Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?

[ELD]

Hi all,

 

I've been very busy over the last two years growing my business from four founders to over twenty employees, as well as being a father of three and husband. I haven't been keeping up with FDR or Molyneux much, but I did notice he seemed to be doing a lot more political videos. One of my coworkers, who I recommended Molyneux to regarding peaceful parenting, told that Stefan was a Trump supporter. I was skeptical to say the least, but it appears that the man who once proclaimed voting was immoral and politics was like trying to change the mission of the mafia has flipped (seems like a full jumping of the shark). Can someone bring me up to speed on this pivot? Was there any discussion on Gary Johnson or any other candidates that are more compatible with freedom? I'm rather baffled by this.

[neeeel]

have you watched any videos on trump? He makes it fairly clear what his position is.

[NotDarkYet]

If immigrants flood the country by the millions - we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

 

We need time.  

 

A Trump win buys us a half a generation.

[ELD]

I watched the most recent one about Trumps sexual advances. He pretty much just pointed out that the left slanders the right, without going into the right slandering the left. Brought up Clinton's actions. Didn't really make things clear, aside from appearing to be a Trump supporter due to the sheer volume of videos about him on this channel. Not like there was some disclaimer up front, which is what I'd expect before coming to the defense of a dangerous candidate who is promising to erode freedom. Do you find it surprising that the impression is Stefan is a Trump supporter?

@NotDarkYet - Thank you for clarifying that. I think all those assumptions are wrong, and I don't see how Trump is going to win, but it is quite an interesting pivot.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1322682237&feature=iv&src_vid=bZfU--q6qTY&v=igbBItLemsM

[dsayers]

If immigrants flood the country by the millions - we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

If we accept property rights and turn to an institution that is predicated on the violation of property rights, we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

 

We need time.  

Focusing on Trump for a year is a year's worth of time.

 

NotDarkYet's post does a good job of explaining the motivation behind what you've observed. Rest assured that there are those of us who understand that enslaving our neighbors for our preferences is wrong and not even worth pretending to be able to do. I've done much to speak out against political voting only to be largely met with non-arguments and ostracism. Luckily, no amount of downvotes impacts the truth value of an objective claim

[Wuzzums]

Hi all,

 

I've been very busy over the last two years growing my business from four founders to over twenty employees, as well as being a father of three and husband. I haven't been keeping up with FDR or Molyneux much, but I did notice he seemed to be doing a lot more political videos. One of my coworkers, who I recommended Molyneux to regarding peaceful parenting, told that Stefan was a Trump supporter. I was skeptical to say the least, but it appears that the man who once proclaimed voting was immoral and politics was like trying to change the mission of the mafia has flipped (seems like a full jumping of the shark). Can someone bring me up to speed on this pivot? Was there any discussion on Gary Johnson or any other candidates that are more compatible with freedom? I'm rather baffled by this.

 

No, I will not do your research for you.

I will say this however. While you were busy creating a life for yourself, Stefan was busy trying to save it.

[aviet]

If immigrants flood the country by the millions - we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

 

I will say this however. While you were busy creating a life for yourself, Stefan was busy trying to save [your ability to live] it.

 

I will add a third ditto to that. There has been a mass realisation that The West is slowly becoming The Middle East, where elected politicians have decided to give up on assimilating migrants and instead assimilate us into radical/mainstream Islam:

 

- banning Christian symbols so not to offend Muslims

- telling women to keep an arm's length from men

- blaming women for sexual assault

- modifying dress so as not to offend Muslims

- turning a blind eye to cultural practices like FGM, gender segregation and polygamy

 

It's also very strange to see that leftists, who have a habit of spitting bile at men sitting with their legs open and black police officers shooting black criminals, have now fused themselves with what many would wrongly call the most conservative ideology in existence, radical Islam.

Wanting to bring about an anarchist society in such a malestrom of anti-philosophical, pre-medieval and low IQ people is not viable.

