Trump ain't the Savior

[jason_]

I don't think anyone has said so, but Trump ain't the savior. People didn't really call Obama the savior either, but many have been criticized for thinking of him like that -- with arguably some justification. In my view, and in brief, Trump's a Reganite; Regan may have been a step in the right direction, and he articulated a better vision for the US, but look were we're at today. The deep state has a hold of the American people, and it seems the best we can hope for is a president who can frustrate the Feds for 8 years. I think was true in Regan's time and it's true today.

 

I support Trump for president -- OBVIOUSLY, cuz Hillary is a crook! But I'm not an enthusiastic supporter. I was whenever I voted for Ron Paul. Even then, Stefan convinced me that not even Dr. Paul could really do much with the entrenched state. Trump or Hillary, we've got a MESS coming our way in the US. I think that mess, in the end, is what's best for the country because it will FORCE government to shrink -- another collapse of socialism. Would Trump end the Fed? Dept. of Ed? Dept. of Ag? I don't think he'd be quick to, although quicker than Hillary.

 

This election cycle has been great, because more and more people are talking about what they should be talking about -- despite the MSM's controlling influence. Trump is the people's champion, but IMHO, people need to realize they need to do their best to be their own champion. That's what makes liberty work.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

Trump's greatest asset he brings to the Presidency is his familiarity with bankruptcy.  If he can use Glass-Steagall and similar laws to lop off the derivatives bubble, let it pop, while saving the physical economy he will have saved the country from the speculators, and that will mean he was the right choice.

[jason_]

Trump's greatest asset he brings to the Presidency is his familiarity with bankruptcy.  If he can use Glass-Steagall and similar laws to lop off the derivatives bubble, let it pop, while saving the physical economy he will have saved the country from the speculators, and that will mean he was the right choice.

 

A good point, and one not very much discussed in public.

[Wuzzums]

Heresy !

[Izzy]

It's usually the low IQ folks (of any movement) that think one person can solve all the problems. Trump is the person we can all get behind as we shoot red pills everywhere in hopes of some landing in the mouths of brainwashed masses. I can also say that Bernie has played a vital role in this election cycle. Even though I don't support him in any way now, he and Trump were the biggest influences for me to get into politics, which meant I needed to understand how our world works, which led me to uncover all the lies that I've been told in life. Even if Trump loses, I say he did an incredible job of bringing people into the limited government side.

[dsayers]

I support Trump for president -- OBVIOUSLY, cuz Hillary is a crook!

What does "support Trump" mean?! Why can't people just be honest and say I accept this person's claim to be able to rule over others? I can't help but imagine that people use the word "support" to feel like they're doing more than they actually are. How do you justify "supporting" somebody's claim to be able to rule over others? Crook? Do you think you will not be stolen from under Trump?

 

This election cycle has been great, because more and more people are talking about what they should be talking about

How do you know? "Should be talking about" according to whom? I think this is a self-detonating claim. Because you are talking about who should sit on the throne rather than whether or not the throne is valid; Whether or not people can exist in different, opposing moral categories.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Trump is a step in the right direction. 

 

people need to realize they need to do their best to be their own champion. That's what makes liberty work.

 

 

What does this mean?

[Mole]

I'm far more concerned with the reasons why people are voting rather than who gets in power. Politicians make a living off brainwashed people. While Trump may seem like a step in the right direction, it's useless if people are voting for him because they are ideologically right leaning. If this is the case, Trump is simply justifying a step towards a right-leaning government and not towards rational discourse and anarcho-capitalist badassery.

[DaveR]

Already his wife seems to be calling for an end to internet 'bullying'...which we all know just means repressive anti-free speech laws.

[dsayers]

Trump is a step in the right direction. 

I've argued before that "step in the right direction" is a myth. It's a way of getting good people to play by the rules of bad people. Trump in the FDR community is a FANTASTIC example of how I mean.

[nathanm]

The US election is in appearance very much like a monarchy.  People are all basically desiring King Trump (God Emperor, really) or Queen Hillary.  I think that must be the natural state of man. Let's face it, it's much simpler to understand. But as it does not work like a monarchy in practice we have the problem of having just ONE independent outsider attempting to reform a massive army of insiders.  I want to believe he can fix something, but I assume if he does they will just have him assassinated.  Why would government ever work against its own interests? Why would people demonstrably shown to be lying, manipulative, corrupt villains stand by and allow a people's champion to cut off their gravy train?  In the movies good people win, in real life evil never dies.  I can feel the spirit of a Trump landslide, but the world isn't remotely fair. People are more upset about bad calls in football games or a cyclist who uses drugs; that's where fairness and rules have absolute sway.  But not in politics.  The most heinous crimes are not even on most people's radar.

