We also have said nothing about his manner of speech or desire to protect himself or others, again, strawmannjng and guilt by association

Also, stormfront assholes have come into this grouo before. Fyi.

It should read: Hi, I am a capitalist. My masters said I am working hard enough that they are going to give me enough money not to starve and maybe even a little extra so that I can lord it over the others who only make enough to survive if they are marrried and both work two jobs. My master even said that I can take and extra week off and lord that over the other slaves, I mean co-workers. I am good for my master so he doesn’t beat me as much as the others

Definition of “Cishet”


Pronounced SIS-het.

Related terms include cisgender, cisnormativity, ally, and cissexism.

“Karen is a dedicated ally— she’s a cishet but goes to Pride every year to show support for her dads.”

Cishet, used as both an adjective and a noun, describes a person who is both cisgender and heterosexual. A person is cishet if he or she is cisgender, meaning identifying with his or her assigned-at-birth gender, as well as heterosexual, or attracted exclusively to people of the opposite sex. Cishet individuals are not inherently part of the LGBT+ or queer community but may identify themselves as allies.

People who are cishet arguably form most of the human population. The common assumption that all or most people are cishet contributes to cisnormativity and heteronormativity. Most people who are cishet do not identify themselves as cishet because they have never had want or need of a specific label to describe their orientation and gender identity.

The use of “cishet” by the LGBT+ and feminist community has been a source of some controversy, It may be occasionally used in what are perceived as ad hominem or straw-man arguments when addressing cisgender heterosexuals, and this has led to many perceiving it as an insult. In gender, cishet is a shorthand descriptive term and not a slur.

First used in online communities in the 2000s, cishet is a portmanteau of cis— as in cisgender, from the Latin cis-, meaning “this side of”– and het— as in heterosexual, meaning attracted to the opposite sex.

Being trans is a result of a mental illness called gender dysphoria… so yes, it does equal mentally ill.


Gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person’s gender identity, and the person is transgender. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different from their assigned sex may do so not only due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.[1]

Estimated rates of those with a transgender identity range from a lower bound of 1:2000 (or about 0.05%) in the Netherlands and Belgium[2] to 0.5% of Massachusetts adults[3] to 1.2% of New Zealand high-school students.[4] These numbers are based on those who identify as transgender. It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate.[5] Research indicates people who transition in adulthood are up to three times more likely to be male assigned at birth, but that among people transitioning in childhood the sex ratio is close to 1:1.[6]

Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder under dual role transvestism in the 2017 ICD-10 CM.[7] GID was reclassified to gender dysphoria by the DSM-5.[8] Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender,[9] and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals.[8] The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues.[8] The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”[10]

The main psychiatric approaches to treatment for persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria are psychotherapy or supporting the individual’s preferred gender through hormone therapy, gender expression and role, or surgery.[11]

The latest edition of the mental health manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose disorders reveals a change in thinking on gender identity. The perspective change is similar to a decision made in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from its disorders’ list.

In the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released on May 22, the now-defunct diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) receives a new name, gender dysphoria, which reflects a new emphasis.

Both GID and gender dysphoria describe a condition in which someone is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender. Some of these people may live as their desired gender, and may even seek gender reassignment surgery that can allow them to trade, for example, a penis for a clitoris and a scrotum for a vagina. [5 Surprising Facts About Gay Conversion Therapy]

In the old DSM-IV, GID focused on the “identity” issue — namely, the incongruity between someone’s birth gender and the gender with which he or she identifies. While this incongruity is still crucial to gender dysphoria, the drafters of the new DSM-5 wanted to emphasize the importance of distress about the incongruity for a diagnosis. (The DSM-5 uses the term gender rather than sex to allow for those born with both male and female genitalia to have the condition.)

This shift reflects recognition that the disagreement between birth gender and identity may not necessarily be pathological if it does not cause the individual distress, said Robin Rosenberg, a clinical psychologist and co-author of the psychology textbook “Abnormal Psychology” (Worth Publishers, 2009). For instance, many transgender people — those who identify with a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth — are not distressed by their cross-gender identification and should not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Rosenberg said.

Transgender people and their allies have pointed out that distress in gender dysphoria is not an inherent part of being transgender. This sets it apart from many other disorders in the DSM, because if someone is depressed, for example, he or she is, almost by definition, distressed as part of depression. In contrast, the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms, Rosenberg said.