 

And I don't think this realisation has just spread by the work of say Stefan. I was in Serbia in 2015 during the fake refugee crisis with virtually no internet access and was able to piece together the trend via snippets from Serbian media and hearing from people who were collapsed into an Islamic state for 100s of years where every fifth child was taken off by the empire to be abused, killed, enslaved or stuffed in the army. It's like a collective alarm clock has gone off. If you look at articles in the London Guardian, a practically Communist mouthpiece covering what they call Islamophobia you will find the comments, left primarily by left liberals, overwhelmingly reject the notion of Islamaphobia and recognise the danger of Islam.

 

The emphasis has moved away from centuries out philosophical idealism to preserving Western civilisation. I too came across Stefan in his anarcho-heavy days. Even he would say his ideas are generations out [for The West]. This idealism is still there. It's just on hold.

 

I would say Stefan's ideas are only really suitable for serious consideration by cira 110+ IQ societies, which leaves you with Hong Kong and Singapore, where the overall tax burdens are 33% and 50% of what you will find in Western Europe, respectively. It's not feasible for countries like say Niger, where half the population is below the age of fifteen, where more than half the adult population have a sub-70 IQs and that are wracked with many forms of violence to comprehend Stefan's ideas, never mind put them into practice.

 

One of my criticisms of anarcho-X is that anarcho-X needs to be enforced if people don't believe in anarcho-X. If you start with a society where 100% of the people believe in say Stefan's anarcho-capitalist model, but you allow people to enter the society who fundamentally disagree with this model to the point that only 30% of the people believe in the anarcho-capitalism model, then there is no chance of the anarcho-capitalism model continuing. Right now that is not a battle we have on our hands, but we do have a battle on our hands with the increasing number of people in The West who don't believe in separation of church and state, who believe in the supremacy of pre-Medieval law until the end times, who believe in draconian limits to free speech, who believe in the death penalty for simple life choices, who believe in Venezuela -style redistribution etc.

[A4E]

Muslims as a whole do not tolerate atheists, or anyone else, even other muslims with a different opinion.

 

In a muslim ruled country, atheists (and anarcho capitalists) are going to be suppressed, killed, banished, or whatever. In a part muslim country, much of the same will go on, just not on the same scale. Which as already mentioned above, does not allow any big opportunities to make the world a better place.

 

The controlled or brainwashed powers of the western world is letting muslims enter their countries and allowing them to continue to not tolerate people with other opinions nor the country's culture, while at the same time demanding that everyone tolerate the muslims.

 

Trump understands this and have made it clear what he thinks about it.

 

 

People fleeing from socialist states into the USA are also not likely going to have an open mind to anarcho capitalism.

 

Therefore protecting the country's history of freedom of thought, and not letting just anyone into the country is paramount to making USA and the world a better and more freedom focused place.

 

Remember that muslim country's are never going to invite atheists (or non muslims) and be nice to them, giving them money and accommodations.

 

If Hillary is POTUS, then there will be more government control, more muslim immigrants, and other anti freedom oriented groups will be let in because they will support the left and more government control. Also more wars will be started. More destruction of the family. More local/small businesses will be eliminated. The debt will go higher. People will have less money. Less jobs because no one dares starting a business when there are so many rules. Less quality healthcare because it will be more controlled by government. Less quality anything that the government will impose itself on.

 

It would of course be nice if we could snap our fingers to start our perfect society, but I agree that we have to accept and deal with how things are becoming at the moment. Trying to wish reality away is not productive.

 

 

What I find insane, is that a large portion of LGBT people seem to be supporting the left. The left do not care how many muslims are getting into the west. And if enough muslims are in a country, they are going to start killing LGBT people.

[Troubador]

I just want say although I suppose I am still a statist by default (I voted for Brexit after all!) as I'm still ploughing through a lot of material on anarchy and haven't formed my own conclusions yet. I tremendously respect dsayers for his consistency. He seems to cop a lot of ad hominem attacks, and I suspect would be getting a lot of up votes if he was posting the same position 8 years ago, and I suspect would be getting them again for saying the same things 8 years from now.

