Tag Archive | debate

The Free Market is not Omnibenevolent

I know it’s considered heresy among libertarians and anarchists, but I feel it’s important to remind people that “The Free Market” isn’t always an acceptable answer. Says the anarcho-capitalist, right–what many would rightly call a “free market anarchist,” in fact, given  the history of the word “capitalism” and whether the market as advocated by anarcho-capitalists actually is “capitalism,” but it’s not important. I’ve written loads praising the free market, and now that we are seeing widespread cheering for the firing of white nationalists, I’m going to write something condemning the free market as the solution.

But let me explain, before you get all worked up and say that I’m abandoning the market now that it’s targeting Nazis, because, in fact, I’m not, and I’ve written this exact thing before targeting traditional values“” and other Nazi-style aphorisms. So, you see, rather than contradicting myself, I’m actually staying true to what I’ve said before, and am now applying the same logic and principles now that the shoe is on the other foot. In this article praising the virtues of personal relationships as the destroyers of bigotry (by all accounts, a positive thing), I said:

There are only three ways that liberty can work: homogeneity, diversity, and individualism.

I also said this on Facebook, drawing attention to the inherent absurdity of attempting to use homogeneity to achieve liberty–we would recognize this as a direct attack on paleo-libertarianism, a weird and twisted school of libertarian philosophy that, in essence, argues that liberty is only for white people:

Homogeneity is obviously broken as an idea–it’s simply impossible. There will always be differences between people, and those differences will always be highlighted. Hitler wanted to basically produce an all-white society, and what happened? The differences among white people were immediately targeted as points of divide: those with blond hair and blue eyes were considered superior to someone who had brown hair and brown eyes. By definition, a society can never be truly homogeneous. Even if Hitler had succeeded in eliminating everyone but white people with blond hair and blue eyes, the divisiveness wouldn’t have ended; instead, it would have become “tall people are superior to short people” or something else. I’d venture the statement that the more homogeneous a society is, the more petty are its points of division.

The idea that any group of people can be truly homogeneous is laughable. If that divisive mentality is there, then it is there regardless of the characteristics of the people in the group. With the divisive mentality in place, paleo-libertarians, the alt-right, and Neo-Nazis think that all non-white people are the problem. Let’s presume for a moment that they somehow manage to get rid of all the non-white, non-straight, non-cisgender people. Do they suddenly stop hating people? No. They merely redirect their hatred to some other minority. Redheads become the target of their hatred, or people who are under 5 feet, 6 inches tall, because the core of their hatred–that there are differences within their group that cannot be tolerated–remains. As long as that idea remains, they will identify any and every difference and pinpoint it as the problem, and will continue on until only one person remains standing and everyone else is dead.

The point I’ve been driving at since I began thinking and writing about this subject a month or so ago is that neither homogeneity nor heterogeneity can deliver on the free market promises of “ultimate equality,” despite its ups and downs. The market, as any market advocate will tell you, swings like a pendulum, and it isn’t always fair or just. It does, however, tend to come to a point of equilibrium, one that is based on the dominant positions and ideologies about what constitutes “justice” and “equality.” If a market comes to rest indefinitely* on inequality, then it is merely a reflection that the majority of people in that society do not value equality.

As written in Fight Club, “on a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero.”

Just as that is true, so is it true that “on a long enough timeline, the values embraced by a free market are reflective of the people who support that market.” This is why it’s so damning to see that so much child and sweatshop labor continues to go into much of the gimmicky, cheap bullshit bought by people at Wal-Mart; that these things have not vanished in the last few decades since we learned of the child and sweatshop labor is a tacit endorsement of child and sweatshop labor. We know that Indonesian children are making our Nikes. We just don’t care. We know that diamonds are steeped in blood. We just don’t care. We know that the cobalt that goes into our phone and laptop batteries, and soon into our Tesla electric cars, is stepped in blood and horrific child labor. We just don’t care.

With this enormous preamble out of the way, let me get to the point.

People are cheering the firing of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. I’m actually inclined to view this as a Pandora’s Box–one that we painstakingly managed to close in the 60s and 70s, and one that we should not, under any circumstances, open again. It was arduous, difficult, and unjust for black Americans, Asian Americans, women, homosexuals, transsexuals (ongoing), and all of these others to have to fight an uphill battle to take back their jobs, to not be fired for these things. Thirty years ago, we all (those of sound mind and reasonable ideas–I didn’t even exist then) condemned the idea of firing a man because he was a drag queen two Fridays out of the month, because he and his wife were swingers, because his wife was black, because he was living with his girlfriend and they weren’t married, or because he was gay. How far have we truly come, if we now revisit these ideas, but simply reverse the power structures so that, instead of the white supremacists firing the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual for being a transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual, the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual fires the white supremacist for being white supremacist?

I’d argue that we haven’t changed anything. We simply turned the table around.

It’s important to remember that swords like this cut both ways, which we should damned well know from the history of American injustices against black people, LGBT people, Hispanic people, women, Asians, and everyone else. We know how this shit feels when it’s done to us, and we know that it can be done to us. As it stands, “we” have the cultural power–there is no doubt of that. We are currently the ones holding the reins of power, freely able to bend society to our will in whatever ways we want, with very few exceptions. We will not always be the ones holding the power. Less than a century ago, we were not the ones holding the power.

