2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[Guest Gee]

If you have faith in the system and accept someone else as your ruler then by all means vote. I however have not been given a compelling reason as to why I should accept someone as my ruler.

 

You are getting a ruler weither you accept it or not, we all are.

[Gavitor]

You are getting a ruler weither you accept it or not, we all are.

Does that mean I have to accept it? All I see are other humans some of which feel the need to point guns at me for disagreeing.

 

They can only rule over you if you accept it. I do not. When violence/coercion is involved its just that, that doesn't make them my ruler.

 

People can give themselves whatever titles they want, at the end of the day it only matters whether or not you believe in it and play your part accordingly.

[Guest Gee]

They can only rule over you if you accept it. I do not. When violence/coercion is involved its just that, that doesn't make them my ruler.

 

Didn't Neitsche call this the slave morality?

 

I mean, I think it is just LARPing, but I think Neitzsche covered this.

People can give themselves whatever titles they want, at the end of the day it only matters whether or not you believe in it and play your part accordingly.

 

Again, unless you stop paying taxes you are just LARPing.

Does that mean I have to accept it? All I see are other humans some of which feel the need to point guns at me for disagreeing.

 

No, you don't have to accept reality. If you don't want to accept reality you can choose not to, but you are just LARPing.

 

-------

 

Stop LARPing Gavitor, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

[dsayers]

Can you please reply like a normal person dsayers?  Jesus, I can't imagine what it would be like being married to you. Lol!

Ad hominem, appeal to insecurity, appeal to emotion, and deflection.

 

Oh and rational discourse with somebody of integrity who wishes to remain trues to their values and is willing to challenge me and show me how when I'm not remaining true to mine is the sexiest thing I've ever experienced. Though I don't fault you for this stance as I too, when first exposed to the idea that love is a response to virtue, also thought that it sounded dull and tedious.

[Gavitor]

Didn't Neitsche call this the slave morality?

 

I mean, I think it is just LARPing, but I think Neitzsche covered this.

 

Again, unless you stop paying taxes you are just LARPing.

 

No, you don't have to accept reality. If you don't want to accept reality you can choose not to, but you are just LARPing.

 

-------

 

Stop LARPing Gavitor, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

 

So if as you say you have no choice and will be forced to have a ruler either way then what purpose does voting serve?

 

As far as paying taxes go, I do it for the same reason I'd give a mugger my wallet. My life is more valuable than paper. I can't continue to push back against lies and misinformation if I'm dead.

 

How am I not accepting reality exactly?

[dsayers]

 

how do we know the "death of America" is a) a bad thing b) will be caused by immigration or c) preventable by Trump?

Phenomenally on par post over all! I just wanted to quote this part to add to it: For those who cite immigration, the State is why we have the problem that we do in the first place. From free goodies stolen from all the productive folk, to FORCING good people to let intruders into their backyards.

 

The death of (insert empire here) was the establishment -> perceived legitimacy -> health of (insert same empire here). History tells us so. Saying more State will save us from the State is like saying more rigging of fiat currency will save fiat currency. It's a pipe dream with oodles of empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

shirgall put it best when he pointed out that the system CAN'T work, which is why it's in place. Consider the following: IF you are "lucky" enough to live in California, you get to vote for 2% of the Senate and 12% of the House of Representatives. That's 98% of the Senate and at least 88% of the House of Representatives any US citizen can NOT vote for. This branch is a check/balance against the president. It's a sham. I am so sorry that so many people need the warm fuzzies that they cannot accept this and would in fact attack others who are trying to help them live their values by not falling for yet another "ermagerd, problemz!!111! needs gubment! halp!"

[Tyler H]

 

I'm out of up votes today... here you go.

[Guest Gee]

So if as you say you have no choice and will be forced to have a ruler either way then what purpose does voting serve?

 

As far as paying taxes go, I do it for the same reason I'd give a mugger my wallet. My life is more valuable than paper. I can't continue to push back against lies and misinformation if I'm dead.

 

How am I not accepting reality exactly?

 

You can pick a ruler who will increase freedoms. If freedom is preferable to being governed, then you can pick the goverment which governs least.

