Search the Community

Dear Stephan, Mike, and additional crew: I just listened to both "YouTube Almost Banned Me" (Episode 4168) and "I Beat Cancer" (Episode 4167) and am very moved (as usual) and inspired. Today, my birthday, my husband and I would have gone out to a very nice dinner, which we do only on special occasions. We would have spent, including tip, (in California) about $185. I cannot think of a more worthy way to spend this money than to send it instead to Freedomain to help out in some small way. Allow me to take this opportunity to express my great appreciation, Stephan, for your voice, your courage, your compassion on the call-in shows, and your ongoing inspiration to both my husband and I. We gladly donate monthly but it is a small amount compared to what we derive from your podcasts, videos, and the additional inspirational people that we become exposed to. If I missed my birthday "feast", it is very small indeed compared to the "feast" of words and truth you deliver each day. Sincerely, SW

I wrote an article for steemit on why I think the blockchain will end the world as we know it. I would greatly appreciate any feedback that you guys have to give. Here's a link to part 1 and part 2, I didn't realize they had a character limit so I had to make the conclusion it's own post.

Hey everyone so I inadvertantly debated a guy who'd called on the show claiming that subjective is objective. Video - It started while watching Cantwell live and I kept getting timed out in the chat for posting too much so I decided to just join the after chat to continue the debate, I join around the 20 minute mark and for the most part Dale is speaking and he might be drunk, after 50 minutes Dale leaves and we're able to debate 1-on-1 for the most part, unfortunately the hangout stream got cut off halfway through but we still continued the debate for another hour/two. Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Cp5hGBJ1k I feel like I didn't force the issue enough and I kept getting hit with these random claims without evidence near the end, also it was 1-3am for me and I had to stay quiet so I couldn't really talk over anyone. Anyway feedback would be nice, where I went wrong, where he went wrong, etc. Thanks.

I have just graduated university, my BA degree doesn't seem to be making much of a difference in finding a job. The thing that I can do is take a 1-2 year course to get my paralegal certificate just so that I have more practical job experience instead of general philosophy or general psychology. I live in the GTA in Ontario. What I wanted to ask is, whether anyone has worked as a paralegal or lawyer? If so what was it like? Did you enjoy the legal profession? Do you have any complaints about the legal sector or words of advice for someone considering this career path who is also interested in FDR/Philosophy? Thank You I would appreciate any other information or experience about the legal profession and the difficulties that may arise..

This not a topic of me whining about it, I really want to hear what kind of mistakes I am doing. I am looking to improve and it would be very helpful if I could hear what YOU think I am doing wrong. I thank in advance. 2 examples of my threads: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40066-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-relationships/ https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39919-an-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-minarchism/ Markus FIN

Hi Stefan and anyone who might be reading this, I am posting this regarding the The Art of Penis Negotiation show, and the Banning Bitcoin caller. I am not going to defend or reexamine all the points in the call but a basic reality of economics that Stefan might have missed. Stefan makes claims that a government ban would not decrease bitcoin value/price for a multitude of reasons but i feel they might miss the mark to a degree. The commodity of currency would be worth far less when its ability to freely be used as currency is hampered. Is this logical? If yes, then the caller is correct and not Stefan. Let me expound. Lets start with this analogy: if weed no longer got you high or it would take an entire 8-ball to feel a high, this would decrease the value of those drugs to consumers (thus decrease their value as a commodity). A result being, these drugs' profitability would plummet and divert interest to other alternatives (even if supply remained the same, its value or usefulness is lowered). If the drug is still useful (can still get you high MAnnnn), then when its price increases, its value doesn't. It cost more time/wealth to produce and procure and thus may divert interest to other drugs, but the drug would maintain the innate value of its use. Ex. I have $200 1 oz of weed it gets me this high, but then government makes it illegal. Prices increase the same 1oz of weed still gets me the same high but now costs $250. The vlaue of the drug to the consumer doesn't change the cost does So now lets do the same with bitcoin. The value of bitcoin is its stable supply, uses of currency in trade and exchange, easy of transfer, security of wealth, amongst other uses of similar nature. So if government makes it harder to use bitcoin by destroys wealth related to it (stealing/destroying some of it), banning its use at local and reputable stores, creating legal threat associated with usage, etc then that would destroy the value of a currency; this is its function. Unlike drugs whose function is a high etc. which restrictions of availability do not largely effect, Bit coins innate value as a medium of exchange would actually be decreased (it harder to use it to exchange wealth/value). In this it differs from most commodities, but is similar to any currency. Do to this Bitcoin would most definitely lose value unless a large percentage of a population chose to ignore government force... which is not a likely reality, currently. Ex. I have $900 in 1 bitcoin that i can freely exchange, but then the government bans it. Now i still have 1 bitcoin but far less people who will take it becuase i can no longer as freely exchange it and its value was debased by government stealing it. This would make that 1 bitcoin worth less than $900 dollars as the actuall usefulness (or possible future usefullness) to the consumer has been greatly decreased. This is my perspective from my understanding of human interaction, let me know what you guys think.