It so perfectly mirrors the growth of the executive branch that it’s staggering. For years, Republicans gave their approval to the growth of the executive branch, apparently never considering the possibility that it could end up in the hands of someone they didn’t like. Then Democrats did the same. Now we have Trump in power, and people are like, “You know? Maybe we shouldn’t have created this power structure that is now ripe for abuse against us instead of in favor of whatever we happen to want at that particular moment.”

More bizarrely, we’ve already been through this. We’ve already been on the receiving end of discrimination, and it’s still the case that there are tons and tons of “non-protected groups” with whom we are allies to some extent, and who are free to be fired by their employees for upsetting someone’s personal moral sensibilities.

Drag queens aren’t protected.

Swingers aren’t protected.

Interracial couples aren’t protected.

Women who have had abortions aren’t protected.

Former partiers, musicians, rappers, and the like are not protected. In fact, we see this already with colleges and employers searching through people’s histories and firing them for getting a little too wild at a party 6 years before.

Polyamorous people aren’t protected.

In fact, if we look at things rationally and objectively, we’ll find that not a whole lot are protected from anti-discrimination laws. And while I don’t think we need anti-discrimination laws at all, and certainly not more of them, the overall sentiment appears to be that “It’s okay if we discriminate against them, because the law prevents them from doing the same to us,” and this simply isn’t true.

There is no protection for contractors, of course. You could wreck my entire life by finding out who my clients are and informing them that I’m transsexual. This was actually my biggest concern with forming the Libertarian Party in my county. Even if I was an employee, and not a contractor, there is still very little protection for transgender and transsexual people, legally or socially, and none at all in the state of Mississippi.

Do you think that the white supremacists and traditional valuists in positions of authority will not retaliate? Do you think that secret KKK member Bob Greenwich, head of the marketing department in some firm, won’t suddenly begin finding reasons to fire his black employees?

Unlike many people who seem to be talking these days, I reject both. I fully recognize the right of an employer to fire anyone that they want for any reason that they want. This does not mean, however, that having the right to do something makes it the right thing to do. I have the right to fire someone for being gay, for being a white supremacist, or for being lazy. But this doesn’t mean it’s right, just, or moral to fire someone for being gay, or for being a white supremacist. The only factors that should go into employment are the person’s capabilities to do that job. I said this exact thing two weeks ago when arguing against Trump’s proposed trans military ban, and people applauded. I say it now, and I’m called a Nazi sympathizer.

On July 27, I said this:

Banning trans people from a job is dumb.

As an employer, you shouldn’t be interested in what characteristics a person has; you should be interested in their ability and skills to do the job. If you hire them according to any other criteria, you won’t be hiring the best unless it’s by complete accident.

This applies to every job.

If you want the best military in the world, then you have to hire the people who are the best. If you hire the people who are second-best or third-best because they have whatever characteristics you prefer, then your military will be second-best, third-best, or worse.

People are looking at this thing all wrong. Perhaps, on average, the extra medical and psychological needs make trans people inferior to other potential employees. But then you have people like me, whose only “need” is to be left the hell alone by people with more free time than common sense. “Can this individual do the job? Is this individual the best person for the job?” The hardships and struggles of the collective are fictitious. We are dealing with individuals.

I don’t give a damn if I hire a guy who seduced his dog, if he’s the best damn tech in the area. The “best” are usually pretty quirky, to put it kindly.

No one disagreed. No one took issue with it. It was common sense, and I was obviously right. Earlier today, I said this:

People are cheering the firing of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. I’m actually inclined to view this as a Pandora’s Box–one that we painstakingly managed to close in the 60s and 70s, and one that we should not, under any circumstances, open again. It was arduous, difficult, and unjust for black Americans, Asian Americans, women, homosexuals, transsexuals (ongoing), and all of these others to have to fight an uphill battle to take back their jobs, to not be fired for these things. Thirty years ago, we all (those of sound mind and reasonable ideas–I didn’t even exist then) condemned the idea of firing a man because he was a drag queen two Fridays out of the month, because he and his wife were swingers, because his wife was black, because he was living with his girlfriend and they weren’t married, or because he was gay. How far have we truly come, if we now revisit these ideas, but simply reverse the power structures so that, instead of the white supremacists firing the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual for being a transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual, the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual fires the white supremacist for being white supremacist?

I’d argue that we haven’t changed anything. We simply turned the table around.

… which you’ll find written above. I do that often, where I write something in an article and preview it on Facebook. Anyway, I was immediately accused of being against freedom of association. That’s quite remarkable, considering that I have a long ass history of arguing in favor of freedom of association.

On an individual basis.

I wholly reject as immoral, reckless, stupid, and irresponsible the idea of disassociating from an entire group of people because of the actions of some, the words of some, ostensible similarities among its members, or whatever-fucking-else is proposed. If someone wants to fire the racist asshat Bob because he treats black customers like crap, I have absolutely no issue with that. But if someone wants to fire the racist asshat Bob because he’s a KKK member even though he’s never displayed any tendency for treating black customers differently, I have to take issue with that. Sure, they have the right to do it, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

And it’s really just a back-handed, passive aggressive forceful coercion, when it comes down to it, especially in these hypothetical numbers I gave above, where 99.99% discriminates against the 0.01%. As someone pointed out, “Then the 0.01% of people who are racists need to change their minds.” Yes, and that’s a moral hazard. “If the 0.01% don’t want to die, then they need to get on board with my ideas and stop disagreeing with me.” I’m not saying that it violates the NAP. Nor does it violate the NAP if 99.99% of people are cisgender and insist, “Then the 0.01% need to stop being transgender if they want to work.”

