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

[dsayers]

You are interested in others being free in their own mind and therefor use this forum to express that. Stef and other Trump supporters are counting on his win to allow that to continue.

This is exactly the mindset I'm combatting. If you think that you need external permission to be free INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD, there is no internal freedom for any external source to allow to continue in the first place.

 

The external things I THINK you're trying to claim will continue aren't even present now, you have no way of knowing what Trump will do, you don't appear to understand the limits of what one person CAN do, or that your vote doesn't influence the outcome, that by voting, you're participating in and legitimizing the system, which actively puts a halt on the things you think should continue by condoning the enslavement of all who could continue it.

 

Human consciousness has risen above the acceptance of human subjugation in the name of the State. Which side of this evolution of mankind are you on? You can cling to your record player because the grainy pops feels more organic to you all you'd like. You do NOT get to pretend to own me and everybody else because you're afraid to tell the truth. Trump can't preserve that because you're not preserving it now.

[taraelizabeth21]

ELD,

 

I hope you've listened the most recent podcast Stefan put out explaining the fact that he sticks to evidence. When the facts change, he's willing to change his stance. He's not going to stick to an abstract argument against voting when, in this case, we might be able to save Western Civilization by voting. No one expected Trump's candidacy to be what it is, or for this political movement to arise which speaks to so many people.

 

Stefan always said that he's rational, he's sticking to his principles and not being so arrogant as to assume that he knows and can predict everything. Sometimes you say things, and you end up being wrong later, or need to alter your position based on new information. Based on these developments, do we foolishly cling to abstract ideals and keep ourselves separate from the real struggles of actual people, or do we get out there and do what needs to be done to save our culture, our country, and our future?

 

There are so many dangerous aspects of a Clinton presidency that you ignore at your own peril, and the peril of us all. Specifically I'm referring to her provocation of Putin and Russia. I don't know if you've been following the news, but that situation is very, very bad. World War III is a stone's throw away, and you're going to criticize someone for being big enough to admit that they were wrong, because, what? You find it tacky? 

 

Your criticism is based on a denial of the reality of the political situation in this country, and the international situation. Stefan continues to be what he has always been: devoted to facts, reason, and evidence. We aren't sheep that just follow blindly, a lot of people agree because his arguments and his evidence are empirically correct, verifiable, and consistent with their experience.

 

Until you can present legitimate counter evidence to show that this really isn't all what it's cracked up to be, maybe stop leveling criticism against the voices that are standing up against Clinton and her cadre of warmongering globalist elites, as they don't care what happens to any of us. Trump has done so much good in this election, and Molyneux does good by promoting Trump's message. Come back when you have counter-evidence and an argument that goes beyond your distaste for change and your lack of enthusiasm for Trump's prospects.

 

As for me, I will do everything I can to prevent the Clintons from retaking the White House, including arguing with people online, and voting. And whatever the hell else I have to do.

[DCLugi]

This is exactly the mindset I'm combatting. If you think that you need external permission to be free INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD, there is no internal freedom for any external source to allow to continue in the first place.

 

The external things I THINK you're trying to claim will continue aren't even present now, you have no way of knowing what Trump will do, you don't appear to understand the limits of what one person CAN do, or that your vote doesn't influence the outcome, that by voting, you're participating in and legitimizing the system, which actively puts a halt on the things you think should continue by condoning the enslavement of all who could continue it.

 

Human consciousness has risen above the acceptance of human subjugation in the name of the State. Which side of this evolution of mankind are you on? You can cling to your record player because the grainy pops feels more organic to you all you'd like. You do NOT get to pretend to own me and everybody else because you're afraid to tell the truth. Trump can't preserve that because you're not preserving it now.

Not permission to be free in your own mind but to have a forum to share those ideas. Big difference.

[dsayers]

we might be able to save Western Civilization by voting.

