▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter
Stefan Molyneux's work has had over half a billion views and downloads. He has stirred up controversy among libertarians in recent years, having supported Donald Trump and entertained more controversial topics. So Tom Woods decided to raise some of these criticisms with him and give him an opportunity to say whatever he liked. The result is this episode, in which (unusual for the Tom Woods Show) the two of them appear together on video.
Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter
▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell
▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com
▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms
🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux
🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux
🔴 Steemit: http://email@example.com
🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux
🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux
🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux
🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
Amazon Affiliate Links
▶️ US: http://www.fdrurl.com/Amazon
▶️ Canada: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada
▶️ UK: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK
Over 50% of scientific research cannot be reproduced but "if it's science it's proven fact" you say.
Moving people from one environment to another will not change them but people evolved and changed to adapt to new environments according to your religion.
Are you totally unaware that these days science is consensus despite consensus not being part of the scientific method and having been incorrect so many times in the past.
Stefan, Brasil is not necessarily composed by black and/or hispanic. Brasil south is basically Italians and Germans (80%), sprinkled with portugueses, japonese, native indians and africans. Last 2 mostly miscegenation diluted.
Gee, sounds like the fears written in the book America Balkanized in 1994. Everything it predicted and warned about has occurred in the last 20 years; which scares the crap out of me thinking about where our country is heading. Diversity is only a strength when it's manageable, without a common sense of identity we will eventually become Balkanized.
If it is the case that you changed from 'peaceful parenting' as the nucleus of a future state-less society to the view that populist uprisings will better stem the rising tide of the 'demographic winter' and all which follows from that.....what is the mechanism that will lead to political anarchism? How exactly to we get from here (Trump, Brexit, etc.) to there?
The reason Jordan Peterson and others think that the race IQ argument will get you killed is obvious. If the race IQ argument is 100% true than its truthful accuracy is irrelevant because the only people that are capable of benefiting from that knowledge are the people with high IQs. Everybody else percentage wise can't receive the information intellectually they can only receive it emotionally because of the lack of IQ. Only the top races would gain understanding by it. Unless that is the purpose and I missed it.
Femminism is the major cause of the drop populations on the West.
Take away the right to vote to anyone that don't contribute in a private fields is a good starting point. So don't just only from who perceive welfare (that must disappear) but even burocrates. If you don't take away it even for them with their power and their conflict of interest threre is no way to keep at minimum the size of the government, the statalism and so on.
Molyneux said racist is "irrational prejudice" or "negative judgement." This may be the first time I've ever heard someone DEFINE the word that keep getting thrown around by both sides of the arguments. This is a sticking point. Personal preference is being promulgated as a form of racism by SJWs now (it's not racism). People need to define the term first--is it personal preference, is it negative actions, is it simply negative belief about a race group (stereotype), is it an ACTION against someone (a tort or a violent act). Stereotypes are harmless in and of themselves. Discrimination is something we all do, we discriminate when we choose out friends, when we choose who to date or marry, when we choose who to hire or to patronize as customers. Personal racism however you defined it, is almost irrelevant; what you want to oppose is STATE preferences. The state is racist in its actions and that is MANIFEST in the world. Why do so many black women work in government positions--affirmative action, which is race preference. Similarly, "white privilege" is another vague term and involves a generalized guilt trip on the whole of the culture and country; but there IS a white advantage, probably, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But YOU DEFINE YOUR TERMS FIRST. THEN ARGUE THE POINTS ONE BY ONE. If you think about it, it is the left that are using the worst forms or definitions of racism--negative actions, attacks, state-sponsored actions discriminating against a race (against whites); while the rest of us feel racism in the lesser forms or actions: animosities, verbal accusations, political activism, public square debate. Few whites have become violent, state agencies are not upholding whites' rights, state agencies do not treat whites fairly vs other races, whites are discriminated against vs NON-WHITE FOREIGNERS casually termed "undocumented immigrants" (a tremendous economic impact on whites and Americans, most of whom are still white, remember). The most virulent forms and definitions of racism in action, are against white Americans.
what no one understands is that the west ( the IMF and World Bank which are lead by America and Europe ) effectively fund government corruption across Africa and other third world areas. Their policies hinder the economic growth that they say the want to help achieve and they themselves undermine productivity so entrepreneurship is made impossible by the people in those countries.