In this regard, the change resembles the elimination of homosexuality from the manual 40 years ago.

“The concept underlying eliminating homosexuality from the DSM was recognizing that you can be homosexual and psychological healthy or be homosexual and psychologically screwed up. Being homosexual didn’t have to be the issue,” Rosenberg said.

Actually, that’s not true. Gender-fluid means that someone does not have a constant gender, so they might identify as female sometimes too. Demisexual means they can have a sexual relationship with anyone they have a strong emotional connection with.

guys it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, “girl-fag”, really? no it’s not, that means shes a straight bitch who likes gay men. it’s fetishizing

Bethany; tri-racial cis gendered -(denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.)

girlfag – (A person assigned female at birth who identifies with gay male culture and/or is attracted to gay men.)

pansexual – ( not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.)

pronoun- “she” Bethany associates with what gender she was physically born with (cisgendered), although she is physically female at birth and is happy with being the female she was born as, she identifies with gay male culture/ or is attracted to gay men, kinda like dan and phil fans. But at the same time who she is sexually attracted to isn’t limited by biological sex, gender or gender idendity, however she is more into queer/gay/bisexual men (but is not limited to them). +++++isnt’t it weird to tell a gay man that you’re into gay men despite being a female?Isn’t that a fetish+++++

Emerson Redhead : 

Genderfluid – ( denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender.)

Heteroromantic – (A person who is romantically (not sexually) attracted to a member of the opposite sex or gender.) Demisexual – (A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone. )

Mutt – ( A dog, it’s a kink ) Pronoun- “zie” Emerson doesn’t strictly associate as one gender, and instead alternates between the two, sometimes feeling feminine, sometimes feeling masculine. Zie is romantically attracted to zie’s opposite gender. (physical or mental gender?. because if physical it mean’s that Zie’s into females, if mental it means he’s into the opposite of what he’s feeling).

Zie is only able to be sexually attracted unless he has a strong connection to a person of the opposite gender. Emerson also has a dog kink. Why would you tell someone you have a dog kink within the first 5 seconds you’ve met them? Rabbit(?) Tax attorney

Genderqueer – ( denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.)

Pronouns – Ve/Vem/vir ( neutral terms for he, she/them/him, her) Rabbit feels feminine sometimes, masculine sometimes, sometimes both, sometimes none. +++ the simplest of the bunch :,)


Chinese Mexican Agender – ( Agender is a term which can be literally translated as ‘without gender’, in relation to mental gender )

intersex – (“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.)

AFAB – ( Assigned female at birth )

DX doesn’t associate themselves with any gender. Physically they don’t have genitals that fit strictly into the male or female catergory however they have assigned as female at birth.


How Adventure Make You Smarter, Stronger, and Attractive…


I apologize for the terrible Russian accent you’re about to get he says ‘you’ll give me little gift, you go home on plane’ .

And I’m like damn this dude wants a bribe now a month ago I have no idea how I would have dealt with a situation like this I’ve never been prepared for it.

It’s not entirely true actually probably what I would have done is gone to the closest cash machine withdrawn my life savings and given it this man to make this problem go away. But now that I’ve been in Russia for a little while seeing how things work a little bit differently here got in the lay of the land I think to myself know I bet I can get out of this without paying and I’m not quite sure how so I’m thinking.

I’m thinking the first thing that comes to mind is I’ll just pretend like I don’t speak English – yes and so I hold my hand out back to him and I say yes please gift thank you, turns back to me, he says ‘no you give me little gift, you go home’.

I’m playing and I’m like yes ‘me go home, on plane… Thank you’.

And so we do this like 14 – 15 times and this guy is getting, this guy is getting pretty annoyed all right and the line behind me is backed up out the door this tiny little airport finally he gets so fed up he throws his hands in the air and says forget it, just go, just go.

So I pick up my bags I say gift please, plane thank you… bye bye get on the plane and we’re off but what I realized was it adventure actually makes you smarter it made me smarter given my brain a tool to use to solve a problem that I would not have been able to solve before an adventure can make you smarter as well.

