Siegfried von Walheim

I just wanted to wish Stefpai and the FDR community a big and Merry Christmas and also make a thread for others to put in the same. So... ....Merry Christmas! <3 (To Stefpai, Mike, the team at Freedomain Radio, and all the regular forum goers!) (Note to moderators: Please wait till Christmas Day to pass this!)

Generally speaking all humans are advantage-seekers seeking as much as they can get for as little as possible. Men are far more likely than women to break the cycle and become leaders in society but most men are followers of most women and most women are followers of their parents who followed their parents and so on and so forth. Mothers raise the boys and girls to be as they are and adult women select what they want in men who attempt to emulate what they think women want. A whole lot of agency is occurring here because they're making choices both as singles and as parents. Okay. In which case everyone has agency because we have at least two options at all times: Do X, and don't do X. Yes you can. I own shooting the guy pointing a gun at me. I'm absolved because it's self-defense but I made the choice. Morality is not the same thing as agency. Agency is by the above definition my ability to make choices in a given situation (or even more simply--make choices). I refuse to give bad women what they want (the benefits of being an adult without the consequences and responsibilities) and refuse to excuse bad women and evil people in general for their behavior by ascribing it to mental deficiency or insanity. Otherwise wouldn't Stalin be excusable because he was beat horribly as a child and raised in a very cutthroat society? Doesn't this logically conclude that our environments is all we are and only a select few can raise above our environments and by extension preside over us? Although not many break the cycle and revolt, nothing but tyranny results from letting bad people be treated as mentally challenged while holding good people to an absurdly high standard. Determinism is Cancer. You may not intend what I am saying, but inevitably if women have no agency (except maybe a few) because they're emotionally reactive than most men can similarly be absolved of responsibility and therefore only high quality people can be held accountable for anything and those high quality people will not rule but rather be ruled and exploited. Either everyone has agency (to some level) or no one does. Obviously a baby hasn't the agency of an adult but after a few years of mental growth (i.e. becoming closer to a mentally matured human) children become able to reason and therefore earn a beginner's level of agency that grows over time. Once we're fully mature (i.e. 18+) we are all equally responsible for our actions regardless of circumstances.

I think you were both talking past each other, i.e., you both were talking about two different things and therefore made little sense to each other. It's an interesting debate, but I think you need to emphasize again your point is "who determines who is right" and "how do we know it is right" because I think that point's not being explicitly told and therefore without it you don't look like you're making valid claims but just moving the goal post. Likewise @smarterthanone the idea I know Mishi's trying to communicate is that there is a problem of "who determines what's rightful NAP" and "who adjudicates what's NAP versus a violation of the NAP". I think you both ought to break it down to basics since the hypotheticals/real-word-examples have a lot of other variables attached to them that makes it easy to move the conversation away from the main point. The main point is, I am sure: "What counts as NAP and who decides what counts and how do we prevent subjective preference from mutating NAP to fit their own vision of what it is?"

