Trump Fascination

[Chad Mitchell]

I am having a very difficult time understanding how a philosophy show dedicated to the promotion of rational thinking, sound arguments, and principles like the NAP spends so much time talking about Donald Trump. I find the man comical, but the contradictions the man has made through his life on principles and issues is quite blatant. In this cycle alone, while Stefan made videos detailing the grave injustice against the ranchers in Nevada and Oregon, Trump is being interviewed by Field and Stream magazine talking about how the Federal Government should keep the lands to keep them nice. Obviously that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is. I feel has if libertarian/anarchists for Trump are just one big troll rooting for him only because they see him facilitating the fall of the two party system. Thoughts?

[aviet]

Some Libertarians like Trump because he appears to be for some sort of strength as the US spirals into a decaying, come-one-come-all welfare state run by insiders. Trump has run as an anti-establishment candidate. He's killed the media, the bush dynasty, the wars, dewesternisation, shipping jobs abroad and more.

If you want to be a purist and have everything your own way, your facing a huge uphill battle. Myself, if I see something that is 10% than what I have, I'm not going to turn my nose up at it because I'm still not so keen on the other 90%.

But most of all a lot of people are pleased with how Trump has smashed up political correctness. He's been hammered from all angles by the media, actors and so on, but has not backed down once. In fact whenever he is attacked he has the unique ability to absorb the attack and come out stronger. He's opened up a new era - the culture wars, a war that has for many years only had one side.

If I had the choice between picking Ron Paul and Donald Trump for president, I would choose Trump. Ron Paul doesn't have the incredible personal strength it is going to need to act as a giant pivot against the establishment, lobbyists and cornucopia of other leaches that have attached themselves to the government.

[Will Torbald]

I think aviet's point about culture is very important. Trump is about a culture war against regressive leftists. If Trump can defeat them it is hugely motivational for everyone else to reclaim back values like plain common sense and pride in american/western values. Politically he is not a libertarian, but without a cultural battle, there won't be libertarians at all.

[shirgall]

There's nothing anti-philosophical about being interested in an inflection point. While this candidate's rise might not be as fascinating as the industrial revolution or the Renaissance it could be an important shift in the reflected values of the country.

 

There is also a faint hope that Trump is far more capable of listening to reason than professional politicians. The trick is understanding what will grab his attention.

[ValueOfBrevity]

I am having a very difficult time understanding how a philosophy show dedicated to the promotion of rational thinking, sound arguments, and principles like the NAP spends so much time talking about Donald Trump. I find the man comical, but the contradictions the man has made through his life on principles and issues is quite blatant. In this cycle alone, while Stefan made videos detailing the grave injustice against the ranchers in Nevada and Oregon, Trump is being interviewed by Field and Stream magazine talking about how the Federal Government should keep the lands to keep them nice. Obviously that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is. I feel has if libertarian/anarchists for Trump are just one big troll rooting for him only because they see him facilitating the fall of the two party system. Thoughts?

Many people are excited about him because he represents taking corporate interests out of politics. 

[labmath2]

I was thinking of starting a new thread, but i think i will do it here.

 

When did it become fine to abandon principles for what looks good in the moment? When is it fine to engage in a behavior we know to be irrational? How is this different from those who vote in the person promising goodies because it's in their immediate self interest? If voting is morally neutal, when does political action become immoral?

[shirgall]

When did it become fine to abandon principles for what looks good in the moment?

 

When your choices are overly constrained due to threats and abuse you either freeze, run, become robotic, or take desperate but pragmatic actions. You aren't free to make choices any more.

[jpahmad]

I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense.  There is not conflict of principles.

[utopian]

Even Stephan has said that if he could snap his fingers and make the modern system anarchistic, he would not do it. It would be catastrophic. People would not be able to cope with such a tectonic shift in the system. It needs to be a process, a gradual stepping from one rung of the ladder to the next. Trump, while not completely onboard, is at least a better step in the right direction than anything else. 

[NoGreenerMan]

Labmath2 makes good points.

 

Trump coverage is boring to me. It's repetitive as is mainstream media. I'm also not interested in somebody who bows down to the lobby of a foreign country.

 

I much prefer listening to a philosophy show with philosophical discussions as its primary content and guests who are learned in philosophy.

[Des]

I have a male cousin in Norway, who makes Google+ posts against Trump, and a nephew here in South Africa, who responded to my Trump FB post from yesterday. Trump is a current topic, and entry point for a rational discussion about government.

When my cousin typed that Trump is unsuited to lead, I asked him if he personally needs a leader. I know the answer is that he is a Christian, so by his own standards he should follow Christ, not Hilliary Clinton.

[aviet]

I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense.  There is not a conflict of principles.

 

I love it. Brilliant line for a T-shirt. Here in the UK I will be voting for the first time in the European Union referendum; and from now on I think I will be voting for UKIP, for the same reason.

