What happened to Stefan Molyneux?

[Murray N Rothbard]

Nationalism? White supremacy? Trump?

Is it an act or is it genuine? Either way, it's shocking.

Not even going to link the videos.

[cajuncocoa]

Nationalism? White supremacy? Trump?

Is it an act or is it genuine? Either way, it's shocking.

Not even going to link the videos.
Are you just now noticing this?

[Krugminator2]

Kind of a weird thing to be shocked about with that screen name. This has been par for the course for the last 25 years for people making their living through libertarianism.

[willwash]

Is this because of the thing with Jared Taylor? Who cares?

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's been going in this direction ever since his cancer scare, or so I've noticed.

[FindLiberty]

says he seeks truth where ever that leads

maybe he is ahead of the mainstream version of truth...

Why not call into his show and just 'splain him?

[phill4paul]

Just finding his ni¢he market.

[TheTexan]

Nationalism? White supremacy? Trump?

Is it an act or is it genuine? Either way, it's shocking.

Not even going to link the videos.

Molyneux likes Trump? Huh. May have to start watching his show.

[silverhandorder]

Stefan Moleneux philosophy vs Stefan Moleneux in politics look very different.

He is a very conservative individual and is for law and order.

I think a lot of libertarians and anarchists couple of years back were shocked in horror when he gave an example how people would be controlled in anarchist society. They were saying his vision is worse than what we have now. I read through that and I personally liked his view.

What I am noticing there are a lot of naive people who think that they can have what they want without sacrifice. You want no police overreach? Then how are you going to provide the same level of security? Don't want security? Well there are a lot of people that do. How are you going to deal with them? Are you going to fight them? Is that worth it? People just do not take extra steps to go through all the consequences.

So an anarchist that is practical and is engaged in political action does not necessarily have to be liberal pussy. He may be a conservative down to earth guy. He may prefer police patrols in bad areas if asked about what needs to be done right this minute. He may prefer peaceful child rearing for the long term.

[Origanalist]

Stefan Moleneux philosophy vs Stefan Moleneux in politics look very different.

He is a very conservative individual and is for law and order.

I think a lot of libertarians and anarchists couple of years back were shocked in horror when he gave an example how people would be controlled in anarchist society. They were saying his vision is worse than what we have now. I read through that and I personally liked his view.

What I am noticing there are a lot of naive people who think that they can have what they want without sacrifice. You want no police overreach? Then how are you going to provide the same level of security? Don't want security? Well there are a lot of people that do. How are you going to deal with them? Are you going to fight them? Is that worth it? People just do not take extra steps to go through all the consequences.

So an anarchist that is practical and is engaged in political action does not necessarily have to be liberal pussy. He may be a conservative down to earth guy. He may prefer police patrols in bad areas if asked about what needs to be done right this minute. He may prefer peaceful child rearing for the long term.

You are not describing a anarchist, you seem to be confused or are having a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

[silverhandorder]

You are not describing a anarchist, you seem to be confused or are having a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

No I do not. Your vision for anarchy is naive.

[Origanalist]

No I do not. Your vision for anarchy is naive.

Well, your version does seem to be a bit more....complex, I'll grant you that.

[William Tell]

Nothing happened. He's still a dumbass.

[Anti-Neocon]

Nothing happened. He's still a dumbass.
Thank you, couldn't give any more rep though

[silverhandorder]

Nothing happened. He's still a dumbass.


Thank you, couldn't give any more rep though

The triggering.

[Jamesiv1]

he's going into a deep depression because of that weird mouth thing going on.

can't blame him.

[dannno]

It's hard to boil down 50+ hours worth of podcasts into a single post.. but..

Essentially his old view was that we had a lot of time and what we needed to focus on to have a more free society was peaceful parenting - parenting that focuses on shaping your children by providing reason, evidence and a sense of empathy in their decisions rather than molding them through violence.

But now with the immigrant crisis in Europe, and what is happening in the US with the free fall toward socialism he thinks we may end up losing the war if we don't step up.

You will want to watch some of his presentations on r vs. K mating strategies, this is really important in understanding the current societal family dynamic. But essentially Europeans had a largely K based mating strategy where there was a lot of investment into children, and cultures that come from closer to the equator tend to be predispositioned for r mating strategies which have far less investment in children. But r vs. K mating strategies can be inborn, they can also change due to environmental factors where they become programmed epigenenitcally, and it can also be influenced mentally through experiences and discussion with others. It's really a fascinating topic, I recommend you dig into some of his videos about it.

Welfare societies promote r mating strategies not only by providing 'infinite resources' (enough grass to survive), but also by creating single parent households. So we are already sliding down the slippery slope into an r dominated society, and now we have a government subsidized program called "immigration" that is bringing predominantly r cultures on a large scale.

His fear is that our country will be overwhelmed with socialist voters, brought in by the socialist system, and that the K mating strategy will continue a vast decline along with the last of our freedoms.

He isn't racist - he doesn't hate brown people - he just sees how the system is bringing down society with this multi-pronged attack and is trying to throw a wrench in it before we are too far gone.

He has guests on who discuss race and IQ, and claims that the data seems to point to different races (or whatever you want to call what most people refer to as races, or in some cases cultures) have different IQs. Is this racist? I don't think so, I don't think facts can be racist. But if these different groups have different IQs, and IQ is tied to income, then it would be reasonable to expect some groups to do better economically than others. However, the current leftist narrative, and what most blacks and latinos are told is that the reason why they are suffering economically is due to white racism. This turns whites into scapegoats, when in fact, asians and Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs and higher incomes. So if we can recognize this dynamic, these communities can begin to focus on what they can do to better themselves, because currently they believe that as long as whites are racist they will never be able to come up. They focus on wealth distribution because they believe they deserve it for the way white people are.

He believes we need to all recognize the values that bring people prosperity, liberty and stable societies. Throwing people of European descent under the bus does the opposite because it was Europeans who ended slavery around the globe and helped fight for the concepts of religious, economic and personal liberty that resulted in the prosperity we have seen in the last couple hundred years or so.

Did you know that Muslims had tens of millions of black slaves, who they castrated? Why is it that white people get all the flack for slavery when it was a worldwide phenomenon that white people went out and fought and died for to help end?

He has also done some pretty good videos on how things like western imperialism have been way overly demonized that are worth checking out.

He is still an anarchist, he is just using this nationalism thing as self defense against what he believes in an eminent attack.

[Anti-Neocon]

The triggering.
Yeah I am triggered by seeing a Trump supporter on Ron Paul Forums with a Snowden "Hero" avatar.

[undergroundrr]

If you've listened to his shows from the very beginning like I have, you've heard a certain kind of person frankly share his development (and sometimes deterioration) through dealing with a difficult upbringing, professional transitions, emergence into fatherhood, health adversity, etc.

He's a very interesting commentator and, just like anybody, an individual with his own affinities and proclivities. He mistakenly believes that his observations have universal applicability, even when his convictions and principles morph from one POV to another from year to year. As a result, he's never had ironclad credibility except among the most credulous. But alienated INTJ's like me can at least build a certain empathy for his concerns.

At the moment (as dannno notes), Stef is promoting what he has determined to be a desperately necessary pragmatic step to save the world. However, I think he's misreading himself. What we've been hearing is the diary of a guy with a simple and intense man-crush for the Orange One. No more, no less.

[William Tell]

The triggering.

I am sorry that I triggered you. It was not intentional. :(































































Get well soon.:)

[Lord Xar]

I dig his videos. Thumbs up to stephan.

[pcosmar]

I dig his videos. Thumbs up to stephan.

excuse me.
and though I seriously like a few things he says,, i disagree with even more.

[LibertyEagle]

I dig his videos. Thumbs up to stephan.

Yup, me too. His videos are well-sourced. But, some people get upset because they don't like the facts in his videos.

[Danke]

Yup, me too. His videos are well-sourced. But, some people get upset because they don't like the facts in his videos.

They are smarter than facts.

[oyarde]

Molyneux likes Trump? Huh. May have to start watching his show.

That guy does not even have an American name .

[oyarde]

It's hard to boil down 50+ hours worth of podcasts into a single post.. but..

Essentially his old view was that we had a lot of time and what we needed to focus on to have a more free society was peaceful parenting - parenting that focuses on shaping your children by providing reason, evidence and a sense of empathy in their decisions rather than molding them through violence.

