TheSchoolofAthens

First of all, I applaud you for making a video about this. I love the fact that people put themselves out there at the risk of being criticized, just as Molyneux and Rose do. This topic especially is hot right now so I like to hear other peoples arguments and evaluate them to get myself closer to the truth on this one. I work at Church's Chicken part time, and I'd be mad if someone was selling chicken directly in front of the store. You know, even if what this guy was doing was taxed and regulated, you got to get off that property. Then the problem arises, who's property is the sidewalk? Sure it is public property, and of course it would be private property in a free society, but even under the system that we live under today of public sidewalks, it is very clear that the store owners have the right to the sidewalk in front of their stores. This is why they will put a bench in front of their store, a chess table, some decorations, chalkboards with menus and daily specials, or statues with advertisements, etc. So it isn't just that Garner was making the store owners mad, it was that he was violating their property rights. Garner should have gone to the store next door, stood on the sidewalk infront of a non-convenience store (with the owners permission so that he isn't violating their property) and sold them there. This might make the convenience store owner mad if his neighbor grants Garner permission to do so, but then there would be no issue with the violation of property rights. Just to add to that, his neighbor probably wouldn't let Garner sell cigarettes on his property because he would understand that if things were turned around, he wouldn't want his neighbor at the convenience store to allow Garner to sell furniture if his business has to do with furniture. Neighborhood businesses don't want to piss each other off. As anarchists and libertarians, we know that one isn't committing a crime by making a transaction with another business's potential customer, that isn't stealing or anything of that nature. So really I think it has more so to do with property rights and the fact that Garner was violating property rights, thus the store owners were victims of property violation.

Shirgall, I think you made a very good argument, and quite possibly clarified Stefan's argument, as it wasn't clear to me in the video "Racist Until Proven Innocent." No one is victimizing others by peacefully selling products to customers who buy the products voluntarily - that is what my girlfriend said in response to listening to Stefan's argument. But of course Stefan isn't saying that. He is saying, like you are, that since this business is subjugated to inspections, licensing, regulations, taxes, etc. (the gun is pointed at them) then the business owners are wondering how the hell someone can get away with bypassing inspections, licensing, regulations, taxes, etc. (not have the gun pointed at him.) So the business owners were trying to create equal application of the law. The law is unjust, it is immoral, and it is horrible. Reality shouldn't be like this, but it is like this. If the store owners were anarchists, you know then they wouldn't call the police because they would just think "he's not doing anything morally wrong, smart bastard is dodging regulations, good for him" or something like that. But they obviously wanted equal application of the law, albeit immoral and unjust. I think a follow up to this remark would nice, I'm not saying I am right, I am just confused on this matter. And I really haven't been swayed by reason either way.

That is a good question. He may be, though he happily identifies as an anarchist. If he is to be labeled leftist in any way, it would perhaps be his views on what are seen as social issues, for example, is he a feminist? There would need to be some sources to back up the accusation though.

My father is the liberal atheist, or statetheist as I like to say. Man oh man, in the YAL club we had on campus, the christian conservatives interested in libertarianism were initially against legalization of drugs because their bodies were God's bodies. You worded what I've been feeling and thinking perfectly. People lack first principles and that makes it incredibly hard for me to make friends, even within these libertarian groups. I have myself, my girlfriend and some "friends" that I keep in touch with and make jokes with every now and then, but I've cut off most of my relationships because I wasn't happy with them - the lack of depth, intellectual immaturity, etc. Good reason for me to be more active on these forums and meet others who follow first principles. I'll stay positive, I'm very thankful with who I do have and I don't feel like I need anyone else, but I know there are others out there and this community is proof of it.

What? There is an admin on here with SFL? That is pretty cool actually. I wouldn't mind at all getting in contact with him, I'd appreciate it! I've made my fair share of enemies in the local organization due to my opposition to their leftism, but as I've said I've met some good people that have made the experience worth it. I look forward to meeting some more rational people, as this is an international convention and that goes far beyond just the Texas region.

Thank you all for your thoughts! I am going to the international SFL conference in Washington DC, so I hope to meet some rational people out of the hundreds that will be there. I know of one ancap who will be there that I actually met through an online class a year or so ago. So there are some great people involved in the movement, but the school chapters in Texas have been horribly overrun with leftists. The president of one of the chapters is a feminist and a lover of race baiting. This shows two things to me. 1) Society is sick and I am happy to be excluded from it so long as I am the healthy one, and 2) As a couple people have mentioned, the left is always looking for new platforms to speak through once the older platforms fail. EDIT: someone told me that I wasn't a real anarchist because I don't believe that patriarchy exists in America

I like how you mention the false dichotomy. See, it amazes me that they call themselves "left" libertarians when to be a libertarian just means you are against the state, and thus against the left and right dichotomy.