 

Consider the following,

  You want no goverment.

  No goverment is less goverment than we have right now.

  So you want less goverment.

  Trump is less government.

  So you get less goverment if you vote Trump.

  But you don't vote Trump.

  So you don't want less goverment.

  No goverment is less goverment that we have now.

  So you don't want no goverment.

 

You are not accepting reality if you act as if your acceptance in something effects the reality of something. Your acceptence of the validity of being ruled or lack their of, does not effect the reality that you are being ruled. We are getting a ruler, weither we accept it or not.

 

Paying taxes is playing your part accordingly.

I am so sorry that so many people need the warm fuzzies that they cannot accept this and would in fact attack others who are trying to help them live their values by not falling for yet another "ermagerd, problemz!!111! needs gubment! halp!"

 

Omniscience is a new one for you, mate.

[dsayers]

You can pick a ruler who will increase freedoms.

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

 

Omniscience is a new one for you, mate.

Yes, listening to somebody and being able to repeat back to them what they've said is one of my many superpowers 

[Gavitor]

You can pick a ruler who will increase freedoms. If freedom is preferable to being governed, then you can pick the goverment which governs least.

 

Consider the following,

  You want no goverment.

  No goverment is less goverment than we have right now.

  So you want less goverment.

  Trump is less government.

  So you get less goverment if you vote Trump.

  But you don't vote Trump.

  So you don't want less goverment.

  No goverment is less goverment that we have now.

  So you don't want no goverment.

 

You are not accepting reality if you act as if your acceptance in something effects the reality of something. Your acceptence of the validity of being ruled or lack their of, does not effect the reality that you are being ruled. We are getting a ruler, weither we accept it or not.

 

Paying taxes is playing your part accordingly.

Why would I believe promises from people who support the use of force against me? If they want to give me freedom then they can simply stop trying to be my ruler.

 

Any quantity of government is the opposite of no government. A vote for any government is still a vote for government so what is your point? If as you say I have no choice in the matter than what purpose does voting serve?

 

Are you saying that because I don't accept what others tell me at face value that somehow I'm not accepting reality? The reality is that government is literally just other human beings claiming they have imaginary powers that no one else has. You either accept their claim or you don't. The reality that they are humans just like you or me doesn't change.

 

I don't pay taxes by choice... I'm literally forced to do so. For me to play a part I have to have the option not to.

 

The difference is giving the mugger your wallet and leaving it at that or giving the mugger your wallet and then demanding that they take your clothes as well. When It comes to coercion I won't give anymore than I need to to live.

 

At the end of the day I don't vote for the same reason I don't pray. It's just a 50/50 chance you'll get what you want while thinking you actually did anything to attain it.

 

I think a more important question is why do you believe that the people who call themselves government should be allowed to make choices on my behalf? Or yours for that matter? Last I checked they don't have a good track record of making good decisions and trump isn't going to replace all the people who maintain the status quo.

Paying taxes is playing your part accordingly.

 

[Guest Gee]

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

 

No mate, freedom is like stupidity, it is a continium. Being locked up in jail you are less free than being taxed, that is literally why you pay taxes.

I can't beleive this even needs to be said, you've really gone off the deep end, dsayers.

[shirgall]

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

 

Yes, listening to somebody and being able to repeat back to them what they've said is one of my many superpowers 

 

There are always constraints on action, some imposed by others, some imposed by nature. If Freedom was bichromatic then the only way to be free is to manifest the will to power.

 

So, instead, we deal with our constraints, individually, and we develop preferences for what latitudes of action we seek and which constraints on them we detest... and which we ignore.

 

Voting, for me, is driven by attempting to address constraints without incurring more of them, and hoping to not impose them upon anyone else. Once again I have to balance freedoms (my own, my families, my neighbors, and so on) when I do so.

 

When my neighborhood is free to raise my taxes why am I not free to oppose them? They've given me an avenue, and could care less about the virtue of non-involvement.

[Tyler H]

There are always constraints on action, some imposed by others, some imposed by nature. If Freedom was bichromatic then the only way to be free is to manifest the will to power.

 

So, instead, we deal with our constraints, individually, and we develop preferences for what latitudes of action we seek and which constraints on them we detest... and which we ignore.