But here’s what’s really fascinating is it decades of research have shown that if you take this same question and these same figures to other parts of the world places where people don’t spend as much time staring at walls or places.

Where there are no walls at all the people there do not struggle with this problem or with this question at all but they struggle with other ones and so just by exposing yourself to new cultures.

Putting yourself in new environments you can actually give your you can actually give your brain a new tool to use to solve a difficult problem if venture really does make you smarter.

Shackleton had played very well on this concept that I like to call big dream influence.

He wanted to go the South Pole he want to be the first person there his idea his dream was so big that people couldn’t help but notice right and when you do something the people can’t help but notice once they see it they can’t help but get interested and once they’re interested it’s only a matter of time before they want to be a part of it.

Most people you know, just by the laws of nature set pretty average goals all right. If you took a group random sampling of a hundred different people and put them in the line and this would never work in this room of course right because everyone here is amazing has big goals trying to get some speaker points right.

But if you took a random sampling of 100 people and asked them what’s your biggest goal in life you’d probably find that somewhere between 80 to 90 of them would have answers that are similarly as interesting or dis-interesting as the case may be today.

And that’s okay right there are many goals you’ll have in your life that are personally meaningful and personally fulfilling that are completely uninteresting to anybody else.

But if there’s something that you want to do that’s going to take a team something that you’re going to do that needs help from others you must use big dream influence to capitalize to get people’s attention to make your ideas more attractive because adventure makes you more attractive it’s true right.

I was looking at research on happiness reports and on life regrets and I started putting together the numbers from these different from these different reports you know what I learned.

I learned just by the time I’m done talking today 47 people and he right here in the United States will have died unhappy, two points our 2.5 million by the end of the year and their biggest regret will be that they didn’t live a life true to themselves. They didn’t step outside of their comfort zone they didn’t answer that call to adventure when it presented itself and I had to ask myself if the reason that is is because it felt like such a big commitment it felt like it was something too big to do.

But what is big right we just talked about these big ideas and that’s great but can you do anything really big or as big just the culmination of many small things right, going to Russia and climbing a mountain that’s big kind of I guess.

But you can’t just go to Russia right to go to Russia you have to get on a plane and to get on a plane you have to buy a ticket and to buy a ticket you have to you have to save some money right and to save some money you have to decide that that’s important to you. So what I want to challenge you to do today is think of this big crazy idea that you have in your head everybody here has one I know they do now I want you to think of one small thing that you can do before you leave here today.

That will take you one step closer to it but more important than that I want you to right now tell yourself that that’s important to you and when you do you’ll find I thought I believed that you’re well on the way to making yourself smarter stronger and more attractive.




Hello. I remember, when I was three years old, back in my nursery class, we were singing this song, or at least, trying to sing a song. Some of you might have heard of it actually.

It’s about a wise man who builds his house upon the rock, and a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains came down, and the floods came up, it was the house on the rock that stood firm. Looking back now,

I see there’s a clear message to this song. And that is that the best way to allow all of us to flourish as much as possible is to provide us with firm foundations from which to build our lives. In the song, these foundations were a physical rock from which the wise man built his house. Now I see these foundations as financial.

That is, enough money to cover our basic necessities; a roof over our head, food on our table, heat and light for our home, before we earn extra money through paid employment. That’s the idea I want to share with you today: that we shouldn’t have to work just to survive. I know what you’re thinking. It was emphatically articulated by a so-called “social media troll” last time we did this, back in November, and that is, “Why should I listen to some posh bloke, with a ridiculous double-barreled name, and a center parting in his hair, tell me about why we shouldn’t have to work to survive?” Well, they were right. That haircut? Absolutely terrible. (Laughter)

But for those of you who are skeptical about this idea, I invite you to consider this with me. Because if work is just about survival, just about putting food on our table, just about getting a roof over our head, or even just about struggling to make it to the end of the month, week, or even day then it’s very difficult for any of us to look beyond that. For it is only when we can look past the question of, “What do I need to do today to survive?” that we can ask ourselves, “What do I want to do to live?” This isn’t my idea. It’s not something I’ve read in a book, or a theory, or anything like that. The benefits of it can be seen all around us. Take this university, right here. Hundreds of thousands of students, many of you will be sitting in this room today, a part of a vibrant community of student-led organizations; societies, social enterprises, start-ups, voluntary organizations, all kinds of things. TEDx University of Edinburgh being one example.

