Mister Mister

Hello. Can you tell us more about your experience with growing up in a modern European Socialist society? What kind of obstacles does the State create in your country? What would you say to Americans who think that a place like Holland is where it's at politically? How did you come to be skeptical about the State? Have you talked with other people around you about this, and what is the reaction of friends and family to your rejection of the State?

Attributing a Personality Disorder as a result of history is not the same as diagnosing a mental illness which absolves one of moral responsibility.

although psychopaths currently have used the State to "legally" kidnap millions of peaceful people in the real world, today, who are serially raped, beaten. and sometimes killed, a Stateless Society in your imagination might have trouble with the odd psychopath kidnapper who has single-handedly built a completely self-sufficient and impenetrable home...where is this going really?

I think it is pretty fascinating how much of a stir this has created. Let me share my experience - I chuckled at the video at first, then had some nervous laughter at the "did you touch your own butthole as a child" part, then when the subtle criticism of "I was spanked as a boy, but boys and girls are different, and you only have a girl", came in, I was genuinely upset. A lot of us were spanked as boys and have come to consider this as very wrong, and there is an underlying argument in this video that it is okay to spank (only) boys, presumably because they can be more rambunctious, defiant, difficult, etc... This is sexist and enabling, and personal to many of us, and particularly annoying when couched in this underhanded way. It starts off as a silly video and subtly slips in a criticism of a pretty essential moral argument about spanking at the end without resolving anything. It is annoying when moral arguments are couched in the guise of humor, and all criticism is dismissed as "don't be so serious bro". Jon Stewart and other sophists do this all the time. My older brother used to be great at it. He would shame me for being opinionated or passionate about something like war or the police, but at the same time he can get incredibly passionate about relatively shallow topics such as preferences in music or food. So it's not an attack or criticism of you, but I am just sharing my experience that this video and your reaction to some of our criticism of it reminds me of emotional manipulation that I have experienced that really bothered me. It really seems to me that you came prepared to confront people on this board that: -we/they cannot tolerate criticism of Stef -don't have a sense of humor, take things too seriously I have seen many criticisms of things Stef has said on these forums, but I think it is appreciated when people own their arguments rather than hiding behind "it's just a joke". Also I would say that anyone who enjoys FDR probably has a great sense of humor, in contrast to Alex Jones or Abby Martin or many other people who talk about serious issues, Stef has a great sense of humor IMO. Without undermining peoples' feelings (most of the time) he is great at lightening up serious topics with humor. I have found myself in stitches at many of his metaphors, insights, catching people on Freudian slips, etc. Way funnier than the video you posted. So I'm not sure that criticism is really accurate. There is a time for seriousness and a time for humor, but you are trying to tell me that I am "too serious" because you find something funny while I find it offensive. If you find it funny and I don't that's fine, but you are acting like my disagreement is an attack on you, which feels like a dismissal of my feelings. Perhaps a more constructive conversation would be about why you found it funny, and why others don't. I tried to start this by explaining why it bothered me.

Thank you Josh, that was some very insightful and helpful explanation of the mind of the leftists/relativists, I particularly found it interesting that they are skeptical of absolutism because they associate it with fundamentalist religion and other fascist ideologies. I have been called "totalitarian" for unilaterally rejecting using the State to "solve" social problems. I tried to explain the definition of totalitarian, and how I am anything but, he only doubled down. Mind you this is from someone who I now don't talk to and believe to have a personality disorder, but this mentality makes more sense to me. We can seem (and perhaps some of us are) religious about the NAP, and many liberals consider this an impediment to "practically" getting things done. Another thing that comes to mind is the excuses, and calls of racist, when facts/statistics about race are brought up, like for example the violence within the black community. The same is true of what you said about "Islamophobia". They fear that facts like this, without being qualified, will lead to violence against certain groups. I think the answer to this mindset,instead of the objectivist approach which just asserts absolutes - "violence is wrong", is the UPB approach, which points out ways in which the leftist framework itself is absolutist. I was recently in an argument where someone said that "a rational consistent morality" is unrealistic because there are a plurality of views in society, therefore democracy. I pointed out that libertarianism allows for far more plurality than democracy - allowing for multiple approaches to family, to drug addiction, to charity, to race, to currency, and so on, while any variety of Statism imposes one view on everyone else, be it sanctioned by the majority of people or not. If morality is relative then how do we justify millions of laws which apply to millions of people? This gave him pause I think. I remember in the Bomb in the Brain pt. 4, "The Death of Reason", Stef mentioned the study where they compared the brain of the conservative to the liberal, that conservatives are hardwired to respond to threats, i.e. terrorists, foreigners, drug-users, criminals, and so on, as well as an appreciation for clear structures, whereas the liberal brain could accomodate more complexity. There was obviously a liberal bias in how the results were presented, to which Stef presented a slight criticism - that more structure is not necessarily bad, that leftists tend to get lost in the fog of endless relativism. This is the only time I've heard him mention this. Does anyone have any thoughts or can point me to a podcast which goes in more depth on the origins of this kind of relativism - possibly verbal/emotional manipulation?

