NotDarkYet

We don't get to decide when we have sex with a women. She decides, on average.

Random idea on a rainy winter night: Whether it's Yahoo News, Cracked.com, CNN, or clips of The Daily Show, I find myself angry on a daily basis when I come across anti-rational, anti-freedom, anti-male media. How could we boycott or de-incentivize these sites? Obviously we could each personally make a running list of left-leaning websites, and then cross reference these when surfing the web. That would suck. Another option is to block ad content on lefty sites. Is there (or should there be) an ad-blocker that selectively blocks ads? If millions of people installed this (hypothetical) browser extension I bet some sites would think twice when putting out anti-freedom content. A possible rebuttal of the idea is: "The left would just do the same!". But imho would be fine because the right/libertarians tend to be consumers/producers. If 'forced' into the question - marketers would choose to steer funding toward the right. Also, the right and libertarians (I think) are more prominent on the web than any other space. Anyway. I think this idea of consumer tribes is something to take seriously.

We do like the cover up. Although we don't get to decide when we have sex with a women. She decides for us. Our switch is always "on".

Is there an equivalent industry for men that makes half a trillion dollars a year for covering up who men truly are? Slaves and slave masters have to play by different rules.

The industry could be bigger if men wore makeup. But of course only women are allowed to lie.

Are you saying that I OUGHT not believe something that's false? If you say "Yes", then you're contradicting yourself. If you say, "No", then you're contradicting yourself.

Could you elaborate. For example, is the initiation of force, say, murder, objectively wrong?

Am I objectively wrong? Or just subjectively wrong?

Freedom-friendly.

Nope. Not my fault when other people use violence. Regardless of whether I ticked letter "A" or letter "B". Human adults are responsible for their own violence. A violent act is not legitimized (or de-legitimized) by my scribblings. I'd scribble "less stealing". Otherwise, we get more stealing. I have almost no control over the state. Except one little loophole. This is one way keep them honest...er.... at least keep their guard up. When the right-thinking people quit voting - they'll have carte blanch on our rights.

No. Morality is objective. And voting doesn't legitimize the state. The state is illegitimate by definition no matter what is written slips of paper. So, vote, or don't vote. It's a practical/strategic question. Not a moral one. A man walks into your house pointing a gun and says "pick one...your TV or your stereo". Are you telling me that sharing a preference to have your TV stolen over your stereo means that suddenly you are colluding with your own thief? One of those scenarios will be inflicted upon me. Not my fault. He started it.

The violence actor is responsible for violence - not the voter, or talker, or encourager. That means A vote can never be a legitimate endorsement of violence. And if you think voting actually legitimizes state action, then you are arguing against the whole idea of objective morality.

If voting "legitimizes" the state, then you DO believe in democracy. If voting can never legitimize the state, then voting CAN be used defensively. --- If somebody punches a baby because it was put to a vote - don't blame the voter....blame the baby puncher for using violence. Not the voter for using a pen.

Murray Rothbard discusses the merits and morality of voting in a great interview from 1972: NEW BANNER: Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic? ROTHBARD: I’m interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement — if five million people, let’s say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don’t think voting is a real problem. I don’t think it’s immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people. Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy — that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing. [..]...as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice — there’s no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It’s not a fully voluntary situation. It’s a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can’t vote out of existence. For example, we can’t vote the Presidency out of existence — unfortunately, it would be great if we could, but since we can’t why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don’t see that it’s immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open — provided that you don’t think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! — which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote. The second part of my answer is that I don’t think that voting is really the question. I really don’t care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say “I don’t want to sanction the state” and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they’ll elect. And it’s important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn’t endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don’t agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn’t vote: he is also saying that we shouldn’t endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us.

1. We do not have to pay our taxes: There are lifestyles that allow you to not contribute to the state: https://steemit.com/freeliving/@staatenlos/the-secret-to-live-tax-free-the-perpetual-traveling-lifestyle You bargain with the state. Just like me. 2. Voting can bring relative freedom in specific scenarios: Legalizing drugs. School vouchers. State choice. To continue imprisoning drug users when you had the ability to vote against it - is a strange form of "assistance" to these victims. 3. No, I am not 'liable' for what some politician does that wasn't stated in his platform. --- The tanks of state are rolling over my legs - I don't feel guilty for begging them to not hit my vital organs. It's worth a shot.

1. You pay your taxes. You could find a way to not pay taxes. There are ways. But no. You choose to negotiate with the thugs...to keep some semblance of freedom. Just like the voters. It's fine. We are NOT the bad guys. ---- 2. Your argument is voting can never increase freedom. That is demonstrably false. Voting will never give us 100% freedom - true by definition. But it can bring relative freedom at certain moments. A vote to decriminalize drugs IS a vote for less violence - for example. Also, State succession is another example. ---- 3. A person can bring more freedom into the world (Stef for example) who also votes. If a voter can bring more freedom to the world than they take out - I would not call them a moral monster. Let's spend time yelling at other people. --- On a personal note: My instincts say that you've drawn some very stark lines in the sand with somebody important in your life - and now, you've fighting the possibility that you've verbally attacked somebody who didn't quite deserve it. Now you've got to defend yourself. But I could be wrong.

Point 1: When we achieve freedom it will be because: We argued the case Raised our children peacefully The state increasingly sucked at its job Voting (or not voting) doesn't invalidate our long-game. If you declare "but we don't have to vote", I rebut thusly: Point 2: Yes, non-participation with the state is, technically, possible: I COULD live with the consequences of not paying my taxes (ie, living in the woods, or being poor, or expatriating) I COULD also live with the consequences of not voting (ie, living in a 3rd world hellhole) For the sake of my (relative) freedom I will participate in these ugly things until the world is ready for capitalism. If you declare "but voting only supports the system", I rebut thusly: Point 3: Voting, in some circumstances, may lead to greater freedom. Imagine a situation where a state (say, New Hampshire) was voting to succeed from the federal goverment - - -, your vote could lead to a lessening of government power.

2 invaders are marching into your house....and you have one bullet.... Who do you shoot?

Truth exists. Truth is better than falsehood.

If immigrants flood the country by the millions - we have no hope of spreading philosophy. We need time. A Trump win buys us a half a generation.

By not making slavery legal in the form of a State.

Should gravity be stronger?

Invalid question.

Supposed to be ironic?

With this female I had already tried the "have you considered" tactic on: -The Mexico wall. No budging. -Trump being not evil. No budging. -Cities are better than communes in many areas (medical emergencies). No budging. -Distancing yourself from toxic people is sometimes appropriate. She thinks that's a failure on YOUR part. No budging. Actually, she just laughed. -Saving money is good. Nope. No budging. You need to LIVE! The drug = jail thing...that was the final straw. I wasn't looking for a way out, until then. I was very angry and needed to a way to not scream at the top of my lungs. She's 33 and NOT aging well. 5 years from now, she's going to wonder what went wrong. Maybe she'll think of yesterday.