I get sick of all the purist infighting on the Right, Tom Woods fans bashing Stefan Molyneux and the later's supporters nit-picking the former. Meanwhile, New World Order control-freak George Soros continues rigging voting machines and supporting rioting, the EU continues flooding civilization with muslims and africans, and Trudeau continues steering Canada toward a feely-good socialist totalitarianism.
Immigration is an act of aggression. Outsiders voting to change our system and extract taxes from us is absolutely aggression. Forget the welfare argument. Well-heeled tax paying socialist immigrants changing our system towards a bigger government are just as much aggressors as MS-13. Therefore the NAP is not in play here.
There is only one thing I do not like about Stefan, and he mentions it in every one of his vids, (unless he is doing one of his dating vids). I absolutely hate it when he says race is tied with IQ to a large degree. That opens the door for eugenics, and has nothing to do with individual liberty. If you take a snapshot of the world's populations, and measure their IQ at this point in time, I think it is not only very stupid to say "race has to be the dominant factor" , but it is very dangerous and inhumane!!!!!
I wish he would give man a chance, and see the recent studies from the last few decades that show IQ can and is developed. If the man with the highest IQ in the world is only able to reach 10% of his brains capability, (I think I heard of studies that say that), than would that not mean we all have quite a way to go, (we are all stupid)? If we reach 80% of our brains capability 300 years from now, and watch Stefan with his argument talking with somebody else who does not challenge him, would we not think we were watching,----retarded primitives?
Woooah , agree with 99% of Sefans' analysis but that voting apartheid system he suggested is totally nuts, . Lots of good people /families etc have found themselves in need of assistance , that should not be a reason suspend a citizens political voice or right to vote ! absolute stupidity from Molyneux on that point... The Welfare system should be for citizens only , without doubt. but,, its too easy to gloss over why and how whole swathes of certain parts of the population end up on welfare forever.. . I agree with just about everything else he said . but i cannot listen to his vocal delivery for more than 10 mins normally. , sorry about that SM.. thumbs up tho, interesting talk
If your society is not based on individual liberty protected by law, you will end up with primitive tribal group warfare. Show me 2 people in any group, who think exactly the same. People may always form groups, (some bad, some good), but do you have to join them in a feeble effort to think exactly like some leader you probably don't even know well? Group rights? they don't exist. You may find when individual liberty is gone, you will have no rights at all. Enjoy that tribal warfare.
stefan-you should take all the left's vitriol and hatred for you as a compliment. Obviously, your videos (and your following) is a threat to the main street criminal media.
I think if you and other truth seeking Yters, all got together and said "c'mon viewers, let's all move over to Gab, or let's move all our vids to bitchute" that this, could do major damage to the tech giant's stranglehold.We need to all move together, and send a message
to these criminal outfits (Real.video is another right leaning, censorship free platform)
I wish Trump would send out a tweet to all his followers and say OK everyone, time to move to Gab. Please look into taking the lead role, and getting everyone organized and moved to another place. Keep up the good work!
This is the first time I've seen Stefan mention specific actions the government could take when it comes to immigration but I still don't think he was clear on exactly what he wants. He mentioned having voting restrictions. Is that all he wants? If not, what specific restrictions do you want the government to impose. Not being clear on this seems intentional at this point. Which is more sophistry than philosophy.
If Republicans retain both houses of congress progressives are simply over and out. Certainly progressive aristocrats are progressives by implication. And Zukerperson was hot miked with Merkel https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/ advancing the progressive narrative.
But money comes first. Accordingly, Big Tech seems intent on regaining conservative market share. For instance, I subscribe to Youtube Red. It seems to me Youtube has become diligent in providing me with my own kind. It has been less attentive to providing me with worthy progressives opponents. But I am working on that myself.
