Tyler H Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 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." It won't change my view on how critical he was of Ron Paul, because he was - however I'm sure it will enlighten me on any reasons why he may have adjusted his position. I will give it a listen thank you. "What Pisses Me Off About" oh, der First Call: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3280/hispanic-family-values-call-in-show-may-3rd-2016 Thanks Mike, I will give this a listen as well.
luxfelix Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 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. Ideally, individuals would govern themselves while voluntarily delegating some areas of their lives to the governing of those with superior knowledge/skill/reputation, no?
Tyler H Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Ideally, individuals would govern themselves while voluntarily delegating some areas of their lives to the governing of those with superior knowledge/skill/reputation, no? I'm not sure how this relates to political action. Certainly I can make that choice for myself but I do not get to make that choice for others, enforce it at the point of a bayonet and call myself moral. 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. Has this thread been created yet? Will you add a link when it is? 1
shirgall Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 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. Well, Stef's Canadian vote will cancel out one dead Chicagoan, but what's the other reason?
Will Torbald Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 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. Peace time mindset. You're at war, and you haven't noticed.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Stef just used this Plato quote in his recent WPMOA, and it seemed relevant. I don't know much about Plato as I've never studied him or read any of his works, but from what little I've heard he seems to just be a horrible state supporter, and I prefer to avoid filling my head with morally subversive junk. Like that quote in particular, it assumes the person voting isn't the inferior or that such a hierarchical view isn't a flawed perspective on the situation and proposes as a universal guideline that all should vote, when clearly that means many 'inferior' people are going to inevitably override the 'superior' people. How do you know he meant that quote for the person reading and following it? Seems his "philosophy" is just to undermine morality and moral perspective on the situation. You're going to be unjustly governed whether you vote or not, but if you work to reduce the violence by denying support whoever that violent governor is may have a bit less power, regardless of how they intend to use it. I mean it says "The Libertarian Republic" on the bottom there, telling you he's just going to peddle contradictory and non-philosophical ideas. 1
Tyler H Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 First Call: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3280/hispanic-family-values-call-in-show-may-3rd-2016 I just finished listening to this conversation and I feel quite a bit of despair. I cannot argue that Stef is wrong in relation to the state of affairs in the world today, but I did not hear arguments as to what political action can do to prevent what amounts to an absolute disaster for those who fight for truth and freedom. How do we know that a Trump presidency will not make matters worse? Could it not enrage BLM to the point that more attacks happen, or strengthen recruitment for the islamic extremists? What if the actual course of events that buys more time is a Clinton administration? Where the left spends a little more time plundering the coffers for every last scrap before the whole thing comes crashing down. My point is we cannot know. I am reminded of the trolley problem, except in this scenario you don't know which action causes more harm. How can we justify voting under these circumstances? Also, if Trump represents western culture I would consider us far worse off if there were not such a huge following for him. Yet there is, so we can find some comfort in the fact that there is a large number of people who still hold western values; enough to elevate Trump to be in a position to seriously compete with Clinton. We can still come together on common ground and add our voices to theirs without adding our sponsorship to the state through voting. I don't know much about Plato as I've never studied him or read any of his works, but from what little I've heard he seems to just be a horrible state supporter, and I prefer to avoid filling my head with morally subversive junk. Like that quote in particular, it assumes the person voting isn't the inferior or that such a hierarchical view isn't a flawed perspective on the situation and proposes as a universal guideline that all should vote, when clearly that means many 'inferior' people are going to inevitably override the 'superior' people. How do you know he meant that quote for the person reading and following it? Seems his "philosophy" is just to undermine morality and moral perspective on the situation. You're going to be unjustly governed whether you vote or not, but if you work to reduce the violence by denying support whoever that violent governor is may have a bit less power, regardless of how they intend to use it. I mean it says "The Libertarian Republic" on the bottom there, telling you he's just going to peddle contradictory and non-philosophical ideas. Well said sir. Peace time mindset. You're at war, and you haven't noticed. You cannot possibly mean that literally, so would you mind rephrasing? 1
Will Torbald Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You cannot possibly mean that literally, so would you mind rephrasing? I mean it literally.
dsayers Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 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. My sentiments exactly. The quote presupposes rulers. I really enjoy your contributions here BTW. Ideally, individuals would govern themselves while voluntarily delegating some areas of their lives to the governing of those with superior knowledge/skill/reputation, no? Yes, when I go to Taco Bell, I'm delegating the making of my burritos to somebody else, voluntarily, at no involuntary expense to my neighbors. It's called division of labor and it occurs without pointing guns at everybody, which is how you know it's what people want. Peace time mindset. You're at war, and you haven't noticed. Yes, governments declare war on their own people through threats, theft, assault, rape, and murder. This is precisely why the heroes are standing up and saying more of the same will solve nothing.
