The Arrogance of the Anti-Empirical Libertarian

[Three]

 

 

When you’re in the watchtower of a ship and you see the ship is about to collide into an iceberg, warning the pilot about the incoming collision becomes top priority.
 

If the building you’re in is on fire, the fire and the means of extinguishing the flame or escaping the building tends to take priority over other topics.
 

In situations of great emergency, people’s priorities shift so that responding appropriately to that emergency becomes top priority.
 

In situations of great emergency it is essential that those who are committed to fighting the great moral ills of the world also prioritize their focus rationally. If you are a doctor in a plague, you don’t want to step over the guy suffering from a flesh wound to attend to the person who only has a hang nail.
 

Right now we are in a situation of great emergency not much different from the emergency the British faced in June. There is a fork in the road ahead to which we draw nearer and nearer to everyday. The paths up ahead lead to two separate destinations that couldn’t be further apart from one another. The path on the left leads to a world of doom. The path on the right leads to a world of possibility.
 

The world of doom is the world we shall live in should Hillary Clinton — one of the most physically ill, mentally unstable, corrupt and wicked politicians of all time — be elected president. Hillary has made it clear that she will do to the United States what Angela Merkel has done to Germany. This means that Hillary Clinton will gradually transform the United States into a third world country by indiscriminately importing third worlders along with their anti-western cultures. In this world, the real threat of a nuclear war with Russia looms larger than it ever has. In this world, the West will fall.

 

The world of possibility is the world we will live in should Donald Trump — a candidate that is unprecedented in the history of politics —become the next president of the United States. In this world, there is the possibility of preserving the West. In this world, we will be in a situation not much different from the situation of hope the British found themselves in after the EU referendum.

 

Yet, there are those who have for months insisted that these two paths are equivalent, that there is no emergency, that it doesn’t matter which road we take, and that the people have chosen to focus on the emergencies which threatens the West have “lost their way.”
 

In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who like to negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election.
 

If we discuss the facts which show the dangers of importing millions of Islamic migrants into the First World, they are quick to remind us of the “big picture”, which is that the immigration is a symptom of the welfare state. If we talk about the facts which show how the media slanders Donald Trump, we are reminded of the “big picture”, which is that nobody should be president and that the state is an agency of violence. If we express a desire to vote with the hope of better conditions in a state of nature under coercion, they tell us we are the ones with the gun who wish to impose our will on millions of people. If we talk about the importance of preserving the West, we are then reminded how much more important it is to talk about peaceful parenting.
 

They tell us that we are merely distracting ourselves with politics and swapping consistency for pragmatism, while they are the ones truly adhering to principles.
 

They are fools. And the degree to which these people are overeager to boast about their “consistency” is the degree to which they have been consumed by arrogance. The people who bemoan Stef and other’s decision to focus on that which threatens the West as of late and then beam out these distress signals calling for a “return to form” simply aren’t listening.
 

I am voting for Donald Trump to preserve the West. Preserving the West means preserving the progress Europeans have made in improving the relationship between parents and children for the past 150 years since Rousseau, which is absolutely necessary to bring a peaceful society. Mass immigration under Hillary Clinton will displace the most child friendly culture the world has ever produced with the child hostile cultures of the 3rd world.
 

Displacing a high IQ population that adheres to Western values with a low IQ population that adheres to a culture which is antithetical to everything the West holds dear — and then expecting that ideas of personal and political liberty will take root and bloom just as well as they would within the high IQ population — is like replacing your flower garden’s rich soil with cement and then expecting that you’ll be able to grow daffodils and lilies just as well.
 

You need a certain cultural soil for these ideas to have a chance at taking root.
 

Thus, it’s perfectly consistent with the goal of getting to a free society through peaceful parenting to fight back against those who wish to destroy the West.
 

It is not those of us who accept this reality who have abandoned our principles, but rather it is the grandiose anarchists and libertarians that constantly undermine and negate our efforts who have abandoned humility, who have abandoned curiosity, who have abandoned empiricism, who have abandoned empathy, and who have abandoned the West.
 

As a consequence of choosing to selfishly indulge in their own cynicism at a time when the West needed defending the most, they will have have abandoned the cause of bringing the world towards a more free society founded upon the sturdy foundation that is peaceful parenting.
 

They are in no position to lecture.

Find more of my writing on Medium

[Germ-a-knee]

Seeing how western military has been converted into PC armies of weakness and comicality and how western societies have been gradually changed into accumulating piles of insanity, I think that there is no hope left for it to recover. The West's game is over.

