Torero

So you are reasoning on the basis of pragmatism. You argue against voting, but if people vote, then for Trump. In the rigged system in the US there are only two options; either Hillary (Bernie won't make it) or Trump. That is if you take the system as an honest contest. I highly doubt that, but let's say it is. Ehhh, just 45 seconds and no third party leftist media review, no, the man speaking himself (and getting a lot of applause): Haven't we heard that before? Remember 8-9 years ago? Barry O. saying "first thing I will do is closing down Guantanamo Bay"... 2007 (!?)... Politicians are professional liars. Don't we know that by now? How can you take anything such a psychopath says seriously? The thing is: - if you're a philosopher - who runs a successful philosophy show, full of good arguments, based on first principles - you make the case against voting (just like you, just like myself) - you have literally hundreds of thousands of hours of material presenting arguments on freedom, anti-statism, principles, philosophy, moral reasoning, truth, peaceful negotiation, peaceful parenting, anti-imperialism/militarism and much more - you drop the "don't vote" point yet switch to a "vote for the lesser of two evils" - and that lesser evil is still contradicting the principles, points, arguments and all the things you've been saying with a straight face for ten years+ Then you are not true to principles yourself. You have made the case for pragmatism while at the same time that pragmatism goes against the philosophy (the principles). People can downvote me to pieces, it doesn't take away my arguments against active support (and not in 1 video, no hours of them) for a person who is everything you said you object to based on reason and evidence? If I would make a show on vegetarianism, hundreds of thousands of hours of arguments, rants, talks, interviews, etc. etc. and I start to support a person who is not a vegetarian but says he eats less meat than the other candidate, do you take my vegetarian standpoint very seriously? What is wrong with just sticking to the principle-true "don't vote story"? Why do you want people to choose the slave owner who says he's going to whip his slaves just once every day and not once every hour? And when that slave owner in other videos actually says he is going to whip every two hours...?

I rest my case. If you're true to your philosophy, based on principles you shouldn't support any politician/statist. Less one who goes so far against anything you have stood for for so long. Pragmatic arguments (the guy is a better choice than Hilly) may count in 1 show about Donny. Not the full list of videos you made to voice your support for him.

Mike, feel free to evade any argument: - the narrative of "the new guy", "this time different", "now things will change" = just like the Obama idiocy, propaganda, only now for the other party. I consider Stefan and you and also my fellow members far more intelligent than falling for such cheap candy - the idea that a president is the guy in charge is ridiculous. They are run by lobbyists; crapitalism. Even if Donald Trump wanted honestly to cut down the state debt, he still wouldn't be able to do it. - the anarchist philosophy is about: 1 - peaceful negotiation 2 - anti-imperialism 3 - anti-statism 4 - morality 5 - individualism; people are different and should be treated as individuals, not collectivising them against their free will 6 - actions, not words do count (!) Donald Trump: 1 - his business background surely speaks for peaceful negotiation. The presented "plan" to "build a wall at the border with Mexico and let them darn Mexicans pay for it" is a bit far from peaceful negotiation, don't you think? 2 - his talks on "bombing the shit out of those ISIS bastards", more warfare, more militarism, that is so contradictory to anything FDR has stood for in the last 10 years that you cannot seriously support someone who advocates these things 3 - the guy wants to become the president for the establishment conservative party FFS!? Did he ever say "I am going to end state slavery, like the abolitionists ended human slavery"? 4 - where did Donny Trump plead for moral behaviour? Did he propose to end money printing? To end taking loans on the unborn? To stop fighting senseless wars in countries abroad? Did he voice his concerns about circumcision? Did he focus on peaceful parenting? Has he quoted The Bomb in the Brain? 5 - wanting to "keep out those evil muslims, all of them" just because some of them are nasty is completely contradicting any free-thinking anarchist. People are different and should be treated according to their individual merits, not because they share something with others while not having any control over those others or their thoughts/ideas/actions. Even taking those "terrorist attacks" as truth, still compared to the 1.5 billion muslims in the world very very few of them actually are aggressively attacking non-muslims. I am not saying there's no objections to the core of islam; the quran is a book full of aggression, the way women, gays and others are treated is bad, but that doesn't make every muslim a wife-beating gay-slaying monster. Supporting a collectivist makes no sense, if you're true to your anarchist philosophy. 6 - one of Stefans strong points is that he says "Words do not count, actions do". In all the years that Donny Trump was a powerful billionaire, how many times has he used his power actively to try to stop or reduce statism? Which actions has he taken in his already long career that make him so great? Practice what you preach is a good phrase. Now where did Donny conform to what FDR preaches now for over a decade to so many millions of listeners? If FDR would support Rand Paul as much as you do with Donny Trumpy boy it still would be supporting a statist (a politician), but at least based on a bit more (libertarianism) than a few blue eyes deemed credible and a politically-incorrect voice. Now you pull years of strong arguments, well-phrased rants, a show based on principles down the toilet only because that Hillybiatch is worse. She obviously is truly horrible, but believing that Donny is the right man and supporting him so much really does no good to the fine principles collected over the years.

