Search the Community

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)?

I recently got finished watching the debate between Stefan Molyneux and Bill Mitchell. Bill's stance was trust Trump because he's smarter than all of us. Which he is. Stefan's stance was invading the middle east is and has always been a bad idea. Which is true. Speaking as an ancap/libertarian/voluntarist, I have never bothered with politics because there's no point fighting against that which we cannot change. Before Trump's election the world had a different view on politics than today. Politicians make a lot of promises, we "vote" and if we're really, really lucky maybe a tiny fraction of those promises will be kept. I used to laugh at people that got so involved into politics to the point they were genuinely shocked when a politician didn't keep their promise. I still do this to be fair, with this whole Marine Le Pen hype. She's a lawyer, a career politician, a woman, and a socialist. Who does she remind you of? Anyways, I got invested in Trump not because of his policies but because of the man himself. He fought against literally everyone and won. I genuinely believe that if there's anyone that could put a halt or slow down the machine of power known as the state it would be him. I can't think of anyone else who could do it. Well, maybe Batman but crime-fighting billionaire playboys don't exi-- So where I'm getting at is what if the the cogs of the warmachine with Syria were put into motion and Trump couldn't stop it? What if the "most powerful man on Earth" doesn't really have that much power? A lot of shady stuff has been going on in Trump's cabinet with Bannon being pushed further away, Trump loyalists getting kicked out and neocons brought in, the corrupt media suddenly doing an 180 literally over night, other globalists start praising him, and so on. How much of these events is Trump and how much is deep state? How could we possibly even know the difference at this point? I think this is the most important question. It used to be simple. Are the democrats, McCain, Merkel, MSM, etc upset? Then it's Trump. Now's I'm just confused who's doing what. There's no point in debating x decision was right or wrong when we don't even have a method of determining if he's the one that's making it. So what do you guys think? Are these high-ranking state officials just glorified poster boys (and girls) or does the office actually hold power?

The main question is this: How can an anarchist society flourish (or even survive) surrounded by statist societies? The main reason I bring this up is because the only two things I see a government capable of doing right at least most of the time are national defense and law enforcement. While I can conceive of more localized law enforcement under an anarcho-capitalist society much like of Stef's vision, I simply cannot see how such a society would remain free so long as "enslaved" (I will use to Greek definition of liberty: free from rule) societies remain. If America were the site of a free society, the main obstacle would be a heavily militaristic and morally relativistic Mexico. Should Mexico actually transform from a crime infested hell to some kind of nation state, I would say Mexico would probably repeat old history an attempt to invade America, at least to reclaim their old territories and gain some more as a bargain. If there is no standing army in this hypothetical on the part of the Americans, then the Americans would be doomed to fail as history does not favor a mass of localized militias (I assume militias would act as armies in times of need in an anarchist society) without central authority or military discipline. I use America as my prime example mainly because I am American and feasibly the only statist society that might invade for *inset reason here* is Mexico, whereas in Europe the political dynamic would be a bit byzantine in that essentially every European country has historically been under pressure to be the local hegemonist or be conquered by another hegemonist. In America I see a free society being the most feasible as the only historically militaristic society liable to invade that could not be handled by a couple of cities' militia would be Mexico. My own answer to this problem, which I will subject to change if you guys can give me the arguments, is something like this: We need states so long as states exist, therefore states will always exist unless one state conquers every other state and disbands itself (by state I mean government, not a Germanic province). As a side question: has Stef written a book on what his vision of anarcho-capitalism might be? If so please give me a name so I can read/listen and give myself a better picture on what anarcho-capitalism applied might look like.

http://www.gafreeman.net/

Recently, Stephan has discussed atheism and its correlation with statism and leftist ideals. While atheism is just one position about the existence of god(s), Stephan's position is that people without religion lack the moral directives of the religious. For example, Atheists must derive things like work ethic and family values from their personal experience rather than religious literature. Skepticism requires fair application to maximize enlightenment (atheism is only one line of dominoes, to borrow Steph's analogy). Where is the first line of dominoes, then? What first principles must a person acquire so that they don't narrow their scope of skeptical inquiry?

