All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:44
Why I Was Wrong About Running For Office
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi there, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid.
So, after many months of consultation with mentors and advisors, family and friends, I have come to a decision that will certainly be somewhat surprising to those of you who have been following my public career as an intellectual for 15 years or so, but I hope that I can make the case For you about what it is that I'm going to do in a way that makes sense and hopefully will get you behind what I plan to do.
So, many years ago I made a video called the story of your enslavement where I compared countries to farms, tax farms in particular.
And because I am a staunch advocate for human freedom, I really wanted to free people from these enclosures, from these farms.
And so I suppose I made a lot of videos trying to convince people to become free, trying to convince leaders to free them.
And as we can see from ever escalating suppression on social media, as we can see from ever escalating attacks on free speech and free minds, this has not been working as well as it could have been.
Now, I don't propose breaking out the animals illegally, because that's against the law, so I'm really left with no choice but to run for office, to attempt to take over the zoo, not to attempt, to take over the zoo legally and peacefully and free everyone in the way that they should be freed.
I mean, good heavens, if someone can go from being a drama school teacher and a snowboard instructor to prime minister in just a few years, What about a well-educated intellectual who's been talking publicly about political science for decades?
So, I have decided to run for office.
And this is going to be surprising.
And in the old idea that only Nixon can go to China, I hope that you will understand that my skepticism, if not the downright hostility, towards political action in the past gives some credibility to this reversal of my perspective.
But Maybe it's being a father, maybe it is seeing what's happening in the West and the failure of mere philosophy to reverse the rising tides of totalitarianism, but I have decided to act in a manner consistent with securing freedoms for the future.
I suppose you may be curious about my major policies and I have put a great deal of thought into these.
I'm going to just sketch them here.
Of course, over time I will release a more detailed paper outlining all of the policies that I plan to implement or will implement when I win.
But let's start with some of the least contentious ones and move to the more contentious ones.
So when it comes to trade, It is a very strange thing that Western countries have trade agreements that allow other countries far more latitude than the Western countries themselves have.
For instance, Chinese people can come and own property in almost all Western countries virtually uninhibited, but if you try and go To China to own property, well, you can't really get a hold of it.
The same thing is true of citizenship.
If you want to go and become a citizen in Japan, sometimes even marriage to a native Japanese person doesn't do it, but you can pretty much pick up citizenship in Western countries, you know, with five pop-up Tim Hortons cup lids and a simple form filled out in crayon.
So when it comes to trade, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to property ownership, my platform is simple.
That Western countries should match other countries in the ease of obtaining ownership and citizenship and so on.
With regards to trade policies, the one thing that is very true and foundational is the Socratic notion that very few of us know much about anything, I include myself in that, and therefore the idea that a senior politician would make trade policy is to me completely crazy.
Who should make trade policy?
Well, trade associations and business people should sign their own contracts with companies overseas and deal with it that way.
They're the ones who have the greatest interest in the success of these trade arrangements and one of the things that I'm always concerned about is what's called rent-seeking which is an attempt to profit through public action private interests.
That's a fascistic form of profit and something which should be anathema to any truly free society.
The moment that governments can control trade Then the people who trade will attempt to control governments and use the trade powers of the government for their own benefit, usually at the expense of the consumer.
So you're free to trade as you see fit, but the government should have nothing to do with it.
With regards to the environment, I have a long history of protecting the environment.
As an entrepreneur, I spent 15 years creating and selling software to Fortune 500 companies, which allowed them to minimize their environmental impact, and I will continue this as the most senior politician.
Climate change is a huge issue that we all recognize needs to be worked on.
So there are two major areas that I will help in terms of climate change.
Number one is national debts.
Overspending money that is made up or printed or borrowed is absolutely horrible for the environment.
Every dollar that is borrowed and spent today is an additional dollar of consumption of nature's scarce resources.
So balancing the budget is absolutely essential and I have wonderful ways of achieving that that are a win-win for everybody except the most predatory which I feel is a form of justice.
