thebeardslastcall

It sounds like you swung the pendulum back, but are back right where states begin, starting small and then fighting inevitable expansion of the state. Which is why you're back where you were before in a way fighting against the expansion of your state and at the same time recognizing it's headed for much less freedom that will eventually cause another collapse. You seem divided in that you want to slow the pendulum down and also want to speed it up to get back to the higher freedom state. How fast does the pendulum have to swing to actually break free after a crash instead of just rolling back the state and starting the swing over again? I think the argument by many here is that by convincing your family to vote better you are just slowing the swing of the pendulum while at the same time strengthening and reinforcing the system making it harder for the ball to ever break free. When you make things better within a state system you just deprive people of their motivation to truly break free and think a small state is good enough, ignoring the inevitable increase of the size of the state. It makes the social contract ideas that much more appealing when they seem good enough and gives those anti-freedom ways more power. Perhaps I worded my question poorly, in that I meant to imply the credibility and overall participation in the system and a desire for an anti-state system was had by a crash, but it sounds like you actually didn't get that, but possibly even the opposite, since now people feel happier about the government they've got. I guess from your perspective you think it's easier now to convince people of an anarchy approach? Have you converted anyone in or outside of your family that was shortly before the crash highly resistant? What about the people who were somewhat against the system, but were relieved by the pendulum swing and now find they support the state again?What of the children now growing up in these new conditions under a state, how will they view it? I'm taking part in this debate to understand the other side of the argument and to refine my debating skills on the topic so I appreciate your answers!

I've been liberty and philosophy minded for quite a long time. I went through the political libertarian phase and moved on after realizing it was just a stepping stone to true freedom. I was already into freedom before I supported political libertarianism, so I wasn't particularly attached to it and was able to move past it easily. For the past several years in particular I've been evolving and learning a lot after the unfree world gave me a bit of a boot to the face (not literally), which pushed me to explore freedom more deeply. It has been a rewarding journey so far. I learned of Stefan Molyneux around the beginning of 2014, watching some of his Youtube videos. Around the beginning of May I decided to start listening to his podcasts and have been slowly working my way through the 'best of' series ( https://emergingrenaissance.wordpress.com/best-of-freedomain-radio/ -- currently around podcast 1120). I avoided listening to them for a chunk of this year and have resumed listening to them again more recently. I'm currently writing a book and wanted to focus on that and not listen to too many outside ideas while I tried to focus and clarify my own ideas. This allowed me to bring my own words and ideas out and now I've begun listening to more external material again as I seek to refine and evolve my ideas and my writing. The book is still a work in progress as I refine my writing, ideas, and the focus of the book. It currently stands at about 90k words, farely sizeable, but I have much editing left to do. If you're curious what it's about I uploaded a document with just the beginning pages, including the title page and table of contents. This gives a very rough idea of what the book is about: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0GQN_nG55kXVXczVlpnODVxZHM/view I came here because of the similarity between my book and what is promoted here. I figured it would be a receptive place for my book and for possible help as I work towards completing it and getting it out into the world. I am not yet ready to share any of the chapters. If you have any tips for writing a book or getting a book published or know of any agents or publishers who may be open to this type of content (long shot I know) I'd appreciate any help. I will be trying to get it published before yielding to having to self-publish (as publishing, were it possible for this book, could greatly enhance readership). Also if you wish to donate to help (though I realize I haven't given much reason to yet, but it would help if you want to now or later once you've seen more) I created a bitcoin account to receive payments: 1NBA1GQiVZ73W2FyzHeTAffywbYx66PeH8 If you look at the table of contents you'll notice I have chapters that deal with both free will and determinism. Recently I discovered, by listening to the podcasts, that Mr. Molyneux is quite against determinism, which I found quite interesting. It caught me off guard at first and left me quite curious and wanting to explore more. Since I've been listening to podcasts again I have diverted from the 'best of' list and am focusing on the podcasts that deal with those two topics and the more I've listened to his views on determinism the more excited I have become. I wish to more fully understand his positions on those topics. The reason his position and reasoning excites me is because I hold a different view on the topics, which he so far seems to classify as 'whacky' or the like. When I feel like I can correct or teach a teacher it excites me (yes, this is from childhood!) greatly. In this case I feel I have something unique to bring to the conversation and this makes me want to refine my chapters on the topics even further. I'm tempted to boldly claim I will fundamentally shift his perspective on the topic of determinism, but am trying to learn more so I can give it the respect and attention it deserves as it is obviously a tough nut to crack. My position, to clarify, would probably be classified as some kind of compatibilist (a term I only learned this year as I didn't even know people thought determinism was anti-free-will). So while my desire to 'correct' him on this topic is emotionally driven it is also driven specifically on this topic because I feel I've got a truth and understanding to bring to him and others and I enjoy doing this, both for my ego and because it helps people learn. I have long had a knack for understanding other people's struggles with understanding some topics when the teacher seems to struggle explaining a topic. That the debate has raged here for years and is left unsettled shows he has trouble getting people to understand his point of view. So many people having trouble on the determinist side shows they need help learning why he is right or wrong. I don't want to debate this topic here or now yet, but felt like sharing that as it was an additional motivational reason for coming to the the forums and wanted to be open about that. Also he seems to cast determinists in such a negative light (though I don't know if that includes compatibilists too or just the anti free-willers), so I wanted to give a chipper example of a type of determinist! I look forward to taking part in the interesting conversations here and getting to learn more from the smart and kind people here! Cheers mates, Anonymous Coward

