IsaacGage860

Most are aware of the polarized nature of our political system. I am not writing this essay for that audience, but rather for those young people who are not yet old enough to vote. In this essay, I am going to attempt to break down the false dichotomy between the Democrat and Republican party and show why what most of us want is to just be left the heck alone. I will also attempt to explain why Libertarianism has been so mischaracterized by not just the authoritarian Left, but also the authoritarian Right and why all of us deep down are Libertarians at heart, most are just not conscious of it yet. As you may have figured out by now the constant battle on Capitol Hill with the federal government and in state/local legislatures over who has the authority to infringe on whose rights continues on AD Infinitum. Let’s begin our analysis by looking at the political beliefs of the Right-Wing. In America, Republicans are the party that sits on the right side of the political spectrum. In general, Republicans, who are also called conservatives are fiscally conservative. This means that Republicans want to structure government policy in a way that promotes the highest degree of individual freedom/responsibility which in turn allows the free market to works its wonders. Republicans also tend to be socially conservative. This means that Republicans are all about traditional Christian values. Heterosexual marriage, anti-abortion, a distaste for drug, alcohol and other mind-alerting substance use and are strong critics of criminal behavior that could potentially harm other people. On the other side of the spectrum, you have Democrats who constitute the Left-Wing. Those on the left tend to fiscally liberal. This means that Democrats want to use the power of government benevolently to address social or economic issues. They do this by proposing high taxes on the wealthy 1% of Americans, by borrowing the money from the Federal Reserve in order to shore up annual deficits in the budget and by requiring many, many pages of regulations in order to keep what they see as the negative effects of Capitalism in check. In other words, Democrats want to tax other people's money in order to pay for infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc. etc. Democrats are defined as being socially liberal. This means that Democrats want the government to stay away from people's personal lives. Abortion, women's rights, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative Action, Same-Sex marriage, and decriminalized substance use are policies that Democrats campaign for. In the middle of all of this conflict between opposing ideologies are your friendly neighborhood Libertarians. According to the Libertarian Party Platform for 2016, Libertarianism is defined as the belief that: "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government." In other words, Libertarians adhere to and practice the NAP (non-aggression principle) and are interested in more people adopting a model for human behavior coined by the philosopher Stefan Molyneux called "Universally Preferable Behavior" or UPB for short. The NAP states that it is immoral to initiate the use of force against others. Take note of the key terminology used here, specifically the word initiate. What this means is that no group in society should be granted the authority to use coercion or force to try and foist their own personal moral/ethical code upon others with the power of the State. Laws are nothing more than opinions written on a piece of paper and enforced with disproportionate violence. This is evident with the War on Drugs, The War On Terror, The War On Poverty, and every other government programs/initiatives that are marketed as "temporary" but that end up continuing indefinitely. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to the Left, the Right is just as guilty of this. Universally Preferable Behavior, the model for human interactions articulated by Stefan Molyneux, is a complement to the NAP. To cut a long story short, UPB states that if we as humans are going to have a moral/ethical system that we expect everyone in society to adhere to, we cannot simply create arbitrary exceptions and categories of people, such as government, who are exempt from the standard. This introduces an unresolvable contradiction in principles that is not assuaged by saying that it is a "necessary" evil or the cost of living in a civilized society. As I have argued before, there is nothing more uncivilized than using coercion, manipulation, and propaganda to appease one’s personal moral sensibilities. So where does this leave us in terms of uniting the two sides of the aisle and why are we all really Libertarians? As I hopefully articulated above, both the Right and the Left have merits to their political beliefs. However, at the same time, both are hypocritical for wanting to use force in one context while vehemently opposing force being used in another. When all is said and done, what most of us want is to NOT have somebody else's will unjustly imposed on our lifestyles and how we spend our limited time on this planet. For this reason, I am a Libertarian and will never apologize for it. For me personally, it is tragic how misrepresented and mischaracterized Libertarians are in the usual political discourse. On the Right, we are called Lolbertarians and Cucks who have acquiesced to the establishment. On the Left, we are called Far Right extremists and radicals who want nothing more than to usurp the wonderfully benevolent government. Both of these interpretations are patently, categorically false and do nothing to gain the sympathy of Libertarians. I speak for myself when I say this is why I may come off as condescending, hyperbolic, and satirical. If you are labelled with pathetic unsubstantiated pejoratives enough times, you begin to get sick of it. The election of Donald Trump is obvious evidence of this fact. Libertarians are humans with emotions and feelings too. So my fellow brothers and sisters in humanity, can we for once just stop with the relentless AD homenim, straw man arguments, non sequiturs and in general non empathetic animus against each other and just try freedom for a change? As Martin Luther King Jr. put it: "I have a dream that one day my children may be judged not by the color of their skin but on the content of their character." I believe this quote can also be extended to include religion, sexual orientation, and any other characteristic we choose to identify ourselves with. None of it matters when looking at the merits of ideas. To conclude with another quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to feedback in the comments below.

