Add984

Well, I can't say I'm surprised but my £3 ad for my video 'Mass Immigration SOLVED!' has been...….. (drum roll)………..rejected. It seems talking about immigration is 'off-limits' too. That's the third ad for a political video I've had rejected in the last few days. I must have been lucky the first few times as they were all political and went through no problem. I've appealed again, of course, but I haven't got a reply back from my last appeal. The door is closing on the possibility that this could be a 'technical issue' too as I tried to complete the 'authorisation' process and it actually informed me I was OK to publish ads with political content! I suppose it has to be the RIGHT political content, however. Anyways I'm getting fed up with this shit, so I'm going to go around all the libertarian and ancap forums and inform them about this and try to get my video shared as far and wide as possible. Thanks FB that was just the boost I needed.

Speaking as a guy who has been single for over two years and for many years before my last serious relationship, I FEEL much better in myself. I live alone, cook, clean and maintain my own home and self and it gives me a peculiar sense of satisfaction knowing I'm self-reliant in some way I can't put my finger on. The flat I lived in with my ex was often messy, smelly, etc as we both just couldn't be bothered. It's strange, I suppose. In direct answer to your question, I think some of the MGTOW channels have said that MGTOW men were quite common in times past as most men could not attract a mate and most women were content to be mistresses or at least occasional bed fellows with a single man. Marriage was more a status symbol back in the day.

It may be too late. All I can really do is tell you about myself. I'm effectively a MGTOW. I've researched and watched all the channels, videos and articles and so I understand female nature, which makes me very wary of relationships. I broke up with my last girlfriend over two years ago and have been single ever since. I'm not going to lie and say I wouldn't consider another relationship or one night stand (not that I'm into those), as I'm more of a purple pill kind of guy, but I've honestly never been happier. I like to write and produce videos about anarchism and similar things to what Stef talks about and being single with no kids and no mortgage is a blessing in this regard. I'm self-publishing my newest book next week and aim to publish one every six months. I don' think I could do that, as well as produce videos for my small YouTube channel, manage my FB and website, if I was married or in a serious relationship. I can get up before 5am everyday and work on these things and more importantly FINISH them, which is great. Being single is incredibly productive. You can explore yourself more freely and become the kind of man you want to be as time is abundant. I guess I'm saying that given how young you are (sorry, it's not meant as an insult; I'm actually jealous lol) you have years to develop your skills, job prospects, etc which will make you even more of a catch for the right kind of girl. Male SMV (sexual market value) only rises through time, so you will only become MORE attractive to women as you mature and become more experienced, skilled and richer. If you can, put off marriage for a few years (at least until your mid 20s or early 30s). Anyway that's just my 2 cents. Hope it all worked out or is working out.

My 2 cents: my feelings on a matter are irrelevant. Feeling is not a requisite for truth. Arguments that are consistent and valid can be backed by passion and emotion in rhetoric and oratory, but these tools alone do not make for a valid argument.

The states of matter and energy (i.e. human bodies, stars, this keyboard I'm typing on, etc) are 'finite' in respect to the transitioning of these elementary particles towards states of disorder, but the elementary particles themselves are 'infinite' in respect to neither being created nor destroyed over endless cycles. A Big Bounce scenario has no 'beginning' as such as it is like a balloon expanding and contracting (yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect ), the balloon material itself remains. You can write that a particular cycle has a start and finish, or inflation and then contraction, but the process itself is infinite (at least to our perception of it - i.e. our measurement in our time). Presumably not as 'memory' of the previous cycles would have been destroyed with break-up of the elementary particles of all complex states of matter (such as thinking minds, like ours). It's intriguing that the universe almost has an (unconscious) benevolence in-built into it as we will not remember any of this. Perhaps we've had this exchange an infinite amount of times. Things would get very repetitive otherwise. No, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that causation does not exist independent of time (or at least our perception of time). I suppose time (or rather particular events and states matter and energy) repeat across the infinity of cycles. I find the 'new' regress problem intriguing, could you please clarify your point on this? That's interesting, so is this kind of thinking similar to the idea of Platonic forms? I'm a bit rusty. The problem is without clear definitions (which I'll admit are not always air-tight and perfect) then anything goes. By (Craig's) definition, God is 'transcendent' and is therefore nothing and 'nothing' has a causal probability of zero as 'nothing' is the negation of something, which is defined as measurable, countable and such (within the universe). If we stray from consistent arguments based on empirical knowledge then we come to an epistemological block because any one can claim something exists on 'a different plane' or my cat is actually an astral projection or something of that manner.

