Eugenic

[GatoVillano]

I have just watched the last video from the channel, american renaissance, and my jaw dropped when Jared talked about eugenic. He proposed that the government should be given the power to prevent undesirable members of society to procreate or to incentivize sterilization.  I cannot think of a more horrible coercive power then to decide who breeds and who doesnt. And to give this power to the government is insane. The next time the democrats would get elected, they might decide to sterilize all the republicans, people could get sterilized for not being in the right social class, not have the right beliefs or not the right color of skin. 

I have always had respect for Jared Taylor until now. Now I realize that he doesnt believe in the libertarian principals of the funding fathers. He doesnt believe in basic freedoms, such as the freedom to procreate. He is clearly a statist and he advocates for changes done by force to obtain his white utopia. I'm sorry to see that he has lost his mind. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Why couldn't sterilisation be part of heinous criminals' punishment?  Do you want rapists and child molesters having children?

If I state clearly that anyone caught committing a crime on my property will be sterilised, why would you as a libertarian have a problem with that?

If I as a parent wish to sterilise my idiot child, who's going to stop me?

[M.2]

What arguments would you present to someone of that mindset, to one to whom liberty and life do not mean the greatest of values?

Forced eugenics is not new, as it has a very strong case for it, and has tempted most of our minds.

So what's wrong with hastening Nietzsche's Übermensch?

[nickmoser]

"You can have economic freedom without political freedom, but you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom.”- Heyek

 

[Jsbrads]

Our Constitution doesn't allow for cruel and unusual punishment.

I support execution for murderers. But not life in prison. I'm not even sure why you would want to castrate a murderer.

A parent's job is a guardian. You don't own your child. You can't sell him into a life of servitude. Castrating innocent children is appalling. 

The only case for Eugenics, are very flawed logic. It isn't just evil, it is also ineffective at its stated goal. But very effective way to destroy people for petty reasons.

[neeeel]

7 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If I state clearly that anyone caught committing a crime on my property will be sterilised, why would you as a libertarian have a problem with that?

So libertarian means you can do anything you want to someone commiting a crime on your property?

[ofd]

Quote

Now I realize that he doesnt believe in the libertarian principals of the funding fathers.

Which principles were that?

 

Quote

I cannot think of a more horrible coercive power then to decide who breeds and who doesnt.

I can. It's making dumb people breed a lot by handing out welfare.
 

Quote

He doesnt believe in basic freedoms, such as the freedom to procreate.

Freedom without consequences for bad behaviour isn't really libertarian either. The best eugenics would be a free market without government interfence but that's not an option for the near future.
 

Quote

He is clearly a statist and he advocates for changes done by force to obtain his white utopia. I'm sorry to see that he has lost his mind.

Of course he is. That's his appeal to libertarians who are frustrated that the pendulum has swung away since Ron Paul first ran in the 2000s.

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, neeeel said:

So libertarian means you can do anything you want to someone commiting a crime on your property?

As long as they sign the contract you've written for them, yes.

[RichardY]

Should just use penal colonies, plenty of land that can be intensively farmed, dump people on small islands.

[GatoVillano]

15 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Why couldn't sterilisation be part of heinous criminals' punishment?  Do you want rapists and child molesters having children?

If I state clearly that anyone caught committing a crime on my property will be sterilised, why would you as a libertarian have a problem with that?

If I as a parent wish to sterilise my idiot child, who's going to stop me?

You are assuming that only rapists would be sterilized. You must also consider that over 60% of rape accusations are false. If Men would be sterilized with the current judicial system, then women would have all their ex sterilized. This is too much power in the hands of the courts.

Also, you cannot beat your child, you cannot make it drink bleach, you cannot have the thumbs of your child amputated. Why? because this is child abuse. Your child is yours to raise, but when the parents abuse their children, society intervenes. Sterilizing your child is abuse. 

Now, what if whites become a minority in North america and minorities use this law to sterilize all whites. Like i said, this is too much power to be centralized.

[GatoVillano]

3 hours ago, ofd said:

Which principles were that?

 

I can. It's making dumb people breed a lot by handing out welfare.
 

Freedom without consequences for bad behaviour isn't really libertarian either. The best eugenics would be a free market without government interfence but that's not an option for the near future.
 

Of course he is. That's his appeal to libertarians who are frustrated that the pendulum has swung away since Ron Paul first ran in the 2000s.

Its WAYYYYYYy easier to abolish welfare then to sterilize a population

[ofd]

Quote

Its WAYYYYYYy easier to abolish welfare then to sterilize a population

Who's talking about a population?