[Donnadogsoth]

The US election is in appearance very much like a monarchy.  People are all basically desiring King Trump (God Emperor, really) or Queen Hillary.  I think that must be the natural state of man. Let's face it, it's much simpler to understand. But as it does not work like a monarchy in practice we have the problem of having just ONE independent outsider attempting to reform a massive army of insiders.  I want to believe he can fix something, but I assume if he does they will just have him assassinated.  Why would government ever work against its own interests? Why would people demonstrably shown to be lying, manipulative, corrupt villains stand by and allow a people's champion to cut off their gravy train?  In the movies good people win, in real life evil never dies.  I can feel the spirit of a Trump landslide, but the world isn't remotely fair. People are more upset about bad calls in football games or a cyclist who uses drugs; that's where fairness and rules have absolute sway.  But not in politics.  The most heinous crimes are not even on most people's radar.

 

The government is people and many people can be individually persuaded through stick and carrot into joining or at least not opposing the new administration.  From past experience Trump will know the basic principles of how to surround himself with people who will help him do what he wants.  And when it comes to gravy trains, he's got the military on board, he's at least in theory got industry, and he's got the tattered remnants of the Republican party, including however the Senate and Congress are going to shake down.  Who is going to assassinate him from within government circles?  PBS?  IRS?  I would agree the assassination threat is real, but it won't be the whole government attacking King Trump; he'll probably get a chance to consolidate his turf.

[jason_]

It's usually the low IQ folks (of any movement) that think one person can solve all the problems. Trump is the person we can all get behind as we shoot red pills everywhere in hopes of some landing in the mouths of brainwashed masses. I can also say that Bernie has played a vital role in this election cycle. Even though I don't support him in any way now, he and Trump were the biggest influences for me to get into politics, which meant I needed to understand how our world works, which led me to uncover all the lies that I've been told in life. Even if Trump loses, I say he did an incredible job of bringing people into the limited government side.

 

Hi Izzy, I agree that a confluence of factors have led many to seek a better understanding of how government works and think about how it should work.

[jason_]

What does "support Trump" mean?! Why can't people just be honest and say I accept this person's claim to be able to rule over others? I can't help but imagine that people use the word "support" to feel like they're doing more than they actually are. How do you justify "supporting" somebody's claim to be able to rule over others? Crook? Do you think you will not be stolen from under Trump?

 

How do you know? "Should be talking about" according to whom? I think this is a self-detonating claim. Because you are talking about who should sit on the throne rather than whether or not the throne is valid; Whether or not people can exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

By support, I mean, given the system that's in place -- which I agree is immoral -- I would rather Trump be the leader of the federal government over Clinton. When I say crook, I mean someone who has broken the existing criminal code -- which disqualifies her from office.

 

When I say "should be talking about," I mean people have started to question the roles these officials play in our lives and to think about whether or not those roles should change.

[dsayers]

By support, I mean, given the system that's in place -- which I agree is immoral -- I would rather Trump be the leader of the federal government over Clinton. When I say crook, I mean someone who has broken the existing criminal code -- which disqualifies her from office.

 

When I say "should be talking about," I mean people have started to question the roles these officials play in our lives and to think about whether or not those roles should change.

Thank you for the clarifications. This does nothing to address the challenges I've offered though. To which I now add that "existing criminal code" is about as arbitrary a standard as one could apply. THESE are the conversations people "should" be having.

[jason_]

people need to realize they need to do their best to be their own champion. That's what makes liberty work.

 

 

What does this mean?

 

I have found that liberty and responsibility are mutually inclusive. The freedom to act generates the responsibility for ones actions.

 

We the people are only as free as the responsibility we're willing to accept. And it seems to me, the individual is only as free as the standard of responsibility acceptance within the society he lives -- politically speaking.

 

Does that answer your question?

[nathanm]

Yeah, if the military is on the side of the citizens we might have a chance.  Even with all the guns in America I am not sure that they could win assuming the A,N,AF,M all follow their orders to put down any armed revolts. 

 

I just think about this photo of my grandparents in the tavern they owned with big smiles and the room decorated with streamers and pictures of JFK. He was their people's champion and he got taken out before their eyes.  I hate that I care about things not under my control so much, but I can't help it.  I really don't want to see a president Trump get shot either by professionals or from any number of unhinged lunatics available out there with nothing to lose and who'd relish going out in a blaze of glory. 

