Search the Community

Hi all I've become a big fan of Stefan's podcasts over the past 6-12 months. He, along with other prominent thinkers, has opened my eyes to powerful ways of viewing the world. I've attempting to start contributing some ideas of my own. I feel like I am merely pulling ideas of intellectual 'giants', but it has been fun nonetheless. I've been doing this primarily on the blockchain blogging site steemit.com. It's a great concept and I recommend supporting the platform. My latest piece on there is titled 'The Case for Freedom - Welfare Edition' Feel free to check it out Cheers Ryan

]Metpaoltical work...fr members here about convicne others ab Question about the community W the possibiltiy of a small mocment ith Family members.... They tend to not be very brithg with regards to of laws.... They woudl have been basically RINOs had and his brother telling them to vote for Trump last year (I am using the term year a bit losley thoug... 1 year and three or so months ) A way to help people (and by this I mean only loved ones, friends, and itnitmate, not strangers) realize that the "elephant" of Law has no clothes (white elephant, elephant in the room, emperor with no clothes... I mixd them all together apparently) People who live their live honestly believing for because they don't know any better... .. The legalism is written too deeply into their to see the freedom Ala the "Philosophy of Freedom", minus all of his Insane New-Age woo Garbage. they are only interest in the benefit towards their own group... Of a PSubset of Libertartianism..... I hav ebeen trying to contact distant Friends as well as former contacts of a certain organization, abotu the psosibiltiy. I fear that their may make them immune to .......the others tend to be insanely liberla about many thigns, but they sense abo

I'm currently in a hurry to get to work, and so I don't have the time to write this out as planned. Sitll I woud like to know if (and how long) this can stay up share their opinions. Thank you everyone.

When you’re in the watchtower of a ship and you see the ship is about to collide into an iceberg, warning the pilot about the incoming collision becomes top priority. If the building you’re in is on fire, the fire and the means of extinguishing the flame or escaping the building tends to take priority over other topics. In situations of great emergency, people’s priorities shift so that responding appropriately to that emergency becomes top priority. In situations of great emergency it is essential that those who are committed to fighting the great moral ills of the world also prioritize their focus rationally. If you are a doctor in a plague, you don’t want to step over the guy suffering from a flesh wound to attend to the person who only has a hang nail. Right now we are in a situation of great emergency not much different from the emergency the British faced in June. There is a fork in the road ahead to which we draw nearer and nearer to everyday. The paths up ahead lead to two separate destinations that couldn’t be further apart from one another. The path on the left leads to a world of doom. The path on the right leads to a world of possibility. The world of doom is the world we shall live in should Hillary Clinton — one of the most physically ill, mentally unstable, corrupt and wicked politicians of all time — be elected president. Hillary has made it clear that she will do to the United States what Angela Merkel has done to Germany. This means that Hillary Clinton will gradually transform the United States into a third world country by indiscriminately importing third worlders along with their anti-western cultures. In this world, the real threat of a nuclear war with Russia looms larger than it ever has. In this world, the West will fall. The world of possibility is the world we will live in should Donald Trump — a candidate that is unprecedented in the history of politics —become the next president of the United States. In this world, there is the possibility of preserving the West. In this world, we will be in a situation not much different from the situation of hope the British found themselves in after the EU referendum. Yet, there are those who have for months insisted that these two paths are equivalent, that there is no emergency, that it doesn’t matter which road we take, and that the people have chosen to focus on the emergencies which threatens the West have “lost their way.” In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who like to negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election. If we discuss the facts which show the dangers of importing millions of Islamic migrants into the First World, they are quick to remind us of the “big picture”, which is that the immigration is a symptom of the welfare state. If we talk about the facts which show how the media slanders Donald Trump, we are reminded of the “big picture”, which is that nobody should be president and that the state is an agency of violence. If we express a desire to vote with the hope of better conditions in a state of nature under coercion, they tell us we are the ones with the gun who wish to impose our will on millions of people. If we talk about the importance of preserving the West, we are then reminded how much more important it is to talk about peaceful parenting. They tell us that we are merely distracting ourselves with politics and swapping consistency for pragmatism, while they are the ones truly adhering to principles. They are fools. And the degree to which these people are overeager to boast about their “consistency” is the degree to which they have been consumed by arrogance. The people who bemoan Stef and other’s decision to focus on that which threatens the West as of late and then beam out these distress signals calling for a “return to form” simply aren’t listening. I am voting for Donald Trump to preserve the West. Preserving the West means preserving the progress Europeans have made in improving the relationship between parents and children for the past 150 years since Rousseau, which is absolutely necessary to bring a peaceful society. Mass immigration under Hillary Clinton will displace the most child friendly culture the world has ever produced with the child hostile cultures of the 3rd world. Displacing a high IQ population that adheres to Western values with a low IQ population that adheres to a culture which is antithetical to everything the West holds dear — and then expecting that ideas of personal and political liberty will take root and bloom just as well as they would within the high IQ population — is like replacing your flower garden’s rich soil with cement and then expecting that you’ll be able to grow daffodils and lilies just as well. You need a certain cultural soil for these ideas to have a chance at taking root. Thus, it’s perfectly consistent with the goal of getting to a free society through peaceful parenting to fight back against those who wish to destroy the West. It is not those of us who accept this reality who have abandoned our principles, but rather it is the grandiose anarchists and libertarians that constantly undermine and negate our efforts who have abandoned humility, who have abandoned curiosity, who have abandoned empiricism, who have abandoned empathy, and who have abandoned the West. As a consequence of choosing to selfishly indulge in their own cynicism at a time when the West needed defending the most, they will have have abandoned the cause of bringing the world towards a more free society founded upon the sturdy foundation that is peaceful parenting. They are in no position to lecture. Find more of my writing on Medium

Stefan, I suggest that this subject cries for a video. Alex Jones and others recently published videos of Johnson that are, shall we say, compromising. He objects to the term 'illegal alien' and defends dreamers. His VP pick has called for strict gun control. One of my grabber friends now supports Johnson. This is a Libertarian ticket? Help us out here, Stef. WTF happened to Gary when he dropped trow? Did Shrillary clamp a remote control device onto his gonads, or what?