We know Silicon Valley Values are incompatible with USA. But they know it as well. I suspect the slime balls will decide to suck it up, and subordinate their puerile predilections to the collective good of Google LLC.. Besides, China has its own demands.
Because if you don't vote on the principles that created our liberty in the USA, (which there is usually nobody to vote for), than you will lose those principles. It is only living under liberty, where we can have and act on our own interests.
The easiest way to spot a fake conservative/agent provacateur of the marxist left is if they bash immigration laws, and if they think unrestricted nonwhite/third world shithole immigration to the left is a good thing that should be continued. The best way to spot one of those "kosher" "republicans"/neocon scum/extreme traitor libertarian types is if they say something stupid like "youtube/facebook/google should be able to ban who they want, and if you dont like it, make your own youtube and facebook". And of course when credit card/finance companies refuse to finance your own new youtube/new facebook/new google, they will say "create your own bank" with a sneer. This is unacceptable and these types of people are either retarded, or else, traitors, closet leftist, paid off scumbags, who prefer defeat as long as they look good - and that defeat is leveled on ALL OF US conservatives not just them. Its why Mccain was such scum and why Im glad hes dead. This people that say that stupid ass shit like "make your own youtube and bank to finance it" are bought off traitors. Youtube/google/facebook are the modern day public forum. They need to be regulated by the government to prevent whats been going on, which is censorship of conservatives and wildly unfair and racist bannings of our people. And the left as aw hole believes in that old fallacy of "means to an end is worth the cost" as long as they win of course; the party of the democrats are amoral scumbags that hate America. I think America would already be destroyed/nuked if Hillary that old witch was elected in spite of the FBI criminal investigation going on against her in that election.
You-Tube and the few rulers of social media, is not a free market company you can compete with, (like a pizza joint), you are right. They got government favors in return for them providing the government our personal history. You can't ask the same government for regulation, (an never should ask). It is the regulation they got government to impose that keeps you from competing. I had the big wake up call with the Tucker automobile story, (it is a movie called "Tucker", and the ending is producer progressive stupid, but the rest is good). Yea, the producer blamed the industry for destroying Tucker, but the truth is, it was government who destroyed Tucker. If the industry did not get special government favors, (had lobbyists to get those favors), the industry would have had no choice but to compete with the new and better car company. Saying that facebook needs government regulation to stop what they are doing is like saying a pimp should add price and activity restrictions to his prostitutes.
You better demand your liberty back, and your capitalism back, and it is government that is stealing those from us.
Thats what I keep saying to people who talk about economics and business ethnics to explain everything they know nothing about. If you can do it better start your own business. The usual reply by the way the deck is stacked against them because they have to work to make it happen.
The one thing being missed about the Syrian strike is that it showed N Korea that Trump was WILLING to strike. I agree that it seemed ill-advised at the time, but in the big picture, if it leads to a re-unification of N and S Korea? The long game should not be discounted.
Deletes comments too eh . . . . I think the state needs to come in and regulate Stefan's channel because he has such a huge platform. It's funny, I just put my finger in the air and a fart was blowing in that direction so I thought why not do as everyone else and jump on the old bandwagon and see where it takes me. Seems it took me straight to the toilet. It figures . . . people are, on the whole, assholes anyway . . . .
Big fan of both you guys but..
(Question is for Tom or Stef, thanks.)
Why do you want to maintain the current system? If we can't allow open borders because of the system we have now (welfare or borders, you can't have both) then let it fall. If immigration is so bad because they consume our resources via tax and government then we should concern ourselves with the after math. Government is NOT sustainable, it's far too costly and adding more burden onto it will just accelerate the demise. I feel like you're making this immigration problem out to be a positive feedback loop; it's not, it ends when government becomes insolvent.
Government gets votes by promising people free stuff. Single mom's, poor people, immigrants, minorities, old people, whatever vote for government because they steal from productive members of society. We are at the point where society can't pay for it anymore. It doesn't matter if government raises taxes, it can't get any more (laffer curve). The government has promised too many people stuff and since this is all coming to an end; we should focus on transitioning into a 0 tax society. No taxes no concern for immigration, this is the perfect opportunity.
