to be stupid, which is very insulting against me.
You either have to prove that, in which case I have to apologize to the world, or we have to find other ways.
I just don't want to pretend that that first sentence didn't occur, because I take what people write very seriously, particularly the first thing that they say, because first impressions are pretty important.
Yeah, so I take that point, and I think that everything you say when you say people are wrong is It's not so much that you do negative videos, the videos are bad, disagree with all of them.
It's that sometimes when you're arguing with people, you take someone and I feel that you mischaracterize them.
So, you know, I don't necessarily think that all Democrats...
Okay, so that's...
Hang on, hang on.
First of all, hang on, hang on.
First of all, That I mischaracterize someone is not a feeling.
That is a judgment.
Feeling is like mad, sad, bad, and glad, right?
Those are feelings.
Angry is a feeling.
Steph, you mischaracterize someone is not a feeling.
Like if you had a feeling chart that you had to point to, they wouldn't be like bald guy on the internet mischaracterizes someone right next to bemused resignation or something, right?
That's not a feeling.
So the reason you say it's a feeling is so that you can disparage me without having to prove it by pretending it's a feeling.
If you say that I mischaracterize people, then that is a judgment on my intellectual integrity or my ability to process basic information.
Because either I'm mischaracterizing people because I don't understand what they're saying.
Like if somebody gave me a very complicated argument about physics and then...
Two days later somebody asked me to repeat it.
I'd probably get a lot of it wrong because I wouldn't be smart enough or experienced enough or knowledgeable enough to understand this complicated argument about physics.
Or I do understand it, but I'm mischaracterizing it for some dishonest or manipulative emotional or sophistic purpose, right?
To make something appear true that I wanted to appear true or whatever it is, right?
So you can say I feel that you mischaracterize people.
If I mischaracterize people First of all, you need to tell me what that even means.
I'm not even sure what that means.
But then you need to provide evidence.
You can't just say you have a feeling.
You know, it's like me saying, John, I just feel that you're an untrustworthy liar, right?
That's not a feeling.
That's a negative judgment, in which case I need to either prove it or withdraw the accusation and apologize.
So how do I mischaracterize people?
Provide me an example, please.
Okay.
So...
But again, I'm not trying to be mean.
I'm just, you know, I don't want to pretend that...
Yes?
I don't believe so.
He's a democratic socialist.
Yeah, well, I believe you said that he's a commie, he just wanted to give you free stuff.
That was a statement you said.
Was that a joke statement?
Because I don't know in what context I'm saying these things, I can't answer that, right?
Okay, so, okay.
But if I call someone a commie, it doesn't sound like the most recent argument.
Yeah, okay.
So, I don't believe that everyone on the left just wants to give away free stuff, and then everyone who votes for a Democrat just wants free stuff.
And if I said that everyone who votes for a Democrat wants free stuff?
No, though I think you talk about, just now in this conversation, you talk about how people are just trying to buy votes.
They're trying to say, I'll give you free stuff to buy votes.
That's what they're doing, they're buying votes, yes.
Okay.
And I think that in many cases, with corporatist Democrats or status Democrats that are, you know, part of the corrupt system, That don't really want to change the status quo.
They do buy votes.
They say that we want to improve social programs.
I want to end wars.
Basically, Obama.
I think he tried to buy votes.
He didn't believe in half the stuff he was saying.
Or he believed it and then got into office and said, well, I can't change it because I really don't have much power.
I'm just a puppet between other people.
So people like him, yes, I agree with him on that statement.
Though I disagree with some of the characterizations you make with people like that with Bernie Sanders.
Because I believe that he actually believes what he's saying.
So his liberal policies you might think are bad, but he's an honest person who isn't just trying to buy votes.
How do you know that he believes what he says?
Because he hasn't flip-flopped.
He's been saying it for the last 40 years.
So?
Well, let's just put it this way.
I believe that it's more likely, since he's been saying it for so long, he hasn't changed his views, he hasn't flip-flopped like Hillary, like Obama, like most politicians, it's more likely that he actually believes it.
So what you're saying is that somebody who is consistent, it's evidence that they actually believe what they're saying?
Yes.
It's not proof.
No, but it does help someone like me believe in them.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
So if somebody's a consistent racist, you'll believe in them because they haven't changed, they haven't flipped up on a racist.
If someone's a consistent racist, I'll believe they're racist.
If someone's consistently liberal, I'll believe they're liberal.
If someone's, you know, liberal half the time, conservative half the time, then they want me to vote for them.
They say, vote for me, I'm conservative.
I will say, no, you're conservative half the time.
See what I'm saying?
Alright, so you're saying that he doesn't want to just give away free stuff.
So we're going to go on a little journey to BernieSanders.com slash issues.
We're not going to do them all because that's quite a long presentation.
Hang on, hang on.
You had your say.
Now I'm going to give my pushback, right?
So his number one thing is income and wealth inequality, right?
Right.
Yes.
Income and wealth inequality.
Now, do you think that when he talks about income and wealth inequality, that that's wrong and unjust and it's number one issue, do you think that involves the redistribution of some of that income and wealth?
Yes.
Okay, so he is going to be taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, or poorer, right?
Yes.
Okay, so that's giving people free stuff.
Okay, number two issue from Bernie Sanders, it's time to make college tuition free and debt free.
Make tuition free at public colleges and universities, stop the federal government from making a profit on student loans, substantially cut student loan interest rates, and just go on and on and on, right?
Yeah.
And fully paid for by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators, right?
Is that about giving away free stuff?
Um...
Yeah.
In a way, yes.
Another one of his issues is something called a living wage.
A living wage.
Proposed a national $15 per hour minimum wage.
That's what he has sort of proposed.
And so he wants to give money to people who aren't earning what he calls a living wage, right?
Yeah.
Is that about giving away free stuff?
I would say no, but I can believe you could say yes.
Oh, okay.
No, that's worth having a debate.
Okay, so he says, millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages.
We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty.
The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage.
We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
How is that not giving money to people who make less than $15 an hour?
Okay, so...
I believe that people, someone who works full-time, 40 hours a week, should not be in poverty.
And I believe that the welfare state is too strong, in the sense that someone who's on welfare should not...
No, no, hang on, hang on.
I'd love to have that debate, but it's not about giving more money to people.
Yeah, the welfare point is important, though, because if we reduce the welfare and it forces people to work, and they have to, you know, it would...
Actually, it was a debate in England that I heard.
And it was the Conservatives.
It was the Prime Minister of England who said this.
And he said, I want to raise the minimum wage so that someone who's working makes more than people who are on welfare.
And I like that statement.
That's a Conservative statement that he said.
And I believe in that.
I believe that When someone's working, they should make a lot more than someone on welfare.
And right now, someone working at minimum wage doesn't make that much more.
No, I get that.
Why does that have anything to do with forcing employers to pay money they can't afford?
Why not fix the government education system so that people graduate after 12 years of government education with valuable and viable skills so they can make $30 an hour or $50 an hour?
See, for that, I think that, unfortunately, It's unrealistic to believe that everyone can do that.
There's a low IQ. Not everyone's smart enough to do that.
And not everyone has the physical capability to do that.
And we just need a large number of- Wait, wait, hang on.
Hang on.
Sorry, sorry.
One step at a time, man.
You can't just keep going.
I mean, because you're making really big points.
And I'm sorry to keep interrupting.
Go ahead.
So you're saying that there are people who can't earn above poverty because they're not smart enough and they'll never be smart enough.
I'm saying that, yes, there's always going to be someone out there who just isn't, you know, managing material, who can't start calling up the latter.
It's a fact of life.
No, no, no.
We're not talking management.
You're saying that they can't earn more than how much in current dollars.
I'm not putting a value on it.
No, no, you are, because when you talk about living wage, there's a value that's being put on it.
Oh, there is a value, yes.
And I'm not trying to trap you here, I'm just trying to understand.
So you're saying that there are a certain proportion of people whose IQ is so low that even better government education won't give them the opportunity to earn a wage that allows them to live in some reasonable degree of comfort.
No, it can't help.
I'm just saying that we can't have everything equal, or you can't say that anyone is able to, with the right education or with the right training, get some great job of $30 per hour.
There's always going to be...
Okay, and what proportion...
Hang on, hang on.
What proportion of the population do you feel is unable to...
wage that would give them some with great education, with a free market economy, with, you know, like a third of Americans need government permission to even have a job these days with removal of licensing so that people can actually go and start businesses and become things like hairdressers and plumbers and so on without having to go through like a third of Americans need government permission to even have a job So what proportion of the population do you think in a more free society would be unable to fend for themselves, would be unable to have a living wage?
Okay, so in a more free society, your idea of society, it would work a lot better.
I'm saying that the way this system is set up now with all the regulatory regulations, with you have to, you know, get some license to give back rubs.
Because, you know, if someone complains and they can sue you and blah, blah, blah.
Well, the way it's set up now...
The low minimum wage is horrible.
If we had more for society and you could do more bartering and you could do more You know, free market things, then I would agree with that.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we're quite there yet where, you know, we're going to get someone in office who's going to say, all these regulations...
Okay, sorry.
I feel like you're not answering...
That's not a feeling.
You're not answering my question, John.
What proportion of people do you think are unable to earn a living wage?
What percentage of people?
I mean, it's different if it's 90 or 1%.
That's a big difference, right?
It's a very low...
A low number.
And there's two points to that.
It's not just that certain people can't do it.
There's also a certain number of people that we need to do low-waste jobs.
We need a certain number of people to work our grocery stores, to work in the fast food, to clean houses.
We need a certain number of workers.
Sorry.
I mean, that's like saying we need a certain amount of people to pick cotton.
Well, until you get cotton-picking machines, because...
Technology advances, right?
I mean, how long will it be before there are robots who can clean your house?
Well, who knows, right?
But I don't know that we can say that for sure.
I'm just saying right now is how I set up now.
Okay, so what percentage of people, for God's sakes, man, please answer my question.
Let's say half a percent.
I'll give you half a percent.
Okay.
Half a percent.
Okay, fantastic.
So half a percent, one out of 200 people are too dumb to make a living wage, right?
Okay, yeah, sure.
Okay, got it.
And would you feel comfortable, and what level of IQ do you think they'd have, roughly?
Would it be like 60 or 65 or 70?
Because that's a very small percentage of people.
I'd say 65.
65.
Now, would you feel comfortable giving votes on complex socioeconomic issues to people with an IQ of 65 who couldn't earn enough to live on on their own?
Yes, because I believe in democracy.
It's unfortunate.
It's People who aren't most intelligent can vote.
No, no.
Hang on, hang on.
We're not talking about people who aren't the most intelligent.
We're talking about one out of 200 dumb.