 

I like to compare a system like Islam with a generally monolithic ROM based operating system, while the West is an updateable micro kernel OS  that's open to changes. What sounds good and desirable at first glance is actually a system level degeneration - comparatively. In the early computer times, memory was accessible to every process / program. There was no memory protection in place, AKA borders, that kept intruders into your process(es) code and data space at bay. When you open up a system to just about anybody wanting to have access to it, then this invites trojans, viruses and all kinds of malware. It's the same for societies and states. That's why modern CPUs have a mechanism that allows other code to share access to resources of your system, without being able to invade and abuse or outright destroy your system. Controlled, restricted and authorized access. Always worked, always will. Just the West thought, let's go back to the roots. As in, fuck knowledge and experience and start from scratch! What could possibly go wrong. Well, dear, you could lose your operating system. No biggie, right?

 

Islam, as a ROM based operating system, doesn't have these flaws. The kernel is rock solid since 1400 years. No way to add or remove modules. No malware can change this system. It's a fortress. It may be fugly, but man is it a solid building. 1.6bn people living in it, and growing fast. Reality wins. In the end, systems must be judged by their success, not their technology. As much as I wish that the West's accomplishments were as powerful as they are proclaimed, reality is: Systems have a pragmatic value. Islam has brutal laws and zero mercy on deviants. It has qualities of a survivor. Can same be said of the West? I doubt it. The West is so fucking open, it is perfectly OK to proclaim: Let's try societal sucide, I heard it tastes like transgender butterflies during mating season! But don't hurt anyone's feelings in the process, or you are literally Hitler.

 

I don't say that Islam is wrong. It's one way to see the world, even though I personally reject a world view that is structured this way. It just turned out that, from a pragmatic point of view, Islam is doing everything right and the West is doing everything wrong. It doesn't protect its own people, it divides society into Gutmenschen and Schlechtmenschen and is more than willing to remove code from its OS that made the whole thing work in the first place. Islam's stringency and immutable character protects it from all kinds of external idiocy and insanity, one might say. There is tons of insanity in the islamic world, but the structure sets an upper limit, and the system never reaches a point of failure. On the contrary. Might makes right is the method and apparatus to enable this. It is built in. It is a terrible and inhumane system IMHO, but it does all the right things to sustain itself and get stronger, no matter the individual suffering. Because systems are not about individuals. We must eventually appreciate this raw fact. And this is why the West is wrong when it focuses more and more on individuals. The contemporary West is not a system, it is a load of crap. Ever tried to make a steak from shit? It doesn't work. It is like an HIV patient without meds during the time of the Black Plague, and seeing a doctor is racist. Guess what the odds of survival are.

 

I would recommend all those highly educated in technology and science to look for opportunities outside the West as fast as possible. If you stay, you will be made to suffer personally and especially financially. Go look for a region that appreciates your knowledge and skills for what they are and integrate there. Systems are what they are. Look for opportunities, even if they may lie in China or elsewhere. The West's so-called 'democracies' are under the hood so similar to communist dictatorships like China, that it barely makes any difference anymore. Except that foreigners are highly sought after and appreciated for their skills and knowledge and are financially rewarded accordingly in other regions. What I want to say is, don't waste your time playing with a corpse. It will only make you sick.

 

Next step in the degeneration of the West is a large-scale conflict with Russia, Iran and possibly China. Europe will probably become a battlefield for WW3 soon. Drain the brains before they become shadows on a wall. Good luck to all of us.

[RichardY]

In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who like to negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election.

I don't think labelling Stefan a Fool for choosing to focus on what he wishes to be appropriate.

 

The large font and spacing also makes it a pain to read.

 

Parts of the Article I intuitively agree with. But if you're going to Title the Article "The Arrogance of the Anti-Empirical Libertarian" where is the empiricism, if you intended to include some.

[Wuzzums]

I don't think labelling Stefan a Fool for choosing to focus on what he wishes to be appropriate.

 

The large font and spacing also makes it a pain to read.

 

Parts of the Article I intuitively agree with. But if you're going to Title the Article "The Arrogance of the Anti-Empirical Libertarian" where is the empiricism, if you intended to include some.

Uhm he wasn't calling Stefan a fool, you misread the sentence.

 

 

 

 

I disagree completely.

You're not factoring in the West's influence on the whole world. The cultures you deem more apt to survive wouldn't have made it this far had it not been for the west.

Science, technology, medicine, movies, the internet, social media, etc.

These are all things which islam takes from the west in order to survive.

 

It takes The West just a press of a button to remove islam off the face of the planet FOREVER. Never forget that.

