Search the Community

Something profound has occurred to me during my journey towards the truth and self-knowledge. If the abolitionists of yesteryear had allowed the slave masters to beat them into submission with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro-aggressions, I would still be in chains and tending to fields. This is a broad, general PSA to all current friends and all potential future friends. If at any time you find my rhetoric and tone to be "inflammatory" "incendiary" "hateful" or "offensive" you are welcome to stick your opinion straight up your ass and hit that unfriend/unfollow button. The preservation of Western civilization and society for future generations is far bigger than me and others opinions of me. Take note because this is the one and only time I will be saying this. #MAGA #TheWestIsTheBest #RedPillGeneration

The Culmination Of A Year's Worth Of Philsophical Study: I realize I am beginning to sound like a broken record here, but the truth never goes out of fashion. In this essay I am going to be covering a breadth of topics beginning with an explanation for Trump that will perhaps offer a counter narrative to mainstream media. I will also discuss race, peaceful parenting, and what to do about government. Let's begin with the explanation for Trump. For those people who may still believe that Trump will be an authoritarian, perhaps I can persuade you otherwise. At first glance, Trump supporters to most people seem like bitter, angry, resentful White supremacists. This is a pejorative statement that has been debunked time and time again. Every movement has is fringe, radical components. However, these people do not speak for the movement as a whole. Often, Trump supporters are told not to paint with a broad brush and lump every Muslim, Mexican, African American, or other minority into the same category as certain movements associated with those groups. So, if this is the case, why then can the same standard not be extended towards White men? Seems awfully hypocritical to have one standard for one group and a completely different standard for another wouldn't you say? I have faith that President Trump will not be an authoritarian because there so many people who threw their entire support behind the man (myself included) who respect the Constitution far too much to continue to see it bastardized. Should Trump ever step out of line, and I speak for myself here, you can be sure that I will be quite vocal about it. The reason I believe Trump will be different than the typical career politician is because Trump has been in the private sector for basically his whole life up to this point. In the private sector, you have to listen to customer feedback if you want to keep earning profits and continue providing value. The body politic are the customers in this instance and Trump the C.E.O or Board of Directors President. I wouldn't count the man out just yet, he might just surprise you. Next up on the list, the one thing everyone wishes we would stop talking about for justifiable reasons: race. In terms of race relations in America. If we are ever going to reach a meritocracy in this country, continuing to split everyone up into arbitrary categories and playing this Identity Politics game based on characteristics nobody can change hardly seems like a progressive position to take. Unless you are Micheal Jackson, most people will not be altering their skin color anytime soon, nor should anyone feel as if they have too. Black people have a right to be proud of their heritage, Latinos have a right to be proud of the heritage, Natives Americans have a right to be proud of the heritage, Asians have a right to be proud of their heritage, and Europeans have a right to be proud of their heritage. And no, for all of the race baiters out there, white people celebrating their heritage DOES NOT= white supremacy or racism. This is such a tiresome narrative to debunk day in and day out so could we just say that everyone has a right to be proud and that #AllLivesMatter? I do not understand how Black people are excluded from this sentiment. Are Blacks not human now? Martin Luther King Jr. put it best: "I have a dream, that one day my children might be judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character." Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just take a breath and stop with the endless stoking of racial resentment. I now for sure that I want to move past this. The question is what do you want to do? Now I will transition into peaceful parenting. There no doubt will be some among you who read the previous paragraph and ask: "What about the connection between race/IQ?" I haven't forgotten that perspective and will address it now. The thing about IQ is we know now that environment plays a major role in how much a child's IQ grows. Questions parents often ask themselves when choosing a community are: "Is this a nurturing environment for raising my child?" and "What can I do to make it better so that I can raise a well-adjusted, curious, wonderful bundle of joy?" I am not yet a parent so I am not the authority on parenting. Nor would I ever try to force people to raise their children in a certain way. However, according to the vast preponderance of research done on childhood development, psychology, and Western philosophy, peaceful parenting has come out on top as the absolute best way to raise children and consistently delivers excellent results. One issue that I believe we as a nation, and planet need to address urgently is the prevalence of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining children. If what I said about environment is true, then using violence to raise a "well behaved" should never even enter the minds of parents who want a peaceful child who uses their words and not their fists to resolve disputes. I don't want to come of as contemptuous about this but it is not difficult to figure out. If you choose to raise your child with violence, that child internalizes that lesson. For the rest of of their lives into adulthood, that child will continue to view violence as a legitimate way for solving disputes. It's no wonder that we have such violent youth joining gangs and being involved in turf wars in the Black inner city community! It all stems from the home. It's quite astonishing to hear people complain about how crime ridden a neighborhood is but not have the self-knowledge to examine their own actions choices to discover who is at fault. If we want a peaceful society, parents, particularly in the Black community need to stop blaming "whitey" and take personal responsibility for how they raise their children. I am sure that this is the only way we will ever address these inequalities that we find between the Black community and everyone else. This argument also extends to the impoverished White, Latino, Asian (rare), and Native American communities. It's all in the parenting folks. And now last but not least the issue of government. When it comes to discussing government, often the discourse in this country is split along party lines. In other words, who can get their hands on the "One Ring To Rule Them All" so that they can force their will onto others. Most people here disagree with the idea that government is force. The argument I here almost every time is that government is a necessary evil in order to provision the equitable and just distribution of resources in society. People argue that for this reason, government has a legitimate monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. This argument sounds compelling from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but in terms of moral philosophy, it falls apart repeatedly and consistently. I could spend the rest of my life detailing the evils of government and why a voluntary and peaceful society based on free market Capitalism is clearly superior, but because I have already written and argued at length on this topic, I feel it is inappropriate for me to launch into it again here. This essay is long enough as it is! I will refer anyone interested for more information on Western philosophy and Capitalism to my Minds profile: @IsaacGage860 for more information or my Facebook profile if you can stand the memes. I would like to thank all who continue to take the time to read my essays. Although I may not receive direct feedback, I have the feeling that at this point I have reached most of you at some level. If not, then I quite literally have no idea what more I have to say in order to potentially proselytize you towards the Light side. In any case, thank you for all of the people still remaining who did not give up on me despite my errors in judgment and perhaps sometimes harsh tone. I would certainly not be the person I am today without input from all of you. I would also like to personally thank Stefan, Michael, and all who make Freedomain Radio possible. Had it not been for you guys and significant philosophical intervention, I may very well still be a cultural, and economic Marxist today. I am forever indebted to you. #TheWestIsTheBest ❤️

