Brad Sherard

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 Found this paragraph to be particularly interesting:

Its fun watching my own progression of ideas mirrored in honest and curious thinkers. I made the case long ago that an end cannot be achieved by means which contradict that end, but we should take care to really be sure what constitutes an actual contradiction. In the more dogmatic libertarians and anarchists, there is an interesting avoidance of history, of data. It tends to dwell more in ivory tower abstraction. I've had to point out numerous times the obvious to people, and this topic is one such time. People ask me how on earth I could ever "support" nationalism and still call myself an anarchist(I don't actually call myself that but it does derive from basic reasoning about morality). This is my answer: Suppose you were a peasant, or an early worker in the growing cities as industrialism overtook the artistocrats who could only institute poor houses as more and more people flowed into the cities during the 1600s. The promise of freedom grows as the will to enact it becomes more popular and acceptable in public discourse. Now also suppose you were a peasant of abnormal moral conscience, ahead of your time; you rejected all enslavement, not just your own. The slave trade would persist even as the monarchs fell away to the somewhat more limited democratic and constitutional republic governments on the horizon. Would you, a moral person, support the rise of western civilization out of serfdom even if what remained contained evil institutions? Would you reject the end of slavery and statist violence for many if a few still remained enslaved? Moral advancement does not come to humans in one giant leap from hell to heaven. Human history is an endless proof that we have come from evil origins to higher ground slightly less bloodied. We are crawling inch by inch over bodies to get to a truly civilized world. So, denying outright any choice that contains any element of evil as if it simply cannot bring us nearer to peace is to ignore all of human history. It doesn't mean any action is permitted, but it does mean we can't just categorically dismiss incremental improvement. So, as far as consequentialism is concerned, choosing nationalism in the face of globalism(and what is globalism but communism without the revolution?), cannot be categorically rejected. And we can also consider the logical case as well. Lets start with the assumption of the validity of the non-aggression principle, UPB, etc. Is there a contradiction in choosing a violent path? Not necessarily. Consider the annoying hypothetical of a train track with one person tied to one branch of a split and two people tied to the other. Some evil cartoon villain is forcing you to choose which will die by putting you in front of the switch as a train approaches. Are you commiting violence by throwing the switch to kill one person rather than two? No, you didn't set the events in motion that forced the choice upon you. It was the villain. And we aren't the ones putting us to the decision between the violent action of choosing nationalism or a multi-cultural banana republic. Maybe there is another choice but until it becomes apparant, I choose to do what I think gives us the best chance for a free and peaceful future.

It would be a wonderful surprise but don't get your hopes up too much. People still tolerate lesser abuse. Even so, it is encouraging to see the universal condemnation of these horrid videos.

The non-aggression principle(It looks like it is sometimes called an "axiom" but otherwise indestinguishable from "principle") is formally defined as follows: The initiation of violence(between humans) is an invalid moral proposition. See here for the history of the concept: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression Axioms are indemonstratable but also apodictically undeniable propositions. Meaning they cannot be proven but they cannot be denied(and when I say "denied" I don't just mean they cannot be disproven, but even claimed to be false). The three propositional axioms are identity(A is A), non-contradiction(not A and the negation of A), and the excluded middle(A or the negation of A). Propositions can be apodictic without being axioms. For example, if I say "Humans do not act" that is a performative contradiction, so it is apodictically false(it cannot even be assumed to be the case). However, it can easily be proved(via that very Reductio Ad Absurdum). So it is not indemonstratable. Axioms are ultimately irrational, meaning they cannot be analyzed further and pulled apart and have their logical pieced proven like other propositions. They are the base of the system in which we are contained(a la Gödel's incompleteness theorem). The above example proposition uses the non-contradiction axiom(through RAA) in order to disprove it. Axioms do not make use of proofs; only non-axiom propositions rely upon axioms. So, the NAP is not axiomatic, because it can be proven(see UPB), it has constituent logical components that build up the proof of the conclusion. Also, saying you cannot prove a negative is to assert that "no circumstance exists in which one can prove a negative" which is the form of what you define as being a negative(from your formulation of the NAP in your first line). So you are claiming that what you've stated cannot be proved.

I checked out your post, Jason. The notion of an "on-line public notary system" is interesting but I'd like to know more. Would you briefly walk me through the technical use case of your solution and how it satisfies the stated goal? Always a reason, Boss! I may still release the source code but if I do, there are no take backs. So I'm debating the pros and cons and keeping the code private for now until I decide.

https://github.com/bsherard/BlockExplorer Its just a hobbyist app designed to pad my resume but it also serves to show how easy it is to get into this space. It took about 40 hours of work stretched over a month, starting from when I knew very little of the technical specifics of the blockchain and its script stack to being able to navigate it. Additionally, the last 20 hours or so was spent having fun over-engineering the data abstractions and design patterns; it wasn't time actually needed to build this. It is built in C# using WPF. It should work on any windows 7+ machine with .NET updated to 4.6.1 or higher. Some technical details: it uses services meant for devs, not for production. The Nbitcoin API I use to query the blockchain is designed to work with QBitNinja client and server. That server is hosted freely by the developers of that project. A true production setup would require that I also host my own QBitNinja server and point the app to that. Sample screenshot:

