NotDarkYet Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 The Great Castle "Anarchism" is miles ahead of you. Between here and Castle Anarchism is a landscape filled with lava, alligators, and never-ending pits. The direct path is deadly. The only survivable path to Castle Anarchism is winding. Those who think a direct line (no voting, no politics) is the way will destroy themselves before reaching the end. 2
Matthew Ed Moran Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I have a poem. People who make emotionally manipulative non arguments are full of crap. 1 1
NotDarkYet Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I didn't know metaphors weren't allowed. Very sorry. Clearly I have a lot to learn about restraining emotionality from a guy who uses the words "manipulative" and "full of crap". Please instruct me.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 Those who think a direct line (no voting, no politics) is the way will destroy themselves before reaching the end. I find that a lot of anarchists aren't even happy with a direct line. They're looking more for instant teleportation. 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I didn't know metaphors weren't allowed. Very sorry. Clearly I have a lot to learn about restraining emotionality from a guy who uses the words "manipulative" and "full of crap". Please instruct me. It only applies to people who initiate emotionally manipulative non arguments (which you didn't do). Here is an second attempt Sitting in a bucket, ripples under his ass Raining from the clouds, splashing on his face He calls the world misguided This is a post modern poem which means I took 3 minutes to write it and I will sell you the privilege of reading it for your entire net worth. Hold on French title incoming. You will need to take a loan out on your kids future before you can pay for this baby Here is my postmodern interpretation of your poem which is probably only 1/100th amusing to anyone else as it is to me: A man says "there is a bridge!" He walks off a cliff.
shirgall Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I didn't know metaphors weren't allowed. Very sorry. Not metaphors, just arguments wholly based on a comparison that looks *like* a metaphor but is instead an invalid analogy.
DaVinci Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 I find that a lot of anarchists aren't even happy with a direct line. They're looking more for instant teleportation. Instant teleportation to what though? Isn't anarchy completely a hypothetical at this point because no one knows how it will work? What argument is being made that politics and voting will lead to an anarchist world? Isn't that like arguing that voting will lead to heaven?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 Instant teleportation to what though? Isn't anarchy completely a hypothetical at this point because no one knows how it will work? What argument is being made that politics and voting will lead to an anarchist world? Isn't that like arguing that voting will lead to heaven? You encapsulated it in what you wrote. No one is making the argument that politics and voting will lead to an anarchist world, but people are (and I am) making the argument that politics and voting are what's going on right now and we're going to have to deal with them in a very serious manner if we ever intend on moving towards an anarchist world. I don't understand what is very confusing about this formula: 1. The West is the closest thing to anarchy humans have ever seen, and it's the only hope of leading us there. 2. If the West goes, then it's all over. The weapon technology and surveillance state of the earth would never allow freedom in any form to emerge again. 3. Donald Trump and the movement he is symbolizing (anti-Globalism, restore the republic of the US), is the last real form of resistance to pull the West from falling over the cliff. 4. Thus Trump, by saving the West (for now), is giving the chance for anarchy in the future. If you're an anarchist and not supporting Trump and what he's done so far, you're bullshitting yourself with fluffy nonsense. 1
NotDarkYet Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 The rest of the world doesn't care about non-violence - and they're out to get you and your property, and your children's minds. Anarchists have a LOT of blocking and parrying to do before we find ourselves knocking on the doors of free market anarchy. Feel free to laugh at me for the use of metaphor, I don't care. A battle/journey is a suitable metaphor for our situation. 1
shirgall Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 The rest of the world doesn't care about non-violence - and they're out to get you and your property, and your children's minds. Anarchists have a LOT of blocking and parrying to do before we find ourselves knocking on the doors of free market anarchy. Feel free to laugh at me for the use of metaphor, I don't care. A battle/journey is a suitable metaphor for our situation. President Trump is taking steps in the direction away from authoritarianism, if the past month is any indicator, including long-lasting items like nominating Gorsuch who is biased away from executive branch overreach. The biggest tell is the nationwide temper tantrums over rolling back executive power.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 The mainstream (communist) media (news, entertainment, academia) is the single worst influence on American society. Trump is constantly exposing how they lie over and over. The people who say "Trump lies too!" or "Media doesn't lie in "x" case!" are aiding the mainstream (communist) media. All politicians lie more than Trump, and the media's lies are infinitely more harmful than their truths, so it is a terrible idea to focus on these things given the opportunity costs. Aiding the mainstream communist media is the worst practical action one can take, because there is no greater force for communism, and there is nothing worse than communism. This doesn't mean someone can't criticize Trump, but if they don't have a track record of integrity in this battle, then most people will rightfully lump them in with the communists - and they will naturally become defensive to criticism in the future. Its not their fault for becoming defensive - it's the fault of the people who lack integrity when making their arguments.
