Episode-842- Listener Calls for 2-17-12 — 58 Comments

  1. Listened to today’s show and just wanted to say that you really hit the nail on the head when you were talking to the gentleman who will be retiring from the service soon. My husband had a really hard time adjusting to life post military as a 23 year veteran. Not that anyone else would have noticed it-but I did at home. From the time he was 20 his entire adult identity was built around that camaraderie, meaning and, quite frankly, rank. (You don’t get to retirement without being promoted to a position of some sort of authority) It is HARD for a man to go from being part of something so big and important and BEING someone important to being “Bob who lives down the street” or “Bob in the next cubicle”.

  2. @Jack,

    I agree with you in regards to an individual’s choice to vote or not. Vote for who you want or not–it isn’t my business.

    Undoubtedly, politicians use issues to polarize the electorate to benefit government. I’ve long said that the question isn’t between Republican and Democrat, but between the Government and the People, because we are losing being a government OF the people day by day.

    However, as important as the questions Judge Napalitano asks, I am not delusional for thinking that elections don’t yield all sorts of different results. They do, and one could go through every action this President has taken and ask if that is something that another President would have agreed with and done. I find it impossible to believe that the answer at every turn would be “No difference.”

    Would President McCain have tried to eliminate the Federal Reserve? No.
    Would he have brought all of our troops home? No way. Would he have pushed for National Healthcare? Doubtful.
    Sorry, but that’s a difference that I think has very wide-ranging effects on my personal liberty. Would any of the Republican Candidates block the XL Pipeline or put a Ban on Drilling in the Gulf?

    Would McCain have put two Supreme Court Justices that are chosen BECAUSE they are certain to vote against 2nd Amendment rights?

    As much as I wish this wasn’t the case, I’ve not been able to remove myself from the influence of politicians and government. Even if we’re not changing our overall course based on who is elected, there is still a lot of damage they can do to me on the way down, and call me selfish, but I’m going to vote in the way that I think minimizes that damage to me and my family.

  3. What’s the saying about about making a judgement walk a mile in my shoes?

    I have to take a stand when it comes to gay marriage. This is not a religious question a moral question it is a freedom question and equality issue. My American son is gay. Ten years ago he found his soul mate. Since federal Immigration laws do not apply to gay couples 7 yrs ago he had to make the decision to abandon the love of his life or give up family friends and country. How would you like to be forced to make that choice at 23 yrs of age or ever? How would you like to know that if you fall in love with someone from a different country build a family with them that your government can rip your family apart. All because you are not considered an equal American. State marriages have no bearing at the federal level.

    I don’t see how we can stand and say we want to protect our rights but then as soon as something different comes along we want to coward behind religion bigotry ignorance and hatred in a way to justify discrimination and take others basic freedoms away from them.

    It takes true honor courage and conviction to stand up for the rights of others even if you disagree with the person who’s rights are being violated.

    I have only been able to see my son once in the last 7 years. We fight work and hope that some day the people will see that it matters not if you “agree” or “approve” of gays what matters is as an American we should all have the same rights.
    I look forward to the day my family can be back together again.

    • @Roundabouts, Wow, thank you for sharing that, I now have yet another example to point to as to why government needs to simply stay out of this issue. I wish you the best and hope you see your son soon.

    • @Roundabouts,

      Is this really a right you’re talking about here or a benefit? The inequality is that one group is getting an immigration BENEFIT, because not everyone has the RIGHT to move here.

      The Constitution gives the Government the right to control naturalization of Citizens. There is no “right” to citizenship, nor a God Given Right to immigrate to the United States for foreign citizens. So, any immigration rule based on marriage is a granted benefit, not a right.

      The reason I mention this, is because “getting government out of marriage” will do nothing to benefit your family. The result of getting government out of the marriage issue would be to make things equal by removing a benefit (an inequal one granted to heterosexual married couples) by the government. I’d prefer that actually.

      Unless you advocate open borders, the only way for your family to gain from this would be for the government to expand their benefits to everyone. Providing benefits is not a small government principle, nor is it a “right.”

