Description

Working while traveling around the world, having now done it for 8 years since starting when he was 18 years old. He lives a few months at each place to get a deeper understanding of wherever he is. You don’t have to be rich to travel. Rough back-packing around Central and South America. Teaching English in Iraq. Seen some of the best and the worst parts of the world. Monaco has likely the highest concentration of the richest people in the world. The biggest experience has been to gain an understanding of the two sides of life: ultra-poor to ultra-rich. What people consider to be poor in the west can be very rich in many parts of the world—western people must travel to get this perspective. Worst place has been China. China has too much collectivism, and lack of individual thought—everyone’s life is utterly controlled. Is China more free than India? Once you have lived and traveled a bit, it is very easy to move around the world. Up to a certain time in our growing up we seek out new adventures, new experiences. If we don’t break out of patterns once we are adults, we are stuck. Most people repeat the patterns they grow up with. How do you break out of patterns? People should feel and become conscious of their inner pain. Emotional and mental courage to give up what one thinks is true but is not is crucial for growth. People in the West don’t have to do any original thinking. Entrepreneurs are the greatest asset of a society. Ignore May Day celebrations that oppose capitalism.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Where is the best place to which to emigrate? OF all the places I’ve visited, I would put Australia number one. It is freer than the US, the culture and people are amazing, the technology is excellent, and it seems like the perfect happy place for me to live and work. I see no real downside at all. I know the government is terrible but so it is everywhere in the world. Second choice might be Costa Rica.

    Jump to Discussion Post 90 replies
  • I don’t want to steal ErickR’s thunder because he started the post “Laguage of Liberty”. I started this thread because I also don’t want to sidetrack his thread by focusing on the procedure of language instead of his particular-subject-matter. That said the evidence shows that Libertarians have trouble coordinating efforts for the promotion of Libretarianism. This is a given when one considers that many Libertarians are, by nature, Independant-thinkers. Coordinating independent-thinkers is like trying to herd cats, however even independent-thinkers manage to get together on some things. Take the math problem: 3+3= 6. Are there any Libritarians who don’t “agree” that 3+3= 6? If no one speaks up I would presume that it is because Libritarians “agree” that a standard-set of rules is necessary if one wants to get a true, correct and certain-answer for the math-problem each time one does the same procedure for the same math-problem. I am also going to presume that Libretarians want their pay check calculated with math which is true, correct and certain. Now, for the hard part: Why is it that people accept “rules” for the correct operations of math, but reject rules for the corrct-construction of a sentnece? THIS IS A DO IT YOURSELF TOOL KIT. You have to figure it out for yourself. Facts: Do you have the same piece of evidence as a fact if you modify that evidence? If you went to a crime-scene and pulled a knife out of a victim with your bare hand, have you “modified” the murder-weapon with your finger prints? If you give a “red” barn a coat of white paint is it still a “red” barn? If you charge someone with gross-neglence is it the same as neglence? If you use a pronoun such as he she in place of the actual-name of a witness or victim how does anyone know who you are talking about? When you can answer these questions correctly you will have the beginning of a tool kit for the correct-construction of a sentence.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • The words we use reflects and affects the way we see the world. The number one collectivist tool is the language of generalization. Try to eliminate “groups” from your language and watch how your perspective changes. For example, I try not to refer to a country as a person. The “USA” cannot act, only the people with power can. So saying the US did this or that is an illusion. But this language is used by so many that the illusion is considered real. Accepting this falsehood leads to all kinds of propaganda and manipulation. How many ways can we alter our language to better reflect the true view that collective generalizations are not realities, but just conceptual aggregates?

    Jump to Discussion Post 19 replies
  • Most of the time when I am looking for a documentary’s most are very left leaning so I think we should start a list of documentary’s on bastiatinstitute.org for libertarians and anarchists. I will start with 2 I am aware of   Terms and conditions may apply A documentary made about the hidden dangers in the terms and conditions of most software.   Libertopia A documentary made about the Free State Project.     I hope to see this list expand with many helpful and informative documentary’s.

    Jump to Discussion Post 27 replies
  • This could have important implications: http://www.examiner.com/article/functional-connectivity-found-to-uniquely-identify-individuals Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies