labmath2

Stefan's advice is only going to cause his audience to loose the gene wars. While you are busy trying to find a specific woman, the men with lower standards are procreating like crazy and helping set the new standard of what women should expect, possibly even desire. You have to decide what is more important to you, finding that girl/woman, or finding a girl/woman. You have to draw the line somewhere, hopefully you don't end up taking principles over survival (genetucally speaking) because even Stefan has chosen survival over principles by way of the election.

After reading this it's clear you are approaching this all wrong. What you need is practice in having casual conversations, not a lesson in how to persuade hardliners. Try having conversations with strangers everytime you have a chance. This means not talking politics or philosophy. Talk about clothing, some cool thing you just did/found out, a book, their next vacation plan ... You get the idea. I know this sound like terrible advice but the alternative is reading a few books on persuation techniques and hoping you do well as an amateur.

first caller in the show titled "self harming monks who listen to bad music" from November 18 2015.

That is simply not true. I called in and challenged him on precisely the imprecise use of language and he simply did not address it. He defined UPB in page 30-33 (if memory serves) and the definition is objective only because it states UPB is behavior that is necessary or required for achieving a particular goal. Over the course of the book, this definition becomes substituted with the subjective what behavior every can or should prefer.

The best way is to have a lot of conversations with that person. You start to get a glimpse of their speech style, their argument format, and their rules of engagement. This allows you to know if you can persuade them and match your converrsation style to theirs for maximum efficiency. Empathy comes down to one thing, familiarity. The closer you feel to someone the easier it is to empathize. The more conversations you have with a wide variety of individuals the more likely you have encountered an archetype for anyone you meet which lets you feel like you know them more easily.

I have pointed this out before, but i think it needs repeating. I was born in Nigeria and lived there for 11 years. Until my parents filed for me to cone to the U.S. i had never interacted with a government official. The government is run by selling oil rights and a other ventures like government farms. There is no sales tax or property tax or income tax if you work for a private company in most states (the major states like Lagos or Abuja might have them) because there is no infrastructure to track and collect them. I never had a passport till we were about to travel. I imagine this is true of many third world countries. This might start to change as everwhere gets more industrialized and it becomes posdible to track and collect taxes. Even police officers were not very common where i grew up. You see the occasional one every now and then, but for the most part people just lived their lives as if they didn't exist. I grew up in Ilorin, Kwara state in Nigeria.

This is the underhanded trick of asking a question pressuposing the thing you are trying to prove. He can be responsible for the post without subscribing to any notion of ownership. Responsible is descriptive meaning who performed an action ownership is prescriptive meaning who ought to have exclusive rights to something.

Your responses don't actually address the point. Merely stating that we don't know what they will do in the future does not address the fact that they made threats now. If both threats are identical to you, then i can understand your not voting. Even so, you still haven't answered the question. What threats count as coercion? Regardless of your position on voting as an appropriate response, would threats (made in the form of promises) made by Hillary Clinton count as coercion? On the flip side would you also consider threats made by Trump coercion? Your response to the second question also misses the point. The threat is already made. It's not about what candidate X or Y will do in the future, it's about what they are doing now. You can argue about how commited they are to the threats (campaign promises) or how we cannot know if they will do worse than they threatened to do, but we have have to respond to those threats. You think an appropriate response is doing nothing. Doing nothing, at least in terms of voting, means acquiescing to those threats when a candidate wins. Unless you are willing to refuse to hand over your money or follow rules you disagree with (given that you are not in prison, i don't think this is the case). Given the differences between the threats, is it not practical to opt for the less coercive threat (for those who see a difference between the threats made)? Their vote doesn't change the political system (everyone will be subject to the political outcome), it merely changes the political outcome. They are not voting on what the candidate will do, but on the threats made by the candidates in the form of campaign promises.