Guest Gee Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I'm not sure how this relates to political action. Certainly I can make that choice for myself but I do not get to make that choice for others, enforce it at the point of a bayonet and call myself moral. Has this thread been created yet? Will you add a link when it is? Not yet, I'll stick it in the PK/Gold section. Have to think it out a little bit. Well, Stef's Canadian vote will cancel out one dead Chicagoan, but what's the other reason? Support of Trump is 100% consistant with UPB (probably UPB compells it)
EmpiricalSkeptic1984 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Support of Trump is 100% consistant with UPB (probably UPB compells it) That's a rather odd statement in my mind. How can support of Trump be Universally Preferable? I personally find him more tolerable than Clinton, but that's certainly no endorsement. The guy is most definitely authoritarian. All one has to do to see that is listen to him speak. He acts as if becoming President gives him carte blanch to do anything involving governance, including stomping on the sovereignty of other nations. Not to say other presidents haven't done this, but none of them used it as their campaign platform.
Tyler H Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 My sentiments exactly. The quote presupposes rulers. I really enjoy your contributions here BTW. Likewise. I've often found your posts to be quite cogent and admirable so I appreciate the compliment that much more. Will Torbald, on 15 Jul 2016 - 7:43 PM, said: Peace time mindset. You're at war, and you haven't noticed. I mean it literally. war wôr/ noun 1. a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. "Japan declared war on Germany" synonyms: conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, (military) action, bloodshed, struggle; battle, skirmish, fight, clash, engagement, encounter; offensive, attack, campaign; hostilities; crusade; nuclear war "the Napoleonic wars" mindset ˈmīn(d)set/ noun noun: mindset; plural noun: mindsets; noun: mind-set; plural noun: mind-sets the established set of attitudes held by someone. "the region seems stuck in a medieval mindset" at·ti·tude ˈadəˌt(y)o͞od/ noun a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior. "she took a tough attitude toward other people's indulgences" synonyms: view, viewpoint, outlook, perspective, stance, standpoint, position, inclination, temper, orientation, approach, reaction; opinion, ideas, convictions, feelings, thinking "you seem ambivalent in your attitude" To say that, as philosophers, how we act in times of peace is a result of some kind of established set of attitudes I find, to be perfectly frank, a little insulting. Digging our way out of the avalanche of propaganda with the golden spork of philosophy is a meticulous and painstakingly difficult process at the end of which we are rewarded with consistent philosophical principles to guide our decisions; decisions that are often hard to make in the moment because they fly in the face of our immediate comfort for the sake of longterm happiness. To say that it is just a mindset diminishes those accomplishments. The second half of that comment is a bit more denigrating than the first because I would have to be a complete artard to be in armed conflict with someone and not notice. I am aware that there are evil people who would revel in my demise, but what does this have to do with supporting a system that has done nothing in the name of protecting us but fill waterbombers with N-Stoff and dump it on the conflagration of islamic extremism? I still find it hard to believe you meant this literally or maybe you're working with different definitions so would you mind expounding on your comment or showing me how my literal interpretation is incorrect if it is? Support of Trump is 100% consistant with UPB (probably UPB compells it) I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that UPB does not compel supporting Trump. UPB proscribes; it does not prescribe. It tells us what not to do; it does not tell us that we have to do anything. Also, although you may have just used the percentage to emphasize your statement, I feel I should point out that an action is either consistent with UPB or it isn't. There are no gradations in that regard. 1
thebeardslastcall Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The United States has the largest military, the highest per capita incarceration rates, and also has substantial police and federal forces that are armed with weapons. Just because you're not getting shot at right now doesn't mean you're not at war and aren't being herded and moved against your will under constant threat of violence or that others aren't. You may ignore them, but they don't agree to ignore you and they're willing to use force against you on their whim, under the shady guise of law and order. Would you deny there is a notable presence of contention and violent tension in the United States? If you don't acknowledge the war until the threat of violence is made overt by being surrounded by armed officers then you've lost the war.