Stefan, You want to engage with people... I'm telling you, you can engage with people BETTER!!! 1) Put ads on your videos 2) Film your videos in an actual set. Don't put a blank, white, wall and your handsome face as the only thing I am seeing. 3) Get decent lighting. These are things that I am demanding as a subscriber of over 6 years! If you want to spread your message, stop creating crap for people to watch (no criticism here regarding the substantive message) and start generating revenue so that you can increase your viewership. Get real!!! My preferential suggestions: 1) Paint your wall a bold color. 2) Adjust lighting so it illuminates one side of your face more than the other. 3) Put framed pictures of philosophers who influenced your life on the wall behind you. 4) Use studio lights to illuminate those pictures exclusively while keeping the painted wall in shadow. 5) Place the camera so the pictures behind you are slightly out of focus but still recognizable while your head and shoulders are perfectly in focus. 6) Put a sofa with some pillows in the background, under the framed pictures, in order to demonstrate that your channel is a place of comfort for your viewers. 7) Use rope light behind the couch to illuminate the frame of the sofa so that it is easily visible for your audience. These changes will dramatically increase your number of subscribers. PUT ADS ON YOUR VIDEOS TO FUND THIS!!!!!!!!!

Hey there everyone! I just found this guys: AnCap music with ancap hoodies. If philosophy makes it into the mainstream arts we might have a chance in the "short" run. Any other cool libertarian musicians you know of?

I have just woken up to a really fascinating dream and I think there's potentially a lot to it. There's a lot of interesting elements that complete it as it delves into the nature of political power. Perhaps people can help me about what it means? I had woken up when the sun was out and had a dream about losing my bag with my phone at a market with my school mates before this dream. I fell back asleep. I was sitting on the first row of white pews for the lack of a better word, similar to the rows of seats you would see at a stadium but not as many seats and they weren't retractable. Only about 4 rows or so each towering above the one in front. We were inside a massive hall so big that the roof seemed non-existent. The place was completely lit up except for the details of the halls architecture as it was unimportant. I didn't care for the source of light. I was with my high school class peers but I distinctly remember only two being of my class friends being present (I am finishing year 12 right now and we have finished our last classes so I won't be seeing them at school ever again except for the one friend who I talk to in the dream when we do our chemistry exam). We were wearing casual clothes. I think I was wearing shorts. Opposite of the pews was another set of pews facing towards us. Between us laid a 10 metre wide green carpet than ran down the lane of pews to somewhere which I had not seen. In those pews were famous names. Right opposite of me was the royal family. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Phillip, etc. I assume Kate Middleton was there too. Next to them further down were politicians, intellectuals and powerful men. They all had light colourful clothes. Light blue shirts, light green shirts, etc. The men wore trousers. Some of them were making a fuss and having conversations but the royal family were silent and unified. We were located in some place in Melbourne, Australia which is my home city. Someone was making an announcement into a microphone at the end of the carpet which I never glanced towards. I didn't hear exactly what they were speaking about but I knew to stand up as everyone else was. There was slow patriotic music playing over the speaker. Everyone held their heart with their right hand and took a bow then made a flourishing gesture with both hands. I played along to fit in but I had no idea what we were making allegiance to. To me it didn't exist and it felt a little uncomfortable. We sat back down and I looked right down the pews and saw Ronald Reagan standing up making a fuss. A minute or two later my class stood up because we were about to leave the hall. My friend stood beside me and I mentioned the famous people and said, "You know, I know the names of all those people who were sitting opposite to us". He was bewildered and said "Oh reallllly?". It seemed to me that he had no idea who any one of those people were, even the queen! Then I left the hall and saw my other friend running around the place but I had no conversation with him. There were no girls, It's an all boys school. I exited the hall through the mist of the crowd not paying attention to any faces and walked to the outside to the side of the hall where there was a simple concrete building with glass panels that ran down one side above the waist and a glass door next to those glass panels. I entered inside and inside was a lounge. Simply a square room with a round table with chairs in the middle slightly off to the top right corner and I assume there was a coffee maker and snacks on the other table in the corner. There were also black couches for leisure. The room was pretty busy, many people were having conversations. In the room were many of the famous people whom were mostly chatting with us mortals having interviews and so forth. The atmosphere was very casual but busy. I entered and looked around eagerly. To my left was a couch a metre away from the wall with the glass panels and it was left to the door facing roughly towards the centre of the room. On it was an unoccupied black man (I'm european) turned away from me sitting on one of the cushions closest to me. He wore a fine business suit. I walked around and glimpsed at him and looked at the clip board which had the name "BEN CARSON" and it had extra sheets of paper for writing. I didn't need it, I put it on the other cushion and sat down next to him. I said "Hey! Ben Carson?". He smiled and calmly said "Hello". He spoke very calmly and clearly throughout. I asked him how his career was going to grease up the wheels. I can't remember exactly what he said as it was of little importance to me. We then went on and then came the moment. I said, "What do you think about libertarianism, you know neoliberalism. I know it's rather popular in the United States". He said, "Well, what does it have to do with politics?". It sounded to me that he was asserting that we need a robust political system to keep integrity and that libertarianism is loosey goosey and could never be established. Perhaps that's not what he really meant. Perhaps he was saying that all he cares about is power so he does what he can to attain power. I too was assertive. I closed my eyes in concentration and said, "Politics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the way that human behaviour is organised. Libertarian theory simply is that human behaviour is organised such that all relations are voluntary". I gulped on that last word. During the time I had said that I was trying to keep my eyes open but I just couldn't open them. I forced them open with my fingers but they only stayed open for a second and I made no eye contact with him during these two sentences. After I had said that my eyes opened and a girl about the same age as me (18) sat down on the other cushion so now all the cushions were occupied and I was in the middle. Ben Carson went on talking but I was distracted because the girl was pushing on my legs and sat strangely close. I never made eye contact with her. I saw Ben leaving with a friendly expression on his face that I should follow him so I did follow him and left the girl to sit alone. I followed Ben outside and he then turned to me and made a joke. I couldn't register it but he mentioned "Atlas Shagged" at the end and so we both laughed. We walked side by side and I mentioned Atlas Shrugged and told him it's a book he MUST read and that it is pinnacle to libertarianism. I said this despite never reading the book myself but I knew it was the most popular of Ayn Rand's books. I had just read some of The Fountainhead. We walked down the main street which I was familiar with. The sun was setting, it was about 7pm. The sky was turning orange and the restaurants had their fire lamps on. He mumbled "What are we going to do?" and I said "don't worry, we will be best friends". We both laughed. I took out a skate board. The footpaths were empty so he pushed me while I was on my skate board and I went super fast. Faster than I could go just by pushing with my legs. I stopped and skated back towards him. I only saw one pedestrian. At first I thought it was my friend whom I had not spoken to but as I got closer and he got closer I realised it was a short, skinny brown guy with dreadlocks. His eyes were wide open and he wore a colourful singlet. He pace was fast and he had an abnormal walk. It wasn't aggressive but just abnormal. He walked past us. I skated back and forth a couple times and then we passed an small anglican church that was amongst the shops and restaurants. He said "hold on" and I saw him enter the church assuming he's going in for the prayer. I waited patiently outside. Then I woke up. So I thought this dream was really fascinating as it delved into the nature of a politician and it had a little to do about me as well. I think what he said about libertarianism is very interesting. It is to do with fatherlessness? What do you think about it?

