Search the Community

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place. Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence. From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of. Evidence for It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly. Evidence against The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier. Argument for from first principles Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about. I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand. "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147) All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual. Argument against from first principles Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5) also, "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17) Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously. If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ. What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

The title is the brief of it. I have 3 uncles and one aunt on my mother's side. All were horribly abused by my grandmother who beat the shit out of them on a regular basis though my most successful uncle is the youngest and the least physically abused from what I have been told by my mother. He was also "the baby" of the 5 and thus given the most attention and care by his elder siblings. My grandfather worked all day and spent little time with his kids, though I've heard he once angrily denounced my grandmother when he caught her verbally abusing my adult mother before I was born. Interesting fact: I nearly died while my mother was pregnant because my grandmother verbally abused my mother to the point where well... Apparently extreme depression can kill the unborn. But that's a tangent and a backstory. The main issue is in the title: my most successful uncle, the only one to have his own children (my eldest uncle married a single mom who was divorced twice, and though he's financially successful as a real estate broker he's very personally unsuccessful as his step kids are all either drug addicts or impending single moms. My middle uncle is almost retarded and lives like a frat boy at the age of 40). He has two sons (twins) and now a daughter. Similarly young. He's 35-ish with a wife 5 years younger than him. My mother is a (platonic) single mom and my aunt is married to a roofer (herself being involved in law, apparently a typist of some sort) and has only one child, a boy, whom is 5 years younger than me and I grew up with on and off. Here's the issue: I want to separate as much as possible from my mother's family of origin because most of them are shitty, manipulative, Democrat, cucky, verbally manipulative, and all around terrible people. My successful uncle is the best of the bunch and I've rarely seen him growing up. I don't think he's a bad guy but I barely know him and am afraid to know him because I expect a whole lot of poison to emit from him or his environs and what can I possibly due to remedy that when I'm still as of yet nobody worth listening to (at least from a life-success standpoint)? Because I want to totally divorce myself from my mother's family of origin, I also want to distance myself from my cousins. Of which I'm the eldest (if I only include biological cousins and not single mom spawns). I don't feel much in terms of obligation but I do feel a certain primal desire for connection with my blood. However I am pretty sure I will be disappointed and I am too young and too busy to willingly kick myself in the shin. I don't want to build connections with people I will barely see and most likely watch self-destruct over time. However my mother, who switches from "wanting to be a part of her (abusive) family" to basically de-F.O.O.'ed has been bothering me about it and projecting her own insecurities and fears onto me about them. Like her fear of deep connection for having it severed, specifically. I am tempted to think I share that weakness but empirically I don't. I have a great relationship with my therapist who is almost a father to me and he really does see me as a middle son (he himself has two sons with a wide age difference). However I do know that's my only real relationship. I'm not counting casual internet relationships because most of them are superficial and the ones I have gotten deep with I don't necessarily trust or see as reliable friends or whatnot. I have made no efforts whatsoever to change this since I've been in what one M.R.A. site calls "monk mode" which is basically about focusing on self-development, career, and advancement that way with relationships and most luxury activities put on hold. I know there is some truth though: I do fear making and losing deep connections. However not very much. But I also lack much motivation to make friends (let alone womanly connections--I'm turning 20 next week and I'm still a virgin and have never dated let alone touched a woman). Perhaps I ought to talk in that direction. I dunno. I do know there are more than a few psychological experts and smart laymen here on the board so I thought I'd confess this here. I do want a family. But I want my family. A family built by my own hand with people of my own choosing. I want a tribe. But I want my tribe. A tribe of like-minded rational, moral, and intelligent people. Not one assigned to me or imposed upon me. However I don't think I can just be a total rebel and expect things to work out. If I really want to go this way, I need to think about what I need to do to get what I want. I've thought long and hard about what I'll be doing professionally (as I'm doing it). That part (writer/investor) is clear (for the next 5 years at least). What's foggy is relationships. I don't like using people for utilities but I do understand reciprocal business relationships and am not afraid of making those. I think I'm doing all right as far as my readiness and ability to make co-worker or business-partner relationships, of course I have minimal experience, but here I think my mind is in the right place and am therefore able to do what I must to get what I want. Where I'm worried about is the personal stuff. The friends and lovers stuff. I intend to be all kinds of good Catholic and waiting till marriage for sex, and perhaps that's for the best, but besides that I'm pretty much winging it and that means doing very little outside work/internet/business connections. And I would be foolish to assume they're all divorced from each other. After all, I only have one brain and whatever I feed into it at one point of my life inevitably affects my mindset in other areas. With that knowledge, I ask for help. I want to know if I'm making the right decisions (as far relationships at least) and am on the path to success or if I'm walking off a cliff with a blindfold on. I have only my thanks to give. Please help.