luxfelix Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I'm not sure how this relates to political action. Certainly I can make that choice for myself but I do not get to make that choice for others, enforce it at the point of a bayonet and call myself moral. I agree. I'm referring to what you stated about the goal not to be governed at all. It sounds like you do intend to be governed, by your own will -- self-government without a state (rules without external rulers) -- I'm guessing you would agree with the division of labor based on the free will of each individual; likewise, that under such ideal circumstances there is no need, indeed no moral foundation regardless of need, to enforce one's choice(s) on others. As stated in the linked podcast, we're coming across new information and should reevaluate. Not voting can be a way of abstaining from legitimizing the state, and in the short-term can provide one with the confidence of knowing that their actions are in line with their beliefs about the immorality of the government and/or an aversion to making a choice where the consequences for history are unknown. In the long-term, voting can be an exchange, a token for an alliance with those groups of individuals whom at the very least value free speech and Western values, even if they have their inconsistencies; give them what they want and they will be more likely to listen to you, for if you want to proselytize you'll first need rapport. P.S. There are other ways to build rapport than voting, though if what they say is true about mass migration and the demographic collapse of the west, than this might be the last election for a pro-West candidate? Yes, when I go to Taco Bell, I'm delegating the making of my burritos to somebody else, voluntarily, at no involuntary expense to my neighbors. It's called division of labor and it occurs without pointing guns at everybody, which is how you know it's what people want. Absolutely. The United States has the largest military, the highest per capita incarceration rates, and also has substantial police and federal forces that are armed with weapons. Just because you're not getting shot at right now doesn't mean you're not at war and aren't being herded and moved against your will under constant threat of violence or that others aren't. You may ignore them, but they don't agree to ignore you and they're willing to use force against you on their whim, under the shady guise of law and order. Would you deny there is a notable presence of contention and violent tension in the United States? If you don't acknowledge the war until the threat of violence is made overt by being surrounded by armed officers then you've lost the war. Reminds me of: http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/4032f864-56be-4802-a4ef-13d313c10fa0/440d162b-fb63-45a9-81bc-4c7dfbaeae44.gif
Tyler H Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You didn't quote me but I am assuming from the flow of the thread that you were directing this towards me, correct me if I am wrong. Just because you're not getting shot at right now doesn't mean you're not at war I agree, but I feel I should clarify that just because you are being shot at or aggressed against doesn't mean you are at war. In relation to my prior post, I am arguing against a statement that I am literally at war and literally do not know it. Irrespective of the literal translation of the word war, I am aware of the dangers we advocates of freedom face. I agree with your post, but if it is meant to imply at the end that I do not acknowledge these dangers or I am arguing against them then I have to object. What I am arguing is that voting is sticking your toe into the stinking cesspool of immorality inevitably sending out ripples you cannot control. Ripples that will affect real human beings. Ripples that will end lives. We do not know what Trump will do but we do know that politicians do nothing to decrease government power and anything to increase it. The points you outlined have been and are the reasons why we should not vote and therefore not participate in violence without any real evidence it will do anything to protect us. Evidence without which a checkbox in the voting booth will be the voters receipt for a small share of responsibility in the wars that are started and the innocent people imprisoned, forcefully removed from their homes, starved or killed because of that president's actions. Actions which most likely will not be all that different from one ruler to another; so what is the point of signing up for that responsibility no matter how small?
Tyler H Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I agree. I'm referring to what you stated about the goal not to be governed at all. It sounds like you do intend to be governed, by your own will -- self-government without a state (rules without external rulers) -- I'm guessing you would agree with the division of labor based on the free will of each individual; likewise, that under such ideal circumstances there is no need, indeed no moral foundation regardless of need, to enforce one's choice(s) on others. Agreed, I excluded self government in my use of the word. give them what they want and they will be more likely to listen to you I will not give them sanction to initiate force. P.S. There are other ways to build rapport than voting, though if what they say is true about mass migration and the demographic collapse of the west, than this might be the last election for a pro-West candidate? This is just my opinion here but I do not think so, there are too many supporters for Trump for there not to be another candidate to represent those voices in the future. Even so, if Hillary wins she will only be interested in her own legacy. She will not want anything to tarnish her presidency so I don't see her doing anything outrageous. If there is a collapse with her at the wheel I think it will help the cause of freedom while a collapse with Trump "in charge" will be the final nail in the coffin for any semblance of free market western principles in the eyes of the meandering "independent" zombie cattle who float back and forth from democrat to republican every 8 years potentially pushing us further into despotism. This was one of the arguments against voting for Ron Paul; the collapse was presumed imminent and it would've happened no matter who was president and if Ron Paul was in.... *BAM* goodbye laissez-faire. I think there is another collapse coming and from what I understand it is going to be the worst yet unless there is some major capital creating or capital saving innovation to pump some blood back into this corpse of a country.