Mainstream Media Idiocy You know the one thing I love about the mainstream media the most? It has to be the relentless mischaracterizations, straw man arguments, and AD homenim pouring out of poorly crafted essays of Sophistry such as this. Please people for the love of God I beg of you, when you want to critique a political philosophy or theory please do the following: 1. Define your terms. If nobody knows the definitions for the terms you are using the debate quickly begins to look esoteric and puts people to sleep. 2. Provide relevant examples and analogies that expose flaws in the argument or show that your opponent fits the characteristics of the terms you decide to use. Nothing is worse than someone who is only looking to slander their opponent and levy libelous claims against their character. I can't think of one person who would want to debate that. 3. Provide sources with evidence and data to corroborate your claims and clarify if necessary. If you do not have at least a minimum preponderance of data from different sources, you are putting forth an opinion that anyone could easily counter by saying that their opinion runs contrary to yours so therefore you are wrong. Nothing of value has actually been said and precious time is wasted arguing over normative opinions. Finally, and most importantly, 4.Know what the hell you are talking about to begin with. You save a whole lot of time and energy if you have at least somewhat of a working knowledge regarding the topic of the debate. If you don’t do any of this you are not making any kind of rational argument and are therefore not interested in engaging in serious discourse on complex social and economic issues. Nobody with more than one synapse firing in their brain is going to take you or your so called "credentials" seriously. Sincerely, Concerned Philosopher https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists

This was the original email, be warned its quite long: Most in my generation vaguely remember our World History and U.S. History classes from high school. The unit on the Cold War was exciting and interesting for some of us (I being one of them) while putting others to sleep. Most Americans, and indeed citizens from all over the world have living memory of this conflict. Really what is was defined by was a clash between two schools of economic thought throughout the 20th Century. One school represented by John Maynard Keynes, Keynesian-ism which he published in his "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. The other school was represented by Friedrich August von Hayek, The Austrian School of Economics. We have all have studied history at some point and have seen the results of attempting to organize along the Keynesian model for an economy. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were nationalized (owned by the state), there was collective farming, industrial manufacturing and controlling it all was a centralized administrative politburo. In attempting to run their economy in this way, leaders such as Khrushchev, Lenin, and Stalin were able to obtain a high output of industrial production, but there were sacrifices made in other industries. Mainly there were shortages of food, which led to social unrest and a general confusion by the leaders about why things were going so wrong. This happened in other Socialist states around the world such as North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Vietnam, Mozambique, Somalia, East Germany and countless others. In all of these places at that point in time the same phenomena were present and the government officials could not understand why their plans were not going as planned. One may ask, how did the U.S. end up different from the rest of the world where socialism was being instituted? The simple answer is this: The Free Market. I will now attempt to refute some typical critiques of our current hybrid between Socialism and Capitalism and why what we have is not a true free market, but indeed a distortion. I will also offer potential alternative courses of action we might consider as a nation. An understanding of the fundamentals of economics is essential if we are to have a flourishing, and prosperous society. Critique: "Capitalism does not look after the poor and down trodden. That's why we need a government safety net to ensure nobody lives in abject poverty." Rebuttal: Let me ask you all a question. What do we do in this country when we have an idea for helping people and providing value? We go out and we try to start a business. If our idea is compelling enough and enough people are willing to invest in the company, then we have a small business that employs workers in order to serve its customers. If all who feel passionately about the plight of the poor, wanted to do something, then they could gather together with other who share their interests and bam, the market working its magic. This however does require the cooperation of many different individuals all working in their own self-interest so that society may be made better off. For a simple example, a farmer Joe in Kansas doesn't know how many people he is feeding dinner with the wheat that he grows. He is primarily concerned with his own well-being and that of his family. For this reason, he works hard to get his produce to market, where it can be sold as bread or cereal, or whatever else. In order to get the produce to market our friend Joe here has to work with supply chains. These supply chains involve trucks. Those trucks have many different moving parts that not many people know how to make, so individuals who are specialized in the manufacturing of automobile components have to be involved. The waitress who serves the trucker his lunch on his 30-minute lunch break, she has to be involved. The factory workers that process the wheat to purify and ground it, they also need to be involved. I could keep going on but I think most of you get the picture. Cooperation between many different know-hows is required for the creation of the products that all of us want and need. Widespread dispersion of knowledge works beautifully in delivering the products to the grocery store shelves. When we go to the grocery store the product we are looking for is often in stock and waiting for us to come pick it up. The phenomena that makes this possible is the Invisible Hand and spontaneous order. The miracle of this concept is the absence of a centralized planning committee attempting to direct resources around in ways that they deem efficient. This collective decision on the provisioning of resources can lead to governments to potentially allocating far too many productive resources towards say, the manufacturing of war machines, and as a consequence less is allocated towards other things we want or need. The lesson this example teaches us is that there is not a single person, or group of people in the world that could possibly know enough at any given time what a society desires and how to allocate the resources available efficiently enough to achieve those ends. When left to its own devices, The Invisible Hand will work miracles and give us products we could never even have dreamed of. Critique: "But we need regulations to control big business so that we don't get monopolies." Rebuttal: A minimum set of regulations is certainly called for. I must stress the minimum aspect however. If the rules of the game keep changing too frequently or begin to pile up to the ceiling, nobody wants to play anymore. Imagine playing a game of tic-tac-toe with someone trying to do two moves at once, or a game of chess with one player making an illegal move and the referee allowing it as an exception. Now imagine that happening constantly year, after year. At some point everyone just gives up. Not very fun at all. The driving motivations of the various players turns from producing useful goods and services towards seeking to influence the referees in order to gain favor over everyone else. When the government has the authority to draw unlimited funds from the Federal Reserve in order to finance projects, the main priority of businesses and firms is to get in bed with our elected officials and hog their share of the loot. This is what gives us lobbyists in Congress for Oil, Financial, Agricultural, and yes even teachers unions among other special interests. Instead of each of these industries working to provide their goods and services to customers, they have to dedicate millions of dollars annually to essentially "get in bed" with our politicians to make sure the rules of the game are rigged in their favor. If all government did was set the minimum amount of rules and regulations reasonable to a given industry, and provide a consistent rule of law then the free market would take care of the rest. Think about our tax code and how incredibly complicated and excessive it is. Thousands upon thousands of pages of new regulations are added every year, making the lives of accountants and tax compliance specialists an enormous drag. If the tax code were simplified, just think how much more productive work could get done rather than costly, lengthy litigation to try and figure out who isn't paying up. I'm no tax expert, so I don't know the details of a simplification, but I do know this is likely to yield the best results. Critique: "But we have to tax the rich so that they pay their "fair" share of taxes." Rebuttal: The rich already pay their "fair" share in taxes. Determining what is fair is really more of an normative discussion than it is an objective one. According to data from the IRS Tax stats for the most recent year: The top one percent of income earners who made $250,000 or more were taxed at a rate of 51.6% of income paid. The bracket of earners between $100,000 and $199,999 paid an effective tax rate of 21.9% of their income. By contrast those making less than $15,000 payed an effective tax rate of 0.1%." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ From this data we can conclude that the rich are the ones bearing the highest tax burden. Generally what do we know about taxes? Well, most people don't like them. Everyone does anything they legally can to reduce their tax burden because we all want higher income remaining after taxes. So if the top 1% has to pay the lion share of the taxes, what does this do to effect their incentives, and why should we not be trying to levy something ridiculous like a 95% tax rate? The answer is simply a matter of perspective. If you woke up tomorrow and you knew that the government was going to levy a 95% tax on your earnings, would you be motivated to work hard and produce, or would you do everything in your power to avoid this burden, such as moving to off-shore tax havens or less tax intensive environments? This is the dilemma corporations, which comprise of individuals, face when popular opinion sways towards Socialism. What would you do if you were the management of this company? With increased costs of doing business, you would be forced to either garnish more of your employee's wages in order to satisfy the liability or lay-off workers and consider automation/outsourcing. Regardless of political affiliation, we can all agree that the middle class is getting a raw deal and has been for decades. In order to have jobs return to our shores, the solution I propose is to make taxes as low as possible and to make them easy to understand. By doing this, businesses will have much more time to dedicate towards actually producing what we want and less time towards compliance, and litigation, and lobbying to write regulations that allow the tax law to be in their favor, effectively raising what economists refer to as the barriers to entry. If there are any arguments that I haven't made compellingly enough, feel free to offer rebuttals to my rebuttals. The information that I posted in this email was taught to me by Sherri Lynn Wall, perhaps the most passionate economics professor I have ever had the pleasure of learning from. Above all else, my goal in writing this was not only to introduce my friends and family to Free Markets, but to maybe unite both sides of the aisle on the fundamentals of economics. Who knows maybe you could suggest this analysis for consideration in the halls of Congress, so that we may finally discuss the merits and the limitations of both systems for organizing our economy. I want to stress that this discourse should take place without any yelling, screaming, name calling, or any other inappropriate gestures. Reasoned, and calm deliberations are key to solving not just the ailments of our state but indeed perhaps the aliments of our country. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Isaac Gage

I wondered that myself, but it still seemed somewhat sincere given the criticisms that I had.

