Jump to content

Tyler H

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    743

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    14

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tyler H

  1. Tyler H
    I may have misunderstood your meaning, but it seemed as though you were arguing two different points. Please correct me if that's not the case. I have been advancing the argument that voting does violate the NAP for the reasons you mentioned. Is it immoral to order someone to kill someone else? Of course. Given that orders are authoritative commands with the expectation of being carried out, you've set into motion the events that will lead to the initiation of force. I think the argument against the immorality of voting being put forward in this thread is that of an extremity of self defense - it's not immoral because we are subject to the coercion whether we vote or not, but I disagree. There is a difference between three guys in a room, guy #1 with a gun to guy #2's head ordering him to kill guy #3, and a similar situation where guy #2 is not in immediate danger. If guy #1 calls up guy #2 and says "kill guy #3 or I'll kill you", guy #2's legal defense will be far more difficult than in scenario #1. All other options available to guy #2 in scenario #2 will be taken into consideration, mainly that he could've gone to the police for help. It matters how much force is applied and how much effort was made to resist or avoid. I think taxes are closer to scenario #1 and voting is closer to scenario #2.
  2. Tyler H
    Agreed, but could the fact that your average lemming believes it does factor in at all?
  3. Tyler H
    Thank you for taking the time to post RamynKing. In regards to your last statement I think that yes it doesn't mean you approve personally, but no matter your express intent you have presented that "Hitler" with a voting slip stamped with your seal of approval. I guess the way I see it is that the presence or absence of my vote is meaningless, so why lend my perceived support to a system of coercion I vehemently oppose?
  4. Tyler H
    From that stance I think it's also important to take into consideration that the pointless activity of a protest vote comes with opportunity costs (even if only a couple of hours) that the non-activity of abstention does not. In other words I think whether or not a non-vote is pointless depends on what you do in its stead.
  5. Tyler H
    I think the problem with the libertarian party is the the same as with the government as a whole. As soon as they are large enough to decide who gets the power, evil people will do whatever it takes to get their support. I believe we have to convince people to stop handing out power.
  6. Tyler H
    Another straw man. I'm done.
  7. Tyler H
    I didn't say anything negative about the conservatives or minarchist libertarians coming, only that I thought they were responsible for the influx. I think I'm done engaging with your straw man arguments and needless sarcasm. I don't know. That's like asking an abolitionist when slavery will be overcome. I don't know how to get there other than saying as loud as I can to as many people as I can that it is wrong and here are the reasons why.
  8. Tyler H
    Support for Israel... perpetuation of the war on drugs...
  9. Tyler H
    Or FDR + Trump - philosophical anarchy = an influx of conservatives and minarchist libertarians
  10. Tyler H
    I think making the "military so big, powerful and strong that no will mess with us" is a political stance that deserves criticism from any libertarian as well.
  11. Tyler H
    I didn't know I had to explain how to enlighten people - you put forward reason, evidence, and moral condemnation until it changes. Also, you were the one who started us off in a free society, and any society that accepts the initiation of force is not a free one. I don't need to explain how it got there I only need to point out that the conditions required for a free society (where you started us) are enlightened people which contradicts your arguments about how they will be so hostile to free speech.
  12. Tyler H
    Hahaha
  13. Tyler H
    I agree, which is why I think the focus on favorable content towards Trump and conservatives will diminish the credit that Stef has built up for so long.
  14. Tyler H
    Im not an investor so definitely correct me here if needed - but shouldn't the question be of the demand for nudes of dsayers and the lack in relation to that? Unless dsayers did not mean nudes of himself and I for some reason jumped to that conclusion lol.
  15. Tyler H
    And if you can dismiss my argument for lack of evidence (which I actually did provide) then everyone else can dismiss yours. Also, if you haven't noticed, the laws didn't stop them; the only thing that may is public opinion which just so happens to be the fabric of economic viability in a free society.
  16. Tyler H
    Interesting that I get a down vote for asking a question, I don't know how it was inferred as anything but a statement of my lack of knowledge and a curiosity of how many podcasts that discuss trump are critical of him or the state. I'm don't know why that deserves a push in the direction of censorship. Your sarcastic response is a gross misrepresentation of my question.
  17. Tyler H
    I didn't know there were that many, do you happen to know how many of those address a criticism of him or of the state?
  18. Tyler H
    I've added an anonymous poll to this topic to see what the general consensus is in the community.
  19. Tyler H
    I'm having trouble following, let me know if you think I've completely misunderstood your point. People in the DPRK live under a despotic regime; their ability to choose anything freely is extremely limited. I don't even think many of them are allowed internet access at all. As far as we are concerned here, in the US or Canada, we have the ability to choose among many different options of which the results are not binding upon anyone else. If I choose to frequent FDR over another board I have not initiated force against anyone nor asked anyone else to on my behalf. The same is true if I choose to buy Nike over Reebok. However if I vote for someone to run the US government this choice does result in the initiation of force against others. In one case my choice does not lead to the initiation of force and in the other it does; this is the difference I mean to point out.
  20. Tyler H
    There are lots of arguments for this here. I feel I need to point out that voting by way of free choice is different from voting in a coercive political system where the result is the initiation of force against innocents.
  21. Tyler H
    I can't imagine this sarcasm is anything but an attempt to transfer to me the frustration you feel at not being able to address my points. Same attempt here, saying "this person" (as if I am unaware of who Stefan Molyneux is) and posting a video that only decries democratic policies and makes the same unknowable declarations that have already been made about Trump is evidence of your inability to process or address my arguments. It also shows it's more likely that you are just repeating what Stef says than either remembering the arguments he has presented prior or formulating them for yourself. I don't think anyone said they would hate anyone for voting; if I missed it please show me the quote. If there is no evidence to suggest this then you may want to contemplate why you think someone will hate you if you vote for Trump.
  22. Tyler H
    I don't think that's nitpicky at all. To me being nitpicky is pointing out exceptions when the interlocutor is clearly speaking in generalities. I don't think clarifying facts is nitpicky. I agree, the constitution has been twisted and reinterpreted at every chance to increase state power. Even when they can't justify it they just do it anyways (war, income tax). To anyone interested, Lysander Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority has wonderful arguments against the very validity of the constitution. I found these arguments helpful when exploring the concept of a stateless society. The constitution has been used to lull the citizenry into a state of complacency thinking it will protect them, when, in actuality, it's just another tool to pacify and control them.
  23. Tyler H
    I see this got down voted. I apologize - I meant it as a lighthearted joke to signify my approval for dsayers' post, but see how it could be taken as an insult. Again, apologies.
  24. Tyler H
    I think you're right. I think it also serves to reinforce the idea that the only solution to society's problems is the state solution. "The world is ending run to your masters to protect you!"
  25. Tyler H
    It's easy to philosophize in a vacuum. Can you explain how this superstitious, ignorant society was able to repudiate governments and respect private property while simultaneously restricting people's ability to communicate ideas freely? The society that is advocated here (on this board, in this philosophical community) is not simply "no government", it is one in which people reject the initiation of force as a way of solving complex social problems. If ostracism was chosen as the primary tool for enforcing social behavior in a future free society, why would these philosophically enlightened people be either spreading hate speech or denying people service (consequently losing money just to satisfy their own prejudice) so prevalently? If no one listens then what you're saying has no value. If you spout ignorant drivel and no one wants to hear it, and you call for a group of people to point guns at them in order to force them to listen, then you sound more like a social justice warrior than an advocate for free speech.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept