Tyler H

Well I don't think there's a better place for the discourse you are looking for - welcome!

Well we welcome you with open arms friend!

Good job dude, thanks for sharing!

If you accept Stef's argument (not sure if it's his, I have just heard him put it forward) as to why ethics do not apply to animals, then I think the mother takes precedence because she is a being capable of ethical understanding and adherence, while the fetus only possesses the potential for such qualities. The potential is enough to prevent it's murder, but not in the event where the fetus can only exist through the elimination of an existing ethical being. Perhaps this means if she is immoral then the fetus' life takes precedence... an interesting thought to ponder... Could you provide an example of an action causing a preventable death? To me that sounds synonymous with murder. Keep in mind not all voting is immoral, only voting for an immoral action that will be inflicted on an unwilling party. The problem with the last bit is that when dabbling in immorality there are so many unforeseen consequences. There is no guarantee that one will be less immoral than the other in the long run. What happens to your candidate that promises only to repeal laws and not take a salary when he does the opposite? Nothing. The candidate gets rich and the people get fleeced. This is definitely an aspect to be debated, I think the arguments will largely revolve around a delineation of proportionate response.

Shouldn't you be linking that to a Fox News article? Even if their lives were at risk it is the government that created the situation to begin with. The false concept that there can be a concentration of power and it will not be used for evil is what put people in danger. Snowden is a lightweight compared to politicians, a category in which you may now place your fearless leader.

They were all bought and paid for, right? If the customers wanted war there would've been war.

Regardless of whether or not a Trump presidency was necessary for freedom of speech to be maintained, the Trump heroism has run rampant. I find it important to point out (sadly) that government and politicians are still evil. If you are the head of an evil institution then you are evil. He should not be celebrated and glorified in a community that recognizes the initiation of force as the foundation of immorality. Those are my thoughts.

Fair enough, I see what you mean now. I was responding with the definition of implicit as "with no qualification or question; absolute" in mind. I wouldn't trust anyone in that way, even doctors have the tentacles of sleezy pill pushers slipping money and Xanax into the pockets of their white coats. But yes I agree we should defer to those who have achieved just authority and credibility with us in areas where our own abilities are lacking.

I guess to start we can say that the act of voting in itself is not immoral. A group of people who get together and decide to vote and adhere to the outcome of the vote voluntarily is not immoral. For example, a neighborhood where all the residents have agreed to certain standards and these standards are determined through a community vote would not be immoral. The immorality comes into play when what is being voted on is immoral. In this way voting is like shooting a gun, totally fine if you shoot it at a paper target, completely immoral if you shoot it at a person. If what is being voted on is the immoral use of force against a being capable of ethical behavior then the entire process is immoral. In regards to the issue of the moral majority, we know that just because more people support something doesn't make it moral because no one would say "How can rape be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it?" or "How can slavery be immoral when the vast majority of people condone it?" If morality changed with the subjective opinions of the masses then there truly is no morality, only subjective preferences. If we define morality as the subjective preference of the masses then there is no difference between "murder is wrong" and "I like ice cream". However if we define morality as an objective universal rule, now we have something to work with, and now we don't need to depend on the majority for morality which has historically led to the sanction of slavery, witch burning, and rape. UPB is a great introduction to objective morality.

By saying this you are expressing that you have substituted your own ability to think with Stef's and are ignorant of his capacity for error. Credibility (one reason I still listen and donate) is one thing, implicit trust quite another. Stefan himself would caution you here. I've been saying the aspects of philosophy that have been absent should be put back into place, not that it should be the sole focus of the show. And of course we want philosophy to be popular, but it's not up to us past accepting, knowing, and disseminating to the best of our abilities - people still have to accept it in all it's aspects. If you change philosophy in any way to conform to popular opinion it is no longer philosophy. I think we agree here I just wanted to be clear that wanting philosophy to be popular and altering it to be so are very different concepts that we could've argued over through an erroneous assumption of the other's position. It won't help the hundreds of thousands of new listeners to accept the conclusions truth and reason inevitably lead to if I listen to old podcasts.

Yes, I agree. I was speaking to them within that narrative. I should have been more clear about that, thanks for pointing it out and elaborating.

Podcast 953 about 40 min in.

I agree with much of what you said. With respect to what you said about keeping in touch with the common tongue, I think this has always been the case with the show; here's what's going on, here's the view from the plebeian perspective and here's the application of philosophy that exposes the predations of government and explicates the solutions freedom can offer. The absence of the last point in many videos where it could easily have been inserted is my problem specifically, primarily because I believe that no one can disseminate this information as well as Stef. My perception is that the abstention of this dissemination was a necessary aberration in order to get Trump elected, however it is my opinion that a continuation of this pattern is anathema to the values held for the large majority of the show's existence and should not be continued in the absence of such an extreme situation as the recent election.