 

Voting, for me, is driven by attempting to address constraints without incurring more of them, and hoping to not impose them upon anyone else. Once again I have to balance freedoms (my own, my families, my neighbors, and so on) when I do so.

 

When my neighborhood is free to raise my taxes why am I not free to oppose them? They've given me an avenue, and could care less about the virtue of non-involvement.

While I am more inclined to agree with you on a local yes/no ballot level, I want to point out that you actually aren't free to oppose them. Sure you can protest and wave signs and put down on an official piece of paper your wishes, but all this does is perpetuate the illusion of a choice when the fact of the matter is if those people want to steal more of your money then they're going to do it and if you oppose them in action (not paying) then you will be aggressed against. Still in this instance, when the vote has certain results - a yea meaning directly more force against you and a nay meaning directly less - I can't argue against it on moral grounds since an argument for self defense could certainly be applied. However, I don't think this translates to this election. I don't see any reasonable level of certainty that a vote for Trump (or any politician since they lie to get votes) will lead to more freedom and not less when the only thing government has done is grow except for pockets of retraction here and there to facilitate more growth in the long run. Trump is more likely the savior of the state than the savior of the west.

[shirgall]

While I am more inclined to agree with you on a local yes/no ballot level, I want to point out that you actually aren't free to oppose them. Sure you can protest and wave signs and put down on an official piece of paper your wishes, but all this does is perpetuate the illusion of a choice when the fact of the matter is if those people want to steal more of your money then they're going to do it and if you oppose them in action (not paying) then you will be aggressed against. Still in this instance, when the vote has certain results - a yea meaning directly more force against you and a nay meaning directly less - I can't argue against it on moral grounds since an argument for self defense could certainly be applied. However, I don't think this translates to this election. I don't see any reasonable level of certainty that a vote for Trump (or any politician since they lie to get votes) will lead to more freedom and not less when the only thing government has done is grow except for pockets of retraction here and there to facilitate more growth in the long run. Trump is more likely the savior of the state than the savior of the west.

 

The more local an election gets the less illusory the choice gets.

 

I've done the sign-waving protests in the past and, yeah, with a hostile media they aren't very effective either. Really effective protests don't have a good history either as they somehow turn into riots and then get suppressed. I wonder if a debacle like the Bonus March could happen again in this country.

[Tyler H]

The more local an election gets the less illusory the choice gets.

 

I've done the sign-waving protests in the past and, yeah, with a hostile media they aren't very effective either. Really effective protests don't have a good history either as they somehow turn into riots and then get suppressed. I wonder if a debacle like the Bonus March could happen again in this country.

Wow, just looked that up, I had not heard of that event. Yeah the political climate is so divisive I would not be surprised if the side that does not win loses their shit. Maybe that's a good video topic - If X Wins, Y Will Lose Their Shit; Prepare Yourself Accordingly lol.

[powder]

It is being asserted that Trump = more freedom, Hilary = less freedom, Brexit = more freedom,...  no one can know anything for sure and there are plenty of reasons, and historical evidence, to argue that the opposite is just as likely.  

 

Its not trading principles for pragmatism, its giving up principles for hopes and wishful thinking.  

 

 

The more local an election gets the less illusory the choice gets.

 

 

Back to the recent Referendum we had in my city.  I am also friends with one of the top radio morning show hosts and although he is mostly lefty, he is philosophically minded and outspoken in his views.  I am working on him and he is curious and open minded about my position.  The message will reach many more as I continue to work on him and argue the case for freedom.  

 

So although it is true that the more local the election the more direct the influence can be, perhaps that can also be said about the effect of the voice for voluntaryism in your community.  

[Tyler H]

I is being asserted that Trump = more freedom, Hilary = less freedom, Brexit = more freedom,...  no one can know anything for sure and there are plenty of reasons, and historical evidence, to argue that the opposite is just as likely.  Its not trading principles for pragmatism, its giving up principles for hopes and wishful thinking.  

