M.2

Hi, GatoVillano First, loving the profile pic. Second, here are my two eurocents on the topic: Freedom is all about human free will, and the respect for it. It helps to look at it as a value. Human free will, as catholics say, is something that not only God respects, but the Devil too. Whereas humans do not. We always try to impose our free will on others. Which is a natural tendency. Some go about doing it with persuasion, others through deception, a few through force of arms. "The limit to freedom is only the freedom of others" as our social contract dictates. You can think of the struggle of freedoms as if it were a maritime dispute between Chile and Peru, as they try to define their exclusive economic zones. The dividing line between the two zones should be of equal distance from both coasts. So the rule claims at least. But if Peru suddenly decides to surrender their claim, chile has moral and legal right over the formerly disputed zone, and Peru has no right to it anymore in international court, even if they were right before. Analogy aside, we have freedom, but we also have the freedom to surrender our freedom. And consequently, we cannot take it back anymore. We do this all the time in our daily lives. When I took my citizenship card at the age of 16, I subjected myself to the draft, to getting taxed, to all the laws of the country. And no matter what I say now, my freedom to be exempt from the draft, for instance, is just not there anymore. No matter what my free will wants, I have subjected it to the will of the state. And such is the human condition.

I agree with the bulk of what you said, however, you seem to be coming from a genetic determinist angle. Of course there is a lesson that has to be taught to young girls about choosing men. Even we men talk about the "red flags" to look out for, as an example. My question rephrased would be: There is definitely a glaring difference between true alphas and badboys. What is it? Is there a way to test for it? Even in the very latest call-in show, the girl asks: "Where do you find good men?" And she was not the first. So it is quite clear that girls honestly have no idea. At around the age of 16, I realised that I don't have any lust for bad girls. They can't get me hard even when they are rubbing up against me. So that leaves the quality women. I began labeling myself a badboy around the age of 14 when I realised how much I control women by very simple things. I even wrote a simple set of instructions for myself: "One look, one word, one smile, and she is all mine." My father has a gift for knowing people just by simply looking at them, and I have it as well. We don't really know how it works, but it does. We use this skill daily, and apply it too. He applies it in his business "human resources", and I apply it when I am dealing with women. Abstractions are part of it, but you are right, I have to be as personal as possible in order to make the discussion fruitful. Still, not ready for a call-in yet. I don't throw around the term "good" willy-nilly. He is definitely a good man. Definitely not a jock or a chad... rather quite gently. I guess that is the problem. You say it is easy, but clearly not so easy for women. Just listen to the last call-in. "Where do I find good men?". My brain wen "WOMAN, you serious?"

Hi, SnapSlav I think you forgot to mention a very important thing. What are their arguments supporting the idea of overpopulation? If you don't mind, I'll answer in your stead. As much of liberal thought, theirs may be supported by cherry-picked data, but is not based on data. And if you are trying to convince them with data, you may as well do something productive instead. It was quite absurd when the United Nations came to our school and started talking about overpopulation. This was in the most sparsely populated country in the world, so... yeah. Much cognitive dissonance. The idea of overpopulation is based on sentiment. It is quite simple. Liberals do not value life. You only have too much of something if you consider it lacking in value. These are the same people who go to "Africa" as they call it (I call it Ethipoia), and take a few selfies with a couple dozen black children, and use them for virtue signaling on facebook. These are the people that visit a special care home once a year, fool around with the freakiest looking boy for two hours, and then bring it up whenever you talk about shrinking the government; "who will take care of them, you monster?!". These are the people who come to the Balkan Wall with signs chanting "the future is brown". These people make me sick. I know a Korean woman who had been adobted by a belgian couple when she was an infant because "overpopulation". They brought her over a continent away, but after 5 years when they found out she was mentally disabled, they abandoned. Then 40 years later, turns out she had a brother whom they did not abandon, since he was normal. These people are evil. They do not value human life, and that it why they think there are too many.