This is the response from President Obama to an email I sent a few weeks back detailing my concerns on big government and our country beginning to lean more towards Socialism. I am aware of the general sentiment of Obama at this point in time in the U.S., and I may lose some friends for this, but you have to hand it to the man, he handles criticism of his administration tactfully and diplomatically. This is a valuable character trait and debate/discussion habit that I hope to emulate whenever anyone offers critiques of my work in the future. As we look forward to a Trump presidency, just remember that Obama is human as well and has his good qualities like anybody else. At this point, dehumanizing his administration will not do anything to change what happened. All we can do is look back, reflect, and attempt to do better in the future. If this makes me a crazy leftist Statist in some peoples eyes, so bet it. The ability to recognize valauble traits in others despite disagreements over philosophy is the foundation for building a more peaceful society in my humble opinion. The White House, Washington Thank you for writing. After recovering from the worst economic crisis in generations, our Nation has had the longest streak of private-sector job growth in our history. We are less reliant on foreign oil, and over 20 million people have gained health insurance since the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act took effect. With an unemployment rate cut in half, deficits cut by almost three-quarters, and an auto industry that has roared back to life, America now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. However, many feel anxious about the profound economic changes that started long before the Great Recession—from technology that can replace jobs on the assembly line and companies that can relocate anywhere on the planet to workers having less leverage for a raise and more wealth concentrated at the top. These changes are squeezing the middle class and making it harder for working Americans to start a career, a family, or a business and save for retirement. They also threaten the fundamental American promise that if you work hard, you can get ahead. My Administration has made progress in building an economy that provides security and opportunity for all, but there’s still more work to do. Real opportunity in the 21st-century global economy requires access to the education and training needed to land a good-paying job, which is why we must continue investing in early childhood education, working to ensure our students graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers, and making college and technical schools more affordable. We also need to expand benefits and protections for hardworking Americans and strengthen our healthcare system, Social Security, and Medicare so more of our people can have a basic measure of security throughout their career and when they retire. And when someone falls on hard times, we should support them as they retrain and retool for a new job. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy, and in this fast‑changing world, small businesses, startups, and workers need more of a voice—not less. And we need to use American innovations to solve our biggest problems. That’s why my Administration has called for all students to have access to high-quality computer science education, and why we have invested in clean energy technology and next-generation manufacturing hubs so the products of tomorrow can be designed and built right here in America. Thank you, again, for writing. For information on what my Administration has done to build an innovation economy that works for everyone, visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/The-Record/Economy. Sincerely, Barack Obama

I'll admit my approach is largely informed by the approach that Stefan uses in most of his podcasts when discussing philosophy. I know this is hero worshiping, but it connected with me on such a fundamental level that I guess I assumed it would work with others. This is clearly not the case, but at the same time I can see the disaster that is coming down the pike and if I am not persistent and visceral then who will listen? I've been informed multiple times on this message board that people are not rational. Given Stefan's success with influencing Brexit, and to whatever extent influencing the election in the U.S. evoking visceral emotions has to be successful to a certain degree. I realize it is evoking emotions to service evil, but nonetheless it worked. Just imagine if people's emotions were evoked to serve the right purposes. Peaceful parenting, the NAP, a stateless society. Perhaps you are correct and my energies are being misdirected through ignorance of their flaws, but I would have to ask then, if not through evoking emotion, how do I ultimately proselytize people? That is the goal underpinning all of this correct? After all, this is not proselytizing in the sense that it is for a dogmatic biblical text, but instead to be more of a Socratic gadfly as Stef has put it in the past.

I understand and have tried that approach before, but have largely been met with incomprehension. When I try to tie taxation to any other immoral act, I get accused of bringing up topics that are not relevant to the discussion. I've found that people have a difficult time connecting concepts, which is why I chose to drive the point home. The condescension is meant to make a statement. The time for peaceful discussion has long passed. Sometimes you just have to give it to people straight. Evoking something of a visceral emotional response was my goal with this.

That sounds mostly like an excuse to blame Europeans/White people for everything. This is especially baffling given the cultural suicide that leaders like Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel are currently foisting onto the native European population.