Another example, as Alistair said earlier, is The Buchanan Institute, Edinburgh’s first student-led think-tank, which I, and a few others, helped to set up back in January. None of us do these things because we have to, but because we love doing them. And for many of us, they almost become like full-time jobs. People ask us, “Do you get paid to do it?”

We don’t, for the most part. And I speak for myself, but I also did it because I could. You see, I was lucky. I had enough money through a combination of student loans and allowances to cover my basic necessities so that I didn’t need to work. I stress this because in reality, if I was having to work 30 hours, 20 hours, even 15 hours a week, on top of my studies to cover my basic necessities of being here, then there’s no way I would have had the time and energy necessary to set up The Buchanan Institute.

Many people will say, “That’s all well and good these voluntary student organizations, they’re very nice, but where’s the money going to come from? Who’s going to make the money so that we can pay for this situation where nobody needs to work to survive?” Well, the most entrepreneurial and innovative people in our society also benefited from a situation where they didn’t need to work just to survive.

Take for example, Steve Jobs. Back in 1976, he co-founded Apple whilst working with his friend Steve Wozniak in his parents’ garage. Job’s wasn’t rich. But he had a roof over his head, he had food on his table, he had all the appliances and tools he needed so that he could focus his time and energy on creating the first Apple prototype in 1976. You see, if Steve Jobs had to work in a minimum wage job, 50 hours, 40 hours a week, just to pay for his basic necessities, then he wouldn’t have been the founder of Apple. We may never have heard of iPhones or iPods.

But let me take you to the Namibian village of Otjivero, Omitara. For it is here where an organization called, “The Basic Income Earth Network” conducted a simple yet groundbreaking experiment.

They provided every single Namibian villager in this village with a basic income, enough to cover their basic subsistence. The skeptical among us – and I was talking to a few today – would say, “These Namibians! if they’re given enough to survive on, then they’re going to be lazy. They’re not going to work. They’ll sit on their asses all day.”

Well actually, the opposite happened. The percentage of those involved in income generating activities rose in that year from 44% to 55%. This is what happened: freed from reliance on low-paid labor, just to cover their survival, the villagers could choose what they did with their lives and decide how they earned extra money for themselves and their families. For many, this was starting up their own small businesses.

Becoming dressmakers, brick makers, or bread bakers. People have said, “That’s all well and good, but that’s Namibia. That’s a developing country. The west is different; it won’t work.” Well for them we can say, “Canada”. In 1976, the Canadian government conducted a similar experiment in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba.

Every single person who lived in that town no longer had to work just to survive. It was called, “The town without poverty”. Once again, people didn’t stop working. The only groups of people who worked slightly less in that year were mothers, and some fathers, with newborn babies. And some teenagers who relieved from the pressures of earning money for their families, could now go back to school. But something else happened. Relieved from the daily mental and physical stresses of having to work to survive, the ‘town without poverty’ became a healthier one. They actually, in that year, saved 13% on their overall healthcare costs. Something in the UK, with strains on NHS budgets, we could perhaps think about. So what about the UK? Could we try something similar here?

Well actually, yes! An organization called “The Citizen’s Income Trust” have shown that by simply reorganizing our existing tax and benefits system, we could provide every single UK adult with nearly 3,700 pounds a year. This is without hardly spending an extra penny. How? Well first of all, this basic income would replace means-tested benefits that we would no longer need, whilst ensuring that no-one was worse off. But also it would replace the personal tax allowance that we get to a certain level of our income.

So rather than paying tax and then getting money back in a personal tax allowance from the government, you would have this tax-free cash lump sum called, “a basic income” in it’s place. Then what if people say, “Well what if the rich get it? The rich don’t need it. It wouldn’t work.” Then we can say, “In this country we have something called ‘the basic state pension’ for all pensioners. “The basic state income” is the same thing, but for all adults. And the Swiss? Well, they could go further. Much further. In 2016, they will hold a popular referendum to decide whether to introduce a basic annual income to every Swiss citizen of nearly 21,000 pounds a year. Fully-funded, fully-costed.