 

 

 

Back to the recent Referendum we had in my city.  I am also friends with one of the top radio morning show hosts and although he is mostly lefty, he is philosophically minded and outspoken in his views.  I am working on him and he is curious and open minded about my position.  The message will reach many more as I continue to work on him and argue the case for freedom.  

 

So although it is true that the more local the election the more direct the influence can be, perhaps that can also be said about the effect of the voice for voluntaryism in your community.

 

I agree

[Tyler H]

Why would I believe promises from people who support the use of force against me? If they want to give me freedom then they can simply stop trying to be my ruler.

 

Any quantity of government is the opposite of no government. A vote for any government is still a vote for government so what is your point? If as you say I have no choice in the matter than what purpose does voting serve?

 

Are you saying that because I don't accept what others tell me at face value that somehow I'm not accepting reality? The reality is that government is literally just other human beings claiming they have imaginary powers that no one else has. You either accept their claim or you don't. The reality that they are humans just like you or me doesn't change.

 

I don't pay taxes by choice... I'm literally forced to do so. For me to play a part I have to have the option not to.

 

The difference is giving the mugger your wallet and leaving it at that or giving the mugger your wallet and then demanding that they take your clothes as well. When It comes to coercion I won't give anymore than I need to to live.

 

At the end of the day I don't vote for the same reason I don't pray. It's just a 50/50 chance you'll get what you want while thinking you actually did anything to attain it.

 

I think a more important question is why do you believe that the people who call themselves government should be allowed to make choices on my behalf? Or yours for that matter? Last I checked they don't have a good track record of making good decisions and trump isn't going to replace all the people who maintain the status quo.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TpIDX49b_A

I agree. You could also point out that while no government<current government; (government<current government) ≠ no government. The third line is a non sequitur and therefore renders the argument invalid.

[LancierDombre]

I'm also glad you said looking for the most productive way out. CLEARLY voting isn't that. In order to solve a problem, you must first understand the problem. The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. Meaning it only exists in people's minds. Voting doesn't counteract this and in fact adds to it. The way out is to change people's minds. If you could convince enough of the enforcer class to reject that they exist in a different, opposing moral category, we'd have freedom TODAY without a drop of blood spilled. Hyperbolic, but valid. You won't change people's minds by pretending that 1) your vote matters 2) your vote will contribute to freedom 3) you have the right to volunteer other people for subjugation.

 

It's correct to say that the lifeblood of the state is its perceived legitimacy and that the way out is to change people's minds.  However as far as I've seen, nobody is claiming that their vote will change anybody's mind and I have no idea how you could maintain that your vote can't contribute to freedom or that refraining from voting will in any way damage the legitimacy of the state in people's minds.  I'd be interested to know where this is coming from though.

 

I've heard plenty of true stories about local elections in which only a handful of people turn out to vote, but the results of the election held.  It was a favorite trick of the school board in my hometown in fact.  If a school levy failed to pass, they'd just put it up again in a poorly advertised special election.  And what do you know!  The voters "changed their minds" and passed the levy.  Even though voter turn out was only a tiny fraction of what it was when the levy failed to pass, everyone's property taxes still went up and everybody still paid them.  Clearly - in my experience at least - people's belief in the state's legitimacy is not predicated on voter turnout.

 

I say, make the case for freedom to those who will listen, and talk to them where they already are.  You won't convince the average person that the state has no legitamacy right away, but you may get to nudge them more in the direction we want.  This is going to be a multi generational process so in the meantime, since you and everyone else is going to be subjugated anyway, you might as well vote if you think one master is going to create a better environment to make your case in than another.

 

Now I have to agree with Mike here.  Based on the evidence presented in the show, it does seem that the current immigration policy is working against us by enlarging a dependent class in the US whose existence - as it is - is dependent on maintaining the perceived legitimacy of the state.  So I'll probably be voting for Trump.

[Gavitor]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Stef's position on trump that because he is successful and is winning popularity with the common folk and beating the odds that he will actually be able to make changes?

 

If Trump actually succeeds and implements all the things he mentioned in the trump is different video than yes he could possibly slow down whats happening.

 

The issue I have with this is the assumption that the people in power right now and all the vested interests will just play nice if he becomes president (assuming they don't just steal the election from him). Pretty much every election is really close and this one is no different, whats to stop them from tilting it in Hilary's favor?

