The Alt-Right is what happens when Republicans behave like Democrats

You can’t defeat the Alt-Right without understanding why it came about.

When a Republican is wrong, it’s usually because he’s ignorant of some scientific or cultural concept. When a Democrat is wrong, it’s typically because he’s too elitist and dishonest to even CONSIDER an opposing point of view. Until the Alt-Right came along, Republicans tended to be humble, respectful, honorable people, whereas the Democrats would break every rule of decency, decorum, and principle just to suppress the other side and win.

The Alt-Right gained traction because a subset of Republicans were tired of watching their party behave respectfully and honorably, and then get treated like shit and lose over and over again. That’s why they call their fellow Republicans “cucks.” Mitt Romney’s loss was the final straw in this. They realized that in order to win any victories against the Democrats, they have to sink to their level. They have to be boisterous, aggressive, insulting, hypocritical, unprincipled and bigoted. Yes, that’s right: The Alt-Right is nothing more than a movement of Republicans who decided to deliberately start acting like Democrats. 

The sad thing is, it worked. It helped the progressives win countless victories for decades, and now that same approach is winning victories for the Alt-Right. Now that Republicans have had a taste of victory, they’re going to keep doing this until the Democrats are completely beaten into humble submission. The Alt-Right will only stop when the Democrats are willing to admit that they’ve been the worst kind of assholes for over a century. The U.S. government was founded with limited, enumerated powers for a reason- to avoid sadistic group warfare via politics. If the Democrats are finally willing to learn that lesson, the Republicans would be happy to return to that type of system. But until the Democrats DO learn that lesson, the Republicans are now going to use the power of government to wage total war on the Democrats’ voter base. It’s up to the Democrats now to learn their lesson and end this war, or continue suffering crippling defeats.

So Democrats, what’s it going to be? Are you going to keep behaving like dishonest, elitist, entitled little shits, thereby feeding the Alt-Right? OR are you going to learn a more mature approach to dealing with political disagreement and learn to compromise and show respect for other people, draining the Alt-Right of their power?


Hillary is Corrupt and Russia is a Distraction

Hillary is scarily corrupt, and the email leaks revealed that truth. She:
1. Used the DNC to rig the primary against Sanders.
2. Used her media allies to rig the Republican Primary IN FAVOR of Trump (thinking he couldn’t win the general).
3. Used her media allies to rig the election debates and get the questions in advance.
4. Deleted e-mails that were part of a criminal investigation against her.
5. Convinced the media to engage in mass hysteria about Russia, purely to distract from her own corruption and lies that were uncovered in those leaks.
If Hillary didn’t have so much corrupt control over the media, she would have been facing off against Rand Paul in the general election, and would have decisively lost. Instead, she stole the primary from him and handed it to Trump because she thought Trump would be an easier opponent.
Hillary engineered this entire election right down to the tiniest detail. She took away all of our better choices, and it all blew up in her face because she forgot about the electoral college. With that kind of control over the media, it would have been terrifying if she became president.
So if it was Russia who gave those e-mails to wikileaks, we should be giving Putin a fucking medal, not sanctions.

The Problem with Stefan Molyneux

Post 1

Stefan Molyneux’s central premise for some of his most abhorrent views is that the level of property rights in a society is determined by the IQ of its members, IQ is determined by genetics, and thus some races are genetically socialist.

This is wrong, not because I’m disputing his data, but because he’s got the causation backwards.

In reality, systems of property rights select for more intelligent people. Property rights evolve a population towards higher intelligence. Socialism works in the opposite direction. You can take a group from any culture or genetic line, put them into a libertarian minarchist system, and that group as a whole will become more successful. Their descendants will be more intelligent.

To illustrate this, all we have to do is look at how socialism and high intelligence come together in Academia. Or look at Chile or the UAE, both of which were dragged kicking and screaming into strong systems of property rights, and now are filled with successful, intelligent people.

This isn’t a difficult argument to understand. Yet, so many people assume the reverse causation because they’re looking to justify their own racist biases. If you so easily let yourself fall into that trap of collectivist thinking, you are not thinking of people as individuals, each with an individual right to liberty, and you are therefore NOT a libertarian.

Post 2

Here’s why I’m on the warpath against Stefan Molyneux:

He represents everything that is wrong with anarchocapitalism, acting as a sinister pied piper, who leads people away from libertarianism into alt-right nationalism. He is the leak between these two philosophies.
Anarchocapitalists believe that property rights are great, but no entity has a right to force anyone else into a system for the protection of those property rights. So if you can’t force people to abide by property rights, how can you create a population that respects property rights? You have to teach people. But when most people reject your philosophy, what do you do? Do you reevaluate your philosophy and try to understand WHY even the most die-hard libertarians most often reject anarchocapitalism? NO, that would require too much honesty and self-reflection. Instead, you blame their stupidity for their failure to “get it.” Stroking your own ego, you think to yourself, “If only people were smarter. Then we’d have an anarchocapitalist society.”
And that right there is the pathway to eugenics, where you try to filter out or eliminate the “stupid people” in the hopes that it will make people think more like you. If you’re like Molyneux or Trump, you start looking for factors that correlate with IQ (here, we’re just going to ignore the fact that IQ is a shitty measure of true intelligence). Causation doesn’t matter. Only correlation matters. You start racially profiling. It doesn’t matter how many innocent people are harmed, because at least the society, on average, is being made smarter. So as we weed out the inferior groups of people, we’re making our society more anarchocapitalist, right?
NO. You’re engaging in fascist genocide. You’ve followed in Hitler’s intellectual footsteps.
So how can we be libertarians without being led down this dark path towards genocidal fascism? We apply just a little bit of force way back at the beginning of this diatribe, compelling people to obey the laws necessary to enforce property rights. We don’t need to engage in social engineering or genocide when we admit to ourselves that there will always be people who disagree, no matter how intelligent they are, and this necessitates and justifies the use of force in defending property rights. Even then, we operate this enforcement on a legally-bound, individual basis, rather than engaging in any sort of profiling.
Minarchism is the only functional form of libertarianism. Anarchocapitalism, like anarchocommunism, is a gateway to all kinds of atrocities against liberty and humanity. And Stefan Molyneux is the gatekeeper.