hrmmm correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me like you did that whole thing to slip in a criticism under the guise of a joke. are you suggesting that Stef cannot criticize spanking boys because he only has a daughter and not a son?

Seems like a lot of good stuff, but when she invokes the patriarchy it seems like she is undermining her whole argument. It's like she's saying, "You have to take accountability for yourself, and place accountability on your parents for the harm they did. But don't blame anyone. Except the patriarchy (all men ever)". It doesn't quite follow. It's like she's using this tired mythological concept to give people an out to placing accountability, while stressing the importance of accountability and responsibility. But remember, you are not entirely accountable, because the patriarchy is secretly motivating everything you and your parents do.

Yes you are assuming that all the costs will be the same, that all the services will be the same, that everyone will have to pay for these things. Once you remove coercion, it's not going to look the same. At all. The police, the courts, the prisons, the schools, the currency itself, will all look entirely different, there will be 100 kinds of solutions to these problems for all different kinds of situations, all being negotiated and innovated all the time. Who will build the roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

I think it is partially related to the Socratic dialogue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Yes he is sounding more secular and more socialist at the same time -- adopting the strategy of the Jews in the last two centuries. Not sure that this is progress. Also I haven't been convinced of the BBT for some time, but that's maybe a topic for another thread.

Yes, it lacks any consistent goals, any explanation of rational virtues that we can live by, and any falsifiability.

Sorry there was a lot you said in there, can we try to unpack that. Really broad statements without explicating the reasoning behind them are not going to fly on this forum, so let's try to delve a little deeper. I'm not sure what you mean. Voluntarism as we understand it means human relations in the absence of coercion. Are you saying that 99% of people rely on force and coercion in their daily affairs? Not only that, but that they MUST rely on . I can't help but think this is just a justification for your own situation as a recipient of government money. How do you know that you cannot rely on voluntary exchange? Can you not sell your music? Can you not make money as a music teacher? How do you know if you aren't trying? If people aren't willing to pay money for your music, are you comfortable with the State using violence to force them? Would you be willing to use force to this ends in the absence of a State? Yes jobs don't grow on trees...it's hard to even respond to something like that. This common language of treating "jobs" like they are products that people consume is really sad and misleading, I wonder if it comes from Public School where the student is always receiving assignments rather than going out in the world to see what value they can provide. Can I ask as an aside, what is your history with schooling, and with work in general? A "job" is an agreement between two people, where they agree to some exchange of value for value, typically time/energy/labor for money. Unfortunately money is another dysfunctional government program, but I don't believe it needs to be. What does it mean a universal basic income NEEDS to be implemented? It's a really obscure use of words. Think about what you are actually saying. If I understand, you are saying that basic resources necessary to sustain life NEED to be provided to EVERYONE. By whom? If human beings are required to provide those things THEN IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL. You have to divide people into those who need to implement it, and those who receive it. Unless you are proposing that robots do all the providing like the Zeitgeist people. Which is fine I guess as long as you don't use force. But that will still require an incredible amount of human energy at least to implement, if it is possible. Just put down the guns please. But let's say you are right. How will you take action in your life toward this moral cause you believe in?