Hey ladies, you know what would make 3rd Wave Feminism useful? Maybe you could actually try focusing on the genuine rape culture coming out of Sub Sharan African and the Middle East. If I recall correctly, when 60 Minutes correspondent Laura Logan got sent to Egypt to cover the Arab Spring, she was gang raped by a horde of Muslims practicing Sharia. It would seem that perhaps there are bigger fish for feminism to fry elsewhere in the world at the moment. I don't know, genital mutilation and women being treated as second class citizens may be bigger existential threats to women's rights and NOT the West where women are pampered and comfortable beyond belief. Comfortable enough to sit in the cozy, air conditioned offices that MEN built so that you can take a slow steaming dump all over men as a whole. Now you don't have to listen to my advice but I would highly recommend it, that is of course if you bitches even care about women's rights at all. If not, by all means continue complaining about the "rape" culture in the U.S. and teaching Western men not to rape as if we need any kind of formal instruction. Maybe it's also time to start showing a smidgen of gratitude. Last I checked it was WESTERN men that fought along side women for their Suffrage. Western men are also responsible for the scientific method, freedom of association, Capitalism, the Protestant work ethic, freedom of religion which is pretty major, freedom of speech, and all the other wonderful rights and freedoms that so many take for granted today. If there are not men to guard the gates, you may find that Muslim invaders who are not particularly sympathetic to Western values, especially women's rights, will be flooding into your countries. And of course you are most likely going to go running to Western men to make the scary men go away. In order for that to happen, you damn well better start being grateful for all that men sacrifice and do. Or better yet we could avoid the situation all together and once again regain control of the borders of our countries. The simple reality is that you cannot have a Welfare state and unfettered immigration from the 3rd World at the same time without assimilation. The sub 70 IQ populations will simply inundate the social safety net of the countries they migrate to in the pursuit of "free" stuff. The men, who are the ones that bear most of the burden of taxes are going to be the ones paying for these free loaders and are going to have to forgo their retirements and benefits that they have been working their whole lives building up in order to appease your moral conscious for all of five seconds. Doesn't sound like a fair tradeoff for the men who give up quite a bit in order to have a family wouldn't you say? After all its women who control access to the precious scarce eggs, male sperm is much more numerous and therefore expendable. This is part of the reason why men are registered for the Draft and why women are not required by law to do so. I would love to see you try and whinge about the horribly oppressive patriarchy to Jihadists. Let me know how that works out for you. So TL;DR PSA to all 3rd feminist women: If you tell men that they are nothing more than patriarchal rapists and treat them like punching bags for your bitchy rants, the genuine rapists and patriarchs will show up and have their way with you. I don't think you want this to happen, so I believe an apology is in order. I and most other man eagerly await your sincerest apologies for treating us like shit and your promise to improve your behavior in the future. Sincerely, Cis-Gendered, Privileged Patriarchs At Large

