Search the Community

From the outside Japan dosen't seem so bad. Sure, we know that the economy is fucked by keynesianism and they probably have lots of crony capitalism like in the west. But the japanese socialist hasn't created the welfare state yet (as far as I know), they haven't destroyed the family structure replacing it with single mother culture and feminism, stuff like ostracism still seems to work, the socialist hasn't started importing low iq voters yet, and crime is still as low as it gets. But when you look at the problems in Japan one would think that the country had big government and full blown socialism: Low birthrates Men and women not intrerested in each other High suicide rates This culture called hikikomori, young people withdraw from social life, stay at home all day What I'm I missing? I'm sure the usual suspects (government and socialism) is behind this somehow? Would love to hear some explanations from people with insight on Japan. And btw. visited Japan last year, absolutely loved it. Can recommend it to anybody that hasn't been there

This is the first of a series called "Letters to a Lefty." Single mothers tend to vote democrat whereas married women tend to vote republican. This has much to do with the fact that single parenthood would be nearly impossible without the promised handouts from the left that attempt to replace the role of the father. Please enjoy! Dear Single Mother, Isn’t it amazing that society has given you such a skewed sense of reality – holding you up as a strong and independent woman; a woman who doesn’t need a man in her life. You get to have people constantly validating your strength with congratulations of breaking free of the patriarchy; for kicking that useless idiot to the curb and going it alone. And even though in reality, you are weak and more dependent than ever without the father of your children, you are doing a fantastic job playing along; milking it for all its worth. That being said, I’m sorry that you will never be able to form strong maternal bonds with your children the way married women can because you’ve chosen to sacrifice their developmental years in exchange for working to pay the bills. I totally understand that by choosing to work, your children may suffer an average IQ loss of four to five points due to a lack of breastfeeding for therecommended period. It’s not your fault the bills keep coming every month, right? You and your child are more than four times more likely to live below the poverty line than a married couple (Rector, 2003). I totally get it. I feel for your struggle. I sense your pain. And since you have absolutely no moral responsibility or choice in the type of man you have sex with, I hate that you were forced to (a) mate with a man who wasn’t going to be a stable provider for your family, or (b) you were such a horrible person that you drove a good man away. But I don’t hold that against you. It’s the men who are to blame, right? They make all the choices—not you. I’m deeply sorry that your children are four times more likely to suffer moderate to severe abuse by your own hands and ten times more likely to suffer abuse if you decide to have a non-biological partner in the household. There goes that damned patriarchy again – forcing you to abuse and/or neglect your children. Remember back before you were forced to open your legs to become that strong independent woman? If only the men had told you about the effects it would have on your children and society overall (source). I just wish they would have told you that: · 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. · 90% of all homeless and runaway youths are from fatherless homes. · 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes. · 71% percent of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes. · 70% of youths in State institutions are from fatherless homes. · 75% of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers are from fatherless homes. · 85% of rapists motivated by displaced anger are from fatherless homes. I’m so sorry that we have a government and a society who is willing to subsidize your poor decisions; making it much less risky (at least financially) to have and raise children outside of marriage. And even though the most safe and stable environment for children is within a family headed by a mother AND a father, you are going to beat the odds, right? There’s no way in hell your children are going to become another statistic, right? I believe in you. I’m on your side. Kind Regards, Daniel Wagner (You can read more Letters to a Lefty @ http://www.unframeofmind.com/blog/?category=Letters+to+a+Lefty )

