TheSchoolofAthens

This is her logic: -people drive cars that pollute the air -people breathe in the polluted air -the lungs of the people are damaged -people own their lungs and bodies -thus people are using aggression by driving I was so incredibly frustrated with this because I can't see the logic in it.

This topic came up between me and my girlfriend. I don't think pollution is aggression, it's nature. My girlfriend says she thinks that pollution is aggression and that it is an exception to the NAP and that the NAP therefore is flawed and must be changed. I said that she would then have to be follow the MAP, a term I made up because she kept saying that "we have to accept that minimal aggression via pollution is a reality." I don't see how the consequences of nature can possibly be considered aggression in the sense of breathing the air. She says that everyone who drives a car pollutes the air and when we talked about how that is unavoidable she says "we just have to accept the minimal aggression is unavoidable." I didn't get the whole "minimal" thing so I just said to call it aggression. So really she is saying that aggression is a fact of reality because we pollute. I said that if that is aggression, then nature is committing acts of aggression upon itself all the time with volcanoes, lightning strikes, forest fires, etc. She replied "well nature doesn't have a conscience, mankind knows that its products create pollution." Bullshit, it doesn't matter that nature isn't a conscience being, the point is that pollution is a fact of reality, something that happens naturally through nature, and something that occurs as a consequence of man made inventions. Man doesn't control natural principles, but he must obey them whether he wants to or not. If man is guilty of aggression because of his polluting, then he is no more guilty than nature itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1S0Oz0fpWQ

Exactly what I thought while reading, never would have been an Ayn Rand aha :/

I am reading Mises's Omnipotent Government and have come across his section on Total War. He says: "These considerations are not a plea for opening America and the British Dominions to German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants. Under present conditions America and Australia would simply commit suicide by admitting Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese. They could as well directly surrender to the Fuhrer and to the Mikado. Immigrants from the totalitarian countries are today the vanguard of their armies, a fifth column whose invasion would render all measures of defense useless. America and Australia can preserve their freedom, their civilizations, and their economic institutions only by rigidly barring access to the subjects of the dictators. But these conditions are the outcome of etatism. In the liberal past the immigrants came not as pacemakers of conquest but as loyal citizens of their new country." Perhaps I do not know what issues came along with immigration around the time of WW2, but I do not think that barring access to immigrants who live under dictators. Of course this wouldn't be an issue in a totally anarcho capitalist society, or anarcho capitalist region, because people could come and go (at least to free areas) as they so desire. But socialist, fascist, and communist - advocates of violence - professors poisoned the universities. These advocates of violence created their own political parties, organizations, etc. Americans with family ties to America for generations could still defend socialism, or whatever other violent system they preferred to advocate for, and become socialists. I think I remember Stefan talking about Mises and his immigration views in a video once, but I may be wrong. Any links on it would be appreciated. What are your thoughts?

The left and right are just two branches of great evil - coercion, force, both violence and threats of violence, i.e. the state. The essence of the left and the right is aggression. Without aggression they would not exist.

My god...not surprised though. Another wonderfully stupid government story though :/

Ahh, so the free love, anti war, let's do drugs and live on communes and say fuck the man while at the same time advocate for socialism - that sort of thing? Please excuse any ignorance of mine on this subject as I'm only 19.

Could you tell me more about such struggles?

I just read a short piece by Rothbard, here, where he talks about his experience - and the libertarian experience - working with the old right and the new left hoping to create positive change in the world. First things that come to my mind are my own experience with YAL and SFL because he talks about organizations such as YAF and SDS. Today, YAL stands for Young Americans for Liberty and SFL stands for Students for Liberty. I believe YAF is still around, then and still now it stands for Young Americans for Freedom and SDS stood for Students for a Democratic Society. It is interesting how similar these modern left and right organizations are to these older organizations, even though they are 40 years apart. I mean, even the acronyms are creepily similar. I of course am hopeful that less people in the future will involve themselves in the political process and will instead focus on other causes such as child abuse and peaceful parenting, and teaching logic to children. But we are not yet in the future, we are still surrounded by a cesspool of dangerous philosophy and the same tactics and strategies that lead the human race in a direction no where near to freedom and liberty. This is why I am such a big fan of Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux, and the FDR community - doses of reason among the irrationality and intellectual murder-suicide of the masses. Unfortunately, so many still hold onto this idea of collaborating and making alliances with the left and right by making big tent organizations with attractive libertarian ideas that both irked conservatives and exasperated liberals find appealing. I think that as a community we could communicate for hundreds of pages about why libertarian politics fails - because they can't get lobbying support, because they attract left and right wing people who end up disagreeing on core beliefs and thus the organization or movement disintegrates, etc. - but I am curious as to what exactly Rothbard thought about political action as well as what you guys think about Rothbard's views. Please do read the piece, as I am about to post a bit about the conclusion below: Rothbard's last sentence is both positive and true, "We have it in our power to reclaim the American Dream." I agree with this, but the way he thinks the American Dream - of individual rights and prosperity - is to be achieved is just insane to me. This entire piece is a truly well written, often humorous work, but I can't understand how he can possibly explain how the left and right coalition failed miserably, and then conclude with: "Just as conservatives and liberals have effectively blended into a consensus to uphold the Establishment, so what America needs now — and can have — is a countercoalition in opposition to the Welfare-Warfare State, a coalition that would favor the short-term libertarian goals of militant opposition to the Vietnam War and the Cold War generally, and to conscription, the military-industrial complex, and the high taxes and accelerated inflation that the state has needed to finance these statist measures. It would be a coalition to advance the cause of both civil liberty and economic freedom from government dictation. It would be, in many ways, a renaissance of a coalition between the best of the Old Right and the old New Left, a return to the glorious days when elements of Left and Right stood shoulder to shoulder to oppose the conquest of the Philippines and America's entry into World Wars I and II. Here would be a coalition that could appeal to all groups throughout America, to the middle class, workers, students, liberals, and conservatives alike. But Middle America, for the sake of gaining freedom from high taxes, inflation, and monopoly, would have to accept the idea of personal liberty and a loss of national face abroad. And liberals and leftists, for the sake of dismantling the war machine and the American Empire, would have to give up the cherished Old Left-liberal dream of high taxes and federal expenditures for every goody on the face of the earth. The difficulties are great, but the signs are excellent that such an anti-Establishment and antistatist coalition can and might come into being. Big government and corporate liberalism are showing themselves to be increasingly incapable of coping with the problems that they have brought into being. And so objective reality is on our side." It is as if he has forgotten absolutely everything he just wrote. What are your thoughts on this paper? SDS/SFL and YAF/YAL? Rothbard's views and perhaps his cognitive dissonance? Or whatever else you are inspired to share by this post and the following discussion.

