27 22

I don’t spend much time on this page and I’ve been trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal to me, I am extremely politically engaged, love intellectual debate, and feel a strong need to push back against the SJW culture, by all rights this should be my home. Though I loved engaging on Facebook, I could no longer tolerate the political bias and censorship of right wing personalities, and have recently deleted all other social media platforms (more like a year or so ago), but still haven’t found this site to be a good alternative and I think I know why. It’s an echo chamber. Nearly every user here and every intellectual figure (for the most part) agrees with my worldview and we never see any level of dissent or challenges to our narrative. Perhaps some people like that (though I argue it’s unhealthy and unproductive, and would strongly urge anyone to engage with those with whom they disagree), but it’s not for me. I don’t need a flood of likes and “attaboys”, I want to engage in difficult discussions where I truly need to work to justify my opinions, and reflect on and counter (or accept and adjust my opinion in some cases) the arguments against my view. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the admins of this page need to figure out a way to market this page to more people of more political persuasion, we are lacking an arena in this society that fosters an environment where people can share their ideas with one another without the narrative being altered by the powers that be, and in my opinion this page isn’t much different. The narrative is predetermined to flow in one direction, and rather than creating that through censorship it’s achieved through merely not attempting to bring in any other perspectives. And that would also subsequently allow us to try and convince others why we are right, and if we truly believe we are correct then we should welcome the opportunity to defend our positions with facts.

Please feel free to challenge me or provide any other feedback, I’d be interested to see where most people stand on this.

JesseBraaten 4 Dec 21

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Well the problem is two fold:
First, you need to engage in the first place. I have found no one on earth who completely agree with all my views and I have had a lot of interesting discussions here where I disagreed strongly with the majority here... even though I agree with 80% of what is said here.

Secondly, the only left wing writers here are just trolls with the exception maybe of Ricky. HiQ and the others have no interest in actually discussing anything. And they rarely say anything worth reading.

And that bring us to the third problem (OK, three fold then).
Very few people are willing to listen and change their views.
The sole purpose I am here is to test my views and learn from others... constantly evolving my views as my understanding of the world grows.

I have discovered I am a very small minority.


I have found a lot of very educated people are not very smart nor wise, yet they believe they earned the title of Intellectual because they learned the skill to defend Dogma. A real intellectual is excited to learn something new even if it conflicts with what he believed to be true.


go look for users like HighQ, WileyRickWiles and Crikey. These are just the few leftists I have encountered here although I know there a plenty more.
I might be mistaken but I believe the reason it looks like an echo chamber for the right is that there is no censorship going on. Right side people are allowed to say whatever they like and the lefties can't have them censored or kicked off the site. Without "politically correct" police on the site the Lefties tend to be quite less verbose. They really have very weak and in many cases indefensible arguments and they get a lot of push back from they tend to stay silent or simply to leave the platform.

HighQ is nothing but a troll, on a good day. Most days I doubt that even he believes his own bullshit.


I tend to agree with you. I don’t often get on here (primarily when an email lets me know how many new posts have gone up since my last visit), and it does seem to be a bit of an echo chamber. Perhaps the lack of challenging debate has more to do with the possibility of this being a ‘safe space’ for Libertarians and Conservatives, in which we know we’re not going to be called Nazis/racists/homophobes/misogynists for simply expressing our opinions. Although it would be nice to engage with like-minded people, even if we don’t agree on everything. I’ll make it a point to check this site more often, and begin to mix it up a little. Thank you.


I have participated in forum discussions since 1993. The complaints made in the original post about participation have not changed in 26 years.

I do not believe people come to online forums to broaden there intellectual experience. They come to forums for the same reason old men once gathered at barbershops. As social animals we seek social engagement. Just as the old men who once gathered at barbershops we argue politics because it a sport that distracts us from are mundane lives.

Expanding your intellectual horizons is hard work. Like building new muscle it is also painful. You have to destroy your old self a little bit at a time to become the thing you want to be. You are not going to find people with the necessary discipline easily. Like star athletes real intellectuals are going to be the exception.

To have a serious intellectual discussion in the modern world you are faced with the additional problem that as knowledge has expanded so has specialization. In this environment most gifted people are scholars not intellectuals. Even in politics most people will be well versed in only one school of thought. A deep discussion will necessarily require agreement on fundamental principles and focus on the finer points. In the past intellectuals exchanged letters to hammer out the details and that unfortunately remains the best way to carry out a deep discussion. If that is the goal try the personal message system.


