0:00 - Introduction to the Discussion
1:08 - Women in Modern Society
8:55 - The Impact of Social Consequences
17:20 - The Shift in Morality
23:29 - The Role of Credibility
32:03 - The Consequences of Bad Decisions
In this episode, I dive deep into the provocative implications of today's society, particularly focusing on the polarizing standpoint of figures like the OnlyFans model who reportedly amassed $67 million. This phenomenon prompts a reflective analysis of the intersection between wealth and women's agency in a digital age. I tackle the contrasting behaviors observed among women: a trend towards overt sexual expression juxtaposed with a reaction of resentment and complaint that manifests in political and social activism.
I explore how the absence of traditional societal repercussions for women's behavior may lead to increased moral laxity. Historically, negative consequences—whether social ostracism or lack of resources—acted as deterrents against morally questionable choices. I outline how this has shifted over time, allowing for the kind of financial success seen on platforms designed for adult content, like OnlyFans, where the barriers to resource acquisition seem minimal compared to the past.
Further, I dissect the evolutionary dynamics of gender roles, emphasizing the primal biological imperatives that have shaped women's strategies for resource acquisition and security in relationships. I argue that the crux of women’s historical reliance on male resources was fundamentally tied to survival and caregiving, particularly in raising children.
Throughout the discussion, I return to the notion that societal structures—such as the state—have significantly mitigated the consequences of moral decay. The emergence of a welfare system, coupled with various forms of government support, complicates the relationship between personal accountability and societal behavior. I pose the question: What percentage of the wealth accumulated by online sex workers is derived from resources that men did not personally earn? I hypothesize that a substantial proportion is likely sourced from indirect means such as welfare or government grants.
As I transition from the topic of wealth accumulation to the complaint-driven, often derisive narrative surrounding single women without families, I analyze how the political landscape shapes perceptions of credibility. Historically, women without familial ties would struggle for relevance; however, in today's environment, the proliferation of voices via platforms with voting rights alters this dynamic. There's a peculiar reality where personal misfortunes can translate into political leverage. I share insights from various encounters and experiences of navigating this often hostile terrain, particularly when discussing family formation and the peculiarities of modern communication.
Finally, I interweave strands of personal anecdotes and broader societal observations, highlighting the consequences of a loss of moral accountability coupled with the inertia of decision-making in the current climate. The absence of social ostracism for poor choices has altered the societal fabric, leading to trends that seem both shocking and inevitable. I conclude by acknowledging that while I offer these critiques, it is clear that the systemic frameworks in play will likely dictate the evolution of our social landscape in profound and unpredictable ways.
[0:00] Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well. Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain. Straight into the great questions from the great folks at Facebook and also the great folks at freedomain.locals.com. Do you have any thoughts on Only Star, whoever this is? It's a tax bill. And what does it say about the current state of modern society, where becoming mega rich is that simple for a certain percentage of the population who are willing to bear all? Yeah, listen, it's a it's a pretty big temptation. What is it I saw? I saw this on X. Maybe it's the same woman. She made, over three years, she made $67 million. Gross. I guess that's one of the definitions of gross. But yeah, she made $67 million on OnlyFans. And that is a pretty wild thing. So you see two things happening in femininity in the modern world. So the first thing you see from the younger women is showing the flesh, right? Showing the flesh.
[1:08] And the second thing you see from the older women is this phenomenon of cowering or complaining or rioting or yelling or protesting and so on, one, right? Sort of, you know, that triggered woman's face from the protest of some years ago.
[1:27] So one of the problems with politics or with statism is that normally there are personal negative consequences for bad behavior. There are personal negative consequences for bad behavior. So, for instance, if there's somebody in a community who has been counterfeiting, that's going to be found out relatively quickly. And the counterfeiter is going to be, you know, jailed or ostracized or tarred and feathered or chased out of town or something like that.
[2:05] So there are negative consequences for bad behavior. For a woman to sleep around, she generally in the past would not get married, would be unmarriable, maybe end up as a prostitute, which was tragically common, and her life would be nasty, brutish, violent, and short. There'd be negative consequences. If somebody decided to become a thief, then someone he would try to steal from would beat him up in self-defense or shoot him in self-defense. That sort of negative consequences accrue to the individuals who behave badly.