You do not "save Western Civilization (undefined)" by pretending to be able to enslave hundreds of millions of people. Condoning institutionalized violence because we think it will give us what we want is what got us here in the first place. The very state you are begging to rule over me created the problem you think it can solve. Also, you use a LOT of verbiage that poisons the well. I asked you in another thread how you arrived at the conclusions you were putting forth, which went unanswered. It's very telling that the people who occupy this position refuse to shoot straight when "discussing" it.

 

Not permission to be free in your own mind but to have a forum to share those ideas. Big difference.

I looked back at what you said. It still seems ambiguous in light of your clarification. It's still a bogus claim with the clarification. Because if all you can do with that forum is to accept human subjugation, how can you arrive at the conclusion that this is something that SHOULD continue? It's not happening now, which I already made the point of. Along with others you chose not to address. See above "shoot straight."

[Gavitor]

This is exactly the mindset I'm combatting. If you think that you need external permission to be free INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD, there is no internal freedom for any external source to allow to continue in the first place.

 

The external things I THINK you're trying to claim will continue aren't even present now, you have no way of knowing what Trump will do, you don't appear to understand the limits of what one person CAN do, or that your vote doesn't influence the outcome, that by voting, you're participating in and legitimizing the system, which actively puts a halt on the things you think should continue by condoning the enslavement of all who could continue it.

 

Human consciousness has risen above the acceptance of human subjugation in the name of the State. Which side of this evolution of mankind are you on? You can cling to your record player because the grainy pops feels more organic to you all you'd like. You do NOT get to pretend to own me and everybody else because you're afraid to tell the truth. Trump can't preserve that because you're not preserving it now.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't discussing whats in your head... Being free in your mind doesn't mean you are free in reality much in the same way that believing you can fly doesn't make it so. You can continue to live in your head if you like but this is getting pretty asinine, perhaps you should stop pretending to be psychic and telling others what goes on in their minds.

 

You continue to say that voting is ineffective while simultaneously saying it has an effect. Make up your mind!

 

Who here is advocating for subjugation? You accuse others of sophistry while telling others that by voting it means they support government which is an ASSUMPTION on your part... People vote for any variety of reasons, you don't get to dictate what people do or don't support with their actions especially when those actions have no effect according to you.

 

Since you get to equate voting with supporting and legitimizing government does that mean I can equate not voting with supporting and legitimizing nihilism?

 

You haven't given people an alternative... have you made a free society for everyone here to go to? I'm sure if they had that option they'd be much less likely to vote.

 

Also voting in and of itself isn't the issue, people vote all the time every day, they vote with their feet and with their wallets. Is that a problem also?

[Weeds]

That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it.

Appeal to emotion! How dare you subjugate the mind and body of your unborn child to the state. Keep to your principles and defend their sovereignty from birth onwards!

 

^ see what I did there, dsayers? ^ :}

 

I think if you want to discuss MY(/YOUR?) principles, it would be polite to move this conversation to another thread or private messaging system so that we do not bog this thread (speculating the WHY of Stef's change on voting) with personal preferences. Unless of course you think it relevant to the topic?

[Weeds]

You are probably correct in assuming that. I have a bad habit of stating the obvious some time. I was triggered. See FreedomToon's video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MACnJi4GIGY

Funny video! Thank you so much for sharing that! :}

 

I admit that my lack of articulation didn't help. No one here knows me, or knows that I might 'know' them from reading their words in past debates.

 

To clarify what I meant when I questioned those who do or do not pay taxes-

 

When we know we are being stolen from, to do nothing about it is legal consent.

 

It is my opinion that unless you are actively practicing methods to deter the thief, then you are responsible for the stolen money contributed to the system that enslaves your neighbor.

 

I wanted to know if the NAP practicing anarchist also feels that responsibility or if they feel matters are out of their hands?

Now the argument of about we own ourselves. I'm not so sure since we have a gun pointed at our heads and are required to hand over a portion of our income. So if not slaves then at least serfs. That is what makes me think of the quote by Frederick Douglass I posted above.