 

Whichever way you slice it a vote for Trump is a gamble, (just as ultimately my vote for Brexit was!, so I empathise with anyone who wants to roll those dice) and one I am 85% sure I would make myself were I American. However I don't begrudge him sticking to his idea logical guns here, in fact I admire it!

 

I want you to ponder the word philosophy a moment. Take a pause if you need to it is two Classical Greek words love (or friend to) wisdom. Sophia which means wise is a woman's name, and whilst we do live in a world where people take the feels before reals thing way to far any philosophy is incomplete without it. Look at the peaceful parenting philosophy for an example of philosophy firing on full cylinders whilst encompassing the masculine and feminine aspects of the human condition.

 

Although this post is not an argument and nor is it really of much practical utility. Dsayers is a big boy I suspect can weather the slings and arrow perfectly fine on his own. I just wanted to go on record and accept the inevitable downvotes for doing so. Thank you.

[aviet]

I just wanted to go on record and accept the inevitable downvotes for doing so.

Never understood the reason for down-voting.

 

[Troubador]

It wasn't meant to be an argument, and I accomplished I what set out to do.

[aviet]

It wasn't meant to be an argument, and I accomplished I what set out to do.

It wasn't directed at yourself. You mention bracing yourself for down-votes for unpopular speech. This seems a system more worthy of Harvard gender studies than FDR.

[AlanM]

I watched the most recent one about Trumps sexual advances. He pretty much just pointed out that the left slanders the right, without going into the right slandering the left. Brought up Clinton's actions. Didn't really make things clear, aside from appearing to be a Trump supporter due to the sheer volume of videos about him on this channel. Not like there was some disclaimer up front, which is what I'd expect before coming to the defense of a dangerous candidate who is promising to erode freedom. Do you find it surprising that the impression is Stefan is a Trump supporter?

@NotDarkYet - Thank you for clarifying that. I think all those assumptions are wrong, and I don't see how Trump is going to win, but it is quite an interesting pivot.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1322682237&feature=iv&src_vid=bZfU--q6qTY&v=igbBItLemsM

 

That video by Molyneux was what pushed me to accept his views on voting over Walter Block's. While Block has always supported a mainstream candidate (Obama in 08 and 12, Trump this year), Molyneux told us that not even Ron Paul could bring about change. I still believe what he said that day even if Molyneux himself no longer does. The arguments I've seen for voting such as "we need another generation to spread our message" are, in my opinion, no different than when conservatives have said that Obama is the antichrist and will set up a dictatorship. They're exaggerations. Nothing will change significantly no matter who you vote for. The system's setup that way.

 

If we accept property rights and turn to an institution that is predicated on the violation of property rights, we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

 

Focusing on Trump for a year is a year's worth of time.

 

NotDarkYet's post does a good job of explaining the motivation behind what you've observed. Rest assured that there are those of us who understand that enslaving our neighbors for our preferences is wrong and not even worth pretending to be able to do. I've done much to speak out against political voting only to be largely met with non-arguments and ostracism. Luckily, no amount of downvotes impacts the truth value of an objective claim

 

Keep up the good work. Some of us appreciate those who speak up against the majority. I, for one, don't have a problem with those who vote, I simply find that my conscience is more clear by abstaining.

[David Ottinger]

Never understood the reason for down-voting.

 

 

The big head and little hands made me think of this:

 

[algernon]

I just want say although I suppose I am still a statist by default (I voted for Brexit after all!) as I'm still ploughing through a lot of material on anarchy and haven't formed my own conclusions yet. I tremendously respect dsayers for his consistency. He seems to cop a lot of ad hominem attacks, and I suspect would be getting a lot of up votes if he was posting the same position 8 years ago, and I suspect would be getting them again for saying the same things 8 years from now.

 

Whichever way you slice it a vote for Trump is a gamble, (just as ultimately my vote for Brexit was!, so I empathise with anyone who wants to roll those dice) and one I am 85% sure I would make myself were I American. However I don't begrudge him sticking to his idea logical guns here, in fact I admire it!

