powder
-
Posts
478 -
Joined
Posts posted by powder
-
-
On 7/9/2017 at 9:29 AM, Spenc said:
Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc. He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly.Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left?
In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society. But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason.
So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years? I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump). I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though.
If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow. But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".
Agreed, there was a shift when FDR started with the videos exposing the truth about stuff with facts and information ala InfoWars. The reason I came to philosophy is because when you stick to objective principles you don't have to rely on massive amounts of research and vetting of info and sources. I found it very liberating, it was exhausting keeping up with all that stuff only to find out the other side has equally compelling stuff to support their bias.
I just started a new thread where I linked a article where the left are arguing how wonderful and tolerant and peaceful the new generation of ethnically diverse youths are,... I am very skeptical, but I don't have the time or energy to fact check, refute, and counter that stuff with links and data and charts,... esp if facts don't matter to people.
People are moved to change by moral persuasion, that is how the elite have been doing it for millennia, I find it works well for me in my discussions with people.
-
On 6/29/2017 at 2:03 PM, Mishi2 said:
Could it be that the forum is too strictly regulated? There have plenty of posts of mine that were not allowed for some reason. I even checked the community guidelines to see what I did wrong, and couldn't figure it out. That is what is most off-putting for me. Maybe that is why the unofficial forums were created. Maybe the unrestricted free market of ideas should be applied to the forums.
Other than that, there are certain members on the forum who go out of their way to bully others for "making a bad argument". I can take a punch or two, but I can understand those who quit because of it. This may be just my experience.
Anyhow, the forums were given a decent upgrade a couple months ago, so that makes me think the admins have noticed the decline of activity here.
This. I found it increasingly difficult to have an engaging discussion because of the lag time for moderation and the posts that were getting nixed by the mods and have all but stopped coming around.
-
I know both left and right have their own data and stats that supports their claims. I haven't had time to look at all the links in the article, but it refutes much of what FDR has been arguing for. Has anyone else seen this?
-
People fight for that gun until totalitarianism eventually emerges,...
...This has always been the ultimate argument in favor of the state.
..."But in light of current events" has always been the argument for the state.
-
Ah, I see. So if there is a hostile army marching towards me and I can see it in the distance, I should refrain from making assertions and predictions about say, running away or forming an army to defend myself, because I can't know what will happen in the future.
nope. I was responding to your post, but not for your benefit.
-
I don't understand what is very confusing about this formula:
1. The West is the closest thing to anarchy humans have ever seen, and it's the only hope of leading us there.
2. If the West goes, then it's all over. The weapon technology and surveillance state of the earth would never allow freedom in any form to emerge again.
3. Donald Trump and the movement he is symbolizing (anti-Globalism, restore the republic of the US), is the last real form of resistance to pull the West from falling over the cliff.
4. Thus Trump, by saving the West (for now), is giving the chance for anarchy in the future. If you're an anarchist and not supporting Trump and what he's done so far, you're bullshitting yourself with fluffy nonsense.
This has been challenged in other threads but I will state it again. These are assertions, and predictions, and no one can know what will happen in the future. This is the collectivist strategy that is always used to tell us what is best for everyone and how to best achieve or protect our freedoms.
I can imagine other ways in which the western way of life may avoid being destroyed without petitioning the ruling class to intervene. Some here may be too young to remember the Cold War stuff that threatened western civilization with the possibility of war and the increasing expansion of Communism. Almost everyone agreed that it seemed like a legitimate enough threat to advocate for massive government expansion and intervention. Remember how that ended?
-
If I understand the description of 'self defense' and the idea that it is an acceptable, even necessary, reason to advocate and participate in political action then why was Ron Paul not a good option? Is the only reason that Donald is an 'outsider'? As near as I can tell with my cursory glance at the policies talked about by both, Paul's ideas of getting the Fed in its place and pulling the US military out of other countries would seem to me to be appealing for those who considering a 'step in the right direction' for improving things if that is the goal?
-
1
-
-
There was absolutely nothing unprecedented about Ron Paul.
and so far there's also nothing unprecedented about the people Donald is looking to appoint to positions of power
-
I am with you on the not real thing, and still, people can be held to account.
nope. how can Trump be held to account?