Sounds good. So, I want to ask you. Let’s imagine that you woke up in Switzerland the morning after that referendum passed and you found yourself with a guarantee of 21,000 pounds a year. Put your hands up, how many of you, would stop working completely? There’s actually nobody. Not one person. It’s not actually surprising. Some of you might work a bit less. Spend more time with the family, spend more time doing leisure. Some of you might realise that you hate your job, and you’re going to use that basic income as a platform to go and do something that you really want to do. It isn’t surprising because as many of us know, work doesn’t have to be just about surviving. It can be about following our passions, fulfilling out dreams, or, as I have been so lucky to do during this whole TEDx process, meet, and work with, and build lifelong friendships.

About six months ago, I was at the hospital, just after my sister had given birth to her son and my nephew called Raffi. I remember, standing there, holding this little thing in my arms and thinking, “Don’t drop him.”

(Laughter) Then I thought, these questions about the future, and how to be OK in the future, and what kind of society we can live in in the future, aren’t just for our generation sitting here. They’re for the ones behind us. The ones being born or yet to be born. And when he grows up and if he ever gets around to and wants to ask his uncle for advice about work and life, – which is wishful thinking- I’d like to tell him, and be that uncle that tells him something similar to what you might tell your kids and probably do. “Raffi, don’t just work because you need to.

Do it so that every day, you wake up doing something you are really passionate about, with the people that you love.” My nephew will probably have the opportunity to do this. He may never have to work just to survive. And people have said to me, “So Johnny, in that case, why do you care? Why do you care whether or not people should have to work to survive? Because it’s not enough. It’s not enough that my nephew has this opportunity. It’s not enough that I had this opportunity. It’s not enough that many people I know, and many of us in this room, probably had this opportunity. In fact, it’s not enough until every single person, every single one of us in this room, in this country, or even in this world, can at least wake up every single morning and genuinely ask themselves, not “What do I need to do today just to survive?”, but “What do I want to do to live?” Thank you very much. Have a great day and enjoy the rest of the talks. (Applause)

You are simply wrong. How can you say he wants handouts when he is arguing for giving out handouts?

He is doing this because he is the one with the opportunity to do so. And he is doing so to help those without the opportunities he has and has had. You did not invent the computer or internet, you are using someone else’s hard work, every technology you use is likely not anything you had any hand in creating. You are arguing that no one should share their hard work so the person who invented the computer should have simply kept it to himself correct?

We should all just be left to fend for ourselves is what you are arguing for but by that logic you would not have a computer unless you could build one yourself and without any starting materials as no one is going to share a single thing with you, material or knowledge, by your logic no one should give up anything they worked to create. Oh but you say it is different because you paid for your computer right? Paid for how? With money you earned working a job? In other words money you earned via the mere fact you had the opportunity to be born in a place with access to a paying job and without any disabilities to performing that job.

Lucky you. Not everyone has those opportunities thus not everyone can afford not just a computer but even the basic things necessary for survival like food and shelter. He is arguing that everyone should have the opportunity to do what they want not just what they need to do to survive.

Example, if you are living on the street it is very hard to take the time to find a job when all your time is spent finding food for the day or a place to sleep for the night and how do you even get to a job interview with no transportation? Again you can’t just hop on the bus because you need to find something to eat first you haven’t eaten in 24 hours and the last thing you ate was scraps from the garbage, you need to find more not sit around on a bus and in a job interview and besides you were digging in the trash who is going to hire you when you smell and look like garbage? You would need to clean up first but then you don’t have any time for that cause oh you found some food but you still need to find a place to sleep for the night.

Maybe you’ll sit on the corner and ask for handouts so you can afford something other than garbage to eat, cause you know there is some food in that trashcan nearby if you don’t get enough money for some food, but you cant hop on the bus to your job interview and come back to find the trash empty or eaten by some other homeless person and not have gotten the job and now its too late to sit out asking for hand outs its cold outside and you don’t have much to keep warm so you need to go inside with no food for the day and you didn’t get the job cause your clothes are dirty and you smell like garbage and why would you even bother attempting to get a job in that situation?

They just don’t have the opportunities as someone in a stable household. It has nothing to do with laziness or even drugs or alcohol because addiction is the same problem, an addicts life revolves around their addiction the same way a homeless persons life revolves around daily survival, there is just no time for any improvements to be made on themselves.