I wrote a rebuttal to Austin Petersen's, editor for The Libertarian Republic, "5 Reasons I'm not an Anarchist." <http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/5-reasons-why-im-not-an-anarchist/> I tried to contact him with the rebuttal and have him publish it on his own site but obviously that was a long shot. I'm pursuing a career in writing and would love some input on it. Below is my rebuttal: “5 Reasons I’m Not An Anarchist” by Austin Petersen-Rebutted I stumbled onto this article which evoked a sense of curiosity in me. I have been a Libertarian since I started to form my own political beliefs. This quickly led to advocate Minarchism, the belief in a minimal state. I saw government as a “necessary evil” as Thomas Paine famously asserted. When I discovered Voluntarism, the belief that all human interactions should be voluntary and noncoercive, I realized the only way people can have freedom is when we abolish The State. It became apparent that the problem with contemporary Libertarianism is that they’re not willing to fully implement their morality. We cannot have freedom if the advocates of freedom are willing to compromise. Voluntarists are the consistent, honest, and fully practicing advocates of freedom. Voluntarists are the only people on earth who will never say, “I believe in freedom but, ….”. For years, pressure, propaganda, and ostracism was likely what held me back. Perhaps it was the sense of betrayal it made me feel. As a former U.S. Marine I, up until quite recently had an extremely hard time viewing the American Government, especially in regards to foreign policy, from an objective perspective. But, no emotional discomfort or desire for conformity can change the facts of reality. There is no good reason not to be an anarchist, unless you want to impose your will on others through the use or threat of force. I opened this article with high hopes, I have heard some very good arguments and questions about how a society free from government could organize themselves. Unfortunately, the arguments I found seem to originate from someone who has never dispatched any real sort of intellectual vigor to the subject. This is a normal reaction to the idea, when introduced to the notion that every Pledge of Allegiance, “Supporting the Troops” campaign, or assertion of the virtue of democracy is an outright lie, it is not surprising that this would evoke negative emotions in one’s mind. This is a blatantly obvious reaction seen in the author’s opening paragraph. He begins his writing by insulting anarchists, claiming they have “(a) complete misunderstanding of the basics of force, fraud, life, liberty, or property.”, but as I will show you below, it is the Minarchists who lack any sort of knowledge on the above stated subjects. The first reason listed for a minimal-state as opposed to no state is “Rights are Guarantees”. If the author’s statement was in any way resembling the truth, we would never have our rights violated. If rights were guarantees, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, kidnapping and imprisoning over 100,000 Americans for being of Japanese descent would’ve never been carried out. If rights were guarantees, The Patriot Act would’ve never been signed into law. Obviously, the Constitution is exceedingly inadequate at protecting people’s rights. It took only 10 years after the Constitution was ratified for The Alien and Sedition Act to be passed in 1798. This law which threatened fines and imprisonment against those who spoke out against the government was clearly a violation of the First Amendment that supposedly “guaranteed” rights to the citizens. Clearly, rights are not guarantees, but privileges that can be taken at the stroke of the pen of a politician. He also mentions the right to a lawyer being inalienable, something one is entitled to as an American citizen. But as seen in the case with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year-old U.S. citizen who was murdered by drone strike in Yemen while attempting to visit family. Abdulrahman had no trial, no lawyer, and no due process. Any idea that these are natural rights guaranteed to us by our all virtuous government is simply a fabrication and wishful thinking. The “rights” afforded to American citizens are not rights at all and to think that an organization of people can protect said “rights” when it is built on the foundation of violating property rights through taxation is laughable at best. In his second reasoning, the author asserts that “An anarchic society is unable to protect it’s citizens from foreign invasion”. This is a completely legitimate concern, and one that causes alarm in the mind of any anarchist. What type of person would fight for a free society only to be overrun by a potentially more oppressive government? Anarchists are not against a military force by any means whatsoever, we just recognize that funding one through taxation is a violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP). We are also aware that government often produces less than optimum results for the money. The best way to have an efficient defense would be to have competing agencies attempting to provide the best service for the lowest price, a free market for defense. Being that these competing agencies would have to offer the lowest price, they could not afford to be on the other side of the world creating all sorts of unforeseen consequences all too common with the status quo. An obvious rejection to private defense agencies is that they could grow too large and inevitably become another government. Even if we accept the premise that a private defense agency could potentially become a government, why is that a good reason to reject the idea? If you’re diagnosed with cancer and upon the offer of treatment your doctor tells you that the cancer could one day come back, would that be a reason to not remove the cancerous cells? Of course this would be a silly rejection to remove the entity causing you harm, just as the fear of defense agencies one day becoming governments is no reason not to abolish the current system. In the free market, if potential customers of the defense agencies were worried about this happening, which any intelligent customer would, they simply wouldn’t buy the service. Private defense agencies would have to somehow guarantee to their customers that they wouldn’t start oppressing them. In contractual agreements, consumers could stipulate that the defense agency would have to keep precise records of exactly how many guns, soldiers, ammunition, etc. they had in their warehouses and allow for it to be audited at any time by a 3rd party entity. In the contract, the defense agency could be required to hold an extremely high amount of money in escrow to be paid to their customers if at any point the 3rd party auditors found that they had 1 more bullet than they disclosed. If that wasn’t enough for you, then you wouldn’t have to buy their services and you could take your money to a competitor that did offer you terms that eased your fears. At the end of the day, defense from invading forces is a vitally important requirement to a secure and peaceful society but it being so important is exactly why we cannot allow it to be monopolized by our “world police” that always seems so keen on perpetual war in foreign lands. Libertarians generally agree that government is horribly inefficient at completing assigned tasks like controlling drug use, reducing poverty, and providing health care. If you recognize the inability of government to do these tasks, why would one assume that government is the only entity responsible enough to have a monopoly on defense? “Anarchy means the non-aggression principle is optional” is listed as the author’s third reason why anarchy cannot work. I would object to the idea that in order to prevent people from violating the NAP we need a government that operates by violating the NAP on everyone in a geographical area. This, at the most basic level is a logical contradiction. An equivalent idea would resemble hiring a security agency to protect your home from theft whom, in order to provide said service, will steal up to 40% of your income for something to benefit you and all other “customers”. The best part about their service is that you can never opt out, you’ll have their security for life. Obviously no one would agree to this service so the only way to have others participate in the service would be to impose it on them. If when faced with the problem of people not abiding by the NAP, the only solution you can devise is to violate the NAP unilaterally, your proposed “solutions” to complex social problems shouldn’t be taken seriously. Government’s fund themselves through taxation and taxation is theft. It does not matter how “necessary” the taxation is to set up society, taxation still is, and will always remain theft. You cannot advocate the defense of the NAP by violating it. This would be analogous to an Abolitionist in the 19th century, enslaving blacks to help organize his rallies and protests. To an observer with any sort of integrity, it would be blatantly obvious that the said Abolitionist didn’t really care about emancipation, but some twisted and logically inconsistent ideology of his own. In the author’s fourth reason for the rejection of an anarchistic society he continues on the problem of others violating the NAP stating, “The Non-Aggression Principle, I didn’t sign Sh*t!” At this point, the author asserts that the NAP is a “social contract”. This is completely false. The NAP is a not a social contract by any means, it is simply a principle that we apply to our lives. It is by no means forced on you, just as the principle known as “Don’t rape” is not forced on you. But the “social contract” in regards to the existence of government, is forced on you. If you deny or want to opt out, you must leave your own property or face the use of force. If you want to leave, you can only do so after paying thousands of dollars and spending years trying to revoke your citizenship; and then you still won’t be free, just under the rule of another government that operates similarly by violating the NAP. Social