If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Tyler H

  • Content count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Tyler H last won the day on March 11

Tyler H had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

126 Awesome!

About Tyler H

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Philosophy of course!

Recent Profile Visitors

561 profile views
  1. Sure there is, remove its social support. Thank you for pointing that out, that last B should have been C. I've made the appropriate edit. But A is not an inanimate object, it is a person (or persons) we would treat as moral actor(s). And the use of A also effects more than just B and C which was why I included D-Z, the main reason for my objection. Using force in defense against A and B is completely justified. Involving D-Z if not absolutely necessary is of questionable ethics to say the least. Yes, I'm solely arguing against the morality of using the government to create an ethnostate. It's imposing your views through the force of the state rather than the power of your reason. It's the fundamental reason we oppose the state in the first place. And how does this not justify the welfare state to ensure the survival of genes that would otherwise perish in a free society? It invalidates your case against the state. You're falling into A's trap of getting B and C to endlessly attack each other while A profits from the conflict.
  2. They aren't, but if you are using a word that means something different to them than it does to you then you are going to have trouble effectively communicating the important information you want to get across. But we aren't going to die, no one is coming to kill us. That's the difference. We have the freedom to operate in society and pursue non-violent means to effect change. When people are coming to kill you, yes, your capacity for choice is drastically diminished. You never know who will turn you in. If you don't kill someone then it may be moments before they notify the authorities to come and kill you. This is truly a situation of imminent danger that justifies any means for self defense. I can't say that taxing you to breed in order to subsidize someone else to breed, although immoral, is on the same level as such an imminent threat to your life as genocide. But in this case A is not threatening B to hurt C. B is asking A to steal from C. A better analogy would be B pays A to steal from C-Z. C, in a claim of self defense, then asks A to steal from B and D-Z. I argue that B only has the right to defend against A and C, otherwise how is B any different than A and C? And how will anyone recognize the particular evil of the existence of A when C, who argues A should not be doing what it's doing, uses A itself?
  3. Yes. I push back on the terminology for two reasons: (1) I believe that people may dismiss the very important facts of what is happening if they perceive the language as hyperbolic, which they will likely do lacking the context we have here, and (2) outright slaughter of a race creates a situation of greater threat and diminished choice for the victim justifying an escalated level of self defense not granted by an atmosphere (purposeful or coincidental) of dysgenics. Just to be clear; who is A, who is B, and who is C?
  4. What I found is that it is derived from the Greek genos, meaning race, and cide which specifically refers to killing. Was there another step to the A threatens B to harm C argument?
  5. I'm not sure it would have. How much of Hitler's influence can be attributed to his rhetoric and how much can be attributed to the resonance he invoked in a nation that experienced similar childhood traumas? I think if Hitler was raised peacefully and lovingly he would have had very little effect on the German people. I think he was able to have the effect that he did because he gave the Germans a scapegoat they could sacrifice instead of justly targeting their rage at the real perpetrators, their parents.
  6. I don't remember the specifics, but Alice Miller's book For Your Own Good goes into detail regarding the abuse Hitler received as a child. The common practice for treating infants at the time was pretty medieval as well. I'll flip through it and see if I can't pull out some facts that point to this; unless you plan on reading it yourself, I would suggest you do so if interested it is quite a good book. I also want to add, in my complete amateur-know-nothing-opinion, that I think the pernicious effects mental and verbal abuse have on children is often overshadowed by the obvious and abhorrent effects of physical abuse, but can be in the long run far more deleterious to the psyche of the person. The emotional abuse is internalized to the point where the victim can, and most likely will, continue the abuse inflicted on them by their caregivers and act it out subconsciously to the detriment of themselves and people around them. So even if someone had a seemingly peaceful childhood they could have experienced trauma in infancy and early childhood that seriously impacts their adolescent and adult life. An issue made more challenging due to the lack of recognition from society because the scars are not as palpable.
  7. There is definitely some truth to this, however here is a counterpoint. If you know what you are doing is moral and noble, and yet the world is not and will also persecute you for your convictions, then I don't think being secretive is a confession of your own disbelief in the morality of your position. It shows that you believe that others believe that what you define as moral is the not. I don't think anyone is suggesting sympathy for the man. Perhaps for the child who once was, but not for the man. I think the point of the post was not to view him as some monstrous aberration of the human condition, but as a possible trait in human nature that watered with the right poison can rear its murderous face again. Vigilance over demonization. I would modify the last bit to say that it is not human nature but an effect of child abuse, as you mentioned. Sadly, I think there is quite a bit of time between now and when that fact is recognized by society.