 

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

You are assuming that only rapists would be sterilized. You must also consider that over 60% of rape accusations are false. If Men would be sterilized with the current judicial system, then women would have all their ex sterilized. This is too much power in the hands of the courts.

Also, you cannot beat your child, you cannot make it drink bleach, you cannot have the thumbs of your child amputated. Why? because this is child abuse. Your child is yours to raise, but when the parents abuse their children, society intervenes. Sterilizing your child is abuse. 

Now, what if whites become a minority in North america and minorities use this law to sterilize all whites. Like i said, this is too much power to be centralized.

You're right, rapists shouldn't be sterilised, they should be executed.

Sterilisation of idiots to prevent children being born to them is a kindness and practicality, not abuse.  How fun do you think pregnancy will be for someone of IQ < 50?  And who takes care of the child?  Or should we prevent all people with grievous intellectual disabilities from having a sex life?  Either way, we're the bad guy.  The least we can do is prevent more unwanted children from coming into the world (you are in favour of that aren't you?).  

Whites didn't use their majority status in North America to sterilise all coloureds.  Are whites nicer than coloureds?

[Jsbrads]

I don't think below 50 IQ can give consent to sex.

but I don't see a problem with lower intelligence people having children in general. In all likelihood their children will be fine and I'm also a big supporter of larger extended families living together. 

Libertarian values of our founding fathers were limited government. 

[GatoVillano]

On 18/10/2017 at 5:15 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

You're right, rapists shouldn't be sterilised, they should be executed.

Sterilisation of idiots to prevent children being born to them is a kindness and practicality, not abuse.  How fun do you think pregnancy will be for someone of IQ < 50?  And who takes care of the child?  Or should we prevent all people with grievous intellectual disabilities from having a sex life?  Either way, we're the bad guy.  The least we can do is prevent more unwanted children from coming into the world (you are in favour of that aren't you?).  

Whites didn't use their majority status in North America to sterilise all coloureds.  Are whites nicer than coloureds?

So, you are telling me that you would be fine if the government would sterilize you and your children tomorrow? This is what you are telling me. If the government could come up with a simple 1 hour test to determine if your children will be inferior and they decided that you are not good enough. They would end your bloodline with a simple easy to swallow pill and they send you on your merry way, reminding you not to forget to pay your taxes (because, that is all you are good for during your lifetime). You are telling me that you are fine with that????

If you find that sterilization is acceptable when it is applied to others, but not acceptable when it is applied to yourself, then you are an hypocrite. 

And dont tell me that you are so good. You have already shown me that you are inferior morally because you do not respect basic natural rights of a person when it is convenient to you. Therefore, you are a moral relativist. 

Sorry dude, but you make me sick. You are a terrible person. I'll be on my merry way. 

[Donnadogsoth]

If my government told me my children would all be idiots I would line up for sterilisation.

You have already told me that you are morally inferior because you  worry about the state having too much power without worrying about the whims of the herd having too much power.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

EDIT*: I thought of the question as I was answering--not a smart thing to do, as my starting position contradicts my ending one. 

I [Don't*] think it can be morally excused to sterilize those who commit heinous crimes and have horrible guaranteed genetic disorders, but the problem is less in the morality but the practicality; who tests people, who sterilizes people, and who decides whether someone is "defective" or "healthy"? Chances are it'd backfire horribly. If a government handles it...well, need I say more? If a private organization handles it, then unless a government moves it and makes it de facto government-handled, then people can choose voluntarily to sterilize themselves. But then people can already do that.

Sterilization for committing heinous crimes like child abuse, rape, or worse is only plausible if the crime itself isn't considered bad enough to warrant the death penalty. And while petty criminals and people with an IQ below 90 or 80 could be argued as potential candidates, due to high likelihood of becoming criminals, it falls under the same category as "who decides/handles it". Not to mention it's awfully deterministic. Anyone can live morally if they choose to, and if the means in which low IQ and bad people can do bad (welfare, government favoritism, etc.) are removed, then chances are the problem solve itself since people who live immorally in a free society won't be able to sustain their breeding habits or those unfortunate to be born of them. And if it's really bad (child abuse and the like) then that's what the D.R.O.'s are theoretically for. 

Therefore, the argument for sterilization, can only be pragmatically sustained if one could argue for some kind of benevolent super-state--which is extremely unlikely to happen let alone last--to rule over the populace.

As for the moral argument...I can't say for sure. On one hand I think those born of low IQ and/or criminal families are pretty much guaranteed a crappy childhood and a photo-copying of their past; while on the other hand if that were totally true then I might as well cease to exist since my background is one where, in most cases, the vicious cycle of child abuse and degeneracy repeats.

