Matthew Ed Moran

I definitely appreciate the discussion as well. I think there was some discussion between Stefan and Garrett Jones about differences in their opinions on the effects of immigration towards the end of the interview ("Why Your Nation's IQ Matters"). I can't recall it very well, but I thought it was relevant upon watching it, and Caplan and some of his claims are also brought up. I actually have a pretty high regard for Caplan, so I will hold out for more nuance in his position since in my experience, he has a lot of data and economic reasoning behind his arguments. I can't remember what how he justifies the NAP though, which might be relevant. I appreciate the video you linked, which I'll check out. The last thing I wanted to say about GDP versus other measurements, is that I think (not totally sure) there is a moral stand one can take on the question which might not make the economic analysis as relevant. That is to say, if there are actions which will reasonably or certainty will increase the amount of aggression towards a population, they can be deemed as more immoral than a practical alternative which would imply less aggression. So if mexican immigrants leave their country for america specifically because they can get more welfare, and they are statistically doing it at 60% or higher rates, and also if they are more prone to vote for aggressive government programs, it would seem a moral justification could be used towards keeping these certain populations out. This is isn't the most polished argument but something I just wanted to offer. Thanks again for the chat it was a pleasure.

I would argue there are going to be personality differences on average between a woman who wants to become a man, and a man who wants to become a woman. I would argue there are going to be differences just based on the social norms of society that trans people are basically left to rely their conception of what being the other sex is like, since they lack the fundamental biological characteristics of their chosen transition sex. The social conception of the gender roles is very different. Women are given more attention when they are upset, while men are the silent workhorses. So a man who wants to become a woman is going to have to become accustomed or expecting of receiving attention when upset, and if they attention is not met they are going to feel cheated (like the general egg bearing woman does). However, I would argue society is not willing to give this attention, because the trans woman does not have eggs to justify white knighting for. But the media comes in to white knight for them, since the media's agenda is to portray anyone who isn't a white male as a victim, as a show of disregard and disrespect of the plight of males. They are doing it simply to attack the self esteem of males by denying them victim hood while in the process giving out victim hood to populations in society which are 1/100th as relevant from a population size standpoint. It has nothing to do with actual justice; it is to spite males. So the type of man who wants to become a woman might have a personality that demands more attention and victim hood seeking than a woman who wants to become a man. Since the typical gender role for males is of silence in the face of pain, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination at all for trans men not only to be less provocative in general society, but to disregard or ignore when they are disrespected by others, since that is part of being male. Anyway that's what came to me.

I thought I checked that out on the site and didn't see a lot of what is presented by FDR taken into account, but I will check it out more because I did only glance for a few minutes. The claims about the factors that make multiculturalism not so great at all are all together here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46173-central-immigration-forced-multiculturalism-topic/ And upon thinking about it, I think yes, it is a fair characterization to say that current immigration discussions tend not to take into account the effect on the native population, especially whites and east asians, who tend to pay the most taxes, be the most free market oriented, commit the least crime, have higher IQs, and lower welfare usage rates. I don't see how they benefit on the whole from multiculturalism, though there is the argument some corporations selectively benefit from the cheap labor.