 

I really would love to see America split up.  It seems like the most logical path.  Hillary can have her own country. All the feminists, SJWs, socialists etc. can tax themselves into utopia.  There is a genuine social rift and I don't see why it should not be accepted and embraced for what it is.  They don't mix up predator and prey animals in the same the zoo pens, why should human society be jammed into this one ideological box which is too small for everyone to fit in comfortably? If 'diversity is our strength' then that means walls, borders, barriers to me. It means paints have their own tubes. It means you don't make a fine meal by putting everything in the fridge into a blender.

[jason_]

I'm far more concerned with the reasons why people are voting rather than who gets in power. Politicians make a living off brainwashed people. While Trump may seem like a step in the right direction, it's useless if people are voting for him because they are ideologically right leaning. If this is the case, Trump is simply justifying a step towards a right-leaning government and not towards rational discourse and anarcho-capitalist badassery.

 

Hi MoleDownunder,

 

Being interested in who's voting, I think you'll find this interview on the Rubin Report interesting -- if you haven't already seen it:

 

[jason_]

The US election is in appearance very much like a monarchy.  People are all basically desiring King Trump (God Emperor, really) or Queen Hillary.  I think that must be the natural state of man. Let's face it, it's much simpler to understand. But as it does not work like a monarchy in practice we have the problem of having just ONE independent outsider attempting to reform a massive army of insiders.  I want to believe he can fix something, but I assume if he does they will just have him assassinated.  Why would government ever work against its own interests? Why would people demonstrably shown to be lying, manipulative, corrupt villains stand by and allow a people's champion to cut off their gravy train?  In the movies good people win, in real life evil never dies.  I can feel the spirit of a Trump landslide, but the world isn't remotely fair. People are more upset about bad calls in football games or a cyclist who uses drugs; that's where fairness and rules have absolute sway.  But not in politics.  The most heinous crimes are not even on most people's radar.

I agree.

 

About the monarchy-like aspect of the election, I think that's been true for a long time, but like many things this election cycle, we're seeing it more obviously - or maybe new tactics of exposure are working. I think this has had a positive effect, in as far as people are repulsed by the spectacle - what I consider to be a free man's natural reaction. I believe it has caused Americans to face themselves and ask themselves, are we really electing a monarch?

 

There are legitimate issues at stake, and the president has the power to affect change. Immigration is an one such issue partly due to the fact that in many countries the people are comfortable electing authoritarian, cult of personality, dictators.

 

People in my family are starting to realize that more needs to be done at the state and local level, and I think people are starting to realize just how big and clunky the federal government has become. At least I hope so, even if it's too little too late as far as our fiscal situation is concerned. I don't think we should shy from talking about these issues with those around us; we can ride this wave of interest in politics.

 

One other thing: the world itself is fair. It rains on the rich and poor alike. Artificial systems are far more problematic.

[Tyler H]

Yeah, if the military is on the side of the citizens we might have a chance.  Even with all the guns in America I am not sure that they could win assuming the A,N,AF,M all follow their orders to put down any armed revolts. 

 

I just think about this photo of my grandparents in the tavern they owned with big smiles and the room decorated with streamers and pictures of JFK. He was their people's champion and he got taken out before their eyes.  I hate that I care about things not under my control so much, but I can't help it.  I really don't want to see a president Trump get shot either by professionals or from any number of unhinged lunatics available out there with nothing to lose and who'd relish going out in a blaze of glory. 

 

I really would love to see America split up.  It seems like the most logical path.  Hillary can have her own country. All the feminists, SJWs, socialists etc. can tax themselves into utopia.  There is a genuine social rift and I don't see why it should not be accepted and embraced for what it is.  They don't mix up predator and prey animals in the same the zoo pens, why should human society be jammed into this one ideological box which is too small for everyone to fit in comfortably? If 'diversity is our strength' then that means walls, borders, barriers to me. It means paints have their own tubes. It means you don't make a fine meal by putting everything in the fridge into a blender.

I think if the US achieved the split somehow it would be all of about ten seconds before the left declared war on the right after they realized how insolvent they had now become - blaming the right of course and ginning up hatred within the citizenry in order to conscript all those pussy-pandering beta males with little to no recalcitrance. I must say though, the idea of all the liberals living in their own "socialist paradise" without the ability to tax the makers sounds pretty nice.