I could say "not real Christians" but wouldn't you say violence in self-defense or in the liberation of neighbors is justified? Copying what historically worked for the most moral idea in history is not a bad way to get AnCap off the ground. Probably busy trying to manage their company from a desktop or on-site. If I were actively seeking quality men, I'd look for the guys who are around 20, look very busy yet cool, and ask them why they're busy (or what they're doing). If it's work-related, they're probably going places. If it's college... Well, depends on the degree but much chancier. For quality women, they're probably doing what I just described (trying to find the quality men who are busy trying to get ahead far sooner than most). First I was introduced to Communism in 8th grade (12-13ish years old I think) and became attached to it for several reasons: 1: I recognized my society was trash (by universalizing my own experience of getting into regular fist fights and be heavily ostracized by those who were physically attacking me. Used to being an outcast). 2: Sought a cozy and easy life as a soldier-like type doing what his benevolent master tells him to (idea being Communism= everyone is middle class and assigned a job based on capabilities) 3: Eventually desired to become the "benevolent master". After reading many books about Communism and Communists I slowly had my fantasy broken away (and was challenged regularly by an Objectivist I was friends with) until I eventually became apolitically cynical. Then I learned of the migrant crisis, and saw the "documentary" "The Greatest Story NEVER Told" which drew me to admire and want to emulate Hitler (who was portrayed as a saintly figure horribly misconstrued and mischaracterized) and join the Fascistic elements (on the Internet) in a desire to both ethnically cleanse Euro-America of non-Whites and especially the Islamic invaders. I was especially drawn after becoming redpilled by racial realism, anti-White crime, the cuckoldry and high treason of our national leaders, etc. Eventually I figured out Hitler wasn't so great after all and was actually evil and terrible. Eventually I learned Fascism wasn't "Nationalism + Capitalism" but "Communism Lite" and by this time was drawn into Stefpai's rigorous search for truth and objectivity which really drew me because I had become so depressed and cynical after making such major ideological shifts in my life. I always saw my mother as a benevolent fool and my father as a parasitical conman. Obviously this wasn't/isn't the full story but that's how I saw it and I grew up in daily terror of my drug addict father and my emotionally unstable mother. Life got better when we finally moved (again) and left my father (again. This time the last time he was welcomed back) and my mother sought therapy (which greatly helped) and my father sought rehab (again) which helped him as well (though his life is already a trainwreck given I'm the youngest of a dozen ruined children and the first/only by his third woman). I imagine my desire for power came from feeling so powerless and also my early wisdom of recognizing the destructive patters of those older than me and my desire to punish parasites and fools equally. More like Charlemagne style. Great men have to, at some point, get a group and eventually foment revolution and overturn the existing systems with new ones and bring society to the future without endlessly looking backwards. Going Galt is what decent men do when powerless. Great men don't give up; they attempt to take the power and use it for good as compared to evil. Like if Hitler was a Free Market NAP guy I think Germany's Third Empire might be the global superpower and human rights leader today rather than a crap-stain of evil and squalor. No. I am suggesting all you need is like a few dozen guys to go around forming groups and have those groups go around rabble rousing and once the mob (or political party) is big enough to become either politically or physically powerful then revolutionary changes become possible. Pretty much every big social change happened this way. I'm not a great man and don't value the West, therefore I intend to join the existing great man's (Putin's) Russia and climb the mountaintop with Him (unless I am convinced Russia's worse or no better than the West, or the West is going to avert the oncoming Second Dark Age) rather than risk my and my unborn children's and future wife's lives in trying to start a revolution (peaceful or not, reactionary to the impending Civil War or preceding it) in which the only guarantees are that there are none. I would argue Stefpai's a great man because he's attempting a (peaceful) revolution of the Soul and is doing very well relatively speaking. Combine him with dozens of other Right-wing activists and a revolution (though small and peaceful) may be possible and be enough to save society from itself (for the high performing 10%).

Answered this same question on the other thread. The problem is, I think we agree, justifying it morally. Not why is being moral practically good. Rather what is moral. I think we can use definitions as a start (like murder is by definition evil because it is unjust and unwanted) and make threads from there but how do we justify basic tenants like the NAP as being a moral claim from which more claims can be made (because if the NAP is true for example, then attacking people unprovoked and beating children is evil by definition) without resorting to pragmatism? Pragmatism isn't immoral but doesn't have any moral direction either way. Therefore it can't argue what morality is, just why to be moral. Not necessarily since people do change significantly over time due to evolution. If one group of people is basically savage r-selected rabbits while another is upright and conscientiable than they can't be called the same sub-species. Like with Christianity, it started off very small but got very big as the word spread and those that heeded it became the most powerful for it. In short, we need a way to be super duper objective about it and to be able to distill it to a populace that generally either doesn't have time for studying morality in depth or isn't capable of being objective enough. In other words, UPB needs a church. Well in English at least it's an "agreeableness" phrase not one that requires mutual goodness. I elaborated more on these points on the other posts. Will do.

As a lapsed Catholic I think I am simply ignorant of what it actually meant. I apologize since I know I don't study enough of my own religion. I'd like to think I know the important parts but I find a lot of what I learn comes from the atheist Stefpai (who is awfully Christian in ethics). Presumably that's happening now. You, me, and whoever's reading. It also happened when we first started pursuing philosophy, self-knowledge, ethics, economics, etc. Even basic stuff like knowing how to tie our shoes, write, cook, chop wood, etc. On a societal level, hard to say for sure since I think it's generally been a dedicated minority that's made the biggest changes not the majority. Like the American experiment began with a couple dozen guys who managed to convince a few hundred thousand to support them and eventually established a republic against the wills of millions. But they didn't win solely based on their arguments. Sophists like Lenin also win. Other times guys without arguments but bigger swords. I agree some kind of leadership class needs to be established. I think DRO's have potential as a Free Market legal system. The DRO that's the most effective will, in the long run, produce the best society. Practically I agree with you. It does presume from a blank slate, which I think is reasonable from a moral and/or theoretical perspective. The next step is finding a way to make it happen. I figure the best case scenario is a revolution both martially and mentally, like the American revolution of 1776 as the rebirth of Roman Republicanism. Of course I can't say for sure how to actually make that happen now. But that's a whole other subject. Given the Roman Catholic Church is comprised of fallible individuals trying to check themselves as best they can to be as accurate as possible, I think an equivalent can (and must) be established for a secular equivalent to thrive. You know I really want to take you up on that. My main concern is using skype (never done it before) and my environment (not exactly sound proof). But by God I had decided last year back when I was just becoming a man that I would have a real philosophical call with the great Stefbot. Perhaps if we can't figure out what's missing ourselves then a call is the best thing. I don't plan on doing it myself soon though, though if my circumstances change I'd be inclined to to do so. I think perhaps the Devil here is in the details. There are two possibilities: 1: We are misunderstanding Stefanist arguments. 2: We found a loophole. Given I haven't heard anyone legitimately find a loophole that couldn't be corrected by simply reading/listening to Stefpai's books or a clarification of a possibly ambiguous statement, I am inclined to assume the first. Therefore I'm also inclined to review what we've spoken about (namely the problem of relying on subjective individuals to objectively determine for sure what's moral and impose it collectively on society) and see if either Stefpai has an answer for this or if this is even a problem (for example if he already intended for groups like DROs to be the police/priestly equivalent in determining what's moral, then it isn't up to the majority but the dedicated minority. Then it becomes a different argument. I'm going to re-read what we've spoken about and make a new post either here or on "What is Moral?". I haven't read much of UPB yet (and with Christmas just a couple days away I doubt I'll read too much too soon) but once I do I'll try using it as a frame of reference).

