Tyler H

It's not that they are totally lost, it's about the opportunity cost. You can poor x hours into this guy to change his mind, of which there is no guarantee that it will stick, or you can spend that time trying to convince people who will listen to reason and therefore be more likely to hold the position without your reinforcement. Ideally they will go out and try to convince others as well. We're not defeatists, we're economists. From what you've said it sounds like you're friend needs a dose of self knowledge before any dose of reason will help him. Debating. I should mention that was part in jest with reference to the earlier posts about when to stop trying to reason with people. It would be one of multiple factors I think, but if someone starts debating what reality is then you're not headed in the right direction.

I'm not sure what you're trying to compare. I thought we were talking about whether or not it's possible to be in the Alt-right and adhere to the NAP, not discussing available options. I do agree that those who do adhere to the NAP can measure other's actions in reference to the NAP vis-à-vis how often the principle is violated, and make a judgement that this group is closer to my ideal than that group. However, I wouldn't say a libertarian who hits their kids adheres to the non-aggression principle as much as I wouldn't say that anyone who advocates the use of force against people for refusing to pay for services for which they did not ask adheres to it. So if a group violates the NAP, how can you count yourself among them and say you adhere to the NAP?

That's when you know to stop.

Do they not advocate for a government that continues to maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force? I imagine they must align with the right wing in some respects otherwise they'd just be called separatists, right? This may be up for debate, but I don't think you can have more or less NAP. It's a principle; your actions are either consistent with it or they are not.

Could you give me a quick synopsis of the major tenets of the movement? It's hard to sift through all the main stream propaganda. I didn't think the group was consistent with the NAP, but I'm open to be corrected.

Lol

I like this strategy, in fact it's probably my favorite (being rational and all). I wouldn't be surprised if this has no effect on the irrational interlocutor but it is fantastic for attracting anyone listening who can think. And who knows, maybe it flips a switch in the irrational person and makes them step back and reconsider their beliefs. Though my one concern with this strategy is that if you do this to the wrong person they may attack you, verbally or physically. So be prepared for that scenario.

Haha, yeah like all the non-conformist teenagers that conform the image set for non-conformists. I think that people who already can't think are beyond saving. They're the ones we need to pressure so their children will grow up being able to think. Yeah, I think you're on to something here. People see morality as whatever the majority of people think is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Any way the wind blows... Somehow we must change their perception of the direction of the wind.

What is the definition of truth that you are working with? If the definition is "that which conforms to reality", then to say that truth is not constant would be a contradiction. If it is not constant then that is to say that sometimes that which is true is true and sometimes that which is true is not true. It's important to differentiate this from the statements of truth that will change, i.e. I am inside my house is true, but changes once I step outside. I suppose you could say that the truth of my presence in the house has changed, but I don't believe this is the same as saying the entire concept of truth is relative. Statements of truth will change but not because truth has changed but because reality has. Am I making any sense? It makes sense in my head, but typing it out I'm not entirely sure I'm being all that clear.

I think those are good answers. It's a tough question. Try and find a way to incentivize them to act a certain way, I suppose - like religion did. Although, religion tends to break the mind to the point that it is resistant to reason so it becomes this repetitive cycle... Improving parenting is going to be a crucial. We know that people aren't just dysfunctional, they're broken by other people. Usually it's the parents, and if it's not then it remains the parent's responsibility because they control the environment in which the child exists. We need to make it really uncomfortable for people to be shitty parents. Also, sometimes I wonder to what degree people just follow the herd. Take all this social justice warrior nonsense, it's a very vocal, very visible minority, but a minority nonetheless. So why do people listen? Is it because it serves the leftist narrative and so it's amplified by the MSM? Or is it that people are so... (I don't want to say dumb... complacent, unthinking?) that any appearance of a change in the social trend triggers their desire to follow the herd. Could it be that the appearance of a trend in the opposite direction could trigger a similar effect? Maybe if there are just a bunch of people going out and yelling in the streets that the initiation of force is immoral in all it's forms then there can be a shift. I don't know, I'm just speaking(writing) off the cuff, spitballing - what do you guys think?

I think this may be what you are looking for.

So what is your ideal scenario here; preventing dehumanization? Or punishing people for violating a standard to which you adhere? In regards to the Constitution, just in case anyone is interested, Lysander Spooner argued quite cogently against it's validity shortly after the Civil War in his essay No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority. Here is the introduction.