      Don’t get me wrong–I totally agree it is inequal, but what we’re talking about is inequal benefits, not inequal rights. I believe government should not be providing benefits to people based on their personal choices in life, because it implies they have the right to sit in judgment over these personal life choices, and they do not.

      • as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement, just like a partnership, corporation or LLC. Other examples of personal legal structures are domestic partnerships and civil unions.

        just like business legal structures, there are laws governing how this structure is formed and dissolved and who can participate in it.

        because it is a legal structure, the law WILL BE involved in it, and when your speaking of RIGHTS you’re speaking of contractual rights granted by the law (social agreement entered into by the members of the country/state/jurisdiction).

        so no, you can’t ‘get the government out of it’ (they’re providing the courts). you can only change the requirements as to the parties allowed to ‘form’ the agreement.

        ‘the government’ isn’t persecuting anyone by enforcing the law (as it applies to marriage), it is simply enforcing the law.

        • @Insidious, you are talking about how things are, that often has NOTHING TO DO with how they should be. Is the state involved and is marriage a legal contract? Yes the question isn’t is it, the question is should it be.

          Why should not people be free to marry and have it be what ever they want? Why does the state need to mediate in marriage? They don’t. Humans are seen as free by our foundational law, existing in a free state by their creation. So why should the state dictate what marriage does or doesn’t mean?

          I think the answer is simple, the shouldn’t. Should two people wish to enter into a binding contract, well as you pointed out there are many ways to do that. If a marriage is to be a financial merger and both parties wish it so they can do that part by contract.

          What possible justification is there for the state to define marriage as a financial contract?

          The real answer is all about taxation and control.

        • @Insidious,

          I think you are correct. My point is that Legal agreements are something the government could be involved in (as a legal authority), and as such they are obligated to provide equal legal protections and benefits.

          The government however has no right to dictate anything whatsoever regarding Religious marriages. That is up to each Religion to define what is or isn’t allowable within that religion.

          As such, there is no way I can see a solution to this issue other than to separate the legal/contractual aspects of marriage from Religious ones. People should be be able to enter into a contractual agreement with whoever they wish, and into a Religious bond with whoever they wish, dependent on the restrictions of the religion they choose to join.

          If the government provides an immigration benefit for people who engage in a certain sort of contract, then it needs to be provided equally. That being said, the government has no obligation to provide that benefit to anyone.

          I think the point of the original post is that “the law” is providing a benefit to certain couples, but not to others. That’s where the claim of inequality comes in.

          From a libertarian perspective, I’d say people DO have the right to be married. For example, if the government said I couldn’t be married, I would say “Go to hell, Marriage is part of my Religion, and the Government has no say over it.” However, I have no inherent RIGHT to benefits from the government if I choose to be married.
          That’s why I said that a libertarian stance on Marriage wouldn’t benefit the poster’s son. What he wants is the government to provide the same benefit that heterosexual couples get from the government when they are married.

          This could roll into a whole mess of discussion regarding immigration and what is or isn’t right or libertarian or Constitutional there. Suffice it to say, a Nation has the right to determine its rules for immigration/naturalization and who it allows through its borders.

        • @KAM I think you are both right and wrong. Your view on “equal under the law” is spot on and yea if they are going to make immigration exceptions for one couple they should for another. So perfectly stated that I have nothing to add.

          However, your assertion that if government gets out of marriage that this persons son would not be able to allow their partner to immigrate isn’t necessarily accurate. Government need not be involved in something or regulate it in order to recognize it. So the question should be if someone marries another should that be grounds to permit the spouse to immigrate to this nation?

          Government can indeed recognize a familial relationship with out regulation of it. If a women has a child she is the child’s mother by the act of conception and birth. If two people form a family unit that unit can be recognized without the need of regulation.

          There is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit it. I am not saying we should or should not, I am saying that we could separate the regulation of marriage from the recognition of marriage in creating familial relationships.

          Of course I am also for open borders the very second we dissolve all welfare for immigrants. I am also for dissolving 90% of all welfare for all people but I would take the first step of just doing it for all immigrants. If coming here meant work and sink or swim I would welcome anyone coming here to do just that.

  4. Hey Jack,

    In response to the comment about how voting and support of the constitution should go hand in hand, I would add these further points:

    Tomas Jefferson said, “Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the constitution.”

    {In the Kentucky Resolutions 1798} {Issue #57}

    When we vote, we are voting for “men,” and though some faith is involved in this process, I believe it can be inferred that Jefferson is imploring us that this faith should only extend in so far as to whether we can trust them to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    When politicians are sworn into office and proclaim the oath to do exactly that, a practice unfortunately seen as purely ceremonial by so many in Washington, we the people, whether we have voted for them or voted at all, and with our consent to be governed, “bind them down with the chains of the constitution.”

    That is to say that the specific enumerated powers of any particular office or branch of government limits their power to legislate away the rights of the people, or for the people to do the same by majority vote. I dare say it should be almost unimportant whom we vote into office as 80 or even 90% of the things the federal government dose is simply illegal according to the highest law of the land.

    But I will concede this; as our nation slips ever deeper into despotic corporatism and fascism, it is our duty to ourselves, as liberty minded individuals, to make our voices heard and demand a redress of grievances. The most effective and clear way to do this is to “fire” them, and we can’t do this if we don’t vote. I have my doubts too about Ron Paul’s “electability,” or at least his ability to win the nomination, but I fear that when we focus on this, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not that you’re doing anything wrong Jack, you make it very clear what you mean.

    Weather Ron Paul gets the nomination or not, I intend to vote for him anyways, and I would encourage any libertarian whom feels the same to do the same as an act of protest against the two party system. I’m young and optimistic (or naive) enough to believe that sending this message might encourage Ron Paul to run as an independent if he doesn’t get the nomination and that this might actually help him win the presidency easier as it would require less total electoral votes to win.

    P.S: You know you’re a libertarian Waco when you read Ron Paul’s Liberty Defined, using a pocket constitution as a book mark, and celebrate completion of the book by watching V for Vendetta.

  5. Hi Jack,

    Well, Carson is right though, the problem you see with TrueCrypt isn’t a problem.

    TrueCrypt will actually fill your entire drive with random data which is totally meaningless if you don’t have the key, so, if some agency looks at your drive they will see an entire drive filled with garbled data, no way to tell how much of the drive you’ve got in use.

    You can also use TrueCrypt to make an ‘encrypted file’ instead of an entire drive. In that case the same is true. You need to tell TrueCrypt how large you would like your file to be during creation, after which TrueCrypt will fill that amount of space on your drive with random data.

  6. Great rant on libertarianism Jack, any chance we’ll see a short soundbite video with that? Figure it would make for great link bait 🙂

    • Hawaiian is absolutely correct. If you want to know more about the tech go listen to Security Now podcast. There is an episode on truecrypt. You can also set a false screen when you “Log on with the “Wrong” password that says the drive has failed. Psuedo random data will not tell you how much of the drive is used.

  7. Jack what are your thoughts on getting a credit card specifically to build your credit rating for buying a house?

    • Jack has address this issue in a previous podcast, but basically if you show up to *any* bank with 20% down (correct me if I am wrong Jack), you will have no problem. Cash talks…

      • @Brent Eamer – In most instances, going to a small bank or credit union that underwrites its own loans with 20% will get you there, IF your income is sufficient to warrant the balance and payment that result from it.

  8. Hey Jack,
    Thanks for sharing what you did on Bankruptcy for the caller (Woody) that started at about 34 minutes in.

    I agreed with everything that you said except one little thing. Rather than talk to a bankruptcy lawyer (even the respectable ones that you mentioned,) perhaps he should actually call Dave Ramsey throw his numbers at him and see if he should go through a bankruptcy.

    I agree with what Ramsey says on Bankruptcy where he says it is like a divorce, its a last resort. (I’m sure you probably agree as well.)

    However, one thing that the caller said that waved some flags for me was when he said a few things like; That its only been 6 months of being laid off; and that it was important that “I get out of debt regardless of what that means.”