“Dont like it find a new job or leave” – ancaps

Do you mean, “find a new slavemaster that will be exploiting you less”?


Typically, people are rich because of hard work. I don’t know any rich people who were born rich. They all went to school and started a business that is vital to the community, or they work for people who have vital businesses.

Typically, people are rich because of hard work. I don’t know any rich people who were born rich. They all went to school and started a business that is vital to the community, or they work for people who have vital businesses.

No, in AnCap you do what is profitable, which means serving the interests of people who have money. We don’t do anything for profit. We do things that are helpful to the largest number of people in the group.

If you weren’t a beta piece of shit you would love your job, contributing to society, being productive and providing.

So many communists are so entitled to laziness, and you somehow think that you’re laziness will subside when all personal incentive is removed from labor? The irony is palpable.

In the late 1970s and ‘80s, the sociologist H. Roy Kaplan performed now-classic research on what became of lottery winners. His most famous study asked lottery winners how happy they had been before and after their big checks arrived. That 1978 study, which had a very small sample size, famously found that lottery winners were not that much happier than the control group—a bunch of people who didn’t win the lottery—after their win.

There are a lot of other aspects at work that play a big role besides the extrinsic reward of money: relationships, achievement needs that people have, status needs outside of money,” says Scott Highhouse, psychology professor at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, and lead author of a 2010 study on workers and the lottery. When Americans are asked if they’d keep working after winning the lottery, two-thirds consistently say they would, his study shows. Of course, that’s a pretty theoretical response. Studies of actual lottery winners tend to suggest that most winners do keep working.

“It is clear that winning the lottery does not automatically result in individuals’ stopping work,” concluded a 2004 study of Iowa and Ohio lottery winners. Of the 185 winners’ surveys examined in the study, 85 percent continued working in some capacity.

Economist Olivier Schneller states that, “Over the last 30 years there has been no improvement in job satisfaction. On the contrary, a steady decrease in job satisfaction has occurred at a time where economic capacities have doubled. So, in summary, through hard work we’ve achieved a state in which as a society we have freed ourselves from [almost all] material needs. The problem now is we are so used to hard work being responsible in the past for improving our well-being, that we don’t question today how changing work itself could be beneficial to us. The developed economy of today doesn’t have to rely on the assumption anymore that we have to be forced to work, because we WANT to work.”

“The most common objection I hear is, ‘But then no one would work anymore!’ Honestly, I’m shocked at how our system manages to maintain such a negative view of us humans. The way I see it, money is by far not the only reliable motivator to work. We are motivated by our interests, by social recognition, social integration, finding self-fulfillment, or just simply by having fun at what we do.

Let us assume that you believe me: that most of us would work even if they didn’t have to; but there are a few lazy ones who wouldn’t work anymore. In such a case, does it make sense to hold on to a system that focuses on the few lazy ones by trying to make them work, instead of moving to another system that focuses on the majority that want to work by giving them the freedom to be productive?”

Schneller goes on to say that, “A lot has been discussed on how to improve the working environment by removing extrinsic motivators. This ongoing discussion is very important, but what bothers me is so far it has only focused on the organizational level; it has only focused on what managers can do to remove extrinsic motivators within the organizations. It has completely ignored the system that surrounds these organizations. It has ignored the fact that our concept of work established throughout our economic system relies on one big, fat, extrinsic motivator. We are forced to work because we have to earn money to secure a living. In other words, the current concept of work is currently set up to kill the intrinsic motivation of the workforce. By being forced to work we are led to believe that work is a burden, we forget that we actually want to work, and as a result, our engagement level is limited. So how imortant is this negative effect on worker motivation?”

Most taxation doesn’t go to people who wont work, you get that right? It’s actually mostly corporate benefits and war.. This is what gets me about anCaps.. You call everything Government does “communism” even if it’s really about the profit of the elite. Venezuela is to Communism what the US is to Capitalism.. You can’t have your cake and eat it too

That’s real solid grounds for a debate.. Anyway, within capitalism the bottom line is profit… Companies will do whatever to get profit whether those actions are moral, amoral, or, immoral. They already do today, and nothing will stop them. anCaps are still unable to prove “conscious consumerism” has the capability to take down Mega Corporations, so it’s all conjecture.