[i posted a quote earlier in response. Somehow it attached itself to a previous reply I had for dsayers ... Lemme get it]

[Weeds]

Come see the violence inherent in the system!" HELP HELP I'm being repressed!!

 

Heehee!

[dsayers]

Appeal to emotion!

An "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy. "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't discussing whats in your head... Being free in your mind doesn't mean you are free in reality much in the same way that believing you can fly doesn't make it so. You can continue to live in your head if you like but this is getting pretty asinine, perhaps you should stop pretending to be psychic and telling others what goes on in their minds.

If I was wrong, this would not irritate you. You cannot be free from without unless you are free from within first. You were enslaved and present day, you are co-operating, complete with the slave on slave hostility that allows their inferior numbers to leverage the enslavement of superior numbers.

 

You continue to say that voting is ineffective while simultaneously saying it has an effect. Make up your mind!

Political voting has no effect on the outcome. Political voting signals to other people that political voting is real and righteous. These are not competing claims.

 

Who here is advocating for subjugation?

Everybody who co-operates with it and tells others it is a valid option.

 

You accuse others of sophistry while telling others that by voting it means they support government which is an ASSUMPTION on your part...

When you say "I choose THIS master," it is not an assumption that this person find the idea of having a master AND INFLICTING IT ON OTHERS to be valid.

 

People vote for any variety of reasons, you don't get to dictate what people do or don't support with their actions

I'm not interested in WHY people would pretend to own me because their premise is flawed. It's so bizarre that you would not push back against people dictating and asking to be dictated over, but you would accuse the person of integrity who sees it as being as unacceptable as you claim here for saying so.

 

Since you get to equate voting with supporting and legitimizing government does that mean I can equate not voting with supporting and legitimizing nihilism?

You can claim whatever you like. However, inaction isn't action, you are the one arguing you cannot know motivation, and I don't think saying that somebody who is against rape is a nihilist.

 

You haven't given people an alternative...

You are not free in your own mind. You're asking an external source to give you that which you already have for yourself. The alternative to political voting is not political voting.

 

have you made a free society for everyone here to go to?

How could I? When I say "you don't own me," there are a number of people telling me that they do. This has no bearing on whether or not you actually do own me.

 

Also voting in and of itself isn't the issue, people vote all the time every day, they vote with their feet and with their wallets. Is that a problem also?

You are fully aware that we are talking about political voting. The effort you're willing to go through to avoid the truth... Where you walk to and what you buy is not you trying to own me. Political voting is. So no, the things you describe are not problems, but political voting is. I await to see in which ways you choose to move the goal posts.

So much personalization and ad hominem. I don't think you are a curious person seeking the truth, but rather seeking ways to make your prejudice fit.

[DCLugi]

You do not "save Western Civilization (undefined)" by pretending to be able to enslave hundreds of millions of people. Condoning institutionalized violence because we think it will give us what we want is what got us here in the first place. The very state you are begging to rule over me created the problem you think it can solve. Also, you use a LOT of verbiage that poisons the well. I asked you in another thread how you arrived at the conclusions you were putting forth, which went unanswered. It's very telling that the people who occupy this position refuse to shoot straight when "discussing" it.

 

I looked back at what you said. It still seems ambiguous in light of your clarification. It's still a bogus claim with the clarification. Because if all you can do with that forum is to accept human subjugation, how can you arrive at the conclusion that this is something that SHOULD continue? It's not happening now, which I already made the point of. Along with others you chose not to address. See above "shoot straight."

I'm sorry it read ambiguous to you. I thought it was quite clear.  You are free in your own mind. Isn't that enough? Why the need for others to see it? How has "human consciousness"(undefined) risen above the need for subjugation? Via evolution? Doesn't that imply necessary conditions for such change to occur? I asked you a while ago, why do you use this forum and not a North Korean forum to engage people. Both forums are operating in societies under government rule.