 

Even if Trump is different it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in government are corrupt to the core. Especially the higher ups.

 

Also what happened to the being made captain of a sinking ship argument he made with Ron Paul?

 

Trump is successful in the free market, now he's trying to change a criminal organization into a charity. I hope he succeeds but I don't see it happening. As Stef pointed out in the past, simply reversing time does not stop government from becoming what it is. Like cancer it needs to be removed in its entirety.

 

( I don't want to put words in Stef's mouth so if I'm mistaken on Stef's position or what he has said please correct me and I apologize in advance for any errors I might have made)

[dsayers]

However as far as I've seen, nobody is claiming that their vote will change anybody's mind and I have no idea how you could maintain that your vote can't contribute to freedom or that refraining from voting will in any way damage the legitimacy of the state in people's minds.  I'd be interested to know where this is coming from though.

I said that voting adds to the perceived legitimacy of the State. I did not address the inverse, converse, or contrapositive.

 

Of course your vote cannot contribute to freedom because the vote not only doesn't directly translate to action, but also because the system itself is coercive.

 

since you and everyone else is going to be subjugated anyway, you might as well vote

If you happened upon a gang rape, would you say that the person is getting raped anyways, so might as well cheer the rapists on?

 

it does seem that the current immigration policy is working against us by enlarging a dependent class in the US whose existence - as it is - is dependent on maintaining the perceived legitimacy of the state.  So I'll probably be voting for Trump.

Translation: I accept that the State created this problem, so I'm going to turn to the State to fix it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Stef's position on trump that because he is successful and is winning popularity with the common folk and beating the odds that he will actually be able to make changes?

 

If Trump actually succeeds and implements all the things he mentioned in the trump is different video than yes he could possibly slow down whats happening.

 

The issue I have with this is the assumption that the people in power right now and all the vested interests will just play nice if he becomes president (assuming they don't just steal the election from him). Pretty much every election is really close and this one is no different, whats to stop them from tilting it in Hilary's favor?

 

Even if Trump is different it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in government are corrupt to the core. Especially the higher ups.

 

Also what happened to the being made captain of a sinking ship argument he made with Ron Paul?

 

Trump is successful in the free market, now he's trying to change a criminal organization into a charity. I hope he succeeds but I don't see it happening. As Stef pointed out in the past, simply reversing time does not stop government from becoming what it is. Like cancer it needs to be removed in its entirety.

 

( I don't want to put words in Stef's mouth so if I'm mistaken on Stef's position or what he has said please correct me and I apologize in advance for any errors I might have made)

 

Mike just addressed this. Perhaps it doesn't seem to you like he addressed this, but he did by bringing the discussion to a focal point: that of immigration.

 

D. Trump specifically garnered support rapidly from the American people in droves because of his anti-political correct stance on immigration, and because of his credentials and uniqueness which differentiate him from any current or recent candidate, and from perhaps any candidate in history.

 

It is not hyperbole to say D. Trump is a historically unprecedented figure at least in American history, and to whatever degree, that is why he is enriching public discussion and invigorating support from a population that has been becoming increasingly apathetic in regard to politics and the survival of western values. There is a reason why a guy like Romney who was fairly conservative did not have nearly the impact Trump is having.

 

If D. Trump can put an end to or severely curtail immigration, then I'm not sure why anything else matters in itself. Despite whatever minuses or negatives, Hillary will obviously be much worse from any rational account of the facts. If you don't get that, then maybe you should look up some of her statements intending to "obliterate" middle eastern countries, or her seizures that she passes off with a smile. The women is so incredibly unhealthy that for all I know she is a female reincarnation of Hitler. Suffice it to say, I'm really scared of the possibility she could become president - I think for good reasons - almost to the point that I think electing D. Trump and electing anyone other than Hillary are equally serious and separate issues that are tangled because of how things are playing themselves out.

[Gavitor]

The Ron Paul argument had to do with Paul being a libertarian and "discrediting" libertarianism to the casual person if the collapse came under his watch.

 

Trump is not a libertarian and thus the same argument doesn't apply to him. It would apply to somebody like Gary Johnson though.