Oh it was most definitely childish and immature. This two girls got my girlfriends attention, one began to kiss my girlfriend on her hand as the other girl told her to kiss my girlfriend on the face, my girlfriend told her to stop and the other girl told her friend to keep kissing her. The sickening part is the fact that the girl who was kissing her made direct eye contact with me as she kissed my girlfriends hand, she was trying to destroy me. I would always call them out, in person and on facebook. I knew that these irrational people could not be changed, but hopefully some other people in the organization would see how flawed their logic is and how corrupt their character is.

I find this rule disgusting "“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions" Some of these members tried to break up me and my girlfriend, cutting off my support.

Oh how wonderfully that gun control is working.

Well said. The issues of religion and religious extremism are an issue of anti rationality. Also, the France government is committing suicide by letting violent people and organizations take over neighborhoods by imposing Sharia law, and not doing much of anything to stop it and protect innocent people. (the government showing how incompetent it is to offer security services)

That is what I thought he meant, thank you for the clarification and reinforcement shirgall! I do appreciate it.

Yes, my girlfriend is an Iranian immigrant who came to the US when she was 4. She was opposing this one guy who was saying racism doesn't exist against white people - and that apparently white people are oppressors - and he simply ignored the fact that a middle eastern female immigrant was defending us "white oppressors." He outright ignored her by making comments like "oh look at all these white males around me" when she was directly in front of him siding with reason and rationality.

Oh God, that is Alinsky? SFL recommends Alinsky. I remember the Denton president telling me he loves Alinsky.

Hello everyone, I am reading Omnipotent Government by Mises, every page is wonderful and as a result I find myself highlighting almost entire pages sometimes haha. I am a bit confused by one small part though: "If the government, without a corresponding increase in the quantity of goods available for sale, decrees that buying and selling must be done at a lower price, and thus makes it illegal either to ask or to pay the potential market price, then this equilibrium can no longer prevail. With unchanged supply there are now potential buyers on the market, namely, those who could not afford the higher market price but are prepared to buy at the lower official rate. There are now potential buyers who cannot buy, although they are ready to pay the price fixed by the government or even a higher price." What does Mises mean in the sentence that I put in italics? I understand everything else, but does he just mean that there are lots of people willing to buy but can't buy because the supply is so low?

I was just called a racist on facebook by the president of an SFL chapter. What was my crime? I asked for evidence of institutionalized racism.

I've heard him speak at a conference and I was so happy to have the privilege to listen to him live and even talk to him for a bit after. In response to "is he a left libertarian?" and to clarify my own knowledge of him, he is an anarcho capitalist, a classical liberal, etc. The only thing about Tucker that may be somewhat leftist is perhaps being sympathetic to leftist causes such as feminism, social justice, etc. But again, that would need sources or something to back it up.

I don't get why anarchists are calling a man who gets around government interference - inspections, licensing, permits, auditing, taxes, etc. - a victimizer. By following that logic, little girls and boys who sell lemonade at a lemonade stand are victimizers of Walmart and the lemonade businesses. When was the last time the children got a government inspection? Do they even have licenses to sell lemonade? Did they get a government permit to build their lemoande stant? Are they being audited and taxed? Imaginge saying "Theses children selling lemonade are making victims out of these businesses!" I'm not sure how anything related to this case is my fault or your fault.

Then the business owners were using the force of the government because the licensing, inspections, regulations, etc. that are barriers of entry to poorer competitors is using the force of government.

But Garner was not using the force of the government anymore than I'd be using the force of the government to sell homemade lemonade at my lemonade stand. I'm not forcing things upon anyone, I'm not initiating the use of force, I'm not even advocating for the use of force. If I sell light bulbs that have been banned by the EPA, I am not making the other light bulb businesses my victims. I am choosing to take risks in the black market while others are choosing to take risks in the white market. No one is being victimized save for the businesses and consumers, and who are they being victimized by? The state.

That is why, above, I said it is a property rights issue. I am not victimizing anyone if I sell weed in the black market in Colorado while other people are selling regulated and taxed weed in dispensaries in Colorado. They aren't my victims of me anymore then they are victims of another competing dispensary. We are competing, taking different risks, but it is nothing more than competition.

That is what I'm saying! If I am operating a furniture business in the black market, I am not victimizing those with furniture businesses who follow regulations and pay taxes. We are taking different risks, not victimizing each other.

I don't think that would make the store owners victims of Garner, though. Both the store owners and Garner took risks to operate as they did. The store owners took risks with starting a business with heavy regulations, taxes, and government interference. Garner took risks with doing business outside of the regulations, and taxes. They make their choices and face the consequences of their choices - consequences of obeying and disobeying the government for example. I don't think they are victims of each other's business though. Again the only way I can see the store owners being victims is if they asked Garner to leave their front property and if he wouldn't leave.