DaVinci Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 You encapsulated it in what you wrote. No one is making the argument that politics and voting will lead to an anarchist world, but people are (and I am) making the argument that politics and voting are what's going on right now and we're going to have to deal with them in a very serious manner if we ever intend on moving towards an anarchist world. I don't understand what is very confusing about this formula: 1. The West is the closest thing to anarchy humans have ever seen, and it's the only hope of leading us there. 2. If the West goes, then it's all over. The weapon technology and surveillance state of the earth would never allow freedom in any form to emerge again. 3. Donald Trump and the movement he is symbolizing (anti-Globalism, restore the republic of the US), is the last real form of resistance to pull the West from falling over the cliff. 4. Thus Trump, by saving the West (for now), is giving the chance for anarchy in the future. If you're an anarchist and not supporting Trump and what he's done so far, you're bullshitting yourself with fluffy nonsense. But do people get that you can't push into the world without it pushing back? If someone is bullying you, and shoves you to the ground, and you shove them back, they don't just *poof* into a cloud of dust to never be seen again. Violent agressive people have a tendency to get more violent because you defended yourself, and if the violent aggressive person is also sophisticated enough to manipulate others they can use you defending yourself as "proof" that you're the bully and gather up a crowd to get you. This is exactly what is happening right now with Trump. All these people who hate Trump/the alt right/whatever, doing all of these crazy things, aren't just doing it "just cause". They clearly have a "reason". For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I see lots of people saying "voting Trump is voting for freedom from tyranny" and "If you point out problems with Trump you're the enemy" and all these types of things. Meanwhile, the left hasn't gone away. Maybe the bully has been shoved down for now, but they aren't just going to go away. I've asked before what is going to happen in 2020 when the left wheels out some extreme far left guy Hannibal Lecter style who is way worse than Hillary in terms of ideology and/or way more squeaky clean in terms of scandal, and all I get are these "Alex Jones, Stef, and Milo will be there to break down 'the narrative'" responses. Guess what. All the people who hate Trump will still be voting left next time, and there is a good chance all those voters who swung right to vote Trump this time won't come back. Even Obama didn't do as good the second time as he did the first. Trump could just be a short term aberration in the model of human suppression. I think if you want to keep Trump in, and keep freedom going you can't just stay on the "Trump is great for white heterosexual western civilization" bandwagon because *surprise* that message isn't winning many people on the left over, and those are the people who are still upset, still angry, still hate Trump, still hate what he stands for, and are going to come back hard and bring their friends. 1 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I see lots of people saying "voting Trump is voting for freedom from tyranny" and "If you point out problems with Trump you're the enemy" and all these types of things. Meanwhile, the left hasn't gone away. Maybe the bully has been shoved down for now, but they aren't just going to go away. Case-in-point. Instant teleportation.
DaVinci Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 Case-in-point. Instant teleportation. What is?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 You said "meanwhile the left hasn't gone away", as if they were supposed to within 1 month of Trump achieving the presidency.