This is a "debate" between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux over the merits of an Anacap stateless society and a RBE (resource based economy). Both agree on the glaring flaws of the current system. Where they diverge is on the solution. Molyneux argues that the removal of the State and the initiation of the use of force is the way we begin to work towards a more prosperous and peaceful society. Joseph argues that even without a State, the free market would still have plutocratic overlords who would continue to oppress humanity through absolute control. He also argues that because we have so much technology at the moment and that because it will only continue to expand, there is no need for anyone to be entrepreneurial anymore. Basically we can just hand out free stuff due to our abundance. This view is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons that are easily explained with basic economics. A foundational concept of economics is the idea that humans have near infinite desires or needs, but we have noticeably scarce resources. In other words, scarcity is a constant of the human condition. No amount of "technology" is ever going to erase this reality unless someone creates a machine that can make food and water out of anti-matter. Until such a time, we are constrained by what the Earth can provide to us. Peter wants for there to be free access to the world's resources so that anyone can fulfill whatever need they have at the push of a button. I like to draw a comparison between Star Trek or Wall-E whenever I hear this argument. The problem with this is again human desires are near infinite. If you tired to institute this there would be massive demand with the same fixed amount of supply. People would want to have fleets of Mercedes, Lamborghinis, maybe a few estates, and all other kinds of stuff. Joseph argues that at some point people would realize that they need not steal from others because there is plenty to go around. The major problem with this is that it is a vague timeframe, when exactly will people realize this? 1 year? 3 years? 10 years? Also, if you are not using price signals to allocate resources, how is it done? Might makes right? Genetic superiority? It will never work because eventually you get old and people who are younger than you assume the mantle and reverse everything you worked to build. Similar to ritual of exchanging the "One Ring To Rule Them All" every four years in America, the problem with central planning is there is always the possibility that somebody you don't like will be granted the prerogative to determine how your life will play out. There is also the issue of who will build all of these machines that will do all the work for us. If this is indeed the goal behind the RBE then people who are engineers and scientists are going to have to forgo quite a large portion of their lives in service of building this future society. These people are not going to undergo such a huge project without compensation. I probably sound like a broken record at this point but this idea is essential: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Lets assume these scientists are not going to be paid with money. If that is the case how will they be compensated for their efforts? I would imagine they would demand ownership rights, after all it was their intellectual rigor that brought about the transforming of society. The idea that people are just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts is simply delusory. Even non-profits and charities have to solicit donations or some other form of currency in exchange for their services. Nothing is for free, there is always a cost. This debate can sort of serve as an intelligence test. If one truly believes that anything can be free, I would invite you to open up a health clinic or any other kind of business and not charge anybody for your services period. You may notice that people will begin to overconsume whatever it is you have to offer to point of there being dangerous shortages. I mean just look at what happens when someone goes onto a college campus with "free" anything. So in conclusion, a RBE sounds really nice on paper and within the realm of abstractions, but when put into practice it hauntingly resembles Communism. RBE advocates argue that the only way this can ever work is if everyone is on board. A series of questions I would ask them is this: " How do you get people on board with this? With force and coercion? Or through voluntary exchange and a respect for property rights? If people do not sign on to this, what is your reaction? And finally, if these ideas are so wonderful and superior to the current system why are you still debating the merits? What is stopping you from building this paradise?"