36:35 Why don't you put your money on libertarians and you won't have to say "on the whole," "by and large," and that sort of drivel . . . . If you allow race to form part of your identity at all, you are certainly not an individualist. Appealing to pragmatism is just a hair brained excuse. REAL small government individuals are a TINY minority among any ethnic group. I don't see how it is pragmatic to alienate all but one of them and sell your soul to white supremacists WHO ARE THE MOST COLLECTIVIST AMONG WHITES!!! You are a collectivist. Hearing the brain drain nonsense as though Ralph Nader were in the room really made me cringe. Why did I click this. WHY!!! I haven't subbed to Stefan for years, and this is a marvelous example of why that is the case. I always had a foreboding anyway that there was poison in the well.
I'm a libertarian that's absolutely Pro Border Control- I don't know why the 'Immigration issue' conveniently becomes about anything OTHER than ILLEGAL Immigration draining the System & lowering wages??? THIS is SIMPLE stuff...
Stefan, you are an excellent example of an evolving , learning, sentient. My wife and I are fascinated by your ever evolving position on Christianity.
I have always believed in non aggression towards my two daughters. I had a rather aggressive step dad growing up, and I knew that was not the way to go.
Stephan is a critical counter puncher and sometimes a glib lint picker. For a philosopher he has been tactlessly offensive and not always balanced. Credit where credit, however we heard the way he insulted, and did not take time to speak to the indigenous people down under. He was so off the political pulse and local native pride of countries like Australia? So he proved he was not a wise guy there. He went home with his tail between his legs justifying his lack of insight. He just does not get it. And then there is his bloody minded arguments with the producer of zeitgeist. Even so. We listen. And it makes us review our own position. This does not make him right! Nor everyone else wrong. He offers no overall solutions, rather a heap of voluble rebuttals and critiques. As we all can and do.
"For a philosopher he has been tactlessly offensive" ... I have never know philosophy had anything to do with politeness. The goal of stripping away assumptions and getting closer to what is knowable, true, and/or consistent seems bound to offend, and if it does, it is entirely besides the point.
Did he insult indigenous people or did he describe their native culture and the practices and implied philosophy of it? I think he did the latter when I listened to it. This is not meant as an insult, but you seem to share many of the standards of the political left, anti-offense, tone-policing, political pulse, local native pride, "it's not what you said, but HOW you said it". Does he have to talk with indigenous people to talk about their past culture? No, is the answer. Do you have any evidence Stefan "when home with his tail between his legs" or "justif[ied] his lack of insight"? What does he not get (and are you going to tell us)?
What didn't you agree with in his arguments with the Zeitgeist movement? The way I understand philosophy and rational discourse is that when you claim an argument isn't valid, you have the burden of describing why you think that's the case, then those who hear you have something tangible to weigh for validity. I think I agree with you that the debate with Peter Joseph (the Zeitgeist movement leader AFAIK) was very painful to get through, but not because Stefan made "bloody minded arguments" whatever those are. It was more that Peter wasn't familiar or doesn't agree with the rules of rational discourse, and so it became a frustrating arguing in circles type of debate, where nothing is actually resolved, even if just clarity of each other's thinking. (It has been some time since I heard it)
Last, Stefan does offer solutions such as living out the principles of non-aggression in your own life with peaceful parenting, for example. He offers long-form arguments for universal, rational ethics, which addresses the moral relativism and other philosophical failures that make life worse for many people and lead to generational trauma and reduced intelligence. He offers his own advice and analysis in his call in show. He is acting out his philosophy in raising his family. I don't know what problem you are wanting his solution for, but you could probably even discuss it with him if you wanted to in his call in show, or ask him during his new format of live streaming with Super chats, which he reads and responds to. He's written a book on "The Art of the Argument" (in the philisophical sense), which is a solution for more productive and rational discussions. This is pretty good for a mortal.