"Do you mean that the arguments in favor of open borders forget to take into account the effects of non-white people?" What I mean is that when arguments for open borders are given, they are taken by the mainstream media and political establishments to justify increasing migrants who have tended to be 1) very low IQ 2) more criminal on average 3) have cultural values in opposition to the native population. I have no problem with open borders on the whole, and I am positive Stefan does not either. However, if you take for granted that completely open borders for all countries on the planet is not achievable practically, then the practical consideration currently is whether countries who do have more open borders are justified morally or by consequences of their admittance of immigrants, who in practical reality are tending to be comprised of populations with the characteristics I mentioned. I want to emphasize I think open borders are a great thing, but that at this point it is a completely theoretical discussion, just like pointing out the advantages of a free society is a completely theoretical discussion. As long as current laws exist as they do, specifically welfare and forced association laws, increased immigration or open borders for only particular countries can hardly be seen as preferable or moral for the achievement of a free society, since it has been seen and information on the show has been provided to indicate that multiculturalism erodes free market values, increases crime and social distrust, and creates a lowering of wages for the natives who are among the bottom strata of IQ in their society already. I have nothing against theoretical discussions, but my push back is especially strong against this discussion because it has already been hashed out that free movement of individuals is necessary for a free society, and primary for increased economic growth. Why is this discussion important now, when there is the possibility that it excludes focus or could muddy the facts about selective immigration, multiculturalism, and what "open borders" translates to practically by the rulers who decide what immigration policy is in the current stratosphere of world governments. In terms of statistics, illegal immigrants from Mexico to US are on welfare at triple the rate of the native population. Some catastrophic number of those crossing the border have committed rape (this is something Donald Trump made public, the exact fact escapes me but I will look it up after) There are also elevated single mother households I believe, which has been statistically linked to anti social behavior and crime. Refugees are even worse I believe with regard to sexual violations, rapes, and come from countries with average IQs in the 70s. Besides this, both groups vote for more government on average (why they are let in at all) which cripples economic progress. All these statistics come from FDR's shows, and I will link to where the information was provided. I think that will be your best resource for understanding the arguments. By the way my outrage was not at all towards you, but certain arguments put forth by some libertarians. "The proposed debate (at least for me, they might decide something else if they ever do it) would be about Caplan's proposal to open all borders as much as possible wherever possible and the pros and cons." So then would he not be defending the influx of the populations I am talking about, since apparently letting more people into a country they desire to emigrate to, regardless of their personal characteristics, is a good thing? The huge problem with the GDP argument and why it annoys me is that GDP is a statistic that includes government expenditures, and also if something like a rape were to occur, it would increase GDP for the hospital visit and the prosecution of the rapist. What I am trying to point out is that increasing GDP is an arbitrary goal, and if someone proposes a population should take on a risk of something horrendous as an increased likelihood of rape, government plunder, socialism for the benefit of increased GDP, then I don't see how that is a good argument for increasing GDP. It goes back to the old argument that if you give a guy a free bag of skittles, and only one skittle is poisonous but you don't tell him which, you are not actually doing him any favors; despite that he now has 20 safe skittles in his possession, one is horrendously bad and muddies the entire bag. By the way I'm not saying there aren't benefits to letting immigrants in, I'm saying that to only talk about the benefits and not compare them to the risks for the people who actually will be subjected to them is dishonest (not you, but some libertarians do this sometimes). Sorry for the long post, that's about all I got. I know you're not an expert like you said, but I wouldn't mind any corrections or important objections I failed to address if you see any. It will take me a day to edit in the links to FDR shows with sources, so check back in a few days if you can.

So says a guy who considers "muh feels" a legitimate criticism.

I actually notice my digestion is usually a ton better when I eat lots of berries - like a package a day, besides other fruit. Just based on my personal experience it definitely seems like my body loves fruit, so I am not surprised we had an ancestor with fruit eating tendencies. Jake made this claim a while ago and it got me thinking: "Evolutionarily speaking our species has spent a lot more time eating plants than any kind of animal products, so any adaptations that lead to better absorption of different macros may not mean that animal sources are best for long term health." And I think I am better understanding now Jake the point Shirgall was making. I tended to agree with you (not that it means anything towards proving it) that a muscle man is not a very healthy person overall, but if you extract the principle from the example Shirgall was providing, maybe you will see it is valid. Since sometimes we have values more important than living the longest life possible, at what point would we sacrifice a portion of our life in terms of age if it means that we will do something more important to us which somehow excludes the possibility, to some extent, of eating in a vegetarian lifestyle? Some people take on daring jobs which required a ton of calorie consumption, and wouldn't it be cumbersome (especially if you are eating a lot of cucumbers) to eat a vegetarian diet if meat is a less costly alternative in terms of time and money? Also, if meat provides other benefits not accounted for in these studies because they are not the focus, then isn't there a valid trade off to be made between nutrition towards living as long as possible, and nutrition towards some other goal which requires what meat is more efficient in offering? Jake do you see room to include meat as part of any healthy diet? I wasn't sure so I just wanted to be more clear where you stand on that, too.