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

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.

I'm going through a critical time in my maturity. I am 19 years old. I'm experiencing things I've never done before. I'm finding out how to interact with the world and what is appropriate. I found this show much earlier. I started listening when I was 16 years old. Iv'e listened to at least a 1000 shows by now. I am an anarchocapitalist, I am an atheist, I have no unchosen obligations, and I'm very happy with the people around me. Am I happier now? No, I'm more depressed. How should this be possible? I think I made a grave mistake... I have a bunch of different emotions running through my head. It's these emotions that reflect my desires, that is, the true self. Rather than accepting that I have no free will over these emotions, I tried to rationalise them using logic. I tried to justify my behaviour. Should I kiss her? Is that in line with monogamy? What should my career be? Is that in line with UPB? Can white lies be justified? Do I have a moral responsibility to inform others about philosophy? The list could keep going on... I believe what I have done is conflate morality with the true self. When Stefan speaks, it is kind of assumed that you are a functioning human being who knows what makes you happy. For example, if someone calls in with a very particular topic about something happening recently in their life, it's unlikely that they will delve into self-knowledge, because if that was the problem, then they would most likely bring that up. Topics such as, how many times a week should you have sex or is it okay to drink alcohol don't come up. These are, catagorically speaking, aesthetic questions, and only now do I realise that these aesthetics are completely uncontrollable and subject to the true self. Morality attempts to dissolve what impedes upon the true self, rather than justifying the true self. It is impossible to escape the true self. If you try to rationalise your behaviour, you will inevitably rationalise your emotions, and when you start rationalising your emotions you will fail because emotions aren't subject to being universal. So you will create these theories which will try to attempt to explain your behaviour and feel intuitive. For example, men make bigger risks in gambling when a woman who is on her period is standing next to them rather than a woman who is not on her period. This level of behaviour is far below anything the conscious mind can percieve. The man might justify his behaviour with these complex theories such as it is moral to bet more when a woman is nearby because it makes her feel good and that is an exchange of value, or some other weird theory like that. He won't ever understand why he really is behaving the way he is. (Please pay attention to this example, it summarises my whole points ^) I believe it's my wanting to justify my behaviour that lead me to this show in the first place. I have always been obssesed with philosophy. Albeit, it has not made me happier. I feel I am becoming more detached from my true self as these rationalisations start overwhelming my pure emotions. This insight into myself is huge. Please don't mistake this as a criticism of any sort. From an intellectual standpoint, I am grateful to learn what I have learned. Even if I have used philosophy to bury my true self, I know it is also a part of my true self and a part of my inquisitive nature. That part will stay with me, and I'm sure that it will prevent myself from coming in contact with toxic, manipulative people in the future. So what now? I have a number of big opportunities ahead of me. I believe these opportunities have actually driven me to come to this realisation about myself and write this post. A way of my unconscious mind sort of saying, "Hey, these decisions are important. Are you sure you know what you are doing?". Thanks, unconscious mind. I will go head first into these opportunities, and I will allow my emotions to guide me. I have learned that it is perfectly safe (and necessary) to do so as long as I follow my moral principles on a very strictly, moral level. Forget applying it to the aesthetics. I am very, very lucky meet the people I have met, and have the opportunities that I've been given. It should not be squandered. It is not a coincidence that I am where I am. It is not a coincidence that I have befriended the people I have befriended. It isn't a coincidence that I'm doing the course I am doing. My true self was nudging me the entire time and I have just made it a struggle for myself. This is how I know I am on the right path, and it's okay to let go.