I find it to be an echo chamber by the lack of dialogue, not the lack of disagreement. Some trolls have made level 8 by trying to annoy us, then rack up “interaction points” as we attempt to regain our dignity against his accusations.

I’ve posted parallel statements in IDW and Facebook and received more dialogue on Facebook. I love IDW and the potential it offers, but I think most members here would love an emotionless, fact-driven discussion to hone their attitudes and positions.

However, I feel a lot of people just love to post videos which need to be watched in real-time in order to comment. Who has that kind of time? Are they infomercials, trying to find subscribers in IDW? Like you, I want thought-provoking discussions, an environment that I cannot imagine liberals wanting. Let’s all just start doing it and see if it grows!


If admins make it a level playing field where all are welcome, and only some people choose to show up, what is admin supposed to do? They can't change how people select select out of discussions.

There are certain people who simply won't show up to debate and discuss their views because they know their views and values are indefensible and they require an actual echo chamber that censors alternative views. The irony is, if you go to their echo chamber, you likely won't be able to participate freely.

Good luck.

I agree, most on the left seem to be entirely closed to the idea of civil discourse, but I have met many that truly do want to engage with the other side and their voices are simply being drowned out by the more radical, and more petulant, extremists. I have seen moderate left wing intellectuals who have openly advocated for more discussion across party lines and perhaps if this page brought on some of them, maybe some of their followers would come too. It’s a difficult problem to solve because of how divided western society is currently, but I do think it’s important, now more than ever, as I see a need for us to make a genuine effort to understand the other side and help them to understand that we’re not their enemies simply because we disagree. Too often in today’s climate we jump to the conclusion that because the people with whom we are interacting want the nation to go in a certain direction that we feel is harmful, that they hold those views for malicious reasons. That’s generally false on both sides. People typically want to go in a direction that is most beneficial for all and simply do not always agree on how to get there, if we could work towards a climate where people understand this, perhaps we could work towards a future where we actually get things done rather than scream each other down.

@JesseBraaten "...perhaps if this page brought on some of them...."

How would this page do that? If those people choose not to participate here, what is this page supposed to do about that?

@WingedRyno I hear you and agree, I just see more of a need for us on the right to make more effort to try and reach across party lines and encourage dialogue. I’ve been thinking this for some time but was often deterred by the clear unwillingness on the left to engage, but a recent change my mind segment by Crowder has me thinking common ground isn’t as far away as we may think. It was the “thanksgiving isn’t racist” segment and watching the reactions of the students was profound, you could literally watch the wool falling from their eyes as they realized they had been lied to their entire lives, and (though they never openly admitted it) you could see a great deal of self reflection. If we could find a way to reach out to more of these people and maintain productive dialogue, while knowing their initial responses will be confrontational but if we resist the temptation to punch back and rather just continue respectfully articulating our positions, many of them will walk away with a new, and likely more rational, position to ponder. I know it’s not as easy as saying “hey leftists, we’re over here! Come chat!” But I believe it is worth the effort to try and connect with some of them, at least the few willing to listen anyway.

@JesseBraaten Big part of our challenge now is the entrenchment of the identifying and labeling of "sides," left-right ... it is intrinsically adversarial to frame ourselves this way. As crazy as Jesse Ventura can sometimes be, I wish his call to remove "R" and "D" from ballots (indeed, even from our political parlance at all) would come to pass. We need to evaluate policy and law from the perspective of being American, not partisan. It's just gotten so nearly impossible now.


I agree to a certain extent. I do like to come here just to get some uncensored news. I find it kind of a safe place for conservative news. I have grown exhausted from the personal attacks from people on the left on Facebook. You can’t seem to have any kind of debate or opinion that differs from them without the automatic personal attacks. They won’t even entertain any kind of discussion if they think you have a conservative view point. I have even been gang attacked from memes I posted on my wall. One lady freaked out and wanted me to take it off my wall. It was just a meem about climate change.
I like to come here just to know I’m not the only one who sees things differently .