 

 

 

I would like to point out, although Stef has mentioned he might have helped swing the Brexit vote, you haven't left yet. The referendum is not legally binding (like laws mean anything among thieves) and we will see how this plays out.

[dsayers]

Not an argument.

Pointing out that politicians have tried to scare the populace to coax them into giving up more freedom for the illusion of safety, and pointing out that a US citizen's vote has no influence on the outcome of the election, let alone the yield of the outcome of that election ARE arguments. Which is generous considering they are offered in response to the proposition that voting can make a difference. Which itself is not an argument, and therefore that which indicates why a person might reject such an extraordinary claim doesn't even have to be an argument. The onus is on the people making the extraordinary claims.

[Troubador]

Don't get bent out of shape with the "it's not an argument" thing. It's a neat rhetorical device (which I personally rather like!). Just remember (and this IS an argument for anyone who cares to play spot the difference), arguments are not the only method of human interaction. You can make an observation, state a fact without strictly making an argument.

 

Go read Plato's Republic there are multiple occasions where Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus could have shut down Socrates early on in the dialogues with a simple "not an argument". As early on with a topic Socrates tends to asks questions rather than submit his own argument (although the best rhetorical strategy there wouldn't be "not an argument" but an accusation of nitpicking).

 

For the record my position on this Trump thing is with Mike most of all. I've heard him make the case that a Trump vote IS a gamble (so he's being honest imo). A vote for Hilary however is a guaranteed vote for globalism and open immigration. I've made the case myself that like guns, democracy is out and about in the world, so like the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so too the only way to stop a bad guy (or an idiot!) with a vote is a good guy with a vote. One can dislike guns and votes, but use either self defensively.

 

I still maintain I respect dsayers position as ideally you want to bring everyone around to not needing to vote at all, but at the moment the barbarians are at the gates and need to buy more time to spread that idea.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Pointing out that politicians have tried to scare the populace to coax them into giving up more freedom for the illusion of safety, and pointing out that a US citizen's vote has no influence on the outcome of the election, let alone the yield of the outcome of that election ARE arguments. Which is generous considering they are offered in response to the proposition that voting can make a difference. Which itself is not an argument, and therefore that which indicates why a person might reject such an extraordinary claim doesn't even have to be an argument. The onus is on the people making the extraordinary claims.

 

Just pointing out for others - this is not an argument.

[dsayers]

Saying not an argument isn't an argument. Or it is an argument and therefore what I posted that you claim isn't an argument IS an argument.

 

"God exists."
"That's not true."

"Not an argument."
"Doesn't need to be. You made an extraordinary claim and haven't substantiated it. I don't need an argument to refute nothingness."

[dsayers]

I still maintain I respect dsayers position as ideally you want to bring everyone around to not needing to vote at all, but at the moment the barbarians are at the gates and need to buy more time to spread that idea.

That's what they said about 9/11. Was that just buying us time? What happened in that time? Those precious western values such as freedom of speech have been blinked out. The State people are begging to save us set the stage and ushered in the so-called barbarians. Primarily to get rational individuals to forsake their values and fall in line. It's disgusting.

 

Meanwhile every terrorist attack on US soil was a false flag attack. The US has paid to have terrorist videos spoofed... I don't pay attention to people and events by choice, but things wash up on my shore. I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks on US soil in awhile. Perhaps they thought that once the greatest philosophy show on Earth was willing to commit so much of its resources to dignifying them and legitimizing the system, the pendulum was already swinging enough that they didn't need any more.

 

This is same old shit, different day. While a bunch of people who would otherwise rightly be described as empiricists are swearing it's something new just because the circus got that much more spectacular.

[Mister Mister]

That video by Molyneux was what pushed me to accept his views on voting over Walter Block's. While Block has always supported a mainstream candidate (Obama in 08 and 12, Trump this year), Molyneux told us that not even Ron Paul could bring about change. I still believe what he said that day even if Molyneux himself no longer does. The arguments I've seen for voting such as "we need another generation to spread our message" are, in my opinion, no different than when conservatives have said that Obama is the antichrist and will set up a dictatorship. They're exaggerations. Nothing will change significantly no matter who you vote for. The system's setup that way.