 

Nationalists could make the case that that nationalism would be "discredited" if Trump got in and everything collapsed. That being said, Western Civilization is in survival mode at this stage and I don't think many people aware of the evidence care much about theoretical fallouts concerning their abstract political ideologies.

 

Trump isn't going to turn the mafia into a charity - nobody can or will. The same arguments about what would be needed to have a free society still apply: namely, intelligent people raised peacefully.

 

Not oddly enough, Trump is an intelligent person raised peacefully and may be the only non-sociopath close to the presidency in the modern history of the office.

 

Importing people from child hostile cultures and paying them welfare to have more children will not help you get to freedom.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

I agree with you that importing child hostile cultures and giving them welfare is a bad thing and was never for it in the first place.

 

We are on the same page as far as raising intelligent people peacefully for the future.

 

I'm curious though, If government does the opposite of what it says its going to do how will that be different just because Trump is there? And I'm assuming that Trump is genuine in what he wants to do, I wanna know what makes you think the other people in government will work with him on it rather than stone wall him the whole time?

 

(Just to be clear I'm not against Trump and don't have any problems with him or the content about him. My problem is with the people who call themselves government.)

[jpahmad]

 

 

If government does the opposite of what it says its going to do

 

This is certainly not true in all cases.  Obama wanted socialized healthcare and we got it.  

[WasatchMan]

I fail to see what is a) hard to understand or b) confusing - about this election cycle.

 

Immigration is the only issue that matters. If it's not tackled now - the United States is done. Any hope of limited government is through for generations and generations.

 

Trump is the only candidate who is talking serious about immigration - and the reason he is believed is due to his uniqueness as a unprecedented type of candidate.

 

People who understand that not handling the immigration issue means the death of America - like Trump. It's not complicated.

 

People who don't understand that not handing the immigration issue means the death of America - feign concern that Trump's steak licensing agreement didn't make millions of dollars or cloak him in evil sounding language. Muh Hitler! Hillary Clinton is far scarier than Donald Trump could be on his worst day. If you disagree with that, you haven't examined with of them with enough detail absent bias and hysteria. Many weak, pathetic and unsuccessful people don't like Trump because he reminds them daily how weak, pathetic and unsuccessful they are - somebody like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush doesn't.

 

If you don't get Trump - you don't understand the immigration issue and what it means for the future of Western Civilization.

 

There are tons of pro open borders related immigration studies which fall apart under the smallest scrutiny - but I can understand if people don't have the time to actually read them critically or aren't smart enough to see the flaws in the data/arguments/logic. I suggest people look critically at these pro-immigration arguments - I have yet to hear one that doesn't fall apart under the slightest weight of an educated counterpoint. We've debunked a bunch of them on the show - and there have been no shortage of shows on Immigration as a topic.

 

If you don't understand why people like Trump - you should retire from any semblance of intellectual discussion.

 

Mike, I personally get these things, and do like Trump and think he is not only the lesser of two evils but will be a positive influence for the US.  However, this doesn't mean I accept the concept that a good ruler, even if it were Plato's personification of a Philosopher King, is ethical.  I don't plan to vote because I don't want to pretend that my singular vote means anything except that I consent to be governed by people who want to use my consent to initiate force against me.

 

I reject the idea of a philosopher king not pragmatically but ethically. Don't vote on a master, don't consent to be a slave.

[Guest Gee]

Why would I believe promises from people who support the use of force against me? If they want to give me freedom then they can simply stop trying to be my ruler.

 

Any quantity of government is the opposite of no government.

 

I stoped reading here. I think if you have no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism or if you can not state that there is less goverment in Switzerland than there is in North Korea, then you are to stupid for me to interact with.

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

 

Therefore there can be no difference in freedom between North Korea and North America.

 

Wow, just wow. So stupid, sad.

[labmath2]

The Ron Paul argument had to do with Paul being a libertarian and "discrediting" libertarianism to the casual person if the collapse came under his watch.

 

Trump is not a libertarian and thus the same argument doesn't apply to him. It would apply to somebody like Gary Johnson though.