[2:44] And one of the problems with something like a monolithic bastion of power called the state is that people are shielded from negative consequences for their actions. And the fact that we evolved with negative consequences for our actions means that we generally have not internalized self-restraint. We have not internalized self-restraint. So most of humanity in the past grew up without enough food and so we didn't internalize eating less food than was available because in general, especially with hunting, it was feast or famine, right? If you get the food, you eat like a king. If you don't get the food, well, you're pretty hungry the next day or two, right?
[3:35] And of course, farming helped that to some degree with more regular foodstuffs, but particularly in northern climates, there was the winter.
[3:44] So we don't have within us a natural, oh, I should not overeat, because overeating was largely impossible for most of our history. So because of that, we don't have internalized moral limits, because morality was generally enforced by the community. In other words, our conscience was social. And because our conscience with social, we did not internalize most of these moral standards.
[4:23] So, for instance, if somebody was a liar, then they would become progressively less popular over time, right? So, someone comes to a town or a community and sets up shop locally and says, Oh, I have all of these wonderful attributes. I was in this war. I saved this maiden from a dragon. you know, puts himself. And then let's say that that person finds that other people are finding out that he's a liar. Sorry, I just had a brain fart because I was thinking about Streetcar Named Desire, which we'll get back to in a sec. So someone comes to town, they tell all of these tall tales, and then people generally find out that he's a liar. And when people find out that he's a liar, he is shunned from the community, right?
[5:12] People don't want to hang with him, They don't want to talk with him and so on, right? And the reason I was thinking of Blanche DuBois is she comes to New Orleans. She comes to a town. Is it New Orleans? I think it is. She comes to a town and she has this, you know, delicate, I can't abide eating an unwashed grape. You know, this sort of delicate, female, aristocratic demeanor. And it turns out that she basically was the town whore. And because she was the town whore, I mean, slept around, right? Slept around. Because she was the town whore, nobody would marry her. And so what she does is she comes to a new town, and she tries to get this guy Mitch to marry her by pretending to be all kinds of virginal and not really experienced. And so she just puts up a complete false front and lies like crazy. She's trying to escape her highly promiscuous past and her crazed marriage to a homosexual man who committed suicide because she called him a degenerate.
[6:15] So, she sleeps around, marries very badly, and the marriage is a complete disaster. And she comes to a new town, tries to get a guy to marry her by pretending to be virginal, but then the truth comes out about her past. The man she wants to marry her no longer wants to marry her and the guy who's been paying all her bills stanley kowalski wants to send her back to the town she came from which she can't do, there's of course uh back in in those days there's no particular welfare state she probably can't get a lot of charity because charity is for those in general who do not bring on their own disasters disastrous. And so she goes mad and ends up institutionalized, where I guess at least she has three hearts and a cot, right? Three hot meals a day and a cot to sleep in.
[7:11] So this was a, it's a sort of modern morality tale about lying. And it always frustrated me no end that Stanley Kowalski, spoiler, rapes her at the end. I mean, he's won, he's got a kid coming. She's a revolting human being in many ways. And I suppose, well, Tennessee Williams lost the fight against his own mother. And I guess Stanley Kowalski lost the fight against Blanche and all of that. So there's an example of even if somebody's just a liar then once they're known to be a liar then people don't want to associate with them because what's the point so negative consequences accrued, to individuals and that meant that we could have a desire for amoral immoral behavior because there are times when materially at least in the short run there's advantages right otherwise the behavior if you would not exist. In the short run, if people think you're some kind of great guy.
[8:11] Then you'll have high status, people will find you interesting, but then as your tales become unraveled, people will roll their eyes and not want to spend any time with you. So we have a desire for these things, a temptation, a susceptibility to these falsehoods and manipulations and frauds and sometimes violence. But then, the negative consequences come from society, and that gives us caution. The morality is enforced socially, and what that means is that if morality can no longer be enforced socially, people just get more and more and more corrupt.
[8:55] So there used to be, of course, two ways in which overeating was discouraged. Well, three ways, I guess. One is that the food generally wasn't available. But the second was, even if the food was available, then if you were a woman, you couldn't get resources because men wouldn't want to marry you if you were obese. And also, you would then be responsible for your own health care. You have to pay the costs. Or, you know, back in the day, it was only in the 1920s that insulin was synthesized for treatment of diabetes and so on, or management of diabetes.
[9:27] So, as a woman, if you were obese, you couldn't get married, and you couldn't make that much money, and you'd have to pay your own medical bills. And now, of course, food is ridiculously plentiful and fairly toxic as a whole, at least the package stuff. So food is extremely plentiful. A woman does not need to get married in order to gain and keep resources. And for a lot of people, in most places, the government will pay your healthcare costs.