[Weeds]

See, all of this is too difficult to learn, it takes time, you have to represent yourself in court when the slave masters come around and try to enslave you, it takes actual work, it is magnitudes easier to bow down, complain about it, and pull that lever for the next master, hoping he will just partially set you free.

My opinion is that people are capable of hoping/voting for potentially less violence while at the same time working diligently towards practicing the art of legal self-defense. One act does not necessarily cancel out the other. :/

[dsayers]

You are free in your own mind. Isn't that enough? Why the need for others to see it?

Pro-voters are pretending to be able to transfer ownership of me. If somebody reached onto your plate, there is nothing wrong with saying, "That's mine." But I was never talking about MY freedom. I was talking about those people here, who already have the knowledge and the tools to be free in their own mind, yet are begging for a master (for me) all the same. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the ways in which people are not living according to their stated values/goals. My question is: Why would you focus on this instead of the people betraying themselves and you?

 

How has "human consciousness"(undefined) risen above the need for subjugation?

Because the ideas of self-ownership and the way it is universalized are realized and thanks to the internet, is at work, burning away Statism in people's minds. To see the farm is to escape it as Stef has said.

[Weeds]

An "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy. "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement.

 

Aw dsayers, come on! You don't think bringing your unborn child into the mix is a little falsified? Especially since I'd imagine you would have the guts to raise your child outside of the system, thus preventing the theft. Am I wrong? :}

[dsayers]

Aw dsayers, come on! You don't think bringing your unborn child into the mix is a little falsified? Especially since I'd imagine you would have the guts to raise your child outside of the system, thus preventing the theft. Am I wrong? :}

This is like saying one person did not assault another if the intended victim dodges.

[Gavitor]

 

If I was wrong, this would not irritate you. You cannot be free from without unless you are free from within first. You were enslaved and present day, you are co-operating, complete with the slave on slave hostility that allows their inferior numbers to leverage the enslavement of superior numbers.

 

You couldn't be more wrong, you continue to make assumptions about me and others and that is the problem. You assume that we have forgotten or something, and act as though because some are willing to play the game that they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality.

 

By the way I'm not irritated, this again shows you are making assumptions about me.

 

 

Political voting has no effect on the outcome. Political voting signals to other people that political voting is real and righteous. These are not competing claims.

 

Who said anything about righteousness? You assume this. you cannot prove what goes on in other peoples minds so you cannot prove that voting signals anything. This is simply your belief.

 

I've already argued that people believe voting is useful or not REGARDLESS of whether or not you vote.

 

 

Everybody who co-operates with it and tells others it is a valid option.

 

We all cooperate regardless, you pointed out yourself we are coerced into doing so (paying taxes). Voting being voluntary doesn't change that neither does the act of voting itself.

 

I don't tell others its valid, given that there is a new variable I'm ok with people trying something to see if anything has indeed changed.

 

 

When you say "I choose THIS master," it is not an assumption that this person find the idea of having a master AND INFLICTING IT ON OTHERS to be valid.

 

Actually it is an assumption, especially when I don't accept the concept of masters/rulers in the first place. Again just because someone is willing to play a game doesn't mean they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality.

 

 

I'm not interested in WHY people would pretend to own me because their premise is flawed. It's so bizarre that you would not push back against people dictating and asking to be dictated over, but you would accuse the person of integrity who sees it as being as unacceptable as you claim here for saying so.

 

Your premise is flawed because you are telling other people what they think... I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

 

I am NOT telling you to vote and I will push back at those who put you down for choosing to opt out. If you don't want to play the game I respect your decision, recognizing that it is a game I'm ok with others trying to play it to see if indeed they can actually affect the game in the first place.

 

At the end of the day none of you change the fact that assholes with guns steal from me on a daily basis so why fight over it?

 

 

You can claim whatever you like. However, inaction isn't action, you are the one arguing you cannot know motivation, and I don't think saying that somebody who is against rape is a nihilist.

