All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:49
Twitter Thoughts: Elizabeth Warren and Raging Fertility!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
Do you like my Christmas sweater?
It is like being nestled in a worn cocoon of caterpillar warmth in winter.
So, I hope you're doing well.
This is my Twitter thoughts for the morning.
Some very interesting stuff. So, Elizabeth Warren wrote, families should be able to get an education without being drowned in debt.
They should be able to go to work without child care costs eating up.
They're paychecks. They should be able to get the health care they need without risking bankruptcy.
We need big structural change.
So I wrote back and said, everything you were talking about already has massive government control.
More will just make it worse.
Plus, I wrote, it's pretty rich listening to someone who made over $400,000 a year at Harvard by fraudulently claiming to be a Native American, complaining that education is too expensive.
If you think something's too expensive, just work your hardest to provide it for reduced costs.
That's the free market.
I mean, for instance, I thought that getting trained in philosophy, which is really a human birthright in that we're born rational and empirical and we have to be trained into postmodernism and relativism and all of that.
Because, I mean, I spent an enormous amount of money on my education and got a graduate degree focusing on the history of philosophy.
I thought it was just too expensive.
If we want people to be wise, if we want people to be philosophical, having massive barriers to them achieving that in terms of costs and time, it's very, very unfair.
So I, you know, 15 years ago, dedicated myself to producing philosophy that was engaging, that was enjoyable, that could be consumed by everyday people and put to use in their everyday lives to take it, rip it out of the ivory tower and bring it down to the masses, which of course was Socrates' original plan, which is one of the reasons why people got so mad at him.
And so I am out here producing these works.
I've done over 4,500 shows.
I've done three documentaries.
I've written 10 books. And all of these are available.
650 million views and downloads.
Massive infusion of philosophy into the world.
Practical, actionable philosophy.
I've talked to thousands of people one-on-one about how philosophy can help their lives and publish these conversations to the world.
The true modern... Platonic Dialogues are actually in real time with real people.
And I don't charge for it.
I don't run ads.
There are no ads in my books.
And no ads on my documentaries.
And I don't charge for the documentaries.
You can get them at freedomain.com forward slash documentaries.
I mean, if you want to help out, don't forget, nothing is for free.
If you want to help out, I'd really, really appreciate it at freedomain.com forward slash donate.
So, you know, here's the thing, right?
This is the big problem in the modern world.
Well, one of them. Which is that there are two countries.
There are two countries in every country in the West.
On one side, there are people who are getting up, they're going to work, they're raising their kids, they're contributing to their communities, all of that kind of good stuff, and they're living as best as they can, as we all do, who are good people, but living moral lives, trying to do the right thing.
And they are paying into the system.
Their taxes are being used both directly to pay for redistributionist schemes and also indirectly as collateral on which to borrow and collateral on which to promise future unfunded liabilities which run into the hundreds of trillions of dollars throughout the West can possibly be paid off.
So that's the one side.
And those people are honorable and decent, sometimes to a fault, often to a fault.
You know, hardworking, responsible, and busy, like really busy.
You've got a full-time job.
You're raising kids. I mean, you don't have time for these endless weird pussy hat marches and so on, right?
So that's on the one side. Now, on the other side, and this sounds like a big moral blame thing.
I don't mean it that way. It's just a neutral analysis of the situation.
On the other side, you have people who are demoralized, who are insecure, who are very much down on themselves, and who either lack the ability or the willpower to participate productively in a modern economy.
These are the people who are dependent upon government handouts.
And they can be, you know, all the way at the top rich elites, the people who are close to the Federal Reserve who get all of that sweet, sweet printed cash before it loses value and ends up shafting the poor and the fixed income people through inflation.
These are the people in the military industrial complex who literally profit off squeezing the blood of human beings until it drips gold into their wrinkled cryptkeeper hands.
And, you know, the middle class is to a large degree exempt from this, well, to a large degree.
And then there's the poor. Of course, the poor who now, since the welfare state really came in in the 1960s, there's been two, sometimes three generations of people who don't work and who rely on government handouts.