edit >>> EXTREMELY LONG POST. Sorry about this! Please skip this post and go to #2, unless you have lots of time of course. Hello everyone! I would like to thank you in advance for reading my post, and for any insight you may be able to offer. I have been putting this off for quite some time, thinking that it would not really help to share my problems with the community. The way I have justified this is basically by telling myself that I already know what I must do. In other words, I tell myself that I must seek a professional therapist, that I must make new friendships, that I must sever my negative relationships, that I must be more productive, etc. etc. etc. – and come to the conclusion that you will tell me the same thing, and so that it would be useless to come to you with my doubts and fears. That is all nonsense though, and I can see right through it. I understand that I am evading this need to open up, in fear of coming to conclusions that I may not want to grasp. These are conclusions that I have already come to in my own mind, but perhaps I'm afraid of hearing them from others, or maybe I'm afraid of the opposite – that my conclusions (I'm lazy, I'm too scared, I will never really be normal, I'm too far behind, it's way too hard, I can't do it) are totally wrong, and that this may take some weight off my shoulders, weight that I may be using to punish myself for God knows what (this what is probably the most important obstacle I face). Even doing this right now, is starting to feel quite difficult. I'm starting to feel that sensation in my throat that usually precedes crying. I'm feeling a bit vulnerable, and I think my mind is actively looking for distractions that may help me avoid having to finish this post. A part of me is a bit fearful of the response I may receive, although I acknowledge fully how irrational that is, considering that the responses I have seen here are always quite kind and generally very empathetic and helpful. So, where does this fear come from? Maybe from a general sense of inferiority? The very thought of speaking to Stefan has always left me with a sense of curiosity, alarm, shame, and fear – but in a very disinterested sort of way, like it's something I don't think would ever occur, because I don't see myself far enough down the road of self-knowledge to seek that out, and because I've always thought that I would be able to advance far enough on my own through books and journaling and such. This is probably part of my problem, and I'm starting to acknowledge that. I tend to be too individualistic in the sense that I always think that I can do things on my own, generally distrust others' abilities and capacity to help, and yet never quite seem to be able to do anything at all. However, I blame this on myself, on my constant state of melancholy and inability to concentrate on the here and now. I blame myself for always thinking of what's ahead and never on today. I'm very much a daydreamer, but I know that the sources of this problem are within me and are solvable, and so I am now looking for professional help. I hope I haven't been rambling too much and that the above helps you get an idea of where I'm coming from. Now some background: I'm originally from Mexico, and moved with my mother and half-sister to the US at the age of 6. My father stayed behind. My parents were not married, and my father was 16 years older than my mother (38-22 when I was born). I was a very creative child, and liked being alone, never had much friends, and fortunately suffered very little in terms of physical abuse. I started out well in school (public school as we've always been quite poor, my mother left school at 16 when my sister was born, and her family was also very much poor) and was even put in gifted and talented classes, as I was very good with art and enjoyed reading. However, due to lack of guidance or interest from any adult, I began to do worse and worse in school and finally dropped out of high school at the age of 19 I believe (I had always been a year behind because it took me a year to learn English after I arrived, I think I was a junior then but very much behind). I dropped out because I was told I could just take an equivalency exam and obtain my GED, I was not told however that it was necessary to be an American citizen to do so (I was not) and so that never happened. I worked as a waiter and helping an uncle in real estate for a while, before deciding to move back to Mexico where I could be "free" to live my life as I pleased. I was very proud then, falsely so, and the idea of having to ask someone to break the law so that I could work just made feel so ashamed that the idea of living in Mexico really seemed like a good one. I lived with my father for some time in a small city on the Mexican border (where he had moved to be closer to me after he had been deported from the US for having overstayed his visa) for a while, about 10 months, and then I managed to move to a large city with the help of money my mother made available to me. The time I spent with my father has been probably the worse period in my life, because I depended on him but the guy really is about as broken a man as I've ever seen, and obviously he carries a lot guilt in regards to me, and long story short I'm just really angry at him to this day. After I left my father, I came to Guadalajara, the city I'm originally from and which is quite a large city and had many more opportunities for me. I worked in call centers for a while, and then in bicycle shops (something I'm very much into). I had read Ayn Rand in my teens, and this is what I think saved me and is still responsible for keeping my flame alive. I think it caused a few problems too, because I think I tried to be like her heroes for a while, and well that's really not a very smart thing to do. I think I repressed a lot of emotions during my teens and early to mid 20's because of this. I was very hard on myself. I'm sorry I feel like I'm straying a bit from the point, but I think I know what's next. After living alone for a few years, my father came down here to try and be closer to me. We lived separately and saw each other frequently, but then we had an argument and I basically cut him off completely after explaining everything in a very long text message. I basically said to him that he was a bad influence on me, and that he was the same guy who had abandoned me as a child (by being a bad partner to my mother and forcing her to leave him). I also said to him that his interest in the esoteric was only a way for him to believe in impossible things, which made it easy for him to imagine that he and I could actually have a healthy relationship. Plus, my father was sexually active from a very young age, something I know marked him deeply and is probably the cause of all his neurosis and guilt. Then, I at some point got fed up with my job, and quit. I had only been working and daydreaming in my free time, and I had not been thinking much about my future, or making any friends. I was still very proud then, and had never been very sociable, and found it quite difficult to relate either to nationals or others who too had come back from the US. At this point, I thought I would leave the city and go live in small town, where I could work hard and live a simple life away from the distractions of the city. I didn't plan this terribly well however, and ended up with no money and my things on the sidewalk. And so I reached out my father, or my abuser, and have been living with him ever since. For a good while I descended into a very deep mental fog, and forgot all about what had originally made me break ties with my father. I started working at a bike shop and earning just enough to pay for my basic needs. I lived this way for some time, and was going deeper and deeper into this sort of zombie state. Then my mother came to visit me recently and really forced an awakening which had been building up the months prior to her arrival. I was devastated. My emotions, which had been turned off for years, suddenly were brought back to life and it scared the shit out of me. After having been numb for years I started to really feel and it was all quite overwhelming. My mother, who I'd had a generally good relationship with, suddenly made me see just how unfit I was to deal with reality. When she was here I felt like I was in a way responsible for her, and this made feel totally inadequate. It made me very nervous, and I had not seen my mother for about 7 years, and so this also shocked me into life again. Since then I have taken up listening to FDR again, which I had not been doing mostly due to not owning either a pc or a smartphone, and basically just not looking into self-knowledge before this event. Although, to be honest, I've always had a need to keep a diary, even if at times I have ignored it for months – it's an urge that always comes back, and I have hundreds of journal entries in physical journals, iphone notes, word documents, etc. I may share some if anyone is interested in listening to my inner voice. Right now, I am making enough to pay my bills, and thankfully can do this through one part time job. The free time I have I want to invest in some project that will allow me to make more money in the future, such as elaborating some cycling-related apparel or perhaps developing the talent I know I possess but have not developed. However, I tend to spend most of my time between all sorts of different interests and cannot seem to make up my mind which to focus on. I feel like there's no one in my life that has genuine interest in me or that has the knowledge to guide me in any direction or offer any real advice. Also, I'm still very much in an English-language frame of mind. I speak good Spanish, but am not totally fluent as in I cannot write very well or articulate my thoughts with the precision I wish I could – I'm still very lacking in terms of vocabulary, but I don't have the will to focus on working on my skills because I'm really not sure I want to continue in this country, on the other hand, I don't see the possibility of leaving this country any time soon. I sway between thinking that I will never find anyone worth making friends with here, and that there have to be people worth making friends with but that I will never know if I don't reach out. However, I feel like I having nothing to offer, and like I have to work hard and study hard before earning the right to ask for anyone's friendship. I'm also very frightened of taking the risk in trusting someone only to have their irrationality surface later and destroy the bond I though we had created. I feel like no one is interested in self knowledge, and no one is capable of being vulnerable and sharing themselves openly. I try to be very open and share my thoughts and emotions with the people currently in my life but they are very rarely reciprocal and tend to avoid this kind of conversations. I haven't had an amorous relationship in 10+ years, and have only met 3 women I have genuinely liked in the 8 years I have been here, but I have not had the courage to start a conversation because I just feel so inadequate, so far behind in life, and so painfully conscious that I have very little to offer anyone. I now understand, thanks to Stefan, that I cannot do this alone – but is there anything else I can do beside therapy to strengthen my will, and to find my path? I feel like this isn't really the point of my post, but I don't know how to frame my exasperation into a sentence. It's so many things, a lot which I did not even touch on. I know I need to reach out to a professional, and I'm in the process of finding the right one. If I may ask a question in regards to this – what kind of therapist should I look for? I've come across a lot psychoanalysts but I'm not sure if they're all Freudians, and then there are cognitive behaviorists (?), and a thing called Gestalt. I've looked for analytical psychologists, but have had no luck – they all seem to do something other than individual therapy sessions. Also, is it a good idea to read about psychology? Should I read Alfred Adler, Alice Miller, C.G. Jung ... or could this have the effect of confusing me rather than helping me? Could it not hurt to go into therapy with this knowledge? In the sense that it may interfere with the therapists' work? I'm very sorry for the lengthy post, but I do not know what I should cut out to make it shorter. In a way I think it gives a good idea of where I am – all over the place, confused. Thank you for reading.