I suppose I'm against sterilization because it punishes the children for the crimes of their parents. If the parent did something horrible, there are other means of punishment. The child can, if raised under better circumstances and/or makes use of free will, become something far better than that which proceeded him.  And if he/she doesn't, then he/she can suffer accordingly for his/her crimes. And in a free society probably be selected out of genetic existence without the need for any force whatsoever. 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[RichardY]

@Donnadogsoth

Idiot: Looked at the origin fairly recently, comes from Greek Idiotes and means individual, also heard it mentioned in a series of Youtube videos on Oedipus, Grimms Fairytales.... . Aren't Christians usually against sterilisation? 

"So [I say,] those who divide fail to divide; those who discriminate fail to discriminate. ... If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. If benevolence has a constant object it can not be universal." ChuangTzu

Rather than put discriminations into words why not just remain silent, and put the world to the torch or bathe it in ice (lambs to the slaughter, Global warming, diversity etc). Could be a more effective eugenics strategy, like a forest fire that consumes the faster growing trees.

Some say the world will end in fire, 
Some say in ice. 
From what I’ve tasted of desire 
I hold with those who favor fire. 
But if it had to perish twice, 
I think I know enough of hate 
To say that for destruction ice 
Is also great 
And would suffice.

Robert Frost

Game of Thrones style, though only watched a few clips and Trump Parodies.

 

 

[GatoVillano]

On 23/10/2017 at 8:47 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

EDIT*: I thought of the question as I was answering--not a smart thing to do, as my starting position contradicts my ending one. 

I [Don't*] think it can be morally excused to sterilize those who commit heinous crimes and have horrible guaranteed genetic disorders, but the problem is less in the morality but the practicality; who tests people, who sterilizes people, and who decides whether someone is "defective" or "healthy"? Chances are it'd backfire horribly. If a government handles it...well, need I say more? If a private organization handles it, then unless a government moves it and makes it de facto government-handled, then people can choose voluntarily to sterilize themselves. But then people can already do that.

Sterilization for committing heinous crimes like child abuse, rape, or worse is only plausible if the crime itself isn't considered bad enough to warrant the death penalty. And while petty criminals and people with an IQ below 90 or 80 could be argued as potential candidates, due to high likelihood of becoming criminals, it falls under the same category as "who decides/handles it". Not to mention it's awfully deterministic. Anyone can live morally if they choose to, and if the means in which low IQ and bad people can do bad (welfare, government favoritism, etc.) are removed, then chances are the problem solve itself since people who live immorally in a free society won't be able to sustain their breeding habits or those unfortunate to be born of them. And if it's really bad (child abuse and the like) then that's what the D.R.O.'s are theoretically for. 

Therefore, the argument for sterilization, can only be pragmatically sustained if one could argue for some kind of benevolent super-state--which is extremely unlikely to happen let alone last--to rule over the populace.

As for the moral argument...I can't say for sure. On one hand I think those born of low IQ and/or criminal families are pretty much guaranteed a crappy childhood and a photo-copying of their past; while on the other hand if that were totally true then I might as well cease to exist since my background is one where, in most cases, the vicious cycle of child abuse and degeneracy repeats.

I suppose I'm against sterilization because it punishes the children for the crimes of their parents. If the parent did something horrible, there are other means of punishment. The child can, if raised under better circumstances and/or makes use of free will, become something far better than that which proceeded him.  And if he/she doesn't, then he/she can suffer accordingly for his/her crimes. And in a free society probably be selected out of genetic existence without the need for any force whatsoever. 

 

If you look at FBI statistics, over 64% of rape accusations are false. Women are not even required to provide evidence in court to have a man thrown in jail. We are talking about a situation where someone is not innocent until proven guilty; where reasonable doubt doesnt apply; and where identity politic and mob rule is the norm. Under these circumstances, you believe that the death penalty is just?

Also, who would enforce this law? The government? And you dont believe that the next administration wont use this law to sterilize people who dont have the ''right'' political opinions? If so, you do not know the left.

There is also the question of natural rights. A person has the right to procreate. A person has the right to his physical integrity. If we are going to throw these rights out the window, we might as well start having slaves again, murder people we dont like, steal what we want, rape for procreation. Because, morality would become a subjective thing that we would apply only when it is convenient. 

And I'll end with this. If our goal is to have a free society and we, for some reason, had to be selective and pick the right people to occupy this society, then it would make much more sense to execute the people who are pro-sterilization then to sterilize the idiots. Because, the idiots do not infringe on other people's natural rights, therefore, the resulting society would be more free.