 

 

I would recommend all those highly educated in technology and science to look for opportunities outside the West as fast as possible. If you stay, you will be made to suffer personally and especially financially. Go look for a region that appreciates your knowledge and skills for what they are and integrate there. Systems are what they are. Look for opportunities, even if they may lie in China or elsewhere.

 

Like where?

Japan? A country who still fought with sticks only a century ago only to become one of the world's greatest economies by simply applying the west's capitalism model.

South Korea? Basically a US state, the only thing separating it from the west is geography.

China? A living testament to what even a little capitalism can achieve in such a short amount of time.

 

From how I see it the only places worth living are places that are slowly turning into the west.

[Three]

I don't think labelling Stefan a Fool for choosing to focus on what he wishes to be appropriate.

 

I agree

[Germ-a-knee]

Uhm he wasn't calling Stefan a fool, you misread the sentence.

 

 

 

I disagree completely.

You're not factoring in the West's influence on the whole world. The cultures you deem more apt to survive wouldn't have made it this far had it not been for the west.

Science, technology, medicine, movies, the internet, social media, etc.

These are all things which islam takes from the west in order to survive.

 

It takes The West just a press of a button to remove islam off the face of the planet FOREVER. Never forget that.

 

 

 

Like where?

Japan? A country who still fought with sticks only a century ago only to become one of the world's greatest economies by simply applying the west's capitalism model.

South Korea? Basically a US state, the only thing separating it from the west is geography.

China? A living testament to what even a little capitalism can achieve in such a short amount of time.

 

From how I see it the only places worth living are places that are slowly turning into the west.

 

Islam as a system had survived long before the West had its spotlight in history with its more modern day accomplishments. Thus this is not an argument. Without the West, this planet would look different and that is certain. I politely disagree, though, that "It takes The West just a press of a button to remove islam off the face of the planet FOREVER. Never forget that." . This is not an argument, but typical western hubris. The islamic system is a so-called distributed system that almost completely proliferates by the simple act of procreation; western ideals do this by persuasion via insight. Thus the enlightenment is an extremely fragile thing. Procreation is (execution wise) something much more simple than insight which requires highly intelligent, self-reflecting and self-critical human beings in the first place. Spreading Islam is as easy as cell division. A good helping of violence and threats help, too. As a distributed system, there is no central. An ideal state to be in. Cut off 100 million heads, and 200 million regrow in no time, complete with a copy of the system within them. The West needs to get off their high horse or face the reality of becoming irrelevant and then finally become extinct. Arguing with something in the line of (no quote) "We can kill 1.6bn people if we wanted" is not an argument, but IMHO an ethical and moral declaration of bankruptcy on all kinds of levels.

 

I think the most relevant distinction the West had was the enlightenment. You don't find that in Japan, Korea or China or pretty much anywhere outside of the actual true Western sphere. But capitalism quite obviously works without any form of enlightenment. It is a philosophy and powerful method. I see it differently than you: I think that countries like China are going their own way (not MGTOW, but CGTOW) and they don't give a **** for all the remaining nonsense. They took from the Western experience and knowledge what they saw had worked and discarded all the crap that's eating the West from the inside now. It's a pragmatic and good choice. May they exist for another 5000 years. The petty Europeans can't even keep the continent from turning into a slaughterhouse for more than 80 to 100 years, while the North Americans were barely able to NOT be at war with someone for a couple of years since the inception of the country. It's just retarded, holding the keys to paradise and then deciding, well HELL could be nice, too. It is not long now till the 'election' result. Good luck to all of us. 

[Tyler H]

So empirical evidence of the immorality of government, the corruption inherent within all positions of power, that using violence to solve problems has the opposite result of its stated goal, that the government cannot be changed from within the system - evidence argued on this show for a decade - is all overturned by "empirical evidence" that Trump is different, Trump is a possibility, Trump is a maybe?  You have no empirical evidence Trump will save the west. You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president. You have no empirical evidence. You have a lesser evil, you have a successful businessman who has participated in the corrupt system we fight against, and you have a power seeker's rhetoric.  You may be right in the end, but don't feign to stand on empirical evidence and don't level the accusation of fool simply because of your failure to effectively communicate the truth value of your position.  Either we are fools and you are a fool as well to try to convince us of a reasoned position, or we are not fools and you are trying to ridicule and belittle us for the purpose of either bullying us into your position or virtue signaling to people who already hold your view.  Either way does not make you look good.  We stand against the tide because we believe it is the right thing to do.  Make your arguments, let us make ours and let us all be open to correction, otherwise you are no better than some self-righteous, ignorant SJW shouting down the opposition and manipulating people to serve your own needs.  I dare say you are better than that.

