Siegfried von Walheim

Interesting stuff, I can't say for sure whether the Catalonians ought to or ought not to have their independence given I know little of their present situation nor whether they'd be better prepared to resist the migrant crisis detached from Madrid or if they're basically sinking their own ship by attempting to build a new one out of the wreckage. I think they would probably be better able to institute reforms that satisfy the local population with independence, however governments being governments, I doubt very much that it'd help those Spaniards in the long run. The Castilian rule over Spain has had mixed results throughout history, I can't say for sure that it's a good idea for a race to divide itself politically, but if Spain's in trouble, I can't say it's wrong for a fraction of the Spaniards to cut out a lifeboat to save themselves. But then again, they're small and becoming further weakened if they secede, therefore I doubt it's worth it in the long run. Like I doubt Bavarians or Saxons would benefit much in the long run by seceding from Prussian Germany. If it didn't help the Southern Americans to secede from the Northern Americans, why would it help the Catalonians? It is basically the same thing, I think, but with different costumes and accents.

I cannot say for a certainty whether I'm on the mark or dead wrong, or if any of what I'm about to say is relevant to you and your history, but I'll dare to try to analyze you and your so-called "bad boy manipulation". On Stef and bad boys: Refer to pretty much any podcast or youtube video with the word "pick up artist" or some other synonym and you'll have his general idea as to why bad boys are the way they are and why some women are attracted to them. I'll try to boil it into two sentences (note he hasn't said this to my knowledge but I think this can summarize it and be used as a ruler): bad boys hate their mothers, bad girls hate their fathers, and since both bad boys and bad girls want, for some reason, to repeat their childhoods into adulthood (perhaps for sexual success), they intuitively seek out that which is most familiar to them. If a man has a slut for a mother and a deadbeat for a father, he's likely to have a bad impression of both genders and feel indifferent towards manipulating women for sex and pissing on men for whatever. If a woman has basically the same childhood she's bound to see men as temporary animals and therefore merely pursue men for sex, especially when a welfare state absolves her of the need for a provider, then she's likely to pursue men like her dad and coincidentally fit the bad boy's mom. I think the reason why people do this is because it is both familiar and sexually successful--and we mammals pretty much live to be sexually successful. Therefore I assume you don't respect women (to be clear I mean see them as merely holes for semen or lesser animals that either need guiding or can't be held responsible for their own behavior) because you, either consciously or subconsciously, were raised to think that by your own parents perhaps because they lived that model or that was the lesson you inherited by their example. I could say this is why lots of women don't respect men, and why lots of traumatized people don't respect or think little or people in general--their childhoods imprinted subconsciously that people are fundamentally like robots doing what they're commanded to do, or like dominoes doing what they do because some other domino hit them. And if you, consciously or subconsciously, see most people like dominoes or robots then it is pretty easy to see why you'd be indifferent to using cheep women for sex and hungering to "defile" high quality women with your "impure sperm". Perhaps by extension you have a very low opinion of yourself and therefore "punish yourself" by including yourself in the "cheep" and "low rent" categories of people. I say this in part because I can relate; when I used to be a Communist and later a Fascist, I used to think very poorly of the average man and to some degree I still have this problem, hence why I decided to stop talking about politics and the human condition in public until I have confidence that I'm not merely projecting the "lessons learned" from my own childhood. I think fundamentally you lack confidence and don't value most people. You probably punish yourself with impossible (or just beyond your reach) standards and have a bad relationship with your parents, and therefore enjoy "manipulating and defiling women" as both a form of self-flagellation and revenge against your parents. I know it's a pretty far-fetched theory, but I'm sure at least 10% of it is applicable to your situation and the remaining 90% can be adjusted to fit your case. The fact you describe yourself like a barbarian at the gate of civilization who is unworthy to enter and takes pleasure at defiling it hints me that. It might also be a race thing. Being Eurasian, you might have an extra layer of complicated feelings because you probably feel kinship with two distinct races and have criticisms of both and are probably frustrated that so many of both groups don't accept your criticisms and reform themselves. Or maybe I'm projecting a bit, since I can kinda relate to being angry at my tribe and therefore seeking of a new one. As much as I love the Philosopher Tribe it is few in numbers and hard to find offline, and non-existent outside my weekly sessions. I think a therapist, ideally an older married man, might have be the man you need with a shovel and a pickaxe ready to dig into your soul and discover what it is that pains it and causes you to feel gratification for that which you know to be evil.