contracts are invalid. A contract requires explicit consent, while able-minded, and lacking coercion or the threat of force. This social contract in regards to a government is imposed on you, as a result of the geography of your birth. Nothing changes the fact that no one has the right to impose their products or services on others without expressed consent, and being born somewhere is not consent. Just like a mafia has no right to come into my business and demand protection money, the state has no right to come onto my property and demand taxation. Whenever you hear someone mention a social contract, prepare yourself, they’re probably about to suggest using force against you in order to facilitate what they think is the best solution to a problem. If they truly had good reasons for whatever they’re advocating the government should do, they wouldn’t have to force others to fund it and participate in it. I cannot go to my neighbor and say they owe me 20%, or any amount, of their income to help fund things I deem necessary. I cannot round up everyone in my neighborhood, then go to my neighbor and declare he owes a percentage of his income. If I, or even a group of people, doesn’t have the right to impose their will on others, why does the government? I would argue that the government can’t justly behave in this manner; I cannot delegate a right I do not have to someone else, even if I give it the veil of the “social contract”. He continues to describe how people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Kim Jung-un wouldn’t abide by the NAP because they didn’t agree to it. The author claims that anarchists believe “someone pointing a gun at you is not a crime.” This is simply a ludicrous generalization and oversimplification of what the NAP actually means. If a mugger points a gun at me and tells me to give him my wallet, he is violating the NAP; just as the state is when they threaten me with kidnapping and imprisonment if I don’t pay my taxes. The NAP not only applies to the actual use of force, but the threat of force as well. The NAP also does not prohibit self-defense in any way shape or form. A proposed “failure” of the NAP is described as Kim Jong-un pointing a nuclear weapon at Los Angeles. What the author glosses over is the events that led to the maniacal dictator deciding to point said weapon at Los Angeles. It is not because he thinks Los Angeles is a cesspool of human evil or because good ol’ Kim doesn’t like an individual that lives there, it’s because the United States Government and the North Korean Government don’t get along. Wars are never between the people of two or more nations, but between the opposing governments. This by no means is suggesting the Kim is a good guy, or is in any way shape or form justified for his horrific behavior but, without the United States Government, the North Korean dictator wouldn’t be pointing a weapon at Los Angeles in the first place and many other countries would lack the excessive amount of loathing for our country. In a stateless society, no lunatic with a nuclear weapon would have any reason for aiming his arsenal at a community of peaceful individuals, minding their own business from thousands of miles away. If through some perfect alignment of the stars a homicidal madman was threatening a stateless society with annihilation; surely this society would first try to find a non-aggressive means to de escalating the situation. If all peaceful solutions could not alleviate the tensions then this free society could hire someone to defend them, or even defend themselves. Again, what the author seems to propose is that the only possible way to resolve such an issue is to set an organization that has the monopoly on the use of force. This is the most common logical fallacy in the world. Just because you lack the creativity to peacefully solve a complex problem doesn’t mean the only solution is The State. Next the author does bring up legitimate concerns regarding the intricacies of when and where pre-emptive force may be used and to what degree. There is no objective way to define how much force can be used in retaliation. If a woman is raped and sees her assailant the next day, is she justified in killing him? I don’t know. But, would she be justified in killing him to stop the rape while it was in progress? I would say yes, as I’m sure most people would. What about 30 seconds after the rape? Anyone who has explored ethics has been tortured by these impossible to answer questions. Every situation is going to be different. But yet again, this is exactly why we can’t have a government in charge of this. The matter is infinitely complex. There is no organizational tool that we can sort every possible scenario into. We need competing ideas working to deliver the best possible implementation of justice in a society, not a monopolistic government. To continue, in a stateless society, prevention would be key to developing the positive results we wish to see manifest in our society. While deciding how to properly administer justice to a rapist would be very important, a stateless society would focus just as much, if not more, on how to prevent the crime from ever occurring in the first place. Similarly, treating people for lung cancer is noble and needed for health, but a real solution to the occurrence of lung cancer cases is to stop people from smoking cigarettes in the first place. I would implore one to explore what in people’s past contributes to their disgusting and animalistic desire of rape. We can never take a crime away from a victim, so what any compassionate individual would do, is to do everything they can to prevent it from occurring in the future. In his final reason against a stateless society the author speaks about what defines private property and conflicting opinions on what people have rights to. What he skips over is the fact that his proposed solution to this issue is to create a government that operates by violating property rights. Though I would like to avoid sounding like a broken record, you cannot try to protect property rights by violating them. This would be similar to taking up the noble cause of rape prevention by raping someone claiming, “If I’m raping her right now, no one else can. See I’m preventing rape, aren’t I noble?” Though he proposed it as a reason why we can’t have stateless society, this is, yet again, exactly the reason why we must have a stateless society. The author claims, “In an anarchistic society, there is no commonly accepted definition”- referring to property rights. Though he thought this was a sound and prudent rejection of the idea the author assumed that the government somehow legitimizes private property. Under a government, you don’t own anything. Think you own your home? Try not paying your property taxes. Think you own the product of your labor? Say hello to the income tax. Under a government private property doesn't exist at all, only property allowances. Our government allows us certain property “rights” because it will make us happier and more productive, just as a farmer knows he can expect more output from his animals if he allows them to be free-range as opposed to caged. None of this changes the fact that the farmer owns the animals. As long as the cows rush to defend the farmer claiming, “Hey, he gives extra freedom compared to other farms, you should be thankful for that. If you don’t like it you should try to change it from within!” they’ll never be free. Obviously the cows can’t change it from within, it’s a system based on using the cows for food. We can’t change the system of government from within to make it only for protecting rights, the government was made to violate rights - clearly opposing this article's argument. Of course there are going to be differing opinions in any area where two or more people are living, this is simply a matter of reality. The great and revolutionary thing about Voluntarism is that we are allowed to disagree. Under the paradigm of statism, disagreement is never allowed. For example, if you think the best way to solve the problem of terrorism is to create a military funded through taxation and deploy them to kill the terrorists, I am not allowed to disagree if you get the government to do this for you. When the government decides to do something, you can voice your rebuttal all day but you can’t act on it; you’re still forced to pay for it. Similarly, a slave was allowed to disagree with the plantation owner’s slavery policy, but he wasn’t allowed to run away. No one would say this “ability to disagree” would somehow validate the morality of slavery. Beliefs like this, are the reason why the world doesn’t know freedom. Under Voluntarism, beliefs won’t be imposed on anyone contrary to the solution known as The State. Simply put, Mr. Petersen’s analysis of the possibility of anarchy does not align with reality. Just because an individual cannot develop a way to solve a complex social problem without government doesn’t mean that solution doesn’t exist. I don’t know how a free society will prevent and solve every plausible scenario that could develop; no one does. Even if I could solve every problem in the world, that would not give me the right to force others to go along with my plans. Minarchist ideas are a burning effigy representative of why we can’t have government. Even people who claim to embrace the Non-Aggression Principle are too easily tempted to violate it through the violence of government. If you’re a minarchist reading this, I understand where you’re coming from. For years I was stuck in the quagmire of minimizing the state to a manageable level. The simple fact of the matter is that you can’t contain power. When created, the US government was the most restrained in history, the most shackled. Very soon it grew to the most gargantuan government ever conceived. The founding fathers could have never dreamed of how large and intrusive their brainchild would inevitble become. No individual, no group of dedicated activists, no amount of vigilance, and no words on a piece of paper can hold back the growth of the state. The only way to hold back the state is to abolish it entirely.