While I agree with a lot of what you said
Invite more people of different ideologies. I invite all people I know. Which is pretty diverse.
Seems anyone who thinks differently, doesn't want to engage. Preciously because they don't censor, and you can actually have a logical debate
Let's face it. Most of the hard left and right. Do not like open debate. Where their belief system is challenged.
Like you I enjoy having my beliefs, and perspectives challenged. It is healthy, and can have positive results
Like affirming ones beliefs, or being able to change. Of presented with the right evidence to support facts.
Facebook is leaning hard left, and censoring people, and that's what people want nowadays.
It's sad, but that's the way it is I guess


Reading the comments here I am seeing many relevant, and correct, push back to my opinion. You all are correct to point out that leftists in general do not want to talk to the other side and don’t care it we’re decent people, they’ll smear us as garbage regardless just to further their own agenda, but we need to be bigger than that. I get the distinct impression talking to fellow conservatives that there is a growing sentiment of “well if you don’t want to talk fine, fuck you too”, and while I understand that and even engaged in it myself, I think it is the wrong course of action. There was a time when the left was the side of inclusion and tolerance while the right was more prone to moral authoritarianism, but as the left gained popularity and subsequent power, they began to rapidly drift into the realm of moral authoritarianism. As that has happened it seems the right has reacted by moving more towards a position of acceptance and inclusion of diversity of thought, and that is a brilliant tactic which will inspire rapid growth in the conservative base if we, the people, continue to work to make this shift known through open dialogue. The left still argues that they are the side of inclusion and diversity but people are waking up to that, even people on the left. I have socialist friends who prefer to only talk politics with conservatives because having an honest conversation in their circles is impossible, any disagreement results in anger and ridicule. On the right I am seeing more and more tolerance to opposing views and ideas, and that is the only diversity that really matters. Superficial diversity is meaningless, we all look different from one another whether it’s tone of skin, complexion, hair color, eye color, some of us put pineapple on pizza and others know that only disgusting wretched filth would consider putting fruit on a pizza, but none of that matters. The only thing that truly matters is who we are as individuals in our minds, and we should welcome those who have different perspectives and work to combine our views to make something that works for everyone.

"...only disgusting wretched filth would consider putting fruit on a pizza..."

Can't argue with that, but...

The modern Left and Right are two sides of the same authoritarian (criminal) coin, they want absolute power and they will deceive, threaten bodily harm on the innocent or less innocent, and demonstrate that their threats are real in fact, in time, and in place, regularly, as a matter of fact.

The original socialists were contained within the social sphere, having no business in crime; deception (fraud), threats (extortion), and aggressive violence, as the means to their socialist goals.

The original conservatives, on the other hand, were exemplified by those enforcing the Inquisition, which as we are taught in school are those people extracting confessions from their victims based upon false claims of witchcraft.

I have yet to find but a handful of people willing to spend the time to discuss any topic at length, and the few people who have offered their part in dialogue (for mutual benefit) fade away after a few exchanges.

Perhaps you are an exception to the rule. We will see.

Do you, for example, consider yourself a member of the choir that knows, as a matter of fact, that law actual (not counterfeit) is a voluntary mutual defense association, and those who claim otherwise are confessing their malignancy?


It's going to be difficult to find someone who disagrees with you that wants to have an intellectual conversation.
Most people who disagree with you don't know how to have an intellectual conversation,they just call you names and make a bunch of unnecessary noise. Not being able to learn from each other cause some are unwilling to have a conversation,is really sad.


No real argument here. I think thats because there no chance of a "progressive" stumbling across discussions here. I find progressives fall into 1 (or more) of 3 categories:

  1. Weak of Mind
  2. Weak of Will
  3. Weak of Character

The weak of mind are the innocent sap that have just been surrounded by lies and honestly believe the lies are true. They have no concept of actual reality because they have been fed only lies and have been told opposing views are lies.

The weak of will know it's all BS but lacks the courage to stand up and say so. Their spouse or significant other or parent or sibling is a crazed progressive so they just go along to get along.

The weak of character are the real problem people. These are the leaders of the democratic party who know exactly how to manipulate the first two groups.


I come because there are a lot of alternate news sites I didn't know of, and the topics are not always mainstream ... discussion and debate takes time and effort, most people check in make a comment or view someone else's, but I doubt most have time for deeper discussion and reflection. This medium because it is spotty with most people perhaps not even there to see a comment or response, makes a debate or discussion either too time consuming; over several days or next to impossible ...


