Will Torbald

What's biased is to consider it sadist and destructive to make arguments about a position that most philosophers and scientists think is correct, and to van people for discussing it. It is indistinguishable from the tactics of the social justice warriors. Just refute and make arguments if it is so mistaken.

I agree! We should no-platform these people in order to create a safe space for us in order to avoid the pain of hearing different opinions.

You're not thinking 4-dimensionally, as in, over time. Your logic operates in absolute time freeze, where all events happen at once. No, that's not how the world operates. To say that I wish to be coerced by a governing body means that over time, I will relinquish my opinion for the opinion of some kind of power that will force me to comply - because I admit my limitations. If I were to, say, fall ill with a contagious virus, and I didn't know it - but they did, I would prefer if they put me in quarantine (in the future, hypothetically, from now) as soon as possible without even having to sign a concent form and expose more people to the danger. Same to my family, and my community. Sometimes coercion saves lives, and that's what "some kind of power should be allowed to override stupid decisions" means.

In that case, it also doesn't follow a self contradiction. To say "I wish to be coerced along with everyone else" means that whoever is governing is going to determine the path of the governed. It's to give up something of yours to someone hopefully more capable. For example, if a hundred people were against blood transfusions, and the lives of their children could be saved by a blood transfusion - would it follow that everyone else should go "ok, voluntarism lol" and let them kill their children? That happens, by the way, it's Jehova's Witnesses, and they nearly killed my grandmother once that way. The point is, coercion can be used when people are too deluded to the point of self and else destruction. If you prohibit collective coercion you will inevitably receive the consequences of collective stupidity.

My argument is from a purely propertarian-anarcho-capitalist paradigm. If you do not believe in absolute property rights, that's fine. But under that paradigm, I can exert my will in absolutist terms within my property. That is what it means to be fully in control of your self and property. If a non owner thinks he can "demand different rules" while he is in my estate, he can f*** off. Anyone in my property who does not agree with my rules is a de-facto invader of my estate and an enemy of myself - and I can use any amount of force and appropriation I want because enemies don't have rights. It is Kingly. Again, if you do not agree with this ideology, I have no qualms about it. But this is how it works in practice.

When whites have been turned into a low IQ mulatto underclass by miscegenation and persecution, they will turn towards the east asians.

You've never watched masochists? Violence in and of itself can be a preference. What you say can't be preffered is aggression, or the initiation of force, as it is defined tautologically by unwanted violence. A person saying "people should be governed" is also including himself within the reach of the law, as a politician is theoretically subject as well to the criminal justice system. The second statement of "People should be controlled with violence." includes the assumption that people can be controlled with violence, but also that violence is the most effective means of control. I don't think this is wrong, as it is quite effective, and until a more effective solution is found, it will remain the most chosen solution. I know about the ostrazism method, however, it is not as effective since sociopaths won't care, and they will group and form sociopathic societies of their own, or just become raiders and looters when they acquire enough numbers and strength. Second best, at least. So no, it's not self contradicting as long as you recognize violence is not unwanted by itself.

You do not address my positions because you just reassert the argument I am countering. Instead of addressing my counter, you insult and berate. Where is your argument about my explanation of how I have a different moral capacity within my property against you if you were in it? This is your deflection. I make the argument that the morality you advocate only works outside private property boundaries since I acquire power you do not have in my estate - where is the case there? From wikipedia: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] When you inject your little insults you are using emotional manipulation and verbal abuse that should not be there if your discourse were clean as it were.

I think of it in terms of advantages in sexual competition. If two comparatively equally strong and fit men are competing for females, then mental games are a way to demoralize the other men without resorting to violence. Thus men will find ways to psycho-battle amongst them to establish hierarchy and access to females. A bullied man will have less confidence and will turn away women with its insecurities. I don't think the theory that it insulates men from verbal abuse is correct, but that's how psychology goes, it's not really falsifiable like a hard science is.

Calling me a poor prisoner is an ad hom and an insult. Saying it is immoral to steal, assault, rape, or murder means nothing within my property. When you enter my estate you are agreeing to my rules, and if I remove you, you cannot claim it is assault. If I confiscate your belongings within it due to safety concerns, you can't claim it stealing. If I kill you when you refuse to leave, your lawyer can't claim it was murder because I was defending my property. I don't know how I'm going to get over the rape, but maybe I can make clear on the rules that it is an open sex estate and by just being there you consent to being groped or something. The point is that the rules of universal morality only apply in a neutral territory like a no man's land. Inside private land, the rules of the owner are above all else.