I’m kinda surprised that I’m saying this, but the NAP isn’t the ultimate standard on what is and isn’t moral. It’s only the standard of what must be tolerated and what must not be tolerated. It’s not a moral guide. It’s a minimal level of acceptable behavior guide. One’s morality is something for one to work out themselves, and I have many thoughts on morality–many of which would you would disagree with. I’m not saying that my moral proclamations that collectivist discrimination is morally wrong is objectively correct. I’m saying that it’s subjectively correct, and here I’ve outlined the subjective criteria for making that assertion.

It has also been stated that the 0.01% are more than welcome to form their own little society, despite that I’ve pointed out that, even in the United States, this would produce a society of only 30,000 people–nowhere near enough for a self-sufficient society in any modern terms. Besides which, the nature of leaving a society where food is bought from stores to form one where there are no stores from which to buy groceries, and where food would have to be raised and farmed, is effectively a death sentence without outside help–do we need to be reminded that the only reason the Puritan settlers survived the first winter in the New World was the benevolence of Native Americans? There’s a rather large gap there between “leaving society” and “growing one’s own food” that results in rather a lot of death.

Now I’ve got someone who says he’s closer to anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism suggesting market solutions, while I’m pointing out that a free market, in order to achieve liberty, requires either pure heterogeneity (practically impossible), pure homogeneity (theoretically impossible), or individualism. You know–the same thing I said a month ago, when another group–*cough* trans people *cough*–were being treated as a collective instead of as individuals with their own merits regardless of these characteristics and behaviors that had absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do a job and function within the confines of a free market.

And though I was right a month ago… Now, I’m wrong. In fact, one of the people who liked my status about this very subject when I wrote it about trans people in the military is not arguing with me, because I’ve had the audacity to say the same damned thing about individuals who, regardless of their ability to do the task they are required to do, are also white supremacists. And, in so doing, this person–who alleges to fall closer to AnComs than AnCaps–is suggesting market solutions.

I will be debating this person–presumably–on the 25th, where we will use Lincoln-Douglas format to discuss “The nature and scope of self-defense.” Honestly, I don’t think the debate is going to happen. I’ve not heard anything about it since I challenged and Matt accepted. This isn’t the way I do things, you know? I iron out the details beforehand, and I still don’t know the venue where we are having this debate. But, as soon as I have that info, I’ll share it.

I made that crappy thing. Someone is, again presumably, making a better one. Since they’re doing it for free out of kindness, I’m not badgering them about it, but it doesn’t seem to have been made, and that further makes me wonder whether this debate is actually going to happen.

* Markets never rest indefinitely, but that’s not the point.

More Subtle Sexism

Look, I’m not talking about how society is rigged against females or anything like that when I refer to sexism as being real. In fact, the only way in which I can verify that sexism is real is that women are repeatedly told that they are being emotional. Despite repeatedly putting forth factual and logical statements, I was just again told that I was being emotional–actually, I was told that I was on an “emotional rampage.” Wow, right? So what did I say that showcased this emotional rampage?

To start, I answered the question on Quora about whether America could ever become a direct democracy.

I answered:

It could, but there wouldn’t really be any benefit, while there would be terrific harm.

I’ve had a pain when breathing deeply for about two weeks. So what makes more sense?

A) For me to ask a doctor.

B) For me to establish a national poll providing a bunch of information, none of which is complete and all of which is complicated, and ask the entire nation to vote on what my treatment should be. Note that if they vote “Go see a doctor,” then they’re advocating representative democracy. No, I’m needing from them a diagnosis and treatment, and I’m going to do whatever they suggest.

It’s madness, isn’t it? Social matters aren’t simple ones. Most of these complex issues take years of study to understand. Democracy is turning the control of the ship over to the passengers, none of whom know anything about operating a ship and all of whom think “It’s just common sense” or that the gut feelings they have about this or that issue are enough to make an informed decision.

Economics is actually a pretty complex subject, but people tend to take their emotions and use those emotions to support their idea. Rather than learning about economics and how we might raise the standard of living, for example, masses of people who know nothing about economics instead vote to raise the minimum wage—a rash act based in economic ignorance that has severe consequences. It’s the Dunning-Kruger Effect Governmental System: people who know almost nothing about these complex, technical subjects instead think they know enough to dictate the course of the ship.

It’s certainly possible, and the Democrat Party seems to want it to happen (hence their party name), but it would be folly. The problems of democracy have been known and explored for thousands of years; there are very good reasons we’ve never tried it. Especially in the age of the Internet (if we could get a handle on our tech security), it wouldn’t even be that difficult from a logistic standpoint. But from a cultural and social one, it would (hopefully) be hard to sway people to give control of the ship to the passengers.

Replacing our government, whatever type it is, with one more suited to our liking is a right—the right of self-governance. If we decided we wanted a direct democracy, then by all rights our current government should step down. They wouldn’t, of course, and it would require revolution, and then the new government would be just as bad as the old one. Just different.