But now with the immigrant crisis in Europe, and what is happening in the US with the free fall toward socialism he thinks we may end up losing the war if we don't step up.

You will want to watch some of his presentations on r vs. K mating strategies, this is really important in understanding the current societal family dynamic. But essentially Europeans had a largely K based mating strategy where there was a lot of investment into children, and cultures that come from closer to the equator tend to be predispositioned for r mating strategies which have far less investment in children. But r vs. K mating strategies can be inborn, they can also change due to environmental factors where they become programmed epigenenitcally, and it can also be influenced mentally through experiences and discussion with others. It's really a fascinating topic, I recommend you dig into some of his videos about it.

Welfare societies promote r mating strategies not only by providing 'infinite resources' (enough grass to survive), but also by creating single parent households. So we are already sliding down the slippery slope into an r dominated society, and now we have a government subsidized program called "immigration" that is bringing predominantly r cultures on a large scale.

His fear is that our country will be overwhelmed with socialist voters, brought in by the socialist system, and that the K mating strategy will continue a vast decline along with the last of our freedoms.

He isn't racist - he doesn't hate brown people - he just sees how the system is bringing down society with this multi-pronged attack and is trying to throw a wrench in it before we are too far gone.

He has guests on who discuss race and IQ, and claims that the data seems to point to different races (or whatever you want to call what most people refer to as races, or in some cases cultures) have different IQs. Is this racist? I don't think so, I don't think facts can be racist. But if these different groups have different IQs, and IQ is tied to income, then it would be reasonable to expect some groups to do better economically than others. However, the current leftist narrative, and what most blacks and latinos are told is that the reason why they are suffering economically is due to white racism. This turns whites into scapegoats, when in fact, asians and Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs and higher incomes. So if we can recognize this dynamic, these communities can begin to focus on what they can do to better themselves, because currently they believe that as long as whites are racist they will never be able to come up. They focus on wealth distribution because they believe they deserve it for the way white people are.

He believes we need to all recognize the values that bring people prosperity, liberty and stable societies. Throwing people of European descent under the bus does the opposite because it was Europeans who ended slavery around the globe and helped fight for the concepts of religious, economic and personal liberty that resulted in the prosperity we have seen in the last couple hundred years or so.

Did you know that Muslims had tens of millions of black slaves, who they castrated? Why is it that white people get all the flack for slavery when it was a worldwide phenomenon that white people went out and fought and died for to help end?

He has also done some pretty good videos on how things like western imperialism have been way overly demonized that are worth checking out.

He is still an anarchist, he is just using this nationalism thing as self defense against what he believes in an eminent attack.

The first war is already lost.

[Suzanimal]

That guy does not even have an American name .

I can't pronounce it. My son has to correct me. I've listened to a few of his videos in the past but not recently. They were alright but his voice gets on my nerves.

[FindLiberty]

That's not an argument.

lol

(moll-in-new)

[dannno]

I can't pronounce it. My son has to correct me. I've listened to a few of his videos in the past but not recently. They were alright but his voice gets on my nerves.

Molly-new

In the festival circuit some call him sass or sassafras.

[Jim Casey]

He's bucking the safe space trend. I approve. If this decision doesn't increase the size of his audience, it will at least bring some taboo discussion to the show. I doubt he would buck the trend very much though.

[GunnyFreedom]

I can't pronounce it. My son has to correct me. I've listened to a few of his videos in the past but not recently. They were alright but his voice gets on my nerves.

moe LEH knee-you

I find some of what he says interesting, but what I find annoying is how he likes to take a half hour to pass on ten minutes of data.

[GunnyFreedom]

That guy does not even have an American name .
Don't worry too much. He's TheTexan. He probably thinks "Tecumseh" and "Tippecanoe" are furrin too.

[AuH20]

Yup, me too. His videos are well-sourced. But, some people get upset because they don't like the facts in his videos.

The rootless cosmos don't like him for obvious reasons. I wouldn't have a problem with the cosmos if they weren't so gullible.

[RandallFan]

Id say its blowback to unbound migrant worship by the Libertarian beltway groups.

[idiom]

The guy whose utopian DRO's would pay rewards of $10k for reporting neighbours with unregistered firearms? Where every move of each person would be tracked for insurance purposes?

That freedom loving individual?

Some people would put up with any insults to their liberty as long as they get to call their taxes "voluntary user fees".

[erowe1]

When I saw one of Molyneaux's cronies earlier today post an interview he did with Diamond and Silk about Trump, I just had to laugh to myself.

[helmuth_hubener]

The guy whose utopian DRO's would pay rewards of $10k for reporting neighbours with unregistered firearms? Where every move of each person would be tracked for insurance purposes?

That freedom loving individual?

Some people would put up with any insults to their liberty as long as they get to call their taxes "voluntary user fees".

Well, wouldn't one have the choice of moving to a different community with different standards? Or subscribing to a different insurer with different standards?

Are you totally against all standards/rules/laws?

What liberties are most important to you, idiom? What does liberty look like to you?

[Danke]

The guy whose utopian DRO's would pay rewards of $10k for reporting neighbours with unregistered firearms? Where every move of each person would be tracked for insurance purposes?

That freedom loving individual?

Some people would put up with any insults to their liberty as long as they get to call their taxes "voluntary user fees".

What exactly are you saying? DRO?

[helmuth_hubener]

Dispute resolution organization

[Danke]

Dispute resolution organization

He supports registering firearms?

[helmuth_hubener]

He supports registering firearms?
Highly doubtful, but perhaps idiom thinks so and can explain.

[Occam's Banana]

You want no police overreach? Then how are you going to provide the same level of security?

Police do not provide security. They provide streams of revenue for the government and streams of warm bodies for the PIC.

Any "security" they provide from malum in se offenders is a purely incidental fig leaf for this ...

[silverhandorder]

Police do not provide security. They provide streams of revenue for the government and streams of warm bodies for the PIC.

Any "security" they provide from malum in se offenders is a purely incidental fig leaf for this ...
Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

[oyarde]

He supports registering firearms?

If so , that is even worse than I thought .

[Danke]

If so , that is even worse than I thought .

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I don't think he ever mentioned tomahawks.

[oyarde]

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I don't think he ever mentioned tomahawks.

True , I have nothing to worry about . The Govt White Eye will never get my arms , lol

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

Bullshit. 1) See earlier posts for why "police" aren't security. Even SCOTUS says they aren't there for your security. 2) Meaningful "security" doesn't have the legal right to initiate force, harass, intimidate, stalk, or the many other tactics cops use to oppress and profiteer off the masses.

[Origanalist]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

What the hell are you talking about? The police have never provided me with security.

[Danke]

What the hell are you talking about? The police have never provided me with security.

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

[heavenlyboy34]

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

lolz :D

[idiom]

You wouldn't register your firearms with the "State" that would be statist. You register them with a DRO which is just like a state but totally not a state, because its anti-statist. The DRO's would heavily fine anyone with unregistered firearms and reward people who report them. Because liberty.


Well, wouldn't one have the choice of moving to a different community with different standards? Or subscribing to a different insurer with different standards?

Maybe I should move to Somalia.DRO?



Are you totally against all standards/rules/laws?

What liberties are most important to you, idiom? What does liberty look like to you?

Stefan simply highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of much of modern an-cap thought. The DRO's he spends so much time on differ from the state in only two respects, he never imagines they might purchase land, and second, membership is always explicit, he never imagines a DRO might allow implicit membership.

Basically the claim is that staying in a country doesn't amount to consent and that one shouldn't have to leave. These are apparently the two great injustices in the world and the source of coercion in the state.

However as long as a DRO owns the land and makes you sign a contract upon entering, they have absolutely no restrictions on what they can do to a citizen. It is a world without rights or responsibilities. A world where the state has no restrictions on its activities.

This sort of anarcho-capitalism amounts to min-archism without the minimalism. It simply changes the authority of where the state gets its power and unchains its brutal monopoly on power.

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

No, the mailman does deliver mail. But the policeman does not deliver security. That is not his purpose.

(They are both tax parasites, however - and I have no doubt that most of both groups do indeed "vote for the government," if they vote at all.)