Hi Soulfire, welcome to the community! The curiosity you exhibit approaching this subject is admirable. I see that you really care what happens to people who are truly unable to provide for themselves and need the assistance of their fellow man; I assure you most advocates for a free society do as well. I have to tell you that I laughed when you reinforced your confession of ignorance in libertarian principles with the use of the term "libertarian regime". You seem curious enough that in time you'll see the humor in it as well. But anyway let's see if I can at all assuage your concerns with regards to the less fortunate members of society. Did you know that 84% of Canadians donate to charity to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year? In the US it is a lower percentage, at about 67%, but the donations are nearly 375 billion dollars a year! That puts the average donation at nearly 3 thousand dollars per annual household contribution. Also, the percentage of American high net worth households (1 million dollars+) who donate is at an impressive 98%. On top of that 65 million Americans volunteered 8 billion hours of their time amounting to an estimated 175 billion dollars. Add that to the monetary donations and it's nearly hitting 550 billion dollars. I outline these facts to show that a significant majority of people really care about the poor - and not just enough to tell the government to make everyone else donate, but to put their own time and money where their mouth is and help out. How much more would be given if people had twice their income? How much less would be needed? Take into account also that an increase in empathy will be needed for society to reject the initiation of force in all its forms as an allowable interaction in civilization so it is unlikely more freedom will result in less charity. It is, I think, a result of the vast compassion so many people have for the indigent this topic is so often raised when questioning libertarian principles, and the very reason why we do not need the government to handle it. It is an enormous overhead (not to mention it is immoral) to apply force to a situation that would come to fruition without it. Also due to the fact that this objection is so often raised, there is a plethora of libertarian works addressing the subject far better than I can here. Stef has done podcasts on the subject before (you can do a search at FDRPodcasts.com, but shame on you for not listening to all 3500!) and The Mises Institute has mountains of material that has really helped me explore the questions that naturally arise when discovering these new ideas. The Foundation for Economic Education is another great resource as well. I mentioned the immorality of the process by which the state handles welfare; this is the main objection I and many others have. It doesn't matter how charity is handled in a free society as long as force is not used. It's not right to rob someone at the point of a gun, whether you use the money for drugs or public school, whether it's for personal enrichment or for the needy. The action itself is immoral. We don't care how the cotton is picked without slavery - we declare slavery is immoral and so insist on another way of getting it picked. In every case I can think of when you remove the "short-cut" of violence, and are therefore required to think of peaceful means, the result is far better. I hope my comments help. Here is one of the first videos I saw of Stef's that was A kind of broad introduction to libertarianism. It's still one of my favorites. Let me know what you think!

Even if you accept the Constitution as a valid contractual document, its purpose was to enumerate the powers granted to the government, not to enumerate freedoms granted to the people. The restrictions on government mentioned in the amendments were an attempt to prevent abuse of those powers. Is it your contention that sex for resources is immoral and should be forcibly restricted by the government?

Sounds interesting, thanks for sharing.

You're right, thank you for the correction. I was conflating those wars with the "war on terror".

Uhhh... no, you didn't. I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to Will's assertion that militarily superior nations will defeat a stateless society with examples of militarily inferior nations/juntas successfully defending against the United States. I wasn't making any claims about military conflicts in general or how their effects are perceived. Have fun with your straw man, I have no interest in continuing this pretense of a conversation.

It is my understanding the stated goal was to prevent the spread of communism. They failed to do that while spending over a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), conscripting 2.2 million men into martial slavery, sending 60,000 to their deaths, 300,000 to injury, and countless more burdened with the effects of PTSD. By what standard could that be considered success? Iraq and Afghanistan I assume are pretty self explanatory. The only success these wars can claim was transferring wealth from the ruled to the rulers, which I believe to be the real reason for these wars. So yes, by that standard they were a smashing success. I'm failing to see how anything you said has anything to do with anything I said.

Maybe you could then explain why the United States failed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...? What we mean is a society where the initiation of force is rejected as a method of interacting in civilization. If you have a problem you don't use the shortcut of sticking a gun in someone's face to get them to comply. You find a peaceful solution. We all understand this in our daily lives but are propagandized by our rulers to exempt them from this simple principle. Not adhering to this principle is why governments continue to grow until collapse, no matter how small they started. They allow for the initiation of force to exist and can never contain it. Because they already accept the initiation of force as a viable option, some silver tongued sophist, good intentions or not, will find some excuse to apply their violent solution in another area. Let me ask what kind of government you imagine and see if we can't think up some viable alternatives?

To be fair you did say he "isn't a Mormon", but I see your point. My point was to highlight the dangers of false methodologies and how they can be manipulated to serve evil and are often created for that very purpose. Sorry, that comment of mine was meant to be separated from my response to you and in fact was more of a response to WasatchMan. I was referring to every religion (including statism) not just mormons and FLDS.

Why are the members who actually adhere to the doctrine they follow always relegated to the category of "not a real x"? I thought it was because they expose to the world the insanity of their religion that the moderate members wish to suppress, but perhaps there is another reason. Fundamentally (no pun intended) I don't care what anyone believes, but if they sell people lies and break the minds of children to perpetuate their toxic ideology then I refuse to call them good people. What a defamatory claim against those who actually do earn the title.

Can't speak to all of them but that Warren Jeffs crowd basically treated their "wives"(rape victims) like slaves and baby machines so they could claim food stamps and welfare from the government.

Oh I think maybe I did misunderstand part of what Dylan was saying. In a free society based on voluntary transactions and adherence to the NAP positions of power would be screened for the traits mentioned. The point I thought I needed to make was that currently these positions of "authority" are based on violence and coercion so sociopathy is beneficial to career success. To your point on the everyday duties of present day law enforcement I would push back with regards to the war on drugs occupying a decent portion of those activities. But even if it didn't, the important thing I think is that violating the NAP is still a job requirement. Most soldiers don't kill anyone, but nevertheless when you sign up it's something you know is in the job description.

I'm confused why you would screen for NAP-violating character traits for a job that requires the violation of the NAP. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean.

You're referring to a microeconomic function that does nothing to disprove the proposition I put forward in regards to the macroeconomic concept of trade imbalance. China exports good x to the US. China now has some paper IOUs (dollars or treasuries). What value does this paper have? Only that the US will accept this paper in return for goods equivalent in value to that of x plus interest. As long as there is reason to believe that this debt will be honored, the paper holds it value and may be saved or traded - but only with the confidence that it can be returned to the US for goods to balance the trade deficit (among other factors, but that being the principal component). There are many ways to divide up the monetary stock, but nevertheless I didn't say it didn't count in the money supply. I said that particular portion of the money supply is not in circulation in the American economy. By all means, please open my eyes to the errors of Austrian economic theory and to how the initiation of force (how I should have phrased it, my mistake) can solve problems?