My thoughts on an app for avoiding products that are sold by corrupt parent companies would function like this: You're at the grocery store, and you see a selection of cereal. In the app, you take a picture of a logo like you would scan a QR code. The app serializes the data into metadata including a hashed fingerprint of the image. This is all done locally so far. That data is then sent like any standard JSON rest request to a central service that parses the fingerprint, matches it with a known image fingerprint stored in the server DB. That matched result is associated with a company object, which has a reference to a parent company, and so on until it reaches the top owner. That metadata is sent back down to the client. Rather than deciding on its own, the user can decide whether or not to boycott that company that comes back in the result. He can create a black list in the app at his own pace which will warn the user when a returned name matches the filtered companies. The user can also download mantained blacklists based on his preferences.

My focus this entire election cycle has been not on the election itself, but on building on this energy in various ways, particularly after the election is over. Presidents don't matter; believing in them does and that same belief matters beyond merely politics. This momentum can become a cultural rennaisance if we foster it. Whether it be to bring the alt-right populism into a more rigorous philosophical direction while keeping its healthy body energy, or embracing more of the disenfranchised Sanders supporters or newly awakened traditional republican voters. The greatest quality of the alt-right or this trend against the mainstream in general is its pride. It isn't ashamed to be honest. It isn't afraid of being attacked. This is a movement of people who have no fear of peer on peer attack. This is a power that is unstoppable by conventional democratic methods of controlling people. We have to nurture this strength because it is the best damn weapon against social control I've ever seen. But setting aside abstractions for a moment, one practical way we can keep this ball rolling is with the media. It is on the ropes. All we need to do is keep pushing on them for how corrupt they were during the election, how directly complicit they were, conspiring with Hillary, letting her staff write their articles, let them review and edit their articles, secretly be unpaid propagandists for her. They committed fraud, libel, and violated pretty much every notion of journalistic ethics there is. Even the people who oppose Trump on policy can appreciate this election as a fight between honesty and corruption. We need to push this. We can't let them slither away and regroup. We have to keep going until they are all out of business and none of them can find jobs except at 3rd rate tabloids in some disreputable backwater far away from innocent people. Here are some good sources for some of the exposed corruption: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Exactly. Consequentialism is immaterial to the should. All that matters is whether or not the argument is true.

https://twitter.com/realEdwardSzall/status/792136346714374148 (direct youtube link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njN75nJdCAk All the abstract immoralities in the world don't inspire in me a sliver of the rage I feel having watched this video. This is what I am fighting. Not politicians, but the societies that breed them. The kind of world where this happens and not only does no one else intervene to help, but where the rest of the mob scurry in to tear up her property. This is a kind of pervasive belief in savagery that is accepted as normal and good.

This video helped to remind me that we still have a lot to suss out before we can be sure one way or another about genetics and cultural compatibility:

Thank you and the rest of the FDR team for using the community you've worked so hard to build to spread the truth about this issue.

Fascinating vid. Thanks for putting it up. Its fun to see how the psychology profession applies its own tools reflectively. I also enjoy seeing how those with a measure of self-knowledge behave(even knowing that self-knowledge is something one can obtain is a form of self-knowledge so even the incorrect psychologists are informative in this regard).

Duke Pesta makes a 2 hour case against common core, exposing the negative effects it has for children's education, the indoctrination the curriculum contains, and the motives behind its architects.

To encourage people to make the leap to peace, some require an environment hospitable to peaceful people and hostile to statists. Consider the lone man on some college campus screaming about how taxation is a form of theft. Everyone rolls their eyes and goes about their day. Consider a different environment where several people are all gathered together and all talking about the involuntary nature of taxation and one person joins them. People do not deal with arguments alone. They don't have the time and will not risk the effort to engage in such ideas if the speaker does not display any assurances of stability. People respond to ideas posed by some desperate individual begging them to listen differently than a whole society that dismisses anyone who disregards some belief. People don't evaluate the argument alone. They calculate what it means for them if they accept it. Many religious kids have heard all the arguments refuting deities but do not find them convincing until later when they are away from their parents. An argument is often not even the real issue being evaluated at all. So given all that, providing a community that does more than simply beg for people to listen to reason would go a long way towards inviting more people to the cause of peace and voluntarism. With regards to say comment sections and various social media sites, It can be very subtle things, like a comment section regarding some topic filled with people not all frantically insisting that some topic is right, but people unworriedly knowing thats the case and treating it as obvious, moving on to subsequent ideas. It can be people dismissing trolls and desperate liars rather than pretending they need any honest rebuttal of their sophistry. It can be people having fun and making jokes, being friendly with one another all under the umbrella of the posited idea in question. People coming in to such a conversation do not see a lone wolf begging for an audience. They see a community unconcerned with them. Simple things like that go a long way. A person who sees a guy wasting his time trying to beg trolls to be reasonable is not going to be very impressed. Anyone who ignores reality by trying to argue with liars is going to be estimated to be not very clear minded. Such a person is not likely to have anything worth listening to. So I think mockery, dismissal, jokes, all the social cues that indicate the nature of a group beyond the arguments themselves, but the actual actions of their champions, these are essential to inviting people to new ideas. I was inspired to make this post when I saw this comic. Somehow the mockery seemed more appropriate than the rigorous approach to dealing with some of this statist nonsense: http://redpanels.com/90/

Warning: don't drink anything while watching this clip or it may end up on your monitor.