You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

I did not deny anything that is actually true. Police do not provide security. That is not what they are for, and that is not what they do (except incidentally). As far as actual breaches or infringements of property or security go (as distinct from malum prohibitum violations), they show up afterwards and write reports. If the situation warrants, maybe they'll give you a report number to use with an insurance claim - but that's about it.

They occasionally round up some malum in se offenders (and significantly, note that they do not do this with the purpose of making whole the victims, to whatever extent that is possible) - but despite this being much vaunted as their greatest justification, it actually constitutes only a tiny fraction of their operations and actions. It is really just the "fig leaf" to which I referred in my previous post.

In other words, as far as "security" is concerned, the police don't do anything that others (or those they might have hired for the purpose) could not have done for themselves* - if those others were permitted to do so by the very rules that police are employed by the state to enforce. It is the enforcement of those rules that is the purpose of the police, not anyone's "security" (unless it is the "security" of the rule makers ...).

* and far more often than not, the police do a good deal less than that, even


Police is security by another name.

No, it isn't. Police are priveleged enforcers of malum prohibitum edicts decreed by a third party (namely, the state) - most of which most people almost certainly would not agree to if they had any say in the matter.


A security firm is police by another name.

No, it isn't. A security firm is an unpriveleged provider of private property protection.

Unlike police, security guards do not have any authorities, priveleges or immunities that any other citizen does not have.

(Proper training at a private security firm stresses this fact strongly. I know, because I used to work for one, way back in the day.)


What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

What I said is true. Police do not exist to provide security. They do not exist to "serve and protect." Private security firms do.

That is why the distinction between "police" and "security guards" exists in the first place - they are different terms denoting very different things.


I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

Priveleged enforcers of unconsented-to malum prohibitum rules (i.e., police) will not exist in a genuinely free market.

By definition, the two are contradictory and entirely incompatible with one another.


I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

Indeed, I would. And whatever you might want to call them, the enforcers of such rules (rules decreed by property owners and agreed to by users of that property) would merely be unpriveleged employees of yet another private business concern, just like anyone else - and not at all like what are called "police" today.

[silverhandorder]

This is too complicated for simple me. I define police as a guy you pay to patrol and shoot bad guys if they come for you. What you think police is and what government/supreme court think police is, is not my problem.

If we are to follow my definition all I am saying is that in free society there will be guys who you will pay to shoot people coming for you or to man the gate. It would obviously get complicated fast if you have someone with a billion dollars hiring security.

Either way I promise to come back to this and TRY to understand what you guys are talking about. But as I said I think we are talking about different things. Hence why I gave my definition.

edit: Ok I read the response. I don't see where we disagree. Or more precise why you disagreed with me originally. Obviously we both do not view current status quo as just. You can call police private security employees of property owners. But know when I say police I mean that. If that breaks your brain I am sorry. I am willing to entertain an argument why I should stop calling police that.

edit2: Also I would argue even with current fucked up state that security is provided it still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the furguson effect. Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

[idiom]

Bear in mind anyone using American examples is strawmanning pretty fucking hard.

[Origanalist]

This is too complicated for simple me. I define police as a guy you pay to patrol and shoot bad guys if they come for you. What you think police is and what government/supreme court think police is, is not my problem.

If we are to follow my definition all I am saying is that in free society there will be guys who you will pay to shoot people coming for you or to man the gate. It would obviously get complicated fast if you have someone with a billion dollars hiring security.

Either way I promise to come back to this and TRY to understand what you guys are talking about. But as I said I think we are talking about different things. Hence why I gave my definition.

edit: Ok I read the response. I don't see where we disagree. Or more precise why you disagreed with me originally. Obviously we both do not view current status quo as just. You can call police private security employees of property owners. But know when I say police I mean that. If that breaks your brain I am sorry. I am willing to entertain an argument why I should stop calling police that.

edit2: Also I would argue even with current fucked up state that security is provided it still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the furguson effect. Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

You should have stopped at the first sentence. By the way, wtf happened to you? Did you get a head injury or something? I don't remember you being this ...er...obtuse.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bear in mind anyone using American examples is strawmanning pretty fucking hard.

RPFs is an Amero-centric forum, bto.

[heavenlyboy34]

Stefan simply highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of much of modern an-cap thought.

Stef doesn't represent much of modern anarchist thought beyond his own. Lots of ancaps disagree with him.

[Origanalist]

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

Thanks, I feel a lot better now. All warm and fuzzy like.

[Danke]

Thanks, I feel a lot better now. All warm and fuzzy like.

Don't worry, it is all under control. The NSA has your back, sleep well.

[helmuth_hubener]

Basically the claim is that staying in a country doesn't amount to consent and that one shouldn't have to leave. These are apparently the two great injustices in the world and the source of coercion in the state.

However as long as a DRO owns the land and makes you sign a contract upon entering, they have absolutely no restrictions on what they can do to a citizen. It is a world without rights or responsibilities. A world where the state has no restrictions on its activities.

Yes, yes, right-o. Well-expressed. You have explained your line of thinking on this before, though, repeatedly. You and I, we've been around here a long time, idiom! So I already understand all that. I understand your criticisms of other people's ideas of liberty. But what I am interested in is what your conception of liberty is.

[helmuth_hubener]

security still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the Ferguson effect? Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

It has more, nay all, to do with the temperament and culture of the people. The world really contains virtually no security nor safeguards against crime. Civilization is a wide-open candy store. Oh yes, we make token shows of defense against certain crimes, mostly against theft by putting locks on things. But how defended are any of us against murder? Murder is a much more serious crime. Your car may have a security system protecting it somewhat from theft. But what devices do you have on you as a murder-prevention? If someone were to come up behind your back and shoot you, what would happen? I'll tell you: you will die*. That's it! You had implemented no security measures against that possibility whatsoever.

So how come there's more theft than murder? Ponder that.

If even 5% of the population decided "forget the rules, all rules, I'm a gangsta and gangstas gonna spree" that would be the end of civilization. Nothing would be able to operate as it does today any longer.

So crime-ridden places, like Ferguson, it's a result of the temperament, upraising (lack thereof), genetics, and intelligence (lack thereof) of the people, and then temperamental network effects.

Events, such as a withdrawal of police, can activate a network effect and exacerbate the problem. If consequences for armed robbery suddenly plummet to negligible levels due to a decision to withdraw from the area and stop enforcing laws against armed robbery, then that behavior will increase in short order, due to the bad character of the people. In another location, however, the withdrawal of the police might actually have a salutary effect, due to the good character of the people. For in addition to increasing consequences for real crime -- that is, for enforcing real laws, which, we will all admit, police do do -- police also often have a symbiotic relationship with the criminal element, most especially due to the drug war. In this, their ubiquitous presence and enforcement actions actually perversely increase the dangerousness and criminality of a neighborhood.

Anyway, it's a complicated situation. There are instances where police departments have been on strike or otherwise indisposed, and when it's happened in places with somewhat better quality people the crime rate has not always gone up. Civilization's lack of crime is not, in the end, dependent upon enforcement of laws, whether by monopolists or market participants. It is a fragile thing entirely dependent upon the temperament of the people. The quality of the people. Which, allow me to ominously note: is plummeting.

* Assuming adequate caliber and organ-targeting.

[silverhandorder]

You should have stopped at the first sentence. By the way, wtf happened to you? Did you get a head injury or something? I don't remember you being this ...er...obtuse.

I got smarter that's what happened.

[heavenlyboy34]

I got smarter that's what happened.

Is that what the kids call that nowadays? LMFAO!!! :D

[r3volution 3.0]

Civilization's lack of crime is not, in the end, dependent upon enforcement of laws, whether by monopolists or market participants. It is a fragile thing entirely dependent upon the temperament of the people. The quality of the people. Which, allow me to ominously note: is plummeting.

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter.

http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990.jpg

2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Violence-Stylized-2.png

http://i.imgur.com/8DSQ9A8.png

[dannno]

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter.

2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime.


Really???? Are you actually trying to make those arguments or what is going on here? I hope not..

Instead of state power reducing crime, which is retarded (look at HH's last post), how about technology has created an environment where we have virtually unlimited resources (or, at least enough to feed and clothe and house 99.9% of the population).

So there is less need to commit crime - however - people have gotten "worse" in the sense that families are less stable, people are on all kinds of prescription meds and there is a lot of disfunction.