 

Even Stephan has said that if he could snap his fingers and make the modern system anarchistic, he would not do it. It would be catastrophic. People would not be able to cope with such a tectonic shift in the system. It needs to be a process, a gradual stepping from one rung of the ladder to the next. Trump, while not completely onboard, is at least a better step in the right direction than anything else. 

I agree and believe that for anything even approaching minarchism will require there to be a general agreement world-wide to certain principles and a relatively equal distribution of wealth. Either that or the minarchist state would require strong immigration policies, like Singapore, who refuse entry for refugees.

 

I'd go a step further and say if I could snap my fingers and change the minds of everyone in the world to be conducive to living in a world without government and other coercive bodies that I would not do it. It kind of defeats the point. For us to get to a world like that would require it being earned, through the same hardships that our ancestors went through against the church etc. Clicking your fingers is too much like the instant fix that statists think they can roll out through government; paid for by future generations who they naively believe will be so enriched from their clueless tinkering that paying it off will be a breeze.

[dsayers]

I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense.  There is no conflict of principles.

Sure there is. You're perpetuating focus on who sits on the throne instead of focusing on the legitimacy of that throne. You're giving a nod to aggression and the idea that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. And wasting your time when you are better than most at using that time focusing on things that are helpful to us all.

[labmath2]

When your choices are overly constrained due to threats and abuse you either freeze, run, become robotic, or take desperate but pragmatic actions. You aren't free to make choices any more.

What do you mean by your choices are overly contrained? For someone in a freeze run or become robot state you seem pretty relaxed to me, but then i have never been great at readinf emotion. So you are not free to not vote Trump?

 

If this is a case of self defense as some have suggested, you will need to show it and not merely assert it. Is your life in immediate unavoidable danger? Is voting comparable to attacking your attacker? When does politucal action take the form of moral responsibility? If you are sucessful in electing Trump, is there moral culpability on your part for his actions?

[jpahmad]

Sure there is. You're perpetuating focus on who sits on the throne instead of focusing on the legitimacy of that throne. You're giving a nod to aggression and the idea that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. And wasting your time when you are better than most at using that time focusing on things that are helpful to us all.

 

it doesn't take that much time to vote

[RichardY]

Makes me think of the 1980 film Flash Gordon(Queen Song, only good part). With Trump playing the role of Flash, but instead of Flash as an American Football star, he's a businessman instead.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Sure there is. You're perpetuating focus on who sits on the throne instead of focusing on the legitimacy of that throne. You're giving a nod to aggression and the idea that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. And wasting your time when you are better than most at using that time focusing on things that are helpful to us all.

I agree with you. There is a palpable conflict of principles. 

 

Voting for Donald Trump is an act of pragmatism.

It is indeed yet another choice between evil and a lesser-evil.

Only in this case, as anarchists, we can see a bigger contrast than usual.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Even Stephan has said that if he could snap his fingers and make the modern system anarchistic, he would not do it. It would be catastrophic. People would not be able to cope with such a tectonic shift in the system. It needs to be a process, a gradual stepping from one rung of the ladder to the next. Trump, while not completely onboard, is at least a better step in the right direction than anything else. 

Removing government must be done voluntarily by individuals. If Stephan did snap his fingers, he would initiating force upon the people who might choose to live in a state.

[Hannibal]

It's the same reason my good friend surprised me by saying he really likes the monarchy here in the UK. I hadn't thought of it before, but as he said it's the last bastion of defence manifested in some nationalistic pride which is stopping the cancerous tidal wave of leftism from breaking over us all and washing England out to the bottom of the ocean forever.

Removing government must be done voluntarily by individuals. If Stephan did snap his fingers, he would initiating force upon the people who might choose to live in a state.

 

That makes no sense. Unless you think snapping your fingers to put all rapists in jail is initiating force against people who choose to live as rapists.

[ObserveandReport]

it doesn't take that much time to vote

Hopefully it doesn't take much time to wade through the candidates issues but... even an avid reader has a lot of material to go through.

[shirgall]

Removing government must be done voluntarily by individuals. If Stephan did snap his fingers, he would initiating force upon the people who might choose to live in a state.

 

What if we just shot people that directly impose unchosen positive obligations backed by force and with "consent of the plurality" as the only justification?

[ValueOfBrevity]

That makes no sense. Unless you think snapping your fingers to put all rapists in jail is initiating force against people who choose to live as rapists.

People can still choose to live in a society nearly identical to the state with the exception that one must opt in to live there and can opt out by leaving it. I believe our disagreement is semantic. 

 

What if we just shot people that directly impose unchosen positive obligations backed by force and with "consent of the plurality" as the only justification?

 

Sounds kind of familiar...

[ObserveandReport]

People can still choose to live in a society nearly identical to the state with the exception that one must opt in to live there and can opt out by leaving it. I believe our disagreement is semantic. 

 

Must they leave? If I own land, why must I sell it or sacrifice it's value in order to opt out? I'm not saying I have good answers (because I havn't really thought through or consulted good arguments).

[Pod]

I was thinking of starting a new thread, but i think i will do it here.