Yeah, okay.
Right?
So do you think that they can make intelligent decisions about who to vote for based upon moral principles that are universal rather than just immediate self-interest?
In most cases, no.
Right.
So, and I think that there would be lots of people who would agree with you that if you have an IQ of 60 or 65, it's pretty impossible to engage in a democratic process with any degree of abstract intelligence and integrity, right?
It's not a criticism.
It's, you know, they're not going to be rocket scientists and their vote is going to be dependent on which color they like or which font is used in some promo, right?
It's not going to be any analysis of the actual policies and their long-term effects, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
So you would be comfortable giving a minimum wage to people while stripping them of their right to vote?
See, I said that it's unfortunate that, and I would be uncomfortable, that someone who's ill-informed is going to be voted.
But I do not want to strip away the right to vote.
It's a fundamental right we have.
It's part of democracy, and it's simply so.
First we say someone 65 can't, then 70, then 75, then 80.
Or then we say, okay, this group can't do it.
You have to keep it intact.
Oh, you've given me a slippery slope argument, which is completely unsubstantiated, right?
No, the test would be if you can't survive economically on your own, you get subsidies.
But because you can't survive economically on your own, if you're not competent to have a job and live in a room somewhere, then you're not competent to vote On complex socioeconomic issues.
Now, I have a solution called no government, but given that we're talking about government societies at the moment, this would seem to me to be the logic of Of where you are.
And we have this.
So the IQ of 65, I don't know what that would be an 8-year-old.
Well, 8-year-olds aren't allowed to drive cars.
They're not allowed to vote.
They're not allowed to enter into contracts and so on.
And so when we have low IQs, we have very little problem when it comes to kids removing particular rights from them.
Certainly, if somebody has no capacity to live alone, then they will get a certain amount of assistance, but they may not have a right of suffrage because...
That's sort of necessary to have a vote, is you need to understand the issues, right?
Yeah, okay.
Okay, I just wanted to check on that.
So we're talking about a very small percentage, like half a percentage of people, right?
Yeah, yeah, small percentage.
Okay.
So we don't need a government for that.
Because if it's a small percentage of people, let's say that somebody...
Bear with me for a second while I do some quick mental calculations that will doubtless go awry at some point.
But let's say that people, somebody, let's say you need $20,000 a year to live reasonably decently, and let's say that you're so dumb that you can only earn $10,000 a year, so you need an extra $10,000 a year to survive, right?
That's the rough, and again, this is all back of the napkin stuff, right?
Okay.
So out of 200 people, There are $199 available to make up that $10,000.
So if I take $10,000 and I divide it by 199 people, that's $50.25 every year that people would have to pay to make up the salary that is required or make up the difference between what the person's earning and a sort of living wage.
So that's $50 and change to make that difference up.
And there's no way that that's necessary in a state.
People give way more than that in charity.
People give thousands of dollars on average a year, at least families do, thousands of dollars on average in charity.
Every single year, 50 bucks, they wouldn't even miss.
So as far as that goes, there's no need for a giant government program called a minimum wage, which is going to affect a lot more than half a percentage of the population.
Especially if it's $15.
You just have to say to people, listen, for $50 a year, you can take care of all the poor people in your society.
You don't need a giant government program.
Okay.
So for me, the idea of the minimum wage is three main points, okay?
Okay.
So there's a small portion of people that aren't really that big of a problem, that just aren't going to advance.
Okay?
I'm sorry, I was just reading something.
Could you say that again?
I apologize.
Yeah, so for me, for the minimum wage, there's three main points.
And the first main point we agree on.
There's a small percentage of people who just, because of lack of skills or lack of intelligence, they are most likely not going to advance and get a better paying job.
And they would probably live with their parents anyway, right?
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Second one is that for right now, at least in tele-technology increases, we still need a lot of unskilled workers.
If every unskilled worker just said, you know what, I'm not going to keep working at McDonald's, I'm not going to keep working at groceries, so I'm going to go to college, that would be horrible.
We'd have all these college graduates that have these degrees where there would be so many positions that would already be filled, they'd have no job.
And at the same time, there'd be many positions at Walmart that no one would be taking because all the other skilled workers left.
I'm sorry, I don't even remotely...
That's like saying, well, what if everybody decides to become a professional basketball player?
I don't understand how that's realistic.
Sorry, I'll put it this way.
There are many people that are unskilled workers who could become skilled workers and are just too lazy.
And I know them on a...
On a personal level.
Hang on.
How do you know that they're lazy?
I'm saying on a personal level, I know people who have decided not to get the skills of education or get a job and stay with it for a couple of years to learn the skills and move up the ladder.
I know people on an individual level and they're always going to be there.
Well, hang on, hang on.
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused.
So we're talking about general society and you're basing it on a few people you know?
Okay, so I'm...
Okay, tell me, do you think there...
I'll ask you the question this way.
Do you think there's people out there who have the skills to do better and they, because either being lazy or because of lack of motivation, they don't seek the skills to get better, to get better jobs?
I don't know what you mean by better.
I'm sorry.
I mean, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
I'm genuinely confused.
I don't know what you mean by better.
So there were...
There were people, like, so in my office, there was myself who was an executive, there were managers, there were team leaders, there were programmers, all the way down to people who came into the office and cleaned the office at night.
I have no idea what it means to say what a better job is.
All jobs have costs and benefits, right?
So I got paid for.
Hang on, I'm right in the middle of talking here, right in the middle of talking.
Yep.
I got paid more, but I had more responsibility.
I had legal liability.
I had to work extra.
I had to travel more.
And also, I had to have accumulated a lot of skills early on.
I mean, I started programming when I was, what?
11 or 12 years old and continued for many years at home.
So I had developed all of these problem-solving skills.
I read huge numbers of management books and gone to seminars and got myself educated on business and taught myself a whole bunch of stuff.
And I have a certain amount of native intelligence that helps with all these things.
But I would never go to the programmers and say, your job is deficient and my job is superior.
It's choices.
There are some people maybe who could make more money, but they don't want the additional responsibility.
Like I had a guy, he was smart, and I think he could have gone further.
And you know what he said to me?
He said, you live to work, Steph.
I work to live.
In other words, he was saying, you really enjoy your job, you get off on it, you get up, and you want to work weekends, and you want to travel, and it's your baby, and it's your company, and you want to do it.
And I was kind of a workaholic, to put it mildly, during those years, as I am a little bit even now.
But he said, I want to come to work at 9 o'clock in the morning.
I want 45 minutes for lunch.
I want to go home at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
I don't want to work any weekends.
I sure as hell don't want to travel.
Because I have a very rich social life.
You know, I play hockey, I play baseball, I have great cookouts with my family, and I work so that I can do fun things when I'm not working.
You live to work, I work to live.
Now, am I going to tell him he's wrong and he shouldn't forego?
The teams and the sports and the family and the cookouts and the friendships and the camping and all the stuff that he does so that he could work 70 hours a week like me?
No.
That's not fair.
He's doing what he wants.
I'm doing what I want.
What I'm doing is not better than what he's doing.
It's better for me because that's my preference.
But it's not better for him.
And I, you know, you could go to the maid and the maid could say, I don't have a boss to deal with.
The maid, sorry, the woman who cleaned the offices or the men.
I was actually, I had a job for quite a while in my early teens cleaning a doctor's office, a travel agent and a dentist.
And, you know, it was great.
I could put on my headphones.
I remember very distinctly walking through the mall at 10.30 at night when it was empty with my cleaning equipment, listening to Abbey Road.
I could sing at the top of my lungs because there was no one around.
There were no bosses.
There were no customers.
There were no complaints.
There were no problems.
I just went in and cleaned these offices at night and made my money.
And it was fine for me at the time.
When I was working in a restaurant, I always think of Down and Out in Paris in London by George Orwell, the plongeur.
I love that word, plongeur.
But it sounds like porn.
But I was working as a waiter and there was a...
Like, so stereotypical.
He was an Italian guy running a pizza place.
And he was, like, so stressed.
It was ridiculous.
Like, he had shingles.
He used to throw up.
And I was like, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job.
I don't care how much money it is.
It's not worth it.
So I would come in, and I would do my shift, and I would go home.
You know, I had my pockets full of change.
I'm walking along, like some medieval knight full of inconsequential coined armor.
And I would go home and whereas he'd be there like dealing with supplier issues and making sure the restaurant was ship-shaped for the next day and dealing with health inspectors and all the corporate stuff he had to do.
And it's like, so for him to come to me and say, Steph, your job is bad.
My job is a big improvement.
It'd be like, ooh.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I really wouldn't want that at all.
Now, of course, people want the benefits without the cost, right?
They want the high wage, but they don't necessarily want all of the extra work and commitment and risk and responsibility and crap that goes into it.
So I'm sorry to give you a long answer, but I'm not sure what it means to say they could get a better job.
I'm not sure what that means.
What I was trying to say is that they could acquire skills, and they're not acquiring skills.
They're not going to school Whether it's free or inexpensive or expensive.
They're not learning programming.
They're not learning a different language.
And I consider that either because they're lack of motivation or lazy or just not...
But why the pejoratives?
Why is it bad for them to not want to...
Like, if they want to go home and play with their kids, why is it bad that they don't go to a programming course instead of having dinner with their family?
Well...
I'm not saying it's bad.
I'm just saying that if they don't acquire skills, they can't always expect to be able to find some better-paying job, right?
So?
So what?
Okay, well...
I agree on that, correct?
That if someone doesn't strive to be better, doesn't acquire skills, then It's possible that they don't move up the ladder and get a better job, correct?
Well, no, because simply by being in your job, you're going to make more money over time because you get better at your job.
Like, if you're a programmer, a programmer with 20 years' experience is worth more than a programmer with 20 minutes of experience, right?
Simply by staying in the same job, they're going to accumulate relationships with customers or an understanding of the business, right?
Because the programmers are supposed to solve business issues, ideally, which is what I always have to remind my programmer and myself.
So the programmer is going to understand the business, is going to understand the client environment, is going to have a track record of dealing with new technology.
But whether that programmer, maybe he's an introvert and almost all higher paying jobs outside of the finance industry require a lot of interaction with people.
I mean, the one thing that my...
What employees loved about me, hopefully more than one thing, was that when the customers were snarling, I would take the calls and deal with the problems and so on.
And I remember being cornered by customers who were irate over the course of my career for a variety of things and having to negotiate my way through various things.
And they were like...
Occasionally they'd be in those meetings.
They'd be like, you couldn't pay me enough to do that.
That would just be hard.
Because they were shy.
They were introverts, right?
And that's one of the reasons they like computers.
So I don't know that...
You will make more money over time just by staying in the same job.
But will they end up being the CEO if all they want to do is program?