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

Potential world changing post incoming. When it comes to race relations, a lot of people like to only ever consider their groups' race or creed and the plight they are experiencing. For the longest time that used to be me as well. As I grew up, even though I'm not white, I began to understand the struggles my fellow brothers and sisters in the pursuit of truth were going through on a daily basis. With this post I wish to shed some light on some misconceptions about slavery and America's if not the Western civilizations' history. If anyone out there who is Black still harbors grudges and resentment against white people for slavery in this country buckle in because you are about to get a history lesson. As it turns out slavery was a not a practice unique to America or the West in general. It was the British who first abolished the immoral institution in 1833: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/…/b…/rights/abolition.htmNot only was the West the first to abolish the practice, when it did unfortunately happen, the tradition of Protestant Revisionism allowed the people of the West to realize how evil slavery truly was and to reform their ideas and behavior.This is in stark contrast to say The Middle East slave trade where men and women were castrated in order to reduce their population numbers and keep them subservient. Overall, the slaves that did end up going to the West were treated far better than those who were unlucky enough to find themselves in Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. I don't see many if any American Africans traveling to the royal halls of the Saudi Prince to demand reparations from him. http://atlantablackstar.com/…/10-facts-about-the-arab-ensl…/This brings us to the present, where we have massive mobs of ungrateful, unruly African Americans who demand that the system be crushed and replaced. Replaced with what exactly? Socialism? I am certain we don't want to go down that road again given the preponderance of evidence showing Socialism's failures: https://www.aei.org/publication/why-socialism-always-fails/If you managed to stay with me this far what I have to say is this. Stop being unruly, disrespectful, hooligans and starting acting as if you possess an iota of dignity. Being an immigrant from Nairobi, Kenya it drives crazy to see how ungrateful and immature most Africans are when they are living like kings in the wealthiest nation ever to exist on the face of the earth populated by some of the most generous, patient, compassionate, loving, and peaceful people ever in human history. The idea that we as a group of people cannot coexist or even thrive with our less melanined fellow humans is a toxic idea that must be overcome. I like to think I and many others are living proof of this possibility. Love thy neighbor as one loves thy family and many of the "issues" we need to address vanish into thin air. Peace, love, and philosophy. #TheWestIsTheBest What do people think about this post? Did I get anything wrong? Was my analysis to brief?

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/

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.

To be a philosopher like Stefan, you would also have to concern yourself with things that are NOT universal because ONLY those kinds of things are actionable. Consider for example, I am an evil person so that the statement "Brian Dean is evil" is true. If "Brian Dean is evil" is universal, then I will always be evil. However, if "Brian Dean is evil" is not universal, then it's possible I could change. Thoughts?

This guy was listening to philosophy debates involving Deepak Chopra and decided he could make a bot to churn out the same stuff. Judge for yourselves! It's here on sebpearce.com any thoughts?