A major reason this has happened is because of the welfare state, if you actually listened to Stef you would understand better how the r vs. K mating strategy works and why welfare has caused so many problems.

One COULD argue that crime has gone down because of welfare, but if you look at places where people are predominantly on welfare and tried to make that argument you would look like a retard. So once again, you have to consider how much technology has increased our standard of living in the last 50-100 years and what if I told you that crime would have gone down even more and we would have a much more orderly, functional society if we were free and didn't have a welfare state because the standard of living would have increased even more, and you wouldn't have large swaths of the population stuck in a disfunctional environment?

[r3volution 3.0]

Really???? Are you actually trying to make those arguments or what is going on here? I hope not..

Yes, I am in fact making the arguments I'm making...


Instead of state power reducing crime, which is retarded (look at HH's last post), how about technology has created an environment where we have virtually unlimited resources (or, at least enough to feed and clothe and house 99.9% of the population).

Wealth is also a major factor, I agree.

It is, however, retarded to suggest that state power does not reduce crime.

Continual, pretty warfare is endemic in stateless or weak-state societies.

This ends only when the state becomes strong enough to suppress it.

...which is another way of saying that the war ends only when someone finally, definitively wins.


what if I told you that crime would have gone down even more and we would have a much more orderly, functional society if we were free and didn't have a welfare state because the standard of living would have increased even more, and you wouldn't have large swaths of the population stuck in a disfunctional environment?

I would agree.

[helmuth_hubener]

1. Crime rates are falling, which implies that either (a) the quality of the people hasn't been dropping, or (b) it doesn't matter. Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/homicides-1900-20062.jpg?w=430&h=340

Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal. Other than the people who are slaughtered or robbed by it. The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

You really should look into this Biohistory stuff, 3.0. You'd love it. Get the book. Plus study up on r vs. K strategies. Actually, first read Hoppe's Short History of Man. Totally pro-monarchy, and I know you're all about that. It'll prime your intellectual gears up for Biohistory.


2. Historically, crime rates have dropped as the state has become stronger, implying that state law enforcement significantly prevents crime. Point A to keep in mind when deftly but flippantly drawing these sweeping conclusions of yours: our "historically" is extremely limited and spotty. What was the crime rate in Rome 120 BC vs. 320 BC? Point B is new information you were not aware of: Willingness to accept large, powerful polities seems to increase as C increases. Naturally there would be a correlation, then, between large states and virtually everything good in civilization. But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

[Danke]

Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/homicides-1900-20062.jpg?w=430&h=340

Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal. Other than the people who are slaughtered or robbed by it. The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

You really should look into this Biohistory stuff, 3.0. You'd love it. Get the book. Plus study up on r vs. K strategies. Actually, first read Hoppe's Short History of Man. Totally pro-monarchy, and I know you're all about that. It'll prime your intellectual gears up for Biohistory.

Point A to keep in mind when deftly but flippantly drawing these sweeping conclusions of yours: our "historically" is extremely limited and spotty. What was the crime rate in Rome 120 BC vs. 320 BC? Point B is new information you were not aware of: Willingness to accept large, powerful polities seems to increase as C increases. Naturally there would be a correlation, then, between large states and virtually everything good in civilization. But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?

[r3volution 3.0]

Thank you for challenging me! Actually, just means that it's more complicated. The vigor, martiality, and aggressiveness of Western society has been falling for (a few) centuries. Its peak, at least in England, was probably around the 16th century, as evidenced by the extremely harsh punishments, extreme patriarchy, and all other factors going along with high-V (for Vigor). Murder and other violent crime is likely correlated with V, I would hypothesize. Testing would prove out whether I am right or not. If we're going to talk short-term, as in decades rather than millenia, which is likely all you're concerned about (few people are weird like me), then lemming cycles probably play a bigger role. This is the natural cycle between high V -- aggressiveness, expansionism, fighting spirit -- and high C -- diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success. Short-term murder rate variation fits the lemming cycle pretty nicely, take a look:

https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/homicides-1900-20062.jpg?w=430&h=340

What are the operational definitions of V and C?


Anyway, all this is violent crime. Non-violent crime is another story. Non-violent crime has been rising for the past century. Dishonesty has become epidemic. The multi-century trough of property crime (the peak of honesty) was likely around 1880 in America. Perhaps a little earlier in the North, a little later in the South. Look, everyone knows this. We used to be able to leave our doors unlocked. There used to be far less theft, vandalism, and other property crime. Statistics are spotty, but the trend has been so pronounced we don't even need them. It's been obvious to everyone who has lived long enough.

What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?


Crime is kind of a side-annoyance, anyway. Not really a huge deal.

I agree.


The huge deal is if civilization collapses. That kind of... can be bad. When that happens. Don't want that happening.

And it certainly won't be happening as a result of rising crime rates, especially as crime rates (violent, at least) are near historical lows.


But the civilization is caused by the high-C temperament. It is not somehow decreed into being by the state.

I suspect you're defining both C and civilization as "diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success."

In other words, you're making a stipulative definition, not explaining a causal relationship.

....but I'll await your operational definition of C and V (throw in r and k and other other like variable while you're at it).

[idiom]

people have gotten "worse" in the sense that families are less stable, people are on all kinds of prescription meds and there is a lot of disfunction.

People and society are just adapting to change. As individuals become more productive and self reliant the need for large extended families gets much smaller. Why build an inter-generational homestead when its more productive to move state every 3 months and rent?

The older conceptions work for farmers and serfs, but one must compete and be efficient now.

[heavenlyboy34]

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?
I'll make a reader's digest for ya if I have time. :) ~hugs~

[idiom]

Yes, yes, right-o. Well-expressed. You have explained your line of thinking on this before, though, repeatedly. You and I, we've been around here a long time, idiom! So I already understand all that. I understand your criticisms of other people's ideas of liberty. But what I am interested in is what your conception of liberty is.

Still working on that. I am still getting done being dissatisfied with various An-Cap thinkers. I am very much not satisfied with the NAP concepts as they tend towards protecting only specific classes of liberty, while not actually doing anything to restrict the growth of state-like entities.

I am currently revisiting Rand and various British thinkers before trying to work something up.

I do know that lightweight governments are historically plausible. I also know that most of the tangible infringements on my liberty currently come not from my government but from that of the United States.

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies, and aggression outside of direct hard property damage. It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

I do know that anything starts with "OMG I don't want to pay taxes! Its not fair! its a gun to my head" probably ends up replacing it with taxation that is just as unavoidable. Where you live is voluntary and paying taxation is voluntary. Denying those is denying reality. Philosophies founded in that won't get anywhere.

I also assume that freehold land ownership just means an indefinite lease. Even if your lease payments are zero unless you are running your own social system then it works out the same way.

[heavenlyboy34]

People and society are just adapting to change. As individuals become more productive and self reliant the need for large extended families gets much smaller. Why build an inter-generational homestead when its more productive to move state every 3 months and rent?

The older conceptions work for farmers and serfs, but one must compete and be efficient now.
Because it's some folks' subjective preference to have real property for any of a number of reasons-captial to borrow against, for example. You won't get that renting. Value is subjective and often not measured in dollar/currency prices or determined by market forces.

[idiom]

What did he just say? HB, dannno? Anyone?

He just called you a bunch of cucks. Basically.

[idiom]

Because it's some folks' subjective preference to have real property for any of a number of reasons-captial to borrow against, for example. You won't get that renting. Value is subjective and often not measured in dollar/currency prices or determined by market forces.

Market forces are determined by subjective valuations.

Home ownership has a lot of perks, but pretty much none of them are economic.

[heavenlyboy34]

Market forces are determined by subjective valuations.
Yup. Didn't say otherwise.


Home ownership has a lot of perks, but pretty much none of them are economic.

You don't think borrowing against the home is an economic perk? Or potentially gaining money (that is, increased borrowing power) during boom cycles? I guess we think of "economic benefits" differently. ~shrugs~

[r3volution 3.0]

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

All ethical systems necessarily begin with unproved assumptions: is-ought problem, you know.

So it can't be that you object to ethical assumptions as such, unless you're a nihilist.

It must be that you object to the specific assumptions underlying libertarianism.

Which assumptions, and why?