Actually there is a valid critism of your argument here that you really did not address. 1. What counts as coercion? Its obvious someone threatning to come put me in prison is coercion. What about someone threatening to steal more from me in the form of taxes? What about someone threatening to import people who will likely increase crime in my community which increases the likelihood that i will be victimized? What about someone threatening to start a war in my name? What about someone threatening to pass more regulationsw which further restrains my freedom? 2. What is an appropriate response to percieved threat/coercion? Am I allowed to use coercion to prevent a greater use of coercion? If one candidate will be elected (at least till we can get people to recognize government for what it is), is it immoral to advocate for the candidate who promises to infringe less on our freedom? Even though i don't own you and can't sign your freedom away, am i immoral for signing a small piece of your freedom away to prevent someone else from signing away a bigger piece of it? If you are getting signed up to pay for someone's car and I quickly put you down to pay for my cheap car instead of my neighbor's expensive car, am I immoral for letting you keep more of you money? Is it unreasonable for me to assume you want lesds of your momey stolen and would be grateful for my actions? If you object by saying we don't know that Trump will do. Will you say a thank you in four years if Trump actually reduces the amount that is stolen from you to the people who voted for him? Will you say thank you if Trump is better than what Hillary promised she would deliver in terms of more wars (more taken from you or your future children to fund immorality) and immigrants from the middle east (more money collected from you or your future children to pay for people who will make your community less safe? Just as a side note, i disagree with the current voting because it allows voting in every election as long as one candidate is better than the other for freedom. If voting works for buying us more time or reducing government coercion, then we should have been doing it since FDR started. Once Trump is out of office and the next democrat promises to do all the things Clinton was promising but the republican promises to be better, would Stefan simply ignore the election because the candidate is not Trump? Would it be ok then to not "preserve western civilization?" If the other candidate had been Ted Cruz who will clearly not import people ftom the middle east and also worked to curtail illegal immigration (though to a lesser extent than Trump), would it have been ok to let "western civilization" perish under Clinton because Ted Cruz is not Trump?

Actually there is a valid critism of your argument here that you really did not address. 1. What counts as coercion? Its obvious someone threatning to come put me in prison is coercion. What about someone threatening to steal more from me in the form of taxes? What about someone threatening to import people who will likely increase crime in my community which increases the likelihood that i will be victimized? What about someone threatening to start a war in my name? What about someone threatening to pass more regulationsw which further restrains my freedom? 2. What is an appropriate response to percieved threat/coercion? Am I allowed to use coercion to prevent a greater use of coercion? If one candidate will be elected (at least till we can get people to recognize government for what it is), is it immoral to advocate for the candidate who promises to infringe less on our freedom? Even though i don't own you and can't sign your freedom away, am i immoral for signing a small piece of your freedom away to prevent someone else from signing away a bigger piece of it? If you are getting signed up to pay for someone's car and I quickly put you down to pay for my cheap car instead of my neighbor's expensive car, am I immoral for letting you keep more of you money? Is it unreasonable for me to assume you want lesds of your momey stolen and would be grateful for my actions? If you object by saying we don't know that Trump will do. Will you say a thank you in four years if Trump actually reduces the amount that is stolen from you to the people who voted for him? Will you say thank you if Trump is better than what Hillary promised she would deliver in terms of more wars (more taken from you or your future children to fund immorality) and immigrants from the middle east (more money collected from you or your future children to pay for people who will make your community less safe? Just as a side note, i disagree with the current voting because it allows voting in every election as long as one candidate is better than the other for freedom. If voting works for buying us more time or reducing government coercion, then we should have been doing it since FDR started. Once Trump is out of office and the next democrat promises to do all the things Clinton was promising but the republican promises to be better, would Stefan simply ignore the election because the candidate is not Trump? Would it be ok then to not "preserve western civilization?" If the other candidate had been Ted Cruz who will clearly not import people ftom the middle east and also worked to curtail illegal immigration (though to a lesser extent than Trump), would it have been ok to let "western civilization" perish under Clinton because Ted Cruz is not Trump?

So are you saying the reason for the "untruth about Donald Trump" is to realize the perfection of our "heroes" in order to diminish the capacity for heroism in our own lives. You mean by voting for those heroes and hoping they help us achieve freedom we have yet to achieve in our own lives? This seems ridiculous.

Preach on brother. Not to mention the demographics winter as come and gone. The only reason Democrats don't always win is because only about a third of the country votes. Voter turnout for thus election was less than for 2008 and 2012.