    I don’t think this person is one of these people that do not want to pay their bills so they are going to go bankrupt. Those types are of a low moral character to say the least. My thinking is that it is very possible that this guys is scarred and just making desperate decisions because of his situation. And that he is viewing bankruptcy as “another option” at this point rather than as “the last option.”

    • @Adjams: Not saying you’re wrong, but I doubt you’re right. To anybody with a moral compass bankruptcy is like sawing off a leg pinned by a rock. No way on earth would you do that unless you felt it was your last means of survival. Even then you feel temped to just lay there and die. Coming from someone who has had to short sell a house, I REALLY doubt the caller is seeing any other option to avoid oblivion.

      • Hey I hope I’m wrong! I really do. But my worries (associated with the flags I mentioned) weren’t really satisfied.

        Thats a great analogy, and I’m going to elaborate. Perhaps, the time to amputate isn’t here yet? Perhaps he has not even checked his backpack to see if his phone is working? His moral compass may have been damaged by the rock and he is having a hard time knowing which direction is north. Thats all i’m trying to say.

        • @Adjams, Perhaps you should be less concerned about the “flags” as to how another man lives and more concerned with your own affairs. No offense but you really seem to be inferring some sort of judgement that is not really necessary in this situation. Perhaps your moral compass has been damaged by what you have seen others due and are assigning those actions to this MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY?

  9. @Jack – Great show man. You really hit the nail on the head concerning being self employed and becoming a Libertarian. It’s totally changed my perspective on many, many things. Getting laid off and being forced to persue farming full time before “I” was ready is one of the best things to ever happen to me. Like a rat let loosed from it’s cage, I don’t ever want to go back! In ode to Braveheart: “FREEDOM!”

  10. Excellent job on the political topic. I think you made your point very clear and understandable on what I consider to be an extremely difficult situation that is before us. ‘Nuff said.

  11. Hey Jack I’m glad that after agreeing with you so much I can disagree with you about the credit card question. Here is why:

    1) Many people spend most of their money online where cash is not accepted. So using cash only is just silly, I’ll assume you meant ‘use a debit card only’ below.

    2) If I choose a credit card with a rewards program it works the same way as if I were to use a debit card. Regardless of whether I have $1,000 in my ‘cash account’ and -$500 in my credit account or $500 in my ‘cash account’ or $0 in my credit account it still says that I have $500 total.

    3) Basically, it sounds like you’re suggesting that people are not capable of managing their online finances responsibly. For most of your listeners this probably isn’t true. Anyone who can’t manage their finances to this basic level is going to need a credit card anyways since they will, if they haven’t already, deplete their ‘cash account’ and/or ran it into negative.

    Now I’m not sure what type of banking you use so this might not make sense. But it’s really the same thing credit or debit these days. I can use my debit as credit, and do it most of the time because people don’t accept debit. I can overdraw my ‘cash’ account all I want and it just throws it onto my credit card anyways. Seriously it’s a trivial effort, if any at all, to use a credit card the way the caller was suggesting. It’s way way way way worth the rewards, just be responsible and take advantage of the system.

    • Hey Jack. Also have to disagree with you on the credit card rewards. Wife and I have our own business online and use several credit cards to purchase inventory and have done so for many years. We pay off the balance on the cards every month and get at least $100 in rewards for using. Makes sense for us, and items we sell are in high demand. Using cash only would hamper our business, and many we deal with online only deal with credit cards for transactions. The key in all this is being responsible. As I said we pay our cards off monthly, have no car payments, and a low mortgage payment. Many don’t know how to handle money, buy on impulse, and get in huge debt with credit cards. Dave Ramsey is for those type people.

      • @Cal, actually no you don’t. Credit properly leveraged in a business is different from consumer credit. In your model I have no issues with it.

  12. Another point about using credit cards:
    If you pay with credit cards the merchant pays upwards of 3% to the banks, so if you pay with cash you not only spend less but the merchant makes more money.