[Wuzzums]

You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president. You have no empirical evidence.

Yes I do.

Trump is the greatest businessman to have ever lived and probably ever live. The man has more than 500 businesses and only 8 bankruptcies (that's almost a 99% success rate). You might not know this but business is a reputation game, and you don't get such a reputation by going back on your promises. A lot of high stakes deals are/were done only on a handshake.

 

However, I am curious how are you affecting the future in a positive way? What are you actively doing to bring about our anarcho-capitalist society?

[Wuzzums]

Islam as a system had survived long before the West had its spotlight in history with its more modern day accomplishments. Thus this is not an argument. Without the West, this planet would look different and that is certain. I politely disagree, though, that "It takes The West just a press of a button to remove islam off the face of the planet FOREVER. Never forget that." . This is not an argument, but typical western hubris. The islamic system is a so-called distributed system that almost completely proliferates by the simple act of procreation; western ideals do this by persuasion via insight. Thus the enlightenment is an extremely fragile thing. Procreation is (execution wise) something much more simple than insight which requires highly intelligent, self-reflecting and self-critical human beings in the first place. Spreading Islam is as easy as cell division. A good helping of violence and threats help, too. As a distributed system, there is no central. An ideal state to be in. Cut off 100 million heads, and 200 million regrow in no time, complete with a copy of the system within them. The West needs to get off their high horse or face the reality of becoming irrelevant and then finally become extinct. Arguing with something in the line of (no quote) "We can kill 1.6bn people if we wanted" is not an argument, but IMHO an ethical and moral declaration of bankruptcy on all kinds of levels.

 

I think the most relevant distinction the West had was the enlightenment. You don't find that in Japan, Korea or China or pretty much anywhere outside of the actual true Western sphere. But capitalism quite obviously works without any form of enlightenment. It is a philosophy and powerful method. I see it differently than you: I think that countries like China are going their own way (not MGTOW, but CGTOW) and they don't give a **** for all the remaining nonsense. They took from the Western experience and knowledge what they saw had worked and discarded all the crap that's eating the West from the inside now. It's a pragmatic and good choice. May they exist for another 5000 years. The petty Europeans can't even keep the continent from turning into a slaughterhouse for more than 80 to 100 years, while the North Americans were barely able to NOT be at war with someone for a couple of years since the inception of the country. It's just retarded, holding the keys to paradise and then deciding, well HELL could be nice, too. It is not long now till the 'election' result. Good luck to all of us. 

 

Well it is interesting to note that the countries which gave us the enlightenment are the same countries which are easily taken over by islam now. I'm from Romania and I'm not really worried about islam taking over here. While France, England and Germany were going through the renaissance Romania was busy with pushing back the muslim horde from off its lands. Seeing how it's a country which hails a guy that used to plant entire forests with impaled muslims as a hero, I doubt the whole "islamophobia" thing will take any roots here.

 

The west strikes me as an alpha wolf that's been out of the fight for far too long. It's been well fed and well cared for to the point that its muscles have gotten weak and its fangs dull. It's still the same wolf, the question is has it also forgotten how to fight yet? I don't look at the current situation in Europe and think islam is taking over. I look at it and think that a lot o muslims will have to suffer an untimely demise if we don't do something to change things back to how they used to be.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

So empirical evidence of the immorality of government, the corruption inherent within all positions of power, that using violence to solve problems has the opposite result of its stated goal, that the government cannot be changed from within the system - evidence argued on this show for a decade - is all overturned by "empirical evidence" that Trump is different, Trump is a possibility, Trump is a maybe?  You have no empirical evidence Trump will save the west. You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president. You have no empirical evidence. You have a lesser evil, you have a successful businessman who has participated in the corrupt system we fight against, and you have a power seeker's rhetoric.  You may be right in the end, but don't feign to stand on empirical evidence and don't level the accusation of fool simply because of your failure to effectively communicate the truth value of your position.  Either we are fools and you are a fool as well to try to convince us of a reasoned position, or we are not fools and you are trying to ridicule and belittle us for the purpose of either bullying us into your position or virtue signaling to people who already hold your view.  Either way does not make you look good.  We stand against the tide because we believe it is the right thing to do.  Make your arguments, let us make ours and let us all be open to correction, otherwise you are no better than some self-righteous, ignorant SJW shouting down the opposition and manipulating people to serve your own needs.  I dare say you are better than that.

 

So is your position that there is no evidence to expect that a Donald Trump presidency will be positive compared to a Hillary Clinton presidency?