When it comes to determining what is "fair," the discussion has nothing to do with objective, empirical standards and is instead arbitrary, subjective, and normative in nature. One thing Socialists and other statists can never define is what is fair. Their definition remains nebulous and largely open to interpretation. At what tax rate are the rich finally contributing enough to the pot? 60%? 80%? 90% of their income? Well the problem with attempting to Robin-hood the rich out of their money is then you don't have the money needed for long-term capital investment, which is the accumulation of wealth and other factors of production needed to make new products. The reason you have an IPhone/smartphone to tweet, blog, live-stream and whatever else from is because entrepreneurs took a big financial risk in starting a company to innovate new products. You don't get capital investment from the poor. This is simply a reality of life. If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy. There is also this ridiculous idea that we are living in a vacuum and that if we write on a piece of paper that "the rich will now pay 80% of their income in taxes" that people will pay that tax and not adjust their behavior. This is a basic intelligence and empathy mental exercise when we talk about raising taxes. Just imagine if you knew the government was going to levy an 80% tax on your income. Would you be jumping for joy and eager to fill out that 1040? Or would you be looking for every conceivable way to reduce or avoid that tax burden? Also this idea that taxes are the "cost" we pay in order to live in a civilized society. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more immoral or uncivilized than taking money from hard working, successful people and redistributing it to those who made less than stellar financial decisions in their lives. This idea is nonsense. For example, I'm sure most remember high school and group projects. There was always that one person who would not contribute anything of value to the effort and yet could still single-handedly determine the grade that the group got as a whole. So all the people who cared and were studious had to carry the lazy bums on their shoulders every single time. Another example in regards to taxes is a simile. Its like sending a letter to a rich person saying: "I notice you like to leave your car outside of the garage, so my gang and I are going to come over tomorrow and steal it." What do you imagine that rich person is going to do? He/she is going to lock the car in the garage and buy every piece of home security technology possible, they're going to give it to a trusted friend for safekeeping until the parasitical leeches leave, or they're going to send it to a location nobody knows about. You simply aren't going to get the assets or the money which they could also just spend on other stuff in tax revenue. You're going to show up to their house the next day and because you told them you were coming the stuff won't be there. It baffles me how many people still believe that this strategy will work given the Laffer Curve and all the work done on public choice theory: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-ce…/the-laffer-curve/

Lots of really important and pertinent data/information here. I will be sure to share it with everyone I know.

Is that voting with their feet and wallets coerced out of them at the point of a gun? Or is it individual economic actors choosing voluntarily from an array of different choices? The point he was making about being free in one's head was that if we elect people to rule over us, none of us can ever make decisions on our own. The choice has to come from the top down, similar to the state sanctioned Pravda in the Soviet Union offering the population the choice between one shitty car and another shitty car, one horrible brand of toothpaste vs. another horrible brand of toothpaste. Nowhere in this voting decision is there room for people to experiment and try things for themselves. As long as you have the government with the ultimate power to make decisions that can change the course of history, you are going to have people attracted to it that want to destroy Western civilization in your words. The fight will never end because there is always a gun in the room. Yeah you might be able to keep them at bay for a while, but as many here have pointed out demographics matter. I don't know what President Trump is going to be able to do, but if he can somehow reduce the size and power of the state from within and lead us to a more peaceful society then I'm all for it. Then again, Reagan was the supposed to be the president of small government and what did we get? Lower taxes but higher deficit spending which offset the gains. Nixon also ran on a small government Republican platform but then did a 180 and went full Keynesian. I'm going to reserve judgement but I am not overly optimistic. But then who gave God his being? His ultimate power? To say he was always just there is the god of the gaps and reducing the argument to Pascal's Wager. In other words its better to assume God is real because the consequences of not believing outweigh the clear benefits, Heaven vs. simply being wrong or going to Hell. This is still not an argument with any kind of empirical proof or evidence. I am agnostic because of course I do not know either, but if God can descend down from the Heavens tomorrow and take a selfie with the Pope, then I will begin to reconsider.

Well way to take that out of context and not understand the shock factor. The arguments are so easy that children understand them early on in their development. Children have quite anarchic tendencies which are beaten and emotionally manipulated out of them as they attend the 12-16 years of public school indoctrination and proselyztizaition of their minds into embracing the state. If mature adults cannot understand the concept of the NAP and peaceful parenting then there's not much point in continuing the human experience now is there? I mean if you people are just going to be Darwin Nihilists and proclaim biological reality as an excuse to not stick steadfast to principles then why have them at all? What is there left to defend?

That is my goal as well. I figure if you want to reach people you have to appeal to their emotions somehow. Facts, reason, and evidence don't work so its all about Pathos rhetoric.

It does make sense, it just gets extremely frustrating having to DEFEND the concept of non initiation of force when I have my whole childhood to reference.