Hey FDR community! I am reaching out today because I am extremely interested in starting a small community of developers, hackers, technologists and futurists who share the same values. I think a community of highly intelligent, capable and passionate individuals - in both tech and freedom - would be awesome. Not only can we get to know each other and make friends with others who share the same interests; but we will also have the opportunity to talk about newest innovations, projects we ourselves are working on and even collaborate with others! Ultimately I would love to get to know you, get a chance to work with great people on cool, liberty-oriented, money-making, open source projects. Let me know! Slack link: technophilosophers.stamplayapp.com

Hello everyone! I wanted to let you guys know, that every saturday 20.00 CEST a skype call is hosted, for the purpose of getting european FDR listeners together and hanging out. It is called the Philosophy Europe Call! We are usually 3-5 people in the call, and we talk about everything we can think of. From economics to the insanity of statism, from philosphy to more personal/self-knowledge matters. I'd like to invite you to this call, if you want to connect with some people from FDR. And no, you don't have to call from europe, the rest of the world is welcome to call in as well (several weeks in a row, we have actually had 2 americans call in). To join the call, add the skype handle ''philosophy.euro.call'', and when it is 20.00 CEST, you just call that contact. We also have a Facebook page you can like, and a Facebook group you can joln. https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyEuropeCall?fref=ts the page https://www.facebook.com/groups/philosophyeurope/?fref=ts the group Hope you'll join us!

For years I have been posting my own commentary on current events on my personal FB wall. I used to share memes and links and videos and spam my own damn page. lol I stopped posting articles and links a few years ago and noticed something interesting. I would go to source pages like the FBI criminal stats and such and instead of linking the page, I would simply type out the data on my wall and add my own commentary my own words. Some of my posts are long or I post them as 'notes'. There are times I will even quote Stefan directly, especially if I know the person doesn't like him or think FDR is a cult. Then many times (it's amazing this has happened quite often), people will say, 'wow...that was well stated...where did you get that?" Then I will reveal that it's from FDR, Stefan, etc. They usually make some grieveance as to why they don't like FDR or whatever and then within a week or sometimes a month after I earned credibility with them I see them sharing Stefan's podcasts and Youtube videos! lol On my wall posts I sort of break the ice by titling my posts with things such as Warning: hug room not included or Popcorn Time... another long-winded rant by ***** (my name), etc. I noticed after I stopped posting links and articles (unless it's REALLY REALLY worthy and even then I add my own commentary), that people would start to engage...but not much. However I would get MUCH more response offline in private messages. People 'following' me who aren't necessarily my FB friends. people who are my friends but still afraid to go public with what they support etc. I can't tell you how many people thank me offline for simply providing additional information they otherwise would not have gotten through conventional sources. This past year I added another approach.... even though I get private messages of encouragement, it's not like a HUGE following so I sort of make myself appear bigger than I am (and mind you, this is my personal FB page...not a special interests page or politlical page). So, when a huge current event occurs (France attack, Orlando attack, etc) I typically wait a few days to respond....I do this anyway because I do get emotional about these things and I like to have facts before I post ANYTHING. Then, after the buzz online dies down and I have gathered my thoughts I write something like: "my heart goes out to...... I have a lot to say about this but need some time to get my emotions out of the way to share my logical assessment of the situation..." after a few days I will write something like: "Thanks for all the private messages from friends/family and followers who have been asking me my take on xyz event...." ".....I always like to take my time before posting my thoughts and usually do so in doses over the course of new information coming out...." "...so for now my thought is......xyz" etc I do this even if NO ONE private messaged me to ask for my thoughts. lol I tell you what, since I've been doing this I get FAR more engagement on my wall AND a ton more people are even sharing my posts of my 'long rants'., I don't curse or use hyperbole on my posts. I just make argument and list facts and site the source such as 'fbi crime stats' rather than link it. If it's politcally or current event related, I will set the post to 'public'. If it's my personal life and photos, I keep that only for friends, of course. That way it reaches more people who aren't your friends without revealing your entire personal life. This has also increased 'shares' and likes and that's the name of the game to get our arguments out there. I like the element that I'm just a regular gal...i'ts not a political or 'official' page of any special interest. It has provided many fruitful conversations than before when my page was simply tumbleweed and crickets but filled with links and media and memes! lol I like the 'notes' approach since they are archived and easily. I'm just sick of people being too damn scared to say things outloud and engage online for goodness sakes and I realized that if they feel like there are more people as afraid as them but at least admitting it offline (whether true in a given particular moment or not)....it brings them forward to engage, which is quite incredible and interesting. I rarely get people who attack me...even if they disagree I have had only one person in like 4 years get hostile and I simply wrote on the wall 'Can you tell me how many people you have convinced to your viewpoint by calling them a Nazi?" and after that they left my wall and deleted their comments. lol SATISFACTION!! BWHAA!! Occassionally I post my wall is a Freedom-of Speech friendly wall. I will never censor or delete comments or people. If you do not want to see my posts, either hide or select me off of your feed or block me. I ask that everyone keep it clean and civil but if you do not, your posts will only show as an example of your method and whether or not it's effective as I am not here to spend time deleting offensive material on my wall unless it's gory/bloody or pornographic. Make your arguments in words...not photos. This seems to disarm the trolls before they even consider engaging on my page, which saves time and frustration. If anyone tries this approach, do you mind reporting back to let us know if it works for you or not or share your experience? I hope it works for you!!