 

Because the media, democrats, and republicans, who all have been demonstrably benefitting from a regime of forced multiculturalism, of aiding and abetting terrorists hostile to Western culture, and of domestic social totalitarianism against freedom of speech, disagree with you. They all oppose Donald Trump vociferously because they perceive him to be a credible roadblock to their interests.

 

The empiricism of the behavior of participants in the system who have a lot more lose, if someone who could make their goals really difficult to achieve, seems at least slightly more relevant than your opinions on what Donald Trump can accomplish. If he had no chance of being a significant roadblock to their interests, then why are both parties aligned trying so hard to stop him?

 

Additionally, those participants' interests in the system who have been systematically minimized (white males) are flocking to support not only Donald Trump, but to make eminent an entire bucket of truth that exposes the crimes of the government over the past 55+ years; some of the most heinous crimes of any government in history. If this trend continues into his presidency, were he to win, then this would be positive for the prospects of western civilization and for exposing government corruption. This is not a syllogism, but how I am interpreting the evidence so far.

[dsayers]

You have no empirical evidence Trump will save the west. You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president.

Meanwhile we have lots of empirical evidence that he CAN'T effect the things he claims, a citizen vote CAN'T influence a POTUS election, that the US CAN'T determine the course of the west (as it is smaller and has been marginal for some time).

 

The first time I went to read this, I noticed a few items that seemed like a lack of integrity. I intend to do a full debunking as time permits. Just not sure how soon that will be. Me plate be overloaded ATM.

[Three]

So empirical evidence of the immorality of government, the corruption inherent within all positions of power, that using violence to solve problems has the opposite result of its stated goal, that the government cannot be changed from within the system - evidence argued on this show for a decade - is all overturned by "empirical evidence" that Trump is different

Those are your words not mine. I didn't say that.

You have no empirical evidence Trump will save the west. You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president. You have no empirical evidence.

Again, not my words. I did not say that 'Trump will save the West.' No one man can save the West. I said I will be voting for Trump to preserve the West, which I'm aware is not a syllogism. I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what a Trump presidency look like any more than the British who voted leave during Brexit could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a UK outside the EU would be any different than a UK in the EU.

 

However, we can make reasoned predictions as to what the most probable scenario will be based on certain information.

 

Given what information has been presented in videos such as the Truth About World War 3, I think we can say with certainty that a Trump presidency will preserve the West *relative to* a Clinton presidency.

Either way does not make you look good.

We'll see. I'm still in the process of receiving feedback.

[Germ-a-knee]

Well it is interesting to note that the countries which gave us the enlightenment are the same countries which are easily taken over by islam now. I'm from Romania and I'm not really worried about islam taking over here. While France, England and Germany were going through the renaissance Romania was busy with pushing back the muslim horde from off its lands. Seeing how it's a country which hails a guy that used to plant entire forests with impaled muslims as a hero, I doubt the whole "islamophobia" thing will take any roots here.

 

The west strikes me as an alpha wolf that's been out of the fight for far too long. It's been well fed and well cared for to the point that its muscles have gotten weak and its fangs dull. It's still the same wolf, the question is has it also forgotten how to fight yet? I don't look at the current situation in Europe and think islam is taking over. I look at it and think that a lot o muslims will have to suffer an untimely demise if we don't do something to change things back to how they used to be.

 

I, as a German, personally highly respect my eastern European neighbours for their strong standing against being overrun by islamic masses. I agree to your assertion that the West has overall been out of the fight for too long. The current generations are so soft in the head and body, that when the wolves return to make their prey Europe theirs, they can and will offer almost no resistance whatsoever. Neither mentally, emotionally nor physically. I just learned that Sweden offers free housing etc to returning jihadis to "motivate" them to "reintegrate" into swedish society. Going by that example, I do not only think that such a society can't be saved, but rather that it shouldn't be saved. We can watch unfold a live action Darwin award competition before or eyes in realtime, on a nation level. Whatever nation acts like this, deserves its righteous demise. But a storm is brewing. Hard right-wing nationalist movements and parties are blooming strongly, and I actually expect France's Marine Le Pen to have a realistic shot for becoming president. Germany's Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a vacuous hard right-wing party of nothingness, but is being perceived as an alternative nonetheless by continuously growing parts of the population. If that is not telling about the state of things, I don't know what is. Meanwhile in Sweden, more and more people try to acquire some means of physical self-defense like batons (which are comically illegal in Sweden for regular citizens to possess). It's in the vein of "Work, pay your taxes and by the way, you're racist by birth, so you have no right to be pretected". Only a retarded, lobotomized people lets itself get treated like that. Darwin award incoming.. .