I suppose I am just frustrated with how unnecessarily difficult this has to be when the answer is merely "the initiation of the use of force against others is immoral and wrong" Its like slavery. The people who had slaves could not conceive of a world where there were no slaves. Who would pick the cotton? Who would tend to the fields? The abolitionists didn't know how these things were going to be done either, they just knew it was wrong and that the institution of slavery needed to be abolished. For this reason, I will not concede my position. Either you introduce a new paradigm that makes the old completely obsolete or you don't. Making incremental changes is enough to satisfy people to the point where the fundamental concept they were pushing for gets buried underneath the so called "progress." At the end of the day you still have an arbitrary category of people with the right to initiate the use of force against otherwise peaceful people and get them to submit to a worldview with guns. The contradiction still exists and therefore peace can never exist. I do not know what Trump will be able to achieve or not achieve, but the fact remains that we will still have taxation and still have regulations stacking up to the ceiling and you'll still have free markets restricted by the state. Maybe Trump will be able to change these things but then again Reagan was supposed to be the president of small government and what did we get? Lower taxes but increased deficit spending. Nixon ran on a Republican small government platform but then did a 180 and went full Keynesian. I am going to reserve judgment on this but I'm not overly optimistic. This is a thread from another board member dsayers that explains the reasoning behind my original post: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42043-is-step-in-the-right-direction-a-myth/

This is some philosophical insight that has occurred to me recently, and that I would be remiss if I did not articulate/disseminate it. I am a man of my principles and I will not apologize for that, nor will I compromise on them for the sake of perceived political expediency and incremental improvements. Either you introduce a new paradigm that makes the old one obsolete or you continue to justify the current model through intimidation, sophistry, and Darwinist Nihilism. Take what you will from the following insight, but do not attempt to explain to me how the state is moral and justified in any way and how moral ideals are Utopian or impractical to achieve, you'll be wasting your own time: When it comes to political power and influence, fundamentally when the governed of a nation acquiesce their freedom and individual rights to a state they are knowingly abdicating their own agency to determine their lives and that of their families to the will of the government. So logically it follows that one cannot advocate for the necessity of government and for it to have unlimited power/authority and then complain when the people one does not like get the reins of power. Just imagine for a second if we did not have the reins of power to begin with. A lot of people are upset now and scared for their lives that the candidate they did not choose has gotten a hold of the One Ring to Rule Them All. These same phenomena also apply vice versa when the candidate from the Democrat party in this case is elected. This anger and frustration at having another's persons will imposed onto them involuntarily is certainly valid but this anger is never internalized. Ironically, there is no cognitive dissonance that occurs. In other words, it sucks that someone else's will is being imposed on me so my response is to bide my time and then impose my will on others come next election. And thus, the pointless exchanging and transferring of ultimate power continues unabated and the pendulum of political dominance swings to either extreme AD Infinitum. With all of this bread and circus nonsense/false dichotomy between Republican and Democrat party, never is the concept of true freedom discussed. We always have to put some in power to grant us our freedom, rather than getting it ourselves through voluntary exchange, a respect for property rights, consistent rule of law, the non-aggression principle, and just Free Market Capitalism in general. So, with all this information I have to ask you my friends, why it is such power needs to exist in the first place? And not just for it to exist but also for it to be consolidated into the hands of supposedly "moral" leaders who in theory should be immune from corruption but in practical reality take every chance to indulge in their influence. Why must this power exist? If we cannot be trusted with our own freedom and rationality, then the last thing we want to do is give a group of inherently irrational humans the power to determine the course of history. That makes no rational or logical sense at all. It's like finding out that someone is certifiably incompetent financially and giving them control over trillions of dollars. Hmm where have I heard of this before? (Hint: Central Banks and fractional reserve banking). It is massively hypocritical for people to be upset now that the government is under control of the Republicans and authority to make executive orders has been granted to Trump while also not campaigning for LIBERTY AND FREEDOM from political overlords. I'm reminded of a famous quote by John Dalberg Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Maybe Trump will be able to change the course or nature of the state but I highly doubt that. When you legitimize the initiation of the use of force against others, albeit less in an ideal Minarchist society, all you get is more violence. When you make arbitrary exceptions to morals rules that are supposed to be universal and axiomatic you get an unresolvable contradiction wherein certain groups of society can perform certain actions that for anyone else would be considered criminal and in violation of law. With Voluntarism, which is defined as an acceptance of property rights of not just land but also of the individual economic actor and the non aggression principle you get a prosperous society. In a stateless society, everything is decentralized and there is no need for politburos or state sanctioned Pravda to propagandize and indoctrinate the population, especially the young, while controlling literally every aspect of our lives cradle to coffin. No one to impose their will unjustly onto others. True cooperation between people and peace is thus achieved. Perhaps these are thoughts that could provoke serious philosophical thought and introspection within some of you. To everyone else, unfriend and unfollow me now because you will not be seeing compromise in this regard from me ever again. For those still not convinced: If you fundamentally are fine and have no moral compunction over the initiation of the use of force, I do not ever want to hear you complain about how the military operates because you support the system and ethics that justify it. Millions of innocent people dead because Statists like YOU want to force their will onto others. I don’t ever want to see a single tear come from your eye regarding the military or anything where force is used to get what one desires because that would make you a massive HYPOCRITE. I don’t ever want to hear about how taxpayer money is being wasted or mismanaged in the hands of, according to your own words, inherently greedy, selfish, and evil humans indifferent to the plight and interests of different groups of people. These people would be the unaccountable bureaucrats and central planners with no incentive to utilize money or other resources efficiently because they are insulated from the disciplines of the free market. The system is going to collapse under its own impossible weight and quite frankly I look forward to that day. If you will not submit to reason and evidence and the preponderance of historical facts supporting my position but instead choose to accuse me of being “brainwashed” then it is clear you have no interest discovering the nature of truth and reality and are no different than the immoral religious dogmatists of the Middle Ages, Ancient Rome and Greece, and the 20th Century with the communists. According to you logic, because the use of force is permissible to people classified in a certain group, then that means I am allowed to join that group and arbitrarily impose my will on whoever I want. Don’t like gun control? Well tough shit, now I’m calling the shots. Disagree with foreign intervention, too fucking bad, the decision is not yours to make. Pick any issue and if you have a disagreement with me, your concerns are irrelevant. To extend your wonderful logic, if morals and ethics are not universal and axiomatic but merely subjective and relative and all you do is introduce arbitrary exceptions to the rules then its fine for me to do whatever I want then if I manage to get into the halls of power. All of the lessons of not using violence to achieve my ends taught to me in my youth are pointless and a waste of time trying to disseminate to the next generation because you have all of these exceptions to the rule. So, for example, the next time I want to possess money, instead of taking the initiative and working hard to EARN it, I will either steal it myself or petition the government to steal it through taxation and redistribution. Who needs a college education and a job when I can just be lazy, complacent and leech off the success of others? I am a down trodden and hopeless minority in your eyes after all, so why not use it to my advantage? (Disclaimer: These questions/statements are rhetorical and not meant to indicate serious intent on my part. They are meant to hopefully expose the blatant hypocrisy of wanting a peaceful society but also supporting the state at the same time). A Potential Solution: Peaceful parenting is the key. People have to stop rationalizing the use of force against others and start actually taking their principles seriously. How hard is it to NOT abuse children or anyone for that matter? Apparently, the task is impossible and so we will continue to languish in this lower realm of existence. Unfortunately, change may have to come through disaster and a complete collapse of the system as it always had to throughout history before people seriously question their preconceived ideas and biases. If any can spare the time, I suggest reading Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" available for free on his website. The arguments are so easy to grasp children understand them early on in their development. If mature adults cannot wrap their minds around the concept of peace, negotiation, and the non-aggression principle, then why even bother with this human experiment? We may as well just nuke everything on the planet now.