Well on the one hand there is no guarantee that people won't do bad things in the absence of a government. But also I would say you may be approaching this from the wrong point of view. A stateless society is merely the result of enough people being convinced of rational ethics: Universal Non-Aggression and Property Rights. It is not a "system" that we build over the ruins of the old one, but rather it is a society in the absence of superstitious beliefs about ethics, law, authority, nations, and so on. So rather than trying to convince someone that you have some vision for society that is better than this one, I would question their ideas about ethics in order to figure where they disagree with Non-Aggression and Property Rights, and WHY, and what it would look like to act on these principles IN YOUR OWN LIFE, rather than supporting or condeming some system (which is of little relevance). That said, I will also offer this on the topic. A more rational system of law might be to withdraw resources from a supposed offender, rather than to steal resources from everyone in order to give them free room & board in a cage. There are many precedents for this: economic & social ostracism can be very powerful. While it is immoral to lock a drug-user in prison, it may actually be a practical solution to ostracize them unless they agree to some kind of treatment. Now, it also may be that the community has irrational beliefs, for example, that homosexuals should be shunned. If this is the case, it is far more subject to correction than State law. Violence tends to escalate, in the case of the drug war for example, it has gotten so ridiculous and catastrophic that there is a war developing along the border, and governments are willing to escalate the violence and fight this war rather than consider that they have been wrong about drugs all along. This would be to acknowledge that they have been taking part in the assault and kidnapping of millions of peaceful victims, and it is very rare and difficult for people to redefine ethics so as to define themselves as evil. The same goes for wrongful imprisonment, or any number of failed social programs - the tendency is to double-down. If, on the other hand, the consequences of breaking a community's law was mere ostracism, there is a lot more flexibility. Families and friends of the homosexual, or the wrongly accused man, could break the social norm and reach out to him, even as a minority they have a great deal of social and economic power whereas today minorities have virtually NO political power. In general it would be easier for a society to apologize for ostracism than for violence, and to make restitution, whereas there is no practical ethical restitution for 10 years of unjust imprisonment. If, on the other hand, as I think you are suggesting, a society is still using barbaric practices such as imprisonment for non-violent "crimes", the power of ostracizing can again work to correct this. If there is one community enforcing barbaric practices surrounded by more rational communities who now refuse to trade with them, they will quickly find themselves either blinking out of existence, or having to rethink their foolish ways. There are many examples of how trade & communication can overcome violence, and this is how it will/must be eventually done at a large scale. Hope that gives you a new angle to think about this.

That's very interesting. Some practical questions that come to mind: What kind of resources would you need and how would you pay for it - donations, registration fees, dues, etc.? How would you pitch this group to kids and their parents - what do you have to offer that is different, why is it better, as well as practically what will be your media of advertising and promotion? What kind of laws/regulations might you have to overcome?

Just to clarify, they don't say learning self-defense is rape-enabling, but that encouraging women to learn self-defense to prevent rape is apologizing for rape. The same is true if you advocate teaching women to identify dangerous people and situations - a recent promotion of a nail-polish which detects the (extremely rare) date rape drugs in drinks triggered the same reaction. Of course a man who rapes a drunk woman is despicable and guilty of a horrible and violent crime. But to ask if she could have identified a dangerous situation and removed herself is actually empowering women, not blaming anybody. Just like when you buy a home-security system people say you are apologizing for theft. WHY DON'T WE JUST TEACH MEN NOT TO STEAL!!!! Or markers that detect fake money are apologizing for counterfeiting. WHY DON'T WE JUST TEACH MEN NOT TO COUNTERFEIT?!!! It's so ridiculous when you apply a little thought to it. But no one wants to be thought of as a rape apologist, so as an emotionally reactive shaming tactic it is very effective. But you have to wonder about their motivation. I think that subconsciously they must want to keep women thinking of themselves as victimized and powerless, leading them to "need feminism" and all its political power and academic influence. It's pretty tragic when you think of its effects on the female psyche - I have a roommate who has at times expressed a lot of anxiety and paranoia about predatory men. At the same time, it seems to me that she has a pattern of being attracted to men who are not violent necessarily, but at least cold and dishonest. She has confessed to wanting to save or improve them, to melt their icy hearts with her feminine warmth, to turn the Beast into a Prince with True Love's Kiss. These relationships have ended badly of course, and now she just seems genuinely bitter, and will openly say she "hates men". I objected, probably the first time she has seen a man stick up for their gender, asking "I'm a man, do you hate me?" and she went into a kind of dissociative state, accompanied by what seemed like a childlike alter ego, responding with something like "no you're my friend, that doesn't count". Anyway sorry to go into a rant about a personal situation but my point was that the feminist narrative of perpetual victimhood seems to provide damaged women with an ideological drug, to relieve their anxiety over bad relationships with men in their life, to project their personal issues onto SOCIETY, PATRIARCHY, and other abstractions (note how for my roommate, "men" was an abstraction removed from the reality of a real man in her life who isn't predatory or dishonest) at the expense of self-knowledge and personal growth. "Make the personal political" is a call for victims to offer themselves up as sacrificial objects to a predatory ideology