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue? I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity. Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

EDIT: I am talking about myself. I have a friend, who is really having a hard time of it. I wasn't sure what to say to him, as this incident I'm about to describe was very revealing in lots of bad ways and I don't know how to answer it. Friend walks out and mentions to his mother some trivia about a show she was watching. She asks him not to mention trivia about the show, saying it confuses her. He asked why. She started wringing her hands and practically said she was mentally retarded. He denied she was retarded, and then she started getting all passive-aggressive and sarcastic. He asked her to stop being passive aggressive with her, and she got mad demanding "please be quiet". Then she compared him to her own mother (his grandmother), whom he grew up hearing about how she beat her and abused her and neglected her, and the mother knew that comparison always hurt the son. He gave up and came to me. Now I'm here asking "what the Hell? What do I do? What can I say? Sounds stupid but it clearly hints to a much larger underlying problem. I know he's been considering defooing his mother once he's able to do so financially, but I don't know..." Help me out, anyone wise and impartial about this sort of thing. I'm not an expert. I'm a layman who studies this sort of thing and tries to help himself as best he can, but I don't know how I can handle something so close to home.

Hi, guys! I wrote a book titled How to Find a Great Therapist, and I'd love if y'all would check it out. It's only 99 cents! The inspiration for writing this book came, in large part, from the many stories I heard on these boards about your struggles to find a good therapist. I also have FAQ at the end which consists of questions that came exclusively from FDR listeners. It's available on Amazon here. Please let me know what you think! Book Description: "This book is not just about finding a good therapist. It is about finding a great therapist. The kind of person who will inspire you, challenge you, and change your life. The kind of person who will help you make real progress. "If you are just looking for someone to talk to, this book is not for you. Throw a rock and you will find a mediocre counselor who will gladly take your money, go through the motions of “listening” to you for an hour, week after week, and never encourage you to change. And maybe you don’t want to change. That’s fine. Just check out another book, because this one will only stress you out. "However, if you want to thrive rather than survive, use this book to demystify the often muddled field of psychology. You will learn: How to identify an awesome therapist. How to know if you’ve found a bad one. What to expect from therapy. How to trust yourself. And how to improve your odds of permanent growth. "The author takes her years of “couch surfing,” during which she saw over twenty therapists and coaches, to simplify the process and help you make life changes efficiently and with the support you need. "This short book is jam-packed, full of principles that you can use to feel confident about an often confusing and stressful transition in your life. Make the choice to change your life and find a great therapist."