There's that Venus flytrap of the welfare trap where, in America, a woman with two children who's a single mom would have to go out and earn the equivalent of Over $70,000 a year to pay for the same benefits that she's getting under the welfare state, which is why she's effectively taxed at 100% if she gets a job.
And imagine, like a job that pays $74,000, I think it's $74,000 a year U.S. I mean, that's a demanding job.
There's late nights, there's travel, there's work on the weekends probably.
Imagine, imagine you get a job for $75,000.
It's very demanding. And...
You basically give up $74,000 in benefits to start working that job, which means that you're working the whole year quite hard with travel, childcare costs go through the roof, and you're being paid $1,000 net for that entire year.
I mean, this is not a situation that people can get out of in any reasonable way, in any reasonable way.
And so on the one hand, this is the Elizabeth Warren tweet, on the one hand there are people who say, well, that's really hypocritical.
Everything that you're talking about has massive government controls and it's getting more and more expensive.
And you can see that, of course, when you have huge social and cultural propaganda largely driven by leftists in the media to get innocent, vulnerable children to sign Life-changing, multi-decade loans in order to be inserted into the matrix of communist propaganda and turned into economically...
It's worse than non-functional, anti-functional people who hate the fact that they have to work, which is a requirement not of capitalism but of nature.
If you want to consume, somebody or you have to produce something.
And who end up being indoctrinated to hate their society, to hate the market, to hate bosses, to hate employers, to hate entrepreneurship.
And then they graduate with these crippling debts and a hatred of the kind of work that might make short shift of those debts and lives are destroyed.
And of course, by trying to lure the most intelligent people in, especially the women, burdening them down with massive debts, you render them largely unmarriable, right?
Because you start talking to a woman and Oh, she's really nice, she's smart, she's funny, and she's well-educated.
Oh, but she comes with $100,000 of student loans.
It's like, hmm, maybe dating, but you can't marry and raise kids with that because it's a way of really castrating.
The fertility of intelligent women is absolutely brutal.
So there are people who look at this system and say, well, you know, the government guaranteed student loans and, man, an old Stephen Wright routine about being lost in the desert and finally being found by his student loan officer, like the only person who can find him.
You guarantee student loans, and then students pour into universities.
And of course, as you widen the net, you have to lower the standards, because only 10% of people used to go to university, now it's 40-50% in places.
So you have to lower your standards, which means that the university degree is becoming less and less valuable as time goes along.
And of course, all of this government-reinforced money coming pouring into the institutions, while at the same time they have to lower their quality, just means that they can have all of this ridiculous overhead, all of these massive bureaucrats, all of these social engineering schemes and all of that.
And it's all just, I mean, it's completely ridiculous.
Of course, you pump money into things, things get more expensive.
I mean, there's no question of that, right?
So there's people who look at that and say, well, Elizabeth Warren, you're kind of a fork-tongued, two-faced hypocrite, and it's not true what you're saying.
And of course, the childcare costs are...
You know, people say, well, you have to have two people to work.
And it's like, well, only if you don't do the math.
If you want to have kids, you've got to have two parents working if you want to be able to afford children.
It's really not true. I mean, childcare costs are often $2,000 a month.
And so if the woman is going to work earning...
Well, let's say $4,000. Maybe she got a $48,000 a year job.
So she's earning $4,000.
The government takes at least 25% of that.
And then you have additional costs related to having children in daycare.
Not just the daycare itself, but you need a second car, you need additional clothes, you have lunches out, you need more dry cleaning, and all of that kind of stuff.
Not to mention the stress of being a full-time worker with kids in daycare.
And so if you shake it out, like how much your extra gas for the cars, the time to commute.
So once you shake it out, you know, she's probably netting 500 bucks a month out of a $50,000 a year job.
She's probably netting 500 bucks a month.
And what on earth is the point of that?
I mean, childcare is expensive.
And of course, if you want quality childcare, which is almost impossible to get because children are bonded with you, not with some low-rent, minimum-wage worker.
I mean, of course, you can't just magic.
I mean, you can just dump money into women to subsidize everything, but, I mean, that just means the taxes go up, and it means that their children, oh, mommy went to have a good job and made money, but now I'm afraid that you graduate, you know, from the birth canal, half a million dollars in debt.
