Mister Mister

Well it's good to know you don't spend time around people who hate you. But yes, I know what you mean. In general, it seems like there are a small number of "radicals" with different ideologies or causes, and a great deal of passion, but most of the population will just go along to get along: they like to think of themselves as moral and reasonable, but also don't want to stir the pot too much. Radicals capitalize on this by taking on the mantle of "feminism" as defined by a belief and movement striving for equality between the sexes. Who could be against that? Similarly, Black Lives Matter: don't you think that black lives matter?!?!?! But when you dig deeper, you find a common thread: a hatred of the dominant culture, of capitalism, of the nuclear family, of classical liberalism, commitment to identity politics and State privileges for certain groups, Marxist analysis of everything, etc.

Good video. It's very relevant because one of the things that these events seem to be leading to is a Nationalization of the police force: Hillary has pledged to put $1 billion into "retraining" the police, which is obviously the next step.

not sure but I think Stef has said he was planning to release a show on the topic

I see. I didn't mean to be snarky about "why is this important", just curious. I can certainly see from an artist's perspective why you would wonder this - I wonder the same kind of thing as a musician. There are tones and harmonies which are naturally pleasing, and others which are more disturbing. Music form and composition is really all about arranging these in such a way to achieve an effect on the listener. Another way of saying it, is that most musicians are generally trying to push the boundaries of the sounds people are comfortable with, often the idea is to induce tension or discomfort, then to resolve it. I wonder if it's the same for visual art.

End the warfare/welfare state, kill identity politics, inject some skepticism towards multiculturalism and altruism, and it will sort itself out I believe.

Probably, like most things, it is roughly 75% genes, 20% environment, and 5% choice. Why is this important?

Hey thanks for the response. Like I said, maybe we should make a new thread if we want to talk about this further, as this thread is in the "Introduce Yourself" section. Your approach does sound similar to what I understand Bill Gaede's to be. I agree that things like forces and fields and waves are simply concepts that don't really offer a rational empirical explanation as to the cause of physical phenomena. I liken it to primitive peoples, who believe there is a Tornado God at the center of a cyclone. Now let's say they developed a mathematics to roughly predict the behavior of these cyclones. What's even more concerning is the invention of unfalsifiable objects like virtual particles, black holes, dark matter, super-strings, and so on, which, unlike gravity or magnets, can't even be measured!!! Or the Copenhagen interpretation and the invention of Quantum Logic which basically argues that matter has a contradictory identity, which of course goes against the fundamentals of Aristotelian Logic. I like your focus on "the big questions", and the humility to admit we still don't know the answer to these questions. I wonder, however, if you haven't phrased the question entirely correctly. We see an apparent attraction between one planet and the next, and assume the attractive force or power lies WITHIN the planet somehow, but personally I am compelled by the idea that the explanation lies in what is going on between them that we can't see. Maybe you have heard of Walter Russell or Viktor Schauberger who put out theories similar to this, or perhaps you think it sounds like Aether theory which is supposedly debunked. Anyway I'm just a novice at this stuff but I find it interesting. I'd love for you to start a new post in the Science section.

The importance of IQ is to understand why different groups have varying degrees of success. The leftist narrative is that white countries are rich, and other places are poor because we stole from them, enslaved and oppressed them. And that blacks and other racial groups don't do as well within white countries because of racism. Race and IQ is an important piece to understanding why this is BS. If it is not genetic but something else, that's interesting, but unless that gives us a way to increase IQ, I'm not sure how relevant that is.

That's interesting, but at the moment, we don't have a way to raise IQ significantly (apart from less hitting and more breastfeeding as I mentioned), so even if it isn't genetic, the major arguments hold.

just because there are gray areas with regards to applying the NAP, such as abortion, selling heroin to a 12 year old, shooting a kid with a fake gun, property disputes, pollution, and so on, doesn't mean it isn't a valid principle to begin with. but in 95-99% of human disputes, it is actually very clear. nitpicking over whether the duckbilled platypus is a bird or a mammal or neither, is fun and kinda interesting, but not that important to biology as a whole, and not a reason to throw out the categories of bird and mammal altogether.

hi there and welcome! so are you an objectivist critic of modern science, a la Bill Gaede or David Harriman? I have some interest/sympathy in this perspective, but I don't know that much. I've also had some major resistance making these arguments in this community. Can you tell us more?

free speech is first and foremost a cultural value before it is a government policy Except according to the liberal ethos, companies CAN'T do as they like - i.e. Christian bakers who won't bake gay wedding cakes should be fined by the government.