 

I pray (and that's a far stretch coming from an agnostic) that Ronald McTrump somehow, inexplicably beats Killary Warmongersson despite the incredibly rigged game and media collusion with the powers that be. The one saving grace that I can see is that most U.S. citizens do own guns and ammo and do know how to put them to good use. Stack up on ammo, guys, like there is no tomorrow.You guys at least have a physical means to defend yourself for real.

[RichardY]

while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election.

Uhm he wasn't calling Stefan a fool, you misread the sentence.

At an instance, the author is/was. As a universal can you call anyone a fool without them being insane.

[Three]

At an instance, the author is/was. As a universal can you call anyone a fool without them being insane.

I am pushing back against sentiments I've seen numerous times that say "Stef has lost his way."

 

I said such people imagine Stef has foolishly focused his energy on the election(rather than other topics) and I'm pushing back by saying no what Stef is doing *is not* foolish and that the ones who show no empathy, understanding, or even curiosity as to why Stef is doing what he's doing are the fools.

[RichardY]

I am pushing back against sentiments I've seen numerous times that say "Stef has lost his way."

 

I said such people imagine Stef has foolishly focused his energy on the election(rather than other topics) and I'm pushing back by saying no what Stef is doing *is not* foolish and that the ones who show no empathy, understanding, or even curiosity as to why Stef is doing what he's doing are the fools.

I don't doubt your intention is good, just saying what I see in the Article. Personally I have no idea who tends to read the articles on the site you published on or the reach of the audience. Though I get the point, someone who doesn't follow whats going on may draw different conclusions from words alone.

[Three]

I don't doubt your intention is good, just saying what I see in the Article. Personally I have no idea who tends to read the articles on the site you published on or the reach of the audience. Though I get the point, someone who doesn't follow whats going on may draw different conclusions from words alone.

I understand, that's perfectly valid. If someone doesn't listen to Stefan Molyneux then they are not going to understand what I'm talking about.

 

There are things I write so that it is comprehensible for someone new to certain concepts and there are things I write that assumes the reader is familiar with certain concepts. This piece assumes the reader familiar with certain topics.

 

For example, if someone hasn't watched any material Stef has made on mass immigration, then when I talk about displacing populations then they will walk away from the article not knowing what I'm talking about.

 

I originally had only shared this on my private Facebook wall, but due to the surprising positive feedback there I decided I would share it in the FDR Facebook group where it got nearly 40 likes/hearts and even more shares. So, I decided to share it here to. That doesn't make me right of course, Truth isn't a popularity contest.

[Wuzzums]

At an instance, the author is/was. As a universal can you call anyone a fool without them being insane.

 

In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who like to negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while the ones who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society, like Stefan Molyneux, have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election.

 

 

He was saying the nihilists consider Stefan the fool. It's a hell of a long sentence broken by another sentence inbetween. Just read the underlined part and you'll get the message. Now do you get it?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think it is pretty clear, but perhaps the comma right before mentioning Stefan is uneccessary.

[Troubador]

This maybe entirely an emotional response on my part, and perhaps I should reflect more before posting on what is such a contentious topic. Then again if I am just honest in my expressing my current thinking it will be easier to expose any flaws in where I stand.

 

Although I currently understand the rationale (I think!) for anyone currently thinking of voting for Trump, and indeed I am 85% sure that is where any vote I'd cast would go if I were American. Just accusing anyone who is staying true to their AnCap first principles of arrogance strikes me as an ad hominem attack.

 

Furthermore are we actually in a situation where if Trump wins any AnCap who does not vote, disapproves of any Trump policy, like for example tax, resists and gets and gets shot we're condoning that? Are we now against them? Is Trump somehow an exception to the against me argument? If so I'm not sure how. Any clarification would be appreciated.

[RichardY]

If the grammar is poor, people may draw whatever conclusions they wish. ex "I shot the clerk!!!" or "I shot the clerk?".

 

From the context (of the posts and article), I feel with absolute certainty he is not calling Stefan a fool. Was trying to point out errors that may be corrected to improve the article.

[Three]

 Just accusing anyone who is staying true to their AnCap first principles of arrogance strikes me as an ad hominem attack.

 

I'm pushing back against those who have cried that Stefan has "lost his way" and who negate any facts that bring any sort of nuance to the issues of immigration or the 2016 election without showing any curiosity or understanding as to why he's doing what he's doing. 

 

 

[Anuojat]

I agree with this artictle/post.