I will get to that.
So first of all we must balance the budget and no more will we be allowed to run national debts and national deficits.
So that will help the environment enormously by reducing the consumption of resources.
Immigration is a huge problem for climate change because basically people are coming from very low carbon footprint environments to very high carbon footprints environments, i.e.
the West.
So in the Middle East you make one-tenth of what you do when you get to Germany and go on welfare and that basically is ten times the resource consumption of nature's scarce resources.
So it is very, very tough.
We've all been asked to make sacrifices to maintain the strength of the protection of the environment and that is a reality that the people are going to have to solve problems in their own countries rather than come to the West and massively increase pollution and and carbon footprints and thus accelerating climate change.
There's really no point coming to a country to escape issues in your own country if your new country and your old country end up underwater.
So people are going to have to solve problems in their own countries rather than running to the West because nature, Mother Nature, simply cannot handle the additional carbon footprints so that has to stop.
With regards to pollution as a whole, Government laws don't solve pollution.
What solves pollution is the private ownership of resources.
So, as much as possible, convert the problem of the commons lands from publicly owned, which is to say nobody has any investment in maintaining the quality of those resources, to privately owned.
Because people care about their own property.
They generally don't care about other people's property nearly as much.
And when the property is essentially unowned, which is what public land is, people don't really care about it at all.
So what we do is we want to make as many people invested in the protection of our scarce resources.
And the only way to do that is to convert them to private ownership, which I will of course achieve with the stroke of a pen.
Now, One thing that the Mueller Report has taught us, this witch hunt that occurred south of the border, is that highly complex laws can be used to bully people for political differences.
And the tax and legal codes in the West have become ridiculously Byzantine.
Basically, it's a setup for Joseph K. and Catholicus the Trial for an unending passage through the lower intestines of incredibly complex legal codes.
And it seems like the opening of a Dickens novel rather than the achievement of a rational civilization.
So can you imagine that if you are liable for any issues you have with the tax code and you are standing in front of a judge what you could do is just have your lawyer bring in a bookshelf and a half of highly dense small font squint-o-vision tax code legalese and say nobody knows how to obey these laws and therefore these laws cannot be just.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse as long as the law is reasonably comprehensible and The law within the Western countries has become so convoluted almost by design and of course the fact that a lot of politicians are lawyers and lawyers like complexity because it makes them a lot of money is not lost on anyone.
So clearly we need to radically simplify the legal codes, we need to radically simplify the tax codes because complex laws, over-complex laws are breeding grounds for tyranny and suppression and that is not What people signed up for when they signed up for the imaginary social contract.
One of the particular issues is free speech in the West.
Now, it used to be the case that as long as you weren't shouting fire in a crowded theater or directly inciting violence in a particular moment, you were free to make whatever intellectual arguments you wanted and we fought our way to the high pinnacle of truth through the robust back-and-forth of public debate.
That has been squashed consistently.
One of the major problems is hate speech laws in the West.
Now, when it comes to hate speech laws, it is, of course, a subjective definition.
It is highly complex.
It is, by its subjectivity, open to abuse and political partisanship and therefore is an interference in the free flow of ideas essential for the democratic exercise of perspective in the public square.
So, With regards to free speech, of course everybody needs free speech.
We have a general hesitation applying free speech laws to, say, religious texts.
So religious texts can contain exhortations to violence and things that, if written by a private person, would be utterly disallowed under hate speech laws.
So we can't have inconsistent laws.
Therefore, since we don't want to subject religious texts and other texts to hate speech laws, We can't have multi-legalism, we can't have different sets of legal standards, therefore free speech must be enforced, free speech must be allowed.
The only way to stop people from radicalizing and splitting off and splintering and going into their own subterranean echo chambers is to allow maximum public discourse in the public square to make sure that we can counter bad ideas with better ideas.
With regards to foreign aid, It is one thing to be charitable if you have an excess of resources.
It is another thing to be charitable entirely if you are massively in debt and have unfunded liabilities running into the trillions of dollars.
Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.
If someone steals from you and then gives to charity, that money is still stolen and should be returned.
So with regards to foreign aid, it's not charity if it's coerced and taking money from the poor people in rich countries and giving it to the rich people in poor countries is terrible.
Foreign aid turns foreign governments into recipients of foreign aid rather than having them be responsive to the needs and preferences of their own people.
It is often used to buy weaponry.
It is often used to bribe people and thereby corrupting the political institutions of foreign countries.
Now, with regards to wanting to help other countries, I think it's a wonderful thing to want to help people, whether domestically or overseas, and therefore, although the government will not take your money by force and hand it out to dictators overseas, you are free to help anybody that you want in the world and nobody will stop you.
Another huge issue is what is, at the moment, somewhat laughingly called higher education.
With regards to universities, their value in the public square has become progressively more open to question, let us say, because rabid Marxist slash socialist indoctrination seems to be the order of the day.
And it's one thing to allow free speech, which should be allowed, and to allow the Marxists and the socialists and the totalitarians to make their case in the public square.
It is quite another thing to Force people to pay for the indoctrination of their own children, and to force those children, often lied to about the true value of a university education, particularly an arts degree.
It is absolutely wrong to lie to children, to put them into tens of thousands of dollars of debt sometimes, in order to indoctrinate them, turn them hostile to the freedoms that gave birth to the universities in the first place, and chain them to a life of debt slavery, as surely as if you had chained them to a galley or an ancient Roman barge.
So when it comes to the universities, they have to provide value to the marketplace, they have to provide value to the society, and therefore there will be no more subsidies to universities.
They must sink or swim on their own, they must be responsive to the needs of parents, to the needs of children, and to the needs of businesses, who are the ones who most need the skills that universities can produce.
With regards to public schools, and I understand I'm stepping up the staircase of escalating challenges for the West, But when you think about how much has changed over the course of the West, just over the last 200 years, it is an unrecognizable futuristic phenomenon that we live in compared to life just 200 years ago.
Now, if you think about public schools, you don't see that kind of change at all.
If you look at private schools 200 years ago, they were largely a teacher, 20 to 30 students, and a blackboard in one room for 6-7 hours a day with a few breaks.
Now, 200 years later, what has changed?
Very little, really.
There is a teacher, there are 20 to 30 students, Maybe it's become a whiteboard instead of a blackboard, but fundamentally it's the same.
And that's the problem, you see, when it comes to the government.
The government freezes things in place.
Things no longer progress because there's so much regulation, there's so many unions, there's so much control, there's so many statutes.
And the consumers of education are the children, and the people who pay for it are the parents.
And when the parents are not in charge of how their children are educated, then the education is going to become indoctrination as certainly as night follows day.
Schools have become almost unutterably boring and they've become terrible for boys in particular.
One of the reasons that they become boring is you can no longer teach moral values within school other than a vague tolerance and some leftist tropes that are being increasingly resisted by new groups within Western society.
You can't teach values because the moment you start teaching values you will offend significant portions of the parents of the children in the school.
So school has been stripped of a moral education and that is one of the main reasons why the West is failing culturally.
We no longer have virtue to believe in.
We no longer have a central ethical goal to believe in.
It has all been stripped from public education as a result of diversity.
When you can't teach morals, you can't teach critical thinking, because a lot of people, a lot of parents have irrational beliefs.
And if you teach critical thinking in government schools, what are the kids going to do?
Well, they're going to go home and they're going to start questioning their parents' beliefs, Socratic style.
don't really like that and therefore reason, evidence, critical thinking, values, morals, central ethical ideals have all been stripped from education and therefore it has become a boring recitation of bland facts without substance, without purpose, without meaning, without interest and it's almost worse to bore children than it is to indoctrinate them but the two generally go hand-in-hand.
Schooling needs to be turned back over to the parents.
Schooling needs to be turned back over to the children.
Nobody knows the best way to educate children at the moment because education has been controlled by Western governments for about a hundred and fifty years.