 

When did it become fine to abandon principles for what looks good in the moment? When is it fine to engage in a behavior we know to be irrational? How is this different from those who vote in the person promising goodies because it's in their immediate self interest? If voting is morally neutal, when does political action become immoral?

 

The best way I can put it is this:

 

You're in a torture chamber.  The torturer gives you a choice of three implements.  A taser, a branding iron, or a drill.  You're gonna pick the taser, but it doesn't mean you wanna be tortured. 

[labmath2]

The best way I can put it is this:

 

You're in a torture chamber. The torturer gives you a choice of three implements. A taser, a branding iron, or a drill. You're gonna pick the taser, but it doesn't mean you wanna be tortured.

If that is the case, did you go and vote in all previous elections for the lesser of two evils? Do you see no alternative other than electing the less immoral candidate? If your candidate wins do you bear any responsibility for his actions? Does it matter that your choice will impact others?

[ValueOfBrevity]

Must they leave? If I own land, why must I sell it or sacrifice it's value in order to opt out? I'm not saying I have good answers (because I havn't really thought through or consulted good arguments).

Imagine 95% of people wanted to organize what I described previously (a state with opt-in/out) and 5% do not.

 

Since they are upholding NAP, they only have their free association to withdrawal from those 5%.

The 5% will be social pariahs; No one will do business with them. They will have very strong incentive to move.

 

 

 

[ObserveandReport]

Imagine 95% of people wanted to organize what I described previously (a state with opt-in/out) and 5% do not.

 

Since they are upholding NAP, they only have their free association to withdrawal from those 5%.

The 5% will be social pariahs; No one will do business with them. They will have very strong incentive to move.

 

 

 

Right. But you can't morally force them out correct? That's maybe what I thought you were suggesting.

[regevdl]

I am having a very difficult time understanding how a philosophy show dedicated to the promotion of rational thinking, sound arguments, and principles like the NAP spends so much time talking about Donald Trump. I find the man comical, but the contradictions the man has made through his life on principles and issues is quite blatant. In this cycle alone, while Stefan made videos detailing the grave injustice against the ranchers in Nevada and Oregon, Trump is being interviewed by Field and Stream magazine talking about how the Federal Government should keep the lands to keep them nice. Obviously that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is. I feel has if libertarian/anarchists for Trump are just one big troll rooting for him only because they see him facilitating the fall of the two party system. Thoughts?

I think one can comment about the Holocaust without being  a supporter for it.  And same goes for Trump.  The media hasn't done a good job keeping it balanced.  I don't mind hearing people's complaints but people are like allergic to have ANYTHING positive to say about him.  That is equally as bad as the 'staunch loyalists' to him. 

 

To overly support him or to overly rail against him is equally toxic. 

 

I think not only does it bring people into Philosophical debates and to this channel because Trump is a ratings magnet.  Europe is suffering from the migrant crisis and have no safe outlet to speak about it and from what I've heard in the call in shows, many of the Europeans calling in to discuss their experience of the migrants have been BECAUSE Stefan is bringing up Trump in the discussion. 

 

So sometimes, don't read too much into it.  Just clever content advertising and using current events to attract new listeners to the conversation.  

[jpahmad]

 Does it matter that your choice will impact others?

 

 

You have no idea how it's going to impact you or others labmath2.  

[dsayers]

Does it matter that your choice will impact others?

This is arguing from effect. I think it's more efficient to focus on the fact that people who politically vote are adding to the legitimacy of the entire system. Since that approach covers the effect and much more.

[tasmlab]

Frankly I preferred Trump's previous TV show to this one.

[shirgall]

Frankly I preferred Trump's previous TV show to this one.

 

We can combine the two. Who do you think he will fire first? Smart money is on Janet Yellen. (Three or more puns intended!)

[jpahmad]

This is arguing from effect. I think it's more efficient to focus on the fact that people who politically vote are adding to the legitimacy of the entire system. Since that approach covers the effect and much more.

 

I totally agree dsayers that labmath is arguing from effect.  However, how is "legitimizing" not an effect as well.  Also, "legitimizing" is not observable behavior.  But I don't think you are making an ethical argument so whether it is "observable" or not doesn't really matter I guess.  

 

The one thing that bother me though, is that many anarchists (maybe not you) say that voting has no effect.  But doesn't "legitimizing" show efficacy?  Either voting has an effect or it doesn't.  Which one is it?

[ValueOfBrevity]

Right. But you can't morally force them out correct? That's maybe what I thought you were suggesting.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "morally force".

They can't initiate force against someone who owns land within their desired "state area".

Getting them to move is more of a business objective.

[Quadrewple]

When did it become fine to abandon principles for what looks good in the moment?

 

Your implication seems to be that we must hold ourselves to higher moral standards than the people around us who regularly praise the use of force against us.  We are not obligated to do so.  If you believe you must, go for it.

If you're so concerned with the abandonment of principles, you should put your focus on criticizing literally every single group other than libertarians.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Quadrewple