EmpiricalSkeptic1984

Consensus is many times seen as the most benign, and therefore often the first to be brought up in discussion. No one in favor of establishing a state wants to use the example of an army of bone-crunching mercenaries led by a sociopath with a god-complex as their first example of how to form a state. However, "Bigger Army Diplomacy," as it were, is certainly the know-nothing's guide to subjugating others: "My group of thugs with clubs is bigger, tougher, and more willing to use force than your family is, and also than that other group of thugs over there is, therefore you now pay me tribute." Consensus is, however, the most horrifying as well as the most benign-sounding, because peer-pressure and group-think is a large part of what holds it together. Social ostracism works against one who tries to leave or even shrink a state run by consensus: "We all agreed to this." "The People made their choice." "Democracy benefits us all." "Contribute your fair share." "Don't you like society?" "You've benefited so much from this, and now you want to be selfish and deny others those same benefits?" "You're going against all of us if you go against the state." "You're trying to tear down what makes us great." People become unable to separate the consensus-state from the community, or feel as if removing the state will remove some sort of imaginary safety net that was never there to begin with. They ignore the fact that everything "provided by" that state was actually provided by people within society, working for other people in society, and using the state only as a middle-man. Also, the consensus model gives the illusion of informed consent, when the reality is uninformed consent. A large proportion (crucially, enough to reach a majority or at least a plurality) of the citizens of the consensus-state neither know nor care about the most important limitations imposed on them by that state. One of which, the defining limitation, the one making it unique, being the limitation placed on their range of thought. Inevitably, every issue devolves into a handful (preferably only a pair) of narratives that all advance the growth of the state in one way or another. Any people who do not align themselves with one of these narratives are ostracized or are coerced into remaining silent. The society turns into Plato's Cave of its own volition, leaving behind true understanding in favor of a handful of self-serving narratives.

That's a rather odd statement in my mind. How can support of Trump be Universally Preferable? I personally find him more tolerable than Clinton, but that's certainly no endorsement. The guy is most definitely authoritarian. All one has to do to see that is listen to him speak. He acts as if becoming President gives him carte blanch to do anything involving governance, including stomping on the sovereignty of other nations. Not to say other presidents haven't done this, but none of them used it as their campaign platform.

I believe Stefan explained this well (meaning of course that I will probably butcher it in the re-telling) when he pointed out that he was expecting us to have more time. Stefan's goal of an enlightened, peaceful, voluntary society can only occur if the future occupants of said society are born and grow up under the proper conditions, namely with peaceful parenting, stable and nurturing environments, relatively high IQ, and two-parent households. There is currently a rapidly escalating threat to that future, as the populations migrating to western countries as of late are coming in too quickly to assimilate and have a distinct lack of at least two of those things. More worries than just that generally accompany them, as well, such as their disdain and/or apathy for the values of gender-egalitarianism, separation of church and state, and self-determination that western culture embodies. So while Stefan is not advocating blind acceptance of conservatism, patriotism, and self-righteousness, he is advocating the re-examination of those things we have set aside, and asking if we have been taking down the old walls that protect our society from the metaphorical barbarians of chaos, greed, and decadence without putting up new ones to better take their place. Just today I watched his new video about patriotism, and it seemed to me to have a lot more to do with having pride in the achievements and ideals of one's society than it did with having pride in one's government or flag.