Utopian, you propose a divide which I think is not there and by resolving the absence of that divide your question may be answered. I think you're right in saying that animals (which we are) do behave according to 'survival of the fittest'. But that does not stop when we pass the pre-morality age. It continues as it's the essence of us. Anarchism for me is so powerful and true because it's closest to what we are as animals. Statist slanderers use the poisoned term "darwinism", but in essence the survival of the fittest (= best adapted) is what drives our existence. It's the mask of mankind that has put the smoke screen of "laws" onto a natural state of freedom. As people are social animals and we have to interact with each other, we need measures to do so, in order to survive. The best measures for that are those who make us adapt most to what we are; those social animals. It means: - free market = just like the ecological niches of an ecosystem = successful species (compare: businesses) thrive and unsuccessful ones struggle and may die out (compare: go bankrupt). That leaves room for new species/businesses, either by the same person or by other people. -> the statist crapitalist system has destroyed this. Now, the success is guaranteed for some as they have the power to outsource the risks (bail-outs) and use unnatural (anti-free market) means to survive while they actually according to natural laws couldn't do that - morality; the basis of morality, the principles upon which we interact with each other, are no stealing, no raping, no deceiving, no murdering. Those principles are universal in the sense that every animal is negatively affected by this (by definition of the words themselves; if it's wanted "rape", it's not rape anymore) and thus prevents those. In essence every individual human being thus thrives without those factors and strives to do without them. -> the statist system has institutionalised those terms and made them OK for people wearing a Statist uniform (murder; wars, deceit; money printing, propaganda, lying, stealing; state debt, taxation) while at the same time it is forbidden for anyone not wearing that uniform. The natural state of mankind is also here destroyed. There have been several topics on "why be moral" now. I still think that the answer to that question lies in the fact we are social animals. Reciprocity is the main argument why be moral. It makes sense to act moral and not immoral to prevent other animals around you, sharing this world, to start attacking you and cause nasty situations. That is for everyone of us the same. If 1 person starts murdering others and the response is that others start murdering the population of animals (humans) will quickly die out. So it's not in the interest of survival to be immoral. I hope it makes sense, feel free to comment, I just quickly voiced my thoughts on this.

Good someone voices some "neo-politically-incorrect" (the pro-Trumpy troll stance seems the policor one here) words. It's beyond me too that people are so blind. 8 years ago a "new", "fresh", "different" person was brought forward to become president. The leftists/liberals fell for his "sexy" rockstar-like image and supported the "black" guy en masse. His hallmark was "Change!". After 8 years we've seen what a "change" that was; a change for the worst with Obamacare, more Middle Eastern imperialism, state debt higher than ever before, fake "attacks" in the US itself, etc. etc. Now, 8 years later, another "new", "fresh", "different" person is brought forward to become president. Now the tables are turned and the rightists/conservatives fall for his "strong" politically incorrect image and support the troll en masse. The hallmark of the guy is "I am different from all the others and finally we will get Change!". I am baffled too how just the theoretically intelligent and rational people here on FDR can support that: - good friend of the Clintons - statist - militarist - inconsistent speecher - not showing any basis in philosophy It looks like people have not learned anything in the course of 9 years. From a brainwashed sheeple voter population in the US I can understand that. For my fellow FDR members my standards are slightly higher...