Thanks, I did as you suggested and got this response:

So it is your conclusion that there are good ways to take part in voting? This to me sounds like the McSalad argument. This is the argument that if you take your family to McDonalds and one person gets a McSalad that was going to get a burger then you've helped. But you've also given additional business to McDonalds and credibility to their establishment and eaten some of their food. Meanwhile it's possible that the restaurant across the street lost just enough business by this action that they went out of business and it is now harder for you to get healthy food later when you can convince people to eat healthy instead of eating the less unhealthy option of McDonalds. Likewise, even if the restaurant across the different street didn't go out of business, you've suggested to people that McDonalds is the preferable choice and influenced their future decisions and reinforced the views of the people already eating McDonalds. They may even see you as healthy and think this backs up the idea that McDonalds food can be a healthy choice. You say you are for the implosion of the state, but your actions and suggestion of a collapse and its results being viewed as positive (creating more anarchists) suggests you think explosion is a more achievable and worthwhile means to anarchistic ends. Why do you think the collapse will produce more anarchists instead of making even more people back additional regulations as frequently occurs after each previous crash? Have you ever seen a crash that didn't then lead to more injustices and state presence? If a collapse comes do you think people will be more interested in immediate survival or learning about philosophy in a way that will lead them to take up kinder and more principled views for how society should operate? The U.S. as I see it is the result of a idealistic revolution, not a crash. How is the state going away in the event of a crash in your view? Taking into consideration that most of the people who believed in a state before may still believe in it after the crash, possibly even more strongly.

You'll have to excuse me for not being up to date on all the content (and a newbie), but I had a question (and I like to ask questions). I hear people coming to you a lot for insight and answers about philosophy and the range of topics discussed here. I was wondering, after all these years, if there are any new or old theories or ideas you are still openly or personally 'struggling' with in any way. Ideas you may or may not have yet shared with the community while you try to figure them out. I'm wondering if there are any theories or ideas or nagging thoughts, old or new, that you would like to share with the community (and me) to see if we can't collectively try to help you solve it. This could include things you think you've figured out, but find unusually difficult to get others (like specifically more intelligent people here) to understand and you're not sure why. I'm sure you do this to a degree with your call-in shows and other ways, but wondered if there are any issues that hadn't come up yet in those for you, or that have, but remain unresolved. I was thinking if we could bring them into one place it would be interesting and useful. Or do you feel you've got most things sufficiently figured out and that you're just focusing more on getting the word out and helping people resolve their issues with understanding and accepting it? Thanks,

Are you not concerned that you're validating voting for everyone? Validating that voting is an acceptable means to an ends. Is this not what everyone else who votes is doing that props the system up and gives it credibility? If I eat in McDonald's it makes it easier for others to eat there as well, does it not? Your actions are not just affecting you, they're affecting everyone. If we want to move to a healthier system, if we want others to eat healthy, should we not make it as hard as possible for them to eat junk food? Doesn't it make it harder for someone to eat at a McDonald's if they are the only customer? What about if no one is there to ring them up? Or how do you think the cashier will feel if no one ever comes into the store? When you enter the store you validate the employees and the system and make it easier to be a customer as well. The system only stands because people participate in it and validate it. Is that what you want to continue doing? This is in addition to the fact that your vote is highly unlikely to change the outcome and the direct personal costs of voting. Perhaps an alternate method to reach your objective would be to get less people to vote Clinton?