[Spenc]

Trump is a step in the right direction. 

 

 

I'm curious if you could offer a null hypothesis that would invalidate this claim over the course of the next 4 or 8 years (or even maybe beyond, like a 20 year generational period of time).

 

In other words, what is the minimum standard of evidence over the course of, let's just say, the next 4 years that would cause you to rescind your claim that "Trump is a step in the right direction"?

[ValueOfBrevity]

I'm curious if you could offer a null hypothesis that would invalidate this claim over the course of the next 4 or 8 years (or even maybe beyond, like a 20 year generational period of time).

 

In other words, what is the minimum standard of evidence over the course of, let's just say, the next 4 years that would cause you to rescind your claim that "Trump is a step in the right direction"?

If he, for example, supported safe spaces in college universities.

If he allowed massive unvetted immigration into the United States.

If he supported the buying of government power by special interests.

 

I don't think it's possible for Trump to keep all of his campaign promises, but we'll have wait and see.

 

Have you seen this video yet?

 

 

 

[JoeH]

I wouldn't say that trump was a "step in the right direction", more like "he's a smaller step towards ruin than Hillary was." I do hope he does the right thing, but that right there is the problem. I have no choice but to hope. I have no power amd the government has all the power and we are now back to the days of monarchy where everybody hopes that they get a "good king."

[dsayers]

I wouldn't say that trump was a "step in the right direction", more like "he's a smaller step towards ruin than Hillary was." I do hope he does the right thing, but that right there is the problem. I have no choice but to hope. I have no power amd the government has all the power and we are now back to the days of monarchy where everybody hopes that they get a "good king."

Their power is imaginary. It's only real because enough people believe it is. That's the power you have: To love yourself and understand the State doesn't exist.

[JoeH]

Cool man. I'll just not pay my taxes and when the cops show up to arrest me, I will explain that their power isn't real.

[Donnadogsoth]

Cool man. I'll just not pay my taxes and when the cops show up to arrest me, I will explain that their power isn't real.

 

The State is like a friendship.  A friendship has a real, physical existence--we can literally point to it in the form of the relevant neural pathways and networks in the brains of any two people who claim to be friends with each other.  So, too, the State is made up of "wetware" in the brains of the people who serve as its agents.  Just as friendship's power is real, so is the State's.

[D-Light]

The State is like a friendship between unicorns and leprechauns.  Unicorns, leprechauns, and the friendship between them has a real, physical existence--we can literally point to it in the form of the relevant neural pathways and networks in the brains of any people who believe in them and their friendship with each other. So, too, the State is made up of "wetware" in the brains of the people who serve as its agents. Just as the power of friendship between leprechauns and unicorns is real, so it the State's power.

[dsayers]

Cool man. I'll just not pay my taxes and when the cops show up to arrest me, I will explain that their power isn't real.

They kind of already know that, which is why they use violence to enforce it.

 

Pointing to a church is not proof that God exists, but rather that people believe he does. If a mugger came to your house to steal from you, your neighbors would recognize this is wrong. If that same mugger had a uniform on, showed up in a car with stickers on it, and pointed to something somebody wrote down one time, they would believe that YOU are in the wrong.

 

These are functionally identical, so what are the variables present? Does the uniform/badge have magic powers? The car with stickers on it? The words written down or paper it's written on? None of the above! As Donnadogsoth and I have pointed out, their power only exists in the minds of people who have been tricked into believing those things have magic powers.

 

What you appear to have been trying to communicate is that just because their power isn't real, the effects of the behaviors they engage in under the premise that their powers are real, are in fact real. That's true. But that doesn't detract from the validity of the point I made. It's been awhile since I've interacted with a policeman. I could've spent all the time in the interim pretending that their power was real and making myself and the decisions I make in my life smaller as a result. Or I can recognize that their power isn't real, pay their protection money to avoid the effects, and live my life as large as I otherwise can. You have that power too. All it takes is admitting the truth to yourself.

[Donnadogsoth]

The State is like a friendship between unicorns and leprechauns.  Unicorns, leprechauns, and the friendship between them has a real, physical existence--we can literally point to it in the form of the relevant neural pathways and networks in the brains of any people who believe in them and their friendship with each other. So, too, the State is made up of "wetware" in the brains of the people who serve as its agents. Just as the power of friendship between leprechauns and unicorns is real, so it the State's power.

 

I agree.  Is a marriage real?  Is romantic love real?  (The rarity of unicorns notwithstanding.)  These things certainly effect the physical world, and have a physical neurological location.