DaVinci Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 You said "meanwhile the left hasn't gone away", as if they were supposed to within 1 month of Trump achieving the presidency. I'm not saying they were supposed to. My whole post was about how the left isn't going to just disappear because Trump won. That if you push a bully, even in self defense, they are going to push back, and if they think they are cornered they are going to become very dangerous. I'm not sure what part of that people seem to not like hearing. 1
GenellanBound Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 So, if pushing away from the left makes then stronger and more forceful, what's your suggestion?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 I'm not saying they were supposed to. My whole post was about how the left isn't going to just disappear because Trump won. That if you push a bully, even in self defense, they are going to push back, and if they think they are cornered they are going to become very dangerous. I'm not sure what part of that people seem to not like hearing. So... are you agreeing with me?
DaVinci Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 So, if pushing away from the left makes then stronger and more forceful, what's your suggestion? Obviously the left wants the government to provide things for them. If they think they are going to lose what they already have they get mad. But what if they didn't actually lose anything? What would they have to be mad about? And if they couldn't focus their anger at losing what they viewed as theirs on those on the right, then why would they mobilize against them? To the left, the right are "thieves or "the enemy". They're still bitter about Hillary losing. Hence the "But her e-mails" meme that has been popping up. Clearly the left still thinks Trump/the right is going to be the end of the world. So what do we do about this? Lefties are essentially in the same boat we are in. When we say "taxes are immoral" and they say "So then who will build the roads?" aren't they asking for a way out? I think somewhere inside they hate government just as much as we do, and somewhere inside they also view voting as self defense. But the second an actual viable alternative came along they would jump on it, just like if we found out there was an actual peaceful anarchist country we would likely go. Ultimately I don't think lefties are our enemies. I think that most of them just can't see an alternative. Yeah, I know Stef has said that it doesn't matter how the future will work, but most people on the hard left aren't going to be swayed by that. Maybe that is illogical or unreasonable of them, but it's also the truth. To them it's like having a broken arm and asking "Who will mend my arm without going to the immoral doctor?" and being told "Eh, future society will work that out". Lefties love to help each other out, and I think if lefties see the right doing what they do but better, it's possible they will be less likely to push as hard against us. Why would they? There's more to it than this, but it's late and I need to go. I hope this at least begins to answer your question. So... are you agreeing with me? I agree that there is no instantaneous snap your fingers transfer to anarchy. I'm not however convinced that politics and voting, even as a self defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world. 1
NotDarkYet Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 I agree that there is no instantaneous snap your fingers transfer to anarchy. I'm not however convinced that politics and voting, even as a self defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world. Strawman. Nobody would say politics is sufficient to achieve an anarchic world Politics is just one of many concurrent means of affecting change Action: Effect: Donating to FDR More freedom content Sharing videos Spreading ideas Speaking out Making it personal Supporting Trump Thumbing our noses at the Leftist media propaganda machine Supporting Trump Protecting the border from a flood of muslims and leftists Supporting Trump Showing the Left that we are NOT afraid
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 25, 2017 Posted February 25, 2017 I agree that there is no instantaneous snap your fingers transfer to anarchy. I'm not however convinced that politics and voting, even as a self defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world. Who is?
DaVinci Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 Strawman. Nobody would say politics is sufficient to achieve an anarchic world Politics is just one of many concurrent means of affecting change Action: Effect: Donating to FDR More freedom content Sharing videos Spreading ideas Speaking out Making it personal Supporting Trump Thumbing our noses at the Leftist media propaganda machine Supporting Trump Protecting the border from a flood of muslims and leftists Supporting Trump Showing the Left that we are NOT afraid Is it a strawman to point out how it is isn't sufficient to empty out a filling bathtub with a teaspoon to save a drowning baby? Yes, you're removing water, which is necessary to save the baby, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that is sufficient. Who is? Can you clarify this for me please. I'm not sure what you are asking me. 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 I agree that there is no instantaneous snap your fingers transfer to anarchy. I'm not however convinced that politics and voting, even as a self defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world. Can you clarify this for me please. I'm not sure what you are asking me. Who is "convinced that politics and voting, even as a self-defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world"?