I've gone to these conferences and events lately hosted by an organization called "Students for Liberty." After going to several of these events, I've discovered how leftist it is. But what is weird to me is that it is under the guise of liberty and libertarianism. There are other children organizations that have tables at such events, like the "Alliance of the Libertarian Left" and "Students for a Stateless Society." I've had conversations with many of these people on facebook and I've wanted to blow my brains out. The feminism and racism is horrible! I am just so confused by this left libertarian thing and why its starting to grow in popularity. Rothbard has some good things to say about left libertarianism, I will attach a picture here, but I want to hear other peoples thoughts and opinions on left libertarianism.

Why is there no text in this post? EDIT: never mind, the original post is now appearing. For a day or so it wasn't showing up at all.

Hello everyone, I'm reading The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty by Simon Baron-Cohen. This book was recently recommended by Stefan in this wonderful video. Just as Stefan does, I highly recommend everyone read this book. Why do I recommend this book? Because I can not begin to explain how insightful this book is in regards to understanding the facts about how empathy works, as well as what destroys and nurtures empathy in individuals. The science is explained in a way so that one feels well educated after reading each passage and at the same time does not have any need to become a neurobiologist himself to understand what is being said. I would like to say that the book is written for the layman because of how easy it is to understand, but I don't think that is the right expression to use because Baron-Cohen himself refers to some of the phenomena as "rather simple." The fact of the matter is that it is irrelevant how complex or simple the phenomena in this book are. Why? Because the conclusions that this book points to are of significant importance. Please take a look at the following quotes as I piece them together in order to give you a better understanding of what I am talking about. "Zero degrees of empathy [it is what it sounds like, having zero empathy - none] can lead one to commit acts of cruelty, it can leave one insensitive towards others, or, simply, socially isolated." Baron-Cohen goes on to say "Zero degrees of empathy does not strike random in the population. There are at least three well-defined routes to this end point." I will briefly discuss one of the patients that the author met at his team's clinic and the path that led her to her zero degrees of empathy. This patient's name is Carol, she has bipolar disorder, and she had an absolutely heartbreaking childhood. While reading, I had to close my eyes and reflect upon how devastating and real all the abuse, neglect, and fear is for so many children - and it is happening right now as we speak. I continued on reading and was not shocked when Baron-Cohen talked about Carols early sexual promiscuity as well as drug abuse, as Stefan talks about this greatly and explains the correlation with neglect and abuse. As I like to say, the best way to prevent a child from abusing drugs is to not abuse the child. Other tragedies follow this abused soul but I will leave that for you to read in the book itself. "More than a century of research into the effects of early deprivation has clearly established that such environmental factors affect brain development, probably irreversibly (69). On the same age, Baron-Cohen goes on to say "Borderlines, it turns out, are pretty common." This does not surprise me one bit seeing how it is socially acceptable - yet incredibly immoral and wrong - to abuse kids regularly. There are two results of Carol's child abuse that I want to briefly focus on. One, as the author says right before the aforementioned quotes, "She soon simply used Mike to pay the bills, look after the children, and look after her, while she went out most nights clubbing. Her friendships are short-lived. She doesn't want to hear about other people's problems. All she cares about is herself" (69). Seeing as Carol's way of thinking is irreversible, it is critical to educate future parents about non violent parenting before more Carol's are turned from beautiful, innocent children into hurt, lifeless, monsters. (Me and my girlfriend will be tabling at out local college about peaceful parenting, the consequences of child abuse, etc. at our college next fall when we are attending again after our spring internship programs. This is thanks to the work of FDR, Stefan, Mike, and all the contributors for inspiring us) That was the first point - the moral reasons to oppose child abuse and educate future parents about it in order to save innocent children and stop the creation of monstrous beings. The second point I want to focus on, and the one I find fascinating, is this: "Borderlines also tend to think in very black-and-white ways (so-called "splitting"), so that people are either 'all good' or 'all bad.' (This may be why borderlines can be particularly attracted to cults because the cult leader is seen by members as all good)" (70). The author says that borderlines are common, being 2% of the general population. For an individual to see someone as all good or all bad and to be prone to cults are the perfect conditions for statism. I know that 2% of the population being diagnosed with bipolar disorder might sound trivial and that this leaves 98% of the general population to have other types of disorders or no disorders at all, but I am inclined to believe that the majority of the population is suffering from their childhood experiences. My point is that if we as a community can reduce that number of 2% at all - a number that is far larger when combining it with other disorders that are are result of childhood trauma - then we will killing two birds with one stone. We will be killing the bird, in this case the hawk (or the parents) that abuse their children as well as the vulture (or the state) the feeds off of the carcass that is left behind by the parents. I hope this post has been an enjoyable read and has contributed something meaningful to someone. I thank you all for reading it and I would appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Who knows, you might find some people who share values and interests with. Just be aware that politics will not change the system of violence (but I think you may already be aware of that.)