Interesting to learn how Stefan arrived at Trump-Brexit. Mine was a more circuitous path. I delved into the Holocaust hoping for some life lessons for coping with disaster. There was nothing, just subjective experiences, people doing what they could. So I looked at the Third Reich for their motive and concluded the good guys and the bad buys were just an accident of birth. Further, that the nazis were not an alien species. Recreate similar conditions and we will do the same as they. It was about that time I noticed a peculiar upsurge in Holocaust denial all coming from the Middle East. That led me to Islam 101 and from there to the unvetted, open border, mass migration of the EU and UN. Trump was the logical conclusion, the only candidate who spoke seriously on USA border security.
It is a feast for my brain this morning Dr. Woods and Stephan talked for an hour, what a pleasant brilliant guys. Hey Tom, please reproduce your video about a conversation with a zombie; it was very memorable.
I just recently discovered Tom Woods and the Misesmedia (first with Judge Andrew Napolatano. (sp).). Mises represents the principles of individual liberty to the core of it's philosophy, and almost nobody else does that. (Atlas society would be another) If you want to grow liberty, we have to rediscover the philosophies and principles that created our liberty in the first place. Mises is a good place to go for that.
I have been turned off by Stefan though, because he actually argues that race is the biggest factor in relation to intelligence (hardly a view point from individual liberty), and actually argues for eugenics. It is the dark side of him I guess, but being good most of the time, and margret sanger part time, is really not good.
Correction: "If you give any 3rd world nation the freedom to use their minds, the free market, and a educations system that stresses "reason" and personal achievement,---I guarantee you those people's IQ will rise "in a matter of a few generations", just like ours did.
I said nothing about the welfare state, so I will explain what I mean. Even in this video, he talks about race being a big factor with IQ. He says that in almost every video. One video, he even said killing the low IQ races off, and how much it pained him to say that, would actually work. What he is doing is very shallow. He is taking a snapshot of different nations and the people who are in them, and comparing IQ right now. He does not believe that IQ can be made with good environments, like individual liberty and a lassiez-faire type economic system, and an education system that tells up to go achieve our dreams, with out telling us what those dreams have to be.
Who had that type of society? Some in Europe and the USA. They were white people who lived in that environment, and they created the industrial revolution because of it. No other race, (for the most part) was able to do that, because their nation would not follow the same principles. Why does that matter with my argument. Because if Whites were the most intelligent then, why does Stefan say Whites are middle of the road now when it come to their IQ.
If you give any 3rd world nation the freedom to use their minds, the free market, and a educations system that stresses "reason" and personal achievement,---I guarantee you those people's IQ will rise, just like ours did.
Stefan stresses his crappy view on this with just about ever vid, and he did mention the next step. I clicked on this vid to hear Tom Woods, and before 28 min are up, Stefan is saying it again.
With this particular issue, he is as bad as the communists who wrote the studies he so often mentions, (like we are suppose to take them for fact of consensus), but notice, for the hundreds of video's he mentions this issue, he never points up to the studies he constantly refers to, and their authors.
I am not wrong.
Stefan hogging the conversation after Tom wanted to wind up. Stefan - perhaps guiltily feeling he might lose viewers - giving a final 'you might not like what you hear but it's for your own good' rant. And he would be right.
Stefan ...i think it is very difficult to praise/align with a person such as Larken Rose and almost in the same breath advocate voting for Donald Trump...i would NOT call this being "nimble"..i will let you or Tom supply the word for us...i do not believe government works ...never has for very long ...sooo..why would i continue to vote?
18:30 mark "In Western societies, increased wealth leads to decreased birth rates." No no, it isn't the money that is that is the cause in lowered birth rates. The difference between the West and other societies is this cancer called feminism. When you teach women getting married and having children is less preferable than having a career, then you get larger economies but fewer resource sucking children. In Asia, feminism has been steadily growing over the years as they Westernize. They are also looking at birth rates slipping off. When one looks at a country like Mexico, one doesn't see feminism or a negative replacement birth rate.