I agree that the context essentially makes it so that all acts are in a sense defensive, since there is a coercive authority above all. But any person who would use force to protect himself would not be more at fault than someone who initiated the force. Also consider that bullying is an increased risk for children, who are helpless in the situation. The bullying is an implicit threat, and responding to the threat with reasonable reciprocity is definitely valid. I can't see justice ever being taken against a bullying child in a free society without the parents first being held accountable. However, in situations such as lifeboat scenarios where the expectations of the situation are exceptional from every day circumstances, courts would obviously take into account the context of the situation when deciding restitution. I would go even farther and say that gray areas have nothing to do with the validity of a theory. The theory itself is judged as either valid or invalid. It would be like saying there are gray areas in the scientific method, because sometimes correlation does not imply any causation (sorry if that's a bad example). Reality is complex, and in reality there are gray areas because there is always unknown and potentially useful information. There are also usually alternate ways of reasoning, so sometimes a more coherent formulation of the theory for a particular type of circumstance would be justified (like particle physics compared to object physics). For instance, biology includes gray areas, but the methodology of biology is pretty consistent; and if it must be expanded over time as new discoveries are made, it is not to invalidate any of the core principles of biology, but to reaffirm them.

It would be similar for a man to withhold his income from his partner if she voted for Hillary Clinton. We would hear a lot of negative opinions about that from mainstream society, but when a man is punished for having beliefs (beliefs which people are lying about the content of), it's a good thing and "female empowerment."

People who don't realize (or don't care) that their arguments are only applied to white people by world leaders don't deserve a platform. It's just ridiculous to argue for open borders as if economists haven't been arguing that forever, and as if it hasn't already proven to be theoretically beneficial. The problem with open borders for countries like America and Germany are that they are accepting many more migrants than other countries, and are becoming filled with low IQ, crime bearing, rapist populations. Stefan hasn't ever argued against the basic free market policy of open borders on the whole, so the debate couldn't possibly be about that. If the debate is that countries like America and Germany specifically are better off for accepting migrants who are non white and multicultural, then I really don't think a guy as smart as Caplan deserves to be on the show justifying the acts of terror and violence that are a direct result of immigration policies of these countries. For god's sake, we just had a person who had their friend killed on the show. I find that site and the bleeding heart libertarians dishonest, detestable, and a running mill of the same tired straw men over and over, not to mention ridiculous articles based on rhetoric and metaphors about how words like "illegal alien" will follow you around and destroy your life. These guys were never principled, and it's showing all too clearly now that have no basis to make any contributions to the unrest and terror that is elevating around the world. "Worldwide open borders so we can double GDP" What world do you have to be living in to make such an impractical argument as this???

That would actually be an argument for radical egalitarianism if he were to include the current welfare laws and forced association laws into his analysis. It is also a slight of cruelness if it were to imply some people would be raped who would otherwise be able to avoid rape with closed borders. I'm not saying some people deserve to live among rapists more than others, but I see it as reprehensible to subject someone to an increased propensity of being raped to increase world GDP. Again, that's if the current laws of forced association and welfare were assumed. If you take those out, open borders worldwide would seem to me to be a significant step closer to anarchy. That said, how likely is completely free immigration worldwide without the political interventions of welfare and forced association?