Is anyone familiar with the emerging young artist Hozier? He is a great singer and writes interesting songs with a strong emotional content. I bring it up here because a lot of his lyrics seem to be about some deep and interesting issues, religious indoctrination, child abuse, sexual repression, and so on. These two particular songs have some interesting content. It's interesting to me when these things brush up with pop culture. Take Me to Church My lover's got humour She's the giggle at a funeral Knows everybody's disapproval I should've worshiped her sooner If the heavens ever did speak She's the last true mouthpiece Every Sunday's getting more bleak A fresh poison each week 'We were born sick,' you heard them say it My Church offers no absolutes. She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.' The only heaven I'll be sent to Is when I'm alone with you— I was born sick, But I love it Command me to be well Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. [Chorus 2x:] Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, let me give you my life If I'm a pagan of the good times My lover's the sunlight To keep the Goddess on my side She demands a sacrifice Drain the whole sea Get something shiny Something meaty for the main course That's a fine looking high horse What you got in the stable? We've a lot of starving faithful That looks tasty That looks plenty This is hungry work [Chorus 2x:] Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife Offer me my deathless death Good God, let me give you my life No Masters or Kings When the Ritual begins There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene Only then I am Human Only then I am Clean Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. [Chorus 2x:] Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, let me give you my life Cherry Wine Her eyes and words are so icy Oh but she burns Like rum on the fire Hot and fast and angry As she can be I walk my days on a wire It looks ugly, but it's clean Oh mamma, don't fuss over me [Chorus:] The way she tells me I'm hers and she is mine Open hand or closed fist would be fine The blood is rare and sweet as cherry wine Calls of guilty thrown at me All while she stains The sheets of some other Thrown at me so powerfully Just like she throws with the arm of her brother But I want it, it's a crime That she's not around most of the time [Chorus:] Way she shows me I'm hers and she is mine Open hand or closed fist would be fine The blood is rare and sweet as cherry wine Her fight and fury is fiery Oh but she loves Like sleep to the freezing Sweet and right and merciful I'm all but washed In the tide of her breathing And it's worth it, it's divine I have this some of the time [Chorus:] Way she shows me I'm hers and she is mine Open hand or closed fist would be fine The blood is rare and sweet as cherry wine

This became an issue when in some beauty pageant, one of the contestants, Miss Nevada I think, who was a 4th degree black belt in Judo, was asked about the issue of rape. Among other things she mentioned that women could be taught to defend themselves. There was a huge backlash by feminists, accusations of victim-blaming, rape-apologizing, and touting the now cliched "OR WE COULD JUST TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE!!!" which is so idiotic and ignorant of the causes of violence I don't know where to begin. Julie Borowski and other conservatives who have argued that gun ownership can allow women to protect themselves from rape have met with similar reactions. My take on it, is that if women can actually do something in their lives, learn self-defense, learn to spot predators, identify potential rapists to other women, remove themselves from potentially dangerous situations, take a stand against child abuse (which is the real way to teach boys not to become violent men), etc., they don't need to whine and complain and appeal to the massive political/academic machine of modern feminism. So they need to promote a hysteria of powerlessness, which I suspect comes from a deep personal feeling of powerlessness.

it gets really fascinating around 42' mark, when the fellow with the white hair and beard challenges Jordan for his "hostility towards feminism" indicative of "fear and anger about a loss of control". Then he really made my jaw drop when he said "you don't arrive at truth by [saying things which may be uncomfortable to people]. You arrive at truth by consensus" wtf????!!! First of all, he avoids Jordan's very well-stated point about how the bottom of society is populated mostly by men, for which no one has any sympathy. But his point about the fear and anger about a loss of control" seems like total projection to me. It's certainly true for a lot of men in the MRA circles. But it is also certainly true about feminists. There was an old saying among feminists, "make the personal, political", in other words, project your anxiety and dissatisfaction on all of society, all of the world (its interesting how one major theme of FDR is about the exact opposite, making the political personal). but the victimhood hysteria, for example the implication that teaching women self-defense is rape-enabling, suggests a feeling of powerlessness in their own lives that they want to project onto all women, and men for that matter. It gets even more strange when he suggests that any man who says any truth which makes people uncomfortable, is doing it to dominate people, and that truth is arrived at by consensus. Really fascinating...and scary

I'm sorry that happened to you. I couldn't help but notice that you alluded to how your father is Christian, and immediately it came to my mind how your story is so similar to the story of Genesis and the Forbidden Fruit. Presumably Yahweh knows the curious nature of the people he has created, and telling them "eat all the fruits BUT THIS ONE" is clearly a set up. So from a Christian's point of view, this kind of sick game is perfectly acceptable.