It isn't just Mexico, but that's the closest neighbor in the West that isn't experiencing our problem. As long as the West continues to promote self destructive feminist ideas into generation after generation of children, it will shrivel and be overrun by people who aren't concerning themselves with fantastical claims of gender equality.
I wonder if people born in particularly the first 5 or 6 years of the 60s have a problem with disparate views. Those born from 1967 until around 1973 seem to have an innate
tolerance for different views, perhaps because of their early exposure to many mid-to-late 70s popular movements (feminism, animal rights, anti-racism etc). But the people I've met over the years who were born in the most staid part of the 60s, and even into the later part of the 60s, seem to have huge problems with people who disagree with them. I think it's due to the enormous degree of homogenity in that era - everyone was the same and heretic views weren't accepted.
68 to 75 or so were golden years for the left. The right were people like Richard Nixon, the kkk, and extreme make chauvinist (at least, this is what they saw on TV as kids growing up). I think they (the really old) can be reached. . . Perhaps they’re more human. . But good point, tough audience. Of course, really old people in POWER, have watched for lifetimes as questionable ‘insensitive’ people are fire and lose what power they have. They’ve been taught too many lessons. It’s no surprise they might look like walls of stone. . .but in the ballot box. . Old people have wisdom. .and with their age they’ve learned and lived through the left lying. Perhaps the left can no longer convince the the lies are in service of a good cause.
Still the point of contention I have with many libertarians is their hate of the state and anarchist idea that the state is bad and taxes are theft, it shows IMO a severe lack of understanding of human nature and history and why the ideas of states and taxes organically came to be in the first place (in multiple locations across the world).
I have had experiences on a small scale that showed me why we need taxation and why it needs to be enforced to get anything on a big scale done (specifically the essentials).
It's what happens when you ask people nicely to pool money together to fix one busted elevator out of the two elevators we have or to update the water piping system (by hiring a private company to do it) many of them don't pay and expect the others to pay their shares or they don't think it's something important or essential (and they are wrong, but good job convincing them otherwise).
Now imagine this for roads or infrastructure, it would be an utter disaster, say your city needs a new road, who is going to pay for the company that's going to build it, it would propably be impossible to convince everyone in the city block that road is needed to connect that city block to the highway nearby specially if they don't travel a lot or have a car or don't want to spend money on roads, so what now, get the company to pave it and then charge money for people who use it, might work with a highway, but doing that with every single road in a city is extremely impractical if not ridiculous, who is going to manage all that nightmare, it would be required some ppl dedicate their time and energy to manage this, and because ppl don't like such responibility specially with the money involved, so the city will need to elect someone to handle this ... Well..here is your new government.
The idea that you can remove or get rid of a gov and things would just magically work out is ludicrous, once you do get rid of governments (by force because like communism there is no way the majority will agree to this) a new gov will emerge spontaneously due to necessity to replace the removed gov, just the same exact way gov and taxes came to be the first time, because the reasons why we need gov and taxes still the same and are also very intrinsic to human nature, and nothing have changed regarding that yet.
You can support the free market, free speech and non-aggression principle between individuals while also accepting that on the macro scale of a large society we need a gov and we need taxes to function as a society and achieve the progress we are achieving now, we can then discuss who decides which roads or infrastructure gets built first, how much taxation is ideal (10%, 20%, 30%, varying or fixed, etc), we can discuss how to limit the powers of the gov and make sure it focuses on the important stuff and not waste tax money on pointless programs, etc etc.
Earnings that you make using the services and infrastructure built by the state, taxes are the most efficient way to to get people to participate in building, running and maintaining these services and infrastructure that benefit everyone and are essential for maintaining life, if you don't make taxes compulsory the majority will not pay anything and these infrastructure and services will collapse within a month or less.
I have seen that happen IRL on a very small scale (the residents of one urban building), and on a larger scale it will be an UTTER DISASTER.
We can talk about other ways to compel people to pay the taxes (aside from imprisonment) like locking them away from using public transports, infrastructure ... etc etc or something similar, but it HAS to be compulsory.