Sorry for the double post, but I suggest the first ten minutes of this video. (The whole video is worth watching in my opinion) The difficulty in answering your post is that I'm not sure which claim of Stef's you're particularly referring to. There is the "there will be no recovery" series, which focuses a lot on the insane level of debts many countries are holding, most of which being American. Then there is also the separate but linked issue of inflation, which is contingent on the fact that money printing causes inflation, and that debt can be monetized (and is being monetized) to lessen the debt, and increase inflation. This is a trick of central banks to take out massive amounts of debt, and never have to hard default on it by raising taxes or cutting spending and regulation drastically. The current situation in America, is that the stock market had net gains in 2015, while 2/3 were of individual stocks were down for the year. That means people are concentrating massively into a small number of stocks, I would assume as a hedge against risk (but I'm no expert, I recommend you check out Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff for yourself). Gold has been up the last 14 of 18 years at least, which is another indicator of inflation. I have a question for anyone. When the Federal Reserve exports inflation by selling treasuries to other central banks, what are they getting in return? Is it physical goods?

I don't see how there has been a recovery. In 2015 2/3 of the stock market was down (see most recent Jim Rogers interviews). I heard in the most recent jobs report, 80% of the jobs created were part time (see the most recent Peter Schiff appearance on the Tom Woods show). The economic systems of countries are failing in europe, in asia, and in america. All the central banks are creating money at unprecedented rates. Jim Rogers is apparently holding onto a lot of US dollars because he thinks as turmoil increases in the next year, people will flock to what they think is a safe haven. Schiff has been preferring gold. I'm not sure who is right, but they were both on top of the 2008 crisis, and they both agree that the future is bleak in terms of economic recovery. Also, JP Morgan has reported a prediction of a 1/3 chance of recession this year, 2/3 next year, and 100% chance in three years of another recession. The economic system collapsed a long time ago, and Stefan has been right to point out that there has not been a resurgence in any statist countries. They are all crippling under their own weight of highly interventionist policies. Who is to say when they will be replaced, but until a hacksaw is taken to governments and economic systems as they currently exist worldwide, there will not be any recovery, just more stagnation and repeated financial crisis that has been the trend since the '70s. The level of debt that countries like America, China, Japan, and European countries are holding is unprecedented historically as far as I know, and these debts represent a boulder sitting on the back of future productivity.

To be fair, in interviews he is probably more on point simply because he has to be. At a rally, he is not being repeatedly questioned and framed by some media reporter that he needs to directly defend himself against so as to not look weak or incompetent. Also, the debates are really only important the first few times, and he was pretty intelligent in the early few in my opinion. But it's still not direct interviewing, so he has to rely more on important phrases than a full explication of his views. The rallies are more about connecting with the audience and entertaining them. I don't know any other politicians who can hold a rally like Trump, and I think when politicians are mostly the same all the time it's creepy and disingenuous. People can usually tell when you're trying to put across a false image, and I think Trump's willingness to show different sides of his personality is actually refreshing for a lot of people.

Thanks for taking what I said into consideration. You're correct that I don't see this post about your brother specifically. Sorry if I was not more honest about that. I think I could have been a lot more clear to say that what I was really putting forward was for you, to help if I could be able to hold your mother more responsible. I thought any effect you could have to hold your mother more responsible would help you and your brother in this situation, since I'm not sure how to handle it practically. What do the children think of their mom? (I cringe at even calling her that) I wanted to point out that the damage they are undergoing from their father's and mother's actions are literally crushing them. I am sorry I don't have specific data on this (but there is data.. I'll dig it up), but in my personal experience of my childhood, hatred expressed in the form of verbal abuse from my mother was a source of seemingly eternal torture for me because of how afraid I would be of the next lashing. These were a source of severe depression and suicidal thoughts when I became a teenager. There is a likely hood that is high that if their situation does not alter radically, they will experience similarly horrible self image. The hatred they are being filled with is like a balloon that waits to pop into severely bad life decisions unless there is someone looking out for them. They will have no idea when they first become teenagers what a healthy relationship which isn't abusive is. Virtually no teens in society are given any preparation at all for the effects of their trauma. It is equivalent to having soldiers come home and completely omitting them any information about PTSD. So if you can in any way warn them about the risks they face when they are age appropriate, I think that would be hugely admirable. I also wanted to tell you how sorry I am for how difficult you said your childhood was and how you will be continuing to work on it for the rest of your life. That is a huge burden and I'm so sorry that was unjustly placed on you. I can relate and I am working towards going to therapy to process it more, but as I alluded my childhood and specifically my relationship with my single mother were horrid. The issue of holding females responsible is severely important for me; because I know until someone said out loud that I could hold my mother accountable for her abuse, I was significantly at risk to repeat the abuse of my heart by exposing it to cold and soul-sucking women. I didn't mean to suggest you were unfamiliar with these concepts, but I thought they might be important in how you are processing your experience (which includes you trying to put yourself into the shoes of the children involved). I know I significantly split my parents as a child into better and worse when in fact they were both about equally immoral; a level far more immoral then I ever was safe to consider them as a child. I'm not saying that is happening for you or for the children, but especially for boys it is very important to be able for them to have realistic understandings of modern women. That's kind of a huge topic, and sorry if I was ranting at all, but I have a lot to say about boys' and men's relationship with female responsibility.