Well, no.
But if you're a great artist, why do you want to become the manager of the studio if all you want to do is make art?
Why not just keep doing that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Point taken.
I was just mentioning that some people don't want to get more skills and they want to just work their regular job.
Okay.
But you were saying that they were lazy or unmotivated or something like that.
It may be the very best decision in their life, right?
That's respect for people's choices.
I was saying some of them can be lazy.
Not all of them.
Not everyone's lazy.
I do believe that some people don't want to acquire skills for whatever reason.
Because they have a good social life and they like their job, or because they don't believe that they can get a better job, or they're lazy.
Whatever it is, there's people out there who, for some reason, don't strive to do better to get better jobs.
Okay.
Alright.
And I'm saying that there's people like that out there, because a lot of the argument...
Okay, sorry, there are people out there, but so what?
People make different choices.
Some people focus on work, some people focus on family.
I'm not sure what the point is here.
One of the big arguments for non-exclusive minimum wage is minimum skills, minimum wage.
So they're saying that because you have these minimum skills, you work in the same job, and you haven't worked out, and you haven't changed jobs, and you haven't gotten a college degree, you shouldn't be able to have a A better wage.
That's the main argument for people who don't want to increase minimum wage.
On the right wing, anyway.
Hang on, sorry.
So, minimum skills, minimum wage.
So, I started programming when I was 12, and I used to spend my Saturdays in the computer lab, and I used to sign out the computers and take them home, and that cut into my promiscuous dating life.
Actually, it didn't.
I was 12.
But, I mean, so I made those choices, and there are other things that I didn't Do as a result of that.
Now if some kid wants to play video games and assuming he's not fatality and gonna make a living at it, if some kid wants to play video games rather than learn how to program, And again, we should fix the school system, but you don't want to talk about that.
And the reason why Bernie Sanders doesn't want to talk about it is he's on the left, so he doesn't want to piss off the teachers' unions, which is where he gets a lot of his money from.
And people hate Wall Street speculators, so taxing them is just appealing to mob prejudice rather than actually trying to fix the school system because people are...
Have this weird, crazy respect for teachers, which is like a Stockholm Syndrome of fear and loathing independence.
We should do both.
No, he's not going to fix the school system.
That's no part of it.
I can't imagine that's any part of his, like, let's privatize the school system so the bad teachers can get fired, and let's give vouchers back to the parents so they can choose where their kids go to school.
And he's not, because he needs the money from the teachers' union, so all he's going to do is attack the But who people consider the capitalist and who they dislike, he's not going to go against any of the sacred cows of the left because he's not an idiot and he's a politician, so he's not going to do any of that stuff.
I guarantee you it will never happen.
I will eat my own microphone should he end up doing, implementing or even advocating any of that stuff.
So that's never going to happen from him in any way, shape or form.
He won't privatize the school system.
I agree with the school system that they have in Finland where teachers actually get paid more and there's money a lot more selective.
Teachers have to have a lot higher qualifications and be a lot better at teaching to be a teacher in Finland.
And I believe that's one way how we can improve the school system.
Oh, listen, I mean, American school teachers, you have to have a master's degree for the most part.
It's not a lack of education, of course.
It's a whole other issue.
It's not about education, it's about quality.
No, it's a lack of choice.
It's a lack of choice.
And also it's the problem with multiculturalism, lots of different languages, lots of different cultures.
It becomes very...
It becomes impossible in this sort of Tower of Babel to provide quality education when you've got to deal with five languages and 12 different religions and 15 different cultures and all of that.
It becomes impossible, right?
Anyway.
So...
Yeah.
So you want people to have more skills, for sure.
But...
And of course, you know, Bernie Sanders' wife was a college president.
She...
Kind of part of the problem, right?
But no, involuntarism is the only way to get quality in a society.
I mean, nobody buys roses to an arranged marriage, right?
I mean, so to speak.
What I mean by that is nobody romances and woos an arranged marriage because you're going to get married no matter what.
She's got no choice in the matter.
So quality...
It's the result of voluntary interactions, and there's no other way.
There's no substitute for it in any way, shape, or form.
So he's not going to introduce any voluntarism into the educational system.
So he's dealing with a symptom, and the symptom is that after 12 years of education, people aren't worth even eight bucks an hour.
That is...
Such a condemnation of government-run education that that should be the only argument that anybody ever needs for privatizing education.
And so what he wants to do is he wants to pretend that government education is worth more than it's worth, not by improving it, but of course by jacking up the prices by forcing people to hire people at wages they're not worth.
Because what you get paid is based on how much value you produce.
What you get paid is based on...
And I remember this lesson when I worked in a hardware store.
I was 14 or so.
And the guy said, do you know how to fix screen doors?
And I was like, yeah.
I lied.
Sorry.
I really needed the money.
And so he said, there's a bunch of screen...
So he hired me and we spent a day or two.
And he said, there's a bunch of screen doors down in the basement you've got to fix, right?
And I didn't want to go down to the basement because I didn't know how to fix a screen door.
And so what I did was I was lifting up baskets of nuts and like bolts and nuts and I was cleaning underneath and I was cleaning his store and I was making it all look shiny, right?
And he said, I need you to do something that's going to make me some money.
Cleaning these is not making me any money.
That was an excellent point.
So I fessed up.
I said, listen, I'm happy.
I lied.
I'm happy to do this.
And he took me down.
He was a nice guy.
He took me down, taught me how to fix the screen doors.
I learned in about 10 minutes, spent the rest of the day fixing the screen doors.
And the time I was there fixing the screen doors.
And so if I had only cleaned his...
Store he wouldn't have been able to keep me because I'm not producing enough value to pay my wage now if I fix screen doors and he can sell fixed screen doors for 40 bucks and he can pay me I don't know what I was making four bucks at the time an hour or something like that then he can afford me but if I'm just cleaning he's not making any money off that and so he can't afford me so a wage is not set by some arbitrary dictate of the employer the wage is set by the customer The wages
set, not by the employer, but by the customer.
And so, if Bernie Sanders thinks that people should be paid more, then she should go to customers and say, you should pay more for your goods and services, as Peter shifted outside.
He went outside of Walmart and said to people, do you think Walmart people should be paid more?
And everyone was like, yeah!
And then he'd say, okay, well, how much more would you be willing to add to your bill?
Nothing, right?
It's the customers who sent.
Okay, so I actually watched that video.
And for raising the minimum wage, the price is good would go about 23 cents, you know, or something.
It would be very nominal.
And he was saying, oh, would you add $15 to your bill?
So it's different for someone saying, would you add a nickel to your bill or a quarter to your bill and $15 to your bill?
And he was acting as if we raise the minimum wage, prices would quadruple.
And that was...
Wait, are you saying that...
Hang on a second.
Are you saying that if the minimum wage was weight to $15, that it would only add how much to the bill?
It would not double the prices.
And that's what Peter Schitt...
No, no, no.
You said it would add how much money?
I just want to check your numbers here.
It would be cents on the dollar.
That's what...
That's the study...
It would be how much?
Cents on the dollar.
So a couple of pennies.
Yeah, a few pennies.
Yeah.
Alright, and where did you look this up or did you do the math yourself?
I read something somewhere.
I wish I had something in front of me.
Alright, we'll have a quick look.
And I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I just want to make sure because I'm surprised at that.
There's another thing I need to mention.
About how I agree with you in a sense that someone needs to get paid with their worth.
And I think a lot of people...
Hang on a sec.
Sorry, just before we go on to that.
Walmart's just raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour may cost retailers $4 billion.
That seems like quite a lot.
Again, I'm no...
And this is only $10, not $15.
Okay.
Let's see here.
So...
Walmart cast a harsh light on the issue last week when it warned its profits would shrink next year, hurt by spending $1.5 billion to hike pay for about 500,000 workers.
The news sent Walmart shares down 10% in a single day, marking their worst decline since 1988.
And that is going from $9 an hour to $10 an hour.
So there are 500,000 workers.
Okay, so I... Okay, I'm going to just do some quick math here.
Okay, so we've got 500,000 workers, and let's say we're going to add $5 an hour to their wages.
So we do that times 5, and then let's do times 37.5, which I... No, times...
Yeah, 37.5.
That's a week times 52...
Yeah, that's five billion dollars.
Just for Walmart.
Okay, so I'm going to have a certain study.
And we can look at the study together.
So this is in the Huffington Post that I read this.
Oh, the Huffington Post.
Okay.
Okay, okay.
Just, you know, it's important to know the source.
Okay, go ahead.
And the study as well.
So it says, CEO pulls host stunt in attempt to discredit Walmart workers.
And it's a video of Peter Schiff saying 15 for 15 contribute.
And in a 2011 study by CUNY's, Stephanie Luce at University of California, Berkeley, Ken Jacobs and David Graham Square, found that raising the retail giant's minimum wage to $12 an hour, not $15, excuse me, would have cost the average shopper only $0.46 per trip.
So, as you look at that study, and Maybe you think, maybe the prime of the study...
Give us a link.
Let's have a look.
Because the actual study here, so you said that he said that it was going to double their prices.
That's not what Peter Schiff said.
He said he approached shoppers in the retailer's parking lot and told them he was representing an organization called 15 for 15.
He said the organization, which doesn't actually exist, wants Walmart to raise its prices by 15% to support a $15 minimum hourly wage for workers.
15% is a lot different than 46 cents on an average trip.
You got the source, right?
Just put it in Skype and let's have a look.
I'll tell you this, if I were the CEO of Walmart, And I could pay my workers 50% more and it would only add 46 cents to a bill, I would pretty much do it because it would be so great for the workers and it would make them so happy.
And it would be almost non-existent to the customers.
That would be amazing.
Okay.
So I honestly should read that study.
Maybe there's a link to the study.
Yeah, just $0.46 per trip.
That's really quite astonishing.
And that's going from, I think, $8 or $9 to $12.
So that's a 25% or more increase.
Yeah.
In 500,000 people's salaries, a 25% increase in 500 people's salaries, 500,000 people's salaries, that that would only add...
Well, yeah, if millions of people are all buying something that costs 30 cents more, then maybe, yeah, maybe they could actually make that extra.
It makes sense.
I mean, if we have millions of people buying...
Oh, don't say it makes sense unless you've done the math, right?
Just because it feels right to you.
Oh, you're good at the math.
You're doing the math a lot, so add it up.
Okay, I'm just looking for the source here.
Yeah, exactly.
They don't provide a source here.
Yeah, which is...
I like Huffington Post.
The articles seem to be alright.
I need to find the source.
No, you've got to mix it up a little there, brother.
I mean, the Huffington Post is like lefty central and how.
Right.
Yeah, well, I do read other things as well.
