J. D. Stembal

I have wanted to nuke my You Tube and Gmail accounts for a long time now, but I just can't bring myself to do it. Are there any good alternatives for webmail that aren't future purveyors of Fascism? I was using my friends Squirrelmail server for a while but then Comcast arbitrarily decided to block post 25 for residential customers in that market.

The button scenario is a manifestation of people wanting something for nothing, in other words, general laziness. Why would you press the button to nuke the state even if you could? It totally usurps any credibility you will have in your life in the future. This is the same trap to which statists fall prey when they vote. If I only cast votes for the right candidate, all of my problems will go away. But it's even better than that - voting in democratic elections provides the illusion that is it the lowly individual that is in control of politics! That's the real magic! Magic doesn't really work and everyone knows it. That's why we call it magic. It's people paying a stage actor to con them for the purposes of amusement. Essentially, this is what we do when we drive to the polls to vote for democracy. We push our magic button then watch the spectacle on the evening news as they count the number of people who pushed the magic button. It's all very silly and when you point it out, people get defensive because they really like watching magic shows. Telling them the truth spoils their enjoyment of magicians practicing their trade.

Why I don't have a smart phone? I simply don't need one. No one does from any practical standpoint. It's just aesthetics - a status symbol the kids like to present at to their friends during show and tell for social approval. Oh, and the NSA can't track me.

The argument for non-aggression does not solely rely on itself as a premise to prove the conclusion that it is true. Therefore, the argument does not use circular logic. The only reason you cannot argue against it is because you would have to invalidate self-ownership (property rights over yourself and your actions) first. If you argue that there is no self-ownership, nothing that you or I can say has any relevant meaning because we don't have responsibility over our own thoughts and actions. We might as well consult our own leavings for relationship advice at that point. Often times, my feces has better judgement than I in these matters. No one is forcing you to behave strictly under universal preferable behavior. You can either use it, or not, whenever you feel like it. It's a tool to examine moral situations. It's not like you are committing some great evil by not using it. By itself, not using UPB doesn't violate anyone's property rights. You just prefer certain behavior, and if the people around you don't behave in the same manner that you behave, you don't have to associate with them. There is no gun in the room in this scenario like there is with the threat of force from the state. Yeah, it's not real, either. It's an abstract concept, just like society, culture, democracy, and religion. It's funny you say you own him, Slashragequit, because what Dud is doing is continually using a straw man to attack our arguments by refuting things we have never said. He, in essence, is taking ownership of our arguments and arbitrarily changing them to suit his case. I am claiming a grievance! He is thieving my thoughts! 1) We haven't used circular logic with regard to the NAP. 2) The NAP is not enforced with violence. That cannot possibly be so because it would be an obvious contradiction. People cannot be threatened with NAP. This makes no logical sense. 3) Property rights are constantly being conflated in Dud's arguments with the threat of force. The initiation of force is what the state does when they steal from you by levying taxes and inflating the currency though central banking. How can owning something be a trespass against someone else unless you stole it from them?

How is the standard argument for the NAP begging the question? In regard to Universally Preferable Behavior, you cannot violate it. You can choose to use it, or not. It is just a framework for determining the morality of hypothetical ethical scenarios.

I thought Michigan voted to legalize it for medicinal use.

I am suggesting that you are worried too much about reps, so much so that you are now bragging about how much you have (>200) in a thread, which I can see as easily as clicking on your profile, I'm awestruck by your rep, sir. There's no need to fish for more rep in this thread. As I understand it, if you contribute in a positive manner to a forum, the plus reps will follow. If they don't, perhaps it's a sign to change up the strategy, assuming you don't want your posts hidden from view all the time.

Oh, come on! Surely, you're not so sensitive about your online reputation to actually care why someone down votes you. I notice that some gracious member already up voted you to even the score. As for the Wife Swap video, presenting the argument like this is framing the issue to viewers as a false dichotomy. Anarchism means living in a voluntary community without rulers, not total free-wheeling chaos without any rules, requests or expectations. Likewise, you can keep your house clean easily without being a Nazi drill sergeant. I was a little upset when Cindy commented, "I'm very surprised that a women would keep a house like this [dirty]," as if women have a corner of the cleanliness market in the home. Women and men are equally messy and lazy. I have seen good and bad examples of both genders. Also, it takes a total lack of curiosity and creativity to see how children could be educated properly without them stepping foot in a public or private indoctrination institution.