Let's get our terms straight then. - There is the player, someone like Don Juan, I would think. Because he goes for quantity. And because he uses tactics of the pickup artist. - The pickup artist is quite simple. He only has his tactics to build on, but not much else. As seen in the movie Hitch. - The womanizer is someone who can't keep it zipped, and goes around irresponsibly banging women. Bill Clinton for example. - The badboy is someone who uses his charisma and dominant demeanour to defraud quality women. He goes for quality women because cheap women don't require much effort. Going for cheap women would render him as a womanizer, which he finds demeaning. I can't tell either. Neither of those seem applicable to my case. If they were, trust me, I would admit. You can ask questions to get deeper, coz I don't know where to start. In the name of God! Goosebumps every time... 1. As I said before, I don't care for low quality women. 2. I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing my intimate life on air. If anything, I want to talk about the refugee crisis with him, because that is my field of expertise. Without exaggeration, I am the person who knows the most in the entire world about the matter. 3. You are tight, she had her reasons, but they were reasons I can't really accept. There is absolutely no valid reason for cheating on a good man. Suppose I were your daughter... What advice would you give me to help me distinguish between badboys and alphas? As some men have learned to override their biological preferences of going after butts and buns, how would women accomplish the same?

Its funny that I only know these Japanese references of yours because of Shogun Total War. You play? I think there is some conflation going on here. A badboy is not necessarily an aggressive guy. He is definitely strong-willed, but the reason I use the term badboy, is that he makes it his thing to defraud women. But yeah, the rest I agree with. So if i understand you correctly, life is worth living because there is a good chance that we will go on to do something "great". To be honest, I don't give a damn. Also, please don't misunderstand my argument. I did not say that man is so small etc. My main point was that it was not worth it for me personally. Hi, RichardY I don't think R/K is relevant here. A badboy is not necessarily out to get pussy. His main thing is to toy with women. There are R/K variants within badboys, as we see that there are those like me who don't go for quantity, but for quality, and not to lay, but to dominate. Sack of Rome? Yep. All were mercenaries of whom the Emperor lost control. Quite franky, I don't know how these points are releveant. But of course I appreciate the wisdom. Yeah, I got all of that. It's not that I am trying to argue with you. Just that the whole phenomenon makes little sense to me; then again, not a rare thing that biology makes no sense. And it is so frustrating too to know that only if women would stop doing what they are doing, the badboy gene would go extinct, and Mr.Molyneux would not have a call-in show anymore. I first started noticing the effects of female sexual preference when I was still in high school, where I had many good friends of outstanding character. And for a reason I could not figure out, none of the girls were sexually interested in them - Zero. And I simply could not figure it out, and I still can't to this day. There was a female colleague of mine whose husband was an exceptionally serene and considerate guy, not to mention very diligent, and a doctor. The woman was a very agreeable person herself from a stable family and a christian background. Yet one day she just gets up and cheats on the guy. Her excuse was the usual "I need to live", "I was dissatisfied", "I need to find myself". My cognitive dissonance can only be stressed so far.

The particular example of Baghdad, I learned it from the Secret History of the Mongols. The idea of soldiers going around raping women started to seem dubious to me while I was watching a russian WW2 movie by Nikita Mihalkov, in which, most surprisingly, the germans were not going about raping people en mass. So that got me thinking in the first place that maybe it was just a hollywood trope. And once you look into it, it is. There are numerous accounts of soldiers being penalised in modern wars for misbehaviour (notably the entire RONA legion was executed for rape), but not only in modern times. I learned it stretches back to the ancient era. The 30 Years War was an interesting outlier, in which they mostly made use of mercenary armies, which were basically a band of utter badboys. That was the reason the 30 Years War was so devestating. Needless to say, Europeans generally stopped hiring them afterwards. The very reason the Swiss Guard were so highly valued, is that they were mercenaries who were not badboys. As for ancient times, you can read a ton about Alexander, who made special effort to keep his soldiers in line, as he was instructed by his mentor Aristotle. You can read about that anywhere. In fact, it was the Spartans who were the weird ones, since they were basically let rouge when they went on campaign, for which they were despised by the Greeks. In short, all you have to do is look for authentic reports, not hollywood tropes. 1. Exactly my point. For some odd reason, the women of the ages have kept the badboy gene alive despite all its evolutionary disadvantages. For example, even being excluded from the military for thousands of years. A bandit does not live very long, let's put it mildy. So is it really just the old evolutionary conditioning the thing that has been prompting women to lay with bandits? 2. It is still just odd. The badboy gene is an anomaly in the gene pool that women cause to persist for some reason. Even if we go with the "ancient conditioning" explanation, it still does not explain why that trait still exists in women. Wouldn't a woman with such preferences be quickly rooted out of the gene pool? Apparently not. So why does that genetic trait still persist? It is just logic and cost-benefit calculation to me. My life will end in a few decades, maybe tomorrow, but the entire universe will end in a few trillion years. So even if somehow humankind survives the death of the solar system, my memory, my deeds, my footprint will only be around for a short while. And I won't even be around anymore. So what's the point? Suffer on this miserable planet, only to be made mention of in a history book at the most in a few decades? It just doesn't seem like a good deal. I have only lived 20 years, and I already think I have suffered too much to be worthwhile. Not to mention that I still have 40 years of suffering to go, supposing I live until 90 and if we suppose that from 20 to 50 it was complete heaven. Quite frankly, I have no idea how one survives as an atheist. Clearly most modern philosophers don't either. Once you travel to the end of logic, it is either religion or nihilism. Surprising how few people dare make that journey. Even Mr.Molyneux only goes a few hundred years. Though I think badboys were never advantageous in any society, and that the male you describe is not exactly a badboy, that is an acceptable explanation. However, that still does not explain why the genes that cause women to have such preferences still exist. We have had thousands of years during which badboys and the preference for them was very disadvantageous for survival. I'll say 4 thousand years at least. SO during such a long time, what prevented the prefernce of women from being rooted out of the gene pool? Or is it currently being rooted out? Or, horrifically, is it that the badboy gene is having a grand comeback due to lack of accountability for female sexuality?