So let's assume, well, let's do a little bit of math right here.
Oh, wait, there's a link?
Okay, oh, it links back to the Huffington Post.
All right, maybe there's a link here.
So it says here the average Walmart shopper spends about $1,200 per year, and it would cost them $12.50.
Okay.
That's really remarkable.
Okay.
So it's 1%, right?
Okay, the wage hike at $12 would increase Walmart's hourly payroll by $3.21 billion per year.
Store prices would still only increase by 1.1% if it decided to pass 100% of the cost on to customers.
Anyone who argues that the retail giant's prices would be little affected by such wage increases has, quote, a limited understanding of how a business operates.
Okay, so where's his argument?
So this guy, Stephen Restivo, Senior Director of Communications for Walmart, he said that this is, you know, I'm at least going to listen to the guy who runs Walmart, as opposed to some academic who thinks they know exactly how it's going to work.
You know, I think the guy who runs the business should be included, but they haven't included any of his rebuttals.
Yeah, okay.
So, hang on a sec here.
Mike, you linked something.
Is this the original study?
I found that study as well.
Yes, that's the original study.
Okay, I'm just going to, we probably won't get anywhere, but just, you know, humor me for a second here, because I'm curious what his rebuttal was.
Yeah, I don't see anything.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Let me try one thing, minimum wage.
I linked a study in Skype, the Berkeley study.
Yeah, no, I've looked at it, but it links to another study.
It links to another article where it says that there's a rebuttal, but they don't list any of his rebuttals.
Okay, well obviously I can't jump through an entire article live on the show, but I do find that interesting.
Okay, so let's just go over the conclusion of the study at the bottom.
And I want to know if you disagree with their conclusion.
Wait a minute here.
Okay, so I think I might be able to see why this is...
Okay, so on page two, it says...
So they're talking about raising the wage to $12 per hour, right?
Do you know what the average hourly wage is for full-time associates at Walmart?
No, I do not.
It's $11.75.
So they're talking about adding 25 cents to their salary.
Okay.
Now that doesn't seem like a massive...
I don't work at Walmart, but...
Where in the study does it say it's 11.75?
So it is on page 4.
Sorry, on page 4.
I haven't read the whole thing, so maybe they explain it.
But they say, what would the raise to $12 per hour look like for the Walmart workforce?
Walmart notes that its average hourly wage is $11.75 for full-time associates.
However, not all employees earn the average.
Payroll data from 2001.
Oh, God, how old is this?
When did this come out?
Why did they do in 2001?
Studies from 2011.
Why are they doing 10-year-old studies?
It's a publicly traded company.
That should all be available.
Yeah, that's what...
Okay, I'm already suspicious.
Why on earth are they going for 2001 data?
So they got...
They do 2001 data and then adjust it for $20, $10.
But that's 10 years ago.
Things may have changed.
I mean, composition of the employees may have changed.
There may be more...
Yeah, I gotta tell you, I have some skepticism.
And John, I just want to add too, don't ever suggest just to skip to the conclusion of a study.
Oh, Mike knows whereof he speaks.
Give him the speech, Mike, about your examination of studies.
As someone who has poured through more research studies than I care to even think about or remember, there is so much incredibly terrible research and science out there.
And you can go back to the call we had with a research scientist and A couple weeks ago on the show, I think it's up, the video is The Death of Science, explaining the perversion in financial incentives within research fields.
And for example, this is the one I always bring up when just total terrible science, terrible research.
A study came out saying that breastfeeding has no impact on IQ, which completely contradicted a lot of other studies saying that the longer you breastfeed your child, The more IQ points they're going to gain.
There's some back and forth about if that's them reaching their genetic potential versus adding additional IQ points on top of what they'd have.
That's going back and forth.
But there is a link between breastfeeding and breastfeeding duration and IQ points.
So, what this study did, this wonderful study that wanted to disprove this connection...
They said, do you breastfeed?
Did you breastfeed your kid or did you not breastfeed your kid?
It was binary.
Therefore, the person that, you know, breastfed their kid for like two seconds and said, ow, this hurts!
That counted as breastfeeding, despite the fact that this is dose dependent.
So the longer you breastfeed your kid, recommend it 18 months or so, the better it is for the child.
They counted, oh, it hurts after the first attempt as breastfeeding.
Whereas, you know, that's essentially saying, like, there's no connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Because if we look at the people that have smoked, including the guy that took a drag of a cigarette back behind a high school, didn't like it, never tried it again, put him in the exact same category as the person that smoked two packs a day, oh, there's no connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Just be very careful about the stuff you look at, because there's so much nonsense out there from just about every side.
Every side!
Yeah, every side.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Be skeptical of everything.
And the other thing too is that it would seem to me that if you could pay people a lot more and not charge customers a lot more, then what you should do is start a competitor to Walmart and bid away all their employees.
Yeah, well, I think that's right.
I mean, this is where, again, hang on.
So when it comes to sort of free market stuff, these academics are saying, like, so the people who run Walmart have been doing it for decades, and it's a huge and successful company.
And if they don't phone up Walmart and say, wait a minute, here's our numbers.
What are we missing?
Like, you guys run this business.
You want happy employees.
You want happy customers.
Now, if you can disproportionately make your employees happy relative to a tiny ping on your customers prices, why aren't you doing that?
Like, I'm always concerned when, you know, there's this old question in economics, which is why the hell this movie popcorn is so expensive?
Like, it makes no sense.
I mean, popcorn is dirt cheap, but you've got to pay $3.50 for a tiny bag, right?
It makes no sense.
And economists debate this ad infinitum.
And I won't get into all the minutiae of all of the scholastic angels dancing on ahead of them.
But why not phone up a goddamn guy who runs a movie theater and say, what's up with this?
You know, why aren't these guys calling?
Like, so they could call Walmart and say, look, here are our numbers.
The We don't want to call you guys cheap out in public.
We don't want to call you guys really terrible business people out there in public wherein you could pay your employees a lot more and it'd have virtually no impact on your customers.
What are we missing?
Why not call up Walmart and ask them?
Because Walmart said, listen, you're missing a whole bunch of stuff.
That's what I'm sort of concerned about.
The Walmart director of communications would be ecstatic If these academics had sent him their preliminary calculations and said, look, this seems kind of weird to us.
Like, you could 40 cents a customer, but you get 25%.
Oh, here it says 25.
It seems to be 25 cents, whatever.
But here is...
Help us understand why this isn't happening.
Maybe Walmart are completely staffed by brain-dead, neck-beard, mouth-breathing idiots, in which case these guys should quit academia and find a way to really pay their workers fantastically, in which case all the workers will leave Walmart and come to them, in which case they'll end up making a company worth billions of dollars.
So I'm a little, you know, when the academics crunch the numbers without talking to the people actually running the business or don't sit to themselves and say, shit, there's no way we're publishing this.
But what we're going to do is take this to venture capitalists and say, look, we can pay employees huge amounts more money.
It has almost no impact on the customers.
You know what the venture capitalists are going to say?
They're going to say, why hasn't Walmart done that?
If this is such a great business move and such a great business decision, why hasn't Walmart done that?
And if they say, well, we've never asked Walmart, they'll say, you're not getting any of the money from us until you do.
Because assuming that Walmart is really bad at running their business is not a great assumption, given that they're one of the most successful companies in the world.
So, again, this is not a huge rebuttal.
And we'll, Mike, if you can remember to put a link to this and if people want to give us more feedback on that.
But I would be suspicious of this stuff.
But sorry, go ahead.
Yeah.
Okay, so...
Actually, with Walmart having these employees that are staying with them, I believe the government is a problem in this case.
Because of many Walmart workers who work there, and it's not all across the board.
In some places, minimum wage is lower, and some of them working full-time.
And I believe that some of the Walmart workers actually get food stamps and get government aid.
If the medical things weren't there, they wouldn't take that Walmart job.
They would say, sorry Walmart, I can't take that $7 away job because I can't pay for food.
If you want to bring up the wages of people at Walmart, then stop having the government subsidize Walmart with free education, with free healthcare, with food stamps, with welfare, with whatever it is that's going on.
Let Walmart pay the real costs of its employees, and that will drive the wages up.
Now, the real wages probably won't budge that much, but it's ridiculous.
The welfare state and all of this government education stuff, it's all a gigantic subsidy to these huge corporations.
Well, for education, I just believe That it's better to have an educated society.
And a healthier society.
You're from Canada.
Universal healthcare is in Canada.
And I'm assuming you disagree with that.
You don't like the universal healthcare of your country.
Correct?
You keep using these terms that I don't understand.
I don't like it?
What does that mean?
I'm a philosopher.
You think that a privatized version of healthcare would be more...
Would be able to cover more people and have more people healthy and maybe run better.
No, I don't.
I'm not a magician.
I have no crystal ball.
Okay.
You know, that's like you saying, well, you want to end slavery because you think that it might be more efficient to have paid people pick the cotton crumbs.
No.
I have no idea.
I mean, I genuinely and generally believe it'll be a vast improvement over a healthcare system that came 99% close to killing me in my sleep.
But I don't care what happens when we do the right thing.
I don't care what happens after we free the slaves.
Slavery is immoral.
And I don't care what happens fundamentally after we achieve freedom in the realm of medicine.
It's immoral to point guns at people to get things done in society.
It's immoral to point guns at people to get your cotton picked, and it's immoral to point guns at people To get your healthcare provided.
As far as what happens afterwards, who cares?
People didn't say, well, I'm concerned that if we give women the vote, women have different economic interests than men.
So I'm concerned that we're going to end up with a whole bunch of women who are going to vote for a whole bunch of socialist policies and a whole bunch of old age pensions and a whole bunch of free healthcare because they tend to take care of the old and they tend to use more healthcare than men.
And women also end up voting for a whole bunch of, like, really crazy laws around alimony and child support and divorce and so on.
And so I don't, you know, it's the consequences of doing the right thing are incalculable.
Nobody knows.
Nobody knows what's going to happen after you do the right thing.
The important thing is to do the right thing.
And it's immoral to point guns at people to provide health care.
It's violence.
It's the initiation of force.
Yeah, well, I do disagree with your idea that Taxes is theft, and we're not going to get anywhere on that one.
What do you mean?
Hang on.
What do you mean you disagree?
You think that taxes are not theft?
I believe that for society to run, we need to somehow pay for roads and education and healthcare.
No, no, that's not the argument.
The argument is...
Hang on.
No, no, no.
That's not what I asked.
You've got to stick with the question.
Yes, taxes are...
are not theft.
They are voluntary in most cases.
Taxes are voluntary.
Okay.
So if you don't want to pay your taxes, nothing bad will happen to you.
Well, I don't think anything bad should happen to you and it's unfortunate that it does.
