Stefan’s constant decay into outright conservatism

[Natalia]

Stefan’s constant decay into outright conservatism did not fail to worry me, together with Trump’s rising popularity. 

 

I figured out that what specifically worried me about it had already been thought and eloquently talked about by Robert Wright in a TED Talk from ten years ago, so I will just embed the video and let yourselves understand the problems of the currently growing patriotism, conservatism and self-righteousness.

 

[dsayers]

Stefan’s constant decay into outright conservatism

MMD's right. Stef is a man and therefore possesses the capacity for error. This assertion does nothing to identify what error you see or where.

[Wuzzums]

patriotism, conservatism and self-righteousness.

...as opposed to what?

[Tyler H]

I've been wanting to express my opinion on this topic for a while so I suppose now is as good a time as any. I stopped listening to every new podcast around the time FDR started covering the debates so I'm not sure what has been said and what hasn't.  From the podcasts/videos I have listened to/watched I do infer what in my opinion borders on support.  The most recent one I can refer to and put forward as evidence is the video on bernie sanders giving his support to clinton.  In this video Stef criticizes bernie and hillary and says at the end if you're looking for something different you got trump. Not exactly support but I think many people will see it that way anyway, especially when contrasted with earlier videos in relation to voting.  There was no holding back when it came to the myriad of reasons not to vote when dr. paul was running accompanied by an amazing elucidation into how pointless electing a new fancy bmw hood ornament (maybe trump is more of a chrysler?) to slap on an old shitty lada would be (podcast 1189 or youtube The Truth About Voting), I wonder why this position is noticeably absent in the videos on trump I have seen.  I understand lambasting the media for their mendacity but why withhold the reasons to not vote and to decry statism?  Now I haven't heard Stef explicitly support or endorse trump so for me to assert that would be unfounded and not conducive to the level of discourse we strive for here, but as we know many people will not see that difference and will think that voting for trump will do something other than lend support to an immoral and destructive system.  This is why I said it borders on support; it's not support but - in my opinion and of course I could be off base here, if so I apologize and welcome correction - it's really close.  

 

In one of the first roundtables with other notable anarchists in which Stef participated (podcast 953 ~40 min. in) Wendy McElroy convinced Stef (and myself) that voting is immoral since you are lending support to a candidate whom, if elected, will undoubtedly commit immoral actions for which you will share responsibility.  Have there been any podcasts arguing why this position has changed? I understand the fact that trump is not taking money from the usual suspects is appealing, but this in no way means he isn't only interested in power, control, and the expansion of his own financial portfolio; the type of person the position of POTUS attracts without exception.  

 

I think this topic strikes a chord with so many listeners because it's quite possible that Stef has convinced people to vote for trump and there is an argument to be made that there is little difference between voting and convincing someone else to vote.  I understand that statement implicates an enormous accusation and I hesitate to even type the words and there is a more than good chance that I am wrong and I would love to be corrected if so.  However I write it for the longshot that maybe I'm right and the arguments are welcomed criticism that prevents people from doing something they may later realize to be immoral.  I also completely apologize if there are videos I have not seen that address any or all of these issues; if so please point them out to me.  

 

I write this post with the best of intentions and hope it is received that way.  If not I am absolutely apologetic and welcome correction.

[Wuzzums]

There was no holding back when it came to the myriad of reasons not to vote when dr. paul was running accompanied by an amazing elucidation into how pointless electing a new fancy bmw hood ornament (maybe trump is more of a chrysler?) to slap on an old shitty lada would be (podcast 1189 or youtube The Truth About Voting), I wonder why this position is noticeably absent in the videos on trump I have seen.  I understand lambasting the media for their mendacity but why withhold the reasons to not vote and to decry statism?  Now I haven't heard Stef explicitly support or endorse trump so for me to assert that would be unfounded and not conducive to the level of discourse we strive for here, but as we know many people will not see that difference and will think that voting for trump will do something other than lend support to an immoral and destructive system.  This is why I said it borders on support; it's not support but - in my opinion and of course I could be off base here, if so I apologize and welcome correction - it's really close. 

