NateForLiberty

While I did come to libertarian ideas through Ron Paul, I know quite a few people (mainly my extended family) who would never consider those ideas because of Ron Paul. But once I dropped the politics, they accepted libertarian ideas more easily. Pretty fascinating what packaging does for people :-/

To all of what you just said I can say only three things: 1> Thank you for taking the time to write all of that. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have done so. 2> I think you're WAY off base. I'm only talking about principles and getting a handle on where the line is drawn when it comes to the free market and the principles around it. 3> I believe you have a valid point about the contract to join, and the agreement made not to discuss a certain topic. This line of reasoning is closer to the kind of discussion I was looking to have on this matter. Perhaps we can move this forward by focusing on the actual points I'm talking about instead of resorting to various forms of repeating the mantra of, "It's Stef's house" Ok, but there is no discussion. It is Stef's house. End of story. Until you stop and realize that, and realize exactly what that means, you'll continue to run in circles. Good luck. There is no point in talking further about this. Also, The line is drawn where private property begins. You cannot tell someone how to use their private property. Once you begin doing that, you've turned your back on free market principles.

"I am against the idea of any ban here (specifically here) because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and it's principles (which I fully agree with), and I believe in leading by example (as I am fairly certain Stef does). A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles.This is what I hope to have comment and discussion about." Ok, let's address this again. "I am against the idea of any ban here..." -great. Doesn't matter. Not your property. "...because this is the "home" of who I consider to be -the- main advocate of the free market and its priniciples..." -well, glad you recongized this is Stef's home. Now understand, he can do with it as he sees fit. "...and I believe in leading by example." - This is where you go wrong in your logic. The "Free Market" does not require anyone to "lead by example". Free trade/free interaction is the natural state of man. FDR Forums is not a little mini free market. It is private property that exists in the Free Market. There is only one free market. No one is holding a gun to your head making you be a member here. If you disagree with how Stef runs his site, good for you! But don't go on and on about it while ON HIS SITE. That is disrepectful. I wouldn't show up at your home and tell you that I disagree with the way you treat your wife (unless there was violence involved). That would be a one way ticket out of the front door. "A ban here, specifically in the FDR forums, seems (to me) to run contrary to the universality of those basic principles." - Sorry it seems that way to you. It would help if you were clear about what "universality of those basic principles" meant. What basic principles? Why are they universal? To me, it seems as if you have a gap in your understanding of the free market. You may feel like you know the best way to run FDR Forums, but that doesn't matter. Voice your concern to Stef, and then leave it. Until it is your name on FDR, you can debate until you're blue in the face about the best way to run FDR, but it won't matter, because FDR is not yours.

Time and again I have stated I have no desire to talk about determinism. Determinism is false and I agree with Stef that it really is a load of hogwash. The very point of philosophy is to search for truth and to then live by those truths. This also means not backing down because a view about what is believed to be true is questioned, or unapproved by the majority. I did not come here because I seek to part of the cool kids gang; I came here because I respect Stef and the fact that he has made a place to discuss things exactly like this. I am well aware this is Stef's site and can do what he wishes. Was there somewhere that I was being disrespectful? Perhaps you believe that questioning a decision is disrespectful? If so, then you can you think of any decisions made by others that you wouldn't question due to not wanting to be disrespectful? I see. This is not about philosophy for you at all. This is about "standing up to authority", ....and you chose Stef as someone to stand up to?? I mean,...really? It would be more productive to stand up to the check out guy at the grocery store when he says you can't combine coupons. Stef is not anywhere close to being an authority problem. Nor is it a good use of your time to try and slay this dragon (which if it exists at all is the size of a flea). What you should be asking yourself is "Why am I looking for dragons and blowing teeny tiny ones way out of proportion?". Is it good to question authority? Absolutely. Is it good to question ALL authority to stamp it out wherever it may be? No. Why? Authority that rules by FORCE needs a passionate questioning response. Authority that rules through voluntary aggrement should be respectfully questioned and then left alone. In other words, if a person is using violence against another, by all means speak up, do something! But if you have entered into a voluntary contract with a person that gives them authority over you in a particular aspect, and then you violate that contract, "standing up to" that person makes no sense at all when they try to enforce the contract. Instead, simply say "I end our agreement and am moving on." The real question here is about you and your relationship to authority. Nothing else.

So I can do with my post whatever the hell I want, yes? No, you made the post, but it does not belong to you. It exists on servers that Stef has paid for. When you signed up for FDR Forums you entered into a voluntary contract with Stef. Now you are in violation of that contract. If you take your post and save it onto your computer, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it. FDR Forums is not the keeper of your "intellectual property".

You are still missing the so obvious and simple point. STEF. OWNS. THIS. FORUM. Is it not the responsibility of every property owner to ensure the protection of that property? Stef is protecting his property against further fruitless discussion of determinism. How is that not "leading by example" and displaying EXACTLY what the free market is about? Dude, come on. This is easy. Now, if you still don't get it and continue to disagree with Stef, what is the RESPECTFUL and VOLUNTARY course of action (i.e. What course of action should you take to show that you also believe in the free market and lead by example)? To continue to buck Stef's wishes by posting about determinism? Or to simply say, "Stef, I disagree with your decision here, but I respect you and your property and while I am here, will abide by the guidelines you've set out. Just as if you were to come over to my house, I would expect you to abide by my rules." . . . . "Freedom of Speech" does not exist on private property.

Your logic here is impeccable. Thanks for sharing. :-) His logic is not sound at all. He has twisted the argument in order to support his position while ignoring an obvious truth. FDR Forums belong to Stefan Molyneux, not "the market". There is not a "free market of business" and a separate "free market of ideas". There is only ONE Free Market and it contains the whole of humanity and everything that emerges from it. Compartmentalization is a great way to hide logical fallacies and mental dysfunction, is it not?! The free market will decide if determinism should be discussed by those wishing to discuss determinism starting their own forum and trying to stealing most or all of FDR Forums's users. Not by you or anyone else forcing Molyneux to use his property in a way he disagrees with. I own my home. In my home, I have set down a rule that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ shall not be discussed or debated. Those wishing to do so must leave my home. I invite Person A into my home. However, Person A then violates my rule of no virgin birth discussion. I ask Person A to please not violate my rule. Person A states that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ needs to be discussed as there are many people in the world who believe that it is true. Person A makes the argument that "the market" will decide if the virgin birth should be discussed. I tell Person A he has fogotten where he is and now needs to get the fuck out of my house. The only way for Person A to further his cause is to now trespass on my property by remaining there. Therefore, I remove him, by force if necessary. Person A cries out, "SEE!! HE'S USING VIOLENCE! HE'S A FRAUD!" Now reread my little tale, but replace "the virgin birth of Jesus Christ" with "taking a shit right where you stand as soon as the need arises." Who's the aggressor? Violence (even of the very mild sort, if not more so) is not always initiated by those with malicious intent. Sometimes it comes from idiots who don't know what they're doing but have "good intentions". Intent is the beginning of action, knowledge is the informer of action, wisdom is temperance in action. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Never watch Hollywood looking for the truth. You wouldn't consume an apple and then be pissed it wasn't a steak. It just seems like a waste of energy to be complaining about something like this. *shrug*

Movies have one purpose, to make money. If your film can be construed to be "anti-military" or "against the troops", you won't make as much money. By putting that stuff in before the credits they are covering their asses. Who cares.