Not interested in preserving the West. Hence why I've decided to learn Russian as a backup plan and possibly immigrate to Russia and assimilate myself as a Russian. I'm tired of being on the side of the bad guys looking down a slippery slope; I want to join the good guys who are climbing the mountaintop! I've said it before, but I've had a tumultuous political history. I was indoctrinated into Communism (even was an avowed Stalinist/Maoist) and studied Communist history trying to square the circle, and eventually realized it doesn't work and is only a bloody massacre engine. Then I was briefly apolitical until the Fascists gave me some light and flashed it on the Migrant Crisis. After a few months I realized Fascism is basically a slightly different form of Communism and was doomed to be just as bad (and also realized the "propaganda" against Hitler and friends wasn't "propaganda" but actually the tip of the iceberg) and eventually became an Anarcho-Capitalist. Now I think the best thing to do is focus on ourselves and act as role models for what we believe in. I also reclaimed my Roman Catholic routes and became far more humble to the world and what I am ignorant in (which is 99% of the world give or take) and take pride in what I excel in and am actually informed about. Now I think the best thing is to abolish the republics and institute a form of senatorial monarchism in which the landed and the aristocracy (based on business merit so not to impede Capitalism with enforced stagnation) are balanced by the moral compass of society (the Christians, particularly the Roman Catholic Church) and act as the leaders of the nation as it slowly transitions towards individualism, Libertarianism, and eventually Anarcho-Capitalism. I know the chances of that being the end result are slim, but I also know America was at its best under a similar system (i.e. only landed people could vote rather than everybody) and the more laisez-faire and restricted the government, the better. Therefore Republicanism is cancer while Monarchism is somewhat more progressive (though obviously far from perfect since an atheist monarchy or a hugely feudalistic one that isn't really religious or Christian is one bound to be a lite North Korea) and more likely to result in better childhoods, better adulthoods, stronger values, a more stable society, and eventually the totally-merit-based AnCapitstan.

Because men (especially Christian White Men) are a voting minority and are easily cowed to vote in the direction of the other more threatening groups. Basically in our Republic the nice guys finish never.

I suspect there will be wars before this becomes a problem. At worst we're seeing a South African level civil war across the various European countries but with odds significantly in favor of the natives rather than the foreigners. At best I think the Muslims will take care of themselves (i.e. they'll make White people hate them so much and be so hostile that enough angry young whites of either my generation or the next will forcibly evict the lot of them). However I am certain Europe is staring down a new Dark Age either way. They'll bounce back (eventually) but my tentative prediction is that within the century Europe will become a vastly different continent going forward by looking backwards. Excluding Russia, Poland (though highly atheistic and liberal from what I've recently learned--they're also highly nationalist and will therefore have a stable liberal paradise rather than an unstable one), Hungary, and perhaps other Eastern European countries which were vaccinated by the Soviet Union from Communism and will therefore most likely be experiencing a Roman-style Golden Age over the Western/Central/Northern Europeans. Therefore I strongly recommend (especially before they stop taking immigrants) learning Russian (or Polish or etc.) and moving eastward since it'll be those countries that'll become the future Romans rather than the setting sun of the West.

I'LL TAKE YOU!!! First order of the day is to change your avatar into a Christmas themed one in celebration of the upcoming Winter Solstice and Christmas holiday.

