jpahmad

I'm not saying they (the libertarians) are not lying. I don't know. Maybe someone like a Ron Paul would do nothing and maybe he would actually work to remove legislation. There is only one way to find out. But, if someone like that were to get elected in the future, that means that the majority of the population would approve of such measures as removing legislation. So, it's just one end of the equation. The other end of the equation is of course teaching about the non-aggression principle. Broken? It depends on what the instrument is for.

Not if you vote for someone who is going to remove the force and dismantle the government. A libertarian candidate for example

Just vote in self-defense. Force is being used against you. Voting to remove the force doesn't violate the NAP.

No, the beneficiary of the stolen bike is exonerating the actions of the original aggressor. I can't believe you don't get this. The immigrants are intentionally and knowingly utilizing stolen goods. This is aggression. If you walk into a bike store and buy my stolen bike, knowing that is my bike, you are aggressing against me. Me using force against you is simply self-defense.

Here we go again with this "there is no objective truth" jargon. I'm sorry. I can't have a relationship of any kind with someone who makes a claim like that.

You do realize that if every behavior is aggression, then "aggression" has no meaning. You would have to admit that there is no such thing as aggression at all. An, if there is no such thing as aggression at all, then how can there be the opposite of aggression, which is, "cooperation" or "consent"? It seems that in your world, language has no meaning. The article is absurd. Illogical, and self-detonating.

I see where you're going with this. Taking up space is aggression . Using oxygen is aggression. Batting an eyelash is aggression (the butterfly effect). If every movement in the universe is aggression, then the word has no meaning, because it has no opposite.

What do you mean "without rules"?

If someone steals my bike. Isn't it still my bike? If given the option, shouldn't I still be able to at least say who gets to ride it? The immigrants who utilize urban infrastructure/utilities/school etc..are knowingly making use of stolen goods. They're not just simply "moving from one place to another." They're knowingly consuming stolen property. It's collusion.

So basically you asking how to get from A to B. I have an answer. And I'm going to be presenting it in the next video I do. I'm working on it now. A few things I want you to consider right now though. You can vote in self-defense (this is consistent with the non-aggression principle) If you think a libertarian candidate will dismantle an entity that is using force against you, then by all means vote for that candidate. When someone has a gun pointing at them, they are not a moral agent any more. Therefore, voting in self-defense is not anything to be morally concerned about. (I'm still exploring this angle though) Using force to deport illegal immigrants is legit because it involves defending property rights. (This is highly contentious obviously, but I think I've got the logic behind it) The more free a society is, the better ability it has to defend itself. Governments don't provide security, technology and happy productive people provides security. Therefore, a government is not only ineffective when it comes to self-defense, but actually inhibits self-defense. The less government, the more commerce, the more technology, the more superior in every way a society becomes (including self-defense) Finally, change people voting habits by convincing them to vote differently. Get them to vote libertarian. This can only be done the long-hard way. That's all I got for now. I'm still working through a lot of the thinking though. So those six bullet points might be a little premature.

Have you read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux?

doesn't the word "slander" imply dishonesty on the part of the person who is doing the slandering? I thought that "slander" was when someone says something about someone else that isn't true. Otherwise, it wouldn't be slander, it would just be the truth.

Good question Thomasio. The answer is that in a free society everything would be privately owned. So, if someone tries to kill me, I not only can kill them in self-defense, but I can kill them if they're on my property without my permission. My neighbors would also be able to kill them if the guy who attempted to murder me was on their property. And so, because I would most likely report the incident to an private organization that oversees security in what ever community I live in, that guy would be ostracized out of the entire geographical area. Unless, he agrees to certain terms, like rehab or something.

Thanks for the feedback. I suppose I could have slowed down. But, then I would have had to make more graphic slides and I was getting tired of the whole project. So, I just figured people would maybe watch it twice.

It's made up. Like all principles

I don't. I read the script and then trashed it after the video was finished. I also inserted some stuff into the voice-over that I had not originally written down.

Yeah, but it comes with the territory. I suppose there could be another way to phrase it, but what would be that way? Stefan Molyneux titles his own book on the topic "A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics", so I figured if he could do it, so could I. Other than that, was there anything else that was problematic? (I hope not, because I already shared it with everyone I know)

I'm crossing my fingers with this video. I hope I didn't screw it up. I did my best to summarize UPB in a way that anyone can easily understand. I'm very pleased with it and I think it is very powerful. My whole family is watching these videos I'm making and I'm about to "drop the bomb" on them with this one. My only goal is to effectively change their voting behavior and their belief in government as a whole. They have been agreeing with me all the way so far! I also teach a bunch of teenagers and they are always wanting to see my videos. So, this one is for them as well. It's a game changer.

Many people enjoy being immoral. Politicians for example. You can add dictators to that as well. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same.

I never said there was no such thing as morality. Morality exists and you can be moral or can choose to not be moral. I don't see what this has to do with nihilism. I enjoy being moral and I try to surround myself with people who do the same.

No one said you had to be moral. You can do whatever you want

Yeah, I just watched it the other day

I don't know. I have known a couple people who were on them for a very short period of time once in their lives and never went back. It seems that your statistics are telling though. I'll have to research myself before I can comment on that. "Imbalance" and "balance" really don't have any meaning other than to maybe point to the fact that someone's current chemical make-up in their brains is different than what it usually is. I'm sure this is the case. Our brains chemical behavior changes by the hour no matter what. I don't think it's that far fetched to imagine a state where the brain produces an unusual amount certain chemicals for some particular reason or another. Surely this could cause a change in emotion. The brain is just part of the body. If other organs can "malfunciton", why can't the brain? No one knows. One can lead to the other. A traumatic experience can lead to depression, that's for sure. But I think once something is triggered, and it depends on the particular chemistry of each person, this can cause the descent into depression and it becomes very hard to reverse it without help. It's really not different. You just don't get drunk There are good doctors and bad doctors in the world. Just like there are good therapists and be therapists. I wouldn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Fire can burn someone's house down, that doesn't mean fire doesn't have its wonderful applications.

Did you read my post? I said that the drugs must be accompanied by therapy.

If someone prescribes them to a patient and says "this is all you need", then that is horrible. Though, I have never met a medical professional that has made that claim and I am around lots of them. Everyone in the field seems to understand that these drugs are just tools to be used along with proper cognitive therapy and life management. There are other effects or "side effects" of the drug. But this is to be expected. What drug doesn't have them? Quitting cold turkey is terribly irresponsible and is never recommended by a professional. As far as no plan to ween off, I think this is empirically no the case. All patients of neurosis, once stabilized by the drug and, after a certain period of time, are encouraged to try to ween off. However, for a certain percentage of people, they will inevitably have a relapse and will need to go back on the drug and stay on for life sometimes. The reasons for relapse vary, of course, and I'm sure in some cases it is due to the brain physically changing and adapting to the drug, but, given the circumstances in life, the severity of the issue, the tolerance of different individuals to cope, I don's see any alternatives yet. I think the drugs are a wonderful thing when administered by someone who knows what they're doing. Fire can be your best friend or your worst enemy.