[ShieldWife]

Eugenics doesn't have to involve the use of force. People with high IQ's deciding to have large families is a kind of eugenics. Along the same lines, people with genetic defects or low IQ's choosing not to have children is eugenics too. Positive and negative eugenics respectively. In fact, you could pay people to have children or not to and this would be an entirely voluntary form of eugenics. We could also make a taking birth control a mandatory requirement of receiving welfare benefits, which is completely reasonable as you should not be having children if you require the fruits of other people's labor to survive.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 11/5/2017 at 8:48 AM, GatoVillano said:

If you look at FBI statistics, over 64% of rape accusations are false. Women are not even required to provide evidence in court to have a man thrown in jail. We are talking about a situation where someone is not innocent until proven guilty; where reasonable doubt doesnt apply; and where identity politic and mob rule is the norm. Under these circumstances, you believe that the death penalty is just?

Just when proven to be true. I agree the courts have become too unreliable and therefore it'd be way too easy to execute/condemn/etc. the wrong person, therefore I can only argue in the abstract that if X is proven to be truly evil in action that X should be killed. However it is way to easy to frame X for something X didn't do and the courts are too lazy or apathetic to care, therefore I'm tempted to argue for the abolition of the current court system in favor of a new one. How that new one would shape, I don't know. I think the main problem is the culture since I figure once the culture is fixed the courts will be too. However the courts affect the culture and it might be easier to sack bad judges and bad cops and replace them with good judges and cops than to try to fix the culture first.

Quote

Also, who would enforce this law? The government? And you dont believe that the next administration wont use this law to sterilize people who dont have the ''right'' political opinions? If so, you do not know the left.

I already brought up this point.

Quote

There is also the question of natural rights. A person has the right to procreate. A person has the right to his physical integrity. If we are going to throw these rights out the window, we might as well start having slaves again, murder people we dont like, steal what we want, rape for procreation. Because, morality would become a subjective thing that we would apply only when it is convenient. 

Morality is objective by definition. The hard part is determining what is moral. I have only my whims to go by as I haven't read UPB in depth to be convinced of its arguments and the Church generally defers to "because God said so" with those who don't I haven't had the time to research their arguments. 

As to what's immoral I can easily argue, what's moral is what's difficult. I think we know instinctively what's fair and moral since we all have our own orientations, however I can't answer beyond  a certain point why X is moral/immoral to someone without a moral orientation of some kind or another. Perhaps I am simply too ignorant on the subject; perhaps there are no answers and it truly is a matter of faith. 

I don't believe in "rights" since the word has become synonymous with entitlement. I believe in the NAP and UPB to the best I understand them. Bad people violate the NAP when they become bad parents, therefore there is a preventative course that could be taken (prevent them from having kids) but the problem practically is that it'd be impossible to legitimately enforce (except under the best case scenario) and morally it condemns the child for the parents' actions rather then let them make their own choices.

Screwing isn't a right. If I want to screw, I have to convince a woman to have sex with me. 

Quote

And I'll end with this. If our goal is to have a free society and we, for some reason, had to be selective and pick the right people to occupy this society, then it would make much more sense to execute the people who are pro-sterilization then to sterilize the idiots. Because, the idiots do not infringe on other people's natural rights, therefore, the resulting society would be more free.

Idiots infringe on other people when they are given any kind of political power and are much more likely to abuse their children and cause trouble. I can fully understand the argument for all kinds of biblical punishments against the stupid, the problem however is always "who determines who is stupid" and morally "by condemning the stupid in advance we rob them of the free will to act and suffer the consequences". See Venezuela or Detroit for more on that. Unfortunately with the State and with the banishment/murder of the smart/good, they've condemned themselves. Unlike the Orient or Eastern Europe where consequences are more equitable (I think anyway. Perhaps they're severely imbalanced as well but differently). 

Don't speed read my arguments. You clearly misunderstood me since we share most of the same conclusions though through different roads. 

I hate stupid people but I also hate evil smart people. I am not so arrogant as to suggest anyone has the power to effectively differentiate the good from the bad and impartially pass judgments on them based on my ethical or aesthetic whims; I understand this is the foundation for all kinds of tyranny and would result in a whole lot of problems. Therefore my personal moral solution is to let bad people suffer for their badness on their own while protecting and informing the good/neutrals as nature has a way of sorting things out which seems fair though harsh. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Wanted to make sure I didn't speed read myself.