[10:04] So the limitations are lifted. I mean, obviously, if you run the government and you have this sort of nominal, quote, government agency, which is actually a private bank called the Federal Reserve, you can just print whatever money you want. And there are no negative consequences. There are only positive consequences. Now, expecting people to maintain virtue in the face of no negative consequences but only positive consequences is completely a losing battle. It is completely a losing battle. Our conscience, evolutionarily speaking, has been outsourced to the tribe to a large degree. I mean, there are some people who have an inner conscience that is independent of the tribe, that they tend to be extraordinarily rare and tend to show up in the annals of history fairly prominently, such as Socrates with his daemon, not mat, but conscience-based. His daemon that would sit on his shoulder and inform if he was right or wrong, inform him if he was right or wrong. So there are some people who have an internalized conscience. There are some people, of course, who have no conscience, but most people are sort of in the middle and will do whatever is called popular or positive. They will do that.
[11:23] So, and because they will do whatever is popular or praised, particularly by those in authority, they don't experience cognitive dissonance until it is pointed out to them, which is one of the reasons why those who point out contradictions are viewed as making people feel bad. You're making people feel bad by bringing up these contradictions. So, I mean, the women who, a lot of women, some men, the women who say, it's my body, my choice, only I should get to determine what happens to my body with regards to my body. Okay, well, how did they feel about people being stripped of rights and jobs if they didn't take an experimental treatment?
[12:07] See, they don't, because they're going off emotions, and emotions can be contradictory, and logic joins the emotions into, hopefully, a consistent whole. But when you point out to people how their beliefs change based upon what is approved of, and they're pointing out that they don't really have any beliefs at all, then you cause them great psychological distress, and it appears instantaneous. I mean, it's been deep in their unconscious the whole time, but you sort of bring it to the surface. And they view because the illness arises with the diagnosis they view the diagnosis as evil as an assault so if you feel bad deep down but it's never it never really comes into your mind and then somebody points out this contradiction then your bad conscience rises and attacks you simultaneous to the identification of the contradiction. And then you feel bad because, it feels like you feel bad immediately because someone, made an argument or said something, and because of that, you identify the person who's pointed out the contradiction, you identify that person as assaulting you.
[13:22] It would be like if you don't have a cut on your leg, but it's numb for some reason, right? You don't have a cut on your leg, and then the doctor's down there, you can't see what he's doing, and he says, oh my gosh, you've got a big cut on your leg, and you look down, and where there was no cut before, suddenly there's a big giant cut, you're going to think that the doctor cut you.
[13:42] If the ailment arises simultaneous to the diagnosis, you will view it not as a diagnosis, but as an infliction of the ailment, and you will feel justified in self-defense by attacking the person who made you feel bad. So women have evolved to be sexually attractive in order to gain resources from men. Your daddy's rich, your mama's good-looking. It's back to the old summertime song from Gershwin. And women have evolved to be sexually attractive, and men have evolved to be sexually attracted in order for women to gain resources from men. And the resource that they most need from men in order for society to continue is not money, but loyalty. Because a woman who has children, as most women did throughout history, a woman who has children without a loyal man, well, those children don't generally survive.
[14:45] So women have evolved to gain resources from men. And the best way to gain a lifetime of resources is in a monogamous, pair-bonded relationship where the man will be utterly cast out of society should he fail to provide resources to his wife and children. Ostracism, right? And the woman then has to provide a positive experience to the man in order to keep him around and keep the resources flowing so the children can be fed. Now, why is it that women didn't just, you know, flash their boobs, so to speak, and have men buy them dinner? Well, because the negative consequences of that would accrue to the women. First of all, there weren't enough men to give them that many resources that they could live on for the rest of their lives. And secondly, they could not have children and raise children in that scenario because they needed a man's commitment in order to be guarded and have food provided for them when they were having and raising children. Sex without pregnancy was extremely rare throughout human evolution. Sex always came with the consequence of pregnancy, and therefore sexual behavior was very much constrained by the need to gain a permanent commitment from man to provide resources when the inevitable consequence of sex, which is pregnancy and childbirth, and children comes along.