If voting works here to actually get us closer to the libertarian world, then how should we view voting going forward? Since Stefan started this channel, his goal has been to promote a more free society. He has gone about doing that in many ways including rejecting voting as a valid means of achieving freedom. If voting in this one election actually moves us closer to freedom (in a noticeable way) where all those other years of action have done little to create a more free society, wouldn't this be evidence of participating in the political being better for achieving a free society than any other method implemented so far? Should libertarians start taking the political process more seriously instead of deriding it for promoting violation of self ownership? Why not actually just advocate a true libertarian candidate the next cycle?

Yes its based on principles or yes its based on cosequences?

Is voting for Trump in line with your principles or are you doing it for the potential consequences? By this reasoning (a focus on consequences), isn't every election important if you can determine that one candidate is worse than another?

I know for fact the family was not in harmony till your father died. I also know for a fact none of this behavior is new. Go back to the beginning, what were your mother and father like when you were much younger? What were your sisters' relationship with your pstents like? The better you see the facts without adding emotion, the better off you will be.

As one of the people who thinks this whole election thing is a mistake, i will apologize if i turn out wrong. In fact i will donate $10 dollars for every policy Trump has proposed that he delivers as promised (not some watered down version of it). Here is what i ask in return, if Trump wins and he turns out to be a disaster, then you should never advocate for voting of any sort for the rest of time.

As it pertains to his comment on libertarianism, i think i am along the same lines. I also know i am a pessimist so i am probably overthinking how bad people actually are compared to reality, so i could be wrong. I am interested in seeing libertarianism practiced in a large population of at least 1 million people where you can actually get data on what happens when there is no government on that scale. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. My position on Trump is that i cannot reliably trust anything he has said or will say. Just based on his speeches on immigration, i cannot take anything he says seriously. He was first for deporting all the illegals and building a wall. Then he walked back the deportation to we will send them to the back of the line for visa. Then to lets build the wall first then we will deal with the illegal immigrant. Its not quite clear if he will only deport illegals that break the law or all illegals. I cannot trust anything he says as a position he truly holds. The best example comes from his answer to nuclear weapons. I know some people have made arguments about what he means by that answer, but the fact that we have to guess what he means gives me pause. Then you have things like lets torture family members of terrorists. The list goes on. I cannot in good conscience take Trump seriously. On the other side we have Hillary Clinton who is at best incompetent. Even if i ignored the lying and corruption, her experience is just a series bad decisions. I don't expect her to change anytime soon (unless bad decisions suddenly become good ones). So i can't in good conscience support her either. Supporting either candidate because they are better than the other is simply playing Russian roulette with the election. While i do not expect hard line democrats or republicans to take any responsibility for their candidate (depending on who get elected and how bad things get) because they can always blame the other side for everything that is going wrong, it makes me nervous when people like Stefan or Sam show preference for one candidate. How much honesty can we expect if their preferred candidate wins and they make bad decisions? Are we going to see regret for their part in persuading anyone to support said candidate?

Sam Harris discusses why thinks Trump is a worse candidate and around the 7:50 minute mark he discusses why he thinks libertarianism is not currently viable.

I hope you are not arguing that the government is making him support border control at gun point. Even in the extreme case where someone does demand i rob my neighbor at gun point, my actions are still violation of the NAP. The only difference is that no person will want to prosecute me for theft given the circumstances. This is what has been worked out in the classic flag pole scenario. This is why i pointed out that the same standards always apply (if its morality from principle), what changes is how we respond to each violation of NAP.

Doest this mean you favor amnesty for illegals?

This is an argument from effect (which is incompatible with morality from principles). If morality ceases to apply the minute one person is initiating force then morality will never apply. We have morality precisely because there are bad actors. If i go out and murder someone does that not count because government coercion? Why do you excuse support of initiation of force for border controls because government coercion. If this is how we deal with initiation of force now, what will change when it is a free society? Can i steal from my neighbor because armed robbers broke into my house last night therefore morality no longer applies?

Why do you think it doesn't matter? Isn't that the whole point of the election (who will make the country better)?

If we take Trump at his words (given that he has no political experience we can go by), do you think the country will be worse or better with him at the helm? What evidence do you have for that answer(worse/better)?