Mister Mister

I'm not sure I understand. If you are in a relationship with an employer that is not valuable or satisfying, you can dissociate from that relationship. If you are in a relationship with a government that is not valuable or satisfying, you cannot legally dissociate from that organization. That's the problem. It all fits within the principle of voluntary association. It's the difference between saying "if I leave my girlfriend she will burn my house down", and "if I leave my girlfriend I cant have sex with her", so I can't leave her. Those are completely different scenarios. One is violent retribution, the other is the withdrawal of resources.

what you are describing is not a government, because it would not have a monopoly over particular services within a given geographical area

this isn't just a female problem. most of the people on financial programs are men and they mostly say the same stuff. I think it's just the function of addiction, addiction to government money. Investment has become about chasing the dollars which are ultimately coming out of the Fed, rather than wisely investing in companies that produce real value in the long run. This is all they know, and like most addicts they will have to hit rock bottom before changing.

Personally I don't give a fucking rats ass about any of this bullshit, god damnit. Sorry, I had to . No I don't think it is a problem in principle. "curse words" are the original politically correct heresies. When I was a kid, maybe 4 or 5, my father washed out my mouth with soap because I kept saying "fuck". WTF??!!! It would really seem mad to a space alien, wouldn't it? I didn't really get that it was a "bad word", I was just amused that it got such a reaction out of my parents. It's almost like people give these words power, they put the part of themselves containing revulsion, and self-hatred. I think it's not insignifcant that they tend to be words that deal with sexual or excretory body parts or acts: fuck, dick, ass, shit, and so on, parts of life which are common to everyone, yet we keep private from most people. I think all that's required with kids is to be honest, at the appropriate ages. Mommy and Daddy sometimes use these words, for emotional impact, but in certain contexts people they will make people uncomfortable, even angry. Also an over-reliance on swearing can be a crutch for a poor vocabulary. Nigger faggot cunt. Wow, that's really satisfying

Where is this^?

That's a fascinating and horrifying dream. I think it is common to have recurring nightmares for both children and adults, though this is more detailed than most I think. There's some great analyses here, what rings true especially for me is the coin flip, and the unpredictability of the people in your family. I don't have much to add with regards to the dream, except to say the basic content of the dream seems to be that there is a threat amongst your family that only you are aware of. I was struck by what you said about your father joking that he was "tricked" into having a kid he didn't want. Did she poke a hole in his condoms? Lie about birth control? I'm sure you realize now this is a really glib and callous way to talk about something really serious. And it gives a really terrible impression of how sexuality works to a young girl, that women trick men into children and by proxy, commitment. So I'm very sorry for all that. How do you feel about crickets or bugs in real life? Do you scream and lift your skirts at the sight of a cockroach or a spider in the kitchen?

We can only hope that identity politics cannibalizes itself.

I just mean that if let him pay when you don't really like the guy, you are essentially being paid just to be someone's date, i.e. an escort.

I'm interested in the "there is less than 1% fraud" - what does that even mean?

Well I just mean that, in a first date situation, if say, the woman has already decided she wouldn't like a second date, but then eagerly allows the man to pay with no objection, that's kind of gross don't you think? She's basically an escort at that point. Sorry to frame it in a stereotypically sexist way, that's just what's most common I think, it's interesting to hear that you are kind of the opposite. Who were these guys that allowed you to pay for everything? What did you think of them?

Yes I think the fair thing is to split costs over the long-term. So if a guy wants to take you out and pay for dinner and a movie, it makes him feel good to do so, and you want to graciously accept, I think that's fine, but then maybe you choose the date and pay next time. What I think is really unhealthy is when men are continuously paying for the disproportionate majority of everything. Another thought I had is, if you're not sure you like him, it might be better to split the check. I'm just now realizing that maybe this is the reason guys feel "emasculated" not to pay for everything, but I think that's more our problem to work out, rather than womens' responsibility to placate this anxiety.

this made me really sad and disgusted to see these pictures. That sadness is someone mitigated however, knowing that those responsible will be brought to justice, i.e., they will get more funding.

it's a pink floyd reference, yea?

if you guys like humor I would recommend the Free Speech Podcast with Gavin McInnes. He can be a little crass sometimes, but is libertarianish, really funny, and has a great variety of guests, from comedians to news anchors to former pimps to a guy who spent 9 years in prison for a blow job.