jrodefeld Posted February 26, 2017 Author Posted February 26, 2017 Reflect that on the philosophy of anarchism, and that it rests on principles. Principles are like the cardinal directions or the north star, we use them to guide our actions. The actions themselves that we must take to move in those directions are something different entirely. The West is the closest thing the world has ever seen to anarchy. If you aren't doing your damnedest to protect the West right now, you're working against your own principles. I listened to your video and I don't think you made a very compelling case. As I suspected, a good deal of your argument centers around the supposed need to restrict immigration to "save Western Civilization". I'll get into why I think this is a poor argument in a minute. I agree with your assessment of Trump's stance towards Russia. I've said many times that his desire to improve relations with Russia constituted the single most compelling reason to have supported him in the election. Again, I want to stress that I'm not at all opposed to a libertarian having a stated preference between two non-libertarian candidates. But usually this turns out to be a complete crap-shoot. The sort of praise heaped out from some libertarian quarters, even now, is what I am objecting to on principled grounds. For your argument about immigration to be coherent, we'd have to assume that the United States was a bastion of liberty and limited government before we started loosening restrictions on immigration from the Third World. Ever since the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century, Americans have been willingly giving up their liberty at the alter of their God, the Leviathan State. American blacks were still under the subjugation of Jim Crow laws and wielded very little political power at that time. It was a majority white nation that elected Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and permitted the creation of the Federal Reserve. A far less culturally and ethnically diverse society cheered on our entry into World War 1 and enthusiastically endorsed Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program. By every metric one could imagine, the intellectual climate by the mid 20th century was more hostile to libertarian ideas than exists today. Actual command-and-control Socialists held sway over academia and popular culture. In the mid-1960s, Murray Rothbard estimated that there were 25 libertarians in the entire world. Today, there are several million in this country and more around the globe. Yes many immigrants vote for Democrats, but this presupposes that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for MORE big government than is a vote for a Republican. History doesn't bear this out. Why are we to suppose that immigrants voting for Nancy Pelosi represent a greater threat to our freedom than white Evangelicals who voted for George W. Bush and never saw a war they didn't jingoistically cheer on? Obviously Democrats would like to change the demographics of the country to allow them to win elections. But Obama's Administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other US president in history and net immigration was less than it was under George W. Bush. Even Trump has acknowledged that Obama deported a huge number of immigrants: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/21/donald-trump/trump-right-deportation-numbers-wrong-talks-about-/ Many studies have been conducted that show that immigrants contribute more to our GDP than they take through welfare benefits. By all means restrict access to welfare for non-citizens. But the suggestion that the most pressing threat to our prospects for a libertarian society are Mexican immigrants seems completely devoid of reality and contraindicated by the facts. You have to remember that libertarianism is still a very small movement. The reason we haven't gained more ground with our movement is simply because most Americans, of all races, don't agree with us or don't understand our arguments. When looking at the growth in government, especially over the past 120 years, scapegoating Third World immigrants seems preposterous. You seem to accept the non-aggression principle, but you are willing to trample on it in order to prevent freedom of association. On the subject of liberty, consider the horrendous Police State abuses and rights-violations that will occur if a Trump Administration unleashes militarized local police forces, border patrol agents, even parts of the military in order to crackdown on immigration and deport undocumented workers. It's already happening and I suspect it will get worse. Even if I were to accept that the changing demographics due to Mexican immigration pose a significant threat to the prospects for liberty, I don't see any reason why Hillary's immigration policy would signify a "tipping point" from which we'd never recover. The last thing I'll say is that Trump managed to secure 29% of the Latino vote. Still a minority to be sure, but the fact that nearly one in three voted for him despite the media attacking him as a racist for a year and a half is pretty astounding. Hearing the rhetoric from the alt-right and certain libertarians, you'd think that Mexican immigrants are voting 95% for Democrats and their only concern is voting themselves more welfare benefits. The reality doesn't comport with this analysis. 1
DaVinci Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 Who is "convinced that politics and voting, even as a self-defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world"? I dunno. That's not even what I said.