Well it looks like you’ve got HighQ’s attention. He is a pro at bashing the US and not agreeing with anything that mirrors conservative values. There’s also another member... Wiley something. Those 2 will keep you busy and on your toes!! Lo!! DING! DING! DING!!! Ready to ruuuummmble!!!

I have yet to read anything worthwhile written by HiQ.
Ricky Wiley is a different matter and I have had good discussions with him.

I too am hoping for some good left wing contributors.

@Hanno I have to agree with you on that. Both of those guys are in a political-based group I host, and while HighQ offers very little to the conversations, WilyRickWiles more often than not at least tries to get decent convos going. Some fellow members in that group I host had suggested to me in private that I should ban both of them, but haven't done so as that would probably lead to the group becoming a total echo chamber.

@Hanno Good left wing contributors? 🤔 Don’t recall any good ones ...besides maybe the ones mentioned. A few might argue that point 😐 There are a few typical, get angry, spit in your face, curse like sailor and call you racist kind. But most of those get frustrated and disappear. Maybe you can start a new group. Just make sure it has a relatable title to lure them in.

@Hanno agreed. I see no value in HighQs participation here. But of course I think he should be able to participate and share his views despite the fact that I personally find his participation here to be completely worthless.

I don’t think the group should start banning people or censoring, unless it’s criminal. The whole problem with the world today is censorship gone wild.

@VLMc This directed to me or @SpikeTalon?


I am going to give this website a try. The good things so far are: I can write a lengthy post and not be committed to a certain number of words in posting, like Twitter. Of course Facebook has been around for quite awhile and has a variety of different things on it's website, but it is getting old and you have to be careful of what you post. I tried Parlor, I think someone was using the site to attack computers, thank goodness that I'm extremely security conscious and don't plan on visiting the site again. So for now, I will visit this site and post here and there and see where it will lead. Patience Grasshopper.


I agree we need informed debate but the left does not want debate. So I don’t think there is an area that this can happen. I appreciate the ability to voice my opinion without the insults and derogatory statements.


The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.

As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal Constitution of 1789 is a gift from God, and therefore it is on par with the Bible: sacrosanct.

When faced with the facts that matter in the case these so-called conservatives routinely resort to typical political censorship tactics if they engage the facts that matter in the case at all.

So the shoe is clearly on the other foot as so-called conservatives claim that the Marxists (so-called liberals) have been lied to, and it is those people who face the facts as if the facts were as Kriptonite is to Super Man, but not us conservatives, our foundations are sacrosanct.

Conservative simply means you recognize that most mutations are not beneficial.


Whenever someone makes the effort to clarify the precise meaning intended with a word, to me, that is a useful device. When, on the other hand, there is an effort to obfuscate, again to me, there is no shortage of words that can mean many things, and in so doing the intention of falsification is reached by that means.


Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"

George Mason was a liberal-conservative, or not, depending entirely upon which meaning is either intended or unintended.

Conserve the profitable monopoly by eliminating all competition, could be the intention of a conservative.

"Conservative simply means you recognize that most mutations are not beneficial."

I could take that as meaning the human mutation known as a psychopath (or clinical narcissist born with an abnormal brain) is not beneficial for victims of psychopaths, especially when criminal psychopaths create and maintain counterfeit governments. But, even so, a fellow psychopath, or a learned sociopath, may find such mutations to be beneficial in very precise measurements.


I understand what you are saying but the same principle of psychopathy and sociopathy could apply to any political persuasion. People claiming to be egalitarian may only do so to gain personal advantage.


Ok, let's go into that word: egalitarian.

One writer I respect is Murray Rothbard, except when that author deals with another author who I respect even more: Lysander Spooner.

Rothbard wrote a book, which I purchased and read:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard, 1974

"Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money."

"The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”,) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest."

I think it is worse than that when those words are taken in context with the whole Libertarian Philosophy.

Spooner wrote a competitive money solution in direct contrast with the whole Central Bank Fraud, which would place Spooner on the same side as Rothbard; one might expect.

Gary North, on the other hand, points out the divergence.

I can find that quote and post it, but I also want to point out that Tucker exposed the principles involved quite well on his own. I can get that quote. Tucker is on Rothbard's "egalitarian" hit list.