  13. Jack, you made an excellent point in this show. A year’s worth of stored food willbe hard to move if you lose your house because you fail to pay your bills. Food and cash is a tandem item that has to be in your overall plan for hard times.

  14. Hey Jack,

    Your response to the guy about using a credit cards to game the system doesn’t do his call justice. It’s a great idea and it’s a practical way for responsible people to make some extra money off the system.

    Your suggestion that he should use only cash doesn’t make sense. How would he, or I, use only cash for online transactions and other bills? The vast majority of my expenses are online where cash is not accepted. I order everything from groceries to farming equipment online and save a lot doing it that way.

    Did you mean he should use his debit card instead of his credit card? If so, the difference is inconsequential in my banking account based on the way it displays how much money I ‘have’. Besides, I don’t have any money, I owe 6 digits on my house, therefore every dime I spend is at the cost of prolonging my mortgage. The idea that a credit card is different than debit doesn’t apply to people who realize what is going on (most of your audience).

    Please elaborate if you have time, I’ve been listening to your show since 2010 I’m confused at what you are trying to say.

    • To elaborate on what I mean by it all being the same. If I have $10,000 “cash” balance in my debit account it’s really just money that’s there at the cost of it not paying off my mortgage. Pretending you actually have that money is foolish, since you’re literally paying interest on every dime you don’t put on other credits. It “costs” to hold cash. It doesn’t cost to use credit since interest is not accumulated for 30 days. I’m not advocating you don’t keep money in checking and cash in your house, I’m just pointing out that credit cards can be ‘used’ in a lot of ways by people who know what they are doing; and I imagine a lot of your audience knows exactly what they are doing.

    • @j4mo, if you or the other guy wants to fool yourself into believing in fairy tails you are grown men, you are free to do it, just don’t expect that I will condone such actions.

      • Come on Jack, is that all you care to say to us? I made a strong and coherent case for what I believe. I told you why I believe what I believe and told you why I think you are wrong. I understnd you are busy writing new books, new content and god knows what else but you’ve got at least 2 loyal fans who disagree with you and you just call us foolish. Boo

        • @j4m0, yes it very well is all I care to say to you on the subject. I have done this so many times, I don’t intend to do it again. As I said your math is meaningless. Pay cash for things and you will spend far less then any cash back program. On certain things you kind of have to use a debit card, so that is what you do. No holding cash doesn’t cost you anything that is just dumb “voodoo economics”. Like I said if you want to insist that your choice is valid I won’t stand in your way but I have better things to do then say again what I have said so many times already in the past.

          There is NOTHING good that comes from a credit card. If you want to argue that point go do it with Dave Ramsey.

  15. @Jack,

    Reply button issues–this is a reply to the immigration/marriage thread above.

    Well, that’s a good point. However, the government would still be in the position of determining what arrangements qualify for a benefit or don’t.

    They could recognize arrangements without regulating them, but the government would still choose which arrangements they recognize. They do that today, PLUS regulate them. Even if they were out of the regulation business wouldn’t mean they would necessarily recognize it either.

    Another way of saying this, is Recognition of different sorts of marriages is really the issue for the original poster, or more specifically the benefits that would come from such recognition.

    Bottom line–there is going to be some sort of line drawn, and undoubtedly people left on the other side will include tragic situations that bring great sadness to people.

    • also a reply to marriage-legality etc above..

      No, I was not making any statements about how things SHOULD BE.

      My statements about contracts/marriage/etc. were to point out that the reason the government IS involved in them is because there are ‘property right’ and ‘special privileges’ tied to them. When its time to get divorced, you go to a lawyer, because now its time to determine how your ‘joint property’ will be divided when you end your partnership. Your local spiritual leader can’t grant you a divorce, in the eyes of the law (courts/government) because the property rights of the two parties have to be determined, and property right disputes are determined by an (in theory) disinterested/impartial 3rd party (a judge).

      so when you say ‘the government shouldn’t be involved..’ but then also say ‘and the government should allow..’ well that’s a bit contradictory. not involved is not involved.