Well said. I wholeheartedly agree. If you are going to do anything more than vote, like attend rallies, then just explain the logic of voluntaryism.

I had absolutely no idea that voting was compulsory in Australia for federal elections! How backwards and scary - you are forced to be free to vote. Yikes! Seeing as you are forced to vote, I do apologize that you are not given a choice, you should cast the vote that seems best to you. I know nothing of Australian politics so if the LDP is the most libertarian or the only libertarian party then you should support it. Anything else you could share about Australian politics that might shock an American? (Though I wouldn't be surprised if one day the American government introduces compulsory voting)

Thank you for this post Joel, and thank you for those who tried to offer advice to me. I am going to figure out a way to approach this.

Courageous and inspiring, Joel! I was not so courageous in a recent sighting of child abuse. I was about to start babysitting these two kids when the mother was saying goodbye to them, she told them she was leaving and asked for hugs and kisses. One of them - a 5 year old - ran towards her, hugged her, but accidentally hurt her because he used a bit too much force for a hug. She was angry, she grabbed his hair, pulled it back in order to force his face up to look at her, and she told him not to be so aggressive (or something incredibly hypocritical like that). I am disappointed in myself. I said nothing. But I want to fix my wrong and text this mother, whom I've babysat for on many occasions, and tell her to be less violent. I don't know how to say it, I want to be effective in actually getting her to stop using violence, what would the best thing to text to her? Child abuse statistics and the consequences of them in later years - drug abuse for example? I really want to do this but I want to do it the right way. I applaud you for standing up for that child, could you help me do the same for this one?

On the way back home from the movie theater, a friend of mine in the back seat got a phone call about how someone close to him had just died from an overdose. I went to the same High School as the young man who died, probably around just 20 years old. It's such a heart breaking thing - the way people use drugs that harm themselves, and sometimes drugs that end up killing them. Death is impossible to stop, yet there are those who subconsciously invite it, going out of their way to walk along side it, to get close, whether they realize it or not. It upsets me because I remember when I was in my junior year of high school and would take pills called tripple c's. These pills were for colds and could easily be stolen off the shelves of stores like Wal Mart, or bought with like $5. I was not addicted to the pills but I took them on too many occasions than I'd like to know. It isn't odd that people choose to get high at the low periods in their lives. After all, the high is to elevate them above the state of mind that they usually live life in. I smoked weed, drank with friends, and experimented with these pills when I was depressed with high school's prison esque system, day after day of intellectual torture and physical imprisonment. I've learned that it is best to view the ingestion of recreational drugs as a low, as one should strive for activities that are of a higher prestige or bring upon a higher level of happiness that drugs could not bring. But getting back the young man who died - I really did not know him personally but so what? It is a tragedy. There is nothing that can be done for this young man who died, but there is so much that can be learned from tragedies such as this in order to help teens and young adults who are struggling with these problems, just as I struggled with them, and just as this unfortunate man did, and so many countless others. As you are all aware, the importance of a happy, healthy childhood seems to be unparalleled in regards to a promising future. And on the contrary, a childhood of neglect and abuse seems to be unparalleled in regards to a future of disaster, heart ache, and tragedy. Many questions filled up my mind when I had heard that the young man died. Where was he? Who was with him? What drug was he taking? Why did he do it - suicide or just an accident? But the real why I was wondering about was why was he messing around with drugs in the first place? I can only assume he was getting high, again, to escape the lows. But furthermore, another why was why weren't his parents there? It is the parents who need to be building relationships of love with their children from the very beginning. Parents spend so little time with their children to begin with, and the time that they do spend can be so often violent in one way or another. This sort of parental irresponsibility is a map that points its readers into the direction of sheer cliffs. How in the world is any sort of quality relationship supposed to be built upon violence and only a couple hours of time spent together as a family a week? Why aren't parents helping children discover their passions and talents, and instead are just throwing their children into prisons called public school where the life is sucked out of them? Why aren't parents worried about drug abuse, to at least sit down and talk seriously about the consequences of drug abuse, and figure out what the hell their kids are doing at these parties or going out so late or who they are really hanging out with? It is heart breaking and it amazes me to see people look and find the answers to these questions, and fight to make them known to the public. All this had made me think about these kids I babysat recently. The mom was leaving to go to work, and she asked her kids for hugs and kisses to say goodbye. Her 5 year old child ran towards her really quickly and gave her a hug, but he ran too fast and accidentally hurt her ribs. The mom said "Oww, my ribs" she didn't seem to be in genuine pain and the child laughed and I gently smiled. She got angry and scolded him about not laughing, the worst part is that she pulled his hair back in order to get his attention. He even said it hurt him and she just said something like "well don't hurt me! You are so rough all the time!" No - the worst part is that I didn't say anything. I was silent. SILENT in a scenario of abuse. I wanted to badly to say something, to stand up for that child, that human being who was a victim of violence. I didn't have the courage. But I think now I do. I am going to text the mother tomorrow when I have time about the importance of peaceful parenting and the consequences of violence. You know why? Because in 15 years time, that 5 year old could be lying dead on the floor as a victim of overdose. And I'll be damned if I don't do anything to try to stop that from happening. I know there is a lot to this post, I have even more to say than this but I will leave it at this. Thank you for reading.