[16:11] Now, because we have evolved with a socialized conscience, it means that our conscience is to a large degree dictated by negative outcomes from others, punishments, ostracism, like the reason that you don't pathologically lie is that when people find out that you're you're a pathological liar, they don't want to do business with you, they don't want to hang out with you, you're going to be alone, and that's genetic dead end, right? I mean, they won't even want to hang with your kids, which means that your kids are going to have a very tough time gaining resources and dating and reproducing and so on, right? Now, what I mean by all of this, of course, is that when women no longer have any social blowback for the gaining of resources by the bearing of skin...
[17:03] Men throw resources at bare skin, female bare skin, young, fertility markers, pretty, curvy, whatever, right? So men throw resources at that. And in the past, this was all limited by social blowback. But social blowback has disappeared.
[17:21] Consequences have disappeared. So the negatives have disappeared and the positives have gone beyond comprehension. For some women, right? So this woman who made $67 million, I guess that's US, right? This woman who made $67 million in a couple of years will not, in the circles in which she moves, she will be considered heroic. And this woman was sitting with these rather freaky looking guys with these very short, heavily dyed blonde hair. They just looked like a bunch of weirdos. So in that environment, she is accepted and admired. So she gets positive social feedback and an absolutely, completely, and totally staggering amount of money. I mean, she makes, and again, this is extremely uncommon, right? This is like the, for every Brad Pitt, there's like a million actors waiting tables, right? So, but, you know, obviously it's a real phenomenon. So she can make a fortune.
[18:25] And so because there are no negative social consequences in the circles in which she moves, And because the rewards have become so extraordinarily high, well, there's no functional conscience, because the conscience is outsourced. And of course, to some degree, the conscience is outsourced, because when you're born, you don't know what kind of tribe or what kind of rules you're going to be born into. Is it a no work on the Sabbath? Is it a we eat dogs? Is it, you know, we bind the feet of the poor girls to make them attractive and hobble them for life? Like, you don't know. So you have to adapt to the social environment in order to reproduce to the social rules and mores and standards of the tribe or society in which you happen to be born. So we have to be very flexible regarding that. So we take our conscience cues from the approval and disapproval and the provisional withholding of resources. That's how we guide our conscience.
[19:21] And modern society has taken away the negative consequences and has massively increased the positive consequences. Now, I personally would be fascinated, though I'm sure it's impossible to learn in any meaningful or time-sensitive way, I would be absolutely fascinated to know how much of the money that is handed to online sex workers, how much of that money was personally earned by the men. It was personally earned by the men. Because that's another way in which things are limited. If you are spending someone else's money to send to some woman online, where there's no chance of reproduction, if you're using someone else's money, well, that's a whole different matter. If you want to send, I don't know, a hundred and sixty dollars to some woman, and that was the minimum wage in Canada, that's like, I don't know, ten or fifteen hours, I guess, after taxes or whatever, that's ten hours of your labor, then that's a different matter. If you have to pay your bills and you don't have any money really left over, then you are not going to be able to send that much money to these, where's the $67 million coming from?
[20:48] Now, of course, there's lots of different ways that men can send money to online sex workers that isn't theirs, right? They can get student loans, they can get student grants, they can get welfare, they can get disability, they can be subsidized by their parents to the point where they're not paying any particular bills, and they can get inheritance. There's lots of ways that men can have money that they themselves did not personally earn.
[21:16] Can have subsidies in their jobs if they're hired for particular quotas and so on, right? So there's lots of ways that men can get money that they did not earn. And so the question is, of course, where is the $67 million coming from? And I would bet that, well, actually, I would be absolutely certain that it is not coming from young men who are working hard and paying their own bills. It is coming from men who are getting money that they did not earn or getting subsidies that they did not earn. Now, the degree to which those subsidies would be coming from politics, right? Did they get COVID checks or checks for the lockdowns? Did they go welfare or government grants or bursaries or loans or like all of that kind of stuff, right? Are they getting government money? Or are they working for the government, which is another kind of way of getting government money? So how what percentage of that 67 million is a you know semi-coercive flow through from taxpayers, to online sex workers again i assume that that would be very hard if not impossible to figure out but i bet you that number is really really high i bet you that number is north of 80 percent and probably north of 90 percent if i had to guess just a guess right.
[22:30] So, because negative consequences and costs accrue to the individual making bad choices in the past, we allow ourselves, or rather we have survived by being guided by the resource provision and approval or disapproval of society, and the approval or disapproval of society is part of that resource provision. vision. If society disapproves of you enough, if you're a pathological liar in a small town, nobody's going to want to deal with you, do business with you. They might not even want to sell to you. They won't want to hire you and you're going to have to move on, right? A society that cannot ostracize, particularly in the realm of resources, is a society that gets increasingly decadent and corrupted.