Well, if "tax" is by definition forceful than it is immoral. I think the debate it whether or not "tax" is even "tax" by the definition I provided, and if it is in some cases but not in others, what or where are they? You misunderstood me. I might have said the Pope indoctrinates but if I did, I made a mistake. I do not think the Pope indoctrinates at all. Some "religious" families might and some priests might tacitly allow it, but I can't say I know of any Roman Catholic priests who indoctrinate (based on the definition I gave) let alone the Supreme Pontiff, even this one. Well, then there have to be two categories of people: those who can migrate (legally), and those who can't. Given I'm still poor, I can't chose to leave America let alone Pennsylvania unless I wish to do so penniless and perhaps illegally ( I don't know the law enough to say for sure--I might be wrong here). Unfortunately opting out involves either abdicating one's own property or moving it. Unless one is wealthy enough to afford the expenses of moving cross-country, learning a new language, new culture, etc. I don't think it's accurate to say even people in freer countries have much of a choice in determining their citizenship. Save becoming stateless and whatever negative consequences of that may be. In that case, for most people, the Vatican can't be called attainable for those seeking total economic freedom. However for those who happen to be biblical scholars, or somehow friendly enough with the Papacy to be allowed to be living among them, I suppose this is viable. Depends on the royal government, and its legitimacy. A guy with an army who theoretically seizes Pennsylvania through force and calls himself the "King of Pennsylvania" is essentially no more than a powerful gangster and robber. Likewise his descendants are mere beneficiaries of the theft. However I think, as you'd agree, all fortunes must become virtuous with time because otherwise we all benefit from someone else's theft and it'd be impossible to know for sure who to pay back or whatever. Therefore perhaps 500 years later the Kingdom of Pennsylvania could be called a legitimate state. However the actually economic style and legal rights of the individual determine, to me at least, whether or not the Kingdom in question can be called moral. If the Kingdom respects the rights of the private citizen and the proprietors, and Counts (and higher nobles) are either those who come from families considered loyal and filial enough to the Kingdom to be granted either a percentage of the tax revenue or are self-made or generationally-made (to invent a phrase) businessmen, then I'd say we have something close to what AnCap is meant to be--a society that respects the individual's rights of property and the Non-Aggression Principle. I kinda learned that in video games, and confirmed it with the internet. Hence why I think, at least until better arguments are presented, a monarchy/feudal system is more moral than a modern republican one. If you want I'd like to debate the topic further, however because I can't Direct Message (which I think is because I made a terrible mistake some months ago), feel free to email me at [email protected] . Let's have it. I think it'd be a tangent here though. Either a fresh thread perhaps called or themed over whether a monarchy can be called a form of AnCap (I think it might be, at least under the right circumstances), or via email. I might be wrong, but I could have sworn Stef spoke positively of the economic/liberty aspects of the examples given in podcasts since at least a year ago. Although he's really the only big anarchist personality I know. I think that has more to do with the cucking of men, rise of feminism and Socialism, and degradation of Western culture taking the spine out of Westerners than a fault with Christendom. At our best we fought the Muslims who tried to enslave us, and made peace with them once we secured our safety and security. Which is why I never debate atheists on anything substantial. I don't know much about the historical accuracy or probability of the immaculate conception but I can't say 100% it never happened (although I don't think it did personally) and if anyone has evidence and reason for it, I'd open to hear it since it could prove to be very powerful in proving the existence of God and Christ. Which is something our Christian ancestors have spent centuries attempting to prove, at least through logic and conjecture. That would be interesting to read. My one-sentence answer is "no" since I think baptism by itself is merely a ritual of welcoming new or half-way matured life, not necessarily an imposition of anything.

I guess the same reason some guys don't like female pubic or facial hair? Some genetic reason that rationalizes it all? It's amusing how topics here can range from life-and-death end-of-the-world discussions to...friggen kinks. That being said it certainly caught my attention as a unique post. Even if irrelevant intellectually since I figure "genetics" and "childhood" is the cop-out that accurately answers all the reasons why we prefer certain things. Like clean bodies for women, hairy bodies for men.

I think what is best is to simply offer a definition of tax and work with it. If that definition is unsatisfactory, then argue for a change of it. I will define tax as "money or property collected through force by a group" relative to rent which is voluntarily paid without the threat of force. EDIT: I apologize if some of my sentences are short, abrasive, or skewed: I got royally screwed and lost a half-hour's worth of words when my computer bugged out on me. Got it. Not really important to the argument. I said (or think I said) indoctrinate, which implies forcefully making someone believe something rather than make rational arguments or proofs for something. Therefore it is moral to teach fire is dangerous by explaining it and perhaps burning some paper with it rather than hitting my child until he "agrees" with me. That's the difference between arguing/proving versus indoctrinating. Love it or leave it, I can't say that's moral since it violates the rights of the individual owner. Also democracy is a sham and highly rigged, therefore there isn't much of a recourse for those who disagree with the State. If that's true I want to see if they have room for a house. I assume it'll be insanely expensive but if they got the room and I manage to work my way up to the money, I'm buying it. If it can be said to be moral for a sole group or person to own all the land in a country, and it can be said to be moral for that group or person to impose conditions for that land, then I think I have to agree with you. I'm not sure since I know there's a slippery slope I'm risking if I say "it is immoral for someone or a group to have a monopoly of a lot of land". Perhaps someone wiser than me can argue this point further since my mind is blanking, largely from frustration as I got unlucky with the internet. A feudal system in which force is decentralized is easier to argue for the morality of if it is NAP compliant as technically the Counts are more Landlord than Government as a government, I will define, is a centralization of force over a geographical area and uses force to maintain its ownership/supremacy. My point earlier was how it is important to be clear with definitions. I think most of us Rightists define the government as a "monopoly or supremacy of force with which it reigns over an area of people and land". What do you mean? I think the early Roman Republic, early Roman Empire, early America, etc. are great examples of almost-ancaps worth arguing as demonstrations that the less government and taxation there is, the better. Therefore no government and no taxation is theoretically the best. Let's define it as forcing someone to believe something or pretend to believe something. I agree with you completely. I just mean there are fake Christians that do this and they're worth condemning. Also since children are too young to really argue for themselves, I think they should wait until they're around 16-18 before being introduced to more abstract concepts like God. I think children should be raised with values through demonstration and reasoning. I think taking a child to Church and claiming God is real without proof is bad for a child since it contradicts the Christian values of skepticism and free will, as I am essentially overpowering intellectually my hypothetical child rather then letting them make their own decisions as adults and arming them to make those decisions well as children. If that makes sense. I am not at my best, so I might be confusing with my words. Lol keep it clean man. Lol but still. I think this is a very important debate and one I've been paying attention to for weeks now. I'm curious how you two can argue it, and how I can argue it based on what I know, so let's not get too dirty...