Because by doing so you take ownership of someone else (in the most dramatic sense; his life/existence). If you think you have that right, then you cannot protest to others doing the same to you; they have the same right then. If you're a nihilist who does not care about morality and consistency of arguments, you are perfectly ok with someone else killing you (or one of your loved ones, if you have them as that fictitious nihilist). The nihilists in the chatbox have thrown in "self-preservation" against that point, but when that is introduced that "self-preservation" also holds for the person you kill by which you have universalised "self-preservation" and lost the nihilism.

Trying to convince a statist with philosophical arguments he's supporting immorality is harder than trying to convince a religious person that atheism is a more rational way of looking at the world which is already a very difficult job to accomplish. The statist is in a delusioned state that statism is (pseudo!-) rational, while the religious person knows his or her beliefs are irrational. Fighting pseudo-rationality (backed up by the enormous propaganda spread by the media, "education" system and peer pressure) with real rationality is a virtuous yet almost impossible task.

Hi Igor, welcome. Nice read, I skimmed through it. I however missed the critical review that space travel in general is impossible. Do you really believe that Chaika went into space? Please check out the topic about that, if you have time.

Nice video (the first one I saw of you and got a taste for more, thanks!). A long introduction into the point you want to make. But I am not convinced by it. The point is that in your image you do not consider the Voter a moral agent, only the Politician. The Voter is also a moral agent, so if he/she chooses to vote, he's directly giving an OK (= action) to a politician to enforce the statist doctrine. You use Hitler as an example. If Hitler voices his plans for Germany in 1932 and states he wants to use force against certain members of the country he took over (being Austrian), and someone votes for him where there's no gun pointed at the Voter, then that person, a moral agent, is chosing to indirectly initiate force on the "Untermenschen" Hitler wanted to get rid of. Just like a bunch of Don Corleones voting for the hitman to kill someone. It would be different in a case where the nazi doctrine came as a complete surprise, but Mein Kampf was published in the 1920s, the speeches were crystal (night) clear and the voters for Hitler did know what his plans were. So the Voter for the Politician is aware of what is done to the people. Not only in the Hitler case, but for every politician. If we have: - a moral agent - the Voter - a deliberate action out of free will - voting - clarity on what will be the result of that action - politics/policies - clarity on the immorality of those policies - in all cases of statism/politics (especially since the widespread arguments by FDR), in Hitlers case more obvious then we can conclude that voting is immoral. The moral agent gives by his action out of free will an OK to policies that initiate force against others.

You're aware that you're attacking your own straw man? Moralism can be based on religious texts but even so on philosophy. Nothing wrong (haha) with atheist philosophy. The beauty of anarchism is that nihilists like you are served; when there's no state power around you're free to not act moral in any way. But don't complain you're judged by that personal choice of yours. Right now it's the state making immoral behavior possible. Makes sense as statism is intrinsically immoral.

What about refugees from the "conflict"/"war" created by the US powers in Central America?The smaller countries south of Mexico suffer greatly and their population is limited so in numbers it may be "not an issue", but Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are greatly damaged by this "war" and or hindered in their economic developments. Northern and West-Central Mexico are warzones with bodies hanging from bridges, kidnappings and terrorized families. Are the people fleeing those horrors not refugees? Sorry, but what?? Some may call this mildly offtopic but I'd say individualism is directly attacked by forced multiculturalism (hence my choice to name this topic that way). Me (and other individuals here) "can be called extremists"?? - on who's authority? - on which basis? "The State is required"? - by whom? - why? "The State protects individualism"? - how does "the State" do this? - what about the destruction of individualism by: * cultural marxism * active policies or indirect actions (license policies) against individuals who want to do business as entrepreneurs? * that same forced multiculturalism * generalization of individual people Your response in this topic confuses me and I guess I am not the only one...