 

Being pragmatic in statist system against a state granted and enabled imminent disaster is key to survival as thinkers and rationalists. And what stefan has done is simply focus on what is happening to undermine everything he and others have worked so hard on.

 

One does not land in a free and civilized society by ignoring those parts of reality which undermine messages of peaceful parenting and reason as a whole. IF you have that as your priority.

[D-Light]

... I noticed a few items that seemed like a lack of integrity. ...

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Three]

I agree with this artictle/post.

 

Being pragmatic in statist system against a state granted and enabled imminent disaster is key to survival as thinkers and rationalists. And what stefan has done is simply focus on what is happening to undermine everything he and others have worked so hard on.

 

One does not land in a free and civilized society by ignoring those parts of reality which undermine messages of peaceful parenting and reason as a whole. IF you have that as your priority.

Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!

[D-Light]

How it should have been written...

 

"In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while those, like Stefan Molyneux, who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society are perceived to have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election."

 

I'm simply saying it would clarify the author's intent. I'm not convinced of the author's argument, nor am I convinced he is mistaken.

[nathanm]

Excellent piece, Joel.  And especially timely for me to find it as I am currently debating with such 'nihilists'.  I simply cannot bring my cynicism up to the level where I will agree with people telling me that Trump is 'obvious bullshit'.  Trump is a showman and knows how to work a crowd, but I believe he is honest.  If he was just a shill for the globalist elites why wouldn't they make him more easy to hate?  Why is he so funny?  Why can they only bring up the most mundane scandals? Why the hell can they not make Hillary actually likeable if Muh 1st Wymyn President You Go Girl was such a priority?  If they found someone with Trump's charisma but with boobs, it would be no contest.  But they float out this awful, insincere old hag.

 

I'm sorry the world is the way it is, but the way it is means being a pure, principled anarchist means being a perpetual loser which 99.9% of the world views as some ignorable loony. But being on the Trump train at least offers a glimpse of a genuine sense of patriotism that I've either never known, or have forgotten entirely. People are motivated by their feelings on all sides, we must recognize this and not put every effort into abstract concepts which are so hard to implant in people's minds.

 

Great principled folks like Harry Brown, Michael Badnarik and Ron Paul couldn't get the job done for whatever reason, but this nationalist, populist approach has got legs.  And is also growing throughout the world too.  Maybe it's all the illusion of choice, but at this point I don't care.  If ticking the Trump box means edgy internet ancaps are going to guilt trip me, then so be it.

[apples and grapes]

I'm not even sure that being interested in movements like Trump is going against Anarchist principles. I'm sure that most anarchists who if given the choice between Trump and Ancapistan would choose Ancapistan. And I'm sure anarchists who are voting for, or if outside the US are supportive of, Trump aren't doing it because they want to twirl their evil mustaches and utilise political force to get what they want done. Rather they are because the alternative is much worse.

A prisoner who votes for 5 lashes a day instead of 10 isn't doing it because he thinks getting 5 lashes is a moral ideal, or because he thinks the guard has some right to lash people, but is doing it simply because he would rather not have those extra 5 lashes. (As an aside, a lot of these anti-Trump anarchists seem to jump to weird psychologising, telling you why you are really voting and what your act of voting actually means) 

Now it may be the case that this prisoner, if set free, would be willing to get someone to whip everyone 5 times a day (maybe it's his kink, whatever). And sure then he would be being immoral, and if he considered himself an anarchist, he would be going against his principles. But we cannot know for sure because he is in a state of coercion. 

Same with the political process. The anarchist is behaving under a state of coercion, so we can't say he's acting immorally or against principle. We can only speculate whether the anarchist would go against principle in the absence of being under coercion, perhaps if the anarchist was hitting their child. 

I guess my point is, if it's about principle vs practicality, I'm not convinced the anti-Trump anarchist position even is more principled! If you won't take the 2 minutes it would take to join me in the prison voting booth to reduce our lashes by 5, then despite your rhetoric you are helping the 10 lashers. And if I'm evil for going against my principles and supporting 5 lashes, then what does it make you to be supporting 10?

[Three]

Excellent piece, Joel. And especially timely for me to find it as I am currently debating with such 'nihilists'. I simply cannot bring my cynicism up to the level where I will agree with people telling me that Trump is 'obvious bullshit'. Trump is a showman and knows how to work a crowd, but I believe he is honest. If he was just a shill for the globalist elites why wouldn't they make him more easy to hate? Why is he so funny? Why can they only bring up the most mundane scandals? Why the hell can they not make Hillary actually likeable if Muh 1st Wymyn President You Go Girl was such a priority? If they found someone with Trump's charisma but with boobs, it would be no contest. But they float out this awful, insincere old hag.