[GatoVillano]

On 06/11/2017 at 4:32 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Just when proven to be true. I agree the courts have become too unreliable and therefore it'd be way too easy to execute/condemn/etc. the wrong person, therefore I can only argue in the abstract that if X is proven to be truly evil in action that X should be killed. However it is way to easy to frame X for something X didn't do and the courts are too lazy or apathetic to care, therefore I'm tempted to argue for the abolition of the current court system in favor of a new one. How that new one would shape, I don't know. I think the main problem is the culture since I figure once the culture is fixed the courts will be too. However the courts affect the culture and it might be easier to sack bad judges and bad cops and replace them with good judges and cops than to try to fix the culture first.

I already brought up this point.

Morality is objective by definition. The hard part is determining what is moral. I have only my whims to go by as I haven't read UPB in depth to be convinced of its arguments and the Church generally defers to "because God said so" with those who don't I haven't had the time to research their arguments. 

As to what's immoral I can easily argue, what's moral is what's difficult. I think we know instinctively what's fair and moral since we all have our own orientations, however I can't answer beyond  a certain point why X is moral/immoral to someone without a moral orientation of some kind or another. Perhaps I am simply too ignorant on the subject; perhaps there are no answers and it truly is a matter of faith. 

I don't believe in "rights" since the word has become synonymous with entitlement. I believe in the NAP and UPB to the best I understand them. Bad people violate the NAP when they become bad parents, therefore there is a preventative course that could be taken (prevent them from having kids) but the problem practically is that it'd be impossible to legitimately enforce (except under the best case scenario) and morally it condemns the child for the parents' actions rather then let them make their own choices.

Screwing isn't a right. If I want to screw, I have to convince a woman to have sex with me. 

Idiots infringe on other people when they are given any kind of political power and are much more likely to abuse their children and cause trouble. I can fully understand the argument for all kinds of biblical punishments against the stupid, the problem however is always "who determines who is stupid" and morally "by condemning the stupid in advance we rob them of the free will to act and suffer the consequences". See Venezuela or Detroit for more on that. Unfortunately with the State and with the banishment/murder of the smart/good, they've condemned themselves. Unlike the Orient or Eastern Europe where consequences are more equitable (I think anyway. Perhaps they're severely imbalanced as well but differently). 

Don't speed read my arguments. You clearly misunderstood me since we share most of the same conclusions though through different roads. 

I hate stupid people but I also hate evil smart people. I am not so arrogant as to suggest anyone has the power to effectively differentiate the good from the bad and impartially pass judgments on them based on my ethical or aesthetic whims; I understand this is the foundation for all kinds of tyranny and would result in a whole lot of problems. Therefore my personal moral solution is to let bad people suffer for their badness on their own while protecting and informing the good/neutrals as nature has a way of sorting things out which seems fair though harsh. 

Then your problem is with democracy and not the idiots. If the idiots wont have the power to redistribute the wealth through the power of the state, then they can enjoy an happy peaceful life, doing work that would seem easy for other, but brings gratification to them. I have met some of the mentally retarded who were working simple jobs like cleaning dishes. They took their work very seriously and found a lot of gratification doing it. I have no problem with these people having a good life. 

Also, the libertarian argument always start with the original state of humanity, the default in some way, which is the state of nature. What a human has in the state of nature are considered his natural rights. The none aggression principal dictate that you are not forced to help someone, but you are to leave him, at lease, in the state that he was when you found him. Which means that he is unarmed and with all of his physical integrity. In a state of nature, a person has the ability to procreate and has the ability to do so in a peaceful and consensual manner. Therefore, procreation is a natural right. Sterilizing someone, either for political reasons or economical reasons or any reason whatsoever, is to forcefully alter the physic of someone and take away his right to procreate. This is coercion. It goes against the non aggression principal. Therefore, anyone who advocates for this treatment cannot, by definition, call himself a libertarian. It violates all the libertarian principals, right up to the treatises of John Locke. 

Locke said that, in extreme circumstances, we could remove a person's natural right. But this is when that person will harm others. And this can never be taken lithely. 

In order for me to agree that someone should be put to death or sterilized for the crime of rape, there would need to be a fair trial, with a non bias court and that irrefutable evidences were presented in order for the accused to be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be guilty. And even then, I would prefer that the accused be locked up for life or received psychiatric help. Because, a lot of what is considered rape is left to interpretation. If you look at the rape laws these days, you need to ask for consent every 5 minutes during sex, or else, it is rape. We would have to castrate every men in the country.