Same can be said of 99% of men. What is your standard for "agency"? It sounds like it's "if you have the balls to be the black sheep, you have agency" but very few people do therefore few people have agency therefore most people are children to be herded by a benevolent shepherd therefore totalitarianism. Are you prepared to make the case for most people being manually directed in life by a central agency?

UPDATE: I think using pragmatism to explain why being moral is objectively good is valid. The problem is figuring out what is moral. I need to re-listen to UPB's audiobook because I am way too empty-handed to be saying what's moral/immoral if I can't answer why killing people is immoral. I can argue why it's pragmatically bad but not evil. I got a problem. I'm going to see Stefpai's solution again. ...Actually isn't UPB's basic answer something is moral/immoral based on whether it can be wanted/unwanted by everyone? I really need to revisit. Can't escape the cycle of "Killing is immoral because it robs someone of their life. Why is that immoral? Because I wouldn't want to be stolen from" and that's not morality that's preference. I am fearing morality may be a myth. Hence why I need to revisit it. EDIT: I'll come back once I've finished UPB but I had an epiphany regarding the definition of morality. Morality: That which is universally preferable versus subjectively preferable. Objective preference. Murder and theft can never be universally preferable by definition. Universalization only applies to stuff that can be defined objectively as only ever being preferable subjectively, therefore a limited number of things can be called moral/immoral. I'll come back to this after UPB but I have to admit I think I made a personal breakthrough by revisiting what morality means and that it is basically "objective preference" because preference by itself is subjective.

You're right. I haven't thought about it like that--perhaps I am too tired or too ignorant about UPB and am therefore unqualified to argue. But if you're correct in your assessment of what UPB is then you just debunked it. Please email @MMD now since I'd like to hear what the Stefpai has to say. EDIT: Murder is wrong because it cannot by definition be wanted for the murderer as well as others. However the problem I think is answering beyond pragmatism why the non-believer should believe. Subjectively it's easy to argue because getting along produces rich empires. Also history seems to prove that the most moral society of the era is the one that grows the biggest and becomes the most powerful. I'd argue the Mongolian Empire being a challenge to that thesis but I can't say their enemies were morally superior to them so I might be right. I'll do some independent research about this thesis (and perhaps find if someone else had the same hypothesis) since I might be right and if I'm right then we might have found something objective. Objectively the best I can come up with is objective relative to a given standard. A standard like the Bible for example. Problem is wrongful interpretation. UPB may be simpler (or not, given my struggle at the moment but again I am not in the best state to argue because I am very tired and perhaps shouldn't be typing but will anyway because I suspect come morning I'll have time enough to amend what I typed here before moderation passes me) than the Bible because it's as simple as "can you both want it and can others want other to have it at the same time?" But I think I got it wrong, so I really ought to stop typing about it and perhaps do some research. EDIT: I don't know what to say. How do we measure a ruler's objectivity in measuring? So far all I have is practical reasons why being good is good for all involved (at least in the long term). Yet morality by definition is objective. What are we missing??? EDIT EDIT: My answer to the quoted point is that "getting along is good" is not the ideal being put forward. Getting alone with bad people isn't good, for example. People being good however can be objectively proven based on how it enriches and empowers a nation. The strongest countries and longest lasting in history were the most moral relative to their continents.