Trump is not Dr. Paul. Trump is a candidate nobody thought would or could ever exist. Paul is a politician, Trump is a businessman. Paul is just another car, Trump is an airplane.

 

 

In one of the first roundtables with other notable anarchists in which Stef participated (podcast 953 ~40 min. in) Wendy McElroy convinced Stef (and myself) that voting is immoral since you are lending support to a candidate whom, if elected, will undoubtedly commit immoral actions for which you will share responsibility.  Have there been any podcasts arguing why this position has changed? I understand the fact that trump is not taking money from the usual suspects is appealing, but this in no way means he isn't only interested in power, control, and the expansion of his own financial portfolio; the type of person the position of POTUS attracts without exception.  

Now is not the time for libertarian principles. Now is the time for irrational pride in western values and culture. Now is the time to fight for maintaining what we have in order to fight for libertarian principles in the future.

 

 

it's quite possible that Stef has convinced people to vote for trump and there is an argument to be made that there is little difference between voting and convincing someone else to vote.

I certainly hope so!

[dsayers]

Now is not the time for libertarian principles. Now is the time for irrational pride in western values and culture. Now is the time to fight for maintaining what we have in order to fight for libertarian principles in the future.

Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape.

 

Oh and he CLAIMS to be an airplane. There's no mechanism in place to hold him to his pre-election positions or words, nor any consequences if he doesn't. It doesn't matter WHO sits on the throne; The throne is invalid.

[Wuzzums]

Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape.

 

It's not murder if it's self defense.

[Tyler H]

Trump is not Dr. Paul. Trump is a candidate nobody thought would or could ever exist. Paul is a politician, Trump is a businessman. Paul is just another car, Trump is an airplane.

 

What does this even mean?  Yes, two different people are two different people. Trump may not be a politician now but he will be if elected.  It has nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with the office.

 

 

Now is not the time for libertarian principles. Now is the time for irrational pride in western values and culture. Now is the time to fight for maintaining what we have in order to fight for libertarian principles in the future.

 

 

I could not possibly disagree more.  We are to abandon principles for irrational pride and culture?  If we abandon principles when it suits us you can throw UPB and the argument for morality out the window and go join the statists.

 

I certainly hope so!

 

I put forward the argument that voting is immoral and suggested that if Stef convinced someone to vote for Trump that would be immoral too and all you have to say is you certainly hope so? I certainly hope not! I hope I'm wrong or I hope that if I'm right then anyone promoting Trump or voting for him will avoid that immorality and stay home this November.  Joining the political process is saying that you know what's best and you're willing to enforce it through the barrel of a gun.

[thebeardslastcall]

 From the podcasts/videos I have listened to/watched I do infer what in my opinion borders on support. 

 

If someone is going to cut off one of my arms and I express a preference for having my left arm cut off and tell you what's worse about cutting off my wrong arm than left arm I wouldn't consider this to be support of any kind. Lots of people are going to vote and give actual support for Trump and it's only natural to want to influence that decision based on personal preferences. He's Canadian so he won't be voting and isn't out campaigning for Trump or even telling anyone to vote for Trump, but can't resist the urge to influence which arm gets cut off. Name one immoral position of Trump's that Stefan supports and then you'll have a basis for bad support. I'm guessing he feels as a lot of us do that both options are pretty horrible, but one is more horrible than the other. Also as a philosopher I'm sure he enjoys setting the record straight on media lies and using the opportunity of attracting political junkies to expose them to a bit of philosophy and alternative viewpoints to possibly steer a few onto a better path of more honest recognition of what is going on.

 

What would you rather he be doing or saying? Telling people not to vote doesn't work and won't make them suddenly understand why they shouldn't. With over 3000 podcasts he's already made that case against voting more than once. Many of the podcasts have nothing to do with current events, but are on teaching understanding and principles around morality and voting. That does give me one suggestive idea, perhaps for every political video or podcast a link to previous podcasts on voting and such can be added to the description giving Youtubers and others the ability to go back and listen to why they might want to consider not voting. The goal after all is to make doing the right thing easier.