 

 

 

Sorry I find this position very perplexing.  If you are honest you have to at least admit that a Trump presidency is an unknown, in my opinion.  Whether you think it is more likely to be a positive or a negative depends on many things.  But you have to admit this is unprecedented, and not just "the system" as usual.  The system is clearly doing everything to keep this man from winning.  That doesn't necessarily mean he will be good; sometimes in revolutions a bad government is replaced by a worse government.  But this whole idea of "doesn't matter who you vote for, nothing will change" with regards to this election, I just don't get it.  It seems like an old position people are refusing to revise in the face of new evidence.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Just remember (and this IS an argument for anyone who cares to play spot the difference), arguments are not the only method of human interaction. You can make an observation, state a fact without strictly making an argument.

 

Sorry, but that is not an argument either. Those are two premises. 1) Arguments are not the only method of human interaction. 2) You can make an observation without making an argument

 

They are both true statements, but for it to be considered an argument you need to show how you can get a conclusion that was not contain in the premises.

 

 

Sorry I find this position very perplexing.  If you are honest you have to at least admit that a Trump presidency is an unknown, in my opinion.  Whether you think it is more likely to be a positive or a negative depends on many things.  But you have to admit this is unprecedented, and not just "the system" as usual.  The system is clearly doing everything to keep this man from winning.  That doesn't necessarily mean he will be good; sometimes in revolutions a bad government is replaced by a worse government.  But this whole idea of "doesn't matter who you vote for, nothing will change" with regards to this election, I just don't get it.  It seems like an old position people are refusing to revise in the face of new evidence.

 

Rose's post, while not a perfect syllogism, is much closer to an actual argument. The premises are that

 

1) the system (media, democrats, republicans) are doing everything to keep D. Trump from winning

 

2) this is a historically unprecedented situation (that D. Trump still is favorable to win)

 

The conclusion is that this is not the system as it usually functions.

 

From this, you can also conclude that arguments which are about participating in the system as it usually functions are not applicable to circumstances which are unusual.

 

edited for clarity

[Tyler H]

Sorry I find this position very perplexing.  If you are honest you have to at least admit that a Trump presidency is an unknown, in my opinion.  Whether you think it is more likely to be a positive or a negative depends on many things.  But you have to admit this is unprecedented, and not just "the system" as usual.  The system is clearly doing everything to keep this man from winning.  That doesn't necessarily mean he will be good; sometimes in revolutions a bad government is replaced by a worse government.  But this whole idea of "doesn't matter who you vote for, nothing will change" with regards to this election, I just don't get it.  It seems like an old position people are refusing to revise in the face of new evidence.

I will admit the evidence points to uncertainty in regards to Trump's presidency, however none of this "new evidence" overturns the major tenet (once?)supported by many in this community that using the initiation of force to solve complex social problems is immoral, ineffective, unpredictable in scope, and pernicious if not promptly injurious.  

 

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

I've been very busy over the last two years growing my business from four founders to over twenty employees, as well as being a father of three and husband. I haven't been keeping up with FDR or Molyneux much, but I did notice he seemed to be doing a lot more political videos. One of my coworkers, who I recommended Molyneux to regarding peaceful parenting, told that Stefan was a Trump supporter. I was skeptical to say the least, but it appears that the man who once proclaimed voting was immoral and politics was like trying to change the mission of the mafia has flipped (seems like a full jumping of the shark). Can someone bring me up to speed on this pivot? Was there any discussion on Gary Johnson or any other candidates that are more compatible with freedom? I'm rather baffled by this.

 

No, I will not do your research for you.

I will say this however. While you were busy creating a life for yourself, Stefan was busy trying to save it.

 

 

 

Do you think it's unreasonable for a man who is running a business and raising three children to ask some questions to see if someone is willing to offer up a synopsis before pouring over hundreds of hours of content?  I don't.  I also don't think you have any real interest in helping people reach the truth.  The question wasn't directed at you so if you didn't want to explain the position all you had to do was not say anything.  