  8. If B threatens or initiates physical force then I agree that C is well within his moral right to defend himself. I think in these scenarios it's important to be specific as possible though. If B threatens C over the phone then I don't think C can go over to B's house and use force against him (not that I'm saying that's relevant to any specific scenario we've addressed, but I wanted to stress the importance of choice and reasonable response in the realm of self defense). So yes, I agree with this statement contingent upon circumstances, i.e. imminent harm to B from C. I wouldn't consider it genocide because I don't see any purposeful and systematic murder being perpetrated in the States. Eugenics, or perhaps more accurately dysgenics, I think is manifested through democracy and the welfare state. Democracy advancing people who view violence as the solution to problems and hindering those who wish to deal peacefully, and welfare programs incentivizing the less productive to reproduce and creating the opposite incentive for the more productive. Both of these things fueling the other, choking out the nonviolent and productive. They are the catastrophic feedback loop they project outward through climate change. What is the evidence that leads you to believe a white genocide is occurring?
  9. I think that's true for many, but there are still people who disagree with the system of coercion and people who only have the propaganda who will see reason and change their minds with better knowledge (like us). Very few grow up against the system from the beginning. Those are the people I'm talking about. Although I do think you make a very good point about the unborn and the national debt. Im confused now though, are we talking about reducing government programs or implementing government programs to meet a desired end(ethnostate)?
  10. But this would not be the case in a free society by definition, right? A voluntary society can only come about after the balance has shifted to where most people want to be free. We mustn't conflate a voluntary society in the future with our current society. We recognize many things must change in order for a truly free society to materialize, that is the job set out for us. Are you talking about violent enforcement of contracts or violent content in contracts?Two people agreeing to a boxing match is one thing. Forcing a fickle contestant to compete is quite another. The reason I say contracts will not be enforced through violence is that violence is risky and expensive. It is far too costly to put security personnel in harms way to go get a debtor. Since a voluntary society will likely enforce(for lack of a better term) values through a system of ostracism, it will be far more economical to use that system to encourage compliance. You could also include in the contract access to financial accounts in the event of a breach. That way compensation to the aggrieved party is peacefully acquired. Companies with a business model of violent enforcement will not be able to remain competitive, even if they weren't rejected at the start by an ethical customer base. As far as people agreeing before hand that the enforcement of the contract be a violent imposition of the terms; I can't imagine why people would agree to a contract they could never get out of without the threat of bodily harm. This, I think, would be incredibly rare, and like I mentioned earlier I don't think the mainstream DROs will help the plaintiff party attain restitution. How would they not allow it? I argue they simply won't recognize the validity of that contract. This would make orchestrating such a contract tenuous at best since either party would be able to breach without repercussions. Ah brevity, thoust are an elusive mare. Well put dude.
  11. The amount of wealth produced in a voluntary society without the massive overhead of violent enforcement of arbitrary, capricious edicts would limit the need for someone to take this kind of terrible deal to almost zero. If they are at all capable of providing enough value to cover the expense of food and shelter then they are capable enough to provide those services without signing a lifelong contract. Also there's no violent enforcement of contracts so if they decide that being a slave sucks balls, perhaps literally, then they can renege on their agreement and take a hit to their free society/credit/contract/DRO score, which I imagine is shit anyways since they are in this position in the first place. Also, you could sign up with a DRO that says "we don't honor contracts of slavery or indentured servitude." Then those interested in that sort of business would have no recourse for restitution if their slaves took off and all the consequences of trying to enforce the contract themselves. Here's an article by Robert P. Murphy on the subject.
  12. Hi Amos, thanks for sharing. Reminds me a lot of my journey. I don't have much to add to what Spenc said, but I wanted to note my agreement, and I also wanted to express my admiration for the actions you've taken so far to create a better life for yourself and your future children. Bravo my friend!
  13. I thought of this picture I saw recently as I read this. Seems relevant. [coarse language] When dealing with statistics it's easy to forget that what they really are are the summation of individual decisions made by individual people for reasons that are not always easy to discern. Hitler could have never brought to bear the atrocities that took place without a mass of traumatized people either acting in concert or refraining from action altogether.
  14. I also wanted to add that I think genocide is not an accurate description, I would accept eugenics though. If you disagree I'll certainly hear the case. Although, after the earth killing asteroid documentary I watched the other night to scare me into wanting the government to steal more money, I'm not sure I need anything else to keep me up at night, lol.