      my hackles just get up when people complain about ‘the government’ doing this or that. Bureaucracatic ‘laws’ created by unelected officials absolutely qualify as ‘the government’ doing this or that and should be addressed as such (pressure to bring that out of control ‘dept’ to heel, or if, god please, ron paul gets elected, just shut the damn thing down). but marriage law is completely under the control of, and created by, the legislative branch.. so its not ‘the government’ its OUR legislature. so yell at your representatives directly, and if they say they can’t do anything about it.. well, you know the drill.

      as far as the government is concerned:
      – marriage IS NOT a religious issue (despite what some *** might say while trying to get elected)
      – marriage is a legal issue, and as a legal issue must be clearly defined
      – that definition is determined by the legislature and can be changed by them whenever they feel like it (assuming it doesn’t get vetoed or ruled ‘unconstitutional’)

      no, i don’t agree with granting SPECIAL legal rights to ANY group.. so in my perfect world, all sorts of laws would go away.

    • KAM –
      I misread your original reply post. If I hadn’t, I probably would have skipped the posting (redundant). My apologies.


      p.s. I am not the anti-KAM, i really ENJOY your posts.. =p

  16. Jack…Thanks for the “soapbox” time on libertarian philosophy. Very well stated, without being boring, repetitive or “preachy”. You may want to consider excerpting and placing a link in the “Welcome” area! Very surprised that there were not more comments referencing this portion of the show. I’m not sure if that is a good thing, or a bad thing…
    In any case, thank you, great job and keep it up!

  17. Great Show Jack,

    Re “That isn’t natural”. I find it so curious that Christians of all people use “natural” as a metric for morality. Murder is natural, so is infanticide, forced sex, cannibalism, stealing, on and on and on.

    That said; Homosexuality is VERY natural. There are countless examples in nature of a wide variety of animals engaged in homosexuality, bisexuality, and “Try sexuality” (lets give this a try). Not only is it natural, in many species its the norm.

    In fact, the species most genetically similar to us, the Bonobo chimp practices routine homosexuality. Its a cultural norm for them, so is promiscuity. In fact, lesbianism is used to facilitate peaceful encounters between family groups.

    Bonobos, incidentally, are highly intelligent, capable of abstract thought, complex tool use (I even saw one grill and prepare a hamburger) and have enormous vocabularies.

    Additionally, homosexuality is a normal and frequent occurrence in a wide variety of pre-Abrahamic (Christian, Judiasm, Islamic) tribal societies around the world. The institutionalized homosexuality of the Greeks comes to mind, as well as the tribes in Hawaii, New Guinea, and on and on and on.

    Anyway, just had to say something as the “its not natural” argument is not only specious, its wrong. I thought you were spot on about a lot of other things during the show. Great show today.

  18. @Shannon Moore,

    You said: “Murder is natural, so is infanticide, forced sex, cannibalism, stealing, on and on and on.”

    No they aren’t. These are deviant behaviors that our society (and many before it) have recognized as such–any not because of PREFERENCE, but as a matter of Inherent (natural born, God’ given, etc) Rights. As someone who acknowledges the basic mindset of human freedom, the things you mention (except perhaps cannibalism) violate our Natural born Rights, and that is why Societies ACKNOWLEDGE them as wrong.

    Further, equating Animal behavior to human behavior is a minefield, and really not at all accurate. In my observations, there is no Duck mating that doesn’t look a lot like what humans would call rape. I used to live where a lot of ducks would hang out, and see several males CHASING a fleeing female, and then piling on top of her with no small amount of force. If that were a human this was happening to, it would be rape, period. Does this NATURAL occurrence amongst Ducks make it acceptable for humans in our society? No–that’s a nonsensical argument.

    So, in fact, it seems that your argument is “specious and wrong.”

    As advanced as some animals (such as primates) are with their social interactions, doesn’t mean they have the same ethical capabilities as humans, nor should we equate them. I’m sure you’ve heard news stories of pet chimps who have been “friendly” for years, going berserk and mauling someone. Why? We don’t know. Of course, humans are perfectly capable of the same sort of horrible behaviors–but we define these people as deviants–psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. These behaviors are not natural.