That's an interesting point. I think Moore's point was that, rather than portray life as it is, or heroism as it could be, pop-culture offers an escapist fantasy based on characters from childrens' stories from 80 years ago. The phenomenon of cities being destroyed is pretty fascinating in and of itself. "Independence Day" came on TV the other day, that's the first I can remember. That movie also ties in with Shirgall's point about survivalism, making heroes of the survivors of a catastrophe who have to band together and rebuild. Then you have Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, the Avenger's movie, the Man of Steel, and probably many others. Is this the expression of Western Culture's suicidal fantasy?

99% of the time, in my opinion, when people talk about human nature, especially, when they make such volatile statements as this, it is not that they have come to these conclusions because of reason and evidence, but that it serves some kind of emotional need for them. I find the part "your belief in that stuff just serves the purpose of stronger people who want to dominate you", particularly fascinating, though very sad as well. They are telling you about their history here, that morality was used to dominate them, by people with power over them - parents, teachers, priests, and so on. So when you talk about ethics they are terrified of it because it makes them feel vulnerable as they were when they were a kid. Also "I'm just trying to survive" may indicate that they feel they have done things which were unethical, in order to survive. I might ask them - "are you trying to dominate me now? do you think I'm trying to dominate you?" or if you are feeling very brave, you can ask about their history. tread very carefully, you are wading in shark-infested waters here.

This from comics guru and anarchist Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta and others. He's kind of a nutty eccentric old man, but had some interesting things to say, particularly It was interesting to me especially relating to Podcast #1651, and the increasing proliferation of, and cultural obsession with comic-book superhero movies.

my impression is that gays, just like blacks and women, are just the lastest props being used to push cultural marxism. there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, but unfortunately, much of the community has been co-opted by insane people on a power-grab-trip

as I understand there are physical and hormonal differences in homosexuals, and the cause has been pretty substantially tied to the release of certain hormones during a certain stage of the pregnancy, brought on by stress. still, there may be some leeway and choice involved. but when you hear stories like the young man who called into the show a few weeks ago, struggling with being attracted to men in a religious family that condemns homosexuality, or millions of Muslims in the world downloading gay porn in countries where they could be executed for having it, it's VERY hard to argue that it is 100% choice.

That's fascinating, so do you know how many trees should be cut down, by what method, how many should be left alone, how many should be planted, and what price is fair to charge for lumber, so as best to benefit all human beings in perpetuity? Where did you come by such knowledge. Surely you must be some kind of Forest-Philosopher-King. Hail Thomasio, Philosopher King of the Forests of Earth!

Why is this important? Can you give an example of a situation where this would be an issue? The only things I can think of, is that in some Common Law traditions, once a claim has been staked on a land, the claimstaker has a limited amount of time to develop before the land returns to being un-owned. Similarly, there are "squatting" laws, where if you live somewhere for long enough, even if someone else has a claim, the ownership transfers to you. Ruining your own property doesn't forfeit anything. But if exercise of your property ruins someone else's property, you may owe them restitution.

Maybe it's not everyone else that needs training to overcome their "implicit bias" against women and minorities, but SJW's who need training to overcome their implicit paranoia and negative assumptions about everyone else

Hey Mike, I really appreciate the feedback. Yes I get this, and appreciate you pointing this out. But Trump has made accusations that a disproportionate number of immigrants are involved in criminal activity? Is there any truth to this? Because I've heard otherwise. Anyway I really look forward to rundowns on both Trump and Sanders, I think they both deserve to be taken down several notches.

I agree, I was really put off by the last part of Stef's vid. I know that's not exactly an argument, in fact there have been times in the past where I felt uncomfortable with a certain direction in which the show was going, but came to learn a lot out of it. But while I appreciate him pointing out McCain's hypocrisy, the last line just sounded so hyperbolic. Just because the media doesn't like someone means they are on the side of good? One of the things that really got me into FDR in the first place was how Stef was very critical of Ron Paul, I found it refreshing and it was the final push I needed to get over political action. So this is just confusing, as Trump seems way less in line with the libertarian position. Stefan surprised many when he took more of an anti-immigration stance, which really seems contrary to consistent libertarianism, but I am trying to understand it. Also I know he will soften the anarchist stance in videos like this to "hook" new listeners, but it just feels a little gross. Again, I know that's not an argument, but it's how I felt about it. Also, say this does bring in new listeners, but how many potential listeners does it alienate? Trump comes off to many people as an arrogant, narcissistic, entitled rich asshole, a crony capitalist who inherited millions, has blown huge amounts of money, screwed people over, declared bankruptcy several times and benefited from political connections and a climate of easy money in the real estate market, rather than honest competitive entrepreneurship. I don't know how much of this is true, but I think this image should at least be addressed Alternatively, I found Jeffrey Tucker's article on Trump to be very well written and inspiring

No one has any idea what the sun is going to do, possibly not even how it works