I can't even follow the arguments with all the quick clips and quotes taken out of context, set up to be straw manned by Plant Guru. All we need to know about Keys is that he cherry picked and falsified data in his Six Countries study. Tell me more about how we should give the lipid hypothesis any credibility with the state of today's health care crisis? We've been told for going on 40 years now that saturated fats and red meat are the detractors of health when native cultures, like the Innuit, thrived on animal products, which are high fat sources. http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/ (Hint: It's not a paradox.) Our health crisis is caused by over consumption of concentrated carbohydrates and the wrath they inflict on our bodies and immune systems. Incidentally, 1984 was the first year that high fructose corn syrup, an industrially derived substance that causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, was used in soft drinks. Thirty years later we have massive conglomerates like Pepsico, Coca Cola, and Dr. Pepper-Snapple dominating the beverage market and a corresponding explosion of waistlines. This sweetener is derived from the food commodity euphemistically termed corn. This is just one of the many examples of how we are poisoning ourselves to death with modern industrial agriculture. Corn-fed cows eat it and get sick while adding mass to their body, and then we eat it! If cows never had left the green pastures, we wouldn't be destroying our environment trying to grow all this corn to raise and eat sick cows. I could go on about the dangers of wheat and soy as well.

In order: No. It isn't. You don't associate with people who demonstrate the willingness to initiate aggression. This is what we are attempting to do this very moment. No, there is only one logical interpretation of the non-aggression principle since it is founded on the logical principles of self-ownership and property rights. You also cannot invalidate the non-aggression principle by using an argument because that would be a self-detonating and illogical argument. Incorrect, morality and ethics do not change with society or time. The rule of law and the propaganda of governments - depending on who is currently in office - change over time and influence culture, which is neither morality or ethics. Would you please point out an example of any hysterics in my posts? Also, I invite you to read Universally Preferable Behavior.

"Not All Christians Are Like That" Really? I will be the first to congratulate you for calling off the engagement. You clearly are not afraid to challenge the twisted morality of conformity. This is a big step forward, to be sure. I don't need to tell you this, but for the benefit of others reading the thread, the above statements are what is known as projection. The accuser describes himself when attacking you. You've got some solid brass balls. Don't go to places just to meet people, but meet people when you go places. The sooner you live your new values out loud, the sooner the other brave people around you will recognize you and want to join in. I don't go to bars, and I don't drink since I openly acknowledged my alcoholism to everyone. I don't see why you can't go to schools to make connections. Don't they run career workshops? I would go to one and convince some kids to drop out of school. Honestly, if you feel you can be successful in your field without a degree, and the corresponding student loans, maybe you can save some of your peers from making a big financial mistake. If you can't get an invite to a workshop, just go to the local university campus and record video asking students about future career prospects when they graduate, and how much debt they have incurred. Now, you have the makings of a independent documentary.

It could be possible that your family may have more immediate issues to address than figuring out how much to tip the server. I've largely solved the non-existent problem buy refusing to go out to eat. Restaurants hardly ever serve quality foods that aren't adulterated with the products of industrialized agriculture, so why bother?

Allow me to adjust your last statement a little. "The non-aggression principle only works in practice when you counter force with force. Slavery has always existed since the beginning. There will always be a group looking to enslave another group using force or by gaining consent first." Your statement is faced with three major contradictions that you should solve if you desire to avoid confusion. 1) Achieving the opposite of aggression requires a superior amount of aggression. 2) If the practice of slavery has always occurred, we have no option but to endorse its continuation. 3) If people reject the option of voluntary slavery, we must convince them by force because they are wrong. This statement flagrantly ignores the oxymoron of voluntary slavery. All three of these propositions make no shred of sense. Please clarify if I have misunderstood your argument.

I ran across this editorial on the Women Media Center's Women Under Siege Project, and was very dissatisfied with its dismissal of men's assertions that male rape is a relevant topic of discussion by accusing men's advocates of entering into a rape statistics competition to downplay the importance of the female suffering. I signed up to share the simple fact that more men are raped then women every year, and that I am one of the many victims of female on male rape and I have no recourse. My comment was moderated. Here is a quote from Kerry K. Patterson's article, which features the sinister silhouette of a man wearing a ball cap, presumably stalking his next helpless female victim. http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/a-competition-of-suffering-male-vs.-female-rape I am inviting all of the men's equality advocates here to descend on the blog's comment section and make the moderation workload a bit more challenging for them.