Sorry to interject, but I had to say this was a clever statement that speaks my mind. I don't think when the first tax came to be (which would be further complicated by how a "tax" could be defined, I mean if tax=theft, then the first tax was when Caine stole Abel's life, or beyond) is in any way relevant to the discussion. THIS Pope does. Definitely not a proud moment of Roman Catholic history. FYI I am of the opinion that religion should be taught to adults, not children. More precisely the existence or non-existence of God should be a subject for adults who can debate for themselves, while the Christian values can be demonstrated/taught/argued to children without the need of God. IF the Grand Duke of Luxembourg arranged a contract with his entire citizenry that stipulated point by point what rights the citizen has, what rents (not taxes because he's supposed to be a landlord) are owed, and what the rents will be going to, and EVERY citizen has agreed to it, THEN it could be easily argued that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a moral non-NAP violating state. However I assume the taxes collected go to whatever the bureaucrats want it to go and the citizenry is in no position individually to arrange for a new contract or re-negotiation, or even a negotiation at all. I don't think the "love it or leave it" argument can be called a moral one since there is no place where private property will be totally respected. Sure I could live out in the Gobi Dessert...until some desert animal or bandit comes along and robs my property. I would have to start from scratch in "creating civilization" and God help us when the Chinese government decides it no longer tolerates the micro-state growing in its backyard and starts taxing us. Then it becomes an Amerindian style retreat deeper into the woodlands/arctics/deserts until there is nowhere left to run. Hiding out in the wilderness is not a viable strategy in the long-run unless the goal is merely temporary freedom. The basic argument is something like this: You own a store, I have a gun. I say it'd be an awful shame if something bad happen to it. Pay me 500$ per month and I'll have some of my boys patrol it. Mind they have their own preferences so here's a.... (insert byzantine contract here)... and now here's where you sign your name. Doesn't that sound like a mafia shakedown? And that's what governments do constantly. They threaten harm, either by their own hand or by others, and offer "protection" for money. If it's theft for the Mafia then why isn't it theft for the State, who is far stronger and is possessed of far more resources? Well, the plan is to slowly grow an international AnCap community through demonstrating how effectively Peaceful Parenting and NAP following improves the quality of one's own life, and therefore by extension attract others into living it. Demonstrating the effectiveness of living a principled life is generally more productive than arguing for its effectiveness, although the latter may be necessary for a would-be man or woman of principle to procreate, I don't think it's worth arguing outside of personal relations since it is far better to demonstrate why AnCap, NAP, and UPB are great and moral than to spend countless hours arguing for it while the State indoctrinates millions of children. It's a race we can't win through argument alone. We have to demonstrate it and put a spotlight on it and attract the curious. Over time, which may be centuries, this plan may yield fruit enough for a real AnCap to be possible. I am tempted to agree. I don't believe in God, or at least I'm not sure, but I strongly identify with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of morality and principles. I don't need a God to validate my beliefs, but rather reason and evidence. That being said it's not like Shirgall's wrong. Most religious families DO indoctrinate their kids rather than make good arguments for religion and wait until they're adults before trying to introduce them to religion. While that may not be the worst thing in the world, it can't be called moral to attempt to mold impressionable minds to fit a perceived world view, even if that view is true. Therefore while I am inclined to prefer Christians over atheists, I can't fault the atheist argument that pushing abstractions and threatening Hell for not obeying/believing is immoral because, well, it IS immoral. It is threatening children instead of reasoning with them. To be clear, I'm not saying ALL Christian families do it. Just that it's woefully common and worth condemnation.