Then the problem becomes people like the Borgia Pope and the modern Socialist Pope. What happens when their infallibility is disproven? I remember a Pope John XXII (read this on an article called "Papal Infalilibility" on Wikipedia) who said that to claim the Pope is infallible is blasphemy. However in the same context it is written that his opposition meant it as a limiter to the power of the living Popes (so that they cannot contradict their predecessors, and by extension distort the truth) so I might be mistaking what is meant by "infallibility" because it makes sense in the context of individuals later trying to re-interpret a given text for their own political purposes. But then there's the problem of the original interpretation possibly being wrong. But then compare that possibility to the likelihood of malicious power-seekers taking advantage of the small bit of fallibility allowed (and therefore allowed to "correct" them). But then finally this can be correct via reason and evidence. I think proof in tangible matters can be found to be the arbiter. On the other hand theoretical matters would be challenging since they probably can't be proven easily. Problem: conflating NAP with UPB. First off UPB is meant for moral claims not "every issue". I am a bit tired so I might not be very coherent, but I don't think UPB is meant to be the answer to everything nor is the answer supposed to be "universally acceptable". A million people compared to 1 might think gravity is a myth but they're still wrong. If the claim is that Slavs are a toxin to the gene pool then it must be tested and proven before the claim can be made. Otherwise it's just sophistry. Also it's not a moral claim and can't be universalized. Also just because a whole community aggress another is toxic doesn't justify their attacking them. Communal rules is for the stuff that isn't moral/immoral like what the dress code ought to be or the sound levels at certain times a day. EDIT: Now I understand. If Slavs really were like literally toxic then theoretically exterminating them would be self-defense. Obviously they aren't but how do you argue against that? Well, burden of proof being on the claimant comes to mind. What do you do when a large mob is fooled into believing it? Fight them, but the UPB is supposed to be a vaccine not a cure. So how would we nip it in the bud? Well I'd dare the claimant to prove it and go from there. Once an army is formed though sophistry thought it obviously can't be reasoned with without first destroying their will to fight. My child wouldn't because I would teach him how to reason and use empathy to realize that stealing from the rich is stealing from himself in the long run, at the very least. Also DRO's are meant to be the law-makers and they are supposed to be supported by the subscription of the majority of a given area (and apply to that area, or maybe just those involved and work with other DROs to ensure that everyone is attached to one and those who aren't are ostracized out and those that break a commonly agreed to law are punished. I don't know what would happen if X breaks a law with A DRO but not by B. Maybe it'd be decided based on whether that law was broken on A DRO's soil or A's client. Maybe A and B would look to come to a common agreement then amend their policies accordingly.) EDIT: Marxism violates UPB by default because it places a double-standard. The U in UPB means in part that everything has to be measured by the same standard. Of course I'd teach my children not to let people trick them into holding lower standards for X groups so X groups can do as they please against Y. I assume because childhood throughout history has been terrible for most people and therefore most people were trained to be savage and barbaric. Of course who can say for sure if everyone (or a majority) haveing a decent childhood will make anarchy possible. It might not. Which is why my alternative solution is to have a Catholic monarchy where the people are ruled by an aristocracy based on productivity checked by a moral compass like the Roman Catholic Church as a transitional stage that may or may not eventually transition into AnCap. I think it's the best way to get there since a few smart men invested in the longevity of their country is more reliable than a mob of people who can't possibly know every issue voting for a guy (or 500) that they can't possibly keep up with and hold accountable in the long run. Man will never be perfect but we can all pursue the ideal and get as close as we can. I am too tired to effectively argue for UPB at the moment (I apologize for that I'll make another post tomorrow) but I do know it's meant for moral stuff like "can murder be universalized?" but the hard part I think is what to say to someone who says "why should I care?" and give an answer beyond pragmatism and make it compelling. Also universalized is supposed to mean "if we can want it unto ourselves and others at the same time" not "everyone agrees with it". Again I apologize UPB isn't simple enough for me to argue with my IQ temporarily reduced to 70 but I want someone other than me to interject and take up this point since I can't argue more until tomorrow. Also, please send an email to Mike so you can present this dilemma since I haven't heard it before. EDIT: I think I used UPB well enough to counter your examples: Marxism is by default anti-UPB (double standard); first the racist must prove his racism has validity; and once we're beyond reason UPB doesn't matter because in an immoral situation anything goes. I don't agree with the last bit since I think some standards of civility must be maintained even in war so to mitigate the damages. I think the problem is you misunderstand what UPB means. However I might as well, so I beg anyone around to intervene and catch me where I went astray.

Not what I meant. I meant in the context of virtue signalling, wasting away youth and fertility, and other suicidal tendencies. Go to Macey's and watch a woman pick out a dress. BOOM. She can make choices, therefore agency.

All you need is one exception to disprove their thesis. Maybe a lot of women want to be stripped of agency (and by extension liberty) for momentary comfort but who cares in the long run? Either they'll suffer for the consequences of their action (perhaps leading to a post-Holocaust-Jewish-like "Never Again" moment) or the men will seize control at some point and institute White Sharia (or an equivalent) which will inevitably implode on itself. Basically unless the majority of women join the majority of men as redpilled ad conscientious of the long term (after all the women raise the men so if women have no or limited agency then so do men because we're their byproducts) we're screwed. Frankly it's easier to argue men have no agency because most men (especially White and Oriental men) do whatever women want in order to get laid. Obviously men have agency because we make choices. If you can make choices, you have agency by default.

If true then correct. However I can't say I know the facts given I remember hearing the government had a false-flag operation on one of their own border towns in order to instigate anti-Polish sentiment. I'd like some links for data so I can verify it. I know some group claiming to be the internal Jewish thing or whatever declared that all Jews should embargo (or something) the German government post-Hitler's rise in 1933 but if I'm more than a year off then it could be the difference between a declaration of war or self-defense.

Let me see. I think the Christian UPB test makes sense but it can be distorted. Like how do we determine if it "serves the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" Assuming for the sake of argument some pretty solid examples are put forward with the question, it is pretty reasonable. Stefanist UPB is basically if something can be done simultaneously between two people. Like we can exchange insults therefore it isn't immoral (immoral requires either a breaking of the NAP or an act that can't be both done unto each other and wanted for ourselves. Theoretically we can want to be insulted but not, by definition, stolen, murdered, or raped, etc.) however it is "unpreferable" and if the general consensus of the community is that if you insult someone severely enough they can put up their dukes and fight you unless you stop, then I see nothing wrong with it. UPB mainly applies to the life and death and political stuff, not the preferential stuff like how to handle minor disagreements (although having said this I think I'll contradict myself because the question becomes does threatening someone to stop insulting me or you become an initiation of force. I'd argue not because I am not demanding someone do something positive to me or others but rather not do something negative to me specifically. If I that's the case I think it passes though perhaps you should book another interview with Stefpai to ask it since I haven't heard this case before on the Call in Shows and am not sure how to resolve it). Simple. Does my child understand me when I explain him why something is immoral. Can he demonstrate understanding. And then afterwards, does he break it? Example. "Stealing is wrong because, at the very least, you wouldn't want to be stolen from and by definition no one wants to be stolen from. Otherwise it's 'gifting' or 'abandoning'. Can you give me an example of what I just said?" Son: "John stole a toy truck from Johan, which is wrong at least because I wouldn't want a toy truck taken from me without my permission, and John probably wouldn't either. But if he doesn't really care then it's not stealing 'cause it'd be like picking up an unowned object." If Son then were to steal a toy from Daughter after giving this example and perhaps demonstrating it visually with figurines, then he clearly knows he just stole something. A reasonable punishment would be, I think, to not buy a new toy for Son until he's made restitution on it with Daughter as far as Daughter is concerned (like he says sorry, returns it, and when she gets to a point where she's not glad it happened but isn't angry about it anymore, I'd then stop withholding gifts or allowance money from my son). It's up on "Religion and Atheism" right now. However I don't know how much attention it'll get since it didn't pop up on the "Recent Topics" cue.

That's not money's fault that's the fault of the governments which monopolize money and choose to print it to inflation. So you don't deny it's convenience relative to bartering and how cost-effective it is, right?

An excerpt from another post: === For example: why is murder wrong? Because it steals someone's life. Why stealing wrong? Because it violates someone's property rights. Why's that wrong? Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. See the problem? I can't argue a moral reason, every time I try it ends practically. Therefore I either don't fundementally understand the differences between morality, preference, and pragmatism or I am correct and therefore to secure morality we must base it on what objectively works to ensure human happiness in the long run. And since the most moral countries are always the most powerful of the era, there seems some natural truth to this. However I don't know yet. And I do know we need more people to admit they don't know so we can figure it out. The tricky part for me is what is moral? How do I know if something is truly moral? I'll start another thread about this. Maybe someone here can make the case. === My basic question is this: why is murder immoral? Because it cannot be universalized (i.e. you can't murder and want to be murdered at the same time because then it's no longer murder)? Why is that immoral? What does universalization matter, morally (not pragmatically) speaking? Or am I failing to understand what morality is? This very simple question: what is morality (objective preference?) is something I can't answer beyond a certain point. If someone wise to this, either a priest, a philosopher, or someone with really good handle on UPB or the New Testament, were to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Possibly, if the monarchy manages to secure the approval of the majority-holders of the nation's land as well as the approval of the Roman Catholic Church. Until I find new information I think monarchies that are supported by those with the most investment in the land (the nobles, possibly) as well as the group recognized (by consistency of action of morality) as the compass for morality (the Roman Catholic Church, short that than whatever is closest in both intent and action and accuracy) then the monarchy is just and the monarchy's powers and restrictions can be legitimately decided by the consensus of these said groups. Therefore given the above, there is no taxation in a just monarchy. It's rent. It's hard because I lack all the information. If it was the South German Kaiser who first declared war, then it's him. There are better ways of reclaiming old land. Of course it can be argued the legitimacy of WWII (or the Third Empire's invasion of Poland and reclaiming of old lands) hinges on whether or not it was legitimate that they lost those lands in WWI. I'd argue it wasn't given ethnically German peoples were forced to obey a new law and a new government as well as a new language. However it is impossible to make restitution for everyone with a grievance on the battlefield, therefore a kind of deal must be made between the national leaders. Perhaps, for example, Hitler could have negotiated with the Polish government to allow the Prussians living under the Polish government to follow German laws and speak German as their official legal language and perhaps over time reach a settlement wherein they will eventually be returned to the Empire. Of course I don't know everything that was going on. Hitler was a Fascist/Socialist after all. By that premise alone I think negotiating with him is like negotiating as a businessman with the mafia. I am not negotiating with a legitimate ruler but a tyrant therefore I would rather avoid him or, if he persists, seek to rid the world of him. ...And I'm sure that attitude was problematic for him since he was most likely without many foreign allies. If you are correct than it's the Arabs that violated the NAP. They sold out their country, they deserve by their own actions to lose it. Provocation is grey territory. I think we can all agree that insulting someone's mom or dad (i.e. not criticizing like a therapist or friend but just merely insulting) is a common way to start a fight with someone. Who can say where the fine line is? DRO's are meant to be the determiners bases on what the community consensus (i.e. the aristocracy of the free society) and part of being an anarchist is realizing I do not have all the answers to every problem nor do I need them, for some problems are unlikely to ever occur and someone wiser than me in this area could argue better. As the words imply. If we, for example, agreed beforehand to a boxing match then we set the rules as to how far it can go and how to determine when it'sover. If I was some thug coming to attack you but I never go below the belt, then I am indicating that's the standard not to cross. If you agree to it, so be it. If you decide to punch me in the balls then you have changed the unspoken agreement making ball-punching a valid form of winning the ambush I started upon you (to be fair as the attacker I don't have a right to complain if you escalate in your self-defense because I am by my actions threatening to kill you). No. The child demonstrates ability to reason, then the child is partially on way to full personhood and agency. There is no "decides". Either the child can, or can't. And it's easy to test. Not necessarily. Because I cannot objectively determine what is true and what is immoral without relying on my gut, I claim my moral compass based on whatever I can defend the most in theory whilst feeling the most "true". Of course there's a lot of weaknesses with this strategy hence I'm responding to your criticisms rather than ignoring you and living in my own head about it. For example: why is murder wrong? Because it steals someone's life. Why stealing wrong? Because it violates someone's property rights. Why's that wrong? Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. See the problem? I can't argue a moral reason, every time I try it ends practically. Therefore I either don't fundamentally understand the differences between morality, preference, and pragmatism or I am correct and therefore to secure morality we must base it on what objectively works to ensure human happiness in the long run. And since the most moral countries are always the most powerful of the era, there seems some natural truth to this. However I don't know yet. And I do know we need more people to admit they don't know so we can figure it out. The tricky part for me is what is moral? How do I know if something is truly moral? I'll start another thread about this. Maybe someone here can make the case.