It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies

No libertarian AFAIK (including Rothbard) has ever actually denied the existence of natural monopolies.

Our position is that they're very rare, and in any event governmental interference to prevent them is not an improvement.


and aggression outside of direct hard property damage

Such as?


It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

Not sure what you mean...


As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

Again, not sure what you mean...

[helmuth_hubener]

What did he just say?

We're all doomed.

[helmuth_hubener]

What are the operational definitions of V and C? You didn't look them up? Where's your intellectual curiosity? Jim Penman, Biohistory.

Both C and V are sets of physiological attributes in humans (and other mammals) expressing and detectable in blood tests and hormone levels.

That's the "bio" part of "Biohistory".




What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising? As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.



I suspect you're defining both C and civilization as "diligence, non-confrontationality, innovation, economic success."

In other words, you're making a stipulative definition, not explaining a causal relationship. Do you really think so lowly of me? Come on.

What is the point you're trying to make here, anyway? You seem as though you're grasping for something to pounce on to contradict, but, like Danke, haven't been able to quite figure out what I'm on about. You just sense you want to disagree with it. Right?

Do you have any sincere interest in understanding my ideas on these matters?

[Occam's Banana]

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

In that case, your project is doomed before it even begins. Nihilism rejects all values as useless and/or meaningless (not just "hodgepodge" ones, or "western" ones, or "word of God" ones, or etc.). If you really intend to start from the position that there cannot be any useful and/or meaningful values (which would, of course, include any theory of liberty), then what's the point?

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and you actually intended to convey that you aim to start from a "blank page" without any preconceptions or apriorisms. If so, then this is also doomed to fail. Any entries you might write upon your (supposed) tabula rasa are going to have been filtered through your conscious and unconscious judgements about what is and isn't relevant to your purpose. (You have already explicitly announced your disdain for "hodgepodge" westernisms, for example - and your characterizations of Randian and Rothbardian precepts as being insufficiently "fluid" or "generous" are gravid with implied presuppositions.)

Theory always precedes analysis - and in the limit, axiomatic assumptions are as inescapable as they are unprovable.

[helmuth_hubener]

Still working on that. I am still getting done being dissatisfied with various An-Cap thinkers. I am very much not satisfied with the NAP concepts as they tend towards protecting only specific classes of liberty, while not actually doing anything to restrict the growth of state-like entities.

I am currently revisiting Rand and various British thinkers before trying to work something up.

I do know that lightweight governments are historically plausible. I also know that most of the tangible infringements on my liberty currently come not from my government but from that of the United States.

I do think a theory of liberty probably needs to be a lot more relativist and generous than the axioms of Rothbard and needs to be a bit more fluid than Rand allows for. It needs to start from a nihilist conception of the world instead of assuming a hodgepodge of western values as the word of God.

It should acknowledge economic realities like the existence of natural monopolies, and aggression outside of direct hard property damage. It probably also needs to be able to incorporate implicit trust and assumptions instead of presupposing contracts 20,000 pages long every time you want to go to the bathroom.

As a social theory it needs to figure out that Robinson Crusoe doesn't generate his own air supply (depending on how big his island is I guess).

I do know that anything starts with "OMG I don't want to pay taxes! Its not fair! its a gun to my head" probably ends up replacing it with taxation that is just as unavoidable. Where you live is voluntary and paying taxation is voluntary. Denying those is denying reality. Philosophies founded in that won't get anywhere.

I also assume that freehold land ownership just means an indefinite lease. Even if your lease payments are zero unless you are running your own social system then it works out the same way.
Awesome post, idiom! That is exactly what I was interested in. I can see where you're coming from. I'll have to think about what you've said. I don't have all the answers, that's for sure!

Is it Rand's non-fiction you're reviewing? If so, is that any good? I've read all her fiction books, I think, and very much liked them (except for the first depressing one set in Russia).

Awesome, awesome post.

[helmuth_hubener]

In that case, your project is doomed before it even begins. Nihilism rejects all values as useless and/or meaningless (not just "hodgepodge" ones, or "western" ones, or "word of God" ones, or etc.). If you really intend to start from the position that there cannot be any useful and/or meaningful values (which would, of course, include any theory of liberty), then what's the point?

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and you actually intended to convey that you aim to start from a "blank page" without any preconceptions or apriorisms. If so, then this is also doomed to fail. Any entries you might write upon your (supposed) tabula rasa are going to have been filtered through your conscious and unconscious judgements about what is and isn't relevant to your purpose. (You have already explicitly announced your disdain for "hodgepodge" westernisms, for example - and your characterizations of Randian and Rothbardian precepts as being insufficiently "fluid" or "generous" are gravid with implied presuppositions.)

Theory always precedes analysis - and in the limit, axiomatic assumptions are as inescapable as they are unprovable.

You make good points, Occam, but perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach, being fed up with the dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which he perceives a pure moralistic approach to have lead him. Utilitarian in the loose sense, as in practical. Workable. That's the impression I got anyway.

I do not share idiom's disillusion with anarcho-capitalism, but I can understand the frustration in seeing/realizing that free market replacements for the state would be able to do many of the same things the state can, if one really doesn't want anyone to be able to do these particular acts, no matter what.

[r3volution 3.0]

Both C and V are sets of physiological attributes in humans (and other mammals) expressing and detectable in blood tests and hormone levels.

There is data for historical V and C levels?

We know the average V and C levels among ancient Romans?

V and C levels can be detected in tissue samples from long dead bodies?

Or are historical V and C levels being inferred? If so, from what?


As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

So no data then...


What is the point you're trying to make here, anyway? You seem as though you're grasping for something to pounce on to contradict, but, like Danke, haven't been able to quite figure out what I'm on about. You just sense you want to disagree with it. Right?

I sense that it's bunkum.

[Occam's Banana]

You make good points, Occam, but perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach, being fed up with the dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which he perceives a pure moralistic approach to have lead him. Utilitarian in the loose sense, as in practical. Workable. That's the impression I got anyway.

I do not share idiom's disillusion with anarcho-capitalism, but I can understand the frustration in seeing/realizing that free market replacements for the state would be able to do many of the same things the state can, if one really doesn't want anyone to be able to do these particular acts, no matter what.

Any species of utilitarianism (whether "loose" or "tight," whatever that distinction is supposed to mean) will come laden with its own collection of the very kind of moralistic* assertions and assumptions that idiom is so fond of grousing about when it comes to Rothbard et alia (though it might not be as explicitly "obvious" about it).

Axiomatic presuppositions are inescapable for any ethical "ism" - and the fact that any such "ism" partakes of them cannot sensibly be held against it (as idiom is wont to do with respect to anarcho-capitalism).



* Utilitarianism is just as "moralistic" as any deontological ethics, as demonstrated by the fact that it is not sensible to offer a justification for the adoption of utilitarianism that is itself utilitarian and not "moralistic" (as this would result in an obvious circularity). Thus, utilitarianism is no less prone to the "dead ends, loop-de-loops, and contradictions to which [you suggest] he perceives a pure moralistic approach [has led] him."

[helmuth_hubener]

There is data for historical V and C levels?Yes. Like most all data, more as one approaches modernity, of course, but yes.


V and C levels can be detected in tissue samples from long dead bodies?That is a possibility, actually.



So no data then... I sense that it's bunkum Well, but we have your "sense", and that's better than data, right? You'd make a great historian (not!). Newsflash: all data is based on observation. You mayn't sensibly dismiss massive observational evidence and maintain any semblance of scientific integrity. Observation *is* data! Perhaps I should take all these overwhelmingly strong observations one-sidedly supporting one conclusion and collate them into a chart and then maybe you could comprehend them, yes? Especially if it had bright, primary colors.

[helmuth_hubener]

He just called you a bunch of cucks. Basically.

Umm, no.... don't know where that's coming from! :confused:

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. Like most all data, more as one approaches modernity, of course, but yes.

That is a possibility, actually.

I'm confused.

Is there historical data going back to the distant past or not?

According to the snippet on the author's website, he attempts to explain historical events as distant as the collapse of the Roman Empire.

....I'm wondering how he manages to do that if there's no data.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm confused.

Is there historical data going back to the distant past or not?

According to the snippet on the author's website, he attempts to explain historical events as distant as the collapse of the Roman Empire.