Every generation has the right to choose its own government. People who lived 200 years ago had no right to determine what type of government we must have, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. However, a republic government really is the best of a terrible situation. If we must have a state, a constitutional republic is the most pro-liberty and restrained.

So far, so good, right? Nothing emotional or irrational about that. Just a few facts and a few rational arguments. In came the comment:

Your answer relies upon a very narrow view of human nature and ignores extremely important principles of democracy. “Economics is a complex subject” is true and that is why there must be widespread and strongly independent news media along with journalists having investigative powers. In the US there used to be journalists who specialized in those issues and released their findings for all to consume. The “news” used to solve that problem for us but corporations have totally destroyed that part of America. [emphasis added]

Not overly polite, but okay. I decided to give Don Tracy the benefit of the doubt and replied:

I’ll be courteous and give you an opportunity to explain how my answer ignores fundamental aspects of democracy and is extremely narrow.

Obviously, I’m not too happy to be insulted–even if the insults are so dim and weak. Retaliation never gets us anywhere, though, and if Don was correct, I wanted to know it. Don replied:

You are narrow minded in forcing people into ignorant masses that can only think emotionally which is the whole premise of your answer. Without the metaphor of passengers passively going along for the ride what is your point? That is not democracy; it is not “mob rule” which immature philosophers of the ancient past claimed – they didn’t even know about the concept of a nation-state. Granted you say we have two thousand years of additional history but rather than claiming we haven’t learned in that time like you say the truth is exactly the opposite – mankind has learned a lot about government and politics over history. The “Democratic Party is folly” shows your biased agenda. Finally, you need to know that a republic is a type of democracy so your answer relies upon a weird personal definition of democracy that no one agrees with and is not accepted in general.

More viciousness. As it happens, I am correct, though, in my initial answer, so I defended my points:

See, and here I was being courtesy. *sigh*. That’s how it goes, though. Pro-democracy people really do love their insults.

You are exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I feel I should warn you. It is a statement of fact that areas of complexity and expertise are significantly misunderstood and woefully underestimated in their complexity by the masses. I’ll provide this so that you can read it over it: Dunning–Kruger effect – Wikipedia

Democracy most certainly is mob rule, and that you cite “immature philosophers” as saying this shows how wrapped in the Dunning-Kruger web you must be. Some of the greatest thinkers in human history—those “immature philosophers” you are referring to—rejected democracy on exactly the same grounds that I did. Here is further reading on the nature of democracy—two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner: Is democracy in reality just mob rule?

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule… is an excellent resource, as well. One of those “immature philosophers” you may be referring to happens to go by the name of Thomas Jefferson, and he wrote plenty about the failures and dangers of democracy. Here are those, as well: About this Collection – Thomas Jefferson Papers, 1606-1827

If you would suggest that you know better than these people who dedicated their lives to the study of governmental processes and society—those “immature philosophers” again—then you are, again, exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect in shocking ways.

The last part of your reply shows exactly why democracy cannot be allowed: you have confused the question’s discussion of “direct democracy” with universal suffrage—that is, the right of the people to vote. In a republic, the people vote for representatives who enact policy. In a democracy, the people vote directly on the policies. No one has stated that universal suffrage is bad. I said that democracy is bad; e.g., the people voting directly on matters of policy is bad, for reasons outlined above.

You seem to think that universal suffrage and democracy are the same thing. They aren’t. A Democracy is a type of government where the people vote directly on the issues via referendums. It is not the right of the people to vote; that right is called universal suffrage. What, exactly, the people are voting for is what differentiates a democracy from a republic. If they are voting on matters of policy directly, it is “a democracy.” if they are voting for representatives who then vote on matters of policy, it is a republic.

“Democracy” has been twisted by the layperson into meaning “universal suffrage.” I agree with you on that, just as “theory” has been twisted to mean “educated guess” to the layperson. Use the layperson’s definition of “democracy” and “theory” if you would like; I will not. The only thing that differentiates the democracy from the republic is what the votes are for, not the existence of suffrage.

Regardless, the question deals with direct democracy—i.e., the people voting directly on the issues rather than going through representatives. The question is specifically whether the U.S. can/should remove the representatives from the process, not whether we should or shouldn’t have universal suffrage.

You’ve called me narrow-minded, limited, and biased. I’ve been nothing but polite to you. Learn the difference between universal suffrage, a republic, and a democracy, accept the wisdom of the people who came before you instead of calling them immature, and stop assuming that you know everything while you reject what people who have studied the matters have to say.

A lengthy rebuttal substantiating everything that I said. Cool. And Don’s reply?

Well, there you go again. I must say with all kindness that your ideas definitely are limited and biased but absolutely not you personally. I’m afraid you are on an emotional rampage but please understand that I am not a debater, not a professor, and not a lawyer. I have no idea what a Dunning-Krueger thing is but since you do then you must be pretty smart. So for a smart person, I don’t understand how you can have such stupid ideas. I checked the web page for “Democracy is mob rule” and have warn you it is obviously biased with an agenda to promote – you should not used it. Please re-read my comments above and give them some honest thought and consideration. Good luck my friend.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Now I’m having an emotional reaction, because now I’m pissed off. To present a valid, reasonable argument with citations and evidence, only to be insulted by some ignorant, sexist pig who can’t face the reality that he has no fucking idea what he’s talking about… It’s infuriating.

