Leaderboard

Immigrants, the few who actually intergrate, take up most low-level jobs. This has not only the obvious economical effects, but it also affects those that for one reason or another can't compete in jobs that require higher education. It affects us in that we now work in a different counrty. I am a minority at my workplace. It's my fault if I don't understand instructions that are given in such a bad swedish that I don't understand what they say. I am racist if I eat lunch with the few who actually are swedish that can, and dare to speak the language. One of my collegues (an immigrant) speaks perfect swedish, but he usually falls into this "broken-the-hood-swedish", the kind of accent to show that you are not of them. He speaking clean swedish is probably offensive to the other immigrants. If I were to move to get a better job, I would live in a different country. I would live in a suburb where few speak my language, and where my culture is seen as offensive. I don't go out to eat anymore, because almost all restaurants are run by immigrants. They demand that you treat them in a certain way, and cheered on by other brainwashed swedes. Being swedish and expecting staff to respect that, on the other hand, is racist. The fact that immigrants take up most low-level jobs is also great in the way that all interfacing, all communication between an individual and a buisness, whether it be a restaurant, a store, bus driver or whatever, all those are occupied by immigrants and serve as a great opportunity for me to submit to the new culture. Also it's a great way of marketing; All interaction is with "the new culture". No white-on-white communication here! No, this paints a beautiful picture of how well integrated the new swedes are. Everybody loves interacting with the new swedes! The immigrants could theoretically return to their home countries. It's funny, because when I listen to my collegues talk, they call one a chinese and another Chilean, but if I do that, I am racist. I have no country to go home to, this used to be my country. One "friend" said that "If you are so worthless that you can't compete with the immigrants, you brought it on yourself." However you twist it, it's all the swedes fault. It's all just bitching about immigration, right?

If you have 20-30 minutes to spare, this is a great mini browser game that delves into the ideas of game theory, trust, and society (also references the Christmas truce of WWI): [http://ncase.me/trust/] Enjoy!

This is refuted by the fact that the mother voluntarily submits to the possibility of pregnancy in the act of sex. By voluntarily creating human life that necessarily depends on you to keep it alive, you have created a positive obligation to keep the baby alive or you have murdered the child, violating NAP. In a free society there would people those groups of people who would condone abortion and those who don't. These societies would naturally segregate. Some DRO's would provide exclusively for pro-life minded people and some would provide for "pro-choice" (what a phrase) minded. Whatever was morally superior would eventually will out, so you wouldn't need to 'create laws' except for those people would voluntarily agree to in their contracts. Plus, if we assume that a free society involves a post-child abuse society so to speak, there would only be a small fraction of a percent of people who would ever get one, it would be so rare I doubt it would even come up as an issue. There's no positive obligation here except the one that the parents create for themselves, which the NAP recognizes.

Interesting question. Here's another perspective: Does the world need another philosopher or does the world need more true selves?

I would've thought WWI and WWII killed off all the men with any balls (most testosterone) therefore dooming the subsequent generations to gradually becoming women. Worst thing that happened to US culture imo.

Hi, guys! I wrote a book titled How to Find a Great Therapist, and I'd love if y'all would check it out. It's only 99 cents! The inspiration for writing this book came, in large part, from the many stories I heard on these boards about your struggles to find a good therapist. I also have FAQ at the end which consists of questions that came exclusively from FDR listeners. It's available on Amazon here. Please let me know what you think! Book Description: "This book is not just about finding a good therapist. It is about finding a great therapist. The kind of person who will inspire you, challenge you, and change your life. The kind of person who will help you make real progress. "If you are just looking for someone to talk to, this book is not for you. Throw a rock and you will find a mediocre counselor who will gladly take your money, go through the motions of “listening” to you for an hour, week after week, and never encourage you to change. And maybe you don’t want to change. That’s fine. Just check out another book, because this one will only stress you out. "However, if you want to thrive rather than survive, use this book to demystify the often muddled field of psychology. You will learn: How to identify an awesome therapist. How to know if you’ve found a bad one. What to expect from therapy. How to trust yourself. And how to improve your odds of permanent growth. "The author takes her years of “couch surfing,” during which she saw over twenty therapists and coaches, to simplify the process and help you make life changes efficiently and with the support you need. "This short book is jam-packed, full of principles that you can use to feel confident about an often confusing and stressful transition in your life. Make the choice to change your life and find a great therapist."

I completely agree. The tagline at freedomainradio.com is "The largest philosophical discussion in the world". When you read that tagline you immediately think of the great philosophers, the great books, the great conversation spanning thousands of years. This site is not a book club. FDR was never intended to be a place for general philosophy. The way I see it, Molyneux used to be about his own libertarian philosophy, but now he's about libertarian politics and social commentary. His shift is why this forum has lost its purpose. To be relevant to Stephan Molyneux and his listeners this forum has to be re-purposed as a political forum and a place for libertarians to come together. If this really is a philosophy forum we would find someone who's primarily interested in philosophy to rally around. Stephan Molyneux is far better known as a leading libertarian commentator than a philosopher. This forum could be a power base where libertarians come together and organise a political movement. Libertarians could come here to discuss how to influence others, and overthrow the established ideology. We could make that the mission of this forum. However we define the forum, it has to line up with what Moleneux is doing. We need a mission-statement.