 

Nationalists could make the case that that nationalism would be "discredited" if Trump got in and everything collapsed. That being said, Western Civilization is in survival mode at this stage and I don't think many people aware of the evidence care much about theoretical fallouts concerning their abstract political ideologies.

 

Trump isn't going to turn the mafia into a charity - nobody can or will. The same arguments about what would be needed to have a free society still apply: namely, intelligent people raised peacefully.

 

Not oddly enough, Trump is an intelligent person raised peacefully and may be the only non-sociopath close to the presidency in the modern history of the office.

 

Importing people from child hostile cultures and paying them welfare to have more children will not help you get to freedom.

This is an argument from effect. Allow me to play devils advocate. If Stefan believed his running for office in Canada would further the cause of freedom, would he do it? I am trying to understand if the process of getting to a free society matters or only the end does. If the process matters, then what reasons other than the effect he would produce should people support Trump? If you are going to vote for him because of the effect he will have on the nation, then how much of the effect do you have to own?

[Guest Gee]

I agree. You could also point out that while no government<current government; (government<current government) ≠ no government. The third line is a non sequitur and therefore renders the argument invalid.

 

Goverment = G

 

Lets say current goverment, G = 10

 

You want no goverment, G = 0

 

You want a change in goverment, dG = -10

 

-10 < 0

 

Therefor you want dG < 0

 

Oy Vay.

[WasatchMan]

I stoped reading here. I think if you have no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism or if you can not state that there is less goverment in Switzerland than there is in North Korea, then you are to stupid for me to interact with.

 

So are you admitting that you don't understand that the government with the most freedom became the government that is now dominating the world?

[Guest Gee]

So are you admitting that you don't understand that the government with the most freedom became the government that is now dominating the world?

 

Learn to read.

[WasatchMan]

Learn to read.

 

So you have two choices here:

1) admit that "I think if you have no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism or if you can not state that there is less goverment in Switzerland than there is in North Korea, then you are to stupid for me to interact with." is a worthless statement because it does not focus on actual outcomes of communist and minnarachist government because minarchists governments tend to generate the stock seed for a totalitarian governemt to spring from, and therefore dodges the entire topic at hand.

2) pretend that I didn't say that and make another vague accusation about my ability to comprehend principles.

 

The ball is in your court.

[Gavitor]

Mike just addressed this. Perhaps it doesn't seem to you like he addressed this, but he did by bringing the discussion to a focal point: that of immigration.

 

D. Trump specifically garnered support rapidly from the American people in droves because of his anti-political correct stance on immigration, and because of his credentials and uniqueness which differentiate him from any current or recent candidate, and from perhaps any candidate in history.

 

It is not hyperbole to say D. Trump is a historically unprecedented figure at least in American history, and to whatever degree, that is why he is enriching public discussion and invigorating support from a population that has been becoming increasingly apathetic in regard to politics and the survival of western values. There is a reason why a guy like Romney who was fairly conservative did not have nearly the impact Trump is having.

 

If D. Trump can put an end to or severely curtail immigration, then I'm not sure why anything else matters in itself. Despite whatever minuses or negatives, Hillary will obviously be much worse from any rational account of the facts. If you don't get that, then maybe you should look up some of her statements intending to "obliterate" middle eastern countries, or her seizures that she passes off with a smile. The women is so incredibly unhealthy that for all I know she is a female reincarnation of Hitler. Suffice it to say, I'm really scared of the possibility she could become president - I think for good reasons - almost to the point that I think electing D. Trump and electing anyone other than Hillary are equally serious and separate issues that are tangled because of how things are playing themselves out.

 

I Understand and agree. My point is what makes you think that everyone in government and is vested in government are just gonna say ok we will stop allowing illegal immigration and start giving a shit about laws when the laws mean nothing to them in the first place?

 

My contention is that voting doesn't solve these problems as history as shown, I even linked Stef's video the truth about voting. If you're vote doesn't matter why should you vote?

This is certainly not true in all cases.  Obama wanted socialized healthcare and we got it.  

He said he would lower insurance costs and the price went up... We've had suedo socialized medicine long before Obama, its called medicare.