I've been an avid listener to audio podcasts and FDR contributor for a while now. I'd like to contribute towards Stefan improving his call-in shows. Please let me know if it's not the right place to share this feedback, or if it's only me who feels this. Almost every time Stefan ends a conversation with a caller, he'll says something like: "Mike, who do we have next?". There's nothing's wrong with saying that, except that maybe it should be preceded by a conventional "thank you" and/or "bye bye" exchange. I feel that ending of a seemingly ongoing phone discussion (audio only) without an appreciative verbal hand-off can leave an impression of disrespect, which I know is not the case with Stefan, but still that's my perception every time. I know Stefan thanks everyone a lot in a general way, but since perception is reality and for new listeners out there, I thought that maybe some sort of polite { "Thank you for calling" - wait for the reply - "bye bye" - wait for the reply } process at the end of each conversation would be beneficial to not leave the impression of cutting them off and being rude. It may be tricky if some callers hang on to the discussion, but in most cases, it would leave a positive impression. I may be wrong, maybe there's no other way than to dry-cut it. ____________________"Mike, who do we have next?"_______________________ :-) Or maybe not... Just food for thoughts. Regards, Pat

This is a post-call feedback. The call helped me to determine where's the problem. I have noticed that Stefan insists on logic very much. Nothing wrong with that. But what if two different people use logic correctly, but come to different results? How's that possible? I think Stefan does not realize that logic is not the same as input and output of the logic. And whatever is the logic, we can manipulate the output by manipulating input. The input of logic is the real world, which we share. So how can we manipulate input? By creating concepts and categories of things, about which we think and which we leave undefined and unthinkable. We can create a category which connects together concepts into one, and this mix will give us any output we want, even if our logic is flawless. The way we define and combine our concepts is very subjective and very,very tricky. Stef for example defined a category of a "child" for me, as "someone who has no rights and no duties". An existence of such a combination of concepts is very problematic. (doubly problematic from someone who talked about how children in 8 years are totally independent in some societies) The concept of rights is in itself problematic, because they do not exist objectively, they exist only within a given society. And if I propose a different society, then all the rights, duties, sins and virtues will change - some will cease to exist, some will change beyond recognition. And there's no point in enumerating them, because they are just outer signs of a society which produced them. It is more useful to understand the input, than trying to divine input from the output. You can not understand someone else's output if you keep using your own input, even if you both use the same logic. We may have all the same logical engine, but if we feed it a different mix of concepts, we end up with totally different results. And what is that mix of concepts? Each is a word, which together comprise a LANGUAGE. If you know more languages than one, you know that some words contain a mix of meanings that in other language they don't. In my language most vocational nouns have a male gender. Like in French, some things have a male gender (even if non-living), some have female gender and some neutral. French does not have the neutral, it is even more sexist. English is comparatively neutral. So an English speaksperson may think Czechs are sexists and the French are even worse. And Czechs think that it is inconvenient, because you don't know what gender that person has, if someone is a babysitter or a babysitteress, which is a useful information. So the first thing we need to know, that we use a different language. The sounds are the same, but each has multiple meanings and they are differently mixed. So however impeccable our logic is, we will come to different results. This is a serious problem. I realized that we can't just talk to each other. We have a different language, so whatever we say will be misunderstood. We have to realize that there are different languages even if the sounds are the same and even if the logic is the same. That is a serious problem, almost like realizing there are aliens living alongside us. That is a problem for anyone who think that just being logical is enough. Logic is a great achievement today - look at all these Christians. But logical people with different language are almost as useless as illogical people with the same language. If the sounds are different, you'll just realize, "I don't understand the guy, he's got a different laguage." But if the sounds are the same, but concepts aren't, you will think the guy is "illogical, bad at grammar, childish..." Do we ever choose the language? No, we don't. Vast majority of people do not think about languages or underlying concepts. What multitude of meanings can be hidden under one concept - "the heathen"? We do not shop for languages, because we can't know what good is it until we learn it. It's a take it or leave it. Logic is useless here, because you don't have the input info about how good a language it is. People mostly learn languages because of relationships. You need to have a relationship with a person in order to want to learn his or her language, because that helps you to have a better relationship. Imagine, I tell you about a language which is beautiful - a simple, logical, yet rich and colourful, very easy to combine, very intuitive yet logical, has only few grammar rules, does not marginalize people... And you tell me, so if this language is so great, then go talking it and you will out-compete those who talk in the old language! Obviously, this is nonsense. This is not how languages spread. A language is only as good as its access to people, to information, new books, films, science... If you talk a perfect language but few people around the world talk that way, you're as good as mute. And you're even worse off, if you use the same sounds, people will think you're crazy or illogical. So trying to out-compete another language is a Catch 22 situation. Stefan's suggestion "go try it if it's good and you will out-compete everyone" is as good as "fuck off". Language does not make people richer or more successful. That's the question of resources, energy, technology... We can only compare languages and their success if their content is equal. Not if one has all the content and the other has little content. That is not a fair comparison. I think I nailed the problem. Comment, please.