Hi, SnapSlav ! Yeah, I've heard that explanation from Mr.Molyneux and Jordan Peterson, but somehow it seems lacky to me. I don't think a badboy is evolutionarily advantageous. Hear me out. It is a big misconception that armies of old went around the country burning and pillaging at will. A general, no matter how incompetent he was, tried to avoid pillaging wherever he could, because pacification of a region following a massacre was not easy. If you look into the Secret History of the Mongols, for example, you will find that the hordes were given permission to rape and pillage only on very special occasions. As an example, Baghdad was conquered completely peacefully, because the city surrendered after the Abbassid Caliphate lost the war. It was only after they rebelled that the city was razed. Which means that the average Mongol soldier had to be very disciplined in the first place in order not to get out of line. Same is even more true for European soldiers. During the Napoleonic Era, ladies and lords would sit at the edge of the battlefield to watch it like a football match, all without the fear of being assaulted by random soldiers. My point is, a badboy is not disciplined, but reckless, untrustworthy, emotionally volatile, and quite annoying to be honest. So how exactly is the badboy gene evolutionarily advantageous? Or is it simply that women have kept the badboy gene alive throughout the middle ages due to even older evolutionary strategies? Hi, aviet I think your assessment of a degenerate society is spot on. However, I am not sure I am a product of that society. Just a couple of things: First, "violate" is a tad strong of a word. Second, it is not about quantity for me, but about quality. I only take the best. Imagine your stereotypical good catholc girl, with a stable family, who has never even held the hand of a man. In my mind, if I can conquer that, I am a champ. And yes, I am probably addicted to it, because even after having zero contact with women under 25 for half a year, I still know I won't be able to resist the temptation once I return to the arena. About the beans, that is not exactly what I said. What I mean is that I get my high out of playing the game, and I have found that getting the prize only diminishes my high. So I like to keep it zpped for as long as humanly possible. 1. There is certainly truth there. I have found that men instinctively spot the girls who have had bad relations with their parents. The harder ones to get are the ones with parents. Which happen to be my type. 2. This begs the question really. How did the badboy gene survive throughout the centuries of a true badboy can only exist today? Or is it simply "human nature" to indulge yourself in the luxuries? I kinda have to doubt the second explanation, seeing so many exceptions to the rule. Either way, it still does not explain my situation. Yeah, this is very important of a question in my opinion. Why do I seek this pleasure? Is it because everyone needs to have a vice? I don't drink, smoke, party, game, sleep around or anything. Could it be that I only do my thing because I simply need something to do that is destructive? It is very sad, because I am a very empathetic person (no, really). It breaks my heart whenever I see anyone crying, or when someone else makes a girl cry. But for some reason, I feel power when I do it. This is by the way the same power that one feels when they are public speaking, and making the audience laugh or boo. Control is the keyword here. I don't think I would go through with rape, because there is no challenge there, but emotional manipulation is definitely something I like to do. "If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything." I say "If you can make a girl cry, you can make here do even more." I have had the luck of having been homeschooled for 2 years after my parents realised that school was doing more harm than good. Coincidentally, I started exercising my new hobby at that time. Franky, I don't think there is a connection. I am afraid you don't have a good understanding of Catholic morality. For over a millenium, the smartest people on the planet had been Catholic. Take Augustine, Thomas or whomever. They have been draining their brainpower building Catholic morality, which is extremely well-argued once you look into it. My favourite is GK Chesterton, as almost everything he says is very current even after a hundred years. As I said, it is all very well in my head. To be honest, it is Catholicism that has kept me alive for the past decade, as I have figured out there was no point in living very early on. But that is another story. Your posts are coming in very late, Siegfried von Walheim I have listened to both, and have drawn much knowledge, but as you see, wasn't enough. There was a lot that I could relate to, yet it still does not explain my situation. Quite franky, I don't think those guys were badboys, but simply womanizers and abusers. What I am talking about is rather different. 1. I know this sounds like every other caller, but I have never judged my father. And I am very much unlike the rest of my family in this regard. My mother and my siblings judge him and condemn his actions, whereas I don't. Don't get me wrong. I know his flaws, but I have made an effort to understand where from those flaws stem. There might be something to dig for here, 2. Yeah, as I have mentioned above, maybe I simply need a vice. Since I don't smoke, drink, game, gamble, or anything. But it's not like my life is empty. I am very athletic, I study a lot, I think a lot, I work a lot. Either way, I do seek dopamine, as all do. But why in this manner? 1. I know he abused me a lot emotionally, as he did with his family. He beat me most realtive to my peers. He often said I looked and behaved like a girl, and recently he said I behaved gay (still an insult in Asia). Nevertheless, he is a very good man, relative to others I have encountered, I would give him a 7 out of 10. For he grew up with nothing, and he worked his way up from nothing as an entrepeneir, and he has given up massive amounts of his life for his family. It is hard to judge him once you get to know his full story. 2. I love my mother as much as a son can. She had been abusive early in my life due to birth control. She quit it as soon as she figured out what was causing her to be so evil. Since then, she has been an angel. My parents even tried having more children, but my mother was unable to, probably due to the past extensive birth control use. The only thing I cannot easily forgive is that she went working a few years after we were born. We had practically no parents for about 6 years. 3. My brothers are my only best friends, and I know we would die for each other without a thought. We are much closer than we are with our parents. We have had hostilities in the past, but we have been allies since our homeschooling years. We call out each other on our flaws without mercy. Mine being my badboyness. Still, there is only so far the subjective view of my brothers can go. 4. I am at complete peace with my background, but my sexual preferences lean towards Europe. I think the original Celtic homeland is where the most beautiful people live. From Bern eastward, from Nürnberg southward, from Budapest Westward, from Milan northward. There is one thing: When I first arrived in Europe, I did not think anyone found me attractive, since I don't look like anyone here. Oh boy was I ever wrong. So I started seeking out my next target at school, and I aimed as high as possible in order to affirm that I was indeed acceptable even in Europe. 5. I think I have said everything in the first post. One thing I forgot to say is that my father had foreseen my nature when I was 6. I remember him telling me to be careful with girls. Something he did not tell my brothers, only me. He is very allergic to womanizers, his father being one. So the question would be: How did he know?