A bit off topic but might I suggest speaking more straight forwardly and plainly? English isn't his first language and I find it tough to read what you write sometimes. I can't tell you how to write precisely but I can point out you use a lot of commas and type as if speaking in a condescending, passive-aggressive, sarcastic, nanny-like way. Not saying you actually are or mean to, but that's the voice I hear when I read you. Perhaps if you read what you type out loud to yourself you might catch where readers might stumble or misunderstand. Especially when those readers don't speak English natively.

Only if it's the landlord's that's collecting and not the mafia that moved in. Kaiser Franz Josef the First? Tsar Nikolai the Second then? I suppose it could be the Kaiser because rather than dealing with the assassination domestically he invaded the Kingdom of Serbia. It could also be Tsar Nikolai because if he hadn't intervened the North German Kaiser wouldn't have intervened and by extension there would be no chain link reactions. In a totalitarian dictatorship, the dictator is the state. The Third Empire is Hitler. Hitler is the Third Empire. I suppose. Along with the Jews that carried the guns and willfully invaded the lands. The other examples can be excused because conscription and having to be forced to contribute to the war effort while, as far as I know, every Jew in Palestine volunteered. Not if he's right. Therefore he has to be careful in his judgement. Given reasonable assumption, preemptive disarmament or subjugation is fine. No? I don't see the connection. Provocation is a violation of the NAP. UPB is about whether a rule can be universalized not if everyone believes in it (though in many cases everyone does by their actions. Like murderers don't want to be murdered, hence they fight back). Because shooting someone for a minor infraction is a punishment with a (to number it) value of 90 out of 100 for a crime that's worth a 1 or a 2. Appropriate in a situation is mutually determined. If I punch below the belt, it is fine to punch me in the kneecaps. It may vary per child. I'd argue when they can literally reason right from wrong based on what they've been taught. For example if I had an 8 year old girl that knew lying to honest people is wrong, I would hold her accountable to that act. Beyond reason is when a punishment is way bigger than the crime. Like my arbitrary number scale: 1=Stole a candy bar (therefore punishment should be financial, an apology, or a slap). 10: Stole an expensive electronic. Reasonable punishment is twice or thrice the value of the stolen object. 30: Broke a moral contract (like marriage). Reasonable punishment is a return of all goods to whom they originally belonged (or at least their value in kind) and a blacklisting of the contract breakers by society. 50: Killed someone. Reasonable punishment is an execution. 70: Started a war. Same plus vilification. 100: Committed genocide. Above plus whatever God determines is right in Hell. I wouldn't argue with the Darwinist. I'd wait for him to give me cause to arrest him and/or exile him. He's dangerous if he puts his words into action. UPB is objectively a practical good because it's why America and the British Empire existed, and was in part (that is in it's essential WASPy part) foundational to all Western European dominance over the world. We wanted to make the world moral like us, by whatever means we could. A terrible mistake, but an understandable one. I cannot yet argue why something is objectively moral though. I wonder if it is even possible. All I can do is rely on instincts and "feelings of fairness" and see what happens practically. It seems like the countries that were historically closest to Godliness were always the hegemonists over the ones that were far from Grace. But perhaps I am wrong in that assessment. I don't know for sure but there seems to be a trend that moral societies are always high IQ, rich, and militarily powerful for their eras.

