ShieldWife

Your thinking of chaos within the context of the physical laws of this universe. In this universe, disordered systems do not spontaneously order themselves, at least not without external energy or a total increase of disorder. You're not describing true nothingness, but rather our universe's physical laws but without matter or energy. What if there were no physical laws at all? That is the scenario I describe, existence before the physical laws of our reality existed. That is a condition where things could happen spontaneously. I must admit, it does sound rather magical though.

The more positive claims that are made about God, the easier it is to disprove, or at least provide evidence against, those claims. A deistic God, who exists somewhere out in the ether and has no discernible traits and doesn't interact with the universe in any way, is likely impossible to disprove aside from possibly doing so from the inherent contradictions with omnipotence, if it is omnipotent. Such a deity is really close to not existing anyway. On the other hand, if someone claims that the Bible is 100% literally true, then it is far easier to provide evidence that this claim is false, both from contradictions within the Bible and from how science contradicts the Bible. Often in theological arguments, theists will make the absolute minimum positive claims about God or his/its qualities. Which is entirely reasonable, as the fewer claims made the harder it is the refute. One common claim made though is that God is omnipotent. This is a rather nebulous idea which allows for special pleading in regards to how God might come into existence without a cause while the rest of the universe needs a cause. Of course, if someone brings up contradictions which arise from the concept of omnipotence or omniscience (such as God not being able to make choices, god having inherent qualities, even silly ones like making rocks bigger than he can lift) the theist can easily dismiss them by saying that God along with God's omnipotence and omniscience are beyond human understanding, even though it is exactly trying to understand those traits which allows "unmoved first mover" sorts of arguments. Speaking of which, some have asked how the universe could come into existence from nothing without a God. Well, ultimately I have to say that I don't know, which is the answer that any of us should give. Though just because you don't know doesn't mean that an unsubstantiated claim (God did it) should be accepted. Though one thing to keep in mind when discussing the origins of existence is that we can't imagine the beginning, or the time before, as merely empty space. Empty space is indeed something, in fact an empty universe has all sorts of traits, including physical laws, the very physical laws which in large part define our discussion of cosmic beginnings. So before existence there is no empty space and not even any laws of physics. There is literally nothing. If there is nothing at all, not even laws of physics or reality, then there is no reason that something can't spring into existence from nothing. This idea is kind of like Greek pagan cosmology, where existence begins with Chaos - which is not merely nothingness but a sort of chaotic flux of possibilities from which the primordial Greek deities emerged. If such a chaos existed before the universe came into being, then countless things would pop into and out of existence with true randomness. At least until something came into existence with some level of permanence that resisted the surrounding chaos - which could be our universe or at least some set of cosmological laws which allowed our universe to manifest, or even God actually. Such things are incomprehensible though, so I wouldn't be too confident about any claims regarding the time before our universe existed, but I'm just discussing possibilities.

This seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that black-white racial mixing improves the IQ of the nation or that it is ultimately good for white people. It may well increase the average IQ of the remaining whites, but it may also lead to a reduced percentage of white people in the national (or world) population which is likely bad for both IQ of various traditionally white countries as well as white people's interests as a whole. It is something interesting to consider though. Ideally, low IQ white men would outbreed while white women would have white children with the remaining higher IQ white men.

Fashus Maximus makes a great point. There is already a de facto race war happening in Western nations. There are are already numerous policies which advantage some genes over others, in fact the policies favor non-whites over whites and R inclined genes over K inclined genes. We have been practicing large scale dysgenics for decades. Now that a handful of people are saying that there should be some genetic self defense for the K and white genes, many people who supposedly favor freedom will admonish someone like Jared Taylor for advocating eugenics while they have passively accepted dysgenic anti-white policies for years. A libertarian attacking Jared Taylor for being a racist or totalitarian are like people who claim to be pacifists criticizing someone using violence in self defense while never saying a word about the attacker. Though ultimately, any opposition to eugenics grounded in libertarianism or the NAP rings hollow to me. Good genes are the foundation upon which a great nation or civilization can be built. For decades we have been excavating out from beneath the palace which is Western civilization, all the while pretending that the solid genes that lay beneath the West is unnecessary to support the magnificent structure above. If the Western world's genetic foundation declines beyond a certain point, then there will be no capacity to have freedom, to have rights. There won't be enough people left who care about freedom.

It's not forcing anybody to use birth control to make it a requirement of welfare. Nobody has a right to welfare and so attaching conditions onto welfare payments does not violate the recipient. It still violates the tax payer, but not as much as allowing the adult on welfare to have children at somebody else's expense. It's one of the great mistakes of more doctrinaire livertarians to say that if we can't eliminate some aspect of government that it's better not even to try to reduce it. Though it could be argued that having children when you cannot afford them is a violation of the NAP because either you are forcing children into a situation where they will suffer depravation or (more likely) they are forcing society to pay for those children. Society has a right to protect its productive members from parasitic parenting. If you want to eliminate all welfare, great, but as long as we have it we should try to minimize the harm it inflicts on society and our gene pool.

Positive "rights" and negative rights can both be explained more simply and consistently through the NAP. Negative rights, those which most of us would agree should be protected, are just the NAP in practice. People have a right to life, liberty, expression, religion, property, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Basically, all of those things mean that you shouldn't initiate force against somebody, as that is what violating any of those rights ultimately is. On the other hand, all positive so called "rights" are violations of the NAP. They are things that you believe you are entitled to take from other people with violence if necessary.

Eugenics doesn't have to involve the use of force. People with high IQ's deciding to have large families is a kind of eugenics. Along the same lines, people with genetic defects or low IQ's choosing not to have children is eugenics too. Positive and negative eugenics respectively. In fact, you could pay people to have children or not to and this would be an entirely voluntary form of eugenics. We could also make a taking birth control a mandatory requirement of receiving welfare benefits, which is completely reasonable as you should not be having children if you require the fruits of other people's labor to survive.

Hey, I'm been a fan of Stefan Molyneux for a few years now and love to talk about politics, philosophy, and social issues. I'm a stay at home mother and pretty strongly conservative (with some Alt-Right and libertarian tendencies) in most regards. I've made a few anti-feminist YouTube videos, but nearly as many as I should have.