There, in those facts, is the data constituting the problems with the word "egalitarian."


"People claiming to be egalitarian may only do so to gain personal advantage."

Curious to me is the fact that Rothbard ignores (as if sending down the memory hole) both Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews in his hit piece on those ignorant slobs: egalitarians.


Rent, interest and profit can be thought of as management wages. We entrust property, finance and resource allocation to those whose management labor have proven beneficial over time.

The flaw in the economic system that is most intractable is of course that interest, profit and rent are inherently inflationary. The correction for all the "bad" reallocation of resources that results from "it takes money to make money" is economic depression and deflation. Unfortunately the social dislocation caused by "resetting" the economy is so severe we suppress depression and deflation. It is just one more example of how purifying selection is artificially suppressed in a civilized society.

One possible solution is to expand the social safety nets that reduce the "losers" in the economic game to non players. This solution unfortunately has proven to harm those it is supposed to help. Too many people who receive benefits of the social safety net do not use it to regain a seat at the economic game but instead squander the opportunity.

There is the additional problem that as the economy becomes more complex about 20 percent of the population does not have the intellectual capacity to fully participate in the meritocracy. As artificial intelligence plays an ever increasing role in the economy this problem will only get worse.

Our economic problems are much deeper than wealth inequality or the lack of meritocracy in distribution. It is true that wealth accumulates simply by the laws of statistics or chance in ways no meritocracy can account for. Natural law requires the cruel solution of purifying selection to advance evolution. In the end all our management turns out to be subject to random mutations. We could do better but we need realistic expectations.


I read your response, and I do not doubt that you can back-up what you are reporting. I would like to point out that any measure of the current political economy is a measure of organized crime (claimed to be "the government" ) creating serious, overwhelming, malinvestment. The measure of these transfers being a malinvestment comes from a benchmark based on a view of human life proceeding according to natural law, as in the phrase free-market commerce. If we can effectively end crime, then we won't be digging our own graves. Of course, those who invest in organized crime claimed to be "the government," get their pound of flesh, so it is not malinvestment to them. To those who invest in organized crime hiding behind a false front of the government, their profitable monopoly pays well, or they would invest elsewhere.

Every cent (could be measured more accurately as calories) stolen by the criminals running the fake government could be a cent invested poorly, or invested profitably by all those who would not pay the extortion fee euphemistically called a "tax," and the force of direct consequence for malinvestment and the force of direct consequence for profitable investment would apply directly to the individual investor, which is then direct force inspiring either improvement (better investment) or failure to improve, at the individual level, which then causes more investment power to those who improve, and less investment power to those who fail to improve their capacity to invest wisely.

The further from direct consequence for success and failure is the further from accurate accountability investors go, leading to a reduction in responsibility: investors don't have to invest wisely if the plebs can always be made to pay the bills.

No "to big to fail," and no "bailouts," for criminals claiming to be Central Bankers. No capital flight in the billions and trillions of UNITS OF PURCHASING POWER flowing from producers who produce anything worth stealing, as that Central Bank Fraud hidden behind government legitimacy receives that capital flight that way. That way, by the way, is meticulously documented and therefore a fact that matters in this case.

If it is assumed that humans naturally invest in crime hidden under a false claim of lawful authority, then I get your points. If I prefer not to make that assumption myself, then I see human beings in free markets doing much better overall, were we to realize the full cost of allowing such crimes to continue, and then we do something lawful, peaceful, truthful, about it individually, and then a sum total of individual efforts (collective power) moves us back to investors being responsible individually.

Tucker (an ignorant egalitarian slob):

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.

"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.

"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.

"Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:

As to a free market solution:

The Gold-Plated Sting
By Gary North
March 3, 2007
In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation."

"Natural law requires the cruel solution of purifying selection to advance evolution."

Human beings can naturally go away from organized crime hidden behind a false front of legitimacy, it is not impossible, it has happened, it does happen, it can happen. It can't if everyone becomes a criminal.

@wolfhnd "Too many people who receive benefits of the social safety net do not use it to regain a seat at the economic game but instead squander the opportunity."

This has been my voiced concern in conversation with Yang supporters who believe the freedom dividend of $12k/month is a great idea. I've been calling it what would be for too many the "lottery effect." I'm curious what you might have in mind as a source for data on the claim that too many squander the help. That would be much appreciated.