http://www.gafreeman.net/

It is common knowledge that many people in America are dissatisfied with the candidates nominated by our two-party system. The rift between the two sides, Republican, and Democrat has grown in recent years and divides us still. I look abroad at Germany and the United Kingdom at their Multi-Party systems and speculate on what that would look like here. For instance, Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic Nomination, but because of the rigged system of the Democratic Primary, Super Delegates are chosen to ensure the nomination of the powerful, not of the people. If we were a nation of reason then the Independent voters who are the majority of them as it happens, would have their own candidate Mr. Sanders, and the Libertarians would have theirs, and so fourth. Is this concept unfair? I merely suggest that as a Republic our two-party system is failing to bring fourth a acceptable candidate for the seat of ultimate power in our country. If we were truly to embrace the mantle of a Global power, then we would accept a Multi-Party system to show tolerance and evolution in our political structure. Our states would grow stronger and more independent, and our country would strengthen beside them. If we claim to be a bastion of Democracy than we should listen closely to the majority, whether we agree is not the issue. It is upon the mantle of the elected to be voices for the people they represent, personal agendas are in themselves corruption.

To say that somebody is talking to much is just another way of saying somebody isn't asking enough questions. For more great content go to: selfknowledgedaily.com

On many occasions I have heard Stefan propose the following standard for social interactions: "Treat someone the best you can when you first meet them, after that treat them how they treat you." (or some variation of that) But I'm not sure that this is the best strategy for a person who is trying to affect positive change in the world... and I don't think it often reflects Stefan's observable approach. Perhaps I just don't understand what he is suggesting in practice. And there are specifics that probably need clarification. For instance, I'm not sure how much effort or time constitutes "the first time" you meet someone. It seems to me you would want to account for the fact that sometimes people are just having a bad day, and they need some space or some help getting through whatever is influencing their negative behavior at the time. A kind word or a thoughtful gesture can often influence the other person's behavior in a more positive direction. And even if someone is exhibiting offensive behavior (which cannot be partly explained by unusual circumstances), is the best response to mirror back their own offensive behavior? Doesn't that just tend to make an already deteriorating situation worse? Rather than allowing the negativity to determine the outcome, couldn't we be more effective at spreading truth and virtue by taking the "high road" so to speak? I've heard Stefan do this many times in his call in shows. There are times when a caller will act rather abrasively towards him. And while Stefan doesn't tolerate this behavior (he usually calls it out) he also does not typically respond with the same negative approach. And often he will succeed in bringing the entire conversation to a higher and more respectable level where true principles at least have a chance of being heard and accepted. I think the impetus for Stef's recommendation is an understandable desire for protection from potential abusers. But treating others kindly or with civility does not mean that you need to accept abuse. It is a false dichotomy to say that you can either treat offensive people how they treat you or else you must accept their abuse. If we want to lift people to a higher level of being, I think the golden rule (for all interactions--not only the initial encounter) is a much better standard to follow.