[GatoVillano]

On 06/11/2017 at 2:04 PM, ShieldWife said:

Eugenics doesn't have to involve the use of force. People with high IQ's deciding to have large families is a kind of eugenics. Along the same lines, people with genetic defects or low IQ's choosing not to have children is eugenics too. Positive and negative eugenics respectively. In fact, you could pay people to have children or not to and this would be an entirely voluntary form of eugenics. We could also make a taking birth control a mandatory requirement of receiving welfare benefits, which is completely reasonable as you should not be having children if you require the fruits of other people's labor to survive.

Forcing someone to take a drug is violating the non aggression principal. By abolishing welfare, you are abolishing theft otherwise called the redistribution of wealth. This does not violate the non aggression principal. If someone decided to have 8 children without a steady income did not make wise life decision. I am not saying that we cannot help these people. What I am saying is that we need to help them in a voluntary manner.  But, not helping them is always a possibility. Because that doesnt violate the none aggression principal. You leave someone in the same state in which you found them. They are not more hungry or less hungry then when you came along. 

So, to summarize. It would be better to abolish welfare.

[GatoVillano]

On 20/10/2017 at 3:53 AM, Jsbrads said:

I don't think below 50 IQ can give consent to sex.

but I don't see a problem with lower intelligence people having children in general. In all likelihood their children will be fine and I'm also a big supporter of larger extended families living together. 

Libertarian values of our founding fathers were limited government. 

Well said =)

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

Then your problem is with democracy and not the idiots. If the idiots wont have the power to redistribute the wealth through the power of the state, then they can enjoy an happy peaceful life, doing work that would seem easy for other, but brings gratification to them. I have met some of the mentally retarded who were working simple jobs like cleaning dishes. They took their work very seriously and found a lot of gratification doing it. I have no problem with these people having a good life. 

Agreed. More or less. I don't want to absolve idiots the responsibility of being good and moral political actors, however. However no republicanism or no statism in general would make the potentiality for masses of stupid to cause political trouble nearly nonexistent. 

4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

Also, the libertarian argument always start with the original state of humanity, the default in some way, which is the state of nature. What a human has in the state of nature are considered his natural rights. The none aggression principal dictate that you are not forced to help someone, but you are to leave him, at lease, in the state that he was when you found him. Which means that he is unarmed and with all of his physical integrity. In a state of nature, a person has the ability to procreate and has the ability to do so in a peaceful and consensual manner. Therefore, procreation is a natural right. Sterilizing someone, either for political reasons or economical reasons or any reason whatsoever, is to forcefully alter the physic of someone and take away his right to procreate. This is coercion. It goes against the non aggression principal. Therefore, anyone who advocates for this treatment cannot, by definition, call himself a libertarian. It violates all the libertarian principals, right up to the treatises of John Locke. 

I don't even know what can be defined as a "state of nature". I'd argue we are always in a state of nature, because...well, people are people making choices based on what they know and what they're allowed by other people or the environment. 

I could argue it's "natural" to rape, pillage, steal, murder, and basically go full Genghis Khan. However I wouldn't call that moral, therefore I don't refer to nature as a moral measure. 

And also fundamentally I don't think we disagree if we can both agree with the premise that to screw it must be consensual for it to not be immoral. Although it could be immoral if it is cheating or rape of a minor, etc. etc... I'm going to keep it simple because it is easy to move the goal post with this one. 

4 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

Locke said that, in extreme circumstances, we could remove a person's natural right. But this is when that person will harm others. And this can never be taken lithely. 

In order for me to agree that someone should be put to death or sterilized for the crime of rape, there would need to be a fair trial, with a non bias court and that irrefutable evidences were presented in order for the accused to be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be guilty. And even then, I would prefer that the accused be locked up for life or received psychiatric help. Because, a lot of what is considered rape is left to interpretation. If you look at the rape laws these days, you need to ask for consent every 5 minutes during sex, or else, it is rape. We would have to castrate every men in the country.

Of course I think trails ought to be taken seriously and punishments considered carefully. If a guy isn't proven to be a rapist, then the punishment for rape should not be enforced. If he's only maybe a rapist, then time needs to be spent checking every possible angle until the prosecutor can be without a doubt sure the crime was committed. 

I am not speaking of any perverting of definitions but rather in ideal forms. Of course terms like rape can be perverted to mean all kinds of things, generally against men for some sexist reasons, however for the sake of argument I have, and am, considering the definition of rape to be out-and-out force with obvious declarations of no and struggles of resistance by the purported victim.

Of course it gets much tricker when intoxicants are involved, because if both parties were drunk then they could be argued to have "raped each other" since neither could consent, however would taht cancel each other out or would they both be punished? Obviously there's a lot to be talked about when formulating and executing laws.