[Wuzzums]

What does this even mean?  Yes, two different people are two different people. Trump may not be a politician now but he will be if elected.  It has nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with the office.

It meant Dr. Paul was a career politician. Trump was a career businessman. I don't trust career politicians.

 

I could not possibly disagree more.  We are to abandon principles for irrational pride and culture?  If we abandon principles when it suits us you can throw UPB and the argument for morality out the window and go join the statists.

Right now I'm thinking I might very well join the statists. While savages are knocking at our door all the libertarian party is able to do is make a mockery of itself. 

Would you rather be some collateral victim or someone that supports a government that allows you to have principles in the first place? 

 

The initiation of force is immoral. Muslim murderers initiate force. Initiating force against muslim murderes is moral. A state that initiates force against murderers is not immoral. How's that for a principle?

 

I put forward the argument that voting is immoral and suggested that if Stef convinced someone to vote for Trump that would be immoral too and all you have to say is you certainly hope so? I certainly hope not! I hope I'm wrong or I hope that if I'm right then anyone promoting Trump or voting for him will avoid that immorality and stay home this November.  Joining the political process is saying that you know what's best and you're willing to enforce it through the barrel of a gun.

We're talking about the real world. Nobody here is arguing that democracy is moral in principle. What I am arguing for is that only a fool would relinquish the little control he has in a democracy because of some principle when that very little control might make the difference between life and death.

 

I don't know how long you have been listening or a part of this community but this whole anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism thing is a long time affair. We will never live in such a world, however our grand children might have the opportunity. So isn't it our duty to stay on that path even if it requires us to go against one of our principles such as voting?

[thebeardslastcall]

There was no holding back when it came to the myriad of reasons not to vote when dr. paul was running accompanied by an amazing elucidation into how pointless electing a new fancy bmw hood ornament (maybe trump is more of a chrysler?) to slap on an old shitty lada would be (podcast 1189 or youtube The Truth About Voting), I wonder why this position is noticeably absent in the videos on trump I have seen. 

Could have to do with the fact that Ron Paul had no real chance of being elected and thus there was nothing to lose by shifting away his supporters, whereas Trump could actually win. Additionally Ron Paul supporters were more likely principled people open to such arguments and closer to a true libertarian anarchist view. Tends to be easier to tip an agnostic into atheism than a devout Christian who isn't even open to the arguments, as I imagine many Trump supporters aren't open to the case against voting at this time, particularly with Clinton on the other side to rile them.

[Will Torbald]

I could not possibly disagree more.  We are to abandon principles for irrational pride and culture? 

 

Principled behavior is the luxury of the people who overcome the woes of survival. When you are at the brink of cataclysm, whoever is actually alive after the fire is extinguished gets to decide what principles he can live on. Are you going to lecture a dying man on the principles of UPB when he does something immoral to live one more day? Because that's what America and Europe are going through. A battle for the survival of the only civilization in history that has ever believed in freedom at least for a day long enough to write it down and fight for it. If voting for Trump delays the seemingly inevitable third world-ification of the so called first world, so be it. Stef said it, too. He's gone into survival mode, not the time for moralisms. That comes after you manage to outlive.

[Tyler H]

Principled behavior is the luxury of the people who overcome the woes of survival. When you are at the brink of cataclysm, whoever is actually alive after the fire is extinguished gets to decide what principles he can live on. Are you going to lecture a dying man on the principles of UPB when he does something immoral to live one more day? Because that's what America and Europe are going through. A battle for the survival of the only civilization in history that has ever believed in freedom at least for a day long enough to write it down and fight for it. If voting for Trump delays the seemingly inevitable third world-ification of the so called first world, so be it. Stef said it, too. He's gone into survival mode, not the time for moralisms. That comes after you manage to outlive.