The case for welfare addiction in the U.S. is fairly murky. The vast majority of people who receive government aid do in fact find employment or are working. Their are however pockets of chronic underemployment. Where these pockets exist all the symptoms of the broken human spirit are also rampant such as drug use and failed relationships. Demonstrating a cause and effect relationship however is nearly impossible. Other factors such as cognitive ability undoubtedly play a role. See Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" for a deeper dive into the statistics.

I have selected an article from the most left leaning organization I could to show that UBI has already been tried with limited success.



I'd say if we read carefully, discerning content, mindset, it may look like agreement but just looks like it.
Like parallel universes, running alongside but not uniting. For me uniting is a very high calling, cannot be pushed or forced or cop out and capitulate.
It's bonding in a thought which greatly empowers the thought. I think of Brian Rose on London Real on YouTube who is about the most positive person I've heard. Some are bonding with his views and it strengthens those views.
But I think maybe I have a glimmer here about your concern. Maybe? Insipid? I wonder if people don't know how to express outrage, anger? Do I? How is it best done. I think it was Stefan Molyneux (did I mispell?) who said free speech will upset others and it is necessary. Maybe we aren't ready for that, or don't know how. One thing I'm leery of and that's being right. There's a difference between being right and being wrong. If I'm not right, I certainly may not be wrong.
I never have all the facts.


One primary factor here is there just seems not to be that many people on here?


At one time I was on a site called TOPIX which I don't think exists anymore. There was good healthy banter back and forth between libs and I joke, but really believe this! Anyway...recenlty I was on a site that professes Free Speech, called Parler, but when I talked about how the LGBT alphabet soup mafia was the main force against Trump and the source of the lions share of Leftist Trump hate it was not long that my site froze up and was unstable and no more entry to site. The site was the worst I had ever experienced with complicated log in and constant crashes although that may have been part ot their ploy to get rid of me????? So... so much for Free Speech as I see it.


At the risk of being over simplistic, perhaps you might play the "Devil's Advocate" and post a narrative you don't necessarily agree with but for which a tenable defense might be made. It might just attract enough discourse to make this less of an echo chamber and result in more back and forth discourse. You are absolutely right, for the most part, the narrative here is extremely one directional. It needs a bit of spice. With your obvious talent for intellectual debating, I would relish to see you argue the opposite side on certain "hot button" issues. Just a thought.


I feel you are right that there is no counter-voice here. Yet neither is there is the left-leaning think tanks. There needs to be a site where an equivalent discussion takes place. More than anything there needs to be a place where people feel free to express views which the liberal fascists (this is not to say all liberals feel their views should be enforced but there is a strong tendency to) would not allow or would demonise in public. I think it would be good if a portion of the site was opened up to a wider audience to draw in those liberals and force them to encounter another thought view.
What has been forgotten in the wider arena is that there are many routes to a destination and all of them are right. It just depends which route you want to take. In other words tolerance of a wider range of views and philosophies will create a better society and understanding that someone can think differently to you and still be right.
My other issue with the site is that calling itself intellectual excludes many who think they are not. I think this also restricts the postings on this site. Some of the more interesting views I have encountered in my life have been from people who have hardly had any schooling. The idea that education creates a better mind is a poor piece of thinking. In fact modern education channels and restricts thinking because apparently you have to know stuff before you can think. Once stated it is easy to see the idiocy involved in that statement because if this were true then the thinking now would have to be better that the thinking before. If that is the case then why do we keep teaching old thinking?
So I think you have challenged something which I think needs challenging. However please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This site definitely has use and value but in adding to it, it might be possible to find something that challenges the current unthought attitudes.


"He's a Russian spy!"
Campus anti-free speech riots
Nationwide ANTIFA
Weekly statue riots
Race riots
School walkouts
MILLIONS protesting
Trump rally road blockades
Daily flag burnings
Iraq War
Oil wars
Kids in cages
#NFL kneeling**


Atta boy! But, seriously, you've made an excellent point here in that a balance is necessary for good conversation. It would be wonderful to find a platform, a social media platform where there is no censorship, and open conversation is allowed to thrive. Thank you!


"... love intellectual debate..."

Perhaps the chap is very busy making ends meet, and has little time for those things that he loves.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:65998
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.