However given a black-and-white proven scenario, I think execution is deserved for any violent crime that threatens the life of others' or as the punishment for repeated acts of terrorism or harassment (like stoning houses and death threats).

Of course, I can't say I have the final answers. 

[ShieldWife]

7 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

Forcing someone to take a drug is violating the non aggression principal. By abolishing welfare, you are abolishing theft otherwise called the redistribution of wealth. This does not violate the non aggression principal. If someone decided to have 8 children without a steady income did not make wise life decision. I am not saying that we cannot help these people. What I am saying is that we need to help them in a voluntary manner.  But, not helping them is always a possibility. Because that doesnt violate the none aggression principal. You leave someone in the same state in which you found them. They are not more hungry or less hungry then when you came along. 

So, to summarize. It would be better to abolish welfare.

It's not forcing anybody to use birth control to make it a requirement of welfare. Nobody has a right to welfare and so attaching conditions onto welfare payments does not violate the recipient. It still violates the tax payer, but not as much as allowing the adult on welfare to have children at somebody else's expense. It's one of the great mistakes of more doctrinaire livertarians to say that if we can't eliminate some aspect of government that it's better not even to try to reduce it.

Though it could be argued that having children when you cannot afford them is a violation of the NAP because either you are forcing children into a situation where they will suffer depravation or (more likely) they are forcing society to pay for those children. 

Society has a right to protect its productive members from parasitic parenting. If you want to eliminate all welfare, great, but as long as we have it we should try to minimize the harm it inflicts on society and our gene pool.

[Fashus Maximus]

On 10/17/2017 at 9:26 PM, GatoVillano said:

I have just watched the last video from the channel, american renaissance, and my jaw dropped when Jared talked about eugenic. He proposed that the government should be given the power to prevent undesirable members of society to procreate or to incentivize sterilization.  I cannot think of a more horrible coercive power then to decide who breeds and who doesnt. And to give this power to the government is insane. The next time the democrats would get elected, they might decide to sterilize all the republicans, people could get sterilized for not being in the right social class, not have the right beliefs or not the right color of skin. 

I would agree with your reasoning under normal circumstances. However, the democrats - and non-whites - have already waged gene war on right-wingers, but more importantly whites. People have been waking up to the genocide that is being done unto us by those filthy savages that roam our streets, and they have mostly used the government to do it.

You don't get to decide whether there will be war. You only get a vote, and so does your opponent. It only takes one side to want a war for there to be war. With that in mind, how can it be a violation of the NAP to pursue Jared Taylor's policy proposals in response to our genocide? Is it not virtuous to cleanse society from initiators of aggression?

On 10/17/2017 at 9:26 PM, GatoVillano said:

Now I realize that he doesnt believe in the libertarian principals of the funding fathers. He doesnt believe in basic freedoms, such as the freedom to procreate. He is clearly a statist and he advocates for changes done by force to obtain his white utopia.

The founding fathers were explicitly white nationalists and would be rolling in their graves if they knew what became of their country.

Government violence is already being used unto us to remove us from the gene pool, partly by reducing the freedom of whites to procreate. You can choose to let your people die gracefully if you wish, or defend yourself and your people by any means necessary, including but not limited to the use of government force. Jared Taylor and I know where we stand.

EDIT: here is a fantastic source regarding white genocide (aka the Kalergi Plan).

[ShieldWife]

Fashus Maximus makes a great point. There is already a de facto race war happening in Western nations. There are are already numerous policies which advantage some genes over others, in fact the policies favor non-whites over whites and R inclined genes over K inclined genes. We have been practicing large scale dysgenics for decades. Now that a handful of people are saying that there should be some genetic self defense for the K and white genes, many people who supposedly favor freedom will admonish someone like Jared Taylor for advocating eugenics while they have passively accepted dysgenic anti-white policies for years.

A libertarian attacking Jared Taylor for being a racist or totalitarian are like people who claim to be pacifists criticizing someone using violence in self defense while never saying a word about the attacker.

Though ultimately, any opposition to eugenics grounded in libertarianism or the NAP rings hollow to me. Good genes are the foundation upon which a great nation or civilization can be built. For decades we have been excavating out from beneath the palace which is Western civilization, all the while pretending that the solid genes that lay beneath the West is unnecessary to support the magnificent structure above. If the Western world's genetic foundation declines beyond a certain point, then there will be no capacity to have freedom, to have rights. There won't be enough people left who care about freedom.

[Jsbrads]

Eugenics never meant individuals self selecting.

Eugenics was always about others deciding, usually without sufficient info, who can have kids and who shouldn't. 

[Fashus Maximus]

7 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Eugenics never meant individuals self selecting.