 

Can you point to evidence that we are at the brink of a cataclysm? And that Trump can save us from that cataclysm?  This is not an instance of imminent danger where there is a reasonable level of certainty regarding the outcome to justify using self defense.  There's no way to know that a Trump presidency will save us from anything.  There is no avoiding the hard times that await us; Trump may make it better or he may make it worse.  If he makes it better than it bolsters the idea of statism in the masses minds.  If he makes it worse then people die and those who put him there will have blood on their hands.  We stick to our principles, we live free and happy and when their system crashes down around them we show them a better way.  We all know violence doesn't solve problems, it's a temporary solution with unforeseen consequences.  It commands compliance in the moment yet changes nothing in the victim but foster resentment. Society will change when we change their minds with words not weapons.

 

In regards to Natalia's recent post (it won't let me quote) - do you have any evidence to support these claims? Quotes, videos, posts that show Stefan exhibiting this behavior?  These are pretty steep allegations to say he is intentionally manipulating and misleading people and inciting hatred.  I've listened to thousands of hours of material and I've never heard anything that could support those claims.

[Cantharis]

Principled behavior is the luxury of the people who overcome the woes of survival. When you are at the brink of cataclysm, whoever is actually alive after the fire is extinguished gets to decide what principles he can live on. Are you going to lecture a dying man on the principles of UPB when he does something immoral to live one more day? Because that's what America and Europe are going through. A battle for the survival of the only civilization in history that has ever believed in freedom at least for a day long enough to write it down and fight for it. If voting for Trump delays the seemingly inevitable third world-ification of the so called first world, so be it. Stef said it, too. He's gone into survival mode, not the time for moralisms. That comes after you manage to outlive.

There is nothing unprincipled about fighting with whatever means you have against the almost inevitable fall of western civilization by the hands of barbarians, looters and a ruthless political class, the same way it is not unprincipled to lie or use force when a gun is held against your head. This is what many libertarians fail to understand, and they apply not the non-aggression principle which obviously allows enforcing property rights through violence but the non-violence principle, which decrees that a libertarian may not use the tool of institutionalized violence to decrese the aggression towards himself and his property.

 

Furthermore, pride and culture does not exclude the constant application of property rights, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has demonstrated this many times. As an example:

From the outset, it must be emphasized that not even the most restrictive immigration policy or the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood composed of Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, Koreans, Germans, Catholics, Moslems, Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. Moreover, even if it were the case that one’s real income would rise as a result of immigration, it does not follow that immigration must be considered “good,” for material wealth is not the only thing that counts. Rather, what constitutes “welfare” and “wealth” is subjective, and one might prefer lower material living standards and a greater distance from certain other people over higher material living standards and a smaller distance. It is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation—the absence of any form of forced integration—which makes peaceful relationships —free trade—between racially, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or culturally distinct people possible.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/13_2_8_0.pdf

 

In short, libertarianism has been plagued with an anti-nationalistic sentiment, deeming any in-group preference as throughoutly irrational. This sentiment however is completely false for that in-group preferences are essential for the survival of any K selected species and for the development of civilization as a whole. It is even funnier if you just simply think about how extremely nationalistic an anarcho-capitalist society would be, with everyone being extremely proud of their culture that is able to apply property rights in the most consistent way ever.

[dsayers]

It's not murder if it's self defense.

Self-defense is a libertarian principle. How does this reconcile or clarify what you had said before?

 

Principled behavior is the luxury of the people who overcome the woes of survival. When you are at the brink of cataclysm

How did you manage such a post while fleeing the apocalypse? I thought this was the post of a politician for a second there. What with all the trying to sell doom as reason to sacrifice freedom for the umpteenth time in human history.

 

A battle for the survival of the only civilization in history that has ever believed in freedom at least for a day long enough to write it down and fight for it.

ALL of the most destructive empires in human history started with Constitutions, complete with their version of a Bill of Rights to protect its people.

 

If voting for Trump delays the seemingly inevitable third world-ification of the so called first world, so be it.

You're telling EVERYBODY to give up so that ONE MAN can save us all. Hint: everybody > 1. The fact is the State disarms people, kills people, steals from people, forces people to let violent people into their backyards, and otherwise gets in the way of those of us who understand that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. They CAN'T save you. But yes, they did provide that comfy mental prison you've grown so attached to.