[23:13] So just think of sort of negative consequences. Kings can basically do whatever they want. They don't accrue negative consequences. And so asking someone to have a conscience when they can make 67 million and still be popular in their social circle is frankly asking the impossible.
[23:30] And I don't even particularly blame people for that.
[23:33] It's the old question which I've talked about for many years is that, you know, if some guy finds a winning lottery ticket on the streets worth a million dollars and you say to him, well, you know, but if you cash that, taxes are going to go up in general and debt's going to go up in general and your life might might not be ideal. People are going to want you for your money, right? But no, they're overjoyed and they go and they cash in the money, right? That's what they're going to do. So asking people to have a conscience in the face of such widely skewed rewards is really asking the impossible. And this is why you just, I mean, you can criticize the system, but it just has to write its conclusion out. The negative consequences are existing, they're just deferred, right? They're just deferred. So, well, and the other thing, too, is that because social judgments have largely been suspended by perverse incentives, these women will say, look, I can find a guy to marry me. Are you kidding me? Now, what they don't see is that moral people aren't going to really want to have much to do with them as a whole, right? Moral people. Like, you know, good, honest, wholesome, right? Moral people, right?
[24:47] So, that's a cost, but that's sort of very hidden and subtle cost. Now, on the other side of women not having a particular cap on the display of flesh for resources, and you can say, of course, you are with the Victorian age, women even had to cover up their ankles. It's like, well, yes. Yes, of course. But they put out maximum attractiveness for the resources they wanted to get. And the reason why women didn't show their ankles is no man of quality would marry them if they ran around society in a bikini. So that's not... And the men of quality had the maximum resources, so you had to... And of course the men of quality were trying to keep temptation at bay so that they would marry a woman of moral quality rather than physical qualities, which would ensure the best, wisest, most intelligent and healthiest offspring. spring. So that's one sort of phenomenon where, yeah, she can get $67 million in a couple of years. Now, most women don't do that, of course, right? Most women only earn a couple of dozen dollars a month from their only fans, and they have made a terrible decision, right? I mean, the devil makes prominent people very wealthy so that less prominent people will make terrible decisions, right?
[26:04] You know, like, hey, some guy is having a great time at the casino, and he wins half a million dollars. But most people lose, right? So it just draws you in that way. So that's on the one side. Now, on the other side, we can think of, and it's not politics in particular, but just how this flip happens from seductress to Karen, right? From desire to complaints, for the evocation of male sexual desire to the punishment of men through nagging. So J.D. Vance was talking about how sort of childless cat ladies are voting for the left and single women are voting for the left and so on. And of course, in the past, if you were a woman who was 50, had no family, no husband, no kids, honestly, people wouldn't really care that much what you have to say, right? I mean, because your life would be fairly disastrous according to most historical standards, so you would have no credibility and you would have no direct connection to a family. And so, you know...
[27:12] Your parents were probably dead. So you're just alone in the world, right? Just alone in the world. And again, Streetcar Named Desire is a great touchstone for this. She talks, Barch Dubois talks about the horror of these sort of spinster aunts who are afraid to say anything and live in some tiny room under the attic and barely show up for meals because they don't want to impose. It's just a horrible, mousy existence. Oh no, sorry, that's Amanda from Glass Menagerie.
[27:39] So that was a pretty terrible thing. So in the past, the sort of single over 45 childless cat women, well, nobody in particular would pay attention to them. But in a society with votes, of course, you have to listen, you have to pay attention, you can't criticize because they won't vote for you and then bad things will happen, right? I mean, for the ambitious politician. So then you have to listen. So Karening, so to speak, this sort of complaining and nagging and hostility and harshness and so on, and I have direct experience of this, of course, while trying to warn women away from the sort of single childless life as a whole, the amount of hostility and aggression and nagging and complaining and attacks and abuse that was hurled at me was really quite a venomous torrent, right? So I've sort of seen this directly over the years. Thank you. So, why would anyone in society listen? I mean, there can be exceptions. She could be a great writer or a great communicator. She could be a public speaker. But again, these are very much the exceptions, right? That's like the guys who win the lottery, right?