Yes I have done something that I regretted in the recent past that was the result of a lapse of judgement. I lashed out and acted in a contemptuous way because the false protection of the state seemed like the only avenue available to me. I am only 19, have barely experienced life on this Earth, and was still clinging to the idea that some abstract construct, such as the government, could offer me protection and was justified in going to war with other people who posed no threat whatsoever. Fortunately, you Mr, Alpha Male, chose to be patient and explain to me the flaws in my methodology, not once, not twice, but three times. I cannot thank you, and everyone else involved in my Ancapia/ Puritanical Libertarians thread for not giving up. You were very calm and deconstructed the fallacies in my "arguments" easily as if you have had years of experience doing it. I suppose it was my underdeveloped and still adolescent brain that defaulted to running towards the state because that's what everyone else was doing. I cannot retract my comments, but only hope that you can forgive me of my ignorance. The drug of state-ism is indeed very seductive when your ideology and bias is the one in power and calling the shots. I hope to treat that thread as a valuable learning experience that I can recall the next time any politician tries to tell me: "Vote for me and I'll make life so much better." Anyone who may still be struggling with ideas about statism should visit my profile and see how Alpha Male deconstructed my questions. Very valuable and well worth the time. Peace, love, and philosophy. The West is indeed the best minus the imperialism and immoral government.

Thank you again for the pushback. I'm not sure what has gotten into me recently. I apologize for any offense given. I hope you can forgive my ignorance, but I will not hold you to it.