The video Mike provided is extremely helpful towards elaborating Stefan's and Mike's opinions on the matter. Toward the end of the call Mike eve​n admitted that he could see a Donald Trump presidency going really poorly. Stefan's position was stated in multiple ways very clearly, and can be summarized as following: if you put a gun to his head, he will chose Donald Trump for president. The thing is there are literally arguments upon facts that Stefan had been repeatedly making throughout the entire call as to why he holds this position. At the very beginning of the call, he explains his definition of support. It was something to the likes of putting a full fledged effort behind Donald Trump's run for presidency. He differentiated his ends from this approach and referenced his long-standing position towards voting and says he still 110% agrees with it. He said towards the end of the call he is covering Donald Trump in large part because of market demands. I can understand why Mike would be baffled how someone could listen to the show and not be aware of this, even when he provides the links! When people just starting running their mouth in no less than one million different directions, quite frankly it's usually not because they are rationally comprehending and refuting said arguments.

I'm sure the Pope relates to the refugees really well. I mean after all, he knows deep in his heart that what they want. They want their feet kissed by an old man in a funny costume. This man is deeply empathetic and in tune with the needs of the refugees, and his influence and power clearly suit him to be kissing their feet. It's not just for show, right? Nah, can't be. He is genuinely so humble that his best way to relate to refugees is to kiss their feet, and then of course he will return to his enclosed, exclusive habitat where he will be surrounded by the finest jewelry and art; a life experienced by about 1 man for every billion; and on his mind, with every step he takes on his golden carpets, will be the poor refugee who he empathizes deeply with.

Leftist media called Barack Obama different. Therefore Donald Trump is the same as Barack Obama.

But you said your dad was abusive, yet did not say anything about your mom. I'm not saying you should have, I just thought it might be important to point out; and I think the idea that the only other option besides omitting female responsibility is to write a book is not really valid. I still don't think you're holding your mother accountable in this post: "your brother has had issues with your mother." If your mother was abusive, then it seems like a shift of responsibility away from her to him to say that he has had issues with his mother. As an adult, he is more in ownership over the issue now. But as a child, it wasn't his issue, but his mother's issue. It was her moral obligation to keep him safe from abuse and she failed. I am bugging you about this because I think it is important for your brother to be validated with regards to how his mother treated him, and usually a big part of validation is not giving the abusers a way out from being fully accountable for their actions. You said you don't think he even knows how he feels about his parents, and that's because he is currently acting out his hatred of them against his children, so he's not got the opportunity to see how not normal his actions are. Also, I'm not sure what "resolved in his mind" means. An apology requires consistency and follow up, and if your brother does not feel resolve or forgiveness from your mom, the onus is on her to earn his forgiveness. Forgiveness is not something which is chosen by the victim, but rather it is a result of an effort by the person who did wrong to provide restitution and clarity. I don't think it is valid to say your mother was abusive as a result of her upbringing, or else it wouldn't make sense for you to hold your brother or yourself to higher standards. If you can chose, so could she have, unless you are willing to say she is completely unaccountable for her actions; in which case she wouldn't be capable to take responsibility or apologize for her abuse, and wouldn't deserve people who do hold themselves responsible in her life, because she would be incapable of reciprocating in any kind of relationship.