No one’s “running away” my time is limited. I have to work most of my life away to survive, I’m not going to waste my precious time playing a board game with a child who will ultimately throw the board and stomp around as if he won..

This man is genius. Being forced to work is the cause of drug addiction, domestic violence, unhappiness, unnecessary stress= health issues, and many other negative things. We need a universal basic income now.

Hi, everyone. This is a picture of me with my little daughter. Cute, right? Becoming a father is not only a very heartwarming experience; becoming a father, in Germany, also offers the great fringe benefit of taking a paid sabbatical leave, thanks to the concept called ‘parents time’.

And that’s exactly what I’m currently doing, enjoying a one-year parental leave from work. A few weeks ago, my wife came to me and said to me, “Olivier, it’s strange. You’re on a sabbatical. You don’t have to work, but in the last six months, you have worked more than before.”

And she’s probably right. I have worked more than before. This, in my opinion, raises a very interesting question. What if, instead of having to work, we were free to work? What if work was not our only income channel, so that it was a free choice to work? I believe that the obligation to work because we have to earn money to secure a living, is one of the biggest misconceptions of our time.

I’m convinced that if we were free to work, this would unlock a huge, hidden potential in our society.

To explain to you why I have this strong belief, I want to present three arguments.

First, as a society we have achieved an economic state that allows us to rethink work. This shows the development of real GDP per capita over the last decades in Germany. Over the last 40 years, we have doubled GDP per capita when adjusted for inflation.

We have doubled the economic output per person. That’s a huge achievement. But how were we able to transfer this huge achievement into a better well-being of our society? Has our well-being also doubled in the same time period?

Obviously, a better economic situation has allowed us more financial freedom, and more consumption over time. This means that we work more and more to satisfy our luxury needs. The paradox, however, is that we are completely ignoring our luxury needs in the one area of life we spend the most time at, and that’s work itself. It seems as if our well-being at work was not as important, even though we spend most of our lifetime working. Let me illustrate this with a few examples. We work nearly as much today as we did 40 years ago. The number of burnouts caused by high levels of stress at work has risen dramatically. Or let’s have a look at some data on job satisfaction in Germany. It suggests that over the last 30 years, there has been no improvement. You could even talk about a slight decrease in job satisfaction, in a time when our economic capacities have doubled. So, in summary: through our hard work, we have achieved a state in which as a society we have freed ourselves from material needs. And the problem now is that we are so used that hard work was responsible, in the past to improve our well-being, that we don’t question today how changing work itself could be beneficial to us.

My second argument. The developed economy of today doesn’t have to rely on the assumption anymore that we have to be forced to work, because we want to work. When I tell people about my idea of being free to work, the most common objection I hear is, “But then no one would work anymore.”

Honestly, I’m shocked at how our system manages to maintain such a negative view of us humans. The way I see it, money is by far not the only reliable motivator to work. We are driven by our interests, by social recognition, social integration, finding self-fulfillment, or just simply by having fun at what we do. Take me as an example. There is no need for me to do any work this year, but still I feel the urge to enjoy my freedom by being active, participating in interesting projects, and realizing all my ideas for which I never had time. You might think that I’m rather the exception [to] the rule, and that I’m an idealist to believe that these soft factors are strong enough to motivate us to work.

I surely am an idealist, but the nice thing is, many observations in real life support my idealistic view. Take, for instance, all the unpaid work we can observe in our society.

As an example, 30% of the workers in Germany are doing voluntary work next to their work. Thirty percent of the people that work most of their lifetime decide to do unpaid work in their free time.

They must be crazy. But believe me, it’s getting crazier than this. ‘Descape’ is a startup based here in Berlin that offers time outs from your day job with short trips in other work areas. The crazy part? These people pay for these trips.

They pay to do another person’s job! And we shouldn’t forget the craziest ones, and at the same time, the luckiest ones: the lottery winners. A study conducted in the USA surveyed 117 lottery winners, with an average winning of 3.6 million dollars. The study found that 85% of these lottery winners continued to work after winning the lottery. Let me conclude these observations with an open question.

Let us assume that you believe me, that most of us would work, even if they didn’t have to, but there are other few lazy ones who wouldn’t work anymore. In such a case, does it make sense to hold on to a system that focuses on the few lazy ones by trying to make them work, instead of moving to another system that focuses on the majority that wants to work by giving them the freedom to be productive?