Okay, so you made a little stupid money and dumped your kids in daycare, thus ensuring that their economic future was going to be ruled by Chinese banksters from the other side of the world.
So, good job, everyone.
I mean, just stay home, be with your kids, raise your kids, and save all that money.
Plus, of course, if you have a woman supporting a man, let's say, because she wants to breastfeed, or should, if you have a woman supporting a man, it's like having a jetpack on your career.
I mean, a woman who supports a man who covers the childcare and runs the household and frees him up to really focus on his productivity and is enthusiastic and supports him, you can make far more money by having a woman supporting a husband in the workforce than by having two people and dumping your kids in expensive daycares.
So, like, on the one hand, there are people who have this kind of analysis and say, well, this is all, like, nonsense and crazy and hypocritical, and they can afford to have these ethical judgments because they're economically productive, self-sufficient, and so on.
But the people who are dependent on the state, they gravitate towards the left because they're too demoralized, too broken culturally and educationally and economically to have any sense of their capacity to succeed in the free market.
And so they gravitate towards this stuff.
And when people say, ah, yes, but Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed to be Native American in order to gain diversity systems and make a fortune off the backs of students that she was helping to indoctrinate into socialism, thereby destroying their economic futures through debt and propaganda, and they say, well, that's all well and good, but my children need that's all well and good, but my children need the dentist.
Like, that's all well and good, but...
And it's hard for people who are, you know, moral and economically productive and hardworking and have the basic confidence of self-sufficiency.
It's hard for those people to sort of jump the fence, so to speak, and to look at the world from the other standpoint where it's like, I can't afford morals.
My kid has asthma and needs his inhalers.
And... The government provides them.
You say, ah, yes, well, you know, but if the government didn't provide them, there'd be charities, which there would be, and there would be far more economic opportunities for you to work and so on.
It's like, you know, I mean, that's all well and good, but why would I risk that transition?
Why would I risk that transition point?
And there would be a transition point, which would be tough, and charities would need to step in enormously and...
For people to recover from a demoralized state, a sort of broken state, and this is assuming no addictions, no mental illness and so on, it's a lot easier to break people than it is to fix them.
And the world is cranking out broken people at a massive and alarming rate.
And shows like this and conversations I'm sure you're having with people and so on is helping to heal people, but it takes about a moment to break an arm.
It takes weeks or months to have it heal.
And it's expensive. It's very cheap to break an arm.
There's one crowbar and a bad intent, and you've got it, right?
To fix it is hard. So, you know, they're breaking people far faster than good people can fix them.
And so people look and say, you know, that's great.
You know, that's great.
It's nice that you can afford all these middle-class morals and judge Elizabeth Warren, but...
My kids need to eat.
My kids need to eat, and if she's going to guarantee the continuance or expansion, Elizabeth Warren going to guarantee the continuance and expansion of my kids having food on the table, given that, you know, maybe this is a woman who has, I don't know, two kids by different men or whatever it is, and maybe she's not very high on the marriageability market, and she has the kids, and she cares for her kids, and What are you going to do?
How are your morals? How is your moral judgment going to feed my kids?
And listen, you can say, well, you know, blah, blah, blah.
There's ethics and there's morals and there's standards.
And that's, you know, I get all of that.
I mean, I am a moralist, but we have to look at the practical reality of the system that we have inherited from...
We have inherited these people, and half the people in a lot of Western countries are dependent on the state.
And so these people who say, well, I mean, how can Elizabeth Warren have any kind of support when she has this kind of history?
Even her own brother is now contesting quite savagely her depiction of her family history.
How can quid pro Joe Biden possibly have a shot?
Well, from an ethical standpoint, these people are horrendously compromised, and from a moral standpoint, you wouldn't...
But they're promising free stuff to people who are desperately dependent on, or believe that they are, and may in fact be desperately dependent on free stuff.