-
Not because I think he will save western civilization or that he can fix the economy. In fact, I think that getting elected to the throne at this point in history is like being appointed captain of the Titanic after it has already hit the iceberg.
That said, perhaps now that he has won we can get on with this 'experiment' to see if an 'unprecedented' candidate can justify anarchists trading in their principles for practicalities. Had the D's won with Hillary it would certainly have bee at least another 4 years of infowars instead of philosophy to continue to fight and 'push back' against the left and the media.
Now that the ruling class has successfully created this division in this community, perhaps it will just be a lot of people clinging to their investments and saying: 'yeah, but imagine how worse it would have been under Hillary?" when things get bad with Trump. Just like everyone else in the political forum does.
As for FDR, perhaps they have realized a bigger network and viewership in the political right is a more sustainable business model.
I am interested to see how it plays out and how people respond.
-
You have no idea how much I needed to hear this today...and breathe.....
I, in turn, am very happy to know that my sharing has been of benefit to at least one good person.
-
Is there a "I let people thread on me" principle you follow? Because it sounds you have a "I let people thread on me" principle.
do you mean 'tread'? Please elaborate.
-
When I was growing up in the 70's in Quebec the governments came up with a big to do about the province separating from the rest of the country. It was very emotional and divisive. I was not even voting age but it was clear to me that it was just a big distraction and that it was not a practical thing to be discussing.
I only discovered years later that it was precisely at that time that the government sold out to the international banking cartel and gave control of the monetary system to the central banking system that has been taking over the world for generations. It happened in the US before WWI with the introduction of the FED, but not in Canada until the 70's.
-
I have been a anarchist/voluntarist since before I had ever heard of these ideas. I have never voted and was skeptical of politics from my first exposure to it.
I spent years studying alternative or revisionist history and news because I was sure that the world did not operate the way we were being told. The results never match the rhetoric. I was saved by Stef when I came across his work and heard him tell a couple of callers who were questioning both the 911 and the Holocaust stories. He basically said "so what?, we already have all the information we need to know that the state is immoral, why waste time on chasing that kind of information? He went on the explain why principles matter more than information.
I was elated. So much information from so many sources, I did not have to spend any more time in the infowars game, I could stick to principles, ethics. Now when I am debating my lefty friends, esp on Facebook, with all the left/right him/her division going on I come right down the middle with philosophy and morality. I don't have to defend Trump or anything else with all the sources.
I don't know how this next crisis will play out or get resolved, and I don't know what the best course of action is, but I just can't go back. I can't take up the argument over how the crops will get picked.
-
4
-
-
Looks like I have some more learning to do before jumping into the arena.
Thanks for your input, especially your link dsayers.
UPB is something else for me to fully understand.
excellent response
-
This massive kerfuffle and emotional divide over who will be the next to take the throne in the US has me thinking that this is signalling something much bigger. I am always skeptical and suspicious whenever a big show is put together to distract the masses emotionally, usually it means something big is happening that they don't want us to focus on.
The arguments have been made about whether supporting Trump is a good thing or not, but I don't think it matters who 'win's' the election, no person can halt the collapse of the empire, the west. The debt, the market bubble, the break with the east and the rise of the BRICKS, the bonds crisis,...
My guess is that the empire of the west is on its last legs and whoever takes the throne now will have it dropped on their laps.
I want to make sure I am still echoing the voice of freedom and voluntaryism thru what I think are going to be some difficult times ahead.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I have a similar musing and think this theory would be an interesting one to follow. Why do you think this is?
Seems kind of self evident to me: males with no offspring, more independent minded, with offspring, more nuturing/protection of the genes minded.
-
People need to remember that the FDR brand is not just a podcast or youtube channel, but it is also a business, and that being said he has to go where the market takes him. If his primary goal is to spread philosophy and peace to the masses, and secondary goal is to make a living while doing that, then following what is popular at the moment will greatly increase his market share, while also reaching a broader audience. Many people that are looking for knowledge don't know what they're looking for, or how to find it. If someone is just keeping up with this reality TV show called politics, and find his messages on it well thought out and logical, that could very well open the doors to them finding the messages on peaceful parenting or other such topics, as well as shows he produces in the future while maintaining the new viewers.