My third and final argument, for why I am convinced about the idea of being free to work, is the most important one. Forcing us to work kills our motivation. It kills our motivation to excel at work.

In 1971, Edward Deci conducted an experiment to understand how human motivation works. The participants were divided in two groups, and asked to solve puzzles. One group was paid money if they solved the puzzles, the other group was not.

The experiment included a break between the puzzle-solving sessions.

Guess what happened during those break times? The group that didn’t receive any money spent significantly more time playing with the puzzles during break time than the group that received money.

The experiment showed that extrinsic motivators like monetary reward, the fear of punishment, or the obligation to do something reduced intrinsic motivation, a person’s internal drive to do something because of the interest, and the enjoyment of the activity itself. I think all of us can relate to this result. When my wife tells me to take care of my little daughter, it feels like an annoying duty, even though I love spending time with her.

The groundbreaking experiment of Deci has been followed by plenty of research on human motivation. A very important result this research has shown is that intrinsically motivated people – people who feel related to what they do – are more creative, more innovative, and better at problem solving.

And as these are exactly the skills needed to be productive in our knowledge economy of today, a lot has been discussed on how to improve the working environment by removing extrinsic motivators.

This ongoing discussion is very important. But what bothers me is that so far, it has only focused on the organizational level. It’s only focused on what managers can do to remove extrinsic motivators within the organizations. It has completely ignored the system that surrounds these organizations. It has ignored the fact that our concept of work, established in our economic system, relies on one big, fat, extrinsic motivator.

We are forced to work, because we have to earn money to secure our living. In other words, the current concept of work is perfectly set up to kill the intrinsic motivation of the workforce.

By being forced to work, we are led to believe that work is a burden.

We forget that we actually want to work, and as a result, our engagement level is limited. How important is this negative effect on work and motivation? According to the Gallup Engagement Index – that’s a large, worldwide survey on work engagement – only 15% of the workers in Germany are engaged. Only 15% are passionate, and committed to their work. The other 85% are either not engaged, meaning that they only put as much effort in to work as necessary, or that they’re actively disengaged, meaning that in their minds they’ve already quit their job.

These numbers are alarming from an economic viewpoint, as 85% of the workers are not as productive, and not as committed to drive things forward as they could be. That’s a huge, hidden potential for innovation, for entrepreneurship, and for productivity in our economy.

But these numbers are also heartbreaking from a social perspective, as 85% of the workers spend most of their lifetime with something they don’t really enjoy. Let me summarize.

First, through our hard work in the past, our economy has grown to a level that allows us to rethink work.

Second, forcing us to work is not necessary, as we want to work. And third, forcing us to work kills our intrinsic motivation to excel at work. These three arguments led me to believe that being free to work would have a fundamental, positive impact on our society by allowing us to live richer lives. But now, where does that leave us here, living in this reality, where we are forced to work? In particular, where does that leave you, all the students here in this room, soon entering the job market?

Well, there is this growing movement, calling for the introduction of an unconditional basic income. That’s a sum of money that everyone receives to cover her or his basic needs. This is probably the perfect economic instrument to realize my idea. We could just wait until this movement is large enough to succeed. But the good news is, you don’t necessarily have to wait.

All it requires is that you rethink your own, personal reality of work. Free yourself from the common conception that the main purpose of work is to finance your living, that work is a burden, and that you have to be forced to work, because you want to work. Think of it as something that you choose to do, and this every day. And with this new reality in mind, don’t ask yourself the old questions. Don’t ask yourself what you want to do to earn money in life.

Ask yourself the questions that aim at your intrinsic motivation. What would you do if you didn’t have to earn any money, and you were free to follow your passion? Thank you. (Applause)



We live in a society in which violent behavior is acceptable, and sex or nudity is not.

Anybody see a problem here? Or is it just me?

Ancaps: Omg kids are walking by seeing two ppl having sex. Degeneracy!

Also ancaps: child prostitution is a-ok with me

Just let them fuck? They aren’t hurting anyone.

Blankets are so difficult to obtain these days

Libertarians don’t care where you fuck as long as it’s not on their property.