I sorta understand. I don't like where I have lived and grown up; It's easy for me to just say "screw it" and relocate once I've made money enough to do so. You know it's interesting because a lot of my old school friends were Slavs, and interestingly enough it was somewhat dependent on their accent whether or not they would associate with each other. Generally speaking Russians and American-sounding Slavs didn't judge based on ethnic history while the Serbs (the one I knew anyway) did. Of course I know the Kingdom of Serbia shrunk after it was merged with its neighbors in forming Yugoslavia, and later civil wars. As far as I know they're the most red-pilled on Islamic terrorism/immigration of their neighbors, similar to the Magyars of Hungary. You know, speaking of video games, I grew up with a certain game called "Ogre Battle", and while the one I own wasn't the one directly based off the Yugoslav wars and ethnic cleansings (which were referred to as such in the game "Ogre Battle: Let Us Cling Together" in a way that very much contrasted its cutesy pixelated dioramaic form), the one I did play, "Person of Lordly Caliber", themed very heavily on the idea of fighting for idealism over realism, the distance between the military, the citizenry, and the countrymen; as well as the corruptibility of martial power and radical revolutions. Pretty progressive for 90's games I'd say. Well, I remember reading a scene similar to how you described your life back when I was a freshman in high school. The way the main guy warily approached others and the "woke" guy who seemed to not be genuinely indoctrinated. It's not that complicated beyond the idea that evil does evil for power's sake. Like Animal Farm, once you get it the magic wares off. Also a book I read in early High School back when I was a Communist. All this I completely forgot. Very interesting and definitely makes sense of the otherwise strange story. My only qualm is how could the Enclave nuked Hopeville when they no longer exist...unless the player is in his 30's. Which I consider a bit of an imposition on the whole "role playing" aspect of the game. I agree, given context, he makes a sensible villain. I wouldn't feel too badly for him, since he could have used the same trauma as an impetus to join a group like the Follows of the Apocalypse and basically be a post-apocalyptic Stefan Molynuex instead. I'm hugely skeptical of any group claiming to be founding a mico and experimental society, mainly because of what the motivations and mindsets of the leaders might be, as well as the consequences of trying to assimilate into such a group. It could very well be a cult. I think the idea of this one in particular is interesting. Or at least would have been interesting if what you thought they were about was the truth rather than a masturbatory hippy-dippy commune of doom. I think it would be cool if a city like Rapture could be built and sustained; humanity's ultimate ego trip. I mean the city, even as a ruin, was pretty cool in the game and seemed like it would have been a nice place to live minus the added crap Bioshock 2 revealed. I mean, the godlessness of the society left it vulnerable to religious extremists. I think for AnCap to really stand the test of time (arguably Rapture was a hypothetical AnCapia) it needs a moral backbone based on Classical Liberal and Christian principles as well as, especially for the inherently duplicitous and stupid, a God-figure to be the moral stick which keeps the donkey from lazily sipping carrot juice. (What a wonderful metaphor I made at midnight, eh? Point being good people need not a disincentive for bad while "neutral" and bad people do).

Hmm... Why do you live in California if you hate it so much? I get it if it's financial, as that's why I still live in a place where I'm a hated ethnic minority. Once that's settled though, I'd recommend leaving the area for somewhere in the Midwest. Serbia's not exactly a "small pocket" given their former Kingdom was the main force in expelling the Turks in the 19th century. Even if it'll take centuries, that's hardly a bad thing. It's not great, but it's bearable. We humans can only do so much in our short 50-year lives, we ought to take pleasure in nudging the rock even if just an inch, for every generation that pushes it an inch is a generation less it'll take to be gone with the boulder. Given what you've described, I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable point. Reminds me of 1984... Unfortunately I can't remember enough to comment. I know I did the DLCs (every time) out of order, so that might have screwed up my knowledge of their extended story lines. It doesn't hurt I have historical cousins living by the Volga. Or maybe formerly living by the Volga given WWII. Also they have a strong Christian moral code that I respect, even if they may or may not be close to Libertarian. They could get there. Russia has little history of being free, yet they're freer and wealthier now than ever. I wonder what their "peak" would be... In the shorter term (next 5 years) I plan on moving to a more conservative country in a freer, safer state. Ideally one without regulations against homeschooling and low taxes. I don't know what Russia's tax and homeschooling policies are, but I have heard they respect freedom of speech more than we do and are wiser to BS. I don't discount the idea of changing my citizenship to Russian and assimilating into the Russian culture--it depends on circumstances and how well I can learn the language as well as what ever happens here in America.