So you said "compulsive thinking is failing to take action in the present moment." To say this is destructive is to say acting is always preferable to not acting (unless you want to say there are times where destruction is preferable). Murder is an exception to this, and if someone could chose between impulsively thinking and murdering, one would be seen as an infinitely more destructive option than the other. Sorry if this is a straw man If you are just saying worrying can be destructive sometimes, I agree. It is probably always destructive to worry and not act when there is a predator near you and you need to run away, or if you are in a situation of abuse. That would seem to me a more nuanced argument that a psychotherapist or some kind of healer would be equipped to deal with, and I don't think the remedy is "taking action" unless that were to mean "take very specific action." Does that make sense at all? Giving something a negative label doesn't change its contents. The only thing which is negative is falsehood, and that is my understanding (hopefully not misunderstanding!) how UPB makes objective value judgments against thoughts. But I do not see how compulsive thinking is necessarily a negative in the way that a false statement is.

Well that interesting... So if I plan to kill someone and use excellent reasoning to escape conviction, that is not destructive. But if I obsess for a month over the fact that I lost my mother when I was four years old (I didn't actually), then it becomes destructive (as if losing my mother wasn't the cause of the destruction, but it was only when I decided to obsess over it that it became destructive). This would seem like bogus pop self help that incorporates an idealization of Stoicism and an unwillingness to acknowledge unpleasant thoughts and behaviors. A good way to see the flaw in his premise is to focus in on his phrase "sees the value in thinking." Thinking isn't valued. You don't value a preference. That would be completely tautological, if not outright circular. Calling any thought destructive is an implicit condemnation of reality, and an emotional defense to avoid dealing with the presence of something by insulting it or giving it a negative label.

This is another time when asking "compared to what?" might be helpful. Since there are only a finite number of organizations or people to support, it might makes sense to support someone or something compared to the alternatives even if you have incomplete information.

So are you fearful that fear will make people stupid, or are you indifferent about that, too?

Where is the female accountability in your post? What does he think of his mother? What do you think of your mother? What do you think of his wife? Why would it necessarily be in his interest to attend therapy if he is around women who do not take responsibility for their own choices? It would be the moral thing to do, but I don't see any evidence to think he cares about morality. Someone brought up single motherhood as an alternative. I don't see how that can be, considering that the wife chose to marry and have four children with the husband. If she saw how abusive he was, why did she keep having children with him? I grew up in a single parent home, so maybe I am biased, but I am always cautious when that is suggested as being an improvement. I don't know of any data which supports the idea that single motherhood is preferable. It could be in this situation, but I don't feel confident in anything that was shared about her to say so.

Thank you I very much appreciate your comments and the time you took to read my post.

At least in America, banks had to rely on significant government intervention to keep these types of schemes afloat. Banks were given different legal advantages, so that they didn't have to incur the full risk of their actions. One such advantage was that when bank runs did happen, they did not have to issue out the holdings which belonged to their customers, but they could remain solvent. This is plain theft facilitated by the government. There were other advantages that I can't remember off the top of my head, but usually they had the effect of subsidizing institutions which acted criminally with their customers holdings. In a free market, these institutions would be out-competed over time as customers switched to more reputable companies. Even so, bubbles were not as large with fractional reserve banking without a central bank. The steady printing of money could not be sustained without a bank run happening, and it was only when central banks were invented with the ability to print money at will and control interest rates that bubbles could grow to be as large as they are today. Also, if legal tender laws exist, then money which is being inflated must be accepted to have the same monetary value as money which is not being inflated. Naturally, people would hold onto the valuable money, and use the less valuable money to trade, since it was given legal advantage. This is called Gresham's Law, as you probably know. Thanks for reading and for the comment, Rosen! I am thinking now that interest rates might be an important part that I left out, so I wonder how I would fit that in...