Tyler H

No one, who loaned you yours?

He means if you do not own yourself then who is responsible for the post.

It is certainly important we define these terms, and perhaps we can start a thread on that very subject, but the arguments I make against voting are for those who have accepted that conclusion already. I understand not everyone here accepts that argument so that's why I said "If you accept".

I see this accusation a lot, moral superiority, virtue signaling... what I am doing, and dsayers I think too (correct me if I'm wrong), is trying to help others who hold moral values important stay consistent with those moral values for their own happiness. Countless podcasts convinced me that going against your principles is bad for your own mental health. Hundreds of times I've heard Stef argue "I don't care about the effect, I don't care about the effect, I dont't care how cotton gets picked in the future I care that slavery is immoral". This is the stance we are taking (again correct me if I'm wrong dsayers). We accept that voting for a politician violates the principles that the philosophical ancaps hold here, and for their sake are pushing back. Maybe we are wrong, but if we thought so we wouldn't be trying to convince you otherwise. It isn't moral superiority - its pushing back for what we believe is right for the sake of others we care about and who care about morality. If you accept the initiation of force as evil- Politicians give orders to initiate force The initiation of force is evil Politicians command evil That which commands evil is evil for commanding it Politicians are evil Politicians attain their position by the support of their voters Every voter for a winning politician is responsible for placing that politician in a position to command evil Every voter supports evil. Not an airtight syllogism but a good representation of where I'm coming from. Correct my errors so we can find the truth.

A thought I just had, and maybe it's utter nonsense but I'll just throw it out there raw and see what you guys think, is that UPB is a redefinition of morality. Throughout history people have used morality to explain why people shouldn't steal, assault, or murder. Whatever they use to explain why the people should not do these things gets co-opted by people who want to control others or have their own preferences they wish to impose on how people should act. UPB is a new explanation of how to be moral that is objective in the fact that it relies on principles for its definition that cannot be changed - like the scientific method.

I admire you're willingness to graciously receive criticism; a quality we should all strive for.

I think you've made some good points in your other post, are you planning on calling in? I think it would be a fantastically interesting debate.

I see, thank you for clarifying.

I certainly agree. The salient point in my view being the proper investment in building the foundation that makes possible a happy home.

Why can't libertarians define force, or what is wrong with the libertarian definition? Or why do libertarians need their own definition, what is wrong with the definition of force? How is objectivism and libertarianism worlds apart? My current understanding is that libertarianism is quite a large umbrella that covers many different ideological belief systems, objectivism being a small subset. What are the differences between objectivism and minarchism? (My exposure to Rand is Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness - I have Introduction to Objectivist Epistomolgy but have not read it yet) How would you categorize yourself in regards to these thought systems? What is BTFO'd? Bashed the f*** outta?

I tend to agree, but I'm not sure what the family dynamic is in this regard for the traditional family. Would the relationship with the child (in the traditional marriage setting) supersede the marital relationship in any way, or is it more of a cohesive unit that bonds all three individuals in an equal way? I still think the extra time to bond between the single mother and child will inevitably create a relationship that will be forever stronger than any new relationship. Then could that be said of the marital relationship prior to the child? It's a quandary.

I agree. Well said. I do not believe that if we had the magical power to get rid of the state tomorrow that it would be a good idea or something we should do, nor do I know anyone who suggests that. That being said, the reason we can't is because the state is a manifestation of society's approval for the initiation of force. If it was proffered, "could we abolish the initiation of force tomorrow, would we do it?" who would decline? I think most of us recognize that we cannot abolish violence and getting rid of the state is just getting rid of a structured form of violence that will inevitably resurface in a more chaotic way since the core issue is society's reliance on the initiation of the use of force to solve problems. I disagree with political action because of the empirical evidence that violence does not solve problems. You can not use the state to reduce the state. The emersion of a voluntary society has to be voluntary - that is why we cannot snap our fingers to abolish the state.

Have you read UPB?

I inferred that you meant the "work" was Stef focusing on the election as a necessity to save western civilization, and that the play is unimportant philosophical principles that us children are clamoring for in our idyllic ignorance of the bigger picture. I'm not saying this is what you meant, only what I inferred which of course I am willing to be corrected. It was not accurate for me to say "the show's principles" as if Stef did not derive these principles from reason and evidence and are as such only principles regardless of the show's existence, thank you for pointing this out for me to clarify. But what I meant in reference to the obfuscation is their absence in many political podcasts/videos in the run-up to the election for what purpose I can only surmise is to not scare off or be dismissed by people that are the target of the information. If the analogy was to place election coverage in a position of higher importance I would have to disagree. There are plenty of people who can reveal the MSM's lies and promote Trump (the favored person to Hillary), there is nearly no one, in my opinion, that can articulate the beauty and necessity of a free society the way Stef can. Although part of me does agree with this sentiment - - I would be interested in the empirical evidence thebeardslastcall called for to back it up. Viewing the reduction in the dissemination of anarchic principles as somewhat manipulative, I am skeptical that the viewers attracted by Trump videos will be receptive to the information - somewhat controversial - in earlier shows, if they even decide to venture back that far.

I've been thinking about this and the situation in Europe; between Lloyd deMause's concept of growth panic and the historical precedence of failing countries going to war to shave down on the dependent class and fleece the producers under the guise of "necessary sacrifice", how avoidable is armed conflict involving the United States and/or Europe (no implication of against each other meant, just involvement in some kind of conflict)? In other words, are we overdue for a world war and is it like an economic bubble being that it's worse the longer it's inflated? Maybe a topic for another thread.

What does this mean?

So "work" is content that obfuscates a certain aspect of the show's principles in order to put a favored person into a position anathema to the proposed ideals of said show, and the "children" are the people who want that obfuscation removed?

Thank you for voicing your appreciation!

I think you raise a fair point. In other threads I have offered arguments as to why a hard focus on the political circus without the accompaniment of philosophical anarchist principles and conclusions ("without" to "conclusions" being my main, if not sole, point of contention) is a mistake, so I won't go into them here. What I will mention is this; it is often stated that this show is a customer driven enterprise. As a donator I am expressing the direction I would like the show to take. I am here to learn subject matter unavailable in any other medium. Of the first 1800 podcasts I have felt educated and enlightened (and enjoyed that education and enlightenment) by 95-99% of them. Podcasts 2300-3000 probably 80-90%. Between August 2015 and may 2016 the only podcast I can say I truly enjoyed was The Truth About Aristotle. I like philosophy and psychology and economics and politics, but not politics I can get from any other small government show with no philosophical methodology. He added his voice to theirs for a purpose, if that purpose is done I want his brain back producing content no one else can. I listen and donate because I believe that there is no other show like this one and no one else that can make the case for a free society as well as Stef. My opinion of course should carry little weight in regards to the course of the show but since what Stef wants is to be customer oriented I will voice my opinion and he can add that to the pile when weighing the demand of his listenership. This is a data point for him. I'll vote with my voice and my dollars like any good voluntarist should. I'm not going to withhold my donations over this disagreement but I will voice my opinion on what I want to hear and what I think is effective in bringing about freedom. Of course I can only speak to my perspective not others' in this camp. Thank you for your curiosity in this area.

Edit - post accidentally posted twice. See next post.

Was this not possible prior?

I would also enjoy more content like this.

Welcome friend!

Welcome!