....I'm wondering how he manages to do that if there's no data.

There is data, lots of data. The alleged "no data" we were discussing referred to US property crime statistics. Don't play psychological games.

C and V are real, tangible, and biological. As I said, one might even be able to bring paleontology into it and find the markers in well-preserved ancient specimens (mummies?). This is interesting, cutting-edge research, and by far the most innovative thing going on in the field of history right now, as well as the one with the most important and far-reaching conclusions.

Bottom line: you are not qualified to have an opinion on any of this. You know nothing about it. You have not read any books about it. I am happy that you challenged me, but I have now answered all your questions and you are reduced to mere snarkiness. Sad. I hate to see you this way.

Pro tip: Just read the book. (One of the two. I'll link you to the short one.)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418o-Z8DnnL._SX355_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1443871303/)

[helmuth_hubener]

Any species of utilitarianism (whether "loose" or "tight," whatever that distinction is supposed to mean) Tight is a systematic system, a moral philosophy, an "ism" as you say. Loose would be just taking the attitude "Eh, whatever works." No system.

Of course, to anticipate you, I do realize that in a sense the lack of a system in itself is a system. "Yes, you do have a philosophy!" and good old Robert LeFevre put it.

[r3volution 3.0]

There is data, lots of data. The alleged "no data" we were discussing referred to US property crime statistics. Don't play psychological games.

I asked you if there were historical data for V and C levels for the distant past.

You didn't really answer the question.

....except to note that it may be possible (as in, hasn't actually been done?) to extract V and C levels from ancient tissue samples.


C and V are real, tangible, and biological.

Yes, I appreciate that. What I want to know is whether we actually know what V/C levels were in the past.


As I said, one might even be able to bring paleontology into it and find the markers in well-preserved ancient specimens (mummies?). This is interesting, cutting-edge research, and by far the most innovative thing going on in the field of history right now, as well as the one with the most important and far-reaching conclusions.

Might...

Again, that makes it sound like there isn't any historical V/C level data.


Bottom line: you are not qualified to have an opinion on any of this. You know nothing about it. You have not read any books about it. I am happy that you challenged me, but I have now answered all your questions and you are reduced to mere snarkiness. Sad. I hate to see you this way.

I'm qualified to point out that explaining historical events by V/C levels is problematic if you have no idea what historical V/C levels were.

...as is evidently the case.


Pro tip: Just read the book. (One of the two. I'll link you to the short one.)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418o-Z8DnnL._SX355_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1443871303/)

Before I spend money on the book (it's only available for purchase evidently..), I'd like to have some basic questions answered.

...like whether or not the data on which the argument rests actually exists.

[helmuth_hubener]

I asked you if there were historical data for V and C levels for the distant past. You didn't really answer the question. I did answer. The answer was yes, twice over.

Allow me to answer again: "Yes, Mr. 3point0, there is data for historical V and C levels."

I hope that clarifies.

But no, I rather think it will simply lead to some snarky response in which you demand more work from me, work which I know perfectly well you will respond to by inserting lines of snarkiness between my lines. To what end? To what end, Mr. 3.0? To what end.

You want to be convinced something you know nothing about is false? Guess what: you've already succeeded! You're there! Congratulations! No further work or typing is necessary on either of our parts. We both win. I win by saving my time to do something productive. You win by demonstrating me to be a buffoon and a nincompoop whose ideas are ridiculous bunkum, as one and all here can see very clearly you have done (no doubt).

For if you were sincerely interested in learning about this, you would have answered my question, in which I asked "Are you sincerely interested in learning about this?" and the answer would have been yes. Since rather than interest you express scorn and rather than learning and knowledge you seek debating combat, I yield the floor to your inexhaustible (and to me exhausting) negativity and vitriol.

[r3volution 3.0]

I did answer. The answer was yes, twice over.

Allow me to answer again: "Yes, Mr. 3point0, there is data for historical V and C levels."

I hope that clarifies.

Going back how far?

Is there data for the Romans, whose decline he evidently attempts to explain?

...questions I asked previously and you ignored.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Stefan has interesting takes on sometimes interesting subject. I wish there were a 100 channels examining subjects in a long format, but there aren't.

People get miffed at him because they are looking at him like he is trying to be a leader, in the normal sense. He's a dude with views and reasons why he thinks a certain way. I wouldn't follow him to hell, or jump in front of a bullet for him. It seems those that hate him, have the view that he thinks he's infallible, and those that watch him are lemmings.

Why some get so angry that others don't agree with them is beyond me.

So, at present he pretty well thinks "blacks" have an IQ disadvantage, as in more blacks tend to be lower IQ, as opposed to there are no genius black people which there are. This offends some, just the notion that race could be more than just a meaningless grouping. However, it's not "white supremacy" as his data he's working from also shows Asians and some Jewish sects have an IQ advantage over whites and do better all around even in this "white" society. If it's true, it's true. As of right now from the limited research I've done, it appears true.

So, if that's true, then blaming the ills of the black community on racism is horrible, as you'll never solve the problem as you'll always be flushing resources attacking the wrong source of the problem, and we'll continue to have all this discord in black communities blamed on Mr. Cracka.

So some will see his video and scream "RACIST" others will see an attempt to actually get to the core of a problem, and potentially solve it.

His like for Trump IMO, is more of a necessity than an actual "like". There is absolutely no alternative at all to Trump at present, Trump at least MIGHT result in a more conservative direction. Trump might examine issues honestly without the PC lens being applied at every turn. He MIGHT, Hillary won't, so, Trump, Trump, Trump.

[r3volution 3.0]

It seems those that hate him, have the view that he thinks he's infallible, and those that watch him are lemmings.

He does and they are, and this had nothing to do with his recent turn to the alt-right.

He's been this way from the beginning.


So, at present he pretty well thinks "blacks" have an IQ disadvantage, as in more blacks tend to be lower IQ, as opposed to there are no genius black people which there are. This offends some, just the notion that race could be more than just a meaningless grouping. However, it's not "white supremacy" as his data he's working from also shows Asians and some Jewish sects have an IQ advantage over whites and do better all around even in this "white" society. If it's true, it's true. As of right now from the limited research I've done, it appears true.

It's true, even the American Psychological Association acknowledges it.

The problem with the alt-right consists in the conclusions they draw from the fact of IQ differences between the races.


His like for Trump IMO, is more of a necessity than an actual "like". There is absolutely no alternative at all to Trump at present, Trump at least MIGHT result in a more conservative direction. Trump might examine issues honestly without the PC lens being applied at every turn. He MIGHT, Hillary won't, so, Trump, Trump, Trump.

He's for Trump because it's popular to be for Trump at the moment, and Stefan's primary goal has always been the promotion of Stefan.

[Occam's Banana]

Tight is a systematic system, a moral philosophy, an "ism" as you say. Loose would be just taking the attitude "Eh, whatever works." No system.

Of course, to anticipate you, I do realize that in a sense the lack of a system in itself is a system. "Yes, you do have a philosophy!" and good old Robert LeFevre put it.

Okay, I get what you're saying - but in that case, post #72 (to which I originally replied in #80) contradicts your suggestion in #82 that "perhaps idiom just meant he wants to take a more utilitarian approach [...]. Utilitarian in the loose sense." Working up an ethical system because of what you regard as objectionable in other such systems is not at all "in the loose sense" ...

[erowe1]

Going back how far?

Is there data for the Romans, whose decline he evidently attempts to explain?

...questions I asked previously and you ignored.


Judging from the reviews of his books on Amazon, he doesn't marshal much evidence.

[r3volution 3.0]

To revisit this:



What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

I found some data.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

From 1991 to 2010, the property crime rate fell ~43% (about the same as the violent crime rate).

[dannno]

He does and they are, and this had nothing to do with his recent turn to the alt-right.

He's been this way from the beginning.

That's not true, he always says he may be wrong about things, there could be evidence he isn't considering and that what he says is his point of view. He welcomes others on the show you want to have a debate and bring new evidence or thought to the table.




It's true, even the American Psychological Association acknowledges it.

The problem with the alt-right consists in the conclusions they draw from the fact of IQ differences between the races.