...and, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation." Some of these things are covered in a few other forum threads, so please excuse the uncited references. I am a Philosopher King donor, who has donated almost a thousand dollars to this conversation. I am close to asking for my money back. I listened to their recent podcast, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation," and felt angry and frustrated at the rightward, Hoppean turn the conversation took. They seemed to paint almost all Mexican ("illegal") immigrants with the same broad brush. "They come from a society that inflicts abuse on their children!" "They don't peacefully parent their kids and grow up all screwed up!" There are people in the US like that! What am I supposed to do, advocate for a phalanx of border guards at the state border to keep North Carolinians from "invading" my state? If not, why not? Because the line on a map is thicker? As an anarchist, the only borders I respect are property lines. Private property lines. Don't people own the land on the other side of the Rio Grande? (Hey, that rhymes!) Or is the whole premise of "border security" that they outsource that power the government? Is that it? I think Mike mentioned that the US government should still obey the immigration laws in this country. Even if those laws are consummately unconstitutional? The US Constitution only give the federal government the power over natualization. Immigration was originally left to the states. (I have a problem with that as well, but that's another matter.) The US government usurped this power with the Page Act of 1875, as a means of stemming the tide of Chinese "taking American jobs." (Some things never change, unfortunately.) Mexicans (or other immigrants) do not "take American jobs." They do not belong to Americans, they belong to the employers. The employers can (or, at least, should) give those jobs to whomever the employer wants. I also felt angry when I realized that they were very supportive of Trump's policy on this. So, let me get this straight... Ron Paul, no, Donald Trump, Hell Yeah! I felt angered when Stef mangled people in this conversation who dared to say that Dr. Paul should be commended for his support of freedom-oriented legislation, and may even be voted for. (Yes, we all know that voting doesn't solve anything.) But Trump, who isn't freedom-oriented on pretty much anything, gets drooled over by Stef and the gang? I'm curious as to the rationale. (Legitimately. I really can't put the proper tone in a written forum post.) Is it because, unlike Ron Paul, Donald Trump doesn't even give the pretense of being a libertarian? Is that it? Yes, I know that no one of the Freedomain Radio staff would officialy support the Donald politically (Stef can't- he's Canadian), but still... I would advise you to please not fall into the same trap I'm trying to avoid- seeing people as homogeneous. I understand that not all migrants are sympathetic, hard-working, conscientious people, any more than they are all money-grubbing, welfare-statist, child-beating, irrational religionists. I don't think any of us are asserting that. However, you know that national "border security" and immigration policies don't work on a case-by-case basis. It winds up being, "ship alla them Moo-slum sand niggers'a right back whur they came frum!" Or worse, as a local radio talk show host said about people fleeing Cuba a few years back, shoot to kill on sight. Which brings me to the "European Migration Crisis" podcast... A lot of the cultural invasion topics from the Trump Conversation podcast were brought up here, with the subsequent trepidations from me. However, I noted, with some dismay, that Stef didn't address the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room... the Gun in the Room. Another poster on another forum topic addressing this mentioned this, but for those who haven't read it, let me say it. These diparate people from across the Middle East didn't, en masse, get up one fine, peaceful day in Syria (or Afghanistan) and say to themselves, "You know, Syria is great and all, but you know who needs themselves some Syria? Portugal!" They are fleeing these areas because these European citizens supported their governments' involvement in the War on Terror and have sent some of their fellow citizens there to bomb, shoot, and irradiate these Middle Easterners' families and friends, and depose their leaders. Another governmental program that is attracting those people to Europe is the welfare states. Stef discussed this at length on the podcast, and I commend him on this. But reforming (or, preferably, eliminating) the welfare state is the more humane solution to this problem, not shipping them back to a literal war zone or killing them if they refuse. That's what they're there for! They could have met that fate if they'd just stayed where they were. Bottom line, I don't seem to understand the whole issue, but I have some ideas. The best way I think to handle the problem (as far as anyone rational can influence the government) is: end the War on Terror, eliminate welfare and other unconstitutional benefits for non-citizens, and inform these refugees (or "illegal immigrants,"* or whatever you want to call them) that they are on their own. In a truly free area, there would be no honey to attract redistributionist people and all the land would be owned by individuals or organizations, who would be tasked with keeping tresspassers "off'n their propertah." As far as those who are already here, keep anyone you like off your property for any reason you like, but whomever anyone else allows on their land, or hires, or sells to is none of your goddamned business. (As least as far as government force is concerned.) By the way, Stef mentioned that the best thing for these refugees is to stay and fight where they are. All I have to say is, Anne Frank didn't. Sigmund Freud didn't. Albert Einstein didn't. The von Trapps didn't. And most importantly, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek didn't. They knew a sinking ship when they saw it and, like good and prolific rats, got while the gittin' was good. (Yes, I know these people aren't exactly modern intellectuals steeped in Western Civilization and classical liberalism, but their situation is similar.) I intend to do the same thing. Those people in the Middle East aren't exactly fighting an intellectual war. They're fighting the 3rd US Marine battalion- with guns, and drones, and Hellfire missiles, and tanks, and depleted uranium ordinance. please help me *I call them, "unauthorized movers," like someone going from Montana to Colorado, or Ontario to Alberta. What's the difference?

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it: 1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever. 2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so. 3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights. I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered: "No. It's because money is only numbers, not property." After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them! Markus FIN

John Stewart came up on Hulu... why not I said. his first 5 mins fly in the face of basically everything Stef posted in his latest vid appending his show with Joe Rogan. It's hard to watch!!! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-9-2014/slumdogs-vs--millionaires Be interesting to get stefs short rebuttal... Also... taking on John Stewart might get some publicity!