From my perspective, it is the same story of a married couple, with the wife suddenly having a midlife crisis, filing for divorce, and riding off with a biker, all after having used her husband as slave labour for 20 years, and having 5 children with him. Scotland joined the UK after they had gone bankrupt, and they prospered extremely afterwards. They don't get to cha,nge their mind all of a sudden when the ship hits the fan. Hungary joined Austria like a damsel in distress clutches on to the knight in shining armour. They don't get to claim independence after the rapist kebabs have been driven out. Aragonia does not get to file for divorce when the ship starts sinking. They have been piggybacking on Castille for over 500 years. Aragonia was a craphole when they asked Castille for help in driving out the Moors. On the other hand, the Catalans are all communists, so I guess Castille would be better off without them.

Hi, Siegfried von Walheim The pick-up artist videos I am very familiar with, but I never found them too informative. They don't really dig deep into WHY things are happening, but rather just HOW they are happening. They are like instructions on how to assemble a nuclear warhead, but does not discuss what the splitting of the atom is. I have watched every single video of FDR going back 5 or 8 years, but somehow could never find an analysis that was applicable to me. I don't hate either of my parents, and I definitely love my mother to death. My relationship with my father may be questioned though. Now here you are on to something. I have noticed a couple years ago that I don't care about anyone outside my family, and I view them as machines. However, I don't use women for sex. It is hardly about sex. In fact, I have found sex to quite disappointing, as it basically ends the high I get from the game. It is not at all about sex, and I can say that with utmost solemnity. What I enjoy is the game, not the prize. Makes sense? I definitely have a low opinion of myself. And that can be most likely traced back to my father. But that still doesn't explain everything. As I said, playing helps validate my worth. That much is vlear, but it is still not the explanation I'm looking for. I have spoken with tons of outstaning men, and a lot of it has helped. The problem is that they don't really see or understand my situation. Which is the main reason I'm here. Maybe someone here has a perspective. I am not a "player" in the most common sense. I don't like wooing tons of women, I only like the very best of them. And I am not a pickup artist either, since I hardly say anything, let alone cheesy pickup lines. Nor am I a wonanizer, because I don't do it for sex. But I am definitely a bad-boy for breaking a good number of hearts (around 10-15), and for enjoying it too.

This is the first really personal post of mine ever, so be understanding, but don't reserve the truth bombs. It seems like an overwhelming number of the call-in shows involving women make a mention Bad Boys. Please confirm that I am not the only one who finds this to be like a track on repeat. Is there a philosophical assessment of the bad boy that Mr.Molyneux has already made? Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap over and over again? This is important to me because I am a bad boy myself. I like manipulating women, I like their attention, I feel powerful when I see their tears, I love building uncertainty and mystery, I like the thrill of conquest, I feel validated when I get the prettiest and most innocent girl in the room, and I like undressing her and deflowering her. This is an unusual trait for me to have because neither of my parents were promiscuous, neither of my brothers are either. My paternal grandfather was a true player, however I never saw him. Also worth noting that my family does not look leniently upon my tendencies. My brothers have ostracised my for my behaviour, and my father and I have not spoken for over a year partly due to my behaviour. My family is first generation Roman Catholic, so morals are still pretty strong. What I am looking for is not what is right or wrong, but an intellectual evaluation of such behaviour.