Right, the conclusion Stef draws was explained in the post you quoted - that telling black people the reason they might not do quite as well economically is not necessarily due to racism, but the falling apart of egalitarianism - further, Stef acknowledges that the falling apart of their culture and community has been because they were all pushed onto welfare and have been trapped in a cycle of single parent households caused by the welfare and divorce courts. So there are currently many more roadblocks that black people have to face than just the IQ issue, but if we had a free society then they would have more stable environments and do much, much better for themselves.




He's for Trump because it's popular to be for Trump at the moment, and Stefan's primary goal has always been the promotion of Stefan.

He likes Trump for how he has played the media into promoting himself for President by outwitting them and setting them up to promote him unknowingly, like what he does with CPUd. He likes how he messes with the dying MSM and their PC nonsense. He likes his strong border stance, he believes he has been a good entrepreneur and additionally he likes that Donald Trump is not a spanking parent and seems to have raised some well adjusted, bright children.

[r3volution 3.0]

Right, the conclusion Stef draws was explained in the post you quoted - that telling black people the reason they might not do quite as well economically is not necessarily due to racism, but the falling apart of egalitarianism - further, Stef acknowledges that the falling apart of their culture and community has been because they were all pushed onto welfare and have been trapped in a cycle of single parent households caused by the welfare and divorce courts. So there are currently many more roadblocks that black people have to face than just the IQ issue, but if we had a free society then they would have more stable environments and do much, much better for themselves.

...

He likes Trump for how he has played the media into promoting himself for President by outwitting them and setting them up to promote him unknowingly, like what he does with CPUd. He likes how he messes with the dying MSM and their PC nonsense. He likes his strong border stance, he believes he has been a good entrepreneur and additionally he likes that Donald Trump is not a spanking parent and seems to have raised some well adjusted, bright children.

The aforementioned "wrong conclusion" is to attempt to use state power to change the demographics of the country, as through immigration restrictions. Stef, though you say he doesn't make this mistake, and realizes that the free market would solves the problem, is enthusiastically promoting Trump...who has zero interest in the free market and is running primarily on a platform of restricting immigration.

[dannno]

The aforementioned "wrong conclusion" is to attempt to use state power to change the demographics of the country, as through immigration restrictions. Stef, though you say he doesn't make this mistake, and realizes that the free market would solves the problem, is enthusiastically promoting Trump...who has zero interest in the free market and is running primarily on a platform of restricting immigration.

Stef sees immigration as it is currently as a huge government program. He is still ok with immigration in a free society, but he sees that the left has designed the system to give out welfare as a bribe to vote for the left, and then bring in massive amounts of immigrants and bribe them with welfare to vote left.

So he still sees immigration restrictions as a use of force, but he sees immigration as a whole as an even bigger use of force against the native population. So he prefers immigration restrictions which require less force over open and subsidized immigration and a welfare society that grows the state even further.

[r3volution 3.0]

Stef sees immigration as it is currently as a huge government program. He is still ok with immigration in a free society, but he sees that the left has designed the system to give out welfare as a bribe to vote for the left, and then bring in massive amounts of immigrants and bribe them with welfare to vote left. So he still sees immigration restrictions as a use of force, but he sees immigration as a whole as an even bigger use of force against the native population. So he prefers immigration restrictions which require less force over open and subsidized immigration and a welfare society that grows the state even further.

Making immigrants ineligible for welfare would be better and political easier than denying them entry altogether. So why are self-ascribed libertarians focused on the latter? I say it's because they want immigration restrictions for non-libertarian reasons, nationalistic/xenophobic reasons; that they would want immigration restrictions even if there were no welfare at all. But they know that restricting immigration is contrary to libertarian principles, and don't want to explicitly reject libertarianism, so they cook up this spurious argument to give their proposals a veneer of libertarian respectability.

H.H. Hoppe is a clear case of this. In his writings on how an anarcho-capitalist society would/should look, he predicts/hopes that it will have a very traditional, rightist culture, in which proprietary communities would restrict immigration. It's not hard to understand, then, why he's always pumping out illogical but superficially plausible arguments for why state restrictions on immigration are compatible with libertarianism - he desperately wants them to be.

Just for purposes of illustration, another example of this "goal-oriented reasoning," shall we call it, would be Rothbard's attempt to prove that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent and thus justifiably banned in a free society. He was concerned with the economic implications of fractional reserve banking, but didn't want to acknowledge the possibility of a divergence between economics and libertarian ethics, so he attempted (very much in vain) to show that FRB is not compatible with libertarian ethics.

[helmuth_hubener]

I sense that it's bunkum.

By the way, I have unraveled your behavior, including your "sense" on this, so just to clear something up:

You sense that it's bunkum because you sense that it somehow lines up with Stephan Molyneux (the title character of this thread, after all) and that thus any sort of agreement with it would be supporting his agenda. And you also sense that it probably somehow has anti-immigration implications, because you're always on the alert for that.

Neither of these things you "sense," however, happen to be correct.

True that Mr. Molyneux had James Penman on his show for one episode, but to my knowledge he has never discussed the ideas of Biohistory since. Now before this past Saturday, when I listened to one episode, I had not had time to listen to Mr. Molyneux's show for several months, so some regular listener may correct me if I'm wrong. So while I am grateful to him for introducing me to these fascinating ideas, they do not seem to have held the same fascination to him, do not line up with his agenda, and do not feature on his program (in contrast to r vs. K reproductive theory, which does). Also there is no anti-immigration implication whatsoever. Biohistory has nothing to say about immigration being any kind of problem, much less implying that it needs to be controlled.

You express a seething hate for Stephan Molyneux, just as, actually, you express seething hate for most prominent libertarians (Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Justin Raimondo, Walter Block, etc., etc., etc.). Fine. You express a bitter, scowling hate for any position on immigration policy other than your own (totally unlimited, uncontrolled, mass peasant migration) and indeed this is the one and only policy issue you lately express any passion about or care about at all. Fine. But what this means is that your sense that you must not like Biohistory is a mis-sense. Biohistory has nothing to do with Molyneux nor with immigration limitation. So you don't have an obligation to hate it. What a relief! See, this is sometimes the risk you face when forming an opinion about a book based on your sense, despite not having read it and knowing nothing about it.

[r3volution 3.0]

@Helmuth

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, here's where we left off.



I did answer. The answer was yes, twice over.

Allow me to answer again: "Yes, Mr. 3point0, there is data for historical V and C levels."

I hope that clarifies.
Going back how far?

Is there data for the Romans, whose decline he evidently attempts to explain?

...questions I asked previously and you ignored.

And...




What data, if any, do you have to support your claim that property crime rates have been rising?As I mentioned, and as you also doubtless know if you are over the age of ten, adults universally express this observation that things used to be safer, that they used to have more trust, less crime, etc., that no one locked their front doors. It is a fact that cars did not generally used to be locked, and in fact going back one generation further could not be w/o customization because there were no locks installed by the manufacturers. In the absence of statistics, people's cumulative memory, observations, and life experiences are what we have to go by. I do not think these near-universal observations can be dismissed.

I found some data.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

From 1991 to 2010, the property crime rate fell ~43% (about the same as the violent crime rate).

I'll await your response.

[helmuth_hubener]

@Helmuth

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, here's where we left off. Substance? Substance? Substance of what issue? You are arguing that the book Biohistory is bunkum, despite not having read it and knowing nothing about it. OK. There is your issue. I have been... well, not exactly arguing that it isn't bunkum, rather just discussing and putting forth some of the ideas in it, as well as my own ideas.

Am I interested in having an argument with someone who forms opinions about book without having read them?

Answer: Guess.

Follow-up: Am I interested in having an argument with an anonymous internet personality who for the past year has chosen to be unrelentingly negative, scowling, sneering, and hateful? Who has shown interest in, or even respect for, anyone else's ideas precisely ZERO times during that year? You are like a dark cloud in every thread that you come into. Your negativity and vitriol is inexhaustible. It never stops. Do I want to have any sort of interaction with that?

Despite this, I will "address" your "substance" thus: that is nice that you were able to unearth American FBI statistics from 1991 to 2010. What a herculean task that must have been for you. However, that is not actually particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy. I think we were all aware that crime has been going down recently. Why is that? The spread of shall-issue concealed-carry laws and other pro-self-defense legislation, and also the increasing strength of self-defense culture, have both contributed to this. The fact that we have undergone a massive increase in the number of the criminals who are currently locked up in prison, and thus have been taken off the streets, also likely plays a very large role.