 

You are correct that it isn't action it is however a choice that has consequences. You also missed the point entirely.

 

 

You're asking an external source to give you that which you already have for yourself. The alternative to political voting is not political voting.

 

This is a good answer. Thanks. I wasn't clear when I said alternative, I was saying an alternative that is actually effective.

 

 

You are fully aware that we are talking about political voting. The effort you're willing to go through to avoid the truth... Where you walk to and what you buy is not you trying to own me. Political voting is. So no, the things you describe are not problems, but political voting is. I await to see in which ways you choose to move the goal posts.

 

Why is it a problem if it is ineffective? You're concerned people might think a certain way if some of the people here vote?

 

So much personalization and ad hominem. I don't think you are a curious person seeking the truth, but rather seeking ways to make your prejudice fit.

 

What is my prejudice?

[dsayers]

You couldn't be more wrong, you continue to make assumptions about me and others and that is the problem. You assume that we have forgotten or something, and act as though because some are willing to play the game that they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality.

First of all, you're mischaracterizing deduction as assumption. If I see a person stick a key in the ignition of a car and twist it, I'm not wrong to deduce that they are trying to start the car. Secondly, it's not the act of voting that indicates what somebody has (not) forgotten or their emotional state. That comes from how the respond to it being pointed out that they're not living according to their values. Humble people of integrity will be like, "The reason I feel frustrated is because I try really hard to stay as objective as possible and not let my biases creep in, but sometimes I fail. It is something I am working on so I really appreciate you pointing it out because I honestly didn't even notice I did it (so much fog)." (actual testimony there) Proud people who are willing to accept the initiation of the use of force as a means to solve their perceived problems and are inconvenienced by their lack of consistency being pointed out will double down, not offer rational counterpoint, offer personal attacks, and so on. Don't forget that statists and child abusers think they're doing what's best too.

 

By the way I'm not irritated, this again shows you are making assumptions about me.

"What the fuck are you talking about" is an indication of irritation. This is called deduction and only my abusers have ever tried to tell me what my experience is.

 

Who said anything about righteousness? You assume this. you cannot prove what goes on in other peoples minds so you cannot prove that voting signals anything. This is simply your belief.

When people behave as if something that is fantasy is real, and that fantasy is both violent and "necessary," to ask for it to be real is signaling that it is righteous. This is basic logic.

 

I don't tell others its valid, given that there is a new variable I'm ok with people trying something to see if anything has indeed changed.

There is no new variable and I do not consent to any experiment that is predicated on my enslavement. The human race isn't yours to be okay with the continued subjugation of.

 

Actually it is an assumption, especially when I don't accept the concept of masters/rulers in the first place. Again just because someone is willing to play a game doesn't mean they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality.

Feigning ignorance doesn't get you off the hook. In case you haven't noticed, the people who are saying voting is acceptable as long as it's Trump do so because they expect very real things to come of it. This is the very definition of not being able to discern between fantasy and reality.

 

I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

Appeal to population.

 

I am NOT telling you to vote and I will push back at those who put you down for choosing to opt out.

Poisoning the well and begging the question. I didn't opt out. The initial claim of ownership over me was invalid. You'd have to be free in your own mind to even understand that what I'm doing is instinct. It is the default. Voting is the choice, the deviation.

 

At the end of the day none of you change the fact that assholes with guns steal from me on a daily basis so why fight over it?

You don't put this forward to those "playing the game," so your disingenuousness is apparent. And since this was in response to me pointing out this same selective application, this qualifies as doubling down as well.

 

You also missed the point entirely.

Telling somebody they missed the point does nothing to clarify the point. For somebody who had just put forth providing an alternative as a standard, this is exempting yourself from that same standard. It also goes against your denoted claim that you intend for your communication to be received. Which I would like to point out is another deduction, not an assumption.