Wait, no.
Are taxes currently voluntary?
They're currently not voluntary.
Most people pay them and I think would pay them To run society, if they...
Yes and no.
I mean, I think a lot of people...
Yes and no?
Come on, man.
They're voluntary for some people, but not voluntary for others, is what I'm saying.
So what you're saying is that someone...
It's not rape if the woman would have had sex with the guy who raped her, voluntarily.
No, no.
If she would have just had sex with him, then it's not violence if she's raped.
No, not at all.
If the person was already, you know, if you walk into a store, and you walk into that store, and then you walk into the store anyway, and you walk into a store and someone puts a gun at you and says walk into that store, if you're already walking into that store anyway, yes, that is coercion, yes, there was some force there, but the end result would have been you walk into the store.
Right, so if the woman was going to have sex with the man anyway, the fact that he puts a knife to her throat and rapes her means that it's not rape because the end result is she has sex with him either way.
No, because that's...
See, walking to the store is painless.
And there's no...
Well, yeah, I get your point.
I think you may be doing sex wrong if it hurts.
I just really wanted to point that out.
You might want to use the best Meccano sets in your sex dungeon.
I'm sorry?
No, I get your point.
I'm not arguing against it.
Okay, so then taxation is coercion.
Just because people would pay it voluntarily if it wasn't coercive doesn't mean that it's not coercive.
I agree.
Okay, so taxation is coercion.
It's coercion, yes.
It is coercion.
Look at that!
Look at that!
That was, first of all, admirable integrity on your part.
I really wanted to point that out.
Props and credit, where props and credit are due.
Because you originally said, we're not going to get anywhere on this, and it's not coercive, and, you know, three minutes, and you listened to a reasonable argument, and you adjusted your position, which I just wanted to say I hugely admire.
I just wanted to lick your leg in that particular transaction.
Good job.
But anyway, go on.
For the taxes is that I believe that you people, you believe that voluntarily people would give money to pay for roads and things like that, and I just don't believe that would happen.
When have I ever, ever said that I believe that people would voluntarily give to roads?
Okay, so if...
Wait, weren't you the guy who accused me of mischaracterizing others?
Do you really want to take that road?
I don't think you do.
I think in certain videos you have talked about how if people weren't...
I think you talked about if people were not forced to pay taxes that society would still run in a certain way, charities would give, and other things like that.
And I think that...
We know that.
We know that when taxes go down, charity goes up.
Charitable donations go up when taxes go down.
That's not my crazy hypothetical theory.
That's an actual fact.
But there's no real world, you know...
Example where taxes went to zero and there's no sales taxes, no VAT taxes, no income tax, and charity runs society.
You know, helps pay for roads, helps give health care to poor people who can't afford it, helps do this, helps do that.
Oh yes, there's actually, well again, is there a society with no taxation at all?
There have been some in history, but that's not particularly the point now.
But this argument from It's Not Happened Before makes you extremely conservative.
We can't give women the vote because there's been no society in history that's ever given women the vote.
We can't free the slaves because there's been no society in history that's ever been slave-free.
I mean, it makes you ridiculously conservative.
Like, we can't ever have anything new.
Nothing can arrive with the rapper still on it.
We must continually recycle history.
And if somebody brings up something that deviates from history, we must destroy it with modernism.
Massive conservatism.
I thought lefties were a little bit more progressive than that, willing to try out new things and explore new ideas, but it's never happened before.
I mean, that's every single advancement in human society.
There can't be cell phones because a hundred years ago, there were no cell phones.
So cell phones must be a figment of my imagination.
Ooh, good imagination.
I wish I'd invested in my own imagination when cell phones first came out.
Computers, a myth.
CGI, it's a complete myth.
There can't be movie theaters because they used to have hand...
Anyway, you get the point.
But as far as how would society run without a government, I mean, peacefully.
You care about the poor, right?
Yeah.
So you would give money to help the poor.
I care about the poor.
Do you give money now to help the poor?
I do.
Okay.
I give money now to help the poor.
You give money to help the poor.
Mike one day might, you know, quit his video game addiction.
No, I'm just kidding.
But so, you know, we all help in the poor and all that.
And there are tons of examples of people getting healthcare for free throughout history.
I did a whole...
I read Dr.
Rod Long, best porn name in academia.
I... I read his whole article about how healthcare used to be provided in the past before the government got involved.
And the problem with healthcare about 100 years ago was it was too cheap.
That was the big problem.
Doctors couldn't figure out a way to make a lot of money.
So they ran to the government and they said, well, you've got to ban people from doing this and you've got to ban people from doing that.
We're the only ones who can grant a license and now we're the only ones who can give prescriptions and now we're the only ones who can do this.
And so they created a government-sponsored monopoly because they couldn't make enough money by providing health care for other people.
And it used to cost people the modern equivalent of $50 to $60 to get good health insurance 100 years ago.
And so, yeah, so I just...
There's tons of examples throughout history of healthcare.
Education, again, I checked these numbers three different ways from Sunday, but education used to cost tens of dollars a year for high-quality education in modern dollars, not in past dollars, in modern dollars, $20, $30 a year.
To get a quality education for your child and it was called the Lancashire School and it was really effective and very powerful.
So this idea that it costs, you know, the government drives up the costs of everything and then everyone says, well, we couldn't cover that by charity.
It's like, but It's only expensive because there's a government.
Why the fuck do we even need roads?
What if we didn't have roads that were paid for?
First of all, there were roads before there were government roads.
But what's happened is government roads have made a completely planet-raping oil dependency culture where people move all over the place.
They live far away from work because they don't pay direct costs for their roads.
And so we've got this really twisted, nature-destroying, ecologically catastrophic society because the government's paying for all the roads.
And people are saying, well...
Gosh, what would society be like without roads?
Well, it'd be a lot more neighborly and the air would be a lot cleaner, at least because there'd be private roads where things would be justified by economic value rather than government building stuff to please the taxpayers and to have contracts to sell to the unions.
And to make armies around.
Yeah, armies, of course.
I disagree with the military-industrial complex 100%.
So, a lot of your views on how things would work in society, a lot of things would have to change.
For people that are liberals or people that are conservatives, society doesn't need to change nearly as much.
For, say, a liberal wants to You know, raise taxes by 5%.
And he wants to have more regulation for police, so they don't kill innocent people.
And he wants to, say, pay teachers more.
With you, you want to take out the government completely in certain aspects.
And as a candidate, it can't be done, though it's a lot more radical than the new average, you know, liberal or human average conservative.
No, it's not radical.
It's consistent.
That's like saying that the Sun being the center of the solar system is radical, compared to the Earth being...
Radical is a useless term.
It is consistent.
If we are against the initiation of force, we are against the initiation of force.
The government, by its nature, by its definition, is the initiation of force.
Barack Obama's got a video on the internet describing just that, and he should know.
He's initiated force against a whole bunch of countries and groups.
But the government is the initiation of force.
All men are created equal, said one of the founding documents of the United States.
And if all men are created equal, we can't have slavery.
Because all men are created equal.
If no man or woman can initiate the use of force, then we can't have a government.
It's not radical.
It's consistent.
Yeah, okay.
So now I'm going to move on to another point.
And I believe you have an answer, and the answer is going to take away the government influence, and I think that would be a good answer.
But I also believe that taking away corporate power would also solve the problem.
So, let me see if I can find my question.
Oh, do you want me to read the question that you handed out at the beginning?
Yeah, read the second end of the question.
Yeah, yeah.
How can you stop monopolies without a government busting them up?
So you're very, very concerned about monopolies, right?
Yeah, I believe that.
You understand that the government is a coercive monopoly.
A corporation without the government's help, even if it achieves the monopoly, it achieves the monopoly because it pleases the customers the most.
So it is achieving a voluntary monopoly.
Because it is pleasing the customers the most.
Now, if you're concerned about monopolies, you must be concerned about violent monopolies more than non-violent monopolies, right?
Of course, right?
Because when you get married, generally people say, I'm going to be monogamous.
Now, that is a non-violent monopoly over the squishy bits in the nice dress right opposite you.
So you have a monopoly on sexual access to your marriage partner, for most people who get married.
That is a peaceful monopoly.
Now, a violent monopoly is, I'm going to hold a knife to you while I rape you in the ass.
That is a coercive monopoly.
Now, clearly, a coercive monopoly should get far more of our moral attention than a voluntary monopoly.
Would you agree with that?
I do.
I agree.
Okay, so then saying that a company that achieves without the government its value by appealing to the self-interest of the consumers, that that is a big problem.
A voluntary monopoly is a big problem and we need to solve it with a coercive monopoly is like saying chastity or fidelity in marriage is a big problem and we need to solve it with rape gangs.
We need to replace a voluntary monopoly or control a voluntary monopoly or disrupt a voluntary monopoly with a coercive monopoly called the state.
I'm saying the state's not there.
And if this monopoly gets part of the market because Initially, they have more customer base.
So, I mean, the customers like them.
But then they could buy...
Okay, so hang on.
Let's just use a real-world example here.
So, let's say there's no government.
Okay.
And we've got Apple and Microsoft.
Okay, so what happens from here?
Okay, let's say Microsoft has more money.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hang on, hang on.
How do they have more money?
Okay.
Microsoft sells computers that are cheaper.
More people bought the cheaper computers.
The CEO of Microsoft has more money, and with his money, he decides to buy out Apple.
Could that happen?
What, with his own money?
With his own money, with the corporate money.
However, he decides to buy out Apple.
Wait, okay, so...
Mike, could you look up for me?
I'm sorry to be annoying about this.
Could you look up for me Microsoft's income per year and Apple's current valuation?
And we'll come back to that in a sec.
But I think that buying out Apple might be just a little challenging for Microsoft.
No, I agree.
And you're the one to get right out of that example.
There are certain monopolies that have formed in...
We only have six banks now.
I think it's ridiculous.
Wait, wait, wait.
You can't talk about banks as being anything to do with the free market, right?
Okay, all right.
Government really doesn't help with that.
I see a lot of monopolies that happen are because of the government.
You know, like for the oil industry, they get subsidized all the time.
That's limiting free market for green energy.
We're subsidizing oil, and oil companies make billions of dollars in profits, and we subsidize them at the same time.
But I do believe that it is possible that a certain company could buy out other companies, and if there's no competition anymore because they bought everyone out, they could decide to raise the prices.
So for example, the pharmaceutical companies, this person has this one drug that cures cancer, And they decide to raise the price 700%.
And because they're the only company that, you know, has that drug at that time in that country, an American example, people either have to buy that drug or die.
And I want to know what you would do in that case.
Because in Canada, where you live, the government, you know, negotiates with pharmaceutical companies and somewhat forces them to give lower prices.
And they do that all throughout Europe.
All throughout Europe will be the same drug for curing cancer at, you know, one-tenth or even less than that of the price.
And I like how the government does that.
It's a good thing the government does.
Because in certain aspects of, you know, take the medication or die, you either take the medication or die, so you don't really have a good, you know, argument.
You can't take some of the medication.
You can't, you know, use an alternative.
And you can't let the free market in that particular case solve it.
Because, you know, it's not like, you can vote and say, I'm not taking this because it costs too much, but your vote doesn't count that much if you die in that.
Alright, so one thing at a time, if you don't mind.
Yes.
Okay, so Microsoft made $78 million, so $79 million last year.
Profit.
Let's see here.
No, that was, sorry, revenue.
Gross profit.
Sorry, 57.
Gross profit.
What's the net profit here?
Sorry, it's been a while since I've gone through one of these.
Seems kind of low.
Revenue, cost of revenue, gross profit.
Okay, let's just take their gross profit.
That's fine.
So, 57 million dollars of gross profit.
Now, Apple's market cap was 741.8 billion dollars.
So I'm just going to plug that in.
So it's going to be a lot of 0,741.
8, that's million.
That's billion.
Okay.
Divided by 57,600.
So it's...
This is gross revenue, even not net revenue.
So Microsoft would have to save up for 1,287 years to buy Apple.
Okay.
And that's assuming that Apple would retain its value if Microsoft bought it.
Yeah.
Which is probably not the case, right?
Yeah, in that particular case...
Because people would say, well, I don't want to be...
You know, I don't want to...
Like, Apple is cool because it's not Microsoft.
So if Microsoft buys it, then a lot of people would...
The value of Apple would go down because you've got Apple fanboys who, you know, you understand, right?
Yeah, I understand.
And the two different products are doing quite well, and they're different, and they're doing well for different reasons.
But for the case of, you know, a certain medication, you know, having the only medication on the market...
Because that, you know, whoever that person did bought out the other medication, say they made more money.
Okay, hang on.
So let's say that there is a company that has developed a cure for cancer.
And how much does that cure for cancer cost the company, including R&D, just roughly, to To produce.
Let's say it's a pill that cures cancer.
How much, let's just take a guess, does it cost $1,000 to produce?
Because, you know, it's a lot of research and people have been trying to cure cancer for decades and blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
So we assume it's a difficult thing to do.
So can we sort of say roughly $1,000 a pill?
I mean, it wouldn't be that, I mean, at a certain point, the, say, $10 million of research that they spend after...
Oh no, $10 million will get you nothing in medical research.
I mean, that buys you a laptop and an assistant.
It would be billions of dollars to cure.
I mean, companies spend...
Let's just say it's $1,000 a pill.
We can say it's $500 a pill.
I don't care.
It doesn't really matter.
I would say it's $500 a pill.
Okay.
So it's $500 a pill to cure cancer, right?
Yeah.
Now, not to pull the C-card, but as someone who suffered from cancer, I can tell you I would have paid a lot more than $500 to not have had surgery and to not have had to go through chemo and radiation treatment.
Okay.
So let's say they're selling it for 10 times what it costs them to make.
$5,000 to cure cancer, right?
Okay, yeah.
That is way cheaper than what I went through.
Yeah, I understand.
So I'm saving huge amounts of money.
I don't get my sexy neck scar, that's true.
And I don't get to hang around throwing up a lot.
And I don't get to lose my eyebrows.
Not a lot of rest of the head to go.
So let's say they're charging 10 times.
That's $5,000 for curing cancer.
What was the cost of all my treatments?
I mean, I know the direct costs I had to pay in the United States, but tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps.
So at $5,000, society is still saving a huge amount of money.
Yeah.
So that's good.
It's win-win.
People get cured for cancer at far cheaper than they would have had to pay otherwise.
And the company makes a lot of money for curing cancer.
Where's the big problem here?
Well, let's take a real-life solution.
A real-life example.
So say the company was $5,000 and the company increased the price by 700%, which has happened several times in pharmaceutical companies.
So, it goes from $5,000 times 7, so...
Well, no, no, no.
$5,000 is already 10 times what it costs them to make.
So, they've already jacked up the price a huge amount.
Now, if you want to say the pill costs them $5,000 to make and they jack it up to $50,000, they can certainly do that.
Is that what you mean?
Um...
Yeah, let's go with that.
Okay, so the pill costs them $5,000 to make and they're selling it for $50,000, right?
Okay, yeah.
My question is, what happens to people who just don't have that money?
Well, hang on.
You're just assuming that they have this power to do that.
Okay, so if there's no government and...
Okay, so I think your argument would be that no one can pay it because it's too much money and so the company will go out of business.
No, no, that's, oh my god.
Have you ever, you've never run a company, I assume.
I don't mean to be annoying, but you haven't, right?
I have not known.
You have no experience with stockholder agreements, with CEO liabilities.
You're talking about shit you have no clue about.
I mean, it would be like me lecturing people on quantum physics, right?
You don't know any of the legalities.
You don't know any of the business realities.
You don't know anything about takeovers.
And I'm not trying to insult you.
I mean, these are just facts that you're coming up with these theoretical, candy-ass solutions with no knowledge and no research into the knowledge of what would happen.
Because I can tell you what would most likely happen As someone who has experience in these things.
Okay, tell me what would happen.
Okay, so what would happen is this.
I'm the CEO of Asshole Cancer Enterprises.
Wait, wait, do we have a show title?
Anyway, I'm the CEO of Asshole Cancer Enterprises.
I can produce a cancer pill for $5,000, but I wish to sell it for $50,000, right?
Now, I don't have monarchical power as the CEO of a company.
I'm not like Louis XV, right?
And even he got overthrown.
Actually, that's a good way of putting it.
They turned the throne over and overthrew him.
But I don't have monarchical power.
So what I would do is I would go to the board and I would say, I think we should sell cancer medication for 10 times what it costs us to produce.
Now, the normal profits for businesses in a free market are 3% to 4%.
Maybe five, six if you're really new to market with something.
Traditionally in a free market, you can't get more than that.
So I'm talking about a thousand percent when the market in general punishes anyone who goes over five or six.
Okay?
But we say nobody else has our secret formula, right?
So I'm going to charge this massive, massive amount, right?
Okay.
Now, there are Board members who have fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, which means that they must act to maximize the value of shareholder stock.
And if they don't, they get sued into atoms and scattered in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
So you have to do that which maximizes the value of the company.
And if you don't You lose everything.
Okay.
Now...
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on.
You still don't know much about this world, so please don't come up with stuff unless you've got something really simple.
It's a question.
Okay.
So...
How is...
In the free market that you're going there, it shouldn't be too much more.
It shouldn't overcharge something because it might possibly hurt the company.
What do you say about price coaching?
It might hurt the profits of the company.
Then they have to go through CEOs and it's not like...
Oh, okay.
Hang on.
Hang on.
Wait.
You said you had a quick question.
I told you not to bring in other things.
Did you just not listen to it completely?
Yeah.
So how can you explain...
Price gouging, especially in the pharmaceutical company.
I'm just in the middle of explaining something.
I ask you not to bring up something else.
And you just went and brought up another complex topic.
Can you continue time price gouging, please?
No, no.
I'm going to continue with my original topic, which I asked you not to interrupt.
And then you just interrupted it while telling me you weren't about to interrupt it with another topic.
So I'm going to keep going.
You have a fiduciary responsibility to provide maximum value to your shareholders.
And if you don't, you will get sued and you will lose your house and you will lose your savings and you will be ending up living in a rain barrel under a bridge.
Yeah.
So I say I wish us...
To take a deadly disease that kills millions of people a year and cause untold heartbreak, and I wish to price gouge sick and desperate people, and the board is going to look at me and say, are you insane?
Are you crazy?
They would have my head checked for brain tumors.
Because very few people could afford $50,000.
Again, in a free society, maybe they could.
I don't know.
Maybe the health insurance company or whatever.
Well, who knows, right?
But we don't need to charge $50,000.
We will make less money charging $50,000 than we will if we charge $6,000, which is still 20% more than the $5,000 it costs us to produce, right?
20% in a free market is a pretty healthy profit.
Okay.
So if I say, let's sell it for $50,000, they're going to say, that makes us much less money than if we sell it for $6,000, which is still a damn good profit.
That's number one.
So there's a sweet spot in supply and demand, right?
Which is that if you sell it for $50,000 and one penny, you will get sued by your shareholders because you're not maximizing the value of their shares because you're underselling the value of a product, right?
That's number one.
If you charge too much, you might get sued by your shareholders.
And maybe it's not sued.
Maybe they'll just sell their shares, saying, there's a bunch of dipshits running this.
You know, we might as well have the kid from the Life of Pi and the Dead Zebra running this company.
Your share prices will crash because you're making such ridiculously bad decisions that...
Nobody's going to want to be part of yours.
So your share prices will crash, which destroys the value of the shares, which means you're going to probably get sued anyway for not maintaining the value of the company.
So there's a sweet spot, and that sweet spot is going to be highly calculated and highly calibrated.
Now, so you're not going to be able to sell it for $50,000.
Because if you try, there will be a shareholder revolt.
And what that means is the shareholders will get together and fire all of your sorry asses and then sue you.
Because they wish to maintain the value of their company.
And if they've got their life savings in your company, maybe because their wife died of cancer or their wife is dying of cancer, they don't want you to ask clowns destroying the value of their life savings.
And if you do something ridiculously stupid, like charging 10 times for a life-saving medicine, that company will be destroyed.
Well, the company may survive and probably will, but you, your career will be over.
And you don't get to be the CEO of a major company that has enough resources to come up with a cure for cancer without knowing how to run a business.
And that is a terrible way to run a business.
It will never happen.
And if it should happen because someone...
5 or 10 or 20 people on the board all get brain tumors at the same time.
There'll be a shareholder revolt.
Everyone will be fired and competent managers will be brought in to sell it at the most economically productive price, which is not 10 times what it costs to make.
So that's important to understand.
This is how it works.
Number two, there is an interesting thing in business called goodwill.
And goodwill is the positive view that people have of your company.
And that's really, really important.
Look, you've got a lot of lefty friends.
I have some lefty friends.
Talk to them about Blackwater.
What do they think about Blackwater?
Blackwater is sort of a semi-private mercenary paid for by the government, substitute for bad soldiers run by the government.
Now, how many of your lefty friends would want to buy shares in Blackwater?
We would not.
We would not, right?
And I'm sure a lot of writers' friends would not want to buy shares in Blackwater because Blackwater, for a lot of people, has not a lot of goodwill.
So goodwill is just the positive view that people have of a company.