So I deleted his comments, but they’ll stay here as a testament. This happens quite a lot, and it never happened until Aria existed. Anyone who can read my rebuttal and take away “emotional rampage” is an unequivocal moron. It’s ridiculous that he doesn’t know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is, since I gave him links to it. Rather than checking it out, he vomited out this spiel.

Look. If you reply to a girl who presents a rational argument with links and citations as she rebuts your insults and your unsubstantiated silliness with the accusation that she’s having an emotional rampage, then you’re a sexist piece of shit. Sorry, but you are. Because you know you wouldn’t say that to a guy.

Look deeper into what he said, too. “You must be pretty smart. So for a smart person, I don’t understand how you can have such stupid ideas.” I’ve talked about his before, this way that people tie their beliefs to their estimation of their own intelligence. It’s so… Dunning-Kruger-ish. “I’m right because I’m intelligent, so anyone who agrees with me must also be intelligent. If they are intelligent and don’t agree with me, then something is very, very wrong, because intelligent people agree with me! Maybe they aren’t intelligent after all.”

It’s so obviously circular.

The new deity with which they make their own ideas sacrosanct: intelligence.

It is such a dangerous thing, to tie “being right” with “believing what I believe” and with “being intelligent.”

Because no one thinks they’re wrong, and no one thinks they’re stupid.

Yet loads and loads of people are both wrong AND stupid. Yet no matter how wrong someone is, and no matter how stupid someone is, they will always–all caps, underline, bold–ALWAYS believe that they are both right and reasonably intelligent. You don’t see half the American population running around saying, “I’m wrong, but I believe it anyway!” and “I’m stupid! Hur hur hur!”

No. You see everyone saying that they’re right–self included–and everyone saying they’re intelligent–self-included. Why, it’s almost as though being right or wrong and being intelligent or stupid are completely and totally unrelated to a person’s ability to recognize whether they are right or wrong or intelligent or stupid!

If you gauge your intelligence by your own beliefs, such that people who agree with you are deemed “intelligent” while people who disagree with you are not, then you’re closing your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong about something. After all, “wrong = dumb” in that worldview, and we all value our egos too much to ever even allow the possibility that we might be stupid.

This is what I mean when I say that intelligence has become the new deity by which we make our beliefs sacrosanct. We all cradle our egos–right, wrong, intelligent, and stupid. So if you assess intelligence by whether or not people agree with you, you divide the world not into “people who think x” and “people who don’t think x,” but “smart people” and “dumb people.” This is an excuse to not listen to them–they become idiots, stupid–heathens, pagans, and apostates.

Being right or wrong have NOTHING to do with intelligence. They have to do with INFORMATION and a willingness–or unwillingness–to accept that information.

We’re All Dumber After the Debate Last Night

While watching the baboon and bimbo dance around the arena flinging feces at each other, several times throughout the performance I found myself thinking about that oft-quote line from the film Billy Madison, after a series of tasteful, intellegent-sounding montage clips.

To be honest, the entire debate wasn’t that bad, but most of it was. And, before I continue, I want to say–can we stop talking about who “won” the debate? These aren’t that kind of debate. I would love nothing more than for these to be that type of debate, but these aren’t debates in that sense. Hillary supporters will say that Hillary won, Trump supporters will say that Trump won, and independents will say that everyone, especially the American people, lost. No one won, though, because these kinds of debates don’t have winners. Neither candidate is trying to win a discussion, and no official judge is keeping tally of whose answer to a question stands strongest.

I suppose, technically speaking, we won’t know who won the debates until Election Day.

Anyway, I jotted down some notes while I watched Trump and Hillary do… whatever it is that last night’s televised performance can be called… and I’m going to clean them up a bit, expand them, and post them. There is a lot of ground to cover, so I’ll try to keep it short. If anything isn’t clear, feel free to comment or send me an email. If necessary, I’ll write a follow-up post about specific topics.

This is largely copied and pasted from a Word document.I type 110 WAM, so that’s not as big a deal as you might think.

Trump started out well, floundered a bit. It was actually genius how Trump began talking with such a somber, measured tone. It smacked of humility. Oh, no, don’t get me wrong; I sincerely doubt the released Grab ‘Em By the Pussy video humbled Trump, but he knew that he had to come out and pretend to be humbled. As a result, it took him a while to fall into stride. He pulled it off well until Hillary went into Attack Mode, which caused his Humble Appearance to conflict with his Typical Demeanor, and the result was that he floundered. As he pulled away more and more of the somber measurement, he started falling into the rhythm of things.

NBC was transparent as hell in their favoritism of Hillary. Hillary was allowed to go on past the two minutes without a warning until after she’d gone over by a bit, while they were always quick to cut off Trump. Additionally, at the very beginning, this scene happened:

Trump answered a question.

Hillary responded.

Moderator asked Hillary a question.

Hillary answered.

The moderator attempted to go straight onto the next question. Trump asked, “What, I don’t get to reply to her, but she can reply to me?” He’s not wrong, and the moderator had clearly skipped over him intentionally–even if it was a mistake. When she acquiesced that Trump could reply, she said, “But keep it brief, because we have to move on,” and then she interrupted Trump somewhere around 30 seconds later. It was blatant favoritism, and it was on a disgusting scale.

