Rosstronic

The volume of Earth is: 1.08321×1012 km3 (2.59876×1011 cu mi). In short, that is a lot of fucking volume; more than you or I could possibly experience even with our entire lifetime to explore. The question is: can you fundamentally change the path of action on Earth during your lifetime? Unless you are a human that produces hundreds of thousands or many trillions of dollars in value for humanity, you will not produce enough power to fundamentally change humanity. What does this mean? It means that you should not expend energy on political action. Political action is a fraud that will waste your human action on fantasy. What can you do to change the world? You may create life that abhors arbitrary power. Teach your offspring to understand power, and understand that it must not be given to anyone absent the clarity of philosophy. None of us will see the peace that philosophy brings, but we can play our part. Be the silent arbiter of order that life on Earth needs; deny the physical tenancy towards entropy. No destiny is determined as long as free will exists. Happy new year!

I have a hypothesis: it is that, until television, the internet, and food supplies are restricted; the majority of human beings will not be sufficiently agitated to make any substantive changes in the way the approach their lives and the lives of their offspring. Comfort is the antithesis of progress in the current zeitgeist of humanity; in the absence of the state this would not be the case, however in a world defined by the presence of the state, it is a cancer that is so malignant to as present a threat that surpasses every other. How can one defend against such a seemingly unstoppable force? The answer is: I don't know. It is so terrifying when the force one fights against is neither evil nor has purpose. It simply is.

I did poison the well. I poisoned it, as a defensive move because I knew they would attack. I knew they would attack because the vast majority are wonderfully perfect genetic copies of the optimal way to survive in a irrational world. I acted out, I think, because after years of talking to people that won't accept rational arguments, I'm fed up and just want to transmit my rage at them. I'm so angry that out of the millions of ways to survive on Earth, not a single one will accept rational arguments. I'm angry that I'm part of a statistical minority. I'm part of an anomaly. I'm weird. If you're a minority of a minority you have a tiny chance of finding what it is that makes you happy. I'm not happy, so I lashed out. Fundamentally, I'm frustrated because I can't be myself around anyone. First, I'm a redhead, which is about 2% of the population of the human species. Then I'm an atheist, which is about 2% of the total population of humans. Then I'm anarchist, which is less than the most popular viewpoint. I responded the way I did because I have contempt for them, while simultaneously hoping that they have the capability of reading my reply and eventually reflecting upon it. Such a mathematical improbability as to be not worth the energy expended in typing it. Yet I did type it, and I did expend the energy.

I can't even be openly sad about the decline of my race, and its closely linked culture, without being branded as a racist bigot. Honestly I can handle being branded as a racist bigot by almost everyone, except for white females. The most genetically close of the opposite gender have a huge impact on my limits of racial preference. The women are the determiners of the future.

Minarchist, i.e., the original U.S. Constitutional government concept is so attractive. The problem with minarchism, is that it requires a special kind of person: it requires someone that knows the fundamental moral contradiction of the state, and it's powers of expediency; yet at the same time it requires that same person has at least an equal disdain of the state, so as to act as a brake on the unquenchable thirst of power. A sustainable minarchist state requires that a moral person looks out at the masses, realizes they are un-philosophical, and with a heavy heart treats them with just the amount of force is needed to keep them civil. Unfortunately there are not enough of these kinds of rulers; they are outnumbered by people that thirst for power at any cost.

In the post, I knew how it was going to go: the same way they always do. People post something regarding the newest state intervention and argue about the details and how to make it more "fair". My reply pulled the pin on the extinguisher and aimed at the base that none of them talk about: the fundamental immorality of using coercion against other people, even if there are many degrees of separation. For me to say it is not free, and then to point out what pays for it: the state; and that the state gets the money through force, which is immoral, is not an unrelated argument. The last part of my concise argument was admittedly fuel for the flaming I already knew was coming. No matter how much sugar you put on a state is immoral argument, you get flamed. So, I just told them exactly what they were going to do, and they did. It comes from my contempt for them. Furthermore, just to drive home the point: saying that the state is immoral doesn't require someone to agree with "our" position. It requires that they agree that in their life, when they need money for something, they don't go mug someone, because they know it is wrong. If they have no moral qualms with stealing from others and the only thing that prevents them from doing it is the law, then they're simply amoral and lack a conceptual understanding of morals.