So nobody knows the best way to educate children but what we need is of course to let a thousand schools of thought bloom, to let them all compete in the marketplace and figure out the best way to provide value.
to the children.
Now, people will say, ah yes, but if I now have to stop paying for my child's education, that's an extra tax.
Well, no.
It's not.
Because you are already paying for your child's education.
And sadly enough, the poor are paying the most proportionally.
Because property taxes on rental apartments per square foot are often higher than property taxes on large, luxurious mansions in the suburbs.
So you're charging the poor the most for an education that serves them the least.
And the poor need a quality education the most because rich people have all other kinds of resources they can put their kids in and all other kinds of tutors that they can hire.
But the poor need the best education and right now the poor are being charged the most for the worst quality education imaginable.
So let us let The brilliant minds in the educational sphere work their free market magic on the education of children and thus we will help close the increasing gaps between rich and poor that do threaten to tear apart our societies.
With the money being saved, from massive reductions in property taxes which will be passed along in lower rents for rental people.
You will be able to educate your own children in much more effective ways, in much better ways, in ways that the kids will wake up and want to go to school rather than having to be pushed out like you're pushing string up a frozen slide.
And with regards to schools, they're mostly being used to indoctrinate these days and they are a kind of intellectual anti-concentration camp for children where children get drugged often for just being bored and disagreeing or disobeying and also they're used to collect taxes in a sense or to collect union dues that are funneled to leftist political parties and that is not the way that democracy is supposed to work.
So, here's a biggie.
The welfare state.
The welfare state is a relatively new phenomenon in the West.
It was tried in the past in England.
You can look up Spenumland and it had the same disastrous outcomes that it's currently having at the moment.
The welfare state, we must recognize, was a giant mistake in Western society as it has been a giant mistake in every society where the state coerced redistribution of wealth for the ostensible purpose of solving poverty has always played out this way.
The welfare state does not help people.
The welfare state subsidizes terrible decisions that are in particular bad for children with regards to father absence and single motherhood.
The welfare state It just is used now to buy votes and pay people to not riot, and that's not a way to run a civilization.
You can't be held hostage by a fear of social unrest and steal from people, and often from the children, right?
So the most vulnerable people in society are children, which is why they tend to be exploited so much, for public schools exploiting them, for universities exploiting them through debt, and also for governments.
Because what happens is the money that is used to pay for the destruction of the nuclear family through the welfare state is charged to the children in the future with interest through national debt.
And this is absolutely immoral and absolutely abhorrent.
And if we loved our children in the way that we used to and in the way that we morally should, we would never have allowed things to come to this kind of extremity.
People do need charity.
They do need help.
There are people Genuinely, through no fault of their own, who need social resources, who need money, who need health care, who need support.
It's just that the government cannot provide it.
The government can only mail checks to buy votes.
It cannot get involved, and generally does not get involved, in helping people individually.
The problem with poverty has a lot to do with a mindset.
It has a lot to do with psychological problems and emotional problems.
It's not simply a lack of money.
If that were the case, then everybody who won the lottery would become a billionaire entrepreneur.
The problems of poverty are not solved by giving people money directly.
They are solved by Communities, they're solved by getting to know people, they're solved by figuring out what their real issues are.
When it comes to helping people, what used to happen is communities used to help people.
They used to get involved.
Remember when we used to have communities?
Well, if you're much younger than me, you can't remember that.
You can't remember that at all.
You can't remember what it's like to know your neighbors, for everyone to gather together, for kids to all play together, to just be able to go out of your house and play in the neighborhood for hours without any fear or concern or worry.
You don't know what that's like.
This is another thing.
Diversity, of course.
Multiculturalism has fragmented our communities to the point where kids have to be driven everywhere to go to activities, which is another thing that is terrible for the environment.
So with regards to the welfare state, people need help and they should get help.
And private charities and churches and mosques and synagogues should get involved, as they naturally will.
Where there's a need and the government fails to provide it or stops providing it, the need gets filled by other People.