If you read the post, like the idea, live near Richmond VA, but don't have a forum account, feel free to reach out to me via Facebook! I'd like to hear your feedback and ideas. Hello, folks! I'm greatly interested in starting a Freedomain Radio / Philosophy meetup group. I've already worked to advertise and manage an online Skype group called the "Young Philosophers" for teens and twenty-somethings of the FDR community to connect with like minded individuals around the world. I've greatly enjoyed the experiences, conversations, and relationships I've fostered and maintained there for almost a year now, but I'd love to expand that into physical reality. If you're a curious, empathetic, and intelligent lover of ideas and seek genuine connection as I do, I want to facilitate that. Today I ask if you live within driving distance of the Richmond tri-cities area, would you like to help me start a Freedomain Radio / Philosophy meetup group? I'm 20 years old, and have a friend who is turning 21 soon who expressed that he'd be interested too if there's support for the idea! I invite men and women of all ages to participate - it'd be an awesome opportunity to connect and network regardless of age differences, offering and reciprocating value for value! Please do let me know if this is of interest to you! I'd be willing to expend the time, planning, and resources necessary to make it a reality. I look forward to your responses, Nick

Hello, folks! Today, I'm making a firm decision to dedicate the entire month of March to re-assessing the direction I wish to take my life, defining what I want in my relationships, and re-assessing my belief system from the ground up to address areas where I am inconsistent. The idea to embark on this project came about as a result of some key realizations I've come to in journaling extensively over the past several days. -- Firstly, I've realized that I am trying to seek love in finding a new partner without first truly loving myself through and through. I wanted to be loved first (and give love later), but neither can be truly sustained according to traditional wisdom without first establishing self-love. I'm a fundamentally good person, but I've made mistakes long in my past which cause a deep sense of self-doubt and reluctance in accepting that I am worthy of a virtue-based romantic relationship.. It was mind-blowing to realize this, but I think it's a crucial first step in the solving of any problem to first identify that it exists. I am perhaps most eager to tackle this issue in therapy and whatever means you're aware of which are useful for establishing genuine self-love and respect would be greatly appreciated. Secondly, I've realized that I've put the cart before the horse regarding my online business, creating loads of valuable content at an unprecedented pace without first realizing that I am a complete beginner without a sound grasp of the fundamentals of what it takes to run a successful online business. I've been operating based upon past experience, intuition, and what little knowledge I've picked up from conversations, books, and podcasts. Some things I'll be pondering deeply are: which social media platforms are most relevant to my niche, how to conduct myself on social media, learning the fundamentals of blogging and article creation, the fundamentals of running a successful eCommerce store, and so on. I've steamed ahead at full speed prior to studying the proper ways to accomplish my goals; this means I will likely have to unlearn many bad habits and fix many problems I've created for myself. Third, I've realized that I'm completely taking the philosophical arguments of Stefan Molyneux at face value without healthy skepticism and research into alternative explanations or rebuttals. (surely I'm not alone... right?) I've gained a sense of intellectual comfort in "knowing" that the Non-Agression Principle is valid, that UPB is valid, that there's such a thing as Property Rights, and that there's no God. Regardless of the validity or truth in the conclusions I have in my mind, I've become aware that I've arrived at them through a critical methodological error: I outsourced my own thinking to the thinking of another man. I've never fully read the source materials from the original proponents of these concepts and critically analyzed them. Instead, I listened to someone who "did the job for me", and accepted his explanations as truth. This is clearly not a healthy way to arrive at any conclusion; I've decided I'm going to have the intellectual integrity to do my own reading and arrive at my own conclusions. -- Frankly, it's not fun to realize all of this in the span of less than a week. I've put about half of my eggs into the basket of my business, and need to be successful in that venture in order to sustain myself. However, I can't seem to focus much at all on business with the shift in consciousness I've experienced due to these key realizations. I liken this to a mild existential crisis, and I'm ready to face the challenges ahead of me no matter the cost. I feel sincerely that my life is accelerating and that I must rise to the challenge; it's exciting and intimidating at the same time! I have found that the community here is full of good-willed, intelligent, and experienced individuals with a willingness to offer valuable perspective to help others. Perhaps some of you have experienced something similar, and can offer some advice on what helped you through the struggle of an existential crisis where your gravest errors in thought and plan were made apparent to you. Maybe you know a couple of good books on the subject of introductory metaphysics and epistemology, and you'd like to share those. Heck, even if you've got an interesting article to share that you think could help myself or others, please share it! No matter what advice, perspective, or resources you offer, I'll sincerely appreciate them! I'm looking forward greatly to engaging you all in conversation .