Yes it is; Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and all that. I remember you work in California, guessing based on what I read in a field where Leftists are commonplace... Who can say? Did anyone 2000 years ago predict the GERMAN BARBARIANS or the BLUE-SKINNED SAVAGES would one day rule the world and be all Roman Law and Christian? Well, I figured "South Slavland" but adding "land" in English doesn't necessarily imply "nation". I think given time and the right conditions, that could change. Germany, France, Scandinavia, and mainland Italy used to be heavily divided. Heck, Russia used to be dozens of smaller countries! Now it's breakable into roughly 3 based on religion and geography. I think you're taking what I said months ago too far. I have changed a fair bit here; Don't be too hard, internally, against the victims of abuse. Recognize they're victims, and move on. Recognize "who can be saved" based on subtle tells (are they curious? Do they act in adherence with what they say? Do they ever concede points willingly?) and decide for yourself if that person is worth reaching out for. You lose time, but could gain a friend. Of course if your job involves these people, don't risk it. I don't know what you do, but if it's something where you can choose who you work with or relocate, I'd suggest that. As an author I can be highly selective of who I work with and, eventually, who and how I'll publish. Chances are I'll either indie-publish or self-publish since the Regressive Left has infested the publishing world... I know Stef has commented about this sort of thing, I'll refer to him on it. I'll try to paraphrase what I remember: recognize your limitations in a given scenario, and work from there. Don't try to change it, rather instead keep doing what you're doing for as long as you must until you have demonstrated yourself so well that your "bohemian politics" become "quirks". On that aspect, I won't. On others, I must! I remember when I was first in a fight with non-Whites. My experience at home was different. My mother wept, and my father taught me to fight back with my fists. Sadly this meant getting into trouble with the school system which punishes victims as well as aggressors. Eventually I just grew big enough and savvy enough not to be bothered by wannabe thugs and avoid the real ones. I know that very well. And those kinds of people are the kinds that build nations! Interesting. I'd argue if a man has to act badly to survive, he can be morally excused to a certain extent. If I was a German under Nazi rule, I could be excused for not engaging with Jews and not hiding any. Actively hunting for them is a different story. Generally speaking, to have principles, one must live by them as best as he is able. That means not starting fights that cannot be won nor trying to be included in the "unprincipled people's" table. And, at some point, reach out for the like minded and form communities based on shared values. While saving the world is obviously bigger than lobbying for a particular political faction, it is much less likely to be a problem for people in the real world. In the real world, bad guys usually think they're good guys and it is up for the IRL protagonist to discern who the real bad guys and good guys are and act accordingly. I'd argue the thing with the "courier backstory" is weak based on how it's not something ever likely to happen in real life, and largely (if not entirely from what I remember) faultless on the part of the player. That being said ED-E (who I pronounce E-dee) is a cute eyebot and the DLCs added great and enjoyable variety even if their stories were less interesting (except in the Zion Valley thing, which was very biblically themed and something I didn't appreciate at first). As is the case in real life, the individual characters matter far more than the groups they represent. A good King cannot make the system moral, but he can make it fair. It is a centuries' long project to unite and assimilate disparate and rowdy groups of people. America was highly divided politically, even by modern anti-Trump hysteria standards, until Lincoln smashed the South and public schools started brainwashing little Americans into believing in the nation-state--which I'd argue as an effect was a good thing, although I think peaceful parenting and honest arguments would have been better, people such as Stef were not in political power and therefore the result of a bad thing (public education) was as good as it could ever have been (pan-Americanism as compared to fractured provincialism). I think the way the Slavs are going to be united is most likely through a changing in the public school and religious curriculum. Should they promote pan-Slavic nationalism, then 40 years from now a pan-Slavic state could emerge. I think a better approach is peaceful parenting and good arguments, however I think the former is more likely to happen as I think only a minority of people will become good parents, leaving the journey to AnCap a multi-generational one. On the other hand, I think, based on what I know, the Eastern Europeans have far stronger faith with greater cultural backbones and that will shield them from the horrors of what the Western and Central Europeans are enduring. Perhaps petty provincialism can save Western civilization in the East. After all, nationalism failed the West after WWI and while I'm pretty sure we'll become nationalists again it probably will be when things are beyond the pale and therefore a matter of time instead of when crisis can all be averted. Which is why I'm seriously considering emigrating to Russia in 5 or 10 years should the situation in America not improve. Russians have their problems, but their continued existence is not one of them.

Now this I think it close to what is truly virtue. After all, pretty much everyone who claims X is virtuous is saying X is true (maybe. I'll make some examples and try to find a case where that isn't true or needs to be stretched). Actually as I typed I remembered you made some...what's the word, "tortologies?", basically conclusions based on premises boiled into a single sentence. This one's contradicting reality. People are objectively different. Therefore based on a preferred metric of value (like values), people's lives vary in value. Hypothetically though "only I am valuable" is impossible because chances are I've very much skewed my ruler in favor of myself based on some underlying problems within myself. If I base people's worth based on adherence to and pursuit of truth, then guys like Stefan would be at the high end while sophists and traitors would be on the low end. Theoretically it's possible for someone "at the highest end" to say only his life is valuable, but...technically he'd be wrong because literally everyone has a value on the metric of "adherence and pursuit of truth" scale even if that value is relatively less than oneself. Being lesser isn't necessarily bad. I have an IQ of 144, therefore relative to me most people are lesser in terms of horse power. However a guy with 130 could easily school me on something I'm ignorant of or through having a greater genetic focus on, say spatial reasoning, over my strength in verbal acuity, which wouldn't be very useful in situations where skill is required over speech. Very much agreed, and sounds like something the great Stefpai would say. You know your stuff. Therefore: Virtue=Truth-seeking. Someone who isn't virtuous (but not necessarily evil, which requires direct violations of the rules rather than a dulling of the ability to follow them) is basically anyone from a deadbeat to a con artist. Virtue requires adherence to moral values and therefore evil people cannot be virtuous, for truly moral values can be objectively proven as "good"--or preferable. I think. I'm still not totally sure since I haven't read UPB much and what I know is based on his debates with others' on UPB and the arguments he's made/quoted from the book since writing it.