    Now before anyone gets outraged, I’m not here to judge homosexuality or label it as “deviant” or “unnatural.” I’m arguing against the ARGUMENT here, not the subject of the argument.

    That being said, the biological purpose of sex is to reproduce–that is its NATURAL function first and foremost. Any species (which requires sexual reproduction) that doesn’t do this, dies.

    The argument that some society institutionalizes homosexuality doesn’t make it right nor natural (or wrong or unnatural). This is subjective and limited by what is defined by those societies as acceptable. Ancient Greeks also had sex with underage children–should we then say this is acceptable in our society?

    The point is, use of your argument would also allow for sex with children, and Human Sacrifice (not saying you advocate any of that), because some other society engaged in it. This demonstrates the flawed nature of your argument.

    Let me suggest something else–a libertarian perspective. That is–what adults do is their own business as long as they aren’t harming others. If two adults are homosexuals and wish to engage in whatever they wish to engage–that really isn’t any of my business. THAT is a principle to stand on, which acknowledges the Natural Born Rights of these people to be what they want to be.

    I’m very confused as to why someone would try and make some argument comparing Humans to other animals, and societies not our own, instead of making the very simple principled argument that it is simply none of your or my or anyone else’s damn business what other people do in their private lives.

    No offense to you, but these sort of tangential arguments have done more to protract these debates than solve them. Stop trying to convince someone who greatly dislikes what you like or accept, that they are wrong and must adopt your views, and instead stand on principle. That principle, again is that free people make their own decisions in THEIR lives, and need not involve themselves in yours.

    • @KAM, no you missed it brother. His entire point is the “its not natural” argument is a non starter because…

      1. It is natural.

      2. Natural doesn’t equate to “good” anyway.

      Of course infanticide is natural, it is why a female cat will tear apart any tom that gets near here brood. Of course murder is natural a lion couldn’t live with out it. Etc. The man never said any of that stuff was good or acceptable just natural. Cyanide is natural, so are destroying angle mushrooms, so is H5N1, so is lightening, so is a great white shark that will murder and eat you, so is an Orca that will kill its smaller cousins for food. etc.

      Man you have been wasting key strokes lately, LOL.

  19. @Jack,

    Well, couldn’t anyone make the argument that anything that happens in Nature is “natural” but by doing so make the argument meaningless? Ok, everything that exists on Earth is Natural right?

    It seems to me the poster was relating the argument to societies as well (really what is “normal” in a given society–including animal societies), and my point is that’s not a very solid argument to make–as I tried to describe.

    I do apologize for taking up so much space. My point was that arguing that because some society (human or animal) deemed something acceptable does not make it acceptable in our society (or unacceptable). That’s the wrong argument. The Stronger argument to make is that what individuals do with their own lives is their own business. That’s a PRINCIPLE to stand on, not a position that others must be convinced of.

    • @KAM use all the space you want but you still don’t get it. The guy never said natural meant it was okay for society. You just once again made his very point while objecting to him.

  20. @Jack,

    I’m not sure you’re following MY point. I have a hard time arguing your understanding of my understanding of someone else’s point.

    If Shannon Moore chooses to elaborate or correct my understanding of their argument, I’ll respond to that.

    • @KAM only because you are making it hard on yourself. His point is simply the argument is pointless.

      It is one natural.

      Two natural doesn’t mean good or okay.

      I don’t think you actually disagree on either of those yet you keep rebutting this anyway.

      So you either don’t understand that what I said is what he said.


      You actually object to those two points. I think you did object to things like “murder is natural” but I also think I rebutted that one and you conceded or am I wrong about that?

      • @Jack,

        The reason I’m not agreeing is that you are stating two points made in the post, but which are not representing the overall point of Shannon’s post (As I read it).

        First, I believe Shannon’s post was responding directly to what you said on the show at approximately 1:15:30.
        Jack: “It’s not natural.” (quoting others with a mocking voice).
        Jack: “I don’t think so either, honestly, but its not my business.”