And it has a direct impact on share price.
Because is it socially acceptable to buy this company?
If it's not, eh, you know...
Like BP lost a lot of goodwill when they had that big oil spill in the Gulf and so on.
So people like, oh, I don't want to buy this company.
They're environmentally irresponsible.
Whatever people thought.
So there's something called goodwill, which is people's positive view of the company.
Now, can you imagine, my friend, a scenario under which a company would lose more goodwill in the marketplace than vastly overcharging for life-saving drugs, for a disease that slowly and painfully kills millions of people a year?
Well, it's happened.
Your example actually happened.
You said that person who did that would be fired, or they wouldn't be running big business, and the person who did that, Martin Stricknelly, he was fired as CEO. The person who raised it from $13.50 per pill to $700 per pill, he was fired.
And he's facing a decade in prison.
Yeah.
For, God knows, I don't even, I haven't even read the, but oh my God.
Security's fraud.
Yeah, yeah, fraud.
Okay, so here's an example of a guy, you know, and for instance, the guy who tried to pay everyone in his company $70,000 or whatever it was, his brother is suing him for destroying the value of the company.
So this guy essentially, now this is accusations.
This is not proven as yet.
This is Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Robert Capers at a press conference said this guy, Shkreli, essentially ran his company like a Ponzi scheme where he used each subsequent company to pay off defrauded investors from the prior company.
So this guy was dishonest and he's accused of this.
Who knows what the truth is?
It'll come out over time if it ever comes out at all.
But so that is the cause and effect.
So if you destroy a company's goodwill, if you turn the company from loved into hated, you have destroyed the value of people's shares and they will sue you.
And so this is why corporations, other than the fact that there are lots of nice people who run corporations, despite what a lot of people think, this is why corporations engage in goodwill.
Pink ribbon campaigns and give to charity and do all of these nice things because it's called accumulating goodwill so that they're considered to be good corporate citizens.
People like them.
They want their stocks in their portfolio.
That has a direct material effect on the price of the shares.
And so I guarantee you that any competent CEO will say, we have a cure for cancer, we have a great opportunity, and we have a great liability.
Yeah.
The great opportunity is we can cure people of cancer.
The great liability is people will not be able to afford our cure.
So we need to have a program in place to ensure that we can give medicine to people who can't afford it so that we're not accused of pandering to rich people who can afford the $6,000 we have to charge to cure them for cancer.
Now, first of all, of course, insurance companies will pay.
And insurance companies, I don't know, what does it cost?
Like, when I first got lymphoma, we saw some insane quotes.
Like, up about a million dollars to treat, right?
Insane, insane amounts of money.
That's if you could even get a price quoted to you.
Some of them were like, what?
What do you mean a price quote?
We don't do that.
Right, right.
Now, so...
Again, I don't want to get into the details of what I paid.
It's kind of private, but it was a good deal.
$6,000...
I'm Canadian with a good deal just for the operation.
So the insurance companies will be thrilled Because the insurance companies are gonna start saving money like crazy.
Like not Obama bullshit promises Mirage fall off a cliff of costs, but an actual savings, right?
So I don't know what, I'm gonna guess that for somebody who's got to go through any kind of surgery and chemo and radiation, 50, 60, 70, $80,000.
So it's at least a 90% saving to pay for a $6,000 pill.
Okay.
Right?
And also, if the person also has a life insurance, Then not only are they saving the money on the cancer treatment, 90%, but they also don't have to pay out a quarter million or a half a million or a million dollars in life insurance or whatever.
So the insurance companies are going to be ecstatic about this and they're going to be able to vastly reduce the price of insurance.
Because they'll all be competing with each other to give people a lower.
So the moment that a cure for cancer comes in, people's insurance is going to crash.
People's medical insurance is going to crash in terms of price.
Like in a good way, crash.
That sounds bad.
But it's going to go down enormously because it's going to be far cheaper to treat them and they get to defer the payout for life insurance and so on.
So people are going to be saving thousands of dollars a year already in life insurance and healthcare insurance Maybe not thousands, but a lot, right?
And let's say that they save $500.
Let's take a lowball estimate and say that a cure for cancer lowers people's combined health and life insurance by $500 a year.
Well, that's rounding it off 10 or 12% of the price of the pill.
It means they can take a loan out and they can pay back that loan with the money that they're saving from their health and life insurance to pay for their cancer treatment.
Do you understand?
And let's say they don't have health insurance.
They only have life insurance.
So it's going to take 10 years.
Well, people take out loans that they pay back over 10 years.
So you could borrow the money against the savings on your insurance, right?
Yeah.
So that's another way.
But for sure, there will be criticism and there'll be the media.
I don't know what the media will look like in a free society.
Maybe like me.
I don't know.
But there will be the media and the media will find the poor person who can't afford it.
And they will say, look how unfair and unjust, because the media just loves provoking that kind of class warfare.
I don't know what to do in the future, but let's say right now.
So the company will be perfectly aware that the media will be stiffing around looking for poor people who can't afford it.
So the company is going to put processes in place to make sure that this stuff is available to poor people because they wish to protect the value of the stock that is buoyed up by the goodwill that people feel towards the company.
Okay.
Right?
Because if they say, well, fuck it, poor people die in the streets.
You know, if you're homeless and you've got cancer, we're not giving you a pill because you can't get a loan, right?
They know.
They know what a negative perception that is going to give.
And competent CEOs, and I'm telling you, if you're big enough to, like, the...
Cancer research just from the official cancer body is close to five billion dollars a year.
That's just research, let alone everything else that you're doing.
So if you're the CEO of a multi tens or hundreds of billions of dollar corporation, you are the very best CEO because they can afford you because you need to be the very best.
So you're gonna be making good decisions.
So you're gonna make sure that poor people get the health care that they need.
You'll set up a Charity agents, charity areas, employee drives.
You'll do whatever it takes.
You'll pay out of your own pocket.
Because if you don't, let's say that you talked about one person out of 200 being unable to function or whatever it is, right?
But let's say that 1% of people can't rustle up $5,000 over 10 years.
In a free society, of course, we'll be making much more money and it won't be a big issue.
But let's say one person out of 100.
So giving them free medicine It's going to cost you 1% of your profits.
However, not giving them free medicine is going to cost you 5-10% of the value of your company because you're going to be bleeding away your goodwill because there'll be pictures of people dying of lumps in an alley because you're too cheap to give them free medicine even though they can't afford it and they're desperate and so on, right?
So it's economically advantageous to you, even if there's no compassion and it's all economic calculation, it's economically advantageous for you to give out free medicine to buoy up the goodwill that keeps your stock prices high.
Mm-hmm.
And there's no CEO on the planet who wouldn't understand that if they've gotten to the level of running multi-hundred billion dollar corporations.
And there's so many checks and balances in corporations, right?
There's the board.
There's the customers.
There's the employees.
There's the shareholders, all of whom can get dissatisfied.
Like if your researcher has worked night and day for 10 years to come up with a cure for cancer and you overcharge, he's going to leave you and he's going to go work for someone else.
And all of his accumulated genius is going to go with him and that's going to be a big problem.
'cause he didn't do that so that you guys could all get rich.
Like there's so many checks and balances in a free market.
You can be punished by all of the customers who say, you know what, these guys are way overcharging for their cancer medication.
We'll buy that shit from them if we have to.
We're boycotting them on everything else we don't need to buy.
Like they've got a hundred products, this one cancer medication they've been complete assholes about.
We're going to buy that because they've got the only ones who've got it.
We're going to not buy anything else.
That they sell.
Just that one thing, that's going to crater your entire income.
And so, again, this is just off the top of my head, but you need to study these things if you're going to create these scarce scenarios.
At least you need to study the checks and balances that would be there in a relatively free society, some of which are kind of there now.
I'm not a big fan of corporatism as it stands, but that's sort of neither here nor there.
But...
So that issue of, well, what happens if they develop this, that, and the other, because you don't know anything about how corporations work or how fiduciary responsibility works or what goodwill is or how shareholder arrangements work or how a board works or what the sweet spot is for selling products and so on, because you don't know anything about this, you should stop talking about it because you're dangerously spreading confusion and fear among people when you don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, so...
I know very little.
Nothing would be a stretch, but very little.
Let's go with that.
And actually, I hadn't heard a lot of the arguments, and they make sense, and I'm going to look into them, and I'm taking in new information, and that's great.
And so, I want to ask another question.
I read an article that...
Okay, but I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is going to have to be quick.
Very, very quick, like five minutes if that, because it's been a three and a half hour show and I'm ready to pack it in, but go ahead.
Okay, so I'm going to go with something instead.
So I assume that you would like for the hemp industry to be stronger, correct?
I don't even understand that.
What do you mean I would like?
What do you mean?
Right now, because of the government and how marijuana is illegal, which has also made hemp illegal, we are missing out on the billion dollar industry, creating hemp clothes, using hemp for construction, creating this product that could make money all around the world.
Well, I'm against the initiation of force, and buying and using drugs is not initiating force, and so anyone who's banning that is initiating force.
I don't know what any specific industry would have to do with it.
Well, I believe that the reason why, you know, hemp is illegal was because they were cutting into profits of cotton corporations, and the cotton corporations, you know, bribed politicians to make sure that Hemp was illegal so that they wouldn't have any competition.
So my solution would be to end money in politics so that there would be no way for a corporation to buy the government.
And your solution, I'm assuming, would be to give less power to the government.
Correct?
To give what power to the government?
To give less power to the government?
Yes.
No, my solution is The non-initiation of force.
Consistently applied.
I mean, I'm not prejudiced against the government.
I'm also prejudiced against rapists and thieves and murderers and assaulters.
Anybody who initiates the use of force, you know, of which the government is obviously a pretty key or large component of that tribe.
Okay.
So, do you see how getting money out of politics could be positive?
Do I see how getting money out of politics could be positive?
Yes.
I don't understand the question, sorry.
Okay.
Yeah, do you agree that money in politics can lead to corruption and that causes problems?
I don't understand, sorry, I... I still don't understand the question.
It's not money in politics that drives corruption.
It's the fact that politics violates the non-aggression principle.
Like, I'm less concerned about bribery than I am about, say, war.
So, I mean, the corruption is the monopoly, violence, power that the government has.
The effect of that is that there's money in politics, right?
I mean, people give money to politicians because politicians have the power to give stuff to people.
And the people give votes to politicians because politicians have the power to give stuff to people.
If you take away their power to give stuff to people, I don't, I mean, it solves the problem.
Yeah, but I do believe we could have politicians that, you know, do things that are good for society.
I mean, I guess you're more...
No, no, no, no.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I believe that there are slave owners who do things that are good for society.
It's a principle thing.
I don't know what this consequence thing is for you.
