Will Torbald

I know it's not an argument, but this is just naive. I don't know where you live, but I don't think you have actual experience trying to educate low IQ people like I have. It's a fool's errand to try to transform an IQ 80 into a libertarian. If even the smartest people are statists and leftists as it happens with most scientists and philosophers, the idea that you can "times table" people into anarcho capitalism will implode when you try to execute it.

You can abolish the practice of people dressing as Santa, or telling children that their presents come from the North Pole. In the same way you can abolish the practice of people dressing as politicians or green army men, and making "laws" that are forced on people. It's the action, not the concept, that becomes inert. I'd prefer if you were to stop being so rude, by the way. If you can't be inactive of at least one action, then it follows there is no such thing as absolute inaction. The lifeblood of the state is the lack of practical alternatives. People don't revolt because they think it is legitimate, but because sudden anarchy will inevitably lead to a state of temporary chaos. The sacrifice required by the sudden abolishment of the state would send enormous waves of crime and destruction. We had a police strike for one day here, and cities were looted everywhere. That is why it has to be done gradually. The state has to be first reduced, and then abolished. You can't reduce it by not voting, you have to vote for those who will.

You can't educate IQ into people. Voting will always be rigged to emotional arguments because only the very minority of high IQ people will make educated votes. Universal suffrage will always be a pre-IQ concept that will drag politics down for as long as it is implemented.

I don't think such articles or charts exist because virtually no one outside of FDR takes UPB seriously to even compare it with objectivism, which isn't a popular philosophy either compared to others.

"It doesn't matter what the evidence is, but who weighs it" - Comrade Tyson

You could try with Black Pigeon Speaks videos on YouTube. I don't know if he's libertarian, but he is red pilled in issues like women, globalism, and race-IQ. His videos are short and very visual which suits normal people's attention span.

Trolling is a art. Humor makes it better, you have to enjoy it.

She's crazy. And yeah, I think you're afraid that if you try to leave again she's going to kill herself, and that you'll blame yourself for it. I would get out of there, divorce or no divorce, and disappear. But that's just me, seriously don't take it as an advise from me to you. Sorry you went through the Christianity thing, I had a similar experience with the religion I was in at that age.

You have no path to anarchy. You're back to where I started when I said that not voting equals allowing the mainstream candidate to win. You can't convince everyone to not vote. The minority that is left will elect somebody. The remaining government will continue importing third world migrants who won't listen to your moral discourse. It is a suicidal road. You have no path to anarchy. The idea that you will convince enough people not to vote, and that that will abolish the state is impossible to actuate. Low IQ people don't care, and they are the majority. If by some miracle you do, the government will just import third world migrants to keep voting. It is a suicidal road to be a minority group, not vote, and think that the masses will follow. It equals allowing the growth of the government, like I said in the beginning. The perceived legitimacy is absolutely irrelevant as long as you have no path to anarchy. You're dead in the water, and it's rising. Edit: I wrote two replies because I thought the first one had disappeared.

How do you think America went from a minarchy to the empire it is today? By voting in increasingly leftist politicians. If voting changed nothing, it couldn't have changed at all in any direction, but it changed towards the left and towards the chimera it is now. Hard empirical reality is out there and it is votes that did it. It is also through force that America became independent from England, so to say that force doesn't change government is another lie. Third, I said to move out, but I didn't imply it was hassle free, but it's possible. The other step is that, if you manage to convince enough people of your morality, what are you going to do? You will either collectively move out, violently overthrow the government, or vote in politicians that will dismantle the state from the inside. Ok? See how it is you who continues to do the ad hominem of claiming I live in a mental prison? It is so cringey to hear that. Give it up already.

You start by recognizing the abuse in your own childhood that most certainly diminished your sociability - and those are the abuses your peers didn't go through by simple elimination.

That you could do that doesn't change the fact that a group of people already did that to your ancestors and you are stuck inside a country. You can either move, overthrow it by force, or change it through votes. I don't see anyone moving, nor overthrowing anything.

What gives you the impression you are alone in that sentiment? How many millions of people don't vote because they think it won't make a difference? 50 million? Say 50 million people who thought their single little tiny one vote didn't matter. When you see them from afar you can realize how silly that really is. I'm arguing against the current of defeatism and pseudo gratification for being so intellectually enlightened that you won't vote in your own favor.

This is the same question. I know all the ancap arguments and they are bad arguments in this situation. I am not in a mental prison or a slave, I know full well that democracy isn't going to end the state in one go. And you should know full well that this ad hominem game you play is not an argument.