This is the problem with kids these days, they just aren't disciplined like they used to be.

^ Thank you, I really appreciate your response, and I am embarrassed for speaking so confidently out of ignorance. I have to read what you wrote again and think about it some more.

Sorry I just had to comment I laughed out loud upon reading when "Religious White Knight" offered up the Bible as a good manual on how to treat women respectfully. How people take themselves seriously??!!!

yes I did think it was admirable, and was slightly touched. Then I read some of the comments...Good fucking Lord what bunch of nasty people, with a few exceptions

I had a hard time understanding UPB after just reading the book, it was too abstract for me to get in theory. But after seeing it demonstrated by Stef, by Socrates, by children, and many others, it has started to make sense. It isn't so much a claim about how everyone ought to behave, but a tool, a weapon, against false ethics used by sociopaths and narcissists and predators and parasites of the human kind, as well as the ignorant and cowardly who repeat them. When some behavior is imposed on you as an obligation, a virtue is claimed, or one is accused of vice, extract the principle, reverse it, and attempt to universalize it. Ask "Is it universalizeable? And does the criticism apply to the accuser?" This is the Socratic method basically, applied to moral claims. Children do this all the time. Older children will impose rules which have been imposed on them both on other children and on adults, "you should share that." "don't hit" "be nice" and so on, and get really angry when those same adults who imposed the rules in the first place then change them. UPB as I understand is not so much as the final say in ethics, as a methodology for calling these people on their BS. Typical propaganda like "healthcare is a right", or "taxation is legitimate because you use or benefit from government services" fail this test - making things which require other peoples' time and energy and expertise a "right" divides mankind into those with a moral obligation and those with a right so it is not universal. If the government can tax you for services which "benefit" you without needing your agreement, why cant I paint peoples houses, clean their cars, deliver them sandwiches give them backrubs, etc. and demand a legal right to whatever I decide it costs? Again it is not universal. From this follows the question, "Ok, so if ethics are commonly used just to manipulate and prey upon people, are there any reasonable behaviors which can actually be expected from EVERYONE?". Actions prohibited by the Non-Aggression Principle seem to fall into this category, it is reasonable to expect this behavior of everyone - even those who would knowingly violate the NAP with no remorse still don't want others to violate it against them - as Stef has pointed out any thief or any murderer would prefer to be the ONLY thief and murderer in society (i.e. the King). Beyond that we can establish conditional rules in relationships based on values and preferences, such as "tell the truth", "show up to work on time", "you must like Pink Floyd" and so on, but we don't have the right to impose these on those who don't agree. Sorry I may have not explained this to the satisfaction of the most rigorous thinker but this is how I have come to understand it and found it very useful.

^Also Nausica and the Valley of the Wind which is my favorite. Come think of it, it is very similar conceptually to a movie I saw recently that I wanted to mention, called How to Train your Dragon. In both stories the hero is an adolescent who is a bit different, in a very traditionalist culture that is primarily concerned about conflict with a particular enemy, in Nausica it is giant bugs from the poisoned forest, and in the other one it is dragons. The hero is different in that they empathize with the supposed enemy, and find that there is a more constructive approach to the problems of the tribe/society, they discover a win-win approach that makes things easier rather than the win-lose approach which perpetuates conflict. At first they are shamed for their betrayal of the tribe, but in the end they save the day. Thank you for your feedback. I will have to check out those movies. I am a huge fan of Terry Pratchett so I will especially look into that. I share your caution with Disney movies. I recently watched The Little Mermaid for the first time in probably 20 years and I was pretty shocked. There is some weird subliminal sexual imagery, where the Father Figure Poseidon lives amongst a tower of penises, and the evil Mother Figure Ursula (not explicitly a mother, this is common in fairy tales - a mother by blood cannot be portrayed as evil in the culture, but if she is a step-mother or a witch it is acceptable) lives in a vagina clam. Ariel is a sheltered, pampered princess whose only friend is a pet, and who collects material possessions to fill the void left by her alienation. Her normally warm and doting father goes into a rage and destroys her collection, in a pretty terrifying portrayal of parental anger, which prompts her betrayal of his commandment to avoid the surface-dwellers. So she enlists the help of the witch Ursula to help her pursue the romantic interest her father has forbade her, and receives the curse of losing her voice, with the instruction that men prefer women who don't talk. It's all pretty fucked up and at a young age it is too much to process.