[EmpiricalSkeptic1984]

I believe Stefan explained this well (meaning of course that I will probably butcher it in the re-telling) when he pointed out that he was expecting us to have more time.

 

Stefan's goal of an enlightened, peaceful, voluntary society can only occur if the future occupants of said society are born and grow up under the proper conditions, namely with peaceful parenting, stable and nurturing environments, relatively high IQ, and two-parent households. There is currently a rapidly escalating threat to that future, as the populations migrating to western countries as of late are coming in too quickly to assimilate and have a distinct lack of at least two of those things. More worries than just that generally accompany them, as well, such as their disdain and/or apathy for the values of gender-egalitarianism, separation of church and state, and self-determination that western culture embodies.

 

So while Stefan is not advocating blind acceptance of conservatism, patriotism, and self-righteousness, he is advocating the re-examination of those things we have set aside, and asking if we have been taking down the old walls that protect our society from the metaphorical barbarians of chaos, greed, and decadence without putting up new ones to better take their place.

 

Just today I watched his new video about patriotism, and it seemed to me to have a lot more to do with having pride in the achievements and ideals of one's society than it did with having pride in one's government or flag.

[Pod]

It's all strategy baby.  You gotta do what Stef does and play 3D chess. 

[Wuzzums]

Self-defense is a libertarian principle. How does this reconcile or clarify what you had said before?

You equated voting with rape and I equated voting (for Trump in this instance) as self defense. It's still valid for any political candidate that you believe will save a country.

[Guest Gee]

Feel the energy!

 

 

 

I'll never understand the "principled" libertarian or AnCap who thinks you can acheive freedom without passing through some intermitant states of decreasing opression.

[dsayers]

You equated voting with rape and I equated voting (for Trump in this instance) as self defense. It's still valid for any political candidate that you believe will save a country.

This simply isn't true. I pointed out that institutionalized violence is morally identical to rape. I then offered no fewer than EIGHT challenges to your position. None of which you have addressed. The voting as self-defense has not only been debunked by me numerous times on these forums, but also with three of those challenges right here in this very thread. You have ZERO reason to suspect that one man could "save a country," that a country COULD be saved, or that a country should be "saved." You are supporting institutionalized violence and I am calling you out on it. My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling.

[Wuzzums]

You have ZERO reason to suspect that one man could "save a country," that a country COULD be saved, or that a country should be "saved."

Not with that attitude.

 

You are supporting institutionalized violence and I am calling you out on it. My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling.

I'm confused. Are you under the impression that in a moral and free society there won't be people who are paid to do violent acts? Violence is not immoral if it's not initiated. I'm a puritan when it comes to the non-aggression principle. People try to kill you, they forfeit their right to live. Actions must have consequences.

 

 

This simply isn't true. I pointed out that institutionalized violence is morally identical to rape. I then offered no fewer than EIGHT challenges to your position. None of which you have addressed. The voting as self-defense has not only been debunked by me numerous times on these forums, but also with three of those challenges right here in this very thread.

You're referencing text you never sent or never provided a link to. All you said in response to me is that voting is tantamount to rape which is not true if your vote is the same whether in a democracy or not.

 

Here's the current situation through analogy:

The state is pointing a gun to my head and says: "Boy, you are going to get raped!"

Me: "Oh, no!"

State: "But don't worry! You get to choose your rapist!"

Me: "What difference does that make? It's still immoral either way!"

State: "Don't care, you will still get raped whether you vote or not. Here are your choices: Lena Dunham and Scarlett Johansson."

 

Are there women out there I would choose over Scarlett Johansson? Absolutely.

Will I stay at home and let the tide swirl towards Lena Dunham because I've got "principles"? No.

 

Now do you understand my support for Donald Trump?

[Will Torbald]

Can you point to evidence that we are at the brink of a cataclysm? And that Trump can save us from that cataclysm? This is not an instance of imminent danger where there is a reasonable level of certainty regarding the outcome to justify using self defense. There's no way to know that a Trump presidency will save us from anything. There is no avoiding the hard times that await us; Trump may make it better or he may make it worse. If he makes it better than it bolsters the idea of statism in the masses minds. If he makes it worse then people die and those who put him there will have blood on their hands. We stick to our principles, we live free and happy and when their system crashes down around them we show them a better way. We all know violence doesn't solve problems, it's a temporary solution with unforeseen consequences. It commands compliance in the moment yet changes nothing in the victim but foster resentment. Society will change when we change their minds with words not weapons.

 

In regards to Natalia's recent post (it won't let me quote) - do you have any evidence to support these claims? Quotes, videos, posts that show Stefan exhibiting this behavior? These are pretty steep allegations to say he is intentionally manipulating and misleading people and inciting hatred. I've listened to thousands of hours of material and I've never heard anything that could support those claims.

Stef has shifted his views quite a bit in the last year that you admitted you stopped listening to the material. Nonetheless I don't know if a Trump presidency will save the world - my wording was about a delay and third world-ification by which I mean the mass immigration practices and the banana republic the usa has become. Delay because just by birthrates alone the population will become minority-majority and people from those cultures simply don't vote for freedom. The cataclysm is Turkey joining the EU, which will swarm western Europe with Muslim's. The cataclysm is the militarization and federalization of the EU super state. The cataclysm is Hillary Clinton.

[dsayers]

Not with that attitude.

No attitude was present. Which attitude would allow for all of those things? You're avoiding what was said.

 

I'm confused. Are you under the impression

Deflection. You are supporting institutionalized violence. I called you out on it and you are drawing attention away from yourself by pointing at me. You're avoiding what was said.

 

You're referencing text you never sent or never provided a link to.

False: "Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape.

 

Oh and he CLAIMS to be an airplane. There's no mechanism in place to hold him to his pre-election positions or words, nor any consequences if he doesn't. It doesn't matter WHO sits on the throne; The throne is invalid."

 

You're avoiding what was said.

 

All you said in response to me is that voting is tantamount to rape

You said that already. And then I said: "This simply isn't true. I pointed out that institutionalized violence is morally identical to rape."

 

You're avoiding what was said. I even pointed out: "My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling."

[Wuzzums]

 

No attitude was present. Which attitude would allow for all of those things? You're avoiding what was said.

Of course something is not possible if you convince yourself it's not possible. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Deflection. You are supporting institutionalized violence. I called you out on it and you are drawing attention away from yourself by pointing at me. You're avoiding what was said.

What the hell, man? You're acting like some super keyboard detective for figuring out what I blatantly admitted to nor ever tried to hide. What part of me saying "I support other doing violence on my behalf that does not violate the NAP" is drawing attention away from it?

 

You know. If you find some of my statements confusing you can flat out ask me and I'll respond. You don't have to go all covert about it trying to "catch me". I'm not a pokemon.

 

Now is not the time for consensual sex? We need rape now in order to be able to combat rape in the future? How many times have they conjured up a new threat to trick people into exactly this? Trump might be doing a great job of exposing what a baseless circus it all is. He's not reason enough to support rape.

 

Oh and he CLAIMS to be an airplane. There's no mechanism in place to hold him to his pre-election positions or words, nor any consequences if he doesn't. It doesn't matter WHO sits on the throne; The throne is invalid.

This is your response to me that "proves" voting is tantamount to rape with "EIGHT" solid points.

Kindly point those "EIGHT" solid points out.

 

 

You're avoiding what was said. I even pointed out: "My challenges stand and your avoidance of them is telling."

Oh my, god... dude. Telling of... WHAT? Telling of the position I said I hold? Telling you're having an emotional reaction to my posts? Telling of what?

 

You're talking about institutionalized violence. Define it. I never used that phrase. I said the violence inherent in self-defense is moral and I fully support it. There is nothing immoral in Donald Trump killing the people that want to kill me.

[Crallask]

So the initial poster didn't want to have a discussion, she just wanted to post a topic via concern trolling and then just vanish into the ether?

[shirgall]

So the initial poster didn't want to have a discussion, she just wanted to post a topic via concern trolling and then just vanish into the ether?