[D-Light]

I agree.  It's sort of like two people having the same memory of something.  Are memories real?  Are ideas real?  Memories, ideas, and fantasies can have tangible effects on the world around them.

God is real in exactly the same way that the State, leprechauns, and unicorns are real.

[JoeH]

The existence of a church does not signify that god is real. I get that. But is religion real? Even though it is based on a falsehood? And if not, then why build a church? And what makes such a building a church? Thus with governments: why build a prison? And why do, and how can prisons exist if there is no actual authority?

 

If a prisoner accepts the premises that you suggest, is that prisoner then free? Or is he still subject to that authority (illegitinate as it may be) and unable to leave the prison?

[D-Light]

The existence of a church does not signify that god is real. I get that. But is religion real? Even though it is based on a falsehood? And if not, then why build a church? And what makes such a building a church? Thus with governments: why build a prison? And why do, and how can prisons exist if there is no actual authority?

 

If a prisoner accepts the premises that you suggest, is that prisoner then free? Or is he still subject to that authority (illegitimate as it may be) and unable to leave the prison?

Beliefs are real, but that does not mean that the ideas or concepts are real. Drawings are real, but that does not mean that the images in the drawings depict anything that is real.

[Donnadogsoth]

God is real in exactly the same way that the State, leprechauns, and unicorns are real.

 

And if a group of people believe certain physically relevant things about leprechauns, the idea of leprechauns can have real physical effects on the world.  So with the State.  It's misleading to say the state isn't real.  Of course it's real, it's a collection of brain patterns in people.  Brain patterns are real aren't they?  So are groups of brain patterns.

[dsayers]

The existence of a church does not signify that god is real. I get that. But is religion real? Even though it is based on a falsehood? And if not, then why build a church? And what makes such a building a church? Thus with governments: why build a prison? And why do, and how can prisons exist if there is no actual authority?

 

If a prisoner accepts the premises that you suggest, is that prisoner then free? Or is he still subject to that authority (illegitinate as it may be) and unable to leave the prison?

You're not making any effort to understand what was said. You said you have no power, I pointed out the power that you have. Namely, to love yourself and understand that the State doesn't exist. None of what you've said refutes either of these claims.

 

Why would they build a church? Who cares?! The construction of a church isn't the initiation of the use of force, so it doesn't matter to me why they would.

 

I asked you a series of questions about the differences between a mugger and police showing up at your door. You've done nothing to address these. This in no way appears to be a discussion for you.

 

So I'll leave you with the following thought experiment: 

 

What do we see here? One man disrupting a sporting event. People who are there to "keep the peace" respond and everybody is fine with that... Until the successful 4 against 1 escalates by adding assault to the already restrained interloper. The people there understand that the 4 are just people and at this point, are behaving unacceptably. Now they respond. Magically, the 4 no longer have their super powers and in fact cower at the idea that they might suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. If you insist their power is real, then it is. If you accept that it isn't, then we're one step closer to the days when they cannot continue because people will regard them for the organized criminals that they are. Step one on the road to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. There's no such thing as government. There's just people violating people in the name of government. They can get away with it because you tell them they can by insisting they're real and wasting time asking why people would build a jail.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're not making any effort to understand what was said. You said you have no power, I pointed out the power that you have. Namely, to love yourself and understand that the State doesn't exist. None of what you've said refutes either of these claims.

 

Why would they build a church? Who cares?! The construction of a church isn't the initiation of the use of force, so it doesn't matter to me why they would.

 

I asked you a series of questions about the differences between a mugger and police showing up at your door. You've done nothing to address these. This in no way appears to be a discussion for you.

 

So I'll leave you with the following thought experiment: 

 

What do we see here? One man disrupting a sporting event. People who are there to "keep the peace" respond and everybody is fine with that... Until the successful 4 against 1 escalates by adding assault to the already restrained interloper. The people there understand that the 4 are just people and at this point, are behaving unacceptably. Now they respond. Magically, the 4 no longer have their super powers and in fact cower at the idea that they might suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. If you insist their power is real, then it is. If you accept that it isn't, then we're one step closer to the days when they cannot continue because people will regard them for the organized criminals that they are. Step one on the road to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. There's no such thing as government. There's just people violating people in the name of government. They can get away with it because you tell them they can by insisting they're real and wasting time asking why people would build a jail.

 

What you're describing is a spell, dsayers.  How will you break that spell?