 

I'm sorry the world is the way it is, but the way it is means being a pure, principled anarchist means being a perpetual loser which 99.9% of the world views as some ignorable loony. But being on the Trump train at least offers a glimpse of a genuine sense of patriotism that I've either never known, or have forgotten entirely. People are motivated by their feelings on all sides, we must recognize this and not put every effort into abstract concepts which are so hard to implant in people's minds.

 

Great principled folks like Harry Brown, Michael Badnarik and Ron Paul couldn't get the job done for whatever reason, but this nationalist, populist approach has got legs. And is also growing throughout the world too. Maybe it's all the illusion of choice, but at this point I don't care. If ticking the Trump box means edgy internet ancaps are going to guilt trip me, then so be it.

Ive had that experience too. These nihilists cannot empathize with nor embody Trump's greatest virtues. I actually heard somebody say that Hillary and Trump are "equally statist", which signaled to me that they hadn't read The Clinton's War on Women.

 

There's no dial with these people, only an on off switch. It's like when you bring facts to bear on certain interactions with police and the minorities, these people will come in and say, "but cops are the arm of the state!" They miss the point.

 

Stef to me is kind of like the Donald Trump of libertarians. Stef is to "true principled" libertarians what Trunp is to "true principled" conservatives. He's outrage porn for them.

 

Thank you for your time reading this!

[dsayers]

I'm sure anarchists who are voting for, or if outside the US are supportive of, Trump aren't doing it because they want to twirl their evil mustaches and utilise political force to get what they want done.

Anarchists don't vote. Also, I'm not at all interested in WHY somebody would try to pretend to own me. I stopped here because I've already invested too much time in company that isn't listening.

[Donnadogsoth]

Anarchists don't vote. Also, I'm not at all interested in WHY somebody would try to pretend to own me. I stopped here because I've already invested too much time in company that isn't listening.

 

Anarchists don't pay taxes, either.  Do you?

 

Two candidates are running for office, which has access to force in the form of the police and legal system.  One has stated he will confiscate all your property and throw you in jail if you resist.  The other has stated he will lower your taxes by 20%.  Do you abstain from voting?

[nathanm]

They tell me that government is evil and that voting endorses force being used against them, but they also then tell me my vote doesn't matter.  Which is it?  If my vote doesn't matter then are you so upset?  Somehow my vote simultaneously affects everything and effects nothing?  Refusing to choose a ruler does not prevent us from being ruled.  I wish it did, but it doesn't.  Recognizing the involuntary nature of the system was supposed to be the whole point, and if not voting was going to help eliminate the state it would have been done a long time ago.

 

So if I don't vote then I get to be a pure, principled libertarian. But how is my non-participation any different from a person who doesn't vote because they don't care, didn't feel like it, or wanted to watch the baseball game instead?  My vote can be inferred to mean I support the things the candidate said. But my non-vote is more ambiguous, like knowing why you didn't buy the millions of things you didn't buy as compared to the one you did.

[Three]

What a pleasant coincidence! Stef came out with this shortly after I published my article.


"Stefan Molyneux looks at his decade plus relationship with the libertarian community and his frustrations with general the lack of empiricism when presented with new information or arguments."

[dsayers]

They tell me that government is evil and that voting endorses force being used against them, but they also then tell me my vote doesn't matter.  Which is it?  If my vote doesn't matter then are you so upset?

False dichotomy and poisoning the well (upset). I can't speak for "they," but I understand both that you cannot influence the outcome and that your participation legitimizes it. The reason why I invest effort (what you refer to as "upset") is because to participate means you're not free in your own mind. Something that anarchists, capitalists, people that accept property rights, people that reject government, and people who think rationally should be able to attain based on that status.

 

Anarchists don't pay taxes, either.  Do you?

Where coercion is present, choice is not. When somebody is given a credible threat of violence, the ways in which they're not living their values doesn't mean they don't hold those values. We're talking about the VOLUNTARY action of voting and you know it. This is just very base line sophistry, that YOU have seen ME debunk a dozen times that you throw out to give yourself reason to reject the truth.

[Gavitor]

Where coercion is present, choice is not. When somebody is given a credible threat of violence, the ways in which they're not living their values doesn't mean they don't hold those values. We're talking about the VOLUNTARY action of voting and you know it.

 

The voluntary action of voting in a state that is predicated on coercion... That coercion doesn't go away just because voting is voluntary.