Yes, that's what's frustrating about watching Craig. Cause and effect are characteristic of the realm of 'things' yet (by his own definition) God is 'spaceless,' 'timeless,' transcendent and blah blah blah so he is effectively positing an ex nihilo 'cause' for the universe. God is literally 'nothing'. By the way, I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. That link (Babel) and your thoughts here are very useful, don't you think?

Cool idea. So is this post and your post in there somewhere too??? Just looked, presumably, yes. Hey, don't bother replying (joke), just look up what you were going to write in the Library!

Good points. I think the term 'Big Bang' doesn't help, as it conjures images of something exploding from a vacuum, which implies an ex nihilo origin of the universe as we know it.. There is the Big Bounce scenario, in which we have expansion then contraction forever. Don't you think there's a lot of 'God of the Gaps' thinking with some of this though? Even if the premise - 'the universe has a beginning' - is true, why is God the automatic go-to? I was discussing this point with my friend at work yesterday. He'd lost a bit of paperwork and we couldn't find it, so I blamed God. When I eventually found it while he was on his break and I had to go too, I jotted down a quick note (signed 'God') apologising for the temporary misplacement of the paperwork. Seriously though, I agree that the Big Bang is not the only theory, but it is the prevailing one and explains Hubble's Law, doesn't it? String theory doesn't do that much as the proverbial 'can' just gets kicked down the road into an infinite regress again, as we would still want to know how the 'multiverse' ultimately came into being. In the Big Bounce scenario, we have explanations for the regress and an answer to premise 2 (of Craig's argument). The universe is infinite in time, but finite in terms of its energy and matter (with the laws of conservation and entropy applying). Craig's premise is incorrect then, as if the universe is cyclical it had no 'beginning', which is also an answer to your third question. In answer to your fourth, it presumably has 'boomed' before and an infinite number of times. On the fifth question, I would venture to say that all 'things' (i.e. that which is measurable, divisible, observable, effectual, etc) are contained within the universe and subject to time, causation and the laws of physics. I must admit, I find the first part of what you wrote troubling too: It's a bit of a mind bend. I suppose it's just a matter of scaling up and down. I imagine something like a still lake (which is void, i.e. nothing) and the universe like an ice sheet expanding. The colder it gets, the faster the expansion (Hubble's Law), but when the temperature rises (i.e. the conditions in the universe change) the sheet retreats. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps me to visualise the universe expanding and contracting into and from this infinitesimal dense and hot state. In answer to your second question (in a Big Bounce scenario) it could indeed have remained in this 'pre-bang' condition for trillions or googles worth of years, however, given an infinite amount of time and a probability above 0, anything that can happen will happen and has happened an infinite number of times (**throws cold water into my face**) which is a bit of a mind bend! Lol Are there any other scenarios - apart from Big Bounce, God and the Big Bang - which deal with the infinite regress problem? God doesn't. A multiverse doesn't. Or maybe they do. Admittedly, the Big Bounce scenario doesn't so much 'deal' with the regress problem, but rather embraces it.

Lol Let me clarify. I just wanted people's thoughts on the subject? Brainstorming is probably the correct term. 'Fishing'? I was never good at that. I have a friend who enjoys sea fishing. Seriously though, I've been watching some of Craig's lectures for my own research on my next book and it occurs that the Kalam cosmological argument does prove God's existence. If you watch Craig's video ('Objections so bad I couldn't have made them up' on the Tube) you will see what I mean. A glaring example is his assertion that science supports his second premise ('the universe began to exist') which (I could be wrong) it does not. I've checked definitions of the Big Bang Theory (including NASAs) and it describes it as a process of inflation, but not as 'the universe beginning'. The Law of Conservation would also appear to support an 'uncaused' universe. I'm not 100% sure on this point though. That's why I started the topic.

Hey, Just curious what you think about this? I have my own opinions about why it is flawed.

