RamynKing

there's nothing specifically immoral about the doctrine you've laid out. this scenario is perfectly plausible right now, under western governments. a labor-minded individual can go out and mine some ore, make some metal, build some machines etc. no boss needed. but if you tell a commie this, that they already have a nonviolent path to their workers' paradise, they will claim that it can't work now, because the capitalists got here first and seized all the resources. you could try to then point to small startup opportunities they might be able to access, but they will respond that it's too small, and even if they do manage a start, the cappies will then smash the threat with all their power. so basically, there is no discussion to be had along this line. also, i don't think that convincing them that property rights aren't bad will help much either. they may have cognitive dissonance here. they believe that property is wrong only because they don't have the property they want. some of them might even accurately imagine the chaotic, primal world we'd get without property, and they accept it out of misplaced spite for humanity. i'm always interested in possible lines of argument to convert commies to cappies. but a lot of them are probably just mentally ill and not actually interested in better philosophy.

i wanna play this but what do the hand shapes look like? is it paper = Atheism rock = Islam scissors = Christianity maybe we could do "science, sand, cross"

I was reading this (communist?) site: https://www.redneckrevolt.org/ They seem to be obsessed with the early industrial times, and suggest that we are still fighting a war against "bosses" today. They mention this subject a lot: http://infogalactic.com/info/Coal_Wars Can someone give me a starting point for understanding these events from a capitalist perspective? I remember stef's presentation on robber barons. I need to do more research, but my head is spinning. Were the workers actually being exploited this much, or are we only getting one side of the story? Would the seeming exploitation have sorted out naturally as the country developed anyway? Did the coming of unions eventually affect overall American prosperity for the worse?

Thanks for the robust reply! Lot's to digest. Where can I read some of your writing? (I hope it's not that one fiction novel that an FDR person put out some months back that I haven't gotten around to yet!) I'm impressed you find it so easy to come up with these ideas. I'm familiar with the things you mentioned, but when I run them through my mind for entertainment purposes, I run into my walls. I worry about it coming off as square, or pretentious, or boring, or even just way too open to leftists namecalling. I can see the reviews: "RamynKing's new christian climate-denier film is sure to delight Alt-Right White Supremacists, but for actual humans, stay far, far away from this steaming pile of trash." Of course, that's kind of what makes it edgy. If you can make a story that just makes so many people explode in puritanical rage, then you've got potential on your hands. Also, if easy rider somewhat capitalized on a timely motorcycle trend, which is not hedonistic in itself, what current trend could a conserva-cool story utilize? I'm imagining someone in an air-conditioned mini-SUV sitting in traffic listening to jordan peterson on youtube and my cool-o-meter is plummeting. You may have a point about your K-selected nature. I know a large part of me was wrestling with somewhat R-selected upbringings for a long time. I was a hedonist and a nihilist and had to overcome all of that. Maybe this hurdle about what is cool is another step on that journey. Or maybe sometimes you just have to put something out there and say: NO, this is what's cool now!

Bill Whittle had mentioned that Easy Rider was the big turning point that signaled the shift from the Right to the Left culturally. Now that "conservatism is the new counterculture," I'm wondering what the Rightist Easy Rider would look like. (Easy Righter?) (Uber Driver?) (Anarchy Self-Driving Car?) Easy Rider sold a certain set of values in a cool package. Could the same be done in the other direction? One wouldn't have recreational drug use, free love, cross-country advenure, or wild fashion to offer up as fun incentives. The right also doesn't have stereotypical boogie men like rednecks in pickup trucks and cops to get fictionally oppressed by in a movie. Maybe I have a lack of vision! Maybe my idea of fun and cool is still tied to the hedonism of the left because I grew up buying into it. I'd love to hear ideas on themes that an aspiring writer might chew on in creating a new landmark cultural film that somehow coolifies the right. Side note: I've never seen Easy Rider! I'm 35 and I love film, but I just haven't gotten around to some of those classics. Clockwork orange is another one that nags me. But from the plot summary, it says the main characters are coming off of a lucrative coke sale! My question is, for all the persecution these guys seemingly suffer, is it lost on the audience that they could indeed be heartless thugs participating in a blood-soaked black market for the sole purpose of making an easy dollar?

Those wolf age videos give me goosebumps. When he talks about Odin returning, my meager percentage of German blood starts stirring. I think it's the 30ish years of suppressed cultural pride.