I thought it might be cool and interesting to see what are people's favorite FDR podcasts and maybe a little blurb about what you like about it. Brownie points for what was the first podcast you had heard I'll start: 678 - Everything you do is... http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3 The amount of self doubt that I've and so many others experience unnecessarily is it's own tragedy, and this is a very interesting way, I think, to not do that to myself. 356 & 357 - You Are Your Own Proof http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_356_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof.mp3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_357_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof_Part_2.mp3 Learning to trust my feelings and the power of my unconscious has been crucial for me. I had this idea that if I wasn't consciously working something out from first principles, then it was probably wrong was a hard thing to shake off, and understanding the principle here helped a lot. 234 - Contempt http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_234_Contempt.mp3 Contempt is completely underrated. There is a richness to contempt that I appreciate and trust and when people used to constantly tell me that contempt is bad and I shouldn't feel it,... it has always been really irritating to me. 122 - Am I Too Mean? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/am_i_too_mean.mp3 Something that has also bothered me a lot is this idea that we need to be nice to one another or else we are being immoral or acting out, or it's sadistic or something like that. I'm still working on this, but having this perspective (that I don't remember ever hearing before) has been important for me in the necessary confrontations I've had since. 476 – The Myth of Nice Christians http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_476_Nice_Mythical_Christians.mp3 People who are portrayed as being nice and that you shouldn't criticize them is a big irritation of mine (it looks like I have a theme going here, lol). So to hear arguments like these that cut through that bullshit like warm butter is very much of interest to me. 183 – Freedom Part 4: Parents (and everything!) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/personal_freedom_Part_4_parents_and_everything.mp3 Refusing to enable bad people and no longer pretending that there was a real relationship there to begin with when there was none, has been life changing for me. This podcast, On Truth and the But *my* parents were really nice series were the kick in the butt I needed to make one of the most important decisions of my life. 468 – Seeing Through Darkness http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_468_Seeing_Through_Darkness.mp3 Being aware of my own dark side has been crucial for me in taking responsibility for my own hypocrisies. The first FDR podcast I ever heard was: 1058 – Proof of Anarchy http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1058_Proof_of_Anarchy.mp3 So, yea. Those are some of my favorites. How 'bout you?

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1329_True_News_31_Naughty_Libertarianism.mp3podcast 1555I wish every podcast was as compact as this. It's sooooooo good. and he talks fast in this one.Do you guys also find the prepared, compact podcasts to be the most epic and most enjoyable too?

Awhile back, I started a podcast series called Five Years AbroadCAST as a complement to my blog Five Years Abroad. The project focuses on building self-knowledge through living in a foreign culture. A recent episode is entitled, "Family and Friends", and in it, I talk about how to achieve a balance between living on your own in a foreign culture and maintaining ties to your culture of origin. A friend listened to it, and he described it as, "indirectly explaining the DeFoo concept to people who have never been exposed to it." I thought that was really interesting because I didn't think about that consciously when I was recording the podcast. I thought this episode might be of interest to the FDR community. I'd love to get your feedback on it and whether/how it complements the deFOO concept. https://soundcloud.com/fiveyearsabroad/episode-12-family-and-friends