I agree this is a uniquely interesting thread to begin with. First off, when you are talking about leg hair, I assume you are talking about those you see in your area of the world. If you go to Korea, women naturally don't have any body hair, whereas if you go to Armenia, things are a bit on the other end of the spectrum. I think whites are somehere in the middle, as there are some who have hair that is hardly visible, and others that are hairy as some men. Hairlessness is an indicator of female hormonal balance, which men find naturally attractive.

Hi, WorBlux .Now there is a reply I was praying for. 1. Whether or not the land of the Duchy was claimed according to free-market principles is very central to this dicussion, and I think you have just detailed that it in fact was. What I think is left unanswered is my point about returning property after theft. For example, what legal route would Germany have to take in order to regain Prussia? Or do they not get to do that because they were the ones who supposedly started the war? 2. I am going to be honest here and say that I don't know what his duties are, and I don't know what they should be. This was why I asked the question in the first place. What separates the Duke from a common landlord? 3. I am not even sure how that is supposed to look like. Here is what I found. http://www.mj.public.lu/nationalite/nat_lux_2009_EN.pdf As I said, I am here because I want my mind changed and my ignorance solved. What I find very hard to claim is that anyone living in Luxembourg has been coerced into accepting the laws and terms of Luxembourg, whatever they may be. Which I think is the main point here, philosophically speaking. Since you are such a pleasant person, I would really like to get your take on how an AnCap country would differ from current examples, and which country it is that is closest to it.

Well, we tried that, and that is what we are arguing over. The problem with shirgall's definition is that it already presumes that tax is deducted by immoral force. You include force in your definition. How eactly is the current pope forcing someone to believe something? Saying he is lying is one thing, but that claim is rather different. I think as long as you have the permission to opt out of the game, you are in the game by choice. Because quite frankly, I think claiming such a level of victimhood in America is a slap in the face to everyone in North Korea, Cuba, China, and else. There are only 2 ways to become official resident of the Vatican. Become a member of the Conclave, or become a Swiss Guard. However, that is mainly in theory, as there are many others who have permission to live there. But still, you have to be very useful to the Vatican. Why is it so hard to think of the Monarch as a landlord? He inherited it after all, and before him, his ancestors either fought for it, or earned it. In medieval monarchies, force was always decentralised. After all, the lords were the soldiers to the monarch. It was not rare that a king had smaller armies than some of his lords. I don't think they are wrong. The question is whether or not their ownership is legitimate. A debate over legitimacy is certainly a debate I wish to have. Hey, not my words. I think it is somehwere in the middle of Everyday Anarchy. But I agree with you. Those places are very good arguments for AnCap, and its a shame few Anarchists use them. The reason why catholic universities often descend into liberalism is their extreme open-mindedness and tolerance. Catholics are too good at tolerating other opinions, and I think that is going to be the death of us. The ones who I have been intellectually and physically bullied by in my life are protestants, buddhists, muslims and atheists. If there is indoctrination going on, it is not in the Church. Seriously, just try mentioning to an atheist parent that there is historical evidence behind the immaculate conception. Since presumption of your intellectual life is immediately discarded, they will instantly move on to ridicule you. If you are serious about this, I recommend we open a new thread, because it is a very important debate, but also off-topic here.