I personally don't agree with his thoughts on voting (for Trump), or Trump actually being able to make an appreciable difference with anything, but I do understand why the focus has shifted and can appreciate that.
yes, this.
-
The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one.
Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep.
@Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.
there is a lot of traction to be had by sticking with the right wing argument and challenging the left, I don't see why FDR would need to adjust their position going forward, regardless of the result of the election or how it turns out if Trump gets in. There is just a much larger audience on the right. Anarchists are rare and don't have much $$ in general.
-
also, kerfuffles that are very engaging and distracting like this election cycle are a typical strategy to distract people when something big that they would like you to ignore is in the works. the next president will not be able to stop a massive financial collapse or war for example.
-
1
-
-
Every generation is given their 'civilization' ending crisis, and when enough of the population becomes disillusioned with the system of governance itself, an 'unprecedented' candidate is put forward. A study of history clearly reveals this.
I was listening to Alex Jones back in the early days when he was not well known and although he was never an anarchist he was arguing that the left and right political paradigm was a sham and that both parties were controlled by the elites. Then he got behind Ron Paul. His support and popularity has exploded since Obama took office. Stef can continue to bring reason and evidence to the masses along with guys like Cernovich, Jones, Watson, while still supporting the conservative political agenda even if Trump loses. FDR would continue to do very well indeed with that platform.
I like to consider motives and I would imagine that most arguing for principles instead of political action are males with no children. Like myself.
-
I know nothing of UPB. When I came to FDR, many people were reacting to it with confusion and Stef mentioned it could use some cleaning up or something like that. Meanwhile, objective morality seems pretty easy, so I've never taken a crack at UPB.
I hope my input will be helpful all the same...
In order to be immoral, a behavior has to be binding upon another without their consent. To vote is not binding upon anybody else, so it is an amoral act. It condones immorality, but it doesn't cause it.
I watched that video when you posted it in the other thread, one criticism I had was that you can't run the voting system we have through UPB. You can run voting through UPB, but it's too specific to say the type of voting; like the "no fish on Fridays" example. Whether the act of voting is immoral or not depends on what is being voted for and the degree to which the results are adhered to. I'll have to rewatch and hash out my thoughts, but I thought I'd get some down now and see what you thought.
I also listened to the Wendy McElroy thing.
I am thinking this thru as well. I also get stuck on the kind of voting it is and the way in which the results are imposed or enforced. If a group votes to wear a certain type of uniform and someone that does not like the color and is free to leave the group or start one of their own,... but how can you delegate a right that you do not have, like theft? Isn't that what political voting is?
-
Hey dsayer, have you thought of calling in and chatting with Stef about this? You're likely to have greater reach since very few people who watch FDR spend time on the forum. Especially now that Mike says he's gonna vote for Trumpy-poo
It doesn't matter, Stef and Mike do not disagree with the philosophical argument against voting. They are simply saying that given the new information, and situation regarding immigration, they are choosing to try to fight back with political action to hopefully buy more time.
I am paraphrasing but I think that is pretty accurate, correct me if I'm wrong.
I would argue though that the 'new information' is not new and that there are examples of this type of situation happening throughout history. It is the same authoritarian left/right cycle repeating itself.
-
Interesting, can you give us more details?
back in 08 the banks were holding onto a lot of bad mortgages, when that bubble popped the banking crisis happened.
Since then they have been even more reckless and have amassed derivatives exposure that dwarf their assets. A big 5 bank like Morgan and Citi Group might have something like 2 trillion in assets and over 50 trillion in derivatives. Plus, the banks are about 40% larger than they were in 08 and hold over 60 of American's assets. The derivatives market is basically like a massive high risk gambling game, and the derivatives casino operates on a global scale.
A derivative is a 'legal' bet (contract) that derives its value from another asset (derivative) that has value, such as the future price of oil, bonds, etc.
Issues with Anarcho-Capitalism, Part 2: Counterexamples
in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Posted
There is no moral content in any of that. Its about coercion. The Voluntaryist (anarchist) position is all about voluntary interactions, consent. If people are free to participate, or walk away if they prefer something else, you can any kind of organizational structure you like.