In Stefans recent discussions with Bill whittle and his numerious videos on immigration and Donald Trump, he has said some things that seem me to be either appealing to those in the fence on the right or implisidly advocating for State programs or even Donald trump himself. Now correct if i am wrong, but he has said that "we are at war with them" and that "youre squandering what youre forefathers fough and died for". He seems to me to have become more and more willing to implisidly promote if not endorse trump and the ideas that "western society" is something were all part of like a tribe. Which is i disagree with. We are all induviduals and should be judged so and advocating implicibly for any state policies would make one not an ancap. Forgive me if my concerns and fears are unfounded but for the last few months Stefan has been talking more and more about western culture and scoiety instead about peaceful parenting, philosofical deeper problems WHY there is this influx of muslims and also starting humbly from principles and NOT pushing these seemingly nationalistic and collectivist ideas. Has anyone else gotten this Implisiveness from his videos? Are my concerns unfounded?

OLD

Part 1: A Comparison of Common Objections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfg0L-bEgU&feature=youtu.be Illusions of the State Voters have a choice If you don't like this country you can leave it or go live in the woods Government is the price you pay to live in a civilized society Has anarchy ever worked? Problem of the commons But there would be crime everywhere Is this because you're angry at your family? Myths of the Family Parents didn't have a choice Parents can't move or change jobs to protect their kid Don't you dare tell me how to raise my kid! Stop focusing on all the bad stuff and ignoring the good stuff They fed you and gave you shelter, didn't they? So you think that everything is abuse, huh? Stop psychoanalyzing me!

I have heard many FDR podcasts where Stefan suggests call the "authorities" or call the cops in situations of abuse. I always find this irritating. From my experience, the "authorities" are most problematic in areas where abuse is most common. I live in an area now where I hear neighbors fighting. I have heard people yelling on another block when I had the windows closed at night. I see little children, clearly neglected, smashing up abandoned houses that are dangerous. I have heard stories about little pre-kindergarten children killing feral kittens. I did not call anyone and won't. I see the police as some of the most despicable thugs around. I try to be friendly to people especially children. I figure the best thing to do at this time is just interact in a positive way so they see a positive communication modeled. I'm not great at it, but I think it's worth trying to communicate in this way so they see that there are other types of people in this world. Not surprising, I have heard rumors spread about me being abusive. These rumors appear to come from the neighbors who I imagine are the most abusive based on the behavior of their children. They are projecting their abuse onto me. I believe Stefan's only argument for calling these people into an abusive situation is they are the only option we have right now. This argument is only valid if it is believed that the police are actually beneficial and are working for the ends they claim. They are not. Their stated goals only serve as cover for their predatory behavior. Their only purpose is to intimidate people into complying with the dictates of statists including themselves. They make up false accusations to get arrests. They cowardly target those who pose no harm while ignoring those who are a real danger. They prey upon those who appear unable to defend themselves. Sounds like the behavior of an abusive parent, right? The victims of the abuse hang onto the delusion that their abusers are there to protect them. The state is clearly just an extension of the dysfunctional family. To call in predators to deal with predators is to support predators. It's possible that my experiences with cops and other similar types are very different from what many others experience. The Ontario and British police may be mostly nice fellows in some areas. Maybe Stef's suggestion comes out of his wishful thinking that calling them will be productive or that someone could have called and prevented abuses done to him. Maybe he is still hanging onto the myth of a savior coming in to solve a problem. Letting go of this faith in imposed authorities leads to the uncomfortable reality that there is no protector. If we can tolerate this reality, we can begin to form new solutions that may actually benefit those who are being abused. It will take a long time to get these solutions to a productive level, but we have to begin. And we can't begin if we continue to live in the fantasy of a cop or CPS worker coming in and saving children. Building a free society involves de-normalizing abuse and seeing it for what it is, and those who tolerate abusive "authorities" are those who have normalized abuse. This meme of normalizing abuse is what needs to be destroyed. The meme of attachment to an abuser as is so common in the most abusive cultures must be destroyed. I'm sure many of you have noticed that insulting a person's mother is taken most personally by those who have the most abusive mothers. This is a painful reality that musty be exposed. So what are the solutions? I don't know. But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it. Advertise these memes so thoroughly that children who are unsatisfied will begin to question societal norms. Make the questioning of parents a normal behavior. Get it into discussion. Some ideas I have are posting billboards with lines such as: "Mothers who love don't hit." "Mothers who love don't yell at children." "Respect Children" "Break the cycle. Respect children." A business idea I have had that is probably not yet possible is a business made up of people who go around to homes where abuse is suspected and simply discusses peaceful parenting while empathizing with the frustrations of the parents. It would take the right kind of people to do this, something I am not. I think it may also have to wait until after some of the memes of questioning parents have been promoted sufficiently. This would also have to be funded on a donation based model something I also cannot afford. I have other ideas and am open to suggestions from anyone who is interested in this idea. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Another fine altruistic action from the state, proving yet again, if there was no state who would feed the homeless? [90 Year old minister receives a visit from the Crips (aka the boys in blue) for dealing food to the homeless, which everyone knows is turf long been claimed by the gang] http://youtu.be/gRF6Sc71jYY