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about infinity. To me, it's a given that there is no highest number (as we can add one or any amount onto it). Infinity is a mathematical given and 'proven' in an a priori sense. However, we can observe and measure the universe in terms of 'things' (see Vsauce vid below). There is also the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see link) which states that all things in the universe tend to go from states of order to disorder, but it doesn't preclude an infinite universe in and of itself as this just points to the 'heat death' scenario of the universe's end in which every particle is separated from every other by infinite distance. If we accept the Big Crunch scenario (see link), then it's even worse as the cyclical universe is, by nature, infinite. Is there any way we DON'T live in an infinite universe? If we acknowledge the 'problem of infinity' then how can we NOT acknowledge that there must be a temporal stop-gap? There must have been what Aristotle called a Prime Cause (or mover). Yes, I get that scientists argue that it makes no sense to talk of a 'prime mover' or 'cause' of the Big Bang or the universe as time and space began with the universe itself, but this still doesn't address the problem of infinity. Perhaps we are just built to only understand things in terms of time and space, as we are part of the very structure of the universe itself. It kind of feels like a cop-out though. The universe clearly 'lives' or exists in time. It had a beginning and will therefore have an 'end' (in a broad sense), but how do we avoid the infinite regress counter-arguments against the existence of a 'God' or prime mover? Disclaimer: please understand, this is not an argument for or against God's existence. The problem of infinity effects both camps, although religious people feel more comfortable with an idea of eternal existence than I do. I find the prospect terrifying as I think living forever would be exceptionally (no, infinitely) boring... Vsauce vid on quantifying the universe (n.b. this suggests it's 'finite'): The Second Law of Thermodynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Ultimate fate of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Big Crunch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch Prime Cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument Spacerip video on Infinity: Cheers.

This is the third and final part in my mini-series of informal talks discussing alien contact and human-LGM relations in an anarcho-capitalist context. I aim to do more space-related videos as the years progresses. Another very interesting (and better) video is on simulations, by Riddle. This is another popular explanation for the Fermi paradox. Available below.

This is the promised third and final part on mini-series on discussing alien contact in an anarcho-capitalist context. I will be doing a lot more videos on other space-related scenarios too, such as 'will the huge galactic empires of sci-fi really be a thing?' How will humans and aliens relate to each other in societies and what forms of governance are most likely? Can the state survive alien contact?

Given the age of the universe (around 13.8 billion years) and the projected lifespan of it (some estimates go into the hundreds of trillions of years) it is also feasible (though not probable) that we may be the first sentient civilisation. Given the rare earth hypothesis, this is also an explanation of the Fermi paradox. There is also the simulation theory (advocated by no less than Elon Musk), which would also explain our apparent isolation. Mankind is at 0 on the scale. See Kardashev scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale Rare Earth hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#Requirements_for_complex_life Simulation theory:

There are probably many theories, but where are all the aliens? Part 2 (below) on my thoughts on aliens in an 'ancap' context. Part 3 coming soon.... :-O

BTW do you know what is going on in London on 05/06/2018 (the Day for Freedom)? Thanks.

Hi again, @barn Yeah sure. Adam

Thanks.

I've been uploading videos fairly regularly. I recently did a small mini-series aimed at people who might be new to anarchism. I talk about self-ownership and the other basic principles underlying stateless societies. I also do random stuff too. I've put three links below: My ambidexterity: On Consistency: The State Owns your Death:

I am writing from a UK perspective. I have not come across many 'ancap' books written from such an angle. I challenge the toxic culture of 'group think' and encourage a 'me think' mentality, or an active change of personal perspective that encourages voluntary affirmative actions (VAAs), which themselves serve to advance societal self-awareness and autonomy above and beyond state governance. This 'me think' perspective is summarised in the 'declaration' of the title. I do not think my short work will be radically original or some air-tight grand moral theory, but I do hope it helps to spread the message of freedom (especially in my country).

Hi, I'm an independent author and researcher from the UK. My book The Declaration of the Self: On the Abolition of the State is due to be released on 06/28/2018. It is divided into three parts. The first part outlines the basic prime principles underpinning a stateless society (such as self-ownership, property rights and the NAP). The second part is devoted to the 'application' of these principles to the provision of 'public goods' such as 'national' defence, law, money and roads (among others). The third part contains the 'declaration' of the title, while exploring how a free society might be established. If you're interested, I can arrange a free kindle copy for review (via voucher) on the day of release (on a first come first serve basis, of course). Please let me know. Cheers. Adam Clarke *** Website: www.clarkead.co.uk Book link: https://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Self-Abolition-State-ebook/dp/B07BTLS9QC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1524810104&sr=8-7&keywords=declaration+of+the+self The Declaration book cover.pdf