So basically trying to talk people into not voting for Elizabeth Warren because she gained the diversity system is like some poor person just won a million dollars in the lottery and you're standing there in front of the lotto building saying, well, you know, that money is kind of taken from taxpayers and it's a bad system and it's going to increase taxes for people or debt and the government has a monopoly and it's really unfair and it's unjust and so you shouldn't cash in this check for a million tax-free dollars.
Well, what are you going to do? Are you going to be able to talk someone into not doing that?
Well, that's why the left has...
The left is not ideologically driven.
The left has got all of the sales abilities of your average monopolistic drug dealer.
You know, if somebody's addicted to a drug, they'll go to the drug dealer, and if you say, well, that drug dealer's kind of a mean guy.
Like, I saw him kicking a cat yesterday.
Well, that's all well and good, but I need my drug.
And... This is the conflict, and it is very rough.
Alright, so let's talk about another one.
Which I had something to say about.
So I did post about how when women got the vote, there are some pretty significant indicators that that's when the real rise in government spending, government taxation, government debt began.
Of course, there were wars, and I get all of that.
But women getting the vote was kind of big, right?
Because the big risks for men when they get married are twofold.
Number one, the woman is infertile, which happens more often than you might think, even to the young.
And number two, that he's going to raise a child not his own, right?
The cucked and so on, right?
Those are the two big risks for men.
And both of them, of course, end his genetic lineage, right?
Infertility does, and raising another man's children does double, right?
And so that's the big risk for men.
But those risks are low cost, right?
So if the woman's infertile, well, you don't have the money that you spend on having kids and so on.
And if you're raising another man's child, that's not cost negative, but you can't really go and recover that money.
And somebody's paying the bills, right?
If you're raising another man's child, you don't know it.
You're still paying the bills. So that's the big thing for men.
For women, the big cost is economic unproductivity and or abandonment, right?
So if she marries a guy who turns out to be a drunk, doesn't make any money, but she has two kids with him, Somebody's got to pay the bills.
And that's expensive, and you can get someone else to pay those bills.
That's number one. And number two, if he's economically productive but abandons her or dumps her or whatever, for whatever reason, either she chose a bad guy or she's a bad wife or something like that.
Well, then she has these costs and this desperation.
Kids need shelter, food, medical care, you name it, right?
Education. And so a man can't really run to the state if he's raised another man's children.
A man can't run to the state for recompense if his wife turns out to be barren.
But a woman can run to the state if she chose the wrong man or drove away a good man and now needs resources and has children and can't afford abstract conceptions of property rights because, again, kids need to eat.
And so when you get women's vote, then women, knowing that they can run to the state to backfill the resources that might not be present if the man leaves them, or they drive him away or whatever, well, they just become less picky about the men they choose.
So if the woman faces great risk, a great danger, so to speak, what does she do?
And the parents as well.
Why do parents not get involved in dating anymore?
Because in the past, if a woman got pregnant and didn't abort the child or couldn't, then if the man didn't stick around, well, the woman would move in with her parents and the parents would Maybe pretend to raise her child as a sibling or something like that.
But the parents would be on the hook for the next 20 years.
So the parents were like, well, that's really big for us.
So we've got to check in on who she dates.
We've got to chaperone. We've got to make sure we teach her on abstinence or not getting pregnant and so on.
It's a big, big deal. And so now that there's the welfare state, if the girl gets pregnant, then they can just dump her on the taxpayer.
And that's why parents have stopped being involved to a large degree in...
Sexual restraint of teenagers and so on, which is, again, sort of a big issue.
So when women get the vote, then what happens, of course, is that they generally, those who've made bad decisions, will vote for resources from the state to make up for the bad man they chose or the good man they drove away.
And the parents are less involved because they can get money from the state.
And what that does, of course, that doesn't solve the problem because then what happens is Women knowing that they can run to the government for resources end up not being as careful about the man that they choose and that's why you get a rise in divorce and a rise in dependency and then of course kids grow up without fathers and all of the attendant massive dysfunction and addiction and criminality and lack of pair bonding that comes out of that schools become increasingly unmanageable national debt explodes and well Same thing happened in Rome.
You can look at that in my presentation, The Fall of the Roman Empire, and as went to the Romans, so it seems.
▲
Export Selection