 

Mike, I personally get these things, and do like Trump and think he is not only the lesser of two evils but will be a positive influence for the US.  However, this doesn't mean I accept the concept that a good ruler, even if it were Plato's personification of a Philosopher King, is ethical.  I don't plan to vote because I don't want to pretend that my singular vote means anything except that I consent to be governed by people who want to use my consent to initiate force against me.

 

I reject the idea of a philosopher king not pragmatically but ethically. Don't vote on a master, don't consent to be a slave.

I agree. As Stef put it, voting is begging.

 

 

I stoped reading here. I think if you have no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism or if you can not state that there is less goverment in Switzerland than there is in North Korea, then you are to stupid for me to interact with.

 

Therefore there can be no difference in freedom between North Korea and North America.

 

Wow, just wow. So stupid, sad.

KTHXBYE

 

This is an argument from effect. Allow me to play devils advocate. If Stefan believed his running for office in Canada would further the cause of freedom, would he do it? I am trying to understand if the process of getting to a free society matters or only the end does. If the process matters, then what reasons other than the effect he would produce should people support Trump? If you are going to vote for him because of the effect he will have on the nation, then how much of the effect do you have to own?

I remember Stef saying he wouldn't run but I forget which video it was he said it.

[Gavitor]

I'll keep it brief.

 

If Trump gets in, I expect him to use his massive microphone and spotlight to turn up the public pressure on those who oppose the policies people expect him to implement.

 

If one tweet from DJT and the spotlight that brings can destroy your political career - people are going to suddenly be more reasonable and accountable to the voters.

 

Trump's already signaled his intentions to employ this strategy by announcing that he intends to personally fund Super PACs against Cruz and Kasich.

 

In politics it's easiest for politicians to just go with the money flow of the lobbyists and corporate interests - but what if Trump changes that?

 

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to watch a bunch of terrible people stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

...or maybe none of Trump's signature issues will see the progress the voters expect.

 

If Trump's not able/willing to enact the will of the people who vote for him - nobody in the world will be able/willing to do so and it further highlights why democracy will always fail.

 

A Trump candidacy and presidency is all new information and I'm quite curious how things will play out.

That was a very good answer, I appreciate it.

 

I too am curious to see how things play out if Trump gets in.

[luxfelix]

I'm reminded of the following (a kind of hierarchy of needs except, as in previous posts, one of the main goals is to peacefully raise more intelligent people): 

 

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-i-must-study-politics-and-war-that-my-sons-may-have-liberty-to-study-mathematics-and-philosophy-my-john-adams-302658.jpg

[Tyler H]

Mike just addressed this. Perhaps it doesn't seem to you like he addressed this, but he did by bringing the discussion to a focal point: that of immigration.

 

D. Trump specifically garnered support rapidly from the American people in droves because of his anti-political correct stance on immigration, and because of his credentials and uniqueness which differentiate him from any current or recent candidate, and from perhaps any candidate in history.

 

It is not hyperbole to say D. Trump is a historically unprecedented figure at least in American history, and to whatever degree, that is why he is enriching public discussion and invigorating support from a population that has been becoming increasingly apathetic in regard to politics and the survival of western values. There is a reason why a guy like Romney who was fairly conservative did not have nearly the impact Trump is having.

 

If D. Trump can put an end to or severely curtail immigration, then I'm not sure why anything else matters in itself. Despite whatever minuses or negatives, Hillary will obviously be much worse from any rational account of the facts. If you don't get that, then maybe you should look up some of her statements intending to "obliterate" middle eastern countries, or her seizures that she passes off with a smile. The women is so incredibly unhealthy that for all I know she is a female reincarnation of Hitler. Suffice it to say, I'm really scared of the possibility she could become president - I think for good reasons - almost to the point that I think electing D. Trump and electing anyone other than Hillary are equally serious and separate issues that are tangled because of how things are playing themselves out.

Ok, I think I see a point of confusion here. When I ask why he's different, I'm asking why we should believe his motives for becoming president are different from any other candidate in history. How are we to know that he will or even can do what he "promises" (like Gavitor said there's still the rest of the politicians he'll need support from)? How do we know that he isn't capitalizing on an opportunity to obtain the greatest position of power in the world?