He may deny that he is a murderer, but that does not make his belief reality. The non-aggression principle and universally preferable behavior do no make exceptions for actions taken while wearing a uniform. Murder is always murder when you take the life of another without the justification of protecting your property rights. When you are a member of the military, you are not considered to own your own body. It becomes legal property of the government, which is why you can't quit without being discharged or thrown in the brig. This is how a soldier will justify his actions when faced with the philosophical argument of the non-aggression principle. The country owned the property rights of his body, so therefore, any negative consequences of his military actions cannot be laid at his feet, but at the feet of the government that paid for his service. It's analogous to the umbrella protection the corporation provides its workers under the law of the state. The individuals can get away with breaking the law, and avoid prosecution by using the corporation as a shield.

Ah, yes, the argument that the non-aggression principle is black and white so therefore cannot possibly apply to a world filled with fifty billion shades of relativism. This is the irrational argument that ultimately led me to break up with my recent girlfriend when we were discussing how we planned to raise our children. She seriously told me that she didn't believe in anything, and emphatically believed that it was unethical to inculcate a child with any beliefs whatsoever because of the narrow mindedness of dogmatism. I was holding up the peacefulness of non-aggression principle as the lesson I wanted to teach our children, and she turned away from me to warmly embrace nihilism/relativism. (I was fighting against her inner Catholic mother and the unresolved emotional dispute between them.). She called me a brainwashed cultist when I broke off the relationship. Nihilists and relativists will see the gun in the room and point it at you without a second's hesitation when you reveal your commitment to freedom, liberty and the truth. Associate with them at your own peril.

Your supposed friends will try to convince you that you're wrong or call you crazy in order to get you to self-attack, but anyone ancillary to your life like this will find it much easier to ignore you. I mean that you are purposefully opening Pandora's box and inviting them to look into it. In that moment, they will have a fight or flight response.

Molyneux has discussed the problems associated with maternal abandonment in several of this "myth of the working mom" and "the bomb in the brain" episodes. I was raised largely deprived of my mother and father's presence and attention for most of my childhood. I have addictions (smoking, alcoholism, and dependency on illicit substances), violent tendencies and sexual proclivity (over 50 sexual partners, and a former pornography addiction). I'm not shattering any records here, obviously, but I feel like I wouldn't have tripped over so many of these obstacles in life if my parents had played larger roles in my early development. My own life is all the experience I require to make an affirmative case for myself. If that's not suitable evidence for you, then listen to some of Molyneux's work.

Tell us about what kind of feelings you are experiencing, being betrayed twice by someone you loved. You don't need to shut down on us. Following your story, your son should be 9 now. How does he feel about all this turbulence invited into his life by his mother? Have you discussed it with him?

Regarding evolutionary psychology, I also have trouble accepting the theory of commitment free sex as it tends to support the feminist explanation of the "deadbeat dad" phenomenon. I know this is going to sound like a Not All Men Are Like That Argument, but the through feminist subversion of the state, it is now a possible mating strategy for a woman to routinely spread her legs for as many men as she desires, and use the force of the state to extract resources through the taxpayers or directly from the estranged father (or whomever is foolish enough to sign the birth certificate) in the form of wage garnishments. I believe women are just as culpable, if not more so since they legally and philosophically control the means of production of children, for the deadbeat dad/single mother trend of American family life. Also, there is the trouble of women never really being taken to submitting to an honest examination under the evolutionary microscope along-side their male counterparts. If you try to tell a woman that she only want to sleep with you because she's attracted to your evolutionary fitness to provide her with hunted mammoth meat while she's pregnant and helpless, you should expect the result of a smack to the face. Remember, why do women need men when there are no more mammoths and Big Brother State provides all? Interestingly, it sounds like some of you have read The Chemistry Between Us or Sex at Dawn. http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813 http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Between-Us-Science-Attraction/dp/1591846617/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406674771&sr=1-1&keywords=the+chemistry+between+us To be sure, there is eye-opening information contained within these books, but I'm a little skeptical that we can continuously rely on one-to-one comparisons between our evolutionary roots and modern life as a slave to the state. We need to judge each argument by its applicability and merit.

