EuanM

Howdy there! It's always great to come across other FDR listeners in Scotland. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46067-philosophers-in-scotland-wanted/ Please get in touch because I'm trying to get meetups going up here.

I'm not sure where to find the exact podcast you refer to, but the subject matter you describe is covered extensively in 124 &125 http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/124/why-we-forgive-socialism-part-1 http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/125/why-we-forgive-socialism-part-2

James Delingpole (Environmentalism) James Bartholomew (Welfare Statism) Hans Hermanne Hoppe (various things, but I'd be particularly keen to see them debate children's rights) John Fonte (Globalism) Michael Hurd (therapy, how to assess your therapy and how well it's working for you) Augustus Invictus (use of force / self defense threshold) Either Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brook (Objectivist egoist ethics vs UPB) Bruce Benson and / or Gary Chartier and / or Randy Barnett (legal system in a stateless society)

Sounds like a great idea to me. I'm assuming it would all be done digitally?

It doesn't sound like you don't have much contact with your family as things stand? Therefor option C sounds like a perfectly tenable option for the time being. The tricky bit comes when you have children, if that's something you really want then cutting ties completely starts to sound like it might be something worth doing, as you don't want to give them the chance to infect your children with there irrationality. Bu the sounds of your description of your relationship that might not be much of a stretch from where you are now? With the upshot being that the Left are basically in charge of the world.

Well sorry to disappointed, but my campaigning was quite conventional in most respects, I was involved in the official Vote Leave campaign and most of my campaigning came in the form of leafleting and canvassing. I also wrote this article, which was written from a fairly mainstream perspective (even though the facts were all true). http://thebackbencher.co.uk/why-the-eu-is-a-hindrance-in-a-globalising-world/ There were one or two things I would do differently if I had my time over (written more articles, with more emphasis on arguments from first principles rather than arguments from practicalities). But I'm glad I did what I did. For sure it's not over, there is a lot to worry about, chiefly the possibility of a Brexit settlement that replicates much (or all) of what we objected to in the EU bilaterally, so there is still pressure than needs too be applied. But for the time-being, my tax farm has seen the greatest victory for Liberty in my lifetime and I'm happy just to savor it.

Your right, Objectivist's are Minarchists so I don't agree with everything presented, but there's still a lot of good material in there. I agree with you about "Parenting like Ragnar and Kay" as well, everyone here should watch it.

I arrived at my conclusion simply by observing the fact that its's never been done before. The only day to definitively establish that it's possible is to actually do it. I agree that the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself, but I think that it's a leap to conclude from that that the end of the state is possible to answer with certainty, it only means that it is possible to say with certainty that the end of the state would be desirable, not possible. I am certain that the end of the state is indeed desirable and also that it is possible, I'm just not 100% certain it's possible yet.

Here's an attempt to refute Stefan's refutation of Objectivism. I don't know if I'd call it "good", as I don't think it's successful and I'm not sure the guy completely understood everything that Stef was saying, but it sounds like you might be interested in it.

Here's a though provoking lecture from Alexander Cohen of the Atlas Society about Patriotism that ties in nicely with Stefan's recent "Truth about Patriotism" video. http://freedomain.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-truth-about-patriotism.html

"Breaking Free" by Nathaniel Branden. It's an excellent primer in parenting, and also self-knowledge which in turn helps in parenting. Happily, she does, "A Theory of Objectivist Parenting".

"Breaking Free" by Nathaniel Branden.

I don't think there's any reason to back out now as you have already been forthright about your beliefs or values and your cousin and her husband gave it there blessing (no pun intended). As a result you might now be in a position to do some good. Undoubtedly your little cousin will be encouraged to read the bible in the household you describe, but I see no reason why you cannot also encourage her to read Alas Shrugged. The situation might seem odd and disorientating, but I don't think you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

It's impossible to say, but it is certainly worth making the attempt. In fact seeing as it's never been done before, it it possible that abolishing the state is in fact impossible, the only way to properly refute this is to actually do it, as was the case with all other examples of major social progress. However, I don't think you give any compelling reasons for thinking that the state is inevitable. If by "enforce statelessness" you mean stop people who want to set up a state from doing so then yes, if someone tries to do that you need to stop them. But I don't think there's been any evidence presented that only a state can stop a new state from forming. Anyway, it's misleading to talk about enforcing statelessness, you enforce a state. You don't enforce non coercion, you might defend yourself against coercion, but it's misleading to say that you enforce it. If someone makes and attempt at your life and you take measures to defend yourself are you "enforcing non murder"? Maybe, but it's a bit of an odd way to word it and misleading in so far and it implies that you are the party that is seeking to impose on another(s).