So how exactly so? Ah, fundamentalist protestants... Giving Christ a bad name since 1517. Sorry about your mother. I have been abused by Protestants as well. To my record, I should have said Catholic instead of Christian. Protestants are such a mess, nobody can keep track what they believe. Good for you. I grew up in a majority atheist society. You should try it sometime. Tons to pick from: Sweden, China, North Korea, France, Japan, Chechia (its actually a pretty nice place). If you want to get technical, protestants baptise very late in life, mostly at 18. Catholics do confirmation sometime in the teen years, but it is really dependent on the individual and the province they are from. But again, I don't think it is reasonable to prohibit or discourage parents from teaching their children what they believe to be right. It would be cruel of the parent not to do what they believe to be for the benefit of the child. If you want to change what they children learn, convince the parents to do think otherwise. You might want to go about it like the Jesuits convinced Latin America: with love, kindness, and the Spanish Armada. Coz you know, your methods I have seen are of questionable efficacy.

1. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion. 2. I'm sorry, man. I need solid evidence from you too in order to discuss the Pope. I think it is unreasonable, or even evil to ask parents not to teach to their children what they believe to be correct. But I am open to changing my mind on this one. 3. There is a contract, and it's called the common law, or the constitution. Renegotiation happens during elections, and opting out is even easier; all you have to do is leave. There is actually a civilised state that respects private property, and of which taxes are unenforced: the Holy See. You don't hear the Libertarians mention that too often though. Your argument is based on the premise that the store that you own is built on your land exclusively. That may be the case in the USA, but most places on the planet, land ownership is restricted to the government. The government leases you the land to do with it what you will, and then charges you in return. 4. I don't disagree with anything on this point, but I have to say that there is still a lot to polish on your (all Anarchists) argument. The case for AnCap is still very weak, and Mr.Molyneux admits this in his book, because it has never existed yet. My issue is that you keep talking about theory and ideas, whereas there is a ton of material out there in the world, wherein countries have come close to AnCap. And all of you seem to be unwilling to discuss them. 5. "Indictrinated" is an extremely overused and vague term. Also. If you think it is easy to "indoctrinate" a child into faith, dude, no. It is frickin hard, because a child is born to question things. And the questioning only increases as they get older. Unless of course the parents turn them over to the state where the nature of skepticism is literally beaten out of them. There is absolutely no person on this planet who has been coerced or into being christian by their parents and then stayed christian, because the respect for free will is the fundamental thesis of christianity. It is impossible to indoctrinate someone into Christianity. Because if it involves force or lies, that is not christianity. 1. I challenged your premise that there is no consent. 2. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion. 3. You remind me an awful lot of the leftists who keep on repeating their dogma, hoping it will work as they do. 4. Hang on. Let me rephrase. Dear Lord, Jesus Christ, please bring it to the attention of Mr.Molyneux that some of us are dying to see that debate between him and Duke Pesta. And also please bring down your balls of fire on the heathens who refuse bring proper arguments to the forums. But in the end O Lord, it is not my will, but yours that be done. Amen My homie Jesus will whoop your arse. Just watch

1. There is something wrong with your coercion meter. Also "you owe me x" in colloquial language is not literal. But still, if you insist, I have addressed all your points so far, and you haven't. So in terms of having an honest debate, you do owe me that. 2. Sounds like an important thing not to know about something you feel (sorry, trigger word) so strongly about. I am here, actually begging to be convinced about this topic, and you can't make a good argument. And you still have 7 billion people left aside from me. Keep up the work and you will be done by judgment day. 3. Do you have an argument to support it, or...? 4. I wish Duke Pesta and Mr.Molyneux would get on with their religion debate and trigger all you atheists away. You are so boring.