Hi, My name is Julien (or Julian), I was born in Birmingham, AL and for most of my life have been living in Bordeaux, France. So France is this wonderful country *cough sarcasm cough* where being an entrepeneur or having your own business is the hardest and most depressing thing because of endless licensing, massive regulations etc... a place where cops can legally harass you anytime, where the free market is seen as the enemy and laws and government as solutions for any problem. The problem is: the vast majority of people here have this way of thinking in which they inevitably think that any problem, small or large, can and must be solved through government action. For example, I heard of this law that is going to pass to FORBID all you can drink soda fountains in restaurants, and when I talked about it with a friend, she said it's a good thing because "people are getting fat" which made me laugh because, French people ? Fat ?! But then I felt sorry for her thinking that violence is the solution... The point is that when I want to spread the message of peace, libertarianism and the NAP, what usually happens is I either get booed, or I get accused of wishing for an apocalyptic disaster, even if I only talk about less government in X or privatization of X (like water & electricity, the horror). Nobody here admits that taxation is theft or that laws are only enforced through violence (few do, but say it's "justified"). More rights to protect yourself ? "You're an American gun nut". Enough with the labor unions, licensing and regulations on businesses ? "You just want workers to be exploited". Privatize the schools ? "You just want the poor to be uneducated". This is what I'm up against. So I would like to know what y'all think: is there anything I can do to be more convincing to folks with this set of mind ? Is there any way to make people here look into libertarianism and peaceful resolutions ? Or should I give up on Bureaucracyland and go back to America to finish my studies ?