The crowd has cheered him twice and boo’d Hillary once, has otherwise been silent.

Hillary walked right into it and said, “Well, it’s a good thing you’re not in charge of the law in this country.”

Right on cue, Trump said, “Because you’d be in jail.”

Cheers and applause. Really sick burn. Jaw-dropping burn, in fact.

Great entertainment–really, it is, but it’s also nothing more than “Trump is the devil.” “Hillary is the devil.” They’re just going back and forth slinging shit at each other.

Trump straight up called Hillary the devil, too. “I’m stunned Sanders would then sign on with the devil…”

He’s grilling Hillary about deleting 30k emails and telling her she should be ashamed of herself. NBC is really bad about interrupting Trump and not Hillary, though. This debate is childish. It’s supremely childish. These people are trying to lead the country. And they are both being so childish it’s ridiculous. It’s disgusting, in fact. Goddamn.

Hillary just spouted 4 things that I know to be untrue. She’s talking about those of “us” with work-provided health insurance, and NONE of the shit she said applies there. She’s talking about employer-provided health insurance and saying things about independent insurance while claiming it’s about employer-provided. That may not make sense. It’s true, though. “Moving on from b, regarding a, x is true and z is true,” but x and y only apply to b anyway.

The debate is at least back on track, and is, temporarily, no longer childish. Interestingly, even Bill Clinton speaks out against the ACA.

“Medicare does a great job.” — Hillary Clinton, 10/9/2016


Why do people so consistently miss the insurance part of health insurance? This is going to get its own post, but the brief idea is this: Start using your auto insurance for every little thing related to your car. Use your auto insurance to fix a flat tire, have your oil changed, etc., and let me know how long it takes you to completely break the system. Now mix in the government making it illegal for auto insurance companies to raise your rates, even if you use it on frivolous things. Now allow the government to mandate conversations between the mechanics and the insurance companies, so they can work out how best to rip you off. Now let that play out for a few decades, with mechanics charging you for a bunch of shit you don’t need–because you have insurance, it doesn’t cost you anything–and let the costs be passed onto the people out there who don’t use insurance frivolously. Then let that play out for a few more decades. Let me know how utterly broken the system is.

Trump is arguing competition will fix the insurance rates issue, while the moderator Anderson Cooper insists a government mandate is necessary. Trump is right about this, but he’s not putting it well. Competition is what is needed, not a mandate. “When you get rid of state lines, you’ll have competition.” He spoke about how the current system gives companies monopolies in specific states, and he’s… right.

Anderson tried to interrupt Trump several times, saying, “BUT WILL YOU HAVE A MANDATE?!” This deserves its own article, because it’s such an interesting showcase of how fascism and interventionism have conquered the United States. It is absolutely unfathomable to Cooper that a government mandate isn’t necessary, and Cooper is incapable of imagining any other way that the problem could be solved. Through this discussion, you can see the smug Hillary smirking about how the stupid capitalist thinks competition will fix it and that we don’t need the government mandating everything. This is why Cooper attempted to interrupt Trump at least three times, and why Trump continued to insist–clumsily–that competition would fix it.

I would gladly sell my soul for an emergency meeting of the RNC, with Ron Paul stepping forward to say, “I’ll replace him.”

Ron Paul would have hit the questions about the mandate out of the park. That notion that we need the government to protect us from ourselves, Ron Paul has ripped to shreds in a number of debates, often getting roaring applause and agreeing laughter from the audience. Trump attempted to give a Ron Paul answer, but he wasn’t anywhere near thorough enough, and he’s no Ron Paul. Trump has a weird nationalist streak that just isn’t compatible with libertarianism–Trump brazenly speaks of protectionism and tariffs to protect American businesses, at the same time that he says competition will only benefit us. So, to Trump, competition will benefit us… until it doesn’t?

Trump may actually do coke. There’s no way he still has a cold.

“There’s been a lot of dark, divisive things said about Muslims,” Hillary said. Yeah, because Muslims have done a lot of dark, divisive things.

Hillary and Trump gave the same goddamned answer about immigration and Islamophobia–seriously, the same answer, but they worded it differently. “Violent jihadist terrorist,” Hillary says. “Raidcal Islamic terrorist,” Trump says. That’s the exact political correctness that is the issue. Jihadist = Muslim, wtf? That’s the funny thing about religion. The Jihadists, as Hillary calls them, insist that non-Jihadists aren’t true Muslims, just like the Westboro Baptist Church insists that no pro-choice person can be a true Christian.

“It’s not a Muslim ban anymore. It’s called ‘extreme vetting,'” says Trump, pulling the same euphemistic political correctness bullshit he’s spent a year criticizing people for. So… it’s still a Muslim ban, and still based on their religion and nation of origin, but we’re not going to call it a Muslim Ban any longer. Got it. No, thanks, that is perfectly clear. Thanks for clearing it up.

“…Because of RUSSIAN aggression.” Hillary put a lot of obvious emphasis on that. Seriously, it was transparent. And it was right after she talked about the “4 year old boy bombed by Russian jets…” Then she said, “…Because of Russian aggression…” and, no shit, actually put a lot of really suspicious emphasis on it.