Good link. I came around here searching for FDR's take on vaccines because I just heard NPR interviewing what sounded like a typical stooge on the issue of anti-vaxxers :sick: :sick: I've been back and forth on the issue. But if NPR takes a hard stance in favor of something, it's an indicator to me that I should look into the thing they don't want me to like.

because they want them to be the optimal gender to maximize sexual encounters in the hedonistic marketplace. sounds funny but i believe it to a degree. it's the same mentality of parents like Carrie Fisher's mom who made her smoke pot at age 13 or whatever. they want their kids to be cool. or rather, they wanna feel like hip parents. they are using their children to virtue signal. but the virtues are that of.... satan?

interesting! if a western government somehow got vaporized in our lifetime, i think walmart, samsung, and exxon could have a clear shot at buying up a ton of weapons and preserving the state. but i can think of other conditions where it might not work out for those companies. if peaceful parenting took off, and we manage to shrink the size of gov enough that iqs go up significantly, our collective knowledge might lead us to more rothbardian ideals, in which case the population might push towards statelessness on principle. in such a case of increased morals, an attempt by residual corporations might be seen as an attack on our new way of life; an attempt to bring back what we recognized as slavery. at the very least there would be a bloody fight that could give the would-be bullies a major run for their money. another scenario: if we keep chipping away at existing government monopolies, and things like private roads pop-up, a domino effect could happen where the government would find itself providing very few services that people aren't getting esleware for cheaper. i think of this as the snowcrash scenario, where the government is never abolished, they keep existing in their own minds and yet have no effect on the citizenry. in this chip-away scenario, by the time we realize there is no effective state, the monolith companies we know are already outcompeted by upstarts. and then we can apply stefs scenarios in practical anarchy to deal with anyone who gets the bright idea of creating a state with their available resources.

great replies all! i'd like to prod some of them further: could you explain this a little more in terms of databases? my understanding is that they'd be simply ineffectual. without antitrust laws to protect them, they'd be constantly outdone by upstarts. but in terms of data, yea, in my admittedly short-sighted thinking, you would want one main trusted database for ostracism to take the place of prison (restitution vs retribution?) i'd like to think so! but for instance, if a database service starts going bad, and they hold the rights to the database, you wouldn't want to jump to a new service that doesn't have as robust a collection of data, yea? i hope so! because when i hear stef go down the DRO rabbit hole, it makes my head spin pretty fast. ha! i need to read the articles, but i'm sure she could land an entry level job! maybe she could become a white supremacist! ... ... i've come up with a rudimentary solution just from typing my reply. it's funny how sometimes i just don't feel like putting my mind to a probably solvable problem. but i thought it warranted discussion due to this topic being seemingly under-explored by experts. so maybe there is NO master database at all. instead you have a sort of credit system that you keep on your person. maybe via carrying card, or implant. -every time you have a successful transaction, you exchange positive tokens with the other party. each person could have a unique token that only they can issue. the tokens can contain a simple upvote, or textual data, so you can give good or bad reviews. -you build these up over your lifetime, creating trustworthy people by the time they are grown. -in the case of violent crime, it get's a little hairy. but maybe what happens is the relatives or survivor of your crime pay a DRO to track you down and forcibly* issue something like a MURDER token to your personal collection. so essentially you are walking around branded. there could then of course be ways of contesting it before or after branding. this last paragraph sounds HORRIBLE, but i bet there are ways of peacefully accomplishing the process. *the force would of course be warranted once the murder was sufficiently proven to the DRO, and after the defendant failed to pay agreeable restitution, and still disagreed to accept a murder token etc.

Pissing off the left and pissing off the globalists are two different animals. On one hand, It might be safe to say that there's NO way to avoid getting attacked by the left for whatever ridiculous reason, so why even worry about it. And when it comes to the globalists, there are libertarian voices saying Trump has no intention of disrupting any of these entrenched systems, the ones that really matter, in any meaningful way. I think that aspect remains to be seen. Maybe the president doesn't even have the power to affect these things. To answer your question, I guess it's as plausible as ever, but not necessarily more likely now. They seem to pull their tricks no matter who is in power. Or hey, maybe those in power have been letting them pull the tricks. This might simply highlight my own ignorance, but I'm under the impression these workings are extremely opaque to those like us. I'm also inclined to think there's not much we can do to fight these things other than to follow our gut and go with the flow, in the absence of so much data. Things we could help with: •The continued expansion of knowledge via the internet. The truths of liberty are spreading like wildfire. Anyone with knowledge is encouraged to make youtube videos etc. The fall of the mainstream media will be extremely powerful. •A right-wing renaissance where the dominant culture celebrates western values in new and hip ways. Movement led by Bill Whittle Hollywood is going down, baby. We are ready for the new easy-rider starring Milo. •Accidental disruptions in the status quo that chip away at government monopolies such that new private markets open up and depreciate the government versions. This would be an effort of elected officials deregulating, and entrepreneurs jumping on the opportunities.