The site itself: http://libertariannuts.com/ The one with Stefan in it: http://libertariannuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/018_900px.png

Here is an article by Robert Kuttner. Have at it. http://prospect.org/article/libertarian-delusion

Terence Kealey destroys the myths of government funded science. A good antidote to the excitement over robots on comets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvr2Co-S5s

From the article: Wow, this is epic level research, Mr. Linker! Stef, I have a challenge should you choose to refute this propaganda, could you keep it under an hour on this?

I think it is obvious we all want a peaceful and virtuous world. The question is how do we get there. I agree that peaceful parenting is the best long term goal but I don't think it will be enough. We always speak of investing in virtue and that it pays in the long run and this is true. The problem is most people don't have the money, time, or extra mental effort to invest. Its like giving corn to a starving man and saying, " Plant this don't eat it. If you eat it now you will starve to death." Even if he understands this concept he will reply, " I'm starving now. I know that if I eat now I will starve later. I choose life now even if it is only for a short time." I don't think we will ever be able to convince people to invest with capital they don't have when the state can always say here's 50 bucks. I think for real change libertarians need to take the political stance of a robin hood. Don't lead with how the war on drugs is morally indefensible lead with the cost and how its done no good only harm. People can become really tolerant really fast when they are bribed with a tax break. Tell people trapped in the welfare state night mare that a reverse income tax will cut out the bureaucrats and leave more money for them. They will drop the progressives like a bad habit. I know that these are not virtuous means or virtuous ends but it turns the tide. It will end the dilution that more state power is the answer and stop the bleeding. the problem of the state is still there but it does two things, Buys time and gives libertarianism credit and trust in the public's mind. We can say," remember how everything got a little better after we ended the war on drugs? Let me talk to you about the federal reserve and the banks."

Here is an article published in the Irish Times 5 Sept 2014 with contribution from Gerard Casey, a libertarian philosopher. I was pleasantly surprised with it as I cannot remember seeing anything on anarchism or libertarianism in mainstream publications here before. http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/would-we-be-better-off-without-the-state-1.1909875