The Philosophical Origin of Liberty

The principle of human equality, the idea that all humans are equal in their individual rights to exert their will, provides the foundation for property rights. The concept of equal human rights came about during the Enlightenment Era when people realized that kings were not inherently superior to their peasants. Before that, kings decided all the rules of ownership and conduct. But when you accept the principle of human equality, then anyone may exert their will, so long as they do not infringe on another’s right to do the same.

This is the principle that we call “Liberty.”

Ownership comes from the idea that your will has physical manifestations in the world. Your own body is one of those physical manifestations, so you own yourself. Furthermore, you own any other physical manifestation of your will, so long as your are not infringing on the same right of anyone else.

Hence, “Private Property Rights” are the practical manifestation of the principle of Liberty.

But ultimately, in order to secure that principle of human equality, which necessarily implies Liberty, those principles must be encoded in law. That law must be superior to the will of any human. Otherwise, any human can overturn that principle.

This concept has historically been called the “Rule of Law.”

The Rule of Law is necessary to secure Liberty, and implies a specific body of law with jurisdictional enforcement powers. Hence, a system of Liberty necessarily requires a government. Anarchy precludes the Rule of Law, because in anarchy, there are no rulers, not even by those who seek to enforce the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law alone is not sufficient to guarantee Liberty. The content of that body of laws matters, and must absolutely reflect the principles of human equal rights and Liberty, or tyranny will result.

So, beware of those who seek Anarchy, beware of those who pursue the Rule of Law without those laws being guided by the principles of Liberty, and beware of those who invoke equality while rejecting property rights. Each of these groups would destroy the protections that we seek from tyrannical leaders.

A New Concept: Philosophical Entropy

“Philosophical entropy” is the idea that the more ways there are for a person to be wrong, the more people will be wrong. When a multiple-choice question gets fewer right answers as more options are added, that’s one of the simplest forms of philosophical entropy. The existence of multiple differing political ideologies within a population is a more complicated example of philosophical entropy.

I call this concept “philosophical entropy” in quite the literal sense. Entropy is defined as the tendency for a system to occupy all accessible microstates, weighted by the difficulty of accessing each particular microstate. Physically, this means that any system comprised of particles that can each be in two possible microstates of equal energy will have half of its particles in one microstate and half in the other microstate.

If we borrow this concept from physics and apply it to philosophical epistemology, we can think of each belief system as a macroscopic statistical system. Each logical step or choice a person must make in order to construct that belief system is a microstate. Each logical step can either be right or wrong. Once a single incorrect logical step is made, the person’s entire belief system is built on faulty logic, and will be wrong unless they somehow correct that error through another counteracting error later. The more logical steps there are, the more chances a person has to end up wrong. In other words, while travelling down a pathway from axioms to ideological conclusions, the more different branches there are at which a person must choose a direction to travel, the more likely they will eventually choose a wrong path, and end up at the wrong ideological conclusions.

Thus, philosophical entropy suggests that if we assume that there is one right ideology, then the more wrong ideologies there are, the fewer people will be right. Ideological diversity is thus harmful to the ultimate goal of getting more people to be right, unless NOBODY has yet found the right answer.

The Effects of Increasing the Minimum Wage

Seattle increases its minimum wage to $15 in April, 2015.

Unemployment data for Portland and Los Angeles, for comparison.

After Rand Paul’s Exit, Who Should Win the Republican Primary?

I’m starting to think I might want Rubio to win the primary for several reasons:

1. It will convince some of the Cruzers to follow me to the Libertarian Party.

2. It will put to rest, once and for all, this mindless “anti-establishment,” populist demagoguery.

3. If by some chance he wins the general election, Rubio won’t start mass-deporting people.

Rubio is really the safest choice left in the Republican Primary. Sorry Cruzers, if you wanted Constitutional, limited government, you should have stood with Rand.

The conservative case for deregulating immigration:

If I want to host an immigrant on my own private property, why should the government get to decide whether I’m allowed to do that? Do I not own my own property, and have the right to decide who to have as a guest?

In a free country, you don’t have to ask the government’s permission to host a guest on your own private property.

Edit: Or maybe I should just vote for Rand Paul anyways, so I can be one of the few who didn’t let the end of a campaign stop him from voting for what’s right.