None of this is particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy to my claims, which were that looking at things multi-generationally, over the longer term, older people invariably observe that society was safer and more honest 50-75 years ago, and that even more-so the earlier, now passed-away, generations observed the same thing about America 100-125 years ago. This would be the interesting and relevant time frame to discuss, since it was, golly, the actual time frame I was discussing!

I find that there exists a good body of unimpeachable evidence that the character of the people in this nation has substantially changed over the past 150 years. It has changed in a manner and a direction that I call "deterioration" (Your Judgment May Vary).

[r3volution 3.0]

First, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Biohistory; how far back does the V/C level data go?


Despite this, I will "address" your "substance" thus: that is nice that you were able to unearth American FBI statistics from 1991 to 2010. What a herculean task that must have been for you. However, that is not actually particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy.

Interesting or not (it was you who raised the issue...), the data I cited directly contradict your claim that property crime has been on the rise.


None of this is particularly interesting, relevant, or noteworthy to my claims, which were that looking at things multi-generationally, over the longer term, older people invariably observe that society was safer and more honest 50-75 years ago, and that even more-so the earlier, now passed-away, generations observed the same thing about America 100-125 years ago. This would be the interesting and relevant time frame to discuss, since it was, golly, the actual time frame I was discussing!

http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/reaction/zrx_image9.png


I find that there exists a good body of unimpeachable evidence that the character of the people in this nation has substantially changed over the past 150 years. It has changed in a manner and a direction that I call "deterioration" (Your Judgment May Vary).

Which changes are you talking about?

[helmuth_hubener]

As I already said, 3-point-oh, I have no interest in debating with you. You win! (I win, too, because I don't have to have that pointless, negative experience.) Just call me a bunkum idiot and reiterate how many charts you have found to confirm your sense and call it a day, man! Victory!

[r3volution 3.0]

As I already said, 3-point-oh, I have no interest in debating with you. You win! (I win, too, because I don't have to have that pointless, negative experience.) Just call me a bunkum idiot and reiterate how many charts you have found to confirm your sense and call it a day, man! Victory!

Gee, I'm sorry, how boorish of me cite facts to support my position...

...And how dare I ask preposterous trick questions like "is there any data to support your thesis?"

[heavenlyboy34]

Gee, I'm sorry, how boorish of me cite facts to support my position...

...And how dare I ask preposterous trick questions like "is there any data to support your thesis?"

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ~Mark Twain ;)

[r3volution 3.0]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ~Mark Twain ;)

If you want to discount all crime statistics, fine, do that.

But then the conclusion must be that we have no idea whether crime rates are increasing or decreasing.

You can't use the absence of statistical evidence in support of Helmuth's position as evidence of it's truth.

[thoughtomator]

Molyneux is an extremely intelligent, well-informed and emotionally mature individual who thinks things though carefully.

It's a stark contrast to the grossly immature, poorly informed idiots who drove the liberty movement, and this board, into the ditch of extremely well-deserved irrelevance.

[Wilf]

Molyneux is an extremely intelligent, well-informed and emotionally mature individual who thinks things though carefully.

It's a stark contrast to the grossly immature, poorly informed idiots who drove the liberty movement, and this board, into the ditch of extremely well-deserved irrelevance.

True, he is intelligent. But is he honest?

[Jingles]

I love Stefan. I don't really see why anyone that is in our camp would disagree with the information he is presenting, but I may have an indication why... In 2012 he wasn't really super supportive of the Ron Paul campaign. I honestly forget why, but it was years ago. I remember being a little turned off as well, but the thing is in 2012 I did have a great Ron Paul bias (not that I still don't love and support the man). But it was more of the fact I tended to react almost like a liberal in a way that if I heard any type talk against the man I would kind of almost go crazy and go against whatever was said no matter what.

Even though I understand we are about the message and not the man... I think we do have a instinctive reaction to defend the man we think is right no matter what.

We get pissed off too when someone challenges us. It is just human nature. We are out there in the trenches making phone calls and such for the best candidate ever to run for president and someone says it doesn't matter!? Of course we are pissed... But was he right? In terms of political action, yes.

But I have been listening to Stefan a lot recently and I think he has a point. Not to put words in his mouth, but things currently seem to be much more about culture than logic. We can spout as much logic as we like, but if the culture isn't receptive to the logic. It doesn't matter. We don't live in a logical society in any sense currently.

I don't even know what point I'm getting at (drunk), but we aren't living in reality if we think we can completely persuade people with logic. People are too emotional. We are a rare breed. If we are going to be in politics we have to get down dirty in the trenches of emotional bullshit in order to reach people. It sucks. Its horrible, but it is what people react to.

Meh, everything is fucked.

EDIT: (Ah, hell... When did we start censoring cuss words here??)

[Murray N Rothbard]

Two vids of his recently..."In Trump We Trust" and "Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians" :confused:

He has been censoring commentary on the vids to avoid any criticism. But this one did somehow get through:


This interview is a powerful teachable moment with respect to human nature. We were fooled thinking that Molyneux was actually doing something different and special, but apparently that was only an accident of obscurity, because when given the chance at attention from mainstream figures, he turns into a facsimile of every other soulless mundane right-wing pundit out there.

[Danke]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsession

[misterx]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

[CCTelander]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?


You say that like it's a bad thing.

Libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, leads inexorably to anarchism/voluntarism. It literally can't lead anywhere else. Just because this is an uncomfortable reality for our minarchists brothers and sisters doesn't make it any less true.

[Murray N Rothbard]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

Because anarcho-capitalism is the heart and soul of Libertarianism. And Libertarianism without a robust rejection of statism is nothing more than another flavor of conservatism.

[misterx]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, leads inexorably to anarchism/voluntarism. It literally can't lead anywhere else. Just because this is an uncomfortable reality for our minarchists brothers and sisters doesn't make it any less true.

Sure, if you want to live in a fantasy world where everything is equal.

[anaconda]

he's going into a deep depression because of that weird mouth thing going on.

can't blame him.

What's the mouth thing?

[TheTexan]

Stefan has interesting takes on sometimes interesting subject. I wish there were a 100 channels examining subjects in a long format, but there aren't.

People get miffed at him because they are looking at him like he is trying to be a leader, in the normal sense. He's a dude with views and reasons why he thinks a certain way. I wouldn't follow him to hell, or jump in front of a bullet for him. It seems those that hate him, have the view that he thinks he's infallible, and those that watch him are lemmings.

Why some get so angry that others don't agree with them is beyond me.

So, at present he pretty well thinks "blacks" have an IQ disadvantage, as in more blacks tend to be lower IQ, as opposed to there are no genius black people which there are. This offends some, just the notion that race could be more than just a meaningless grouping. However, it's not "white supremacy" as his data he's working from also shows Asians and some Jewish sects have an IQ advantage over whites and do better all around even in this "white" society. If it's true, it's true. As of right now from the limited research I've done, it appears true.

So, if that's true, then blaming the ills of the black community on racism is horrible, as you'll never solve the problem as you'll always be flushing resources attacking the wrong source of the problem, and we'll continue to have all this discord in black communities blamed on Mr. Cracka.

So some will see his video and scream "RACIST" others will see an attempt to actually get to the core of a problem, and potentially solve it.

His like for Trump IMO, is more of a necessity than an actual "like". There is absolutely no alternative at all to Trump at present, Trump at least MIGHT result in a more conservative direction. Trump might examine issues honestly without the PC lens being applied at every turn. He MIGHT, Hillary won't, so, Trump, Trump, Trump.

They really good at basketball tho

[Murray N Rothbard]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

Libertarianism has always, fundamentally, been anarchist. Libertarianism is a rather new category of political thought, only around for 30-40 years or so.

[The Gold Standard]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

When you accept the NAP, the logical conclusion is anarchy. Most people that were introduced to the NAP in recent years have had time to think it all the way through by now, hence more anarchists.

[Superfluous Man]

He's an atheist. He has no moral foundation for his make believe dogmas.

[Superfluous Man]

A better question is, what happened to Libertarians? When did they all become anarchists?

For me, that came about by following Ron Paul's lead. My observation has been that the same is true for a lot of others too.