Hello everyone at Freedomain Radio, My name is Alexander, I'm 29 years old 30 years young, from Melbourne Australia, and have been listening to FDR since about June of 2013. I am also known as The Critical G on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/thecriticalg) and Blogspot (http://thecriticalg.blogspot.com.au/), where I talk mainly about libertarianism, atheism, philosophy, and indulge in the occasional critique of statism and feminism. For what it's worth, my YouTube channel recently passed the milestones of 2,500 subscribers and 350,000 lifetime views, and my blog has over 75,000 page visits. Listening to FDR has had a profound effect on my life. The most obvious change has been political -- it marks a major stage in my journey from standard-issue politically correct Statist in that I've finally accepted the general validity of anarcho-capitalism, rather than the comfortable position of small-government libertarianism. There are a couple of particular details, eg restrictions on mass migration, that I'd like to explore with people here though. However, the most important change has been in my personal relationships, especially with my parents. TALK THERAPY I started going to a psychologist about 10 years ago; although talk therapy has been instrumental in identifying the origins of my troubles and developing the capacity to observe myself from a distance, I believe I was being tripped up by what we here would call bad philosophy. SOCIAL LIFE A very large part of my social life is swing and blues dancing, of which there is a great deal in Melbourne, Australia. Unfortunately, this means that my social circles are filled with Leftist, trendy, hipster types; I greatly enjoy the dancing and get along with people, but I feel like a Marano Jew in Inquisition Spain once people start talking about politics. Not that “right-wing” Australians are generally any less statist than Leftists, to be honest, but they're at least tolerant of different opinions. This means that I love dancing, but can't really connect with the people on anything but the most superficial level. PARENTS However, with my parents there has been a tectonic shift. Although my parents did not discipline me -- no spanking, no time-outs, etc -- they did let me down in a number of profound ways, which left me with much to talk about with my psychologist over the last ten years. For the most part they are kind, loving, approachable, willing to discuss difficult matters; however, they are reluctant to talk about where they went wrong, or the legacy of their own childhood experiences, and most certainly would not bring it up without my insistence. Nevertheless, they allow themselves to be pulled into serious conversations -- it's hardly ideal for the child to have to cajole his parents into meaningful discussions, but I make do with what I've got, and I believe I have good cause to be optimistic. POLITICS To make a long story short, my philosophical and political thinking has passed through the following checkpoints: Being trapped in a radical feminist English Department at university for four years; Discovering Men's Rights Activism and avoiceformen.com in 2011; Witnessing the disintegration of freethoughtblogs.com at the hands of feminists; The Ron Paul craze of 2012; Reading up on Austrian economics General acceptance of the NAP and the “taxation is theft” argument Implicit (although unconscious) acceptance of UPB as the basis for moral behaviour You could say that all this took me along the following path: Lukewarm socialist Socially liberal and economically conservative Right-wing conservative / libertarian, acceptance of NAP and UPB Tacit acceptance of anarcho-capitalism After the great disappointment of Ron Paul's bid for nomination in 2012, I remained interested in libertarian thinking, but what that really got me interested in FDR was Stefan Molyneux's playlist about Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9B883EE065DC5B8C As soon as he posed the question of what would happen if Ron Paul miraculously became president, my doubts about the efficacy of political action and education crystalised. It was at that point that I began to seriously consider anarcho-capitalism, but more importantly, I have since come to accept as supreme the need to apply the NAP and UPB in our personal lives, especially in our dealings with children. The resources available at FDR have helped me to shed light on innumerable matters of concern, and have given me the tools to initiate deep and meaningful conversations with important people in my life. All of this has had a profound effect on my personal relationships with my parents and friends, and has enriched the content of my own YouTube channel and blog. (http://www.thecriticalg.blogspot.com/) The call-in shows have also provided me with inspiration for my first major writing project, The Odessia (www.theodessia.com), in which I have begun to explore philosophy through fantasy fiction. I'll talk about that in the Listener Projects section. I want to thank Stefan and Mike for providing one of the most valuable resources on the web and look forward to participating in discussions with all of you in this forum.

Hello all, I have a few questions that I need answered regarding the nature of limited government and taxation in a free society. So, I've heard Stef say that government taxation is by definition theft. It's hard to argue with him, but I do have a few criticisms that I'd like addressed by someone with a better grasp of political philosophy than I. If you accept the argument that the only proper roles of a government are the police, the armed forces and the courts, then you accept implicitly that these branches of the government require funding in some form. Ergo, taxation of some kind is still necessary to fund them. You might be tempted to claim that these services could be privatized in some form. For example, you could have a pay-per-use system for the police whenever they're called. However, in any pay-per-use system, there's the serious concern of a innate bias towards the party that's paying for the service. In short, if you privatize these roles of government, then their neutrality is compromised.

Great article by ANTHONY GREGORY, on a divide among libertarians on this issue: http://libertarianstandard.com/2014/03/26/against-the-libertarian-cold-war/ "A controversy has arisen in the libertarian movement over the proper approach to the events concerning Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea. Like many such controversies, it has quickly polarized almost everyone, and has served as a proxy for long-standing factionalism within the movement. People quickly accuse each other of supporting Putin's aggression or backing violent U.S. intervention. I myself have been accused of both kissing up to the Russian regime and dishing out State Department propaganda. This doesn't itself show I have the right balance in my position, only that this feud has galvanized libertarians and hardened their rhetorical loyalties. We might learn something from looking back at the 20th century. During the Cold War, most western critics of state power erred too far in one direction or the other. There were some whose opposition to U.S. wars led them to soften their assessment of communist aggression. Free-market and leftist lovers of peace both made this mistake. At the same time, many who favored economic and political liberty often let their anti-communism translate into support for American militarism and the security state. This confusion pervaded Americans across the spectrum ... I easily identify four factions, not two: (A) There are people who outright defend Putin's aggression in Ukraine and Crimea, and who otherwise downplay his autocratic tendencies; (B) There are those who agree that Putin is worth condemning, but who think it's more important to emphasize the evils of U.S. interventionism; © There are those who agree that U.S. intervention is unwise and maybe even unethical, but who think it's most important right now to emphasize Putin's despotism; (D) There are those who outright favor U.S. and western intervention to stop Putin. ..."

