Tyler H
-
Posts
743 -
Joined
-
Days Won
14
Everything posted by Tyler H
-
I've had this concern as well.
-
Good points man. Also it's refreshing to have a civil discussion about this topic.
-
This helps me better understand the motives for the support, thank you Mike. I am interested in seeing this play out as much as anyone, even if only to see Clinton in an orange jumpsuit. I would prefer, in fact be a bit relieved, if Trump wins. However the thought process in my head is that if I were to vote, I would be lending my sanction to the evils of the state with no perceivable change in the outcome of the election. I doubt that if everyone in this community voted for Trump it would have any difference, but what I think it would do is compromise our integrity and values. I agree that there is an argument to be made for self defense because we are forced to live within a coercive system in order to participate in society, but when the outcome is so intractable and cost of support so high... I cannot justify it to myself. That is why I'm arguing this position. I will continue to listen to podcasts on the subject to see if there is something Stef has said that will address this. I understand you are incredibly busy and being asked to revisit arguments that you've already spent countless hours on must be frustrating. Thank you for taking the time.
-
Ok, I think I see a point of confusion here. When I ask why he's different, I'm asking why we should believe his motives for becoming president are different from any other candidate in history. How are we to know that he will or even can do what he "promises" (like Gavitor said there's still the rest of the politicians he'll need support from)? How do we know that he isn't capitalizing on an opportunity to obtain the greatest position of power in the world?
-
I agree. You could also point out that while no government<current government; (government<current government) ≠ no government. The third line is a non sequitur and therefore renders the argument invalid.
-
I agree
-
Wow, just looked that up, I had not heard of that event. Yeah the political climate is so divisive I would not be surprised if the side that does not win loses their shit. Maybe that's a good video topic - If X Wins, Y Will Lose Their Shit; Prepare Yourself Accordingly lol.
-
While I am more inclined to agree with you on a local yes/no ballot level, I want to point out that you actually aren't free to oppose them. Sure you can protest and wave signs and put down on an official piece of paper your wishes, but all this does is perpetuate the illusion of a choice when the fact of the matter is if those people want to steal more of your money then they're going to do it and if you oppose them in action (not paying) then you will be aggressed against. Still in this instance, when the vote has certain results - a yea meaning directly more force against you and a nay meaning directly less - I can't argue against it on moral grounds since an argument for self defense could certainly be applied. However, I don't think this translates to this election. I don't see any reasonable level of certainty that a vote for Trump (or any politician since they lie to get votes) will lead to more freedom and not less when the only thing government has done is grow except for pockets of retraction here and there to facilitate more growth in the long run. Trump is more likely the savior of the state than the savior of the west.
-
I'm out of up votes today... here you go.
-
If that's the case what's wrong with saying just that? Wouldn't that be the most honest thing to say? Why is it that the questions can't be answered here in a post? And that making mere objections and counter arguments to posts warrants a down vote? I said I haven't seen them all so if an argument I put forward was addressed already that I apologized and would like to be shown. I watched the ones put forward and some related others which did not address the arguments I put forward. Does this qualify as ignoring?
-
It's been gradual, what you said really hit me. I think it's important to remember that while we disagree on this topic we are on the same side here and want the same results more or less. I would also like to add that of course if Trump or Johnson (however unlikely) were to win I would prefer that to Hillary - especially if she ends up being prosecuted as a result (however unlikely). My objection to voting is a moral one that I can't justify through self defense or the argument for effect.
-
Oh thank you, very good explanation.
-
No I just didn't think it would devolve to that level.
-
Dude, really?
-
Thanks for the post Samurai. I can say that I certainly see how people want a Trump presidency - just the thought of Hillary Clinton in stripes gives me goosepimples - but I think there are moral reasons not to vote. Also, I see Trump as a savior to the state; not to the West. I hesitate to argue from effect because so much of the outcome is uncertain, but I'll add my thoughts/rebuttals and let me know what you think. I think you've made some good points, but all compared to the expected outcome of a "successful" Clinton presidency; in other words compared to an already perceived worse outcome. There's no reason to think that sticking to the principle that force achieves the opposite effect desired won't affect the real world. Ultimately I do not care who becomes president; I care that the initiation of force is evil and the state is immoral - and voting lends my support to that system. You might be interested in posting this in the Vote/Don't Vote thread. This topic is the focus there.
-
Lol, this deserves to be posted here.
-
A place to post funny memes you'd like to share.
-
Apologies, I meant theory as is synonymous with principles not hypothetical proposition; perhaps I should have used that word. However, I don't see how economic interactions in the absence of coercion is not "real world reality". I can certainly respect your educational background and take this discourse as a possible learning experience for myself, but first I think I need to point out that when I said some people may prefer cheaper goods I meant for themselves, not for others and their country (again, I should have been more precise). To my knowledge this is the essence of voluntarism, each individual making voluntary decisions to suit their preferences and not enforcing those preferences onto others. In regards to jobs, I don't think employment should be the primary concern. The fastest and most effective way to create jobs would be to ban certain technological advances. For example, if you banned particular farming equipment you could create more than enough jobs overnight. Yet no one would recognize this as a solution because what is truly important is capital wealth and an increase in real wages (buying power) which the banning of technological advances would destroy. I do think the most effective way to increase jobs and overall wealth is to remove the laws that prevent people from working, but also (from the argument for morality) I prefer the voluntarism of a free market to the coercion of tariffs. Let me know what you think and if you disagree. Also, I'm curious what school of economics was taught in your classes, was it Keynesian?
-
I think you have point here - I think there is a difference between voting on ballot measures that do not initiate or mitigate the use of force and voting for a politician. -Edited for a grammatical error-
-
Everything is expensive because the currency is devalued through the inflation of the money supply. The fact that it costs less to make something that isn't geographically specific on the other side of the planet and ship it over here is a testament to the amount of coercion imposed on this country. The reason it costs more to make products in America, and the reason people don't have jobs, is because of the regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws enforced by the government. All of the above is exactly for what we can thank the last generation. Despite what people may want, what they prefer is the important factor. Some people may prefer higher quality goods as opposed to cheaper lower quality ones, however for some people the option is lower quality now or higher quality in the future; for others lower quality may be the only option they have. It's not for anyone else to decide for them. If your interested in free market economic theory I suggest Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Rothbard and Bastiat are also quite good.
-
I'm totally open to the fact that this could be my bias - but I'm having difficulty pulling from the videos the evidence as to why Trump's different. You can say he's self-funded, but given his success we know that he's not against using political power to further his own ends; by becoming a politician he circumvents the need to pay for policy which he can enact himself. Everything else I heard in the video (as well as this call) was conjecture and speculation on Trump's motives. Again, if I failed to see the evidence due to my own bias or lack of intelligence please point them out, I would greatly appreciate it. I'd also like to pose the query as to why, when Stef mentioned the addiction to political power, he specifically called out democrats, as if republicans and Trump are not susceptible to this addiction. I think it's statements like these that are causing some of us to raise our hands and say "wait....what?"
-
Still one of my favorites to date.
-
Oh I see, thank you for rewording. From the viewpoint of the politician, yes, they do not care how they win as long as they win and there are enough people supporting to violently enforce their rule. However, I was noting that while popular opinion does not validate an argument, the average person thinks it does. They believe in democracy and the moral majority and that justice is derived from law when it should in fact be the other way around. So my question maybe should have been to ask if you think the ratio of voters to population percentage factors into the legitimization of the state in the conscious or sub-conscious of each citizen; which I think leads to support for the state as a whole.
-
I'm sorry I had trouble following this statement for some reason, would you mind rephrasing?