Fairly simple question. I've been steadily learning about free societies since I got into Stef. One debate I listened to with him featured an opponent who argued that: (A) Insurance companies are seemingly capable of great evil, so why would we put so much trust in them? (B) We aren't a connected enough society for economic ostracism to work. (A) seems fairly straightforward. In a free society, competition would basically keep insurance companies in line. As soon as one started acting shadily, you could jump to another one with more honest practices. I'm guessing we would see something like Yelp on steroids. (B) is more interesting. (Maybe it's my memory, and please tell me if it is) In the research I've done so far, I haven't heard a strong proposal on how this would be dealt with. My instinct is that everybody must be in a universal database. When a person violates the NAP, and refuses to play nice with a DRO, they get a flag like "Didn't keep his contract, owes ACME landscaping company $300," or "This man is accused of murder, click here to discuss and vote for his guilt or innocence in the case forum." Hell, I'm on board already. Funny anarchy is still better than statism. #snowcrash But hey, huge databases with the power to assassinate our characters, isn't that kind of asking for the maintainer of said data to abuse that power? I'm probably being incredibly short-sighted here. Feel free to respond with a copypasta about combine harvesters and ancient tree juice.

On-point feedback! Really helpful. Thanks! I've got some responses formulating, but whats here really does change things a bit.

I mean it wasn't the most in-depth thread. I had just really been building this urge for a while. I've spent a ton of forum-time approaching this topic over the years, and seen the same circular, self-defeating discussions rolling out. A sampling of the comments from the thread: (no offense to the posters! great people. great group. all discussion is appreciated. Yet other comments alluded to possible OBSTANS such as: • lyrics that promote making smart decisions; Thinking about the consequences of actions

This thread on the FDR group is the straw that broke the camel's back. https://www.facebook.com/groups/freedomainradio/permalink/1324697957586491/ This is an idea that's been kicking around in my mind for long enough that I think it may have a shot at being workable in real life. Most people seem to have the emotional view that objective standards (can we call it OBSTANS?), when it comes to the arts, are anywhere between evil, and laughably useless. The defensiveness comes out so readily that it's akin to when you make an argument against the state to an average person. To me, it's a sign of indoctrination. Yet although people have this view that we must never apply objective standards to art, I submit most criticisms of the arts center around some arbitrary combination of them. So we have a dissonance between what people say they want, and what they actually desire. Meanwhile, we see the arts slipping ever farther down an insane rabbit hole of degeneration, with every iteration becoming more "incomprehensible" than the last. The people in the know all pretend to appreciate it, though they've clearly been exposed as bullshitters. We even have generators for their babble now on the internet. If the average person expresses a desire for something they can appreciate, they are called laymen or instructed to respect subjectivity etc. I believe the layer of fear this creates has effectively pushed said laymen aside and let the elite run roughshod over the arts, finally transforming them into yet another vehicle for expressing their toxic anti-human values. Now of course I admit that art is ultimately subjective, and I greatly appreciate that very necessary aspect and have no desire to change it. But a pile of loose bricks is a lousy wall no matter what the intent or interpretation. It takes the application of OBSTANS to make sure that the bricks become something more and better. In turn, you can only churn out so many blank canvases and say its about racism before people are fed up. One argument I've heard is that the objectivists tried this with art already, and it didn't work. If anyone can elaborate on that point, I'd be grateful, as my studies in this realm are somewhat immature. I can see some sticking points though. Art is naturally ever-evolving. People's tastes seem to change very rapidly. The moment you write out some OBSTANS for an artform, they start becoming outdated. You seemingly have to base your standards on great works of the past, which may not provide any insight to the future. Moreover, there may be a mechanism in human taste whereby the next generation summarily dismisses any established standards no matter their objective value. Therefore, purposefully assembling more good things in one space is simply dooming good things to the trash more efficiently when the next generation comes and wipes the slate clean. Maybe art has become a game of not outmaneuvering this mechanism. But after letting subjectivity play out, we do see obvious problems of degeneration becoming painfully apparent. Nobody wants to be that dick who blames subjectivity, but there it is. A big fat correlation that is screaming for somebody to say, yea, it's causation as well. It reminds me of how triggered people become when they hear Ann Coulter's single mom stats. Pushing back is obviously a monumental task, but we do have to stand up and call out the problem in the first place. I'd like to propose a new approach to building OBSTANS. The key here is creators being OK with short-term failure, and with consumers not being chained to the actual OBSTANS. A creator would lay out their best list of standards and work with them in mind. If competition comes along and seems to be poaching interest away, you must evaluate if it is because they used a better set of standards. If so, then incorporate those into your own. But if they are gaining popularity by other means, such as bribery or marketing, then stick to your guns in the face of this setback. Looking at today as an example, if somebody was to create the objective equivalent to the original Star Wars, and Red Letter Media has exhaustively broken down those standards as a gift to us all, there would be singing in the streets. As a lay consumer, your role is to.. not consciously worry about objective standards! In a free-market, artists depend on your business, so they will need to serve your whims. As an elite consumer, like an artist who also consumes art, your job is to hold other artists' feet to the fire; criticize them for trying to sell trash to the people under false pretenses. I'd like to add a lot more to this, but I'm mostly out of energy. I hope for responses so I can make this thing actually robust, or scrap it in the face of good arguments. I realize we have bigger fish to fry than "fixing art," but this could possibly tie into the big picture. It could be that art is a refection of a society perverted by the state, and has become an arm of that state as well. If so, then taking art away from the ruling class could be a step in delegitimizing the state. Like the imminent fall of the mainstream media, we could cut another major line of propaganda, and of course begin using it to our own ends. Look at how integrally the Rap industry is tied to the continual destruction of the black family. What a victory that would be for Humanity to blow up that death star.