luxfelix Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 I will not give them sanction to initiate force. This is just my opinion here but I do not think so, there are too many supporters for Trump for there not to be another candidate to represent those voices in the future. Even so, if Hillary wins she will only be interested in her own legacy. She will not want anything to tarnish her presidency so I don't see her doing anything outrageous. If there is a collapse with her at the wheel I think it will help the cause of freedom while a collapse with Trump "in charge" will be the final nail in the coffin for any semblance of free market western principles in the eyes of the meandering "independent" zombie cattle who float back and forth from democrat to republican every 8 years potentially pushing us further into despotism. This was one of the arguments against voting for Ron Paul; the collapse was presumed imminent and it would've happened no matter who was president and if Ron Paul was in.... *BAM* goodbye laissez-faire. I think there is another collapse coming and from what I understand it is going to be the worst yet unless there is some major capital creating or capital saving innovation to pump some blood back into this corpse of a country. Indeed, and if no one sanctioned the initiation of force, then we could use our energies much more effectively toward the endeavors of our choosing. I can't argue for voting on any moral grounds because it will ultimately support violence against those whom disagree, even you and me; there are no "line-item" elections or negotiations after the fact (it's not a free market). I am aware of the voting-in-self-defense counter-argument, though there will likely still be collateral damage against an innocent third party. I can't argue for voting on any practical grounds because I don't know if a Trump administration would ultimately just prolong the status quo and/or discredit laissez-faire, that a complete collapse is necessary; maybe enough has been done already to allow liberty to fill the power-vacuum left behind? Maybe we don't even need allies?
nickhk Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 1 post by OP this must not be important at all to them. ok guys, pack it up. 1
Guest Gee Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Precision eh? I love it! But in that case I have to renage on my argument for now. Check out the call in show Justice, the caller who asks what justice is. Everything Stef says about slapping someone or reporting a criminal, that you sort of have some culpability should that person offend again, that all applies to voting.
Tyler H Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 1 post by OP this must not be important at all to them. ok guys, pack it up. When I read this I felt some anger and frustration. I took some time to think about it before replying. I think my initial inference was that you were telling us to shut down the conversation, which I think would justify those feelings. However I think now you are simply suggesting that we continue this discussion in a new thread - as in pack it up and take it with us somewhere else (with a less inflammatory topic title perhaps) since the person who started this thread obviously has nothing to say, is that correct?
Tyler H Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 I can't argue for voting on any practical grounds because I don't know if a Trump administration would ultimately just prolong the status quo and/or discredit laissez-faire, that a complete collapse is necessary; maybe enough has been done already to allow liberty to fill the power-vacuum left behind? Maybe, I don't know. I am hesitant to think enough has been done since there are so few people who even know what real liberty is. Stef is coming up on half a million subscribers, but I think the FDR Trump coverage where Stef withholds criticism attracts a lot of Trump supporters who are muddying the waters in being able to tell how many philosophically-minded free thinkers are out there. I think the videos on race will attract people who can think but also attract people who can't and just have their own bigoted opinions. I guess what I'm saying is that there are so few of us and probably even fewer than we realize. Maybe we don't even need allies? Do you mean allies in philosophical principles or are you talking about the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. making a deal with the devil to postpone Armageddon? I think we need allies who are as dedicated to freedom and voluntarism as we are and a lot of them. I do not think we can make common cause with people who are the antithesis of what we advocate. I've created a new topic on voting to continue this conversation here
Will Torbald Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 In relation to my prior post, I am arguing against a statement that I am literally at war and literally do not know it. I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about Mexico, Islam, and global interests. The first war is at the border, where the barbarians are already sieging the castle, and looting the place with no repercusion. You have a made up refugree crisis where war-age males are being imported from every corner of Africa and the Middle East, with all intentions of taking over once they get in. The third war is an economic war with every intention to destrou American's home economy through the cover of free trade agreements where the only result is the impoverishment of cities everywhere since all the jobs are gone, and all the workers are either replaced with robots, outsourced, or replaced with third world immigrants invaders. All the corporations like Google and Facebook are behind it, Disney, everyone, and all the international banks. Only Trump opposes all three warfronts, and Hillary Clinton wants to make them even worse.
luxfelix Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Maybe, I don't know. I am hesitant to think enough has been done since there are so few people who even know what real liberty is. Stef is coming up on half a million subscribers, but I think the FDR Trump coverage where Stef withholds criticism attracts a lot of Trump supporters who are muddying the waters in being able to tell how many philosophically-minded free thinkers are out there. I think the videos on race will attract people who can think but also attract people who can't and just have their own bigoted opinions. I guess what I'm saying is that there are so few of us and probably even fewer than we realize. Do you mean allies in philosophical principles or are you talking about the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. making a deal with the devil to postpone Armageddon? I think we need allies who are as dedicated to freedom and voluntarism as we are and a lot of them. I do not think we can make common cause with people who are the antithesis of what we advocate. I've created a new topic on voting to continue this conversation here [Reply forwarded to your new thread >> ]
Recommended Posts