Yes that is my primitive understanding of it. Another comparison Stef uses that is helpful is height: height is mostly genetic, though environmental factors can negatively affect it. If you feed a kid more, he won't grow taller, just fatter, but if you don't feed him enough he may not be as tall as he would otherwise. Similarly, circumcision, lack of breastfeeding, spanking, and neglect can negatively impact a child's IQ, but there isn't anything we know of that boosts their IQ that much. IQ tends to correlate to certain life outcomes such as criminality, income, divorce, life expectancy, and so on. In the same way, height tends to correlate to success on the basketball court. However, a short person can work hard and become a decent basketball player. Similarly, a person with average or lower IQ can still do great things, be productive, be virtuous, and loved in their community and family. However, the lies we have put out in society over the last 50 or 60 years make it nearly impossible to do so. The Cultural Marxist drug of Victimology gives a release to the frustrations of the simpleton, and denies him the facts, the arguments for virtue, the skills and motivation, to overcome his mental deficiency. Another way of saying it, is that less intelligent people need clear cues from society about what kind of choices they should make to have a happy, healthy, and productive life. In a funny way, it is less intelligent people who benefit from philosophy the most! This would be the Software, or Operating System, in your computer analogy. Art, in particular, I believe, is a way for more intelligent people to impress values and virtues on less intelligent people. In the past, I think religion did a decent job of serving this function, but that has largely fallen away in the West.

Nope. Where all this is leading is federalization of the police. Obama and Hillary have said so fairly explicitly.

hi and welcome

This always made me laugh, because I can't count the number of times I was told at school by some boring sad middle-aged teacher, "Mr. Rose, you're not here to socialize".

You have it backwards. You can't get an is without an ought in the first place -- if you want to know what is true, you ought to follow reason and evidence. Also, along the same lines, if you are rejecting the validity of normative statements, on what basis can you tell me to change my behavior?

Yes you can.

Objectivism was Ayn Rand's attempt at reviving Aristotle's philosophy based on reason and objective reality. Unfortunately, many of her followers have strayed from this methodology and accept her conclusions instead. Stef and others use the same methodology but have made contributions. UPB is a more consistent and rigorous approach to ethics than Ayn Rand's "that which furthers man's life is good".

That's kind of a tall order, given the sheer amount of content that Stef has put out. It also can be overwhelming to give someone hours of reading or podcast-listening assignments. I try to recommend one or two podcasts relevant to issues that the person cares about, or something we have talked about. Then you can gauge by their reaction whether or not an honest conversation is possible.

Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish. Not all States are the same. If you had the choice between living under the government of Switzerland, or of North Korea, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, does that really make no difference to you?

Let me make a reductio ad absurdum to see if I can make the point better. If you had a choice between being ruled by a local government - city or county, or by a global government, whose decisions you had little/no control over, would you have any kind of preference as a libertarian? Is it all the same, just because in the local scenario, you are still ruled by a government? A philosophical revolution is not the only kind of win for liberty. Wouldn't you consider privatization of healthcare or education, or legalization of drugs, or America downsizing it's Empire, a win for liberty?

Brexit is a small rare win for liberty. It doesn't mean we still can't argue for a stateless society from a pure principled position, but if all of Europe erupts in racial civil war, your philosophical nitpicking won't do good for anyone.

what a cool story! It always makes me happy to hear about these ideas spreading to other parts of the world. Can you say more about Argentinian culture and politics? My understanding is that Argentina was one of the more prosperous countries in the Americas, but fell victim to decades of socialist experiments.

I think Stef has moved on from this kind of academic analysis. Maybe you or one of the other members can do a rebuttal video/article? Off the top of my head, the two points I would make are: the poor have a way higher standard of living today than they did 100 years ago, and the role of central banking in providing artificially high returns on investments.