Greetings to all who read these words, My personal evolution in brief: Started reading Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth fantasy novels around the age of 13, absorbed a good deal of his objectivism as it was imbedded in the characters... I had no idea that there was any measure of philosophy in these novels, only that the characters were the most amazing and interesting individuals I had ever encountered. Experimented with LSD and other drugs starting around 16. These altered stated of consciousness were very helpful for me personally, in that the experience of them was proof that the nature of reality in general and social structures specifically had been carefully constructed... and that the ways that most adults said things were was not accurate. Escaped school at 17, took GED tests without any preparation and passed above 98th percentile with "honors." Tried to go to college... but my heart wasn't in it. It wasn't what I wanted to do, it was what I was supposed to do. Burnt the small scholarship I received for my high GED test marks... didn't go back. Moved away to a major metro (where I was born, not entirely unfamiliar), pursued my dream of becoming a professional club/rave DJ for a few years... satisfied my emotional need, decided that attaining and maintaining my financial goals as an artist would likely make achieving my relationship goals (wife, family) exceedingly difficult or impossible... got sick of the superficial and discriminatory nature of most people I met in that area... Moved back "home" around 21. At some point, I realized the connection that my still-favorite author's books had to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Read Atlas Shrugged. Took a job I was qualified for that I didn't hate. Had a lot of time for introspection on the job... focused on making money and thinking for a few years while becoming increasingly frustrated with "reality." Reconnected with a female friend from high school, started dating her, moved in with her. Started going to college part time, because I wanted to this time, and excelled. Finished my general associates. Got married. One magical day, the conservative AM talk station I was fond of was airing an episode of Free Talk Live... started listening to the show's previous episodes constantly... reprogrammed myself from an unprincipled amalgamation of conservative and liberal ideologies into something more closely resembling a human being. Quit my job at some point to focus on university full time. Discovered Brett Veinotte through FTL. Shifted from FTL to School Sucks as my main source of though-provoking analysis. Discovered Stefan Molyneux through School Sucks... shifted from School Sucks to FDR. Had a child. FTL guys did a lot of branch and leaf pruning... School Sucks seemed to be chopping at the trunk... FDR started to get at the root... I am about to graduate from university Magna Cum Laude... my degrees will be: "BS in Social Science with a concentration in Human Service and a minor in Psychology" and "BS is Anthropology with a concentration in Applied Cultural Anthropology." Fitting that they both begin with BS... because I have encountered a lot of BS along the way. I will not be continuing in academia on any level regardless of how many professors, friends, etc. tell me that it "would be a waste" if I don't go to graduate school... Right now: My wife is pregnant with #2, we are working through a lot of stuff with her family in particular, and a lot of heavy stuff is coming down the pipe... many decisions must be made and acted upon... and I felt like this board was my best shot for support as I move forward. Thanks for reading, and I hope this is the beginning of a fruitful relationship. -LTA

I just noticed this the other day, and I found it empowering. Ben Rice, a young powerlifter with a youtube channel began accepting donations with the message that with the money he receives he'll invest in a new camera for higher quality videos. Now, just two days later he's posted a response video saying that he's already raised more than enough. I'll link the videos below. It really just goes to show that with the right audience and an honest request donations is a viable model for getting financial assistance. This is not to say that Stefan's tight-rope walk away from his old comfy salary praying that views like us would catch him has been enough evidence to prove our points. I just wanted to share that with you all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Yb_7hL9a0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FSeqK6Mq8

Slaughtering animals for meat consumption is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.The NAP fundamentally forbids all forms of unjustified violence. The reason why most Libertarians still eat meat is (at least in 99% of situations) because they don't really think about it. It's just a learned behavior, and it's something that almost everyone does. But if you DO think about it... well, that's where this thread came from! Everyone is different, holding different principles sacred. So this is intended for Libertarians, since we all agree upon the foundational importance of the Non-Aggression Principle. However, currently this principle is being selectively applied, with all other species besides Man to be exempt from its application. There is no logic and no principle behind this exemption.The main reason, I believe, why humans are starting from this heavily-biased perspective of "man vs other species" is because of religion, which ironically, is mostly shunned by the Libertarian community. Christianity was hammered into our societal psyches for countless generations. Circumcision is an example - even as religion's direct power melted into the shadows over the 20th century, several barbaric vestiges remained as tradition. These are societal traditions which, like cockroaches, scatter when illuminated. Neither logic nor untampered conscience could ever condone such acts.Pain is a psychological reaction from a central nervous system. Plants don't have central nervous systems, therefore they do not feel pain. (If this seems offensively obvious, bear with me, because very often I hear the argument that eating plants is just as violent as eating animals) If you can't hurt a plant, the NAP shouldn't cover it. But animals are physiologically defined, in part, by the presence of a central nervous system. In terms of the known/biologically-established physiological requirements for both cognition and the experience of pain, humans are no different than any other animal.The NAP has nothing to do with classifying species, but is intended to be a guiding beacon of human behavior. Don't be unnecessarily violent. Simple as that. If we do not include other species under the NAP, then it becomes useless as a guiding principle, because we are still intimately linked to our environments and every species therein. Neglecting all but one is quite insane, and will lead to inevitable destruction. This is the current perspective of the Libertarian community, and it has to change.Nutritionally speaking, there is no requirement to eat animal-based foods. We no longer live in times of famine. Theoretically, everyone can easily thrive on a plant-based diet. Practically, only people living in 3rd-world conditions actually require supplementing their diets with animal-based foods. Geographical region is irrelevant with electricity-based technology. (Greenhouses, indoor heating, moisture traps, dried seeds, etc.) That's mostly besides the point, since we are talking about principles here, not the practical elements involved in implementing them. But suffice to say, we in modern societies don't need animal-based foods to survive, neither theoretically nor practically.Since there is no justification, it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.Thanks for reading, and I'd appreciate if people would make sure they understand the arguments before replying. If you disagree with something, please be clear as to why you believe so.Cheers!

Just listed to this episode on red ice radio and I'll probably give it a few more listens, it was that interesting. The guest started out in AI technology which, as he says, basically boils down to proving we know about how cognition works by designing a computer version of parts of it. With that backgroud he currently has been researching the difference between Authoritarians and Libertarians, citing a study done at Princeton. The researcher there took a move from Steph's playbook and determined whether people were one or the other based on how they thought children should be treated, eg: Should children be respected (Libertarian) or Obey "the Rules" (Authoritarian). In this episode he discusses how bureaucracy is basically systematic authoritarianism. Check it out if you've got an hour! http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/10/RIR-131004.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuNpn7m_g4 Fantastic, fascinating video by extremely well dressed You Tuber, Davis M.J Aurini. He talks about absolute truth and why things degenerate without it. It has similarities to some of Stef's ideas, particularly Stef's criticism of minarchy and the USA going from the smallest, freest state to the largest.

I asked 15 question to Libertarians, this is the breakdown of the answers I received.