 

 

@ELD - Totally awesome that you went out into the world at significant risk to your own financial well being and created enough wealth to support over twenty people.  Totally awesome that you brought three rational thinkers into the world.  

[Wuzzums]

 

Do you think it's unreasonable for a man who is running a business and raising three children to ask some questions to see if someone is willing to offer up a synopsis before pouring over hundreds of hours of content?  I don't.  I also don't think you have any real interest in helping people reach the truth.  The question wasn't directed at you so if you didn't want to explain the position all you had to do was not say anything.  

 

The question was directed at me/us.

I am not going to explain someone else's views on something when there are are countless of short videos out there of the man himself explaining his stance.

He does not have to listen to hundreds of hours of Stefan in order to understand why he's backing trump. Dare I say you... poisoned the well a lil' bit there?

 

Chris Rock said it best. I'm paraphrasing: If your car has broken down in the middle of the road and you're standing by its side asking people for help no one will ever stop to help you. If your car has broken down and you're out there pushing it, people will come over to help without you even asking for any help.

 

So can you see why I was hostile to him when he showed no curiosity yet asked for help?

[Mister Mister]

I will admit the evidence points to uncertainty in regards to Trump's presidency, however none of this "new evidence" overturns the major tenet (once?)supported by many in this community that using the initiation of force to solve complex social problems is immoral, ineffective, unpredictable in scope, and pernicious if not promptly injurious. 

Yes that's a fair point and speaking for myself, I still feel not great about supporting a political candidate.  But the response I think would be that force is being initiated either way, so it just becomes a cost/benefits calculation, a self-defense and survival strategy.

[ELD]

No, I will not do your research for you.

I will say this however. While you were busy creating a life for yourself, Stefan was busy trying to save it.

 

Stefan now supports voting. His last video "fight for western civilization" says so point blank. I'm more than willing to wager that Stefan's new method will fail. Trump is going to be get trounced. Society will go on. I guess I'll check back in a year to see how he recovers from this unfortunate pivot, which I gather is just to get more viewership. Will he circle back to the consistent view he held before? Will he continue to evolve into more support of government solutions? (at this time I gather he's pro government borders, immigration control and participation via voting). Just never thought I'd see him calling me an asshole for not voting

 

Of note, he's not the only one to figure out the ratings involved in supporting Trump. Alex Jones, I've learned, did a full pivot as well, completely distancing himself from the Ron Paul types.

 

I wish I could see an alternative timeline where Trump wins, and I could witness how these pivoters recover from a Trump presidency not bringing what they imagined. Jones would come up with some batshit conspiracy theory (they have his kids, he's possessed by a demon?), but what would Molyneux do once our rights continue to erode under Trump?

[RichardY]

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss.

The abyss gazes also into you.”

 

The Americans have fought too long with Military Dictatorships in the Middle East, the "Special Interests" too entrenched, do you want Hilary Clinton who harvests children's souls or Trump that creates businesses to make people happy and... get richer.

[ELD]

 

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss.

The abyss gazes also into you.”

 

The Americans have fought too long with Military Dictatorships in the Middle East, the "Special Interests" too entrenched, do you want Hilary Clinton who harvests children's souls or Trump that creates businesses to make people happy and... get richer.

 

I think that quote more accurately reflects Stef's abandonment of his previous arguements. He fought with statists and now believes in their ritual of voting, the validity of their claim to control immigration, and the previously imaginary lines on a map called borders. It's remarkable to see the pivot, which I contend is done for the purpose of higher view counts. I am very much looking forward to the aftermath.

 

To answer your question, I want neither. I answered your post seriously, but I hope you were just being ironic (harvesting souls lol)

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I love that Stefan's positions constantly evolve with new reasoning and new ways of interpreting the evidence. It also is a truly magnificent way of getting the people who can't think to "self deport"

[Gavitor]

I wish I could see an alternative timeline where Trump wins

If you want him to win then vote for him...

 

If voting doesn't work how/why did brexit happen? Why is Trump competing with Hilary rather than any other republican that the powers that be would much prefer?