Which doesn't cease to interest me. I think anti-monarchic propaganda has given monarchism (at least Christian monarchism) an exaggeratedly bad rep. Of course I'm still preferential to AnCap, however if that isn't "an option" (meaning it can't be done or can't be done yet) then I am strongly leaning towards a very morally and lawfully upright monarchy. Since Kings and other territorial rulers are actual people, they can be held accountable in contracts whereas "governments" (like corporations) are not individuals and therefore unaccountable to law or morality. Respect and faith in the law is necessary to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society. Combine Classical Liberalism, Austrian Economics, some AnCap, Christian values (which arguably a part of Classical Liberalism) and a monarchy is the necessary transition from a faceless state to a free society. Neither am I; I speak of morality more than law here. I think a child should not be liable for their parents' contracts, and therefore at around 20 should have the option of opting out of whatever their parents agreed to (or continuing it). Like citizenship and tax: morally we should all have the option of consenting to tax for that would make governments far more efficient (and indistinguishable from charity, mercenary army company, and mercenary police force, in many ways) and far more responsive to the individual. Monarchies can satisfy this standard. Theoretically a King can be (as they were in many countries) bound by the laws of both the nation and of the Christ, as well as the common law values that are foundational to modern libertarian/ancap thought, (theoretically a King can be--I repeat) a morally consistent landlord and/or charity owner but with extra respect given to the history of the seat. I can't speak for all monarchies everywhere. Does Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abide by the Christian and libertarian values that is historical to the West? I don't know, but I'd assume not. Japan is technically a monarchy though real power is vested in the Imperial Diet (fundamentally the same as a parliamentarian republic therefore) and therefore it could be said the Diet's lack of accountability and desire to appease has been the Achilles Heel of modern Japanese society. However I think as a transition out of Statism a Christian and Western monarchy is far greater than any republic or democracy.

I cannot comment in detail about the laws of Luxembourg nor Monaco, but I can say if the Grand Duke is the legal owner of all Luxembourg then he is in the right to collect rent from his citizens. Even if his hereditary ownership came about through force, all fortunes are made virtuous through time. Most governments however do not have moral ownership as the people born onto those lands are unable to consent towards paying taxes and following the laws for force would be enacted against them if they refused. There cannot be consent when force is involved. While Luxembourg may be an example of a gigantic privately own land (I'll take your word for the sake of argument that it is), most countries are not and most countries do not allow negotiation on the part of "tenants" to barter for individual rights unless it involves having less of them. To clarify, in a landlord scenario, the tenants should be able to barter with their landlord for a re-negotiating of terms, and children should not be born into debt nor duties imposed by those that came before them. I cannot choose to not pay taxes without be arrested or deported and/or having all my property (what little I have) confiscated as "punishment". If Luxembourg is basically a gigantic privately owned land operating based on the libertarian values of the NAP and, in relation to children, not binding those too young to consent to contracts made in their name, then it is not equivocal to 99% of the worlds' governments who collect tax (not rent) based on violating individual property rights as well as demanding children be obligated towards making due on contracts supposedly agreed to by a voting public (which itself violates the property rights of the "minority") decades in advance.

I think it's less a matter of people being woke but rather of courage. Most western governments protect the migrants (and their American equivalent) from legal/lawful punishment and punish the natives for so much as suggesting there should be punishments for bad behavior or measures to crack down on what's causing it. Once western governments are either populated with a Rightist/Christian majority the Europeans/Americans will do what they must or are told in regards to the crisis. It isn't a matter of wokeness by the populace but a sense of "permission" by the government. Therefore either the government has to redpill (which would be interesting as I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) or the people have to stop fearing the government and take the law into their own hands. Either way the West is doomed for war unless we can convince the government they'll be re-elected if they kick out the Muslims and/or elect anti-Muslim/anti-crime politicians. I seriously recommend migrating to somewhere like Russia if you or anyone you know would rather ditch this mess we've inherited.

The crazy thing is we could be totally overestimating him. I mean, I used to think the President was this awesome 666D Chess expert. While it's probably true in some cases (like baiting the media to make them look foolish or distract etc. etc.) I doubt it's true all the time (like the God-awful bombing of Syria's air strip thing which luckily didn't kill anyone) . Maybe getting fired/resiging makes it easier for the likes of Bannon and Gorka to be effective. Maybe it's all a part of a future grass-roots campaign to seize all (or at least like 60%) of the congressional seats so that Build the Wall, Ban Islamic Immigration, and Deport Illegal Aliens and Repealing (and hopefully not Replacing) Obamacare can actually happen. Or maybe the President's a tired old man who's running out of energy from all this inertia. However I'm inclined to bet the former given his life history of combating inertia and getting things done. The law needs enforcing, racial tensions need easing, and civil rights need protecting. We're still in the first eighth of his first term. Who know's for sure what'll happen.