 

I agree with you. I was hoping for engagement, too.

[labmath2]

I agree with you. I was hoping for engagement, too.

What did you expect her to say? When Mike responds not an argument that is basically it. If she thought it was not an argument she would not have bothered with it, but the response doesn't help her see the problem either. The best option is to just let it go. Those who see the argument can consider it.

[Guest Gee]

 

 

I've got an argument for why you should support Trump and why Stef should support trump, I'll stick it in a new thread.

[dsayers]

voting is tantamount to rape

I'll leave you to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalala.

 

Maybe one day, you will accept that country is a concept, that one man cannot save all that land and people (especially not with violence, which provably achieves the opposite of one's stated goals), that this thought has led to regression countless times in the past (read: EVERY election cycle), and none of these truths can be ascribed to "attitude."

[Wuzzums]

Maybe one day, you will accept that country is a concept, that one man cannot save all that land and people (especially not with violence, which provably achieves the opposite of one's stated goals), that this thought has led to regression countless times in the past (read: EVERY election cycle), and none of these truths can be ascribed to "attitude."

 

You're talking to yourself.

I never once used the word country or referred to any countries.

You are deluded if you think the people around you are capable of living in a free world. Be empirical, look at the facts.

You constantly equate violence with the initiation of force. You may be justifying your revulsion towards justified violence by masking it as a moral argument. Tell me something, when someone comes at you with a knife will you be standing still or will you use violence to protect yourself?

 

In a free society there will still be violence because there will always be people who wanna take things away from you. Freedom is not an utopia, freedom is the ability to fight for what is yours.

[thebeardslastcall]

There was no holding back when it came to the myriad of reasons not to vote when dr. paul was running accompanied by an amazing elucidation into how pointless electing a new fancy bmw hood ornament (maybe trump is more of a chrysler?) to slap on an old shitty lada would be (podcast 1189 or youtube The Truth About Voting), I wonder why this position is noticeably absent in the videos on trump I have seen. 

 

I haven't listened to this podcast or the ones lambasting Ron Paul, but saw he had this podcast, which you may consider worth listening to: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2066

If it changes your view on how he treated Ron Paul let me know. Podcast notes for video " A gift to those who believe that political action will set us free."

[dsayers]

I never once used the word country or referred to any countries.

 

I equated voting (for Trump in this instance) as self defense. It's still valid for any political candidate that you believe will save a country.

Numerous challenges remain, all of which you continue to avoid. VERY telling. I look forward to seeing how you deflect from being caught in this lie.

[Wuzzums]

Numerous challenges remain, all of which you continue to avoid. VERY telling.

[RamynKing]

Stef just used this Plato quote in his recent WPMOA, and it seemed relevant.

 

[Tyler H]

That does give me one suggestive idea, perhaps for every political video or podcast a link to previous podcasts on voting and such can be added to the description giving Youtubers and others the ability to go back and listen to why they might want to consider not voting. The goal after all is to make doing the right thing easier.

 

I've thought that as well and it would definitely ease my concerns.

 

 

Stef has shifted his views quite a bit in the last year that you admitted you stopped listening to the material. Nonetheless I don't know if a Trump presidency will save the world - my wording was about a delay and third world-ification by which I mean the mass immigration practices and the banana republic the usa has become. Delay because just by birthrates alone the population will become minority-majority and people from those cultures simply don't vote for freedom. The cataclysm is Turkey joining the EU, which will swarm western Europe with Muslim's. The cataclysm is the militarization and federalization of the EU super state. The cataclysm is Hillary Clinton.

The cataclysm is statism.  The cataclysm is coercion.  The cataclysm is people who think they can possibly know the future and decide what is best for everyone else.  

Stef just used this Plato quote in his recent WPMOA, and it seemed relevant.

 

I'm sorry, what is WPMOA?

 

This quote inherently supports being governed by superiors when the goal is not to be governed at all; as if there were someone so superior to us they could govern us.  Not surprising coming from a deist.  Ni diem, ni maitre.