I don't know if you're not processing what I'm saying.
And I know it's maybe a new perspective to take on and all that, but violence is the problem.
The initiation of force is the problem.
And it's immoral.
It's wrong.
It's evil.
And it needs to change along the way through peaceful parenting.
Sorry, go ahead.
How is an elected official using violence?
I'm not quite understanding you with that.
that way.
Well, how is a mafia boss using violence when he doesn't pull any triggers?
Well, he could tell someone else to, you know, to do a certain thing.
I mean, he So a politician passes a law with the direct knowledge that passing that law usually results in the initiation of force against people.
So the politicians who said, we want a war on drugs, were signing laws that they knew would result in the initiation of force against peaceful people.
Now, if I hire someone to kill someone...
That's illegal.
Even though I haven't pulled the trigger.
If I talk someone into killing someone, that's illegal.
Hell, even advocating, like it's called hate speech, advocating anything which could be interpreted as risking violence against particular groups or individuals is illegal.
And so a politician who passes a law, they're not responsible, they're not moral agents because they don't usually have the knowledge and they're operating within the matrix, within the system, so I'm simply talking about the moral reality.
But a politician who signs a law saying, I'm going to increase taxes by 5% knows that people better pay that or they go to jail.
And so he is in charge of the initiation of force and he's taking actions which directly cause the initiation of force.
Though he does not use it himself directly, but so what?
Okay.
Yeah, so for the drug war, for example, I believe that the politicians passed those laws because of lobbyists at private prisons wanted to have more prisoners, and so they lobbied Congress to pass laws like the three-strike law to fill up prisons so they'd make more money.
Well, hang on.
Three strikes law on the war on drugs is very separate.
Three strikes law was relatively recent.
The war on drugs has been going on for decades.
Yeah, that was one of the many things that the private prisons have lobbied for.
They lobbied for the three strikes law.
I think originally marijuana was legislated against because of anti-Hispanic feelings, but not particularly important.
But okay, so I don't know, I have no idea, and I don't think you do either, what secret deals were made between lobbyists and the government.
That's the whole point, right?
I mean, you don't know.
And it doesn't really matter.
We know that the government has the power to provide things to people without them paying for it.
Monopoly powers, patents, restrictions on competition, tax advantages, tariffs, you name it, right?
Subsidies, breaks, you know, preferential legislation of every kind.
And so, power corrupts.
And you're looking at the shadow cast by power and saying, well, how do we change the shadow?
Well, you can't.
Giving people the monopoly power of coercion, whether it's in the legal or the financial or the whatever sphere, the educational sphere, giving people a monopoly on violence will corrupt them and will corrupt everyone who deals with the system.
It's inevitable, it's inescapable, and you can't manage the symptoms.
The only thing you can do, right, there's a thousand people Trimming the tree of evil for every one person hacking at the roots.
And the root is violations of the non-aggression principle.
And the most virulent manifestation of that is the state.
And parenting.
With spanking and aggression and so on.
And so...
That's the only thing that I'm concerned about.
You know, you want to try and reform slavery.
I say no slavery.
You want to try and manage the effects.
Well, maybe we can find a way to have slave owners beat their slaves less or work them nicer.
No.
Manage the effects of a fundamental violation of the non-aggression principle.
You don't manage the effects.
You eliminate the cause.
You say, what is immoral?
And then a generation or two later, it changes.
This is what happened with slavery.
And people started talking about how immoral it was.
And then a generation or two later, it changes.
You just have to keep consistently pointing out how wrong it is.
But this idea that you can manage the effects of such a fundamental violation of the non-aggression principle of the state is like trying to make slave owners nicer.
Well, I mean, there's countries that have more corruption and less corruption, so there is a difference.
It's not...
I mean, I get the point of, you know, power corrupts, but there is countries, you know, I think that are very corrupt, you know, say South America.
Where, you know, everyone's bought off and they have all the money and, you know, poor people have no money.
They don't share the wealth.
And then there's countries like Denmark, which, like you said, they're weeping their capitalist ways in the past and possibly now.
Yeah, because South America has a population that has a low IQ and Denmark has a population that has a high IQ. On average in general.
And of course, in Denmark, there's the fruits of 2,500 years of Western philosophy and statecraft and political theories, you know, all the way from Socrates through John Locke and other thinkers, Spencer and other thinkers who focused on political freedoms.
There's a long and slow, patient march, but we're not done.
Yeah, of course.
You know, the fact that there's less corruption in some countries, let's keep applying those principles.
Let's keep expanding those principles.
The fact that slaves are better treated in America rather than in the Islamic states in the 19th century doesn't mean that we say, okay, it means that we continue to work with what we've got and improve what we've got.
I agree.
We should improve.
I have one last point.
Okay.
I want to find out where inequality, where you think there's a good...
There should always be inequality.
I don't believe in equal pay for everyone in the company.
There should always be a CEO who makes a lot more money, and you should be the basic person who cleans the floors to make less money than the CEO. What I have read is that in recent years, CEO pay has gone up from, say, 80 times the lowest worker to 400 times.
So it's 85% I know you don't want to redistribute wealth.
Sorry, I get the question.
So the greatest inequality is between the citizen and the government.
Not between a poor person and a rich person.
A poor person and a rich person are on the same continuum.
Again, assuming that it's not a rich criminal, right?
So a poor person and a rich person are on the same continuum, and neither of them is violating the initiation of force.
The only inequality that matters a damn in the world is the inequality between government agents and citizens, because government agents are commanded to initiate the use of force, private citizens are banned from that.
That is the only distinction and the only inequality that means a dam in this world.
Now as far as CEO pay increasing, measuring it relative to lowest worker pay doesn't particularly matter.
What matters is, first of all, Government education has gotten worse and worse over the past 40 years, which means that people are coming out much less economically valuable than they were when the vestiges of the Trivium were still around in the 50s and 60s.
So that's one thing.
Secondly, you don't want to measure CEO compensation relative to worker compensation.
You want to measure it relative to corporate size.
Corporations in general are much larger and much more international and much more difficult to manage now than they used to be, which means that those who have the skill and ability and willingness and work ethic to manage them are going to get paid more because it's more challenging and more difficult to do.
And so that's another thing.
The other thing, of course, is that CEO salaries are artificially boosted by artificially boosted stock prices.
And the stock prices are artificially boosted because the government forces everyone to invest in the stock market Or lose their money to taxes, right?
So you have 401ks and pension schemes and all these sort of plans where people have to put their money into the stock market when they don't want to be in the stock market, which is, you know, because they have to be forced to do it.
That drives up as well.
Manipulation of interest rates, manipulation of money supply, preferential...
Benefits, bailouts, preferential benefits to banking institutions and other financial institutions from the Federal Reserve.
The fact that when money gets printed or created by the Federal Reserve, rich people tend to get it first when it's at full value, poor people get it last when it's at lower value, also further creates an imbalance.
So I don't care where imbalance ends up at the end.
I don't care.
I think it'll be much less, but I don't care.
I don't care.
So asking me, you know, what is the ratio that is acceptable to me?
What is acceptable to me as a society without the initiation of force or whether the bare minimum initiation of force is humanly possible by people who've got struck by lightning, had their brains addled, are possessed by demons or who have a brain tumor.
Those people initiate force.
Maybe they're not responsible.
We deal with them of a medical issue or whatever.
I care about a world where we do not have the initiation of force as a justified foundational moral and social organizing principle because that's what we have right now.
What we have right now is a massive justification for a blood-soaked set of machine guns pointed mostly at the unborn.
That is a repulsive and disgusting Kafkaesque revolting society.
That needs to change in the same way that slave-based societies were disgusting, morally reprehensible societies that desperately needed to change.
So as far as what fucking ratio of ownership is by the rich and by the poor, I don't care.
I do care that we stop pointing guns at each other and consider it somehow a civilized society.
I do care that we challenge the assumption that putting a blood-soaked monopoly of violence at the center of society is going to produce anything other than disaster in the long run.
We need to be consistent.
If we tell a three-year-old, don't hit your sister, how about we tell the government, no, sorry, the initiation of force is immoral.
We've got to look for alternatives.
That's all that matters to me.
These consequences and these details, you know, I don't think it should matter to you either.
Just deal with the principle and don't worry about the details.
They're not under our control.
They're impossible to predict.
We focus on doing the right thing, though the heavens fall.
I think one can care about both issues at the same time.
I don't think it has to be either or.
Well, it is for you because you've not mentioned any principles whatsoever.
So I've got to finish up the call because I'm running out of steam.
Thank you, everyone, so much for a wonderful, wonderful year at Freedom and Radio.
Freedomandradio.com slash donate to help us out.
We desperately need your help to grow and to succeed and to survive.
Everything that we do is dependent on you.
We get books again.
Handing out books for free, shows for free, podcasts for free.
I don't charge speaking fees in general.
You get everything for free, but it does rely on your integrity, your bowstring, to send back some value for the value that you receive.
This is a one-of-a-kind conversation in and on the world.
It is a life-changing and world-changing conversation for everyone.
There is no such thing as free, and so please don't be a free rider.
Don't piggyback on the generosity of others.
Do the right thing.
FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate.
Come and give us value for value.
That's how we know we're doing the right thing, and that's how we can grow, and there's no other way.
Don't let all the crazy people fund their institutions while you don't fund the ones that you care about.
And this is the greatest conversation in the world that's going on in the moment, maybe throughout history.
So who knows?
But we don't know how far we can take it without your support.
You can also go to FDRURL.com slash Amazon if you want to use our affiliate link.
Doesn't cost you a penny.
We get a few pennies.
And so please, please help us out.
Thank you for a wonderful, wonderful year.
We gained over 100,000 subscribers this year and this is partly due to your generosity.
Like, share, subscribe every video you can get your hands on.
Damn the social consequences.
Speaking the truth is how you differentiate Real friends from false friends.
What is it?
I think it's an old Tom Waits song.
I want champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends.
That's always been my foundation of philosophy.
Have yourself a wonderful and joyous and happy new year.
We are looking forward to 2016 enormously at this show and around the world.
We're going to do a fantastic job.
every single show I try to do something new and better and more powerful, and I can only keep doing it if you help support the show.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Don't wait, my friends!
Just don't postpone.
Just do it now.
You'll feel better.
And what a great New Year's resolution that could be.
I commit to doing better shows, to being more courageous, to being more committed to what it is I'm doing, to being more risky, to trying to even be a little bit more funny if I can.
So I'm committed to continuing to improve what I do.
I hope that you will continue in your support of what it is that we do because we can't and frankly won't do it without you.
Thank you so much everyone for a wonderful year.
2016 is going to rock the world in philosophical excellence and I can't wait for it.