I consume most of your content and enjoy it very much but this particular show was particularly wonderful to hear. The positive message of seeing people as potential creators backed up by all that data was uplifting. His book is now top on my list to read.

Thank you for sharing something so personal. It says a lot about your trust in people here. I won't tell you what you should do but I will point out some facts that I think matter. They are pretty basic points that you might already have considered but I think they are the most important so I'll say them anyway: you already know what you want(connection), its just a matter of finding it. If that connection is a romantic relationship, I doubt it will be easy. How many unmarried men also near your age would be of sufficient quality? Probably not too many, particularly if your standards include many of the principles shared among people here. Our convictions aren't terribly common. Plus most men in that age range are either still unmarried because they aren't suited for it or are divorced because again they aren't suited for it. One upside is that a lot of the nonsense younger people go through when dating is probably something you can avoid. Being completely honest about expectations from the very start can make the process efficient if clinical. I find that being immediately honest about the moral standards I hold is preferable to being circumspect and finally giving up on a person after slowly realizing through obtuse conversation just how opposed to basic principles they are. Its just a waste of time to test the waters slowly. I choose to dive right in and if I find nothing good then I can move on with my life. On a practical note, as unappealing as it might sound, it would increase the odds of success by really advertising your search for a partner. I don't know how well dating sites attract quality men but you can also involve yourself with the people around you more and find social connections that way to find someone. The worst that could happen is you find interesting hobbies and friends and you are set up on some akward dates by some of your new friends. I don't know how large your community is but in bigger cities, its very easy to find groups to do things. For example, I volunteer for a lot of charity work with a whole bunch of other people. One of my favorite volunteer groups goes to parks and we work to restore native plant species to the area so that it will eventually pave the way for other more fragile species to return. I like having things to do while I'm with people that doesn't feel contrived like going to a bar, perhaps you can find things like that to meet people as well, whatever hobby it happens to be. Facebook is probably the easiest way to find meetup groups if you aren't too adept with searching the web. Beyond a romantic relationship, connections to your community are essential for you as you get older. Its a practical way to ensure support as you start to slow down. The reason why I mentioned using connections from within your own community to find a potential partner is because even if that doesn't work out, it would be very much to your benefit to have a network of friends and neighbors to fall back on. Its a lot of work to build that support structure. You can't just see a person every once in a while for a trivial conversation for 10 minutes. You really have to make yourself a part of their life so that you both trust that each other will be there. I have one last less practical and more philisophical thought that you might find useful: you can try to fit in by adapting yourself to the common denominator or you can make the effort to look through more people to find yourself a better match. Its just a matter of how much effort you want to spend.

http://projectveritas.com/posts/news/undercover-common-core-video-executive-says-i-hate-kids-its-all-about-money

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

Some questions may help narrow down the precise problem: Do you speak with people much? If you are not very practiced then the first step is to just get out of your own head and practice talking to people more about anything. Stop reading, stop watching tv, stop playing video games, stop doing all those sorts of things and go talk to people. If you do speak with people sufficiently, do you notice that you have difficulty only when speaking of serious topics? If so, then the issue isn't ability to communicate but rather ability to handle the threat of adversity and rejection. That is not a problem with speaking fundamentally.

When I was threatened into going, I ended up just being a nuisance to the people selecting the jury. I challenged a lot of their assumptions. They had asked us what percentage of evidence we think should be required to convict someone. The question that finally got them to let me go free was about the definition of evidence and how one defines a unit of measure for it so that I would know what for instance "50% of the evidence" means. I was curious whether a single discrete peice of evidence was equal to another and not weighted in any way, so 1 DNA tests and 1 testimony would be considered identical. I asked the guy how one measures this. He just ended up repeating himself like he had ran off some script and couldn't do anything without it. He seemed pretty embarrassed and annoyed.

A ruler of a local geographical area receives money from the US government for each poor person contained therein. That local ruler begins gathering poor people, keeping them as a cash crop. Sound at all like Africa? It isn't; its in American basements in several major cities: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/06/tacony-dungeon-woman-sentenced-to-life-for-torturing-keeping-disabled-captive-to-collect-benefits/

That is a very interesting idea. I'm not much for entrepreneurial collaboration but I'll contribute anyway just for fun. - Bachelors in Applied and computational math sciences with a minor in mathematics - Software developer - Do occaisional music gigs, mostly session recordings(vocals) - Addicted to volunteering my time to open source software developement projects, usually related to math or algorithm libraries, gaming engines, and physics simulation stuff - Also, I make a really tasty hungarian mushroom soup

" i am glad to finally found a place where I can talk with some people who may understand me" Just beware that we might understand you more than you wish. You might find yourself in very personal conversations. You've been warned!