I am a Minarchist and I know some people here might hate me for it, but let me explain. This open letter is meant to be at least some point in history to be read by Stefan as I very much respect his opinion. Anyone else reading this please don't dislike the post if you think I am wrong, but rather state why by a reply. I am fully willing to change my views if someone can prove me wrong on this! Minarchism in my opinion is a safe way to a totally free society. At the moment the societies we live in have state regulations and public sector companies growing everywhere around it. Some things are at the moment dependent on the state, because the previous generations thought it would be a good idea to build an infrastructure that is based on the existence of the state. If we went immediately from the current society to the Libertarian model of society, we would risk a chaos. Many people are so used to be living in a state that it would be impossible for them to deal in such a situation. A peaceful transaction from Statism to Libertarianism can only be achieved by taking it slow. Starting from privatizing public sector, reducing government regulations and decreasing the size of the army. It will take many decades until we reach a point where we can safely shut down the government and begin a completely free society. An example of a government that is ready to be shut down would be a one that only provides basic legal system and the police. The only thing I am still wondering about is how can we transfer the legal system to the private sector? I mean there is a huge chance for it to become corrupt... But I believe it can all be figured out while we get there, the important thing right now is to get this started. I still believe that politics and voting are important because they are a way to change the world without causing panic or fear. Of course there are examples of peaceful revolutions but that is a huge risk to take. Also in Minarchism there is the option to stop and think again if everything goes to hell. So before you judge Minarchists, let me tell you this: We both have the same goal, we just want to be VERY careful while getting there. And all out revolution is a big risk and risks cost lives. This is my question to Stefan (if he ever reads this): I know that what you want is freedom, but there is a big risk. So what are you willing to bet on it? Your life, your friends lives, your relatives lives or even your daughters life? I do not mean to come out insulting this is just a question I SO DEEPLY want an answer to. I am yet to find a video on Stefan about this subject but if someone knows one then I would appreciate if you linked it to me. Again if you people think this question is insulting or too personal (I don't think it is but i have been wrong), then please tell me either via private message or via posting on the thread so I can take whatever actions are necessary. Thank you all for listening to me and I hope you do well. Markus FIN