I did make that distinction when I said that you are responsible for the system you are inside of. There are multiple layers of government, and if any of those layers were spelling doom, then yes, you enabled an evil mayor, or an evil governor. Right now the threat is an evil president. And one that will make it impossible for any peaceful revolution towards liberty as their powers grow. It's big. I can't vote for France's freedom, only the French. Standing down enables the balance to tilt towards the leftist paradise by not adding weight to the opposition. And after the opposition wins, then you vote for one that offers even more freedom than the one before. That's the only path towards liberty in a democracy that doesn't involve warfare. Society doesn't do big leaps, people can't take it. That's how the left has turned the US into a Marxist playground. The same tactic can be turned around, but libertarians are too comfortable thinking a voting strike will do something.

Not equivalent. In a vote you are given explicit choice and consequence for everyone involved. It is your problem, and everyone else's in that system at the same time. You are implicated, and cannot claim that doing nothing isn't consequential when the mainstream leftist overlords will reach the event horizon that will turn the US into a de-facto one party third world state given the shift in demographics due to immigration and brainwashing. If you think you're responsibility-free because you didn't vote nor campaigned for any opposition that could have stopped it, you are heavily deluded. What people are suffering in other places of the world due to their choices, or political corruption, bad economy, wars and famines - those problems are outside your system/society and belong to them. When you help them it is a form of charity. When you neglect the problems at your home/nation/state, that's on you. Even if you don't win, it's better to lose than not even trying. I have the privilege of looking at it from an outsider's perspective, and I don't want to see the US go to hell because good people stayed at home feeling righteous with themselves.

Enjoy your communist overlords. The ones that got elected when you were doing nothing, then.

And if you can do something to stop the disaster you are choosing not to use your power to deterr it. That is an active choice. If you had no power to stop it, that would be different.

Inaction that enables is just as culpable. Big difference. If you do nothing to stop a disaster you allow it to happen. Even if your singular vote doesn't stop it, you are tacitly accepting it.

Phenotypes are the expression of genotypes, therefore there is no difference in saying "genetics" is the key to race. And no, biology is very fluid and lose with its taxonomic classifications.

The result of not voting is enabling the most mainstream candidate to win. Congratulations, your inactions elected Hillary Clinton.

There are animal species, fully considered species, with fewer differences between them than between the so called no existent human races. Why is that? I think antropocentric bias is part of it. It is harder to judge ourselves while being ourselves. I also think the marxist agenda pushes bland human taxonomy because it destroys their egalitarian ideology. Scientists are the new priests, and if you can bankroll them into your politics, you can convince a large group of people who would otherwise think different.

I want to echo this sentiment. Fewer government layers are preferable to total global control in the same way a mistake in calculation by a factor of 2 is preferable to one by a factor of 200. I do however believe that this paralyzing principled all-or-nothing approach is actually benefitial to the powers of the status quo since they can deter any movement towards liberty by convincing otherwise capable people of doing nothing because they see everything in totalitarian terms. Slightly more government doesn't affect them, since it's still government, so they can raise the temperature of the pot until everything is boiling because the sitting frog won't jump because it's not completely off.

I made a passing comment on twitter about Texit (Texas) and got a few favs and retweets from people campaigning to leave specifically mentioning Brexit as their momentum. I wonder if it will obtain legitimate traction.

dsayers - You're conflating nationalism with statism. There is no reason why "libertarian nationalism" can't have a voluntary society without coercion while at the same time protecting its cultural roots and territory with selective border control. If you attack culture, you attack the base where philosophy stands on. You can't begin to philosophize without a culture of intelect in the first place. Other cultures value strength, militarism, consumerism, materialism, etc - but where philosophy and science bloom is when the culture sees them as a value. It's a symbiosis, not an antithesis. I do see a homogeneous cultural admixture as unpleasant. I don't want my traditions, my holidays, my ethnic foods, my accent, my history, my nation all to be washed out or absorbed into a melting pot. It's horrendous to think about. Even with neighboring countries in LA there is a feeling of "separate by related" around us. We know we are all similar to a degree, but it's the strong in group preference for the tribe that allows us to be different nations. Maybe in America the federal government has distorted the idea of a small nation with its own identity to the point where states are interchangeable sometimes, I don't know for sure, but everywhere else in the world each country is its own beast. It's not an irrational love of dirt, but a rational recognition of the bonds between the people on that dirt.