 

This is a good answer. Thanks. I wasn't clear when I said alternative, I was saying an alternative that is actually effective.

Maybe that is what you meant to say. However "effective" is undefined. Since my position is predicated on adhering to reality, the effective alternative is the same answer.

 

Why is it a problem if it is ineffective? You're concerned people might think a certain way if some of the people here vote?

Wow! This is the third time you've answered a refutation by doubling down. It's captivating to watch! Again, you know full well that somebody trying to steal from you is still a problem even if the theft doesn't land. It's imaginary, but the people engaging in it think it's very real.

[powder]

Every generation is given their 'civilization' ending crisis, and when enough of the population becomes disillusioned with the system of governance itself, an 'unprecedented' candidate is put forward.  A study of history clearly reveals this.  

 

I was listening to Alex Jones back in the early days when he was not well known and although he was never an anarchist he was arguing that the left and right political paradigm was a sham and that both parties were controlled by the elites.  Then he got behind Ron Paul.  His support and popularity has exploded since Obama took office.  Stef can continue to bring reason and evidence to the masses along with guys like Cernovich, Jones, Watson, while still supporting the conservative political agenda even if Trump loses.  FDR would continue to do very well indeed with that platform.  

 

I like to consider motives and I would imagine that most arguing for principles instead of political action are males with no children.  Like myself.  

[powder]

also, kerfuffles that are very engaging and distracting like this election cycle are a typical strategy to distract people when something big that they would like you to ignore is in the works.  the next president will not be able to stop a massive financial collapse or war for example.  

[powder]

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.

there is a lot of traction to be had by sticking with the right wing argument and challenging the left, I don't see why FDR would need to adjust their position going forward, regardless of the result of the election or how it turns out if Trump gets in.  There is just a much larger audience on the right.  Anarchists are rare and don't have much $$ in general.  

[Weeds]

This is like saying one person did not assault another if the intended victim dodges.

I would say it is closer to the assault never happening because there was no one to land an assault on. The assault to-be is stunted from growing past a thought because... sour grapes.

 

I would like to touch on the scenario of your unborn child being stolen from (because they are in the system). How do you imagine you (as a father) would respond?

I like to consider motives and I would imagine that most arguing for principles instead of political action are males with no children. Like myself.

I have a similar musing and think this theory would be an interesting one to follow. Why do you think this is?

[powder]

 

I have a similar musing and think this theory would be an interesting one to follow. Why do you think this is?

Seems kind of self evident to me: males with no offspring, more independent minded, with offspring, more nuturing/protection of the genes minded.  

[dsayers]

Seems kind of self evident to me: males with no offspring, more independent minded, with offspring, more nuturing/protection of the genes minded.  

But protecting the individual protects the father, the child, the grandchild, all of their friends and neighbors...

 

I would say it is closer to the assault never happening because there was no one to land an assault on. The assault to-be is stunted from growing past a thought because... sour grapes.

 

I would like to touch on the scenario of your unborn child being stolen from (because they are in the system). How do you imagine you (as a father) would respond?

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. As I look back, the root point of contention here is that "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement" is a logical fallacy to you and a true statement to me. How does saying there was no one to land an assault on diminish my pointing out that you don't get to steal from me?

 

Do you realize that the word "assault" is predicated on there being an assailant and a target? "no one to land an assault on" is nonsensical.

[Weeds]

Seems kind of self evident to me: males with no offspring, more independent minded, with offspring, more nuturing/protection of the genes minded.

That's just the tip of the iceberg for me. The manipulation of human nature in social constructs as a whole is what I was curious about. :}

 

 

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. As I look back, the root point of contention here is that "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement" is a logical fallacy to you and a true statement to me. How does saying there was no one to land an assault on diminish my pointing out that you don't get to steal from me?

 

Do you realize that the word "assault" is predicated on there being an assailant and a target? "no one to land an assault on" is nonsensical.