"Gimme your money or I'll shoot you!" Theft is wrong because it violets personal property. Initiation of Force is being the one doing the violating. It is being the guy who starts the fight. Chain reaction that begun with the Russian intervention of Austria's punitive war with the Serbians. Therefore either the Austrians for invading Serbia, or Russia for getting involved in their business. The Third Empire when it invaded Poland. The Jews for colonizing Arab land. Yes. His job is, theoretically, to enforce the NAP by arresting violators. Yes. Both sides are consenting to using force against one another. Only by threatening to kill or harm someone, either physically, financially, or socially. Obvious the last part has the most ambiguity but I think starting false rumors counts as violating the NAP. Yes. The State unjustly stole the land from the pioneers that settled it centuries ago. Only if they are wearing a military uniform of an enemy country and appear very poised to invade and kill me. Otherwise unless there is an obvious intent to attack me or steal from me, of course not. Escalating beyond what is appropriate is also morally wrong. If someone accidentally stepped on my land, who cares unless he is damaging something or I hate him and explicitly told him to F off. In either case demanding an apology or repayment of the lost value is more appropriate. The age of reason, whenever that is. As much as the violater is willing to escalate. If he points a gun at me, I can shoot him. If he punches me, I can punch him twice (or until he stops punching me). If he accidentally steps on my hypothetical garden a small fine is enough. Punishment beyond reason is immoral.

It's not necessarily the urge for sex that I'm talking about but the subconscious effects that any desire for sex has in interacting with women--the kind that invariably result in treating women like retarded children by acting like white knights. From what I know (and experienced) men generally aren't 100% there when they're around unfamiliar women or women they're sexually attracted to (even just a little). Of course fighting this is more than just arousal--but if it's big enough to pitch a tent, then it must be dealt with. On the first point: what, realistically, do you suggest men do? Walk around with a pitched tent till marriage? Screw casually? The first will most likely result in a bad woman taking over (or at least the pecker pilot flying blindly in the cliffs) while the latter will result in many of the same negative side effects it does for women--while also becoming part of the problem. I don't know, really, what it means to be a sex addict. I can't say I, for example, am noticeably less attracted to attractive women now than back before having access to the internet in High School. However I do notice I have far more self-control and my standards have risen a bit to the point where I'm not Daffy Duck to every thing in heels or a pencil skirt... Though a bit dazed, that's more a shyness problem than an arousal problem. Of course I am mainly relying on what the Your Brain On Porn guy said about how fap material basically raises the required threashold for arousal. Sounds pretty good since I'd rather value a woman's character before I value a women's *insert dirty euphemism here*. Course again, I don't know what you're doing well enough to know where "you're at" versus "me" versus "average Joe". Given I was mutilated a birth I'd assume I'm lesser than the average Joe but I was more the horny guy than the practically MGTOW group I hung out with and I had noticeably more masculine physical features than most peers since middle school. Therefore I can't really say whether my own levels or urge are more or less than most men. I certainly don't recommend the pump and dump but I think that's healthier than living with a pitched tent all the time although at some point probably not really. So I'd appreciate you tell me what I should replace fapping with. Because the first thing that comes to mind is the beast with two backs. I don't want to put my wick in a blender. Therefore I don't want to pursue women before I am ready to marry one. Or before I'm really where I want to be as a young man. I know vaguely from another post you have problems so you know I'm taking your criticisms with a grain of salt, but the fact you know you have problems and are seeking help makes you better than most women by default so it's not like I don't value your potential insight. After all I'm probably half your age as well as without experience... So practically speaking, what's a young single male to do? When married it's easy. Before that is the question.