Note: As I typed this out I quickly realized I wasn't typing out an argument so much as a rant. Therefore I decided to post in the Self Knowledge section since I'd rather steer this into something more personally fulfilling and inspiring as I can't see this as being something worth arguing on an objective level. I have a very simple question: Which do you, the reader of this post, prefer? Or, which is the better of two evils? Incoming Islam or existing Statism? On one hand my religion and culture will be annihilated and I will be forced into slavery if I do not convert and join the horde, on the other I will be a lifelong tax serf for the Welfare-War-State and an ungrateful 50% whom receive portions of the money looted from me. On one hand women are under a true patriarchy, which I'd say as a man is greatly preferred to the matriarchy of the Welfare-Warfare-State (which I will abbreviate as WWS for simplicity). Considering these factors I'm tempted to either throw up my hands and say "screw it--they both suck. I'd rather wait for the inevitable meltdown to occur and join the side most aligned with my self interest" or give preference to he Muslims since as a man I'd be better off with them than the WWS. Maybe I'm just salty because male slavery in the West has gotten me pissed off again, maybe I have a point in saying Islam is slightly better than the WWS, or maybe I'm completely overlooking the benefits of the WWS (like hobbies to escape reality and the ability to join the White Flight out of the ghetto)...but I know I have point in suggesting that as a man Islam is better than the WWS. I'm not arguing that Islam is better than the West because any idiot would know otherwise. The West is the Best. However the West had died decades ago. Now the Occident is some disgusting degenerate dystopia on the Slow Train to Nowhereland. Am I the only one tempted to grab a Koran and join the heathens? Am I missing something vital (like the likelihood of my decapitation by association? Which frankly isn't a big minus given how shit life is likely to be for me anyway)?

While I'm on the topic of spanking children and how it is a violation of the NAP, allow me to make an analogy. First of all, philosophy is not democratic and science is not consensus without rigorous inquiry into an academic question or issue. It is reason and evidence that matters. Who cares what the majority thinks? At one point in time people thought the Earth was flat, or that serfdom and slavery were moral. Just because people believed it for centuries doesn't make it correct. ‍♂ Come on people, this is pathetic. I'm really not trying to belittle or demean but this is just historical bigotry and intransigent inertia. For those people who spank their children, how do you know that choosing not to do that and instead use negotiation and diplomacy won't work? Saying that children are not old enough to understand complex moral rules is not a valid argument. All that says is that you're lazy and haven't bothered to ever question anything a so called "authority" has told you. If violence against children is a legitimate way of teaching responsibility and that there are consequences for recalcitrance then why don't we raise our kids under a radical interpretation of Sharia Law? Heretics and blasphemers of Sharia are struck or whipped for disobedience. Women who are raped have to have multiple male witness testimony to exonerate HER of wrongdoing. This a valid comparison because violence is violence is violence. Ex post facto justifications do not change this fact. To take another example, we all know that at some point the balance of power shifts away from the parents and to the now grown child. If using violence to teach there are consequences for mistakes is a valid form of discipline, then what happens when your geriatric ass forgets the keys in the refrigerator or something else. Do your children or other caretakers get to hit you? Of course not, everyone considers this abuse. So why is it ok to use these tactics on children. Remember, individual anecdotes and personal testimony do not negate statistical trends. In the spirit of putting my money where my mouth is, these are four studies that corroborate my claims: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx https://news.utexas.edu/…/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confi… https://www.psychologytoday.com/…/research-spanking-it-s-ba… http://www.iflscience.com/…/spanking-leads-angrier-and-mor…/ I welcome anyone to offer counter arguments, but please stick to actual arguments. Personal incredulousness and anecdotes are not arguments.

Hey fellas! Just wanted let you guys know that Steven Franssen is doing fantastic livestreams @ https://www.youtube.com/user/RedRightHunter/featured Steven talks about current events, eviscerates leftism and purges the cuck out of those who watches his streams and reads his books! We have a lot of fun over here, why don't you join us?

Hey everybody, I wanted to talk about self-erasure. Has anybody else had problems with this? There's so many things I want to change/accomplish in my life, but for whatever reason I just refuse to actually commit myself to the actions I would need to take to achieve them. I'll sort of break two big ones down here: 1. Social & Relationships: I have very few friends currently, and I'm starting to realize that the friends I do have may not be the best people for me. But when I think about trying new things, or going to meetup groups, or anything like that I feel a bit anxious and never will myself to do it. Then I get upset with myself for not making decisions to change, but that doesn't deter me from continuing to not change. 2. My Own Business: This honestly goes hand-in-hand with the social issues I face. I can build websites, and I want to run my own business doing freelance web design for local businesses. I KNOW I can build pretty good websites and that those websites would help the businesses generate more sales. But when it comes to SELLING the service I struggle motivating myself to make sales call. I had been thinking out loud about these issues earlier and I had this train of thought: And then I realized that maybe that's it. Maybe, for whatever reason, I just don't want people to even know I exist? I don't know, but I'm very frustrated and this issue is really stagnating my entire life and I need help.