Well now, I've never thought about it like that. The balance of power could shift radically enough for the President to fulfill his campaign promises.

If a value is subjective, it cannot be moral right? After all, morality is preference's objective cousin. On the other hand, ideals can be moral. Maybe my ideal is to rid violations of the NAP in the world. How to do that is largely subjective but the moral goal is moral because it is objective--anyone can not abuse or otherwise violate the NAP and it is impossible for two people in a room to willingly violate and be violated by each other because it then becomes consent and no longer a violation. I think we're getting closer to making a case for what a virtuous action might be. We have a virtuous goal, but a virtuous action is going to be harder since hypothetically I could spare the world of future NAP violations by destroying it or mind-controlling it or whatever sci fi world ending totolitarian project I could think of.

Before starting an argument, it's usually a good idea to first define the abstract terms being used. For example, "What is 'Far Right'?" If I define "Far Left" as totalitarian dictatorship, then "Far Right" becomes Anarcho-Capitalism. If I define "Far Left" based on the French Revolutionary definition of Socialists and Republicans on the left, then the Far Right is Monarchists and later Fascists. If I say "Far Left" is an abandonment of traditionalism in favor of new world values, then Far Right becomes staunch traditionalism to the point of being against any sort of change. That's why I break it up into "Social" (i.e. social mores and principles) versus "Economic" left-right. A Social Far Leftist would be your typical pansexual Multikult degenerate while a Social Far Rightist would be anything ranging from old school Christian to Islam (which is very different but similar in that they're both traditionalist. If I base "Far Right" as "ultimate christendom", then Islam could be somewhere closer to the middle). Economic Left and Right being obvious: Leftists are totalitarian central planners while Rightists are individualist free market guys. Since arguing Left/Right can be a pain without understanding the definitions being used, I always define them first and ask what my partner in the debate thinks they mean, and try to establish a workable definition based on Left/Right being oppositional and based on what people identifying as Left/Right are. I'd recommend that for any abstract term like "conservative", "liberal", and even "fascist" as to some "fascists" a "fascist" is merely someone who wants a structurally stable and peaceful ethnostate rather than a big socialistic central planner with a slightly different rhetoric.

Before I say anything: I apologize for making you all wait 8 days given I was the one who made this post. I was very busy, and will likely still be busy for a while, but I have a good time now to make some replies and start a new thread about the drama of the August 7th Protest. Contradiction: Morality is objective, therefore moral actions are objective, and therefore virtue is objective. Which makes it in the realm of objectivity again, and therefore "what is virtue remains". This is possible, but that begs the question as to whether "A is virtuous" is a subjective statement or not. Arguably it can be objective insofar A is upholding his values, however it is subjective in the sense that those values A is upholding don't have to be moral. A workable definition. I think it dodges the central question of "what is virtue" and what acts are virtuous (objectively speaking)? Is it even possible to determine whether an action if virtuous, or is it an after-the-fact sort of thing? For example, is saving a life virtuous? Is that objectively moral? Is it context dependent? I know this is an autistic question, but one that bothers me because I want to speak from a position of absolution and conviction rather than doubt and compromise. It's easy to say what don't-dos' are, it's much harder to say what the dos' are objectively. Like we know keeping healthy, being smart in choosing a vocation, having self-discipline, etc. etc. are productive to our own livelihoods but they don't necessarily hold a moral context to them because bad guys can also follow these things for their own bad ends. To repeat myself: What is Virtuous? How do we know it's virtuous? And since virtue is that which is objectively moral, then a re-defining dodges the question because the intent is to suss out the "dos" as compared to the "don't dos" (or at least the "would strongly prefer you do", since the only "dos" I can think of are ones opposite the violation of the NAP, like peaceful parenting as compared to neglect and violence).

Well, hypothetically, a King who technically wields ultimate martial power can decide to not use it, not collect taxes but instead form a donation system, and be consistent with the people subscribing voluntarily to his stated reason as to why he's maintaining an army. He'd no longer be a King in the traditional sense, but he'd still wield great power since his ability to tell his men what to do and expect it done means he can "change his mind" and go back to robbing people to maintain his mafia. He could also choose to keep it a voluntary system. The problem is if the soldiers are willing to obey him like a dictator...then for how long can this be sustained? His monopoly on force would have to be broken alongside the faith in his power in order to make this model sustainable without regression. However, without the faith and loyalty of his soldiers and the monopoly of force, he no longer wields ultimate power. Therefore while a good man can wield ultimate power, he cannot sustain it because to remain good he must inevitably take actions that would reduce it.

