EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons

Every anarchist commune comes with its own PC Police force, SJW military, and Thought Surveillance Agency - because how could we be free if people were allowed to think or say things that others might find offensive? Meh, I have no problem (other than practical ones) with anarcho-communism itself, as long as it's voluntary. The problem is that they view private property as illegitimate, so in their minds they'd be perfectly justified in stealing private property, since they view it as having been stolen from "the people" already, so they would be returning it to its rightful owners (in their minds). If they all wanted to take their own property that they already own and form a commune and develop it, good for them - just don't force others to give up their property. And (as I alluded to at the beginning of this post) my problem with anarcho-communists is that they, like most leftists, have a strong tendency to verbally assault anyone who says anything that they consider to be offensive. Honestly, they are some of the most hateful/hate-filled, aggressive, bigoted/biased/prejudiced/closed-minded people I have ever come across (which is ironic considering that they claim to be against those things and accuse their opponents of being that way). They don't seem to consider for a second that they might be wrong and that it's worth listening to other perspectives, even ones you strongly disagree with and/or have an emotional reaction against, because they might have something of value to say or have a point you hadn't considered. They're too driven by their emotions. Also, I hate how they (like most leftists) say that we don't care about the poor, despite us commonly advocating charity and pointing out how the current system hurts the poor. When they resort to creating a dishonest caricature of their opponents, you know they're desperate.

For one of my classes in high school, we had to read three 1000+ page novels over the summer. As a chronic procrastinator, I put it off until the last week of summer. I was a really slow reader, so I looked up how to speed read (don't read the words out loud in your head, read blocks of text at a time, etc.) and was able to read four pages per minute. A few months later (October/November) we had to write an essay on the books, and, despite waiting until the weekend before it was due to do it, I got... I think a 96 on it. I was able to remember a ton of information from the books even though I read through them fast. I don't think this works as well for nonfiction/scientific/textbooks. I mean, once you get the general idea of what's being described you can gloss over the details until you get to the next topic if you're reading purely to get a general understanding of the subject for a course or something, but it's not a good idea if you really want to understand a topic.

I decided to give up video games just a few days ago. I had a serious video game addiction and it was interfering with my life (missing class, not doing work or studying despite exams coming up, etc.). I realized that not only was I using the video games to escape from reality and the stress of the work that I have to do, but also that they provided me with long-term goals with visible progress, challenges, status relative to other players, stimulation/excitement, an outlet for creativity, implementing strategies, etc. (different things depending on the game). It's hard to resist going back to them, but the best way to resist long-term is to find out what it is about the games that draws you to playing them, and then try to find more healthy ways to get those things in real life. Once you have those things, video games will no longer be addictive (most likely), and it will likely be okay to play them again - but for me, even though I currently have the desire to go back to playing games, I predict that, once I have other means of providing the things I get from games, I won't have any desire to play games again.

I use "open-minded" as meaning "being willing to consider other perspectives" as opposed to "not being judgmental" or "accepting all ideas or perspectives as equally valid." A better term for those would be "no-minded." In one English class in high school, we had to write something in the style of a "This I Believe" piece. I wrote about the importance of being open-minded, and specifically clarified (even ranted a little) that being open-minded does not mean accepting everything you hear as true, but being willing to hear all ideas and evaluate them to see if they're true (and change your mind - or not - accordingly), as opposed to being closed-minded, being unwilling to consider perspectives other than those that you already hold.

I saw this study on r/psychology, and found it to be interesting, specifically the differences libertarians have from liberals and conservatives. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

A lot of your concerns are addressed in Stef's podcasts. Here are the relevant ones: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/tag/anarchism I'd recommend starting with the earlier ones and going through them in order. Or, if you have an iPhone (not sure if it's available on other smartphones) you can download the Freedomain Radio app, and go to the podcasts under "Category: Anarchism" which has a more concise list of podcasts that you can listen to, which address these issues.