The monsters inside us and how they get there. Why do targets stay with narcissistic abusers? Why do people stay in contact with abusive family members?

Hi all. I would appreciate some perspective from other virtue-minded people on an internal struggle I'm dealing with regarding an accident with a firearm. As a foreword to the topic, I've reported my incident in full to my local police and it carries with it no illegality. A year ago I had an accidental discharge with my carry pistol in my room and the projectile shot through my roof/wall and up into the night. It was at a 45 degree angle so it wasn't going to hit anything with full power, but where it came down is where it could have done damage. The minute it happened I got into my car and drove down into the area where it would have landed, and there was no commotion. What I should have done that night was contact the police immediately, but I didn't due to my fear of my father's anger and whatever consequences might accrue legally (again, the police now know and it carries no illegality). After a week or two I informed my parents about it and since no police came they decided to just seal up the hole. About 8 months passed and it hadn't crossed my mind. I'd landed a job and was building my assets up to finally move out. Everything was going great. One night after work I'd bought some strong alcohol (I don't drink) and the next morning I thought I had alcohol poisoning. I rushed myself to the ER and it turned out I would be fine. When I told my folks they seemed not to be too bothered by it. That night I had two dreams, one where I was late for work and was probably fired, told my parents, and they turned a cold shoulder to me saying I deserved it, causing me to have a meltdown. The second was where I was watching myself fire a rifle into my back woods accompanied by a friend I used to know. When I went from 3rd to 1st person I stopped in horror and rushed into the woods to make sure nobody was hurt. I emerged in a parking lot where cars and walls were riddled with holes and people were coming out all angry and yelling at me. I kept searching to make sure at least nobody was hit but crowds of angry people just swarmed me. From the minute I woke up I was overwhelmed with guilt and fear at what I'd done. After vigorously analyzing my two dreams and the circumstances surrounding, I decided to follow my gut which was telling me to report what happened and take full responsibility. I went to the cops, told them every detail, and all they did was make a report (since nobody reported anything). I thought the fear of the cops was what was bothering me, but after I cleared it up with them, the only thing that disappeared was the fear. The guilt still sticks and it feels like something is still wrong. I still feel it in the bottom of my stomach right now, though it's not debilitating. So... how do you perceive my guilt from an outsider's perspective? I would really really appreciate some help with this as I have nobody in my life right now I can really explore this with, and the one thing I want in life is to be a good person. This could be my true self pointing me in the direction of virtue, or historical trauma, and that's what I feel I need to figure out.

AAAAAND the topic didnt load prorperly! Using reply to psot my orignal post. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hey everyone, i am here seeking therapy. I’ve been brought humbly down after making some seriously bad assumptions about my own mental clarity and also about how much i do need outside help from specifically therapist. Needless to say i was wrong and have paid the consequences as i struggle to gain employment and do what i finally love after procrastinating for so long. It’s very painful due to having not done such earlier, though i am 100% committed to accepting this pain. And fear too incidentally as I’ve found. This is me owning my inaction and inaction to acknowledge the painful truth of avoiding the humiliation and pain associated with getting job, earning your own money and success. [Currently working on and making 3d models public, studying CAD software, studying building (and construction) physics, researching copyright, contacting companies left right and center and networking]. What are your experiences with therapy and what are the best people/places to seek for? I don’t have lot of money atm, so can’t afford the highest askers, but i will not cheapshot this i can pay something and whatever i have that i can pay, i will. Thoughts? #IfyoudontlearnbyReason...

To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will never lose its value. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. You have let people like Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other conspiracy theorists trick you into wasting large amounts of money on gold as "protection" from "confiscation" of wealth. I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize. Whenever these fear mongers and snake oil salesmen are proven wrong they merely revise their timelines outwards to scare people into doing even more irrational things like dropping everything and going to buy property and be socially isolated. Nothing against people who choose to not live in a city, but these fears of economic collapse are unfounded and you are intentionally misleading young and impressionable minds. Why is it exactly the economy has not completely collapsed though these people are absolutely convinced it will? Well I would say it hasn't happened because millions of people have a vested interest in not living in a complete Mad Max style war zone where tribal chieftains and warriors are the ruling class. People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does toady? Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far, but that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms and customs and systems we have developed over the millennia. Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results has it? Unless you use gold for every transaction, this is irresponsible Libertarian scare mongering and propaganda. Gold is an archaic and regressive standard to try and return to. Just because it was valued by humans in the past does not mean it will be valued today. Values are subjective and are always changing apart from the most fundamental. There is no fixed state of mankind, no ideal that we can look at and replicate at any point in time nor should we try to. My advice would be to stop attempting to scare people about debt based fiat currency so that they will use your services. This is a dishonest and unethical business model and you will defraud misinformed individuals. For example, the mortgage that people sign to their house is a debt that you voluntarily agree to as a condition for owning a home. Each month you pay interest on a maturing principal until you eventually have it payed off. Libertarians need to calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS. If anything we may experience a depression or recession because, ironically, businessmen on Wall Street and in the financial sector are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders. I get the feeling that all of the people calling for public schools to be dismantled have never once taken a basic Civics class from the "indoctrination" camps. It's no wonder America is last in education around the world, people hate public schools, are tragically ill informed, and favor private Christian schools where they are never taught our country's founding. I wonder if there is any connection between a misanthropic attitude towards public schools and ignorance on the history of our country? In conclusion, I would urge any Libertarians out there to seriously critically analyze the ramifications and reasoning behind the positions that you take. I can already see the response to this essay so I imagine most of you will not listen, but for those who do read authors like Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc. and think about what all of these men have in common. Thank you for reading.