There's an old joke about the Soviet Union.
Two women standing in a frozen line for hours to get bread, and one of them says, this is cold, it's horrible, I can't believe how long it takes just to get bread.
And the other woman turns to her and says, well, in the capitalist countries it's even worse.
The government doesn't distribute any bread at all.
Right?
Where human beings have a need and government stops providing it, other people will rush in to fill that need.
There is risk to life.
There are misfortunes in life.
We all need help from time to time.
So people will help each other out.
And every time that welfare diminishes and taxes diminish, private charities step up to fill the void and are much more effective thereby.
Because here's a fundamental thing to understand.
It's one of the things that has really driven me to make this decision.
Our current system is utterly unsustainable and the checks are going to stop coming.
Mathematically that which cannot be sustained will not be sustained.
At some point the bill is going to come up past you, the money will not be there, the checks will stop coming and we can either stagger through such a disaster with no preparation or we can have a soft landing where we transition people off welfare onto private charity if they need it and deal with it that way.
But it's going to end so anyone who thinks that it can continue is simply showing mathematical illiteracy or anti-empirical mental illness.
It cannot continue and therefore we must find a charitable and humane way to wean people off a system that cannot survive.
So, another major issue of course is an aging population and old age pensions.
Now, in many Western countries there is money in the old age pension scheme and therefore that money should be paid back out.
But the reality is, let me just ask you this.
You love your parents.
You want them to have safety, security, support in their old age.
What if your tax is dropped to 90%?
What if your taxes dropped 90%?
Would you have resources to help out your parents?
Should they be short of money?
Of course you would.
The reality is that the old age pension system being part of the larger unsustainable government system of currency cannot be sustained either.
And we can either have a soft transition away from an unsustainable system or we can wait till it hits the wall and then just pretend to be surprised and the amount of suffering that will occur during those times will be beyond imagination.
We wish to avert that kind of suffering therefore we must be proactive and tell people the actual truth about the system that they are Caged in through the decisions often of people long dead.
With regards to health care, unfortunately we have a system based on socialized health care throughout most of the West.
And how does that system make money?
That system makes money for the doctors and for the health care providers and for the pharmaceutical companies.
The system makes money when you get sick.
That is the exact opposite incentive that you want in a health care system.
You want a health care system that makes money when you're healthy.
And that way it works to prevent you from getting sick rather than trying to treat something after you already become sick.
So that is a terrible system and it's one of the reasons why obesity is going up.
It's one of the reasons why white mortality rates are increasing.
This is the first generation of whites and it may be true for other ethnic groups but I've read this about whites where we're going to live less long than our parents.
And partly that has to do with the system that profits off illness and follow the money.
If it profits off illness, not prevention, if it profits off cure, not prevention, then you will see increasing morbidity and comorbidity in the healthcare system as a whole.
So we do want to keep health care prices cheap as they used to be about a hundred years ago.
The problem with health care was, at least for doctors, that it was too cheap.
And you could get an entire year's worth of health care protection, of access to a doctor and just about any cure that you wanted for one day's pay.
That's how it used to be.
Until the government got involved, took over, and you get the usual inefficiencies.
Everyone understands socialism and communism don't work and they don't work in the health care system any more than they would work in the delivery of bread Two Russian peasants standing half frozen on a snowy street in the middle of winter.
So, we need health care insurance, we need private charity for those who are sick and don't have insurance, and we need to remove restrictions on people who can practice health care.
So that when you have an excess supply of doctors or a larger supply of doctors and other health care practitioners and providers, the cost of health care will go down enormously.
Insurance can cover unexpected costs and also private charity can cover those who for one reason or other don't have insurance.
So these are some of the major issues.
There's a few more.
But I really want to pause here to talk about what people are thinking.
You may be standing there with your mouth dropped open to your knees, Bugs Bunny style, but we all know that these things are necessary.
We all know that these changes need to occur.
Are these changes going to be tough for people?
Well, yes, of course.