[29:00] So, why would men as a whole, and you can think about this in your own life, right? If you're a younger man or a younger woman, and do you listen to a single 50-year-old woman with no kids and a boring job? I mean, careers are sold as a reason to give up family, but probably not one person in 20 has what would be called a career that has any sort of meaning or impact or value or virtue in the world. They don't have careers. They just have jobs. I mean, most people, and this has been the case for most of my youth, most people just have jobs. They wrangle spreadsheets. They push paper. They do dull stuff that is immaterial. They comply with regulations. They nag people in HR. They write policy documents that nobody cares about. I mean, they just have jobs. They just have jobs.
[29:52] So, would you listen to a 50-year-old single woman, or man for that matter, but we're just talking about women at the moment, would you listen to a 50-year-old single woman with a boring job about anything? Because in order to be listened to, you have to have some credibility. I mean, having been a stay-at-home dad, hopefully that gives me some credibility with regards to peaceful parenting. Having a happy and successful and joyful marriage for 22 years, especially given a child of divorce and abuse, hopefully that gives me some credibility with regards to relationships.
[30:33] Would you listen to someone who's made really, really bad decisions? Well, in society, one of the ways you get punished for bad decisions is you have no credibility.
[30:44] So, one of the reasons for the Karen-ing is that people have to listen to women who've made bad decisions because those women can make another bad decision about who to vote for. And so the women feel like they have heft and impact and and value and people you better listen or we're not going to vote for you it's like okay fine we gotta listen to you and all of that sort of stuff right and so normally the price of making bad decisions is a loss of credibility and nobody wants to listen to you right i mean it's the old you ever seen a diet book with a fat guy on the front and back, right? Not a before picture, just a fat guy. Well, I mean, if you can't even maintain your own slenderness, why would anyone listen to you about diet? You don't have exercise books with flabby dough-shaped guys on the cover. It's always the ripped guys, body oils, and Steve Reeves extras, right? Steve Reeves movie. So yeah, that's it. So with modern politics and voting and so on, people who've made really, really bad decisions have weight, heft, and credibility and must be listened to because they hold the magic vote in their trembling hands, right? And men, when they're unpleasant, kind of go that Boo Radley route.
[32:03] They just sort of hide in the middle of nowhere. But women who are unpleasant go into this Karen-ing phenomenon.
[32:10] And women's aggression was tempered in the past by the fact that they couldn't get resources from the state or from ex-husbands or whatever, right? And so women in the past had to limit their aggression because they needed other people, family members or extended family or whatever, to provide resources to them. So the reason why in Tennessee Williams' plays, the reason why Amanda talks about how meek and inoffensive and unobtrusive and nice these spinster aunts were is because if they weren't nice, they'd get kicked out, right? And then what? Right? So again, you're constrained by ostracism. Your bad behavior is constrained by ostracism. But women's flaunting of sexuality is not constrained by ostracism. Negative consequences and the positive consequences are immense for some it's a huge amount of money and women's hostility and complaints and nagging and so on like the the sort of torrent of abuse that i would receive from women when pointing out that you know 40 to 80 is a long time to live without any family well in the past of course that level of female aggression would result in ostracism.
[33:28] But you can do that stuff online, of course, under anonymous names and so on. But we can't ostracize the people who make bad decisions, right? We cannot, as a society, we cannot inflict negative consequences, which, and that does not mean inflicting, like beating people up. It just means that we have no freedom of association in modern societies. So a woman who has three different children by three different men, we cannot ostracize her because she can reach into our wallets through the power of the state and take her tax money and take a massive amount of her tax money to the point where she is making well over $100,000 a year in direct and indirect benefits for having these kids. So we can't ostracize. Now, I guess good people can still ostracize socially, but materially is where people's conscience lies the most. We can't ostracize.
[34:23] Men can't say, well, I would rather not hire young women because, you know, they're going to quit and get pregnant, or if they don't get pregnant, in a way that's even worse for society because there's no next generation. They can't make those choices. They're forced to hire and forced to pay, and we just don't have freedom of association. And forced association is a violation of freedom of association. And so because those choices have been taken away, the freedom of association is how the collective consciences are maintained. And because we don't have freedom of association, creation, the conscience has largely melted away, which is really quite sad and tragic. And it's going to have to, I mean, it will change, right? Reality catches up inevitably, no matter what you say. All right. Thank you, everybody, so much. Have yourself a wonderful afternoon. Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show. It's a donation month that I would ask a little bit of you of because it's my birthday month and also philosophy needs some resources. Thank you so much. Have yourself a wonderful day. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