An article I wrote on doing hard work and reaping the benefits! https://selfknowledgedaily.com/reaping-the-fruits-of-hard-work-698866ed2faf#.j4flxhws2

Currently I am enrolled in a Business Ethics course while pursuing my Bachelors Of Business Administration. I must say, Stefan and Michael's podcasts have been invaluable references for me to call on while completing the course work. I just finished the chapter on Normative Theory of Ethics which featured a critique of Adam Smith that I had not initially considered and also had Immanuel Kant with the concepts that he coined such as "categorical imperative" and "universal acceptability" which reminded me an awful lot of Stefan's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof Of Secular ethics. I love Western philosophy so much. #TheWestIsTheBest No if you will excuse me I am going to go pull an all nighter reading Atlas Shrugged.

It is quite unfortunate that this message to this day has to continue to be repeated Ad Infinitum, but I will go to my grave pontificating it if I have to. Just today there was a terrorist attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany and the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a gunmen shouting "Alluha Akbar" . I imagine the response from the sanctimonious Left is going to be to continue to try and flood Europe with refugees. If these event does not strengthen and firmly solidify the Nationalist uprising that has been occurring in the West for the past year, I do not know what will. Say what you want about religion, but this is why not only Christianity but freedom of religion as an idea exists and is celebrated in the West, and why Radical Islam will simply never be compatible with Western Ideals. However, this is not only an indictment of Radical Islam but also of massive national Western governments and the continued, relentless initiation of the use of force against innocent civilians. I believe these events present a very compelling case for why the West should stop being involved in destabilization of the Middle East via arming terrorist factions. Violence only begets further violence as is the case with parenting and the cycle of abuse. Can we please just put the fucking guns and bombs away for once and try freedom and peace for a change instead? #RestoreTheWest #RejectRadicalIslam #NonInterventionism #TheNAP

https://www.youtube.com/c/sachaslone

Saving Western Civilization: If I'm going to be honest, it baffles me that I, a 1st Generation Kenyan immigrant with not a drop of European blood or strand of European DNA, has to explain the dangers of demographic and cultural suicide of Europe to people with Dutch, Irish, German, British, French, Austrian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish and every other type of European ancestry. Have no fear my European brothers and sisters in philosophy. I will continue to pontificate and proselytize for Western civilization until I am six feet under. You can be assured of that. Still, can somebody explain this paradox to me? I don't understand... Europe may actually fall within this century. It sure would be real nice if Europeans could MAN THE FUCK UP AND NOT SUBMIT TO THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT IS RADICAL ISLAM. I'm not a European, nor do I have European ancestry. However, as a grateful, red pilled 1st Generation immigrant I understand that if Europe collapses, the foundational buttress that holds up the glittering and beautiful monasteries and cathedrals of Western Civilization will crumble and wither away to nothing. The rest of the world will soon follow suit. America will then become the sole bastion of Western ideals on the planet. Don't get it twisted, America is formidable and steadfast but even we cannot endure a 21st Century Crusade coming from all sides indefinitely without support. Europe, you MUST PRESERVE YOUR INHERITANCE. Most people in Europe today either did nothing or very little to earn the freedoms you take for granted. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE AT RISK FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING CALLED RACIST OR ISLAMAPHOBIC. THESE ARE WORDS THAT CAN BE IGNORED. SWORDS BEING PLUNGED INTO YOUR HEARTS, NOT AS EASY TO IGNORE. If you cannot withstand the social ostracism and disapproval from people who were never really your friends to begin with then what the FUCK ARE YOU EVEN FIGHTING FOR AT ALL? Your time grows short, it's time to make a decision. Submit you and your children's wellbeing to the whims of foreign invaders or grow a set of balls and tell your women to FUCK OFF and let the MEN do the danger forecasting decision making. I trust you will make the correct choice for there is only one choice to be made. Just like in the 20th Century when our parents and grandparents faced a battle of economic ideas between a choice of Communism vs. Capitalism, in the 21st Century we now face a cultural battle of ideas between the West and Radical Islam. Will we submit and allow our children's futures to be Hell on Earth? Or will we fight to preserve the one civilization that has stood the test of time and has consistently come out at number 1 in virtually every regard? What risk do we actually face today? Being called mean names? Having pejoratives attached to our positions as if they were actual arguments? People who questioned cultural hegemony in Medieval times were subject to crucifixion and being burned at the stake. We face no such threats in the modern world. My fellow Alpha males, we just survived the biggest shitstorm of an election cycle with relentless attacks from the mainstream establishment. Trump withstood the screeching hyenas of the Leftist echo chamber press and WON DECISIVELY. It is time to leverage this momentum for all that it is worth. If we are going to shrink away from pathetic attacks like the Cuckservative establishment has done after all of the shit we have just been through, what the hell is our purpose in this world anyways? I ask all of you to remember why the West Is The Best this upcoming year. The war for the preservation of the West has been ongoing for centuries but this is a critical juncture. If we fail to proselytize through words now, we will be proselytizing with bullets and bombs later. I am stepping up to the plate, the real question is will YOU? #TheWestIsTheBest Please share this far a wide. It is long past time the West woke up from this open borders, multicultural, Kafkaesque madness and delusion.