Where: Panera Bread Address: 10751 Westview Pkwy, San Diego, CA 92126 When: 7:00 PM Date: February 24, 2016 Day: Wednesday Let's meet one another and talk philosophy! It's always a pleasure to meet like-minded individuals in San Diego. I'll update this thread with my phone number in the days before the meetup. You can also private message me here if you want to know my contact number in advance. Get Directions Here

People say "I'm a social democrat" or "I'm a libertarian". This creates an unnecessary difference where both may be just mindless robots... But seriously, that says nothing about their quality of reasoning or method of getting to our position. For us, any mental position is secondary to reasoning things carefully and comparing them to evidence. Also, many of us have a long history of learning, refining or rejecting our previous beliefs, so that it has become almost a habit. Some of us even have a dose of healthy masochism that drives us to examine exactly opposite "beliefs" to what we "believe" in. That is what defines us, not our momentary position. Please note that this is very different to Stef's benevolent turn of mind towards Christians, the sources of social stability and not killing unbelievers. His newfound tolerance is based on similarity of conclusions and has its merits. But I wonder if there is also merit to identifying ourselves as seasoned, methodical developers of our worldviews. Because there sure seems little benefit to identifying ourselves by the labels of positions. But there are downsides to this as well. This kind of defining ourselves seems extremely boastful, over-intellectualized, and even though it's true, it may put people to shame unnecessarily. I don't know how people feel about this. It's true that I used to have resistance to certain ideas - I come from the leftist/transhumanist/ anarchist side after all. It took me a few years to understand what libertarianism is about. I've seen that Ayn Rand's philosophy is valid, obviously taken from Aristotle, but I didn't see how it jibes with her other ideas and I succumbed to many popular prejudices against her. But I've also reasoned my position on woo woo & metaphysics well enough to defend them in front of scientific skeptics & atheists. I've learned a lot and rejected what wasn't true (not everything, I've had some valid reasons for my position). Very few people would ever do that. So far, I've usually tried to say that I understand people's position, that I used to hold it as well, but it was long ago. I don't remember so well how it was like to be a democratic socialist and I'd like to remind myself what was it like. Knowing things as end conclusions isn't very useful. What is useful is being able to put ourselves into the old mindset and have empathy with misinformed and propagandized people, who truly believe that we really would occupy the stereotypical straw man anarchist/libertarian position of selfishness.

Hey guys, I have a blog on Wordpress called vforvoluntary which matches my profile name. It covers a wide variety of issues related to politics, economics, philosophy, etc. Check it out if you want and share it with your friends. I would particularly recommend reading The State: The Opiate of the Masses and The Non-Aggression Principle: A Principle So Crazy You Probably Live By It as they capsulize anarcho-capitalist views in general. I am also working on a blog post that will explain how an anarcho-capitalist society could work. Check it out using the link below: https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/

Hey, I was discussing punishment and morality in Ancap society with my buddy. We begun to wonder whether it is ALWAYS immoral to initiate force against another individual. For example, if a person commits theft/murder/rape/assault, is it wrong to initiate force against that person after they have finished committing the act of aggression (I understand that if someone steals from you, you have every right to take that thing back, even if it involves force). If someone murders a member of my family is it immoral to seek retribution in form of initiating force against that person? I think that a lot of people would want to initiate force against that person under such circumstances, I think it's not entirely unexpected reaction, but is such thinking/emotional response compatible with Ancap philosophy or is such a person not considered an Anarcho-Capitalist? In summary: Is it always immoral to initiate force against another individual? Are there any exceptions? Can a person who wants or does initiate force against another individual still be considered an Anarcho-Capitalist, or is that incompatible with Ancap philosophy? Also, I want to throw one more question: Is punishment in Ancap society delivered only in form of social/economic ostracism as well as voluntary 'labour'?