“The Kremlin–meaning Putin and the Russian government–are directing the hacks of American government to influence the election… The Russians hack information and then put it it out… The Russians are using Wikileaks.” Hillary, again. “They’re doing it to influence the election for Donald Trump.” Probably because Hillary clearly wants war with them???? You think????? “… Donald Trump should release his tax returns!”

She couldn’t be more obvious in how she wants war with Russia and is hoping for Cold War fear to propel her into the presidency. We don’t need war with Russia, man.

“What would you do to ensure the 1% pay ‘their fair share’ in taxes?” asked an audience guy. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?! They are paying MILLIONS and hundreds of millions in taxes while the 99% are paying in a thousand or two. Fair share?

This is an idea that seriously pisses me off, because it showcases entitlement through and through. People focus on percentages, when percentages are irrelevant. Hey, Mr. Audience Man, let’s talk about the fact that you only paid $900 in taxes, but this 1%er paid $450,000. You’re about $449,100 behind him. What are you going to do to pay your fair share? Or do you think it’s fair that the billionaire pays $450k for something that you only pay $900 for?

This is a mentality created by our love for unapportioned taxes. With directly apportioned taxes, that guy’s bullshit, thieving, entitled mentality would not be able to stand, because it would be readily obvious that Billionaire B paid $12,000 to the city for its apportioned taxes to build some schools, while Mr. Audience Man paid only $90. Because you’re a jackass if you think that Billionaire B is using like 1200% the amount of schools that Mr. Audience Man is using, we can easily surmise that they use the schools in roughly the same way. So Billionaire B is literally paying a shitload more for the service than Mr. Audience Man is paying, and Mr. Audience Man wants to talk about how Billionaire B isn’t paying his fair share? Are you kidding me?

“We’ve gotta go where the money is,” Hillary said about taxing the wealthy. Good plan. That way, we can ensure that the wealthy leave with all their money. “I want to invest in you, I want to invest in hard-working families.”

Well… I don’t. I don’t want the government investing in me. I want my employer to invest in me, not random people I’ve never met. I want companies to invest in their employees, not have the government do it. I want employers throughout the country to be free to invest in their employees, by paying them a wage, by sending them to training seminars, by helping them pay for college–you know, as many corporations do today. Imagine, if we got the government out of the way, how much more effective their investment might be.

Cooper: “Did you use the one billion dollar loss to avoid paying income tax?”

Trump: Absolutely, I do.”

lol. Wow. Motherfucker is straight up about it, and goddamn that has to be admired. “Hell yeah, I exploited those loopholes. She put them there. I want to close them.” It’s hard to believe the latter, but the rest is indisputable, so that has to lend him credibility. I don’t believe it, but it is likelier Trump would close them than Hillary would. But it’s far more likelier that no one would. And I don’t really care anyway. If Trump can keep the money he earned, good for him. The idea that the government should take it from him and give it to other people is gross.

“The situation in Syria is catastrophic,” said Hillary. She presumably muttered, with a wink, “I made sure of it.”

“The Russians are not going to come to the negotiation table for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them… I want to emphasize here that what is at stake here is the ambitiousness and aggressiveness of Russia… The war crimes committed by the Russians in Syria…”

“The ambitiousness and aggressiveness of Russia…”

russia-wants-war-us-bases-sarcastic-mapYou can’t make this shit up, man. When that image first began circulating the Internet, we all smirked at it knowingly, but we doubted that the United States would ever seriously have that policy. Yet we didn’t encircle Russia with missile silos to just not use them. It appears that we let this shit happen stupidly. Nervously, and, yes, we did discuss it, but we didn’t try to stop it while it was building up. As we put missile silos in Turkey, Ukraine, India, Afghanistan, and Japan, all of them pointed at Russia, we didn’t really do enough to speak out against it. And now there is every indication that Hillary wants to use all that military in a war with Russia.

It’s amazing. At this point, I’m praying that everyone else has noticed and is rejecting it.

Pence beats the drums of war, too, and perhaps speaks even more bluntly about how he would go to war with Russia. People, we are brazenly talking about going to war with Russia. Russia! This isn’t one of those laughable Middle Eastern countries who we can beat up with one hand tied behind our back. This is Russia. Russia has nuclear weapons. I don’t think anyone will ever again use nukes, but they have them. They have a bad ass military, a bad ass air force.

The only reason we allow these wars throughout the world to continue is that bombs aren’t falling on American cities. If they were, we’d have fixed our fucked up foreign policy long ago. But it’s not our hospitals that have 4 year old children being blown apart in. It’s those “icky brown people’s” hospitals, so fuck them, right?

If you allow a war with Russia, the bombs will fall on American cities. I’ve little doubt that we’d ultimately win that war because of our obscene technological edge, but it would be a horrific bloodbath, and there would be no real winner. Make no mistake: This is a strategic ploy to ensure United States domination of the globe. There are only two countries who even conceivably could stop American domination of the planet at this point: Russia and China. If one of them falls, then it will be centuries before anyone manages to take down the United States. It may become impossible.

We are facing Orwell’s 1984 in some ways, but with a few critical differences. Oceania is called NATO, and has an undisputed champ: the United States. Eurasia never came forward because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Eastasia is working on coming forward now. Already, we have a military edge over Russia and China–an extreme one that would mean certain victory over either one, if it came to that. They could absolutely hit us back, but modern wars are all about who has the best technology. And ours is… ours is remarkable. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Just process that.