Of course.
But managed withdrawal is better than a fatal overdose.
And we cannot sustain our existing system.
So will these changes be tough?
Well, sure!
But I wouldn't want you to think of these changes as tough.
I want you to think of these changes as privilege.
And I'll tell you why.
So, for instance, men have had to go to war throughout history, right?
They've been forced to go to war throughout history.
And yet men are still called privileged.
So, War is tough.
War is often fatal for men, or it may destroy their bodies beyond recognition.
It may destroy their minds almost beyond recognition.
So war is terrible.
War is harder than having to give up the welfare state.
War is harder than having to give up socialized medicine.
War is harder than having to give up government education and get a better education in its place.
War is harder than having your taxes cut ninety percent.
And so if men can be considered privileged throughout history, even though they were forced to go to war at gunpoint, just think of this change as privilege.
So yes, There will be some challenges and some changes within society and it will be tough for some people for sure.
But you're still not getting your head blown off by a German sniper fire so just remember it's a kind of privilege.
And with regards to toughness, ending slavery was tough.
All the slave owners had invested a lot of money in that.
Ending slavery required the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Ending slavery caused the deaths of countless British sailors who are sailing around the world trying to stop the international slave trade.
Ending slavery is really, really tough.
Are we kind of happy that that happened?
Of course we are.
We should stop whining and recognize that difficulties in the expansion of freedoms and the upward progress of the moral path of mankind is something that we should embrace.
It's tough.
Good!
That means we're doing something right.
It's the slippery slope that leads to hell.
It is the thorny upward path that is narrow and difficult that leads to heaven.
So let's get to the national debt.
Now the national debt cannot be paid.
It won't be paid.
Everybody knows that.
The math is very, very clear.
So we should just recognize that it's not going to be paid and not pay it.
And it is a form of enslavement of the unborn.
It is absolutely wrong, of course, for children to be born into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for services that they never received and services which will not be around when they grow up because the entire system as I mentioned before is utterly unsustainable.
It is absolutely wrong if we love our children we should recoil and revolt against a system that enslaves them in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt or sometimes even a million dollars plus of debt if you just count people actually paying taxes in the productive sectors of the free market.
So It won't be paid.
It's a form of intergenerational enslavement.
It is wrong.
It is immoral.
It is corrupting.
And it removes a sense of fiscal reality from the population because there's this perception that the government is just this massive magic money fountain.
where you get free stuff with no difficulty and that's not the way that reality works fiscally or numerically or economically or anything like that so it corrupts the population by allowing the government to pretend it can give them something for nothing it corrupts our love for our children because we have a heavy heart with guilt with regards to the financial enslavement we are inflicting upon our children.
It's a form of serfdom.
It's a form of indentured servitude and it's wrong.
So the national debt is unjust and people who bought slaves had contracts as well and those contracts were rendered null and void because slavery is immoral and people have Expectations that the taxpayers will forever be used as subjected tax livestock to pay off banksters and other financial institutions.
But if the entire contract is fundamentally immoral, it can be torn up with a great song of joy and virtue in your heart.
So national debt won't be paid and we should just have a heart reset because it's just wrong.
This all should be done peacefully and legally.
It goes without saying.
With regards to affirmative action, both for different ethnicities and for different sexes, well, according to the latest leftist science, there's no such thing as race and there's no such thing as gender.
And therefore, we should eliminate all laws that prefer or disadvantage one race over another race or one sex over another sex because, again, the left has proven that Neither race nor sex really exist.
And so, having affirmative action is like having proactive hiring policies for leprechauns.
So, that all has to go.
So, these are some of the challenges.
Let me talk to you about some of the rewards.
With regards to taxation, with all these changes, taxes can immediately drop about 90%.
So, instead of paying, say, 50% of your income in taxation, you only have to pay 5%.
Isn't that amazing?
Just think what you can do with all that additional money.
Some of it, of course, will have to be used to educate your children, but that can be enormously cheap.