Very much agreed. One sees it in the questions some newcomers asked on this very forum; "how would X be arranged", "who makes sure Y does(n't) happen" and "who distributes wealth or Z".... On top of that it's ironic;- inequality under statist crapitalism is unfair; based on power, not abilities - in a free market it's based on fair and logical things; IQ, well-behaved, moral, peaceful negotiation, etc. - consumerism in our current crappy statist system is boosted to unhealthy levels because of mass subsidies (in whatever form), price "arrangements", etc. - look at oil. Only in a centrally powered crappy system that very valuable stuff can be given away for free; 15 times cheaper than one of the easiest products to make; beer. And that ridiculously low price boosts unfair and ugly consumerism, while in a free market that is based on the availability of goods; much more supply and demand driven - environmentalism - if land is privately owned people care for it. If it's owned by some anonymous State, it's much easier to spoil the land, pollute the air and destroy the nature

I agree and your example is valid imo. I also do not think you are obliged to pay as indeed the FDR vids are offered for free. But I am curious to know what you found problematic or "the free trial was not good enough to pay for the product". If you've explained your thoughts on that it would be nice if you could give a link, also to not derail this topic...

Pity, blanka, I fly back home to Colombia next day. Have fun in future Dutch meetings anyway!

It's fine with me you want to take the childhood of a grown up (wo)man into the discussion but do you really think transgenderism is stemming from childhood traumas for the full 100%? And that transgenderism could be solved by therapy? Do you reckon the same for gays/lesbians or is that different and why? I guess some are so unfortunate to have physical-biological problems and are "born in a wrong body". I would have preferred having born in that of Brad Pitt as well, but that is still different... It's not about children, it's a grown up (wo)man. With just as much individual choice over his/her/its own body as you and me, wouldn't you agree?

That's the past, which is impossible to change. The only thing that can be changed is the future. And if an adult (wo)man feels happier on the other side, what's the problem? Their choice, their decision, no violation involved and in this case wealthy enough to not have to rely on Obamacare. Live and let live. Life is "unhealthy" anyway but if a drug user is not harming anyone and having a good time, who am I (or who are you) to take that away from him/her? Alcohol is just a drug too. And a lot less healthy and happy than xtc. Probably I will have a good time on the latter tomorrow on a night full of love, happiness, laughter and fun. Did you want to take that away from me? On what grounds? And you don't call that violence?

I wonder why we should care? If he/she is happier now than before, then go ahead. There's no violation of NAP, the owner of the property rights is the transgender itself and he/she probably paid the medical costs him/her/itself; the films were successful enough. What's the problem?

There's a freethinker meet this Sunday in Utrecht. Let me know if you want to join. Some folks come from 020.

If I believe or "am convinced" my child goes to hell if I don't tattoo him/her the full leg, according to Thomas the "Idealist" that would be perfectly ok to do. Hmmm....

It doesn't "sound strange", it is directly contradictory. "We" establish nothing; statists do that, using their power over us, the sheeple. That contradicts libertarianism. And "solve inequality"? Hacking off some inches of black men's penises and fitting it to the less hung Asians? Sounds pretty cruel to me...

Reading just now and recommended: De schijnelite van de valsemunters The Fake Elite of the Money Printers by Martin Bosma Quite a nice read.

In my case your link says:

That's not a "theory", not even a hypothesis, it's an idea. Nothing "unfair", just curiosity. Evolution is not some kind of belief. The Big Bang Theory (no, not the TV series) one could see as belief. It is untestable Adaptation due to restricted living space you accept. Mutation you take as true. Still you stick to this redundant deity idea because of your parents. Or how many christians do you know who were born in a(nti)theistic families who didn't read the Bible but "suddenly were christian"? An omnipotent yet deliberately passive deity is immoral, you see that?

If evolution is not true, how -without going irrational (so into deities)- do you explain: - the various dog races - the similarities between brown and polar bears - the fact that humans and apes very very much are alike If you can explain that without a claim on creationism/a deity (superstition, irrationality, metaphysics) you have a breakthrough. Until that moment Darwin's theory stands as solid as the Galapagos islands above the Pacific Ocean...

It's quite funny that there doesn't need to be any conflict. My fiancée is catholic but at the same time sees evolution as the most logical theory to explain the biodiversity all around us. You however seem to see that conflict. At the same time I have no problems if she sees in something I would call "coincidence" 'a sign from God'. After all I have no possibility to 'prove' it was coincidence. No need to either. Not every christian is the same.