Hi Barnsley, I will give it a go. On 0. Since ‘free-will’ is intrinsically preferable in societal governance (i.e. no collective of individuals relate to each other outside of this preference, hence our justice systems, praise for accomplishments, etc.), I believe de facto is ‘preferable’. Just to add something. To my mind, I do not think of these principles as something to be adopted, as such, but more something that we have when we burn away the unnecessary statist elements. By ‘these principles’ I refer to sovereignty (i.e. individual self-ownership), which is self-evident and a universally accepted norm in societal relations; property rights and the non-aggression principle (or NAP). On 1. It has not come about because there has not been a widespread philosophical awakening on the true nature of individualism. We live in an era of group think in which the individual is buried under a sea of labels. I believe this mentality is shifting, but the transition to me think (or the recognition of individual sovereignty) is slow-going and in its early stages. Statism is the apotheosis of this group think mentality or rather the nucleus around which the concept orbits. It is extremely difficult to get individuals not to simply identify with their superficial traits (e.g. race, gender, political persuasion) and thus they can never see past these to the true obstacle to the equality and prosperity most people want. The state violates the sovereignty that every individual displays. On 3. I must apologise, as I do not believe I completely understand what is being asked. Statism always fails simply because it is contrary to the observable fact of sovereignty. This is the root of its failure as statism can only exist when the sovereignty of some is violated to the benefit of others. As the state grows, the host society is drained of wealth and support, with a growing preference for ‘larger governments’ that provide ‘positive rights’ of welfare. As more individuals are sucked into this mentality, we see the classic tragedy of the commons played out in which the host society can no longer square the increased ‘take’ with the lesser ‘giving’ or more productive elements. In relation to the breakdown of the ‘family unit’ (in the western context) the state is certainly the cause, given its aforementioned growth. With the increased welfare cultures and the marrying of the modern woman to the state, where they can afford to make poor choices in men and even reproduce with such men, the state effectively promotes the breakdown of family units. The two issues are certainly intricately linked. On 4. and 5. I tend to not think of these issues in the same frame of context. A transition to a free society is an incremental, organic process of spreading knowledge in order to shift the general perspective away from top-down solutions. Consistency in our thinking is key and recognising the consistent principles of property rights and the NAP, based on the observable self-evident fact of individual sovereignty, is all it would take to speed the process up. This is easier said than done, of course. People like Stefan Molyneux are still (sadly) on the fringes of general public awareness. Sovereignty covers all individuals (including children), which is the basis of why it is wrong to ‘spank’. A recognition of sovereignty in the wider culture will see a shift in child-rearing towards a more non-coercive mentality. I apologise in advance if I have not answered your questions to your satisfaction. My vote goes to non-coercive means of change, simply because history shows us that revolutionary / militaristic methods do not shift us one iota closer to a free society, but simply transitions the society to another state. The group think perspective must be changed if the cycle is to be changed indefinitely. Thanks.

How does a free society defend itself? I differentiate between nascent and established free societies. A 'free society' is an anarchic polity based on the consistent principles of sovereignty ('self-ownership'), property rights and the NAP. Could a free society effectively defend itself against a state? I personally think an established (i.e. second or third generation plus) free society would crush any state aggressor with 'soft power' means alone (e.g. asset freezes, boycotts, cyber warfare, etc.), but I am interested in what others think on the subject. On nascent or very new anarchistic societies, I think history shows that any such society will be crushed almost on creation, such as in the Catalonian Communes and the Free Territory in Ukraine. That is why no free society can come about through military or traditional revolutionary methods alone. It requires a gradual spread of knowledge about sovereignty and active non-violent pushes towards non-state solutions to societal concerns (e.g. local currencies, voluntary cooperatives, black markets and voluntary labour exchanges, among many other methods). Apart from well-armed individuals and militias, I think any collection of professional defence companies in a free society would greatly outmatch any state armed force. I base this assertion on the context from which these companies would operate. Free societies would be far richer than any state given the lack of taxation, fines, licensing, business rates and all the panoply of state money-sucking costs. There would also be heavy investment in defence, given it is a concern now and so would also be so in a free society. Find out more on my own view at: www.clarkead.co.uk. Cheers.