DaVinci Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 I literally quoted your post. Yes, you did. But then you also restated it and took out words I said and put quotes around it like I also said it a different way. Are you asking me a hypothetical question or are you trying to strawman what I actually said?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 For your argument about immigration to be coherent, we'd have to assume that the United States was a bastion of liberty and limited government before we started loosening restrictions on immigration from the Third World. Why? The US is still the most free place on earth, and therefore the closest thing to anarchy. 28% of the Latino vote for Trump shows that there are many Latinos who understand the danger of importing a 3rd world culture. In the life cycle of civilizations, civilizations finally die when they're invaded by a foreign and hostile culture. Since the nuclear age, we don't really have outright invasions of armies anymore. It takes more of the form of refugees and illegal immigrants. By every metric one could imagine, the intellectual climate by the mid 20th century was more hostile to libertarian ideas than exists today. Indeed. Despite this, the West is still the most free civilization on earth. Even if I were to accept that the changing demographics due to Mexican immigration pose a significant threat to the prospects for liberty, I don't see any reason why Hillary's immigration policy would signify a "tipping point" from which we'd never recover. What you do or don't accept isn't an argument. By all means restrict access to welfare for non-citizens. But the suggestion that the most pressing threat to our prospects for a libertarian society are Mexican immigrants seems completely devoid of reality and contraindicated by the facts. When you say "seems", I'm going to assume that you're referring to yourself until you tell me otherwise. I am unable to comment on how anything seems to you. Hearing the rhetoric from the alt-right and certain libertarians, you'd think that Mexican immigrants are voting 95% for Democrats and their only concern is voting themselves more welfare benefits. The reality doesn't comport with this analysis. It's pretty damn close.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Yes, you did. But then you also restated it and took out words I said and put quotes around it like I also said it a different way. Are you asking me a hypothetical question or are you trying to strawman what I actually said? I honestly can't remember what the hell my point was in engaging with you in the first place. 2
Three Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 There's a culture war happening right now. Results matter. Nihilistic ideological purity keeps you from having any real impact on the real world. Stef meets society where it's at and fights back hence, 570,000 subscribers(70,000 of which he acquired in just recent few months.)These posts that keep people from impacting the world and keep people in their head playing with concepts frankly only will make sense to smart people just like the argument "don't vote because it's a violation of the NAP" is something that only smart people will be able to process. Muslim invaders don't care about your ideological purity. Whether your ideal is a small government, an anarchocapitalist society, or a white ethnostate, these things won't come into fruition if the left wins. 1
DaVinci Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 There's a culture war happening right now. Results matter. Nihilistic ideological purity keeps you from having any real impact on the real world. Stef meets society where it's at and fights back hence, 570,000 subscribers(70,000 of which he acquired in just recent few months.) These posts that keep people from impacting the world and keep people in their head playing with concepts frankly only will make sense to smart people. Just like the argument "don't vote because it's a violation of the NAP" is something that only smart people will be able to process. Muslim invaders don't care about your ideological purity. Whether your ideal is a small government, an anarchocapitalist society, or a white ethnostate, these things won't come into fruition is the left wins. Why is that something that only smart people will be able to process? You're saying that the concept of non-aggression is hard to understand? How would you teach a child that concept then?
Three Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Why is that something that only smart people will be able to process? You're saying that the concept of non-aggression is hard to understand? How would you teach a child that concept then? Most of the invaders pouring into Europe are not children though. 1
shirgall Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Most of the invaders pouring into Europe are not children though. 2
DaVinci Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Most of the invaders pouring into Europe are not children though. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you if you can explain non-aggression to children, and in what way would you do that?
RichardY Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 Libertarians should. Go throw themselves in front of tanks. Not go throw themselves in front of tanks "Support" a Night watchman state. "Not support" a Night watchman state. Vote. Not vote. Pay tax. Not Pay tax. Not tell others how to act. Tell others how to act. Positively accept a negative. Do nothing?
Recommended Posts