If you have a conversation with your average person you will quickly find yourself frustrated with their inability to think. Honesty and curiosity are met by defensive mechanisms, these people have designed their entire lives specifically to avoid any discomfort. Their dream is winning the lottery or an easy job that isn't challenging but pays well "perhaps a government job or government contract work" so they can spend the rest of their time enjoying leisure. Imagine a group of people playing while a child is being raped nearby. Even a statist would find this horrific, however this is analogically what statists do. Not only do they allow the rape to occur, well after the rape has occurred they become outraged and demand that the rapist be put in charge of protecting all other children from rape. This is the demented thought process that the majority of people possess, bringing it to their attention will only unleash their reactionary animal. Violent sociopaths are able to rule the world because people are terrified of change. People can convince themselves that they are open to change.. They can change their hairstyle, change their fashion accessories, change their Facebook etc.. However they are not willing to even consider the possibility of changing anything that is relatively important or hard to digest. Yes the War on Drugs is destroying families but drugs are bad.. Yes the War on Terror creates more terror but we can't just let the terrorist win.. Yes the War on Poverty is destroying the economy but we can't just let poor people suffer.. This is the pathetic world that people live in. Which is why there is so much emphasis on trivial and meaningless things such as sports, celebrity gossip and status symbols. The oozy lump in the head that these people consider to be a brain will rationalize their submissive existence by repetitively chanting "there is nothing I can do about it, so I might as well try to enjoy myself" or "same shit different day" we have all heard these type of slogans but try making this excuse in the scenario where a child is being raped, almost everyone would think you are despicable. However these same people are not able to make this basic connection in relation to their own sadistic masters. Because they are in fact disconnected from reality, ensnared in a stasis trap of perpetual ignorance.

At least Auroracoin (Iceland) and Scotcoin (well...) are now in existence. I suppose this was something to be expected as more and more human (geeky) cattle learns about fiat money, while being unwilling to process other kinds of irrationality in their lives. These coins of course have nothing to do against Bitcoin (first mover advantage, network effect, global use, and basically objective factors... *yawn*) and their obvious absurdity shines beautiful light on the fact that countries and states are a thing of the past. Anyway, I thought this was rather funny.

I was going to put this under "Statists say the darndest things" thread but I think it's a little too long. A week or so ago a friend of mine asked me to reply to a comment he received on Facebook regarding a meme criticizing the Federal Reserve. Normally I avoid Facebook discussions like the plague, but my buddy (who I have recently gotten interested in logic/sophistry) suggested that I respond by looking at the guy's logical fallacies. I figured what the heck, I could consider it practice and at least try to get some useful sources out to whoever would be reading it. Anyway, I figured I would post it here for a.) everyone's amusement and b.) criticism of my logical analysis at the end. It all starts with this meme: To which our Statist in question makes the original comment: My initial reply: Did I sound reasonable? I sure thought I sounded reasonable. Here's the sophisticated response I got from Mr. Statist: Before I answered this well-rounded, polite, and rational post, I just wanted to check: Statist response: My response: Statist: Oooookay. If you want some facts, I guess I'll just feed you yours. I took a few days to ruminate on it and to make sure I calmed down a bit before dissecting his initial response to me, but here's what I came up with: To which I received no response. Ah well. Maybe I got someone to look into sophistry or the sources I linked. -Dylan

Imagine states as big, big corporations, and they simply offer services in exchange for money. Except that they happen to have the internal policy that if you are on their own territory (private property), they make the taxes mandatory. However, it is more efficient to pool resources if you have many clients. Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT country. But there still is competition between states. You are free to move to the state which offers you the best service for the least money. The states which listen to what people need and inform them what they're getting into are the ones which more people will consider worth migrating to. And if you really think about the "mandatory tax" part, perhaps it's better that way, because it's much, much more expensive to live on your own on a deserted island. So the tax is just the profit of the state. EDIT: also solving the free rider problem. Even in Somalia, while it was anarho-capitalist-ish, you HAD to belong to a clan in order to have any rights, even though you were free to migrate between them. States work best when small and adaptable to what their people want. And it's better to have many small states so people more easily migrate. So, do your job by telling people who don't like it to either migrate, or to fight for lower taxes or division.I am no longer an anarcho-capitalist, but a minarchist. Can you convince me otherwise?