I don't think I ever said it was logical fallacy or was trying to diminish what you said. I was simply being facetious... Ineffectively. :} Instead of smiley faces I should narrate my responses in third person. Perhaps then you'll take my stance as devil's advocate less threatening and read my responses with the voice of comedy rather than tragedy? Perhaps not. Either way, I'll take the time at a later date* to commentate on our conversation so far. Until then, please know that I have no intentions of voting and although I would much rather someone not steal from me I understand that people behave differently when their survival mode is being triggered... even if it is synthetic.

 

-

* I have a new born baby to attend to. :}

[ValueOfBrevity]

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

It is not illogical to accept reality.

 

The reality is that Trump is better for individual liberties in the United States. He's better for the internet, better for eroding the political system, and has faced the private (voluntary) market for decades. He is better for national security (ISIS, refugees).

 

Why imply that voting to reduce the negative effects of government is...bad?

 

You seem to reject pragmatism; you are being dogmatic.

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.

My SO thinks every utterance is an argument and can be fallacious.

 

 

 

[dsayers]

It is not illogical to accept reality... you are being dogmatic.

Pick one.

 

"You are being dogmatic" is an appeal to emotion. If a bunch of people are coked out of their gourd, pretending they can fly, the man reminding them that gravity binds us all is not being dogmatic. It's a statement of reality.

 

Kind of like these statements: Something that violates liberty is not "better" for liberty. What a person is capable of doing in the free market has no bearing on what they can/will do as a master with cooperative slaves. If anything, that's a rejection of the free market!

 

Finally, you used the word better a lot. Compared to what? Hillary? If your method for making decision in life is that it's better than the worst, you're not challenging yourself in any way. How do you know that it wasn't a false dichotomy? Somebody said to you that you had to choose one and rather than voting for yourself, you blindly believed them. And then you think your appeal to emotion will sway me? I am moved not by such cowardice.

[Donnadogsoth]

"You are being dogmatic" is an appeal to emotion. If a bunch of people are coked out of their gourd, pretending they can fly, the man reminding them that gravity binds us all is not being dogmatic. It's a statement of reality.

 

You are a doctrinaire devotee of a false principle (self ownership).  Unless Americans have just elected a dictator, which I suppose is possible, you will benefit from the coming reduction of internationalist socialism and its associate flyspecks.

 

You're welcome.

[mgggb]

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.

You should stop pretending to think and go read a book or something. Learn how to actually think so you don't need to put up this pitiful pretense.

[dsayers]

You are a doctrinaire devotee of a false principle (self ownership).

Self-detonating claim.

 

you will benefit from

I am free to pass up all the benefits or voluntarily take on all the consequences of whatever I choose. YOU cannot make that choice for me. If you would like to see me make that choice for myself, you can convince me. If the only way to get people to do what you want is to force them, then what you want to be done isn't worth doing, by your own performative admission.

[Donnadogsoth]

Self-detonating claim.

 

I am free to pass up all the benefits or voluntarily take on all the consequences of whatever I choose. YOU cannot make that choice for me. If you would like to see me make that choice for myself, you can convince me. If the only way to get people to do what you want is to force them, then what you want to be done isn't worth doing, by your own performative admission.

 

I can make my claim using the apparatus I have been loaned, my mind and body.  Your concept of self-ownership is absolutely invalid and leads toward bizarre stances such as the quietism you have displayed regarding this most crucial modern election.  That you can be ungrateful for the opportunity victory has supplied remains your choice.

[dsayers]

I can make my claim using the apparatus I have been loaned, my mind and body.  Your concept of self-ownership is absolutely invalid

Tautology. The idea of self-ownership is in the context of relative to other people. Your assertion is that a higher power has loaned you your mind and body. If this is true, than that same higher power loaned us all the same thing. Meaning that relative to one another, we own ourselves. Or put in a way that fits your fantasy more acceptably: We have a higher claim to our body than others do. According to your delusion, in order for one of us to have a higher claim to such a body than the person in that body, it would have to be the will of the person doing the loaning out of the bodies. Which comes with an extraordinary barrier of proof, which you have not provided amid your ad hominem.

