NotDarkYet

Anthropic Principle. If we were in some other universe - we wouldn't be able to ask the question.

Hatchet !

Clearly this is an anti-trump, pro-islamic 'refugee' statement.

Going to have to go without my Natural Lite. (seriously, I like Natural Lite)

In light of the anti-Trump ad shown at the superbowl, I will not be consuming Budweiser products. Note that Anheuser-Busch doesn't just make Budweiser and Bud Lite - they also brew.... 2.Michelob 3.Rolling Rock 4.Busch 5.Shock Top 6.Natural 7.Johnny Appleseed 8.LandShark Lager 9.Craft Partnerships 9.1 Goose Island Brewery 9.2 Blue Point 9.3 10 Barrel 9.4 Elysian Brewing Company 9.5 Golden Road Brewing 9.6 Four Peaks Brewery 9.7 Breckenridge Brewery 9.8 Devils Backbone Brewing Company 9.9 Karbach Brewing Company 10. Malt liquors 10.1 King Cobra 10.2 Hurricane

Be as useful as possible. Be essential to somebody. Etc...

That means it's ok to punch a socialist.

I'd love an app where competitors were ranked for SJW-ness. Starbucks vs Seattle's Best vs McDonalds Wallmart vs Costco vs Sams Club etc.

He didn't get elected because he cares about the the sensitivities of the ignorant. Thank god for that.

You can know Fake News not only for what they say, but what they DON'T DARE say.

There are only two moral states. Immoral and not-immoral. UPB defines that boundary. If you're defining "goodness" as a set of positive actions then UPB has nothing to say about that because positive actions aren't universalizable. For example, we say "it's good to give massages" - then everybody would need to get in a big circle and massage each other. The first person who passed out due to exhaustion would lose their "good" status - - as would anybody who needed to sleep - - - or people without arms. Silly example, but illustrates the point. If we're talking about positive actions, then we're in the realm of aesthetics. Aesthetic goodness is defined by personal values, personal judgements, and goals. What is aesthetically good in the FDR community? For one: Speaking truth in face of overwhelming social disapproval.

Blue pill women can smell red-pill ideas from a mile away.

1. D-sayers skipped the first step. Namely where: The "credible threat" starts by deliberately (ab)using us. 2. Note the clever conflation of the word "use" with the word "influence". A man points a gun at you and you speak to him - - you are not using the gun. You're influencing him to (hopefully) make a less destructive decision. 3. The shooter's immorality is his own. Not mine. 4. If you believes the state is a choice - then you believe in democracy.

The State is morally invalid by definition. So... The State's actions are not made morally valid ("legitimized") by voting. Nor are the State's actions made morally invalid ("delegitimized") by not voting. So vote, or don't vote. This is a strategic question. ----- NOTE: The only way voting could be legitimate (morally valid) is if you were the only member of the country - and if one of the options was to NOT have a state.

You still haven't rebutted this... A: If voting can never legitimize the State (as I believe), then voting is not immoral - because the state is illegitimate by definition. Voting doesn't change the nature of the State. B: If voting does legitimize the State (which you seem to believe), then you believe in democracy....just that we shouldn't do it. The only rebuttal you've attempted is: Voting "seems" like it's legitimizing the state. Are we really resorting to "seems"? I thought this was a philosophy board. In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote. And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway.

D-Sayers, A: If voting can never legitimize the State (as I believe), then voting is not immoral - because you can't legitimize the State - no matter how many people vote. B: If voting does legitimize the State (which you seem to believe), we would need 0% voter turnout to "prove" the state isn't legitimate. If you believe "B", then you believe in democracy....just that we shouldn't do it. In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote. And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway. I have repeated the core thesis ("A") numerous times, and you've never rebutted it.

D-sayers is right. Our freedom depends on - 0% voter turnout...and then.... - ....the state voluntarily giving up its power as a result Both are hilariously impotent fantasies. 1. There will always be some people incentivized to vote, and 2. 0% turnout doesn't mean shit to the state.... Google it: If no one bothered to vote in the general election, then the states would be forced to decide another way to chose their electors. (There is nothing in the Constitution that says the states need to hold a popular election to chose electors, just that the legislatures must decide). BUT none of this matters: The state isn't validated by your vote. The State is invalid regardless of the arrangement of ink on paper.

D-Sayers thinks voting legitimizes the state. But voting doesn't magically make the state valid. How could it?! The State is illegitimate if... 100% of the people vote, and if... 0% of the people vote. I suspect D-sayers inflicted his wrath on some people (voters) in his life. After destroying those relationships, he can't just turn around and take it all back. But I have no proof of this.

Voting is morally neutral. Democracy is invalid, no matter how many people vote. The State is violence, whether you vote or not If you believe voting magically makes the state voluntary - you're a Democrat - not an Ancap. The effects of voting may be for more freedom, or less freedom. But the question is practical, not moral. This "but you don't have to vote" argument is a complete red-herring. It's not relevant to the question at hand.

D-Sayers, I believe the following argument is definitive: We agree that the state doesn't have actual legitimacy - - - and voting (or not voting) does not magically grant it actual legitimacy... Now we are left with the (non-argument) that voting "seems" like it grants legitimacy to the state. Well, the sun seems like it revolves around the Earth. As philosophers we aren't in the business of managing "seems" - only truths.

Voting is fine. Voting can never grant actual legitimacy to the state because the state is not legitimate by definition. It's strange to hear a UPB-AnCap say that that voting is somehow granting legitimacy to the state. How could it? How could you argue against democracy then?

D-sayers: If you believe voting legitimizes the state, then you're not an anarcho-capitalist - you're a democrat. The state isn't voluntary - - - - and voting doesn't make the state voluntary. And if by some miracle only 10% of X-location voted, do you think they'd give up power? No. Let say NOBODY votes.... Google it: What happens if nobody votes in an election? If one bothered to vote in the general election, then the states would be forced to decide another way to chose their electors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the states need to hold a popular election to chose electors, just that the legislatures must decide.

The government initiates violence. Not a person who ticks "A" or "B" twice a decade.

So Alpha Male: Does voting actually legitimize the state? Do you seriously believe in Democracy?

Crux of the argument here: Voting doesn't validate the state. @Alpha Male: How could it? A person who believes that voting "validates" the state is rejecting objective morality. So vote, or not. It's a strategic question.