Side note: I redpilled my wife in about a year. And I didn't even vet her for rationality when we started out. I got fully redpilled myself and then pulled her in very gradually. Got her from bernie supporting SJW over to trump and proud to be rational. I'm sure I'm lucky, but I don't think that's all of it. •My wife is a smart person. As in, I've seen her brain do complex calculations that mine balks at. If i had to online date, I'd probably screen for that rather than an already established set of great ideologies. •although a strong feminist when we started, she was still a woman. and i believe with that comes a certain imprintability to the one she pair bonds with. she respects me and what i do for our family, and allowed me to naturally lead us into a new position, trusting that i would do whats best to protect our clan. My point is that in today's landscape, most women are on the train of the prevailing ideologies, but probably not as deeply as they signal. Find a smart woman, and appeal to her desire to have strong offspring and a secure life, and watch her blossom into an anarchist.

I'm slowly starting to internalize these facts. Today a popular guy on my FB friends made a trendy post about how dumb conservatives are if they identify with the good guys in Star Wars. I thought really hard about entering the thread which was a full on echo chamber of right bashers, but decided it would be too much work for little return. But stuff like that.. Leftists just claiming things for themselves. I realize Star Wars is going SJW, but it hurts when i think about the original trilogy. The idea the people want to say I'm not good enough to appreciate it. My blood really does boil. I'm ready for the new wave of good philosophical films.

Hehe I came here today to make this thread! The replies are very helpful. Does anybody else find the issue of climate changeTM to be extremely challenging to nail down and enter debates about? Maybe because it's more science-heavy than say other issues where we can use relatively recent history to make cases? I even find it hard to make stefan's fiat currency case when it comes to warming debates. It makes sense when he says it, but it always seems like a stretch when I wanna pull it out in life. Maybe that's one of those arguments that require the other party to be considerably awake on a range of issues beforehand.

Thanks. I've been hoping they turn California into exactly this. Oh god how I'd love to watch that shitshow unfold.

NYPD-Poo (sorry, it's in the spirit cooking one, which i'm listening to for the second time)

has there been more talk of withholding sex as breach-of-contract in other threads, or even presentations? incredibly interesting stuff. ..and poignant.

Also i was passed a thing on Facebook about trump not paying his contractors! https://m.facebook.com/josh.adler.587/posts/10153974558326169 This looks to go back to a big media push in june. But searching through the untruth site, i couldn't locate a rebuttal.

Thanks for reporting on this. Npr has been buzzing about kratom for a few days so i can tell theres an operation going on lol. Cant mention national propaganda radio enough.

Didnt stef do a presentation on this? I swear i heard it but the other day i searched very hard and couldn't find it

Hmm, I'm having trouble following you. How would using more accurate terms when referring to people have the effect of eliminating one of the races? And to clarify, I'm not suggesting we bend to politically correct whims. I have little interest in describing people however they prefer to be described, generally. That's an emotional thing. I want to be as accurate as possible as much of the time as i can. So it makes sense to me to start to tighten up things like "black" and "white." Obviously there are times when you would just want to say black or white, like talking to the cops, for the sake of brevity in our times. But those terms say a bit of extraneous information that has become annoying to me. "Black" has an off connotation. And "white" has one of purity. And in terms of color tone, the terms are, of course, laughable. So other than conforming to our times, the terms don't seem to have much use.