 

The rationality disparity is intoxicating. Not boasting; Just being honest about the temptation I have to boast. I'm really thrilled that after decades of abuse and subduing of rational thought, how far I've come in so short a period of time.

 

That you can be ungrateful for the opportunity victory has supplied remains your choice.

Oh I'm not ungrateful. Since Trump has one, I've smiled a few times just because of that. While I think victory is poisoning the well, opportunity is fair. If it HAD to be one of them, of course I would pick him. The point of contention is that I did NOT have to choose one of them, and would be doing myself and my brothers and sisters a disservice by pretending to be able to. There's a difference. In fact, I had just happened upon one of those such moment shortly before reading your post here. Describing it as "the most convincing video I've seen yet as to why we should ask for a particular master." The circus was particularly thrilling in that moment. The difference is that I recognize that it's a circus, meant to distract us from our enslavement.

 

It doesn't matter though. What you said was an assertion and an ad hominem. As per usual, no arguments were to be found in your post.

[neeeel]

I can make my claim using the apparatus I have been loaned, my mind and body.  Your concept of self-ownership is absolutely invalid and leads toward bizarre stances such as the quietism you have displayed regarding this most crucial modern election.  That you can be ungrateful for the opportunity victory has supplied remains your choice.

 

Not that I agree with dsayers claims about self ownership, but you are making a claim to self ownership right here

[Donnadogsoth]

Not that I agree with dsayers claims about self ownership, but you are making a claim to self ownership right here

 

I mean of course choice in a contracted sense.  Dsayers has been loaned the ability to choose and the consequences of his choice.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Pick one.

 

"You are being dogmatic" is an appeal to emotion. If a bunch of people are coked out of their gourd, pretending they can fly, the man reminding them that gravity binds us all is not being dogmatic. It's a statement of reality.

 

Kind of like these statements: Something that violates liberty is not "better" for liberty. What a person is capable of doing in the free market has no bearing on what they can/will do as a master with cooperative slaves. If anything, that's a rejection of the free market!

 

Finally, you used the word better a lot. Compared to what? Hillary? If your method for making decision in life is that it's better than the worst, you're not challenging yourself in any way. How do you know that it wasn't a false dichotomy? Somebody said to you that you had to choose one and rather than voting for yourself, you blindly believed them. And then you think your appeal to emotion will sway me? I am moved not by such cowardice.

If I can vote to reduce government intervention, it is better for liberty. You are arguing that we do not have absolute freedom, therefore there is no difference between violence and not violence. Not violence is still better, Dsayers.

 

 

How is it a false dichotomy when there are only  two potential outcomes in the election?

Voting barely affects the election anyway, what effect does not voting have?

[dsayers]

If I can vote to reduce government intervention, it is better for liberty.

This is just repeating yourself without addressing my argument from first principles.

 

Voting barely affects the election anyway, what effect does not voting have?

The first part is like saying that wishing barely blows out the birthday candles. In fact, it does nothing to that end.

 

To point out how nonsensical the second part is, are you talking about eating soup? Eating soup is not voting. The effects of eating soup could range from nourishing the person eating it to adding to the demand for the various steps involved in manufacturing soup.

 

Clinging to mythology sure does lead to folks saying bizarre things.

 

Oh and your post was deflection and moving the goal posts as you've made no effort to circle back and address your appeal to emotion or other flaws I pointed out. If you don't want to have a discussion, then I won't either.

[Toys4]

Stefan acknowledges his shift from being against voting to being for voting for voting for Donald Trump in this election in this video. PLEASE hear him out.

 

https://youtu.be/Vaq76G23BNs?t=35m10s

 

watch from about 35:06-38:33

 

and I hope that we can all get a better understanding of where he was coming from. When he was now promoting voting for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.