You're right, it's not theft, it's extortion. Just because all governments do it and do all these supposedly wonderful things with it doesn't change the fact that we are forced under penalty of imprisonment to hand over a portion of our earnings against our will.
In my many years listening to SM, noticing exponential growth in his delivery depth of knowledge especially his ability to make the philosophically complex visually easy ~~ nice to watch greatness at ease ~~
Woods' argument about comparing like with like in terms of different races and their achievement seems very fair and, in a way comforting. However what he is suggesting is a process of taking, for example, single, childless Japanese women with six figure salaries and PhD's and finding that single, childless Latino women with PhD's earn the same salary. This misses the point that the relative proportions of such people in each community is very different. It is inevitable that if you select the "Japanese-like" Latino women they are going to share similar circumstances. What he seems to be describing amounts to gouging out a section of the bell curve and creating a new bell curve with that data.
Population. In 2013, the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) estimated that approximately 10.2 million people of Filipino descent lived or worked abroad. This number constitutes about 11 percent of the total population of the Philippines. It is one of the largest diaspora populations, spanning over 100 countries. they education them and the best leave, as Trump would say "not good "
Yeah, don't spank your child when they misbehave. We have a generation of children that are the product of that philosophy clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court and stopping traffic. How'd that work out? This is the one area I've disagreed with Stephan from my first introduction to the gentleman. I still love the guy.
'Def, but if you take 'Love' to it's rational extreme it ceases to be a relationship, but a business arrangement-
In any case, I appreciate other thoughtful people who are trying to make sense of this world>
Chris Hill - Take religion to its most rational extreme, and it ceases to be religion ... if you're lucky, you end up with philosophy (though somewhat mangled/depleted) ... so, it makes more sense to go straight to the philosophers, Socrates, Epictetus, Epicurus etc etc, and save yourself a lot of time (and money)! ... 😏
Chris Hill - Sounds like an answer Jordan Peterson might give ... What's your point? By God, you're referring to Yahweh? Are you trying to suggest that Stefan, as an atheist, is 'merely' seeking to preserve the communal aspects of Christianity? Or certain lessons the West has learnt (once learnt ... perhaps more accurately) from reforming what Christianity once was? It's far from clear ... ?
Oooh Whoops...You slipped up at 27 minutes Tom, because you made a false argument, Stefan had already said welfare can exist for the existing population ONLY if you have a border controls. You then argued that the parasites already within the country borders should be deported, which is a libertarian argument against all welfare...a totally different proposal. So he didn’t have to refute your statement by saying they were legal or there was no where to deport them ..
It is disastrous to always agree with someone just as it is disastrous to disregard those who you disagree with on some, or perhaps many, issues. The one thing humans CAN do with their lives is LEARN FROM EACH OTHER. That includes learning from history, from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Tough, challenging ideas make you think, make you consider your positions. This is how we improve.
Came from seeing Stefan on Joe Rogan where I found out he has no idea how an AnCap world would look like and just seen Stefan Molyneaux vs Peter Joseph video from both points of view + the followups and was incredibly disappointed in both of them, more so with Stef.
Then I discovered some interesting facts, like posting from his account as an "attractive young woman" fan on multiple occasions. One example can be seen here: https://imgur.com/a/qMQ2I#
Occam's Razor cuts to the chase and makes it obvious enough that he gives himself pats on the back from sock puppet accounts and forgot to log off/in when making the one in the example + others that may be harder to find.
I knew Stefan Molyneaux was to good to be true, because he went unchallenged for too long. Either that or he didn't upload callers who called him on his patterns and challenged his way of thinking. That said I learnt and liked a lot of his videos. As long as you're capable of critical thinking, take his words with a grain of salt and filter the ideas he's floating around, you should be safe from elevating him to the podium of objective truth, no matter how intellectual he sounds. Remember that this is his breadwinner, first and foremost. No one is above pandering when money/survival is involved.
I have huge respect for Dr. Woods. I've read a few of his books and he sources information well and uses solid arguments to refute some of the worst distortions of history. Nullification and his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History are great sources of information for those looking for a more sober, propaganda-free view of events.
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.