 

Given that they had no issue letting Hilary win over Bernie when I would argue Bernie had a much bigger following than her, why did this not occur with Trump?

 

What are the downsides to Trump being president that aren't already guaranteed with Hilary (or any other dipshit politician)?

 

Mike already pointed out the potential upsides to Trump that dont exist with anyone else. If anyone can show that he is mistaken I'd like to hear how he is.

[dsayers]

Mike already pointed out the potential upsides to Trump that dont exist with anyone else. If anyone can show that he is mistaken I'd like to hear how he is.

I enthusiastically call shenanigans on this claim. If you'd like to hear how, you'd be listening to all the ways that have been getting pointed out for the last several months.

 

"If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are." If you're using phrases like "upsides to Trump" and "voting works," you're allowing yourself to be distracted from reality. In the real world, humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. If you understand this, then you understand that voting is co-operating in your enslavement, as is wishing for a specific master, because of the ways in which you THINK he'll whip you more gently. Also, for as long as you're begging other people to solve problems for you, you will stop trying to problem solve even within your own mind.

[Troubador]

I think accusations of just gaining views are a little callous and cynical. First of all The whole FDR project comes from voluntary donations. If he monetised the YouTube videos you may have a semblance of a point, but whilst the information is made free to people like me who are a little light on funds I don't think you can argue Stefan's motivations are entirely self-interested.

 

I also think the vast majority of material surrounding this election that has been put out is purely putting information out there. That information not Stef nor Mike leads one to the inescapable conclusion that if one makes the decision to vote a vote for Hilary is a vote for globalism, left-leaning state expansion and unchecked immigration. Wheras the Trump vote at least contains the antithesis of that and additionally might halt the regression of civilisation.

 

Now granted there is a distinct disconnect between arguments like the "against me" position where participation in any state voting or advocacy of same boils down to the implicit reality that by doing so you are advocating your opponents getting shot for holding a different view. Which is an initiation of the use of force, but maybe things are so down to the wire now that is the only option.

 

I really don't know I am still very much at the beginning of my journey towards a grasp of logic and reason. However one thing that is self evident is we aren't born with a complete comprehension of language, logic, reason and many years worth of life experience so no human being has been born that speaks and acts perfectly. There are things I argued vociferously for 20 years ago that I know I was wrong about. The difference is there isn't and exhaustive public record of everything I've gotten wrong, but believe me it's there.

 

You need to look at philosophy as a constant fine tuning of thought and thinking. It never stops. Expecting one person to transmit truth without any capacity for error for decades is blue sky thinking. It's just not possible. The journey of philosophy as twofold, both to be accurate in your thinking, and secondly to understand why you were right, and perhaps more crucially why you were wrong when you are inaccurate.

 

If someone is more accurate than you are they are a great candidate for a mentor, but don't just hitch a ride on their coatails. The idea is to think for yourself, if you don't then one day when that mentor inevitably makes an error you'll come to realise you had belief in them rather than knowledge of your own.

[ELD]

The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one.

 

Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep.

 

@Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.

[Troubador]

I don't think it is at all difficult to work out what Stef will do if Trump gets in and turns out as bad as usual politicians. You'll see a bright crisp new video appear on YouTube titled something like "I was wrong about Trump." He won't pull any punches and will totally eviscerate the guy. There will probably be a caveat that even as bad Trump was Clinton would have been worse, which would likely be valid imo, albeit not particularly provable as we wouldn't have access to alternate dimensions. He'll probably do a penance of loads of videos on old philosophers (and likely very good ones!). One thing I can't see him doing is giving up!

[ELD]

Did Stef make a video explaining how he was wrong about political action? Just a video to mirror the truth about voting.

 

It's inconsistent to encourage voting, but not political donation and being involved with the campaign. Where's the video encouraging people to do more than just cast a ballot.

 

The impression I got, which I am not alone in is Stef did the following:

Make a bunch of videos about Trump, claiming to not be a Trump supporter, but just getting the facts out there

Full blown pivot to Trump supporter

I am waiting for the next step