Western European culture, as in the concept-bag of the freedom club, led to the greatest flowering of human progress. The most predominant race in the freedom club is white people, and the British were the whiteys that really got around with the tenants of the freedom club. As the concepts of the freedom club clashed with the brutality of human societal norms of the past, and previously savage peoples were indoctrinated with the freedom club concepts and empirical results, they fought back with those same principles. Freedom concepts fought freedom concepts, and the originators (whites) were made to bear the burden of all histories' atrocities. The white devils were thus adjudicated as the sacrificial race, which continues to this day. The problem with being the bad race, is that it really takes the sexy out of life; when you take the sexy out of life, you breed less. Also, as the concepts of the freedom club have been undermined because of the originators being shamed; it has slowly invalidated, in spite of evidence to the contrary, the value of freedom concepts. As freedom slides back into the savagery of the past, it becomes less feasible from a resource standpoint to have children, and it undermines the desirability of mates as many of them fall to the temptation of vice.

Hello, I hope you're all doing well today! Please forgive me for I have sinned this day: I revealed the truth of the state in a single sentence on an internet forum crawling regularly with naa's (not an argument; pronounced like the dismissive word "nah"). Normally I wouldn't bother posting it here, however since Stefan Molyneux and his "cult" were honorably mentioned, I figured I'd put it here for your entertainment if you so choose. The worm that drew me in was a story from The Local SE: All children in Sweden set for free prescriptions; it was summarized by the original poster and commented on, with a call for thoughts. I obliged with simply: It isn't free. It is paid for through the use of force by the state, and is thus immoral. I await your false dichotomies and straw men. I was post #10. What follows are some of the replies: "Haha, that's rich! I think it's sufficient to say that you have an... unusual... concept of morality" "Oh, an anarcho-capitalist, how enlightening. Stefan Molyneux has a truncated frame of reference." "Hah.The consequences of not having any laws or any centralized power in a society would be far worse, meaning advocating that is far more immoral than having a government that can enforce law. I'd like to hear your realistic alternative though." "He's probably part of the Molyneux Cult. Dont engage with him, just laugh at him." "Sweden is a democracy, if they dislike it they can show it through voting, but I doubt Swedes have anything against this and neither do I, making sure that everyone under 18, regardsless of their parents economic status gets medicine is anything but immoral, it's called 'not beeing an inconsiderate prick'." "Just like the internet you are using to proliferate anarchist rubbish is paid for by the use of force by the state." "You're free to leave." Now, I would like to see what you all think of the original story (souce links at bottom), my reply, and the predicted responses. Are any of their naa's valid? I say absolutely not. It is a tiny sample of the state of morality and how subjective it is. How stone age it is, and dependent not on reason, but emotion, and what people have been told since they were little. The best brainwashing is the kind where when you show it to people, they still can't see it. Do you know why I donate to this show? Why I stick around and listen to hours and hours each week? Because so far, the Freedomain Radio team has managed to consistently put out more empirically supported logical arguments than anyone else I can find. People that call this a "cult" do so because they have no counter to the arguments, so all they have is vitriol. The Local SE: http://www.thelocal.se/20151218/all-under-18s-in-sweden-set-to-get-free-medicine Message board of Doom: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1922040-All-under-18s-in-Sweden-set-to-get-free-medicine

It isn't just The View that does this thing that annoys the hell out of me where while someone is talking, they get continuously talked over. People can't make a paoint withouut being cut off or having to fight to keep talking by yelling over the other chickens squacking thier reactionary rebuttal. What Whoopi is saying is essentially the non aggression principle. What the other vapid people at the table are saying is that women should be placed in a separate moral category where if you're smaller and have a vulva, you shouldn't be held liable for hitting. Yay for women on a nationally televised program calling for... 'equality'.