In my amateur opinion, it did have to do with the negative experiences you witnessed as a child. I got deeply depressed in high school because I didn't see a point in education as a result of seeing my parents financially struggle. (both were educated, my mom with a masters degree and my dad with a degree that I can't quite remember at the time, a man who was also lazy and irrational when it came to a career) I don't think that you've cheated in order to get back at the opposite sex. You've cheated because the relationship with the most potential to form you - your parents relationship - was one that lacked virtue. Now you could have seen this and decided that you would do everything in your power to not repeat it, which is fortunately what I think you are doing now or have already learned to do, or you could have chosen, like you understandably did, to pursue relationship that are void of virtue. This is a result of the culture that your family raise you in, a culture of betrayal and dishonesty, and you (like any individual) is left with two choices: fight this culture of betrayal, or join it.

In order to fit his narrative of the economy getting better, and that democrats are actually good economic leaders [as if democrats and republicans are really all that different], he is only looking at the deficit and not looking at the debt nor unfunded liabilities, it's such an intellectually dishonest move. Why is it intellectually dishonest? Because he didn't even mention the constantly growing debt even though at the beginning of the video he mentions that the deficit and the debt are different! He totally avoids the frightening, growing debt and then ends the video by pretty much saying "the democratic party is good for the economy." To put it bluntly, he is an absolute asshole for doing that - as would be anyone else who puts narratives over reason and truth. TYT disgusts me!

I use to be quite insecure about my body - very skinny. I learned that what was important in life was my mind, being a rational person, and pursuing virtue. Fortunately I am in a relationship with a girl who loves me for my virtues and also loves by body, not because my body is perfect, but because it is mine. But before one can stop being insecure about his or her appearance, one needs to discover self knowledge and realize that one's appearance is not the most important element of a person and that anyone worth a damn will not look at physical features and say "that person looks like a great friend or romantic partner!" or "that person looks like a horrible friend or romantic partner!" In short, I stopped feeling insecure because I learned that my mind and morals are far more important, and if I want to change my body I can change my diet and exercise routines.

If I were you, I'd get a Prius or an Insight. I drive a 2003 Honda Civic because it is a reliable car, maintenance is cheap, and it's fuel efficient. You can certainly drive whatever car you want, but I think Toyotas and Hondas are two of the smartest options. You said quite a bit of important stuff in there, but there was a lot of fluff. The details about your dream car aren't nearly as important as what you said here: I see a car as a partner and a capable tool in the right hands. I suppose I'm one of those who couldn't bond with people much as children and "bond" with objects instead. I really want to see you make progress, but in order for that to happen, we got to talk about that. You deserve a happy life, so please expand upon that!

I like what Wuzzums is saying, are you avoiding responsibility? That is something I personally struggle with, it makes sense to me but what are your thoughts about that winterbliss?

Thank you for those details. There are a lot of potential questions, but I want to start with this one: Why are you obsessing over cars? That is, what do you think the root of it all is? Another question I have: is the car a symbol of power or success?

Certainly some people do want to die because they find death preferable to life - for example one who can't escape an abuser or the memories of being abused. Of course there are thousands of examples as to why people would find death preferable to life, but to use an example from Atlas Shrugged, [no spoilers] a character commits suicide because the characters feels that he/she can't escape someone else. Then there are those who kill themselves slowly, perhaps not even aware of it, by choosing not to think, act, or be. Some just choose to waste away. Instead of pulling the trigger and dying immediately, some live life with their fingers always on the trigger, slowly squeezing, aiming right at their temples, inhaling the smell of lead, not only in preparation for death, but on a voluntary journey towards death with the end goal being the achievement of death. I don't know if that helps at all but I hope it does. I can't think of a specific essay of hers where she talks about a death wish, but the theme can be found in her novels.

ahahaha! edit: It is now November 2014 and I am looking at this video and I still have difficulty understanding the video. The singing and tune throw me off. There are some parts I enjoy because I understand them - I think. Overall, however, I am confused.

I stopped watching the video after a minute, it was exactly what I expected it to be: a wealthy, confused, actor who is advocating socialism.