Philosophy is not a popularity contest. It should only be popular when people adhere to the truth not when "the truth" adheres to people's delusions. I can understand holding back on knocking over religious and conservative dominoes to preserve freedom of speech, but now that catastrophe has been averted it is important to continue to speak the truth. Taxation is theft, government is force, and the law is an opinion with a gun. No matter how much less evil Trump will do compared to Hillary, he will still do evil and that is the truth that has been eschewed for the past year.

At the beginning of the "Truth About Lincoln" Stef says the reason for the truth about series is to realize the imperfection of our "heroes" in order to expand the capacity for heroism in our own lives. I find it interesting the "Untruth About Trump" series has had the exact opposite effect.

This reminds me of when Stef would hold the elder generations to account for the failed social security system - admit that you either had/have no control over government or argue that you did and accept the responsibility and associated consequences for those policies, then we can talk about not sending you off into the woods in February (metaphorically of course).

I didn't see any studies linked in the article. I would be interested in any that addressed the recidivism rate after treatment. My point was that even if there is a soft landing available it may not be preferable vis-a-vis long term success as it removes a key deterrent from the addict possibly increasing the risk of relapse and revealing the "soft landing" as illusory. I would also express my skepticism for any cure to addiction that excluded the psychoanalysis of relevant trauma which led to the substance abuse in the first place. I think the pain of withdrawal is more salient in the abolition of the state than in the relinquishing of a drug habit, but that is just my opinion.

Could we empathize with a family who put bread on the table through the slave trade? Maybe, but slavery is still an evil institution that cannot exist in a free world. I don't think dsayers, and certainly not myself, is suggesting that we are cold and uncaring towards those that will suffer, but the suffering is necessary. The pain of the withdrawal is one of the motivators for the addict to stay away from the drug. There's no soft landing from our current state to a free society.

I think if the US achieved the split somehow it would be all of about ten seconds before the left declared war on the right after they realized how insolvent they had now become - blaming the right of course and ginning up hatred within the citizenry in order to conscript all those pussy-pandering beta males with little to no recalcitrance. I must say though, the idea of all the liberals living in their own "socialist paradise" without the ability to tax the makers sounds pretty nice.

Email Mike at [email protected] to set up a call.

I don't follow James Corbett, did he hate Trump? Also, it appears to me that the Trump heroism has eclipsed the conversation on the philosophical argument against a government, which given the concern of a Hillary presidency I can understand, but now that Trump has been elected is the show going to start knocking down the dominoes that were left untouched during the campaign season? My favorite shows are the debates so I would really like to see debates between Stef and some of the new guests that have been on in the past year. A propaedeutic on the immorality of the state for all the new listeners would be nice to see as well.

I would certainly agree with that. I have a similar journey to take but in the opposite direction - I was quite surprised at how much I enjoyed their misery. The pictures of the Hillary campaign crying Tuesday night made me smile. I haven't sat down to process the feelings yet but when I responded to your post I was like - hey, I should take my own advice here. If you hadn't have said something I may have missed out on an opportunity for self knowledge as well so I thank you for sharing your thoughts.

OP - I would be wary of using should and shouldn't in regards to your feelings. Should you not feel a burning sensation when your hand is in a fire? You do not control the feelings that arose within you, but you can control the thought processes afterwards. My advice is to figure out what connects you to these people. Why do you think they are sad? What do you think they are thinking? How do these thoughts and feelings relate to your life? It is almost certainly about you and not them since you do not know the exact reasons why each of them are so upset, but there is a relationship between your life and why you think they are upset. Feelings are an opportunity for self knowledge, I would advise against suppressing or dismissing them because you think you should.

One thing I learned early on from Stef is that when the correct decision is unclear we use our principles as a guide. Hopefully now that the apocalypse has been averted a return to philosophical principles and longterm avenues to a free society will be forthcoming. Remember, Stef has been clear that the focus on Trump was plan B. People didn't listen when he advocated bringing the message of freedom to the people in your life and not accepting their support for the initiation of force against you. This is how we are freed, not through Trump. Do that and you will have done more for freedom than granting the power to initiate force to someone you hope will do less evil.

So it's better if special interests stop buying politicians and just become them? DT is one of those special interests; how is the problem of special interest groups influencing policy ameliorated by the removal of a middle man? This is the second time I've brought this up in this thread, please forgive me if I missed the counter argument.