Saw this picture, reminded me of this thread, decided to post it here:

Fair points. I suppose it doesn't matter what we call ourselves, I just think that calling ourselves voluntaryists would lead to less conflict than calling ourselves anarchists. Oh, and to those saying that anarchism does not mean opposition to hierarchy, I'm referring to the historical definition of anarchy, which left anarchists always bring up when insisting that anarcho-capitalism is not a real form of anarchism (since anarchists have historically been opposed to capitalism), as opposed to the modern, commonly used definition (aka anti-statism).

Stef has said before that he calls himself an "anarchist" rather than a "voluntaryist" because people inevitably ask "what's the difference between that and anarchism then?" when voluntaryism is described to them, and he has to concede that they're the same thing. I think, however, that we should call ourselves voluntaryists for two reasons: 1. the reaction that others have, and 2. how accurately it describes our position. Firstly, calling ourselves voluntaryists would lead to better reactions than calling ourselves anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (or libertarians). For one thing, there are the left anarchists that hate when we call ourselves anarchists, insist that anarcho-capitalism is not a real type of anarchism, say that libertarianism has historically meant anarcho-communism, etc. Calling ourselves voluntaryists and saying that we're anti-statists or that we want a stateless society, as opposed to saying that we're anarchists or that we want an anarchist society, would stop them from getting so angry at us for using the terms as they're used in everyday language (they'd stop accusing us of trying to hijack the word "anarchy"). The other thing, as mentioned before, is that the average person has a negative reaction toward the term "anarchism," due to the propaganda they've received about it. If we call ourselves voluntaryists, that will prevent them from having this automatic reaction that prevents them from listening to what we're saying, and if they ask what the difference between that and anarchism is, we can then do the same thing that the left anarchists do: explain that anarchism is opposed to all hierarchy, even voluntary and beneficial hierarchies like those in capitalist businesses, and that anarchists are against the state fundamentally because the state is hierarchical, while voluntaryists are against the state fundamentally because it initiates the use of force; in other words, describe that the difference between anarchism and voluntaryism is that anarchists are fundamentally opposed to hierarchy, while voluntaryists are fundamentally opposed to the initiation of the use of force. Secondly, I think that voluntaryism more accurately describes our position than anarchism or anarcho-capitalism does. As said before, anarchism is inherently opposed to hierarchy, which we are not necessarily opposed to (if the hierarchies are voluntary, no force involved, etc. then there's nothing wrong with it). More importantly, however, we are against the state as a result of our voluntaryism - or, voluntaryism is what our political beliefs stem from. We might support anarcho-capitalism because we think that it is the most logical, practical, beneficial, etc. society, but we are not wed to that system. I'm sure that we would have no moral opposition to an anarcho-communist society, as long as it is all done voluntarily (we might think it to be impractical, but there's nothing morally wrong with it). So we could call ourselves vountaryists, and then describe a stateless, capitalist society as an example of how a voluntaryist society could operate. These are my ideas, let me know what you think of them. Thanks!

Never had a prayer "answered," though I hardly ever prayed. Closest thing is when I would have something from a dream happen to me the next day (most specific memory: in my dream, I was walking in my front yard, I tripped, and in front of my face on the ground was a little white flower and a bumblebee flew away from it - the next day, the same exact thing happened). Because of that, I learned about the "law of truly large numbers" which has been an extremely useful tool for dealing with people who claim to have had their prayers answered or experienced a miracle.

I live in a town right next to Newtown, my high school was only a few miles away from Sandy Hook. I was a senior in high school when the shooting happened, we got news of when I was in my AP US Government class - we were taking a test, and afterwards, people in my class checked their phones and heard the news. My school went into lockdown for the rest of the day and all after-school activities were cancelled. Though I didn't/don't know anyone in Newtown, several people in my school did, including the kids who died and/or their families. I know I have no way of providing this evidence to other people, but as someone who knows for a fact that the shooting happened, it pains me that people think it's a conspiracy.

Wikipedia isn't the best source for information. In the original problem, the people are working on the track but can't get out of the way in time (suppose, for instance, that they're on a bridge) - no one tied them up, they are there doing their job. JSTOR article on it: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/thomsonTROLLEY.pdf Another .edu source (simply the problem itself): http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Trolley_Problem-PHIL_1A.pdf