Here's something that has fascinated me for quite a while now. I speak for myself when I say this. It's interesting that people on both the Left and the Right can be opposed to and decry monopolies in the private sector but at the same time support the government. If anything, the government is the largest monopoly ever to exist in human history. Take a moment and think about why that is. Here are a few reasons why the government is the single largest monopoly: 1. Control of Money: National governments in most countries have the authority, indirectly through the proxy of their central banks, to issue currency and determine its value. When governments control the printing of money they also have to control the interest rates. Interest is referred to as the "time cost of money." For example, whenever somebody takes out a loan from a bank the borrower is expected to pay back principal plus extra money accrued over the life of the loan which is the interest. Depending on the interest rate a central banks decides to set, borrowing money can either be very costly or very cheap. This give governments pretty much an exclusive monopoly over all economic activity within a country. Those who control the money supply ultimately determine the economic decisions of the citizens. 2.The Rules of the Game: The legislative branch of the federal government has the prerogative to draft rules and regulations that govern the activities of the general population. I would urge people to not take me out of context here: I do not believe there should be NO rules whatsoever. I do believe, however, that bureaucrats and politicians within government are just as ill equipped to write rules as Joey the plumber who lives down the street. Politicians are not autonomous, artificial intelligence robots that can plan for decades into the future for what a modern economy will look like. For crying out loud we can barely predict what the stock price of Apple will be in 10 minutes. Never mind planning for the intricacies and complexities of a 21st Century economy, that is just ridiculous. Often I get accused of not knowing everything. Exactly! That's the point, I don't know the best way to run society. But if I don't know then neither do these sleazy, corrupt politicians being voted into office year after year. You cannot just say that I don't know everything and then say "But yeah man those politicians they know everything, we just have to get the right guy/women into office." To do so would be to set up an arbitrary category of people in society, call it government, and the acquiesce all of our rights to this entity. If we wish to remain morally/philosophical consistent and universal, this contradiction cannot be allowed to stand. This notion is simply delusory as there is no "anointed" man or women or group of men or women. There are simply human beings trying to make the best decisions on how to efficiently distribute resources in society. The idea that any one person would be able to know exactly what everyone in a country wants done and then be able to deliver on that promise would be to pretend that we have infinite resources on a finite planet like money, natural resources, time etc. it's just we aren't trying hard enough. Is it any wonder then that despite all of the new regulations being imposed on say the financial sector the lobbyists and special interest groups continue to find ways around it? As a learned man once said and I paraphrase here: "If you make corruption the source of someone's income, don't be surprised when they become really good at being corrupt." 3. Declaration of War: At the drop of a hat, at any moment, governments can commit citizens to war that can last 15 years. These protracted wars of attrition accomplish nothing and only lead to continued feelings of resentment between countries. The idea that we can solve violence with more violence is one thing that baffles me about discourse in this country. Make no mistake, I am grateful for American veterans who have themselves. What I question is why the strategy of preemptively initiating force and aggression in countries that pose no threat needs to continue? We've tried that regime replacing method for the last 15 years, basically for as long as I have been alive, and the Middle East is not a shinning beacon of Western ideals yet. How many more Hellfire missiles and drone strikes is it going to take before Iran or Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic? Is there really no other way? Also it's quite easy for politicians to sign off other people's lives to war they are too old to participate and their children are exempt from the Draft. Similar to the moral hazard that happened in 2008 with the housing crisis, it is very easy to make decisions that do not appear to directly affect you. It is other people who must pay for the consequences of your actions whether you are the person voting for the war or the politician who sponsored the legislation. It's all immoral and just plain misanthropic. To conclude, these are just three reasons why governments are not fit to literally shape the course of human history. Perhaps I have proselytized a few of you out there in the inter-web. If I have, feel free to share this essay with as many people as possible. The truth must be spoken at all costs. If you don't see me posting within the next couple of days, I have probably been arrested and sent to room 101 for my re-education. Live long and prosper my fellow human beings. May the light of philosophy finally shine bright in this age of delusion and darkness.

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

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.