Bortasz, If every person can own a gun, why is a centrally organized military needed in Poland (or anywhere else)? Couldn't independent militias be contracted for organized defense, if required?

Right, I also find it a bit annoying when state supporters point out an instance of government solving a problem that was caused by government solving a previous problem. Libertarian, David Duley, author of I Can Fix America loves to echo this refrain in his and Robb Wolf's libertarian podcast - "Today's (government) solutions are tomorrow's problems." This is exactly the theme I was attempting to illustrate in my last post. State intervention, as a basis for fixing the world's perceived problems, generally invites even larger issues to arise decades later when the politicians and voters responsible are long dead. http://www.icanfixamerica.com/podcasts/ I'm sorry to hear that you didn't enjoy The Creature, Magus, I found it to be a real page turner, and very comprehensive. I read it in a week or two. There's another one I have been working on called The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson, but I can't tell if my problem with finishing it lies in not liking the writing or the fact that I only have the PDF, and not the paperback. I can't stand reading on my laptop and I don't have an e-book reader. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ascent-Money-Financial-History/dp/0143116177 Apparently, there is also a four hour PBS documentary based on the book. http://video.pbs.org/video/1170821435/ I'm not sure if this will add any more useful information of the history of banking in this world, but it might be work checking out.

There is an argument for getting any information associated with you off of company servers. Keep your information out of the hands of government agents. For the past few months, I have been actively removing my internet presence off of private servers. I deleted my Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster account which are all the social media websites I've ever used. It's a shame that Google forces you to have a G+ profile now to use You Tube. I also nuked my Steam account, and many e-commerce websites that I no longer use. That reminds me I should get rid of my NewEgg account. They were once a great retailer, but no longer.

I love the fact that men now have a unified voice, and it is becoming louder. I just wish some of these guys closely associated with Elam would openly reject child abuse as Molyneux does, but they are too busy pointing out how crazy feminism is and how foolish they now look in the media and using this as a metric to validate their own progress striving for men's rights. They are too involved with patting themselves on the back for not being crazy. We should be validating our progress as MRAs by how many children we are saving from institutionalized abuse. Yes, I do believe that feminists support child abuse, through supporting public school indoctrination and irresponsible daycare practices. That's how the feminists will have another generation of brainwashed men and women joining their ranks.

Magnus, I would suggest reading The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin. The history of banking, particularly in the United States, but also in Europe will be laid bare for you. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212) I don't agree with your assessment of the Haber-Bosch process. If it were not for this artificial nitrogen fixing process, invented in 1909, we would not have had the populist politicians and their crony state scientists of the 1960-70s pushing for a system of industrial monoculture in order to feed the world. They called it an urgent humanitarian crisis. (Where have I heard that before?) Now, as a direct consequence, we have to endure the after effects, consisting of rampant cancer, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. All of these diseases fall under the umbrella of metabolic syndrome, which is caused by consuming too much and developing an intolerance to corn, soy, wheat, and sugar. ACA provides a strong case for moral hazard with the certainty of obtaining health care insurance no matter how unhealthy you become. We averted an imaginary humanitarian crisis only to wind up in a real humanitarian crisis due to the short-sighted policies of the United States Federal Government. What you should actually be wondering is what the world would look like today without the involvement and corruption of governments to pervert or subvert scientific progress. The Federal Reserve, and central banking in general, has long been a catalyst for war, and much of our scientific progress of the last century has been state-funded and motivated by military application. I will cite nuclear power and space flight as two of the most obvious examples. The patriotic German Jewish chemist, Fritz Haber, once said, "During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country." He led the military research that developed chlorine gas used in trench warfare during World War I, and his institute developed Zyklon A, predecessor to Zyklon B, both industrial pesticides, the latter being instrumental in the eradication of eleven million Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Carl Bosch was a co-founder of IG Farben, the fascistic conglomeration of six companies into a chemical production powerhouse, which colluded with the Nazi Party to produce enough of the Zyklon B gas to undertake Hitler's Final Solution. Also, don't forget that the most immediate use of the Haber-Bosch process was to produce ammonia for the manufacture of explosive, the most conventional weapon of war. Do you see how it is disingenuous to claim that the Haber-Bosch process is the most important discovery of the 20th century, as some historians are want to do? If we attempt to wrap your brain around the magnitude of the suffering that it has caused and is still causing today, albeit indirectly, we would have to be incredibly cynical to consider this scientific progress.