I woun't insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know that we don't make claims like that on this forum without some evidence. You still owe me a few answers to a couple questions I asked earlier. Is the Duke of Luxembourg a thief? Is so why? When was the first tax introduced? And why?

Ok, now I am a bit pissed. At least you should've brought a really compelling argument with that. So here is one for you. Is the Vatican or the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy See a thief?

The 1847 Sonderbund War was a very small, but significant civil war between the authoritarian liberal protestants (there is a familiar oxymoron) and the more conservative catholics. In short, some catholics did not fancy the impositions of the protestants, and revolted against the Federal Government. The conclusion of the war, although the Government won, resulted in all-round greater freedom for the cantons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War That is a very healthy way to look at the original constitution, I think. But all that could be forgiven, if only they had ammended the constitution in a good direction afterwards. It was Mr.Molyneux who first planted doubts in my head about the way the American Civil War is portrayed today. In looking closer into it, I have realised what a catastrophe it was for personal liberty, despite the abolition of slavery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-W5fGCAzOk Nobody was born all-knowing. As long as you are willing to learn, you are all right. Besides, everyone makes bs from time to time; even Mr.Molyneux.

Respectfully, I don't think you know how monarchies work. But here is a thread where we discuss that.https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49464-debating-monarchy/?tab=comments#comment-449491 Sorry, I'll clarify. The American Civil War was clearly a constitutional crisis. And since then, instead of improving on it, they have only made the constitution worse, which we can judge by the results; less liberty all-round. I don't think anyone debates that. There was clearly something wrong with the constitution to begin with if it allowed for such transgressions against liberty. The Swiss also had a constitutional crisis that led to a civil war, but they managed to recognise the problem, and they introduced even more freedom to the cantons. This is what the US should have done.

Ok, I surrender. So when was the first tax introduced and why was it introduced?

1. We live in the real world and you can't have nice things unless you are willing to defend it. Switzerland knows this, America knows this, Singapore knows this. If you are dependent on someone else for protection, you are not free. Which means there is no AnCap paradise. 2. Well, Mr.Molyneux has written about UPB. I found the 2 books to be very thought-provoking, but also very raw. He does not really present a complete value system that could ever compete with a robust system like Christianity or Islam for example. It is rather just a method for distinguishing between right and wrong. 3. Pretty good examples I have heard for AnCap societies are the Wild West, Medieval Genoa and Venice. The issue is that even of they were truly AnCap, they don't exist anymore. So clearly they were doing something wrong. Same goes for the US. 300 years is not a very long time for a country, especially if you compare to countries like France or Denmark. And yet, the US is collapsing before our eyes. So they clearly did something wrong. And all those who worship the US Constitution should be intellectually honest about it. 4. It's supposed to be a phase. I had my anarchist (that kind) phase around the age of 18 and 19. And then I grew out of it. Just like my communist phase lasted 2 weeks when I was 12, up until my mother reminded me that she grew up in communism and didn't like it very much.

I thought we were talking about justice. That covers consent I would think. Justice fits into morality, no? The parliamentary democracy is irrelevant. There is a face, a person that owns the land and the country that you decided to remain on.

Well, technically, mathemathically, theoretically, it can exist. It just has never existed before. All you need, is some very specific and high prerequisites to be fulfilled. What you need is: 1. A very high IQ population 2. A very highly educated populous 3. A highly militarized populous 4. Very favourable geopolitical circumstances 5. A lot of freedom to begin with 6. An absolutist value system based in UPB that everyone adheres to (this is the essence of it, but here is where Mr.Molyneux's math has run into difficulties) Technically, even communism can exist. The question is not whether or not it can, but rather what is moral. And it is definitely true that it would be swell to have an AnCap paradise. Nevertheless, I argue from the Judeo-Christian side, but basically exactly what you say, that due to the fallen nature of man, it cannot exist, and will never exist.

I still cannot figure out how your citizenship works in America. But to be fair, most of the americas have a weird relationship between citizens and government; birthright citizenship and all that good stuff. Ok, I have no problem granting you that your taxes in your country are unjust. As I said, I think republics are stupid anyway. Would you be willing to admit that the taxes in Luxembourg are just? That is all I need to disprove the statement that taxation is theft.