I didn't see it as a hard fact, but as a psychological theorem based on female hypergamy and the ratio of alpha/beta men in the market. Alpha women want alphas, but beta women also do, so it follows that the proportion would be skewered.

There's nothin to be in, into.

I thought that the stat was that the top 80% of women prefer-want-pursue the top top 20% of men - but not necessarily that the top 20 of men are sleeping with them. It's not the same thing in practice.

How's your sex life?

Um, what? Is this a one sentence constitution for a country like Rationalia? Define Human interaction, please. If I have to give a vaccine to my child, is it a voluntary human interaction? If not, is the child not human, or subhuman? When does a child acquire humanity? If children are subhuman, can they be killed like animals? If I bump into you accidentally, is that not an involuntary human interaction? That makes me an enemy of the state, doesn't it? What do you mean by true natural justice? Why is "imposing" my mind on you justice? Are children sovereign individuals? If a child goes to school, isn't an interaction between a sovereign individual aka teacher, and non sovereign humans aka children? But then that's not justice, so it's a felony. Yeah, nitpicks, but I don't see what cute wordpress blogs trying to come world peace will achieve.

More ad homs and downvoting is all you can do it seems. If I am in my property, I have a moral elevation over you. I literally exist in a different moral category when I am in my domain against you. This is the exact principle of propertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism, or objectivism, in actual practice in the real world. Now not only are you arguing against freedom of association, but now you oppose the enforcement of my will within my property.

It's a version of a quote attributed to Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." And I was pointing out how creepy it would be to have a state like Rationalia. I agree with others who pointed out that evidence is descriptive, can't get an ought from it.

I would feel bad for the witch hunt on white people if they weren't tremendous cucks for believing it in the first place. The white race simply seems to not want to exist anymore and is accelerating it's demise. No births, free abortion, race mixing, privilege and guilt, affirmative action. If they try to get you into a demon god Moloch cult, wouldn't you have the will to reject it? It's your choice to believe it - and whites are choosing their extinction. Not saying they deserve it, and I don't like it, but for the love of Darwin, wake up already.

Hasn't sunk in yet, I see.

The only place where humans exist in opposing moral categories is inside private property. I have the right to remove you by force from my land, and you don't. What you refuse to recognize as a law is exactly that. I make the rules of my property, and I enforce them. That's the law.

This is semantic onanism. When the people agree to form their community, they also agree to enforce the rules they chose themselves to live by. Freedom of association is what is practiced in a free society. Imagine if a group of Neo Nazis wanted to have a land to themselves, closed it, gated it, homesteaded it, ans declared it free from blacks, gypsies, and jews. They would have, under anarcho capitalism every right to manage the borders of their private property and enforce the rules aka law of the land on it. What you're advocating is chaos and libertine debauchery.

The realization that humans are cannibalistic parasites sinks in hard sometimes.

I know this sounds like it ignores the arguments you're making, but you really have to get in touch with your base instincts. To fumble into philosophical argumentations without satiating the animal within is like wanting to go to the top floor of a building by exploding the base. In my experience your kind of angst comes from that deficiency of primal satisfaction.

It can be done in small steps. They can't take the whole enchilada at once. If you can't convince them to vote for slightly less government, it is impossible to convince them of no government. Also, there are limits. Your criteria are lack of education and presence of indoctrination - but if I tried to educate you right now into believing in communism and starting a revolution, you wouldn't take it. At some point the mind settles in and very few people can be converted. At another point a subject becomes too complex for a low or even middle IQ person to comprehend and all the education in he world can't fix that. You can't make me understand all the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics by now, my brain just can't take it. It takes genius. So you either have to start very young and very bright in order to maintain a free society, or you have to artificially create it by physical removal of social parasites. You either go to a land and make it there, or you remove them from where you are and expel the commies and democrats. Or you take the super long and painful process of chipping away at the state little by little - not voting libertarian which hasn't and will never work - but by championing the candidate that can win and will turn the wheels towards the right just enough to have time to fix things before they have to be turned again.

Anarchy is not the absense of rules, but of rulers. If a group of anarchists choose to live together in a private community, it would follow that they have voluntarily chosen to accept the laws of their venture and this is consistent with voluntarism.