Eugenics was always about others deciding, usually without sufficient info, who can have kids and who shouldn't. 

I think your statement would be more accurate in the context of K-selected peoples.

Certain societies tend to be rather rapy...

[GatoVillano]

On 10/11/2017 at 12:59 AM, ShieldWife said:

It's not forcing anybody to use birth control to make it a requirement of welfare. Nobody has a right to welfare and so attaching conditions onto welfare payments does not violate the recipient. It still violates the tax payer, but not as much as allowing the adult on welfare to have children at somebody else's expense. It's one of the great mistakes of more doctrinaire livertarians to say that if we can't eliminate some aspect of government that it's better not even to try to reduce it.

Though it could be argued that having children when you cannot afford them is a violation of the NAP because either you are forcing children into a situation where they will suffer depravation or (more likely) they are forcing society to pay for those children. 

Society has a right to protect its productive members from parasitic parenting. If you want to eliminate all welfare, great, but as long as we have it we should try to minimize the harm it inflicts on society and our gene pool.

It is a crime to steal from people and redistribute the wealth in the form of welfare. It is a sign that your democracy has gone wrong and that the poor (who are the majority) have voted themselves the acquisition of others through the coercive force of the state. And you are powerless to oppose this theft unless you want men dress in blue with guns to come to your house, kidnap you and put you in a cage.

Why is it that everytime a woman comes up with a solution it always involves the state forcing people to do things?

[RichardY]

@GatoVillano Like these guys?

[Fashus Maximus]

2 hours ago, GatoVillano said:

Why is it that everytime a woman comes up with a solution it always involves the state forcing people to do things?

Because the state is run by men, and women naturally defer to men as problem-solvers; god bless her for that, that's wife material right there.

Since private sector men have decided to sell their offspring down the drain and have allowed their kids to become cucky soy boys, they are biologically useless to women. The only other men to  turn to is the government. Hence, government solutions.

[meetjoeblack]

On 10/17/2017 at 8:26 PM, GatoVillano said:

I have just watched the last video from the channel, american renaissance, and my jaw dropped when Jared talked about eugenic. He proposed that the government should be given the power to prevent undesirable members of society to procreate or to incentivize sterilization.  I cannot think of a more horrible coercive power then to decide who breeds and who doesnt. And to give this power to the government is insane. The next time the democrats would get elected, they might decide to sterilize all the republicans, people could get sterilized for not being in the right social class, not have the right beliefs or not the right color of skin. 

I have always had respect for Jared Taylor until now. Now I realize that he doesnt believe in the libertarian principals of the funding fathers. He doesnt believe in basic freedoms, such as the freedom to procreate. He is clearly a statist and he advocates for changes done by force to obtain his white utopia. I'm sorry to see that he has lost his mind. 

A lot of people shouldn't be allowed to procreate but, I would never suggest state power having that sort of control. I believe this is what Stefan/FDR is fighting against particularly along with Alex Jones/Info Wars among others such as Roger Stone.

I am fascinated by the topic. I am trying for the life of me to figure out that path all the while exploring my consciousness and self-knowledge (i question if there is a difference).

The state has enough power as is with controlling the allocation of one's resources, extracting male resources, and handing it over to women in the name of alimony or child support in poor attempt to mitigate cratered SMV.

I find it interesting; the push from the left for open boarders and the right pushing for closed boarders; seeking to compartmentalize.

TS, I once took a course on ethics, eugenics, and technology. The topic of designer babies came up. It made for a fascinating subject. People express a variety of different opinions in debate, some arguments being pretty hollow at best, and others not so much. People get really heated.

[GatoVillano]

On 22/11/2017 at 5:41 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

Because the state is run by men, and women naturally defer to men as problem-solvers; god bless her for that, that's wife material right there.

Since private sector men have decided to sell their offspring down the drain and have allowed their kids to become cucky soy boys, they are biologically useless to women. The only other men to  turn to is the government. Hence, government solutions.

''the state is runned by men'' you start your argument from a fallacy. 60% of voters are women. Women live longer, they vote in their self interest and they have a lot of female groups that have strong ingroup preference that lobby for them. Why is it that every politician that gets elected need to remove rights from men and offer more rights to women? Why are men raped in divorce courts? Why is it that when a woman accuses a man is automatically guilty without due process? Why is it that men cant get child custody? Why do men pay in the system and that it women that benefits from this system? Why is it that men are sent to die in stupid wars while women stay home?

You know who holds the power when you know who cannot be criticized. And let me tell you, it aint men.

So rethink your comment and try not to start from an obvious fallacy. ty