As a member I do believe we should have a test to determine the effects of a Trump presidency, but the man hasn't taken office yet and hasn't done anything. Fundamentally, I approach this from a Minarchist position. The reason I referenced the concept of leaders is because most in this community express a desire to not be ruled or have rulers. I wouldn't want to generalize anyone here into that category, but its a sentiment that I've noticed. The Invisible Hand of the market cannot function without cooperation between many different individuals, but its much more than that. There need to be leaders and there have to be a minimum set of rules put in place. If you think about this, what would society look like if everyone went off to do their own thing? If there are a bunch of different competing currencies that have to be exchanged or traded wouldn't that reduce the level of efficiency? It would be like 20 people in a room all speaking a different language while not knowing at all what anyone else is saying. The whole goal of humanity thus far has been to make life easier. In order to do that there need to be rules that everyone observers and a way to enforce them at least in the context of an individual nation. Let's take an example. If someone were to come and rob your house and there was no way for you to know who had done it, what would your recourse be? What I'm getting from most people here is a failure to account for human nature. By human nature I mean the natural tendency towards self-interest and self-preservation. If the only mechanism to curtail this behavior is the abstraction of the NAP, what do you do with the outliers? I understand that it can be argued that it would be self-defense and thus would not violate the NAP, however that relies on the assumption that everyone around you shares the same ideals, which is simply not the case. Assuming this is not the case, what avenues for recourse are available to you without some form of defense from a state? You have to look at how these abstractions manifest in the real world, not just in theory. I do not mean to take on such a contemptuous and stubborn stance, but part of philosophy involves questioning and perhaps revising your own beliefs as well, not just expecting it of others.

Thank you for the push-back. I suppose I have more to consider and shouldn't just condescend. And just by the by the video of Stefan's I was referencing was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA

Maybe I should try to clarify more. The government is not going anywhere anytime soon. Adhering to a strict moral guideline hasn't done anything to shift public opinion and at the end of the day that's whats needed in order to mobilize people. Millions of people depend on the government for services like SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. What do you think will be the result if we just trash the system tomorrow and defund everything? I don't believe people will be running towards the NAP but instead demanding whatever remains of their government(s) to fix things. There is very little you or I or anyone for that matter can do about this. So the question then becomes, "Ok, what do we do with the tools we have?" Its true, I cannot see into the future and predict what will happen with a Donald Trump presidency, but assuming the worst case scenario is rather demoralizing. You have to try and look at it from these people's point of view. Even in a theoretical Anarchist society you will still need entrepreneurs who have a vision and who can display leadership in order to keep people on track and focused on the goal of the business or company. These people are going to have to have the authority to acquire and use money to build their projects up along with other people. You are never going to remove the concept of a leader from people's minds because we are social animals. Productive activity doesn't get down without strong leadership. I am not advocating for a central planner to be in control of everything, but merely that leaders are still going to be needed. After all, an entrepreneur cannot go at it alone.

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry I should have defined my terms and rephrased the question. What I mean to say is that some Anarchists want the NAP to be adopted worldwide tomorrow. What I try to point out is that this is simply impractical given the current government framework and tools we have available. When I say pragmatism, I mean incrementally nudging people in the direction of a stateless society. Its just frustrating to have people condescend towards "statists" who are trying to do the best they can with what they have. People who would otherwise be allies are alienated and attacked over lack of dedication to principle and too much compromise. I do not find this helpful in moving forward the wheel of human inertia. Mocking people for participating in the political process hasn't seemed to accomplish anything significant or meaningful over the decades that the Anarchist/Libertarian movement has existed. The powers that be would like nothing more than to rule over a populous that will not express their views at the ballot box over moral purity. Maybe I am wrong in my approach, but the victory of Donald Trump could potentially show that being involved in the democratic process is not entirely useless.

Recently, I've gotten into some heated debates online with Anarchists that are resolute and immovable regarding the NAP. I'm aware that Stefan has made a video critiquing these people and have tired to convey those ideas to them. Most of the responses I get back are ones of elitist derision and condescension, I'm usually called a lost and confused statist. These people will not touch the concept of Pragmatism with a ten foot pole no matter how much reason, evidence, or logic I try to apply. I guess my question is should I bother trying to proselytize these people or should I focus more on the those who perhaps can still be reached?

I didn't know my parents, I was dropped off at an orphanage basically from birth and the rest is history. I feel grateful that my mother and father, whoever they were, were able to recognize that they could not take care of me and put me up for adoption. Even if I could travel back in time, I wouldn't change a thing. My mom recorded everything we did before and following the adoption so its all on tape. A lot of safaris, savannahs, and virtually every animal you could see at a typical zoo just not in captivity.

Hello all my name is Isaac Gage and my story is kind of unique. Originally I'm from Nairobi, Kenya and was adopted at the age of 3. I moved to the United States and spent my childhood until the age of 15 in small town in Wisconsin, Whitewater. At 15 and in the 8th grade my family moved to Fairbanks, Alaska where we have been ever since. I'm 19 now and in college studying to become an accountant.