Some of it will be used to purchase health care insurance in a much cheaper market.
So there's that.
Some of it may have to be used, well, I'm sure will be voluntarily used in charity to help out people in need.
But that is an astounding thing that you will suddenly get close to double your take-home income.
What a wonderful thing.
You can afford a decent house, finally.
You can save for your own retirement.
You are in control of your children's education.
You are no longer strapped to a dying system that can barely survive another half generation.
You can look to the future with security and contentment rather than relying on the promises of politicians for money that they do not have.
For programs you will never see materialized as you age, you can be in control of your own destiny.
You can control your own finances, your own resources, and help people as you see fit in a way that actually works to help them.
With regards to voting, there is a great conflict of interest.
If you are in receipt of government funds, if you are a net receiver of government money, can you vote objectively on government redistribution?
If you are wedded to and believe that you are utterly dependent upon the welfare state, can you vote objectively about the welfare state?
Well, no.
Of course not, right?
There needs to be a significant amendment in the West.
Well, two, and then a last one, which I'll get to.
So, of course, you should only get to vote if you're a net taxpayer.
Of course.
Right?
I don't get to vote in stockholder meetings of companies whose stocks I do not own.
I do not get to vote in countries I do not live in or have the right to vote in.
And I should not get to vote if my vote is being paid for.
Because I cannot vote objectively if the government is paying me.
I can't vote objectively about government redistribution if that's what I believe I need to survive.
So the other thing I would do is that voting age is too low.
There was an old Aristotelian argument that you should really not get involved in public affairs until you're at least in your mid-thirties.
But I would like to raise the voting age.
The voting age does need to be raised because young people of course are dependent upon the state.
They don't have their own source of income.
They're not paying much in terms of taxation.
They're a net receiver of a lot of Quote, benefits from the government, mostly indoctrination.
So the voting age needs to be raised, and it needs to be raised significantly.
So I would propose raising the voting age to 95.
There's two reasons for that.
The first reason, of course, is that if you've made it to 95, clearly, you've done something right, and we should be listening to you, and you are a wise person.
And also, of course, at the age of 95, you're old enough to remember what the West was like when it was a whole lot more free.
And that memory should be honored.
Now, with regards to... I've talked about the West as a whole and that's important.
So, I can technically run for office in three countries, but I am an ambitious man and I want to reach the top goal.
So, I'm going to run for the top political positions in Western countries as a whole.
I haven't narrowed that down.
to specific Western countries.
I do have a list that's alphabetized but I won't run through it right now because there's still some countries on the periphery where I'm still trying to figure it out.
Because I feel that in terms of regaining the freedoms of the West somebody needs to be Supreme Freedom Emperor of the West and that person of course should be me because I know that I don't know much which means that the government power should be restricted and reduced all throughout the West because all the sophists currently in charge of government are pretending that they know what's best for countries when generally they only know what's best for serving their own political lust for powers.
Now you may say but that's wrong!
You can't run for Supreme Freedom Emperor of the West in all Western countries and I would say well Yeah, I can because according to the left there's no such thing as countries anyway.
Everybody should be borderless and therefore Supreme Freedom Emperor of the West should be something that they would get behind because it is one of the truly globalist positions in that it is supranational.
Because I'm really tired.
I'm really tired of losing my liberties.
I'm really, really tired of seeing everything that our ancestors fought and bled and died for beginning to fall away.
And it's time for progress.
It's time to reverse the decline.
It's time to liberate the people.
It's time for jetpacks.
It's time for tourist visas to Mars.
It's time for cures for cancer.
And I want time travel.
Because I've noticed, as I'm sure you've noticed, that if you have a full head of hair, you tend to be politically a lot more successful than bald men and women, particularly women.
Therefore, I want time travel so that I can go back and rescue my full head of hair from my twenties, bring it forward in time, and allow it to be the new halo-based shiny helmet of political power as I ascend the staircase of power to become the supreme freedom emperor of the West.
Are you with me?
And happy April Fools.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
▲
Export Selection