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue? I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity. Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

I'd like to expand upon Mishi's reply. Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous. To be virtuous (I think) is to be willing to do good for others without the guarantee of gratification and the willingness to sacrifice something of oneself for someone else. However I wouldn't say mutual self-sacrifice is "just business". Ideally: Man sacrifices time and money to build a house for Woman and Children to live in. Woman sacrifices time and fertility to support Man and raise Children. Children sacrifice their freedom in exchange for security and education. Although Children can't actually make their own decisions in terms of child-parent relations, I'd say that's a fair general statement. The hard part is knowing for sure what virtue is and how I (or you) would know when I am being virtuous. Is charity virtuous? Is helping others virtuous? Does it depend on the context? Is virtue only self-sacrifice without receiving sacrifice in return? Or is virtue an equivalent exchange between two or more people? I don't know the answer (even though I gave one above) and can only guess and try based on what I "feel" is virtuous. I think we who aren't psychopaths have a natural inclination towards knowing what virtue is without being told. I think Christianity could be a helpful guide for figuring it out since Christendom is the foundation of Western Culture. I've attempted to combined the definition Mishi gave with Stef's, for I don't think they contradict. If virtue is self-sacrifice without expecting something in return, then it is still possible for a virtuous person to involuntarily have strong feelings for another virtuous person--or perhaps more precisely that person's deeds and history. Arguably a person is their recent actions and history. I can't say how to feel love, for I think either you can or you can't. I love Diet Coke. Nowhere near the same way I love quality women and men (especially the high quality women), but I'd say it's a good measure in the same sense a penny is a good measure for financial value. If you can say you like something (like a good soda or food), then you can compare your liking of that to your liking of something else. Love could be called an extreme liking, but I would add the caveat of "involuntary response to virtue" because there is a fundamental difference between liking something a lot (like a video game) as compared to loving something (like a person). I think maybe, after having said all this, you can discover love by filtering out all the crap around you and imagining to yourself what a perfect woman (or man if you're a woman) would be like. You'd love that woman more than anything save the children you bare with her. Compare that ideal with reality, and you have a measurement stick for love. Of course if you want to have all that and if you want your ideal to be truly great rather than subjectively great, then you must live and act virtuously. Which again returns me to the question "what is virtue". If you can answer that question without having any holes in it, you can stop pondering and start acting. My "acting definition" of virtue is borrowed from my younger years: "That which is productive for oneself and others." I consider working to become financially established enough to have a family virtuous for a man, and working to make oneself moral and integral virtuous for a woman. Being a good mother and father is also virtuous. However I know my definition is weak, and am therefore up for criticism so I can hammer it out. In fact, I'm going to make a thread about it.

I'm a big introvert and I don't like the idea of living with a stranger. I'd rather just buckle down and make my peace for the while and focus on my work and then move out once I can afford a house. I don't think I should spend money when I don't have to. I value my privacy as well.

Thank you for that. I am definitely interested in hearing the audiobook. I know Stefpai has a great voice. I'm glad it puts it to great use.

Yes, that helps. On one hand I realize there's no immediate danger (I'm lucky then most on this board I think) but at the same time, it's hard. However he told me to change the way I think about it. Do I literally have a hole in my heart (as an example of a metaphor)? No. Is confronting her over little things really worth the trouble? Not now at least. I'd be better off disengaging when I'm frustrated than escalating and exhausting myself pointlessly. Perhaps things can change once I've made myself a real man by owning the roof over my head, but until then I may as well just accept things as they are and work with it. I haven't, but I have heard it mentioned and talked about many times in the call-in-shows so I have some layman's knowledge about RTR, but until I properly set the time to read it I can't say I'm confident about it and my memory about the subject is rough. I remember "taking mental control and remembering myself in the conversation"--a form of self-awareness, I think. I know there was some mention of a "false self", a scab wound we feel like we have when someone else's ire remains with us. Identifying when we are feeling something true to us as compared to feeling the "scab" was something I remembering being important. Then there was the metaphor of Simon the Boxer, who I think was continuously getting into fights as a way of acting out and repeating his abuse as a child. I might be able to dedicate some time reading it soon. I've been awfully busy lately, work aside. However I'd like some confirmation/correction about the statements I've made since I don't know/think if I am right.

All right, I will confess that I am actually talking about myself but I wanted to hide that fact because I was very emotionally charged when I first typed the post and didn't want to reveal that I was talking about myself--I suppose for reasons without basis, although ironically I've demonstrated myself a liar. This incident happened with me and I was simultaneously contacting my therapist. His advice was essentially to keep my head down and either "don't escalate" or disengage if I sense something like that again until I am financially independent with my work and able to live on my own. I am inclined to follow his advice. Interesting how it's when I'm dishonest that I am confusing. I suppose I should be proud of the fact that my dishonesty is obvious since it hints that I am never dishonest. Of course, it also reminds me how I might as well never be dishonest unless my life depends on it (literally--like the killer asking for me or my family members hypothetical).