        You are correct, Shannon wants to decouple “natural” from “Good or ok” by stating things that occur in nature that are bad. This was to refute the “Homosexuality isn’t natural” claim, but not the crux of the post.

        After that point Shannon states supporting examples of why Homosexuality is natural, AND normal. It seems fairly clear that these are intended as positive examples. When someone says something is “normal” it implies that it should be accepted.
        I think a fair reading of Shannon’s post is ‘Homosexuality IS natural, and Normal, and should be accepted.’

        I was saying that what animals do, or what other societies accept isn’t terribly important compared to the principles of OUR society, which should dictate that free people do what they want with their own lives and that it is none of my business. You said the same in regards to this and other issues many times.

        I didn’t argue the “murder is natural” thing, because I took you to mean “killing” which is different than murder, and a semantic argument that didn’t need to be explored.

  21. Hey Jack-
    Just wanted to let you know that I tried the all cash thing (under the influence of Dave Ramsey) and I found that I actually spent more money. Must be some weird psychological thing with me. When I have no cash in my pocket I’m much more reluctant to spend money. Once it’s withdrawn from my bank account it’s like it was gone anyway, so I found it was much easier to succumb to impulse purchases.

    • I’m in the same boat – I blow thru cash if I have it. But I still don’t use credit cards for personal stuff. The solution, for me, is to only use the debit card. You can also make a habit of only having your budgeted weekly needs in your checking account, and keep the rest in savings. Move it back and forth with online banking. Don’t have an overdraft link from checking to savings, and do have automatic denial set up on your debit card. Also, if you use cash for groceries, just take your budget amount with you – I promise you won’t go over budget that way!

  22. I love it when you feel compelled to step up on the soapbox! Whether I ultimately agree or disagree with what you say, you always make me think. Thank you.

  23. Just a tip on the perennial plantings on remote unoccupied property topic. Anything from the bean family will readily re-seed itself if you don’t harvest it. So you can sow some bean varieties and provided they survive the first year there is a better than even chance they will still be there 10 years later unless a fire wipes them out at just the wrong time of year or they are fully harvested. I had edemame peas growing at my last house that were planted not by the last owner, but the one before that. They were inter-planted with grape vines, and re-seeded themselves each year. This would also mean that if you planted them, and had to just show up a few years later there would most likely be something there for you. They also provide nitrogen to the soil and mulch to the ground during summer.

    Tomatoes on rock piles would be another notorious self seeding “perennial”. You can literally plant them by having a pile of rocks with a bunch of soil dumped on top, and throw a bunch of heirloom tomatoes at the pile in late fall (a good source would be rotten left overs from heirlooms sold at a whole foods or farmer’s market).

  24. Jack,
    You mentioned that Fed Chairman Bernanke is planning on 33% inflation to the dollar from now till 2020. Where did you find this quote at? do you have an URL?

    • jack
      I mistakenly put my email address in the name field and email field in the above post. was hoping you could just remove the post.

  25. Greg Cory,

    All I could find was that the Fed set their inflation target to 2% [1], which would be about 22% over the next 10 years. Over the last 12 years, including two deflationary periods, we experienced 34% inflation [2]. During that period I think their target was 1.7%. So we can see how much they overshoot their goals and get away with it.


  26. Regarding Bankruptcy. If you are still in the situation which caused your troubles, being unployed, then now is not the time to file bankruptcy. Until you are again employed it is entirely possible you will continue to go deeper into a debt crisis. Wait until your income is restored before filing so you are starting out on solid ground on the other side instead of still being on shaky ground.

  27. awesome show

    libertarian-ism to me is wanting every other person to have the same things I want: freedom, security, health & happiness.. combined with the golden rule:

    I’ll respect your freedom, because I want others to respect my freedom.
    I’ll respect your property, because I want others to respect my property.
    I’ll respect your beliefs, as I want others to respect my beliefs.

    Respecting your freedom and beliefs, precludes trying to curtail them with laws or force.

    (really the same thing.. the ‘law’ is a demand, backed with the threat of force)