In 1984, the only thing that kept any of the three from dominating was that there were two enemies, and they were constantly going back and forth with who they were and weren’t at war with. If Oceania and Eastasia threw everything at each other, one or both would be vulnerable and conquered by Eurasia. For longterm global supremacy, one of the two enemies had to be taken out.

What we are seeing is that Oceania is already on top with a huge headstart. Taking down Eastasia or Eurasia now would establish a lead so sufficient that we’d never have to worry about them again. Once upon a time, the Soviet Union and United States were neck and neck with their technology and military capabilities. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia was gone for a while. When they returned, we had already established a monumental lead. And, because technological growth is clearly exponential, our lead steadily grows. Taking them out now will put us so far ahead that they’d never have a chance of catching up.

It would also allow us permanent superiority over Eastasia, because Eastasia is also playing catch-up. Because both Eastasia and Eurasia are already far behind, it would take both of them to stand up against Oceania. If one of them is knocked down and set even further back, then it will become impossible–at least for a very, very long time–for anyone to stand against Oceania.

This is why we cannot allow a war with Russia. Russia and China are an essential counterbalance to American global domination. While we could certainly defeat either one–perhaps China more easily than Russia–if war with one meant war with both, then the United States wouldn’t be able to do it alone. We’d have to drag the EU in, and the EU would come in. And then we’d have World War 3.

Fucking god.


Just say “No” to war with Russia, for fuck’s sake.

I do not want World War 3. I do not want war with Russia at all. I don’t want war with China, either. I don’t want the United States to be the uncontested King of the Globe. I don’t want any of that.

Is that our choice? Trump, who presumably represents friendship with Russia, or Hillary, who clearly represents war with Russia?

I’m voting for Darryl Perry. Perry will not give us war with Russia.

“[Pence] and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree,” Trump said about how Pence said we needed to use the military against Russia.


We are right on the edge of starting a goddamned war with Russia.

“I would consider arming the Kurds,” Hillary said.

An American presidential candidate just straight up said she’d arm rebels in another country. Once upon a time, you had Ollie North and the Iran-Contra shit. Now you have “Yeah, I would arm the Kurds.” Goddamn, dude. Trump is only barely better, but he is at least better.

Audience guy: “Would you be devoted to all the people?”

There’s only one possible answer to that. “No. I would get people out of your way so that you can be devoted to yourself.”

Hillary used her “Say one nice thing about the other candidate” answer to launch into a self-engrandizing statement. Trump simply used his to pay a compliment, after thanking Hillary for her weak one about his kids. He said that Hillary is a fighter and hard worker. Hillary talked about how great she is. And Trump is the egotitical one?

Trump just says the same few things over and over; he doesn’t have any solutions. “We’ll go after Isis, close the border, and make great deals.” Okay, and? While I think the President should just sit around and veto every piece of legislation that gets sent to him, that doesn’t change how most people think, and most people expect the president to do stuff. Trump isn’t offering any answers, though. He just keeps throwing out those three things like they’re a panacea for any problem we have to deal with.

The presidential debates have become exactly like junk food. It’s really great eating them, but there’s no nutritional value and afterward you feel dead inside.

How To Stand Corrected

In the course of my life, I have been wrong about plenty of things. This should be obvious, since I started life as a typical Christian conservative who believed I was possessed by demons because I was transgender and ultimately became an atheistic anarchist, passing through socialism and full-blown communism in the process. So not only have I been wrong in the past, I have been absurdly wrong.

stand-correctedWhen one undertakes the quest to find the truth, it’s never about finding out what is true. It’s about ruling out what isn’t. You have to try an idea out like a pair of glasses, walk around with them on for a little while, and only then can you determine whether they feel right. You have to keep an open mind, always willing to put on a new pair of glasses, no matter how silly you might think they initially look.

I used to make a little show of correcting myself, in fact. When I argued with Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience over the Great Pyramid and his assertion that its “size” is analogous to the Luxor in Vegas because he was intentionally excluding mass from counting, when the reality is that the fact that it’s made out of 70 ton stone blocks is precisely what makes the Great Pyramid so damned remarkable, just so that he could write-off what some conspiracy loon was saying about ancient aliens, there was one point where I had to backpedal.

While it did seem to me that the best way to backpedal, since the discussion was relatively public, was to publicly acknowledge that I was backpedaling, that I had been mistaken on one area or another, the entire thing was irrelevant. Matt then, in the way most people do, took my clarification of something as admission that I was wrong, declared himself the victor, and walked away. Austin Petersen attempted something similar, when I foolishly allowed for the possibility that I was mistaken in my understanding of his positions, seizing the opportunity–as Matt did and as any troll would–to say something like, “If your facts are wrong, how can your conclusion be right?” even though it had no bearing on what I said.

Even among people who ordinarily function as intellectuals, debates devolve into a bitter war between two sides who refuse to appear weak. Since any hint of weakness will be touted by the spectating masses as losing the argument, no backpedaling is allowed–and, if you must backpedal, you must do it quietly, without anyone noticing. But, realistically, the best thing you can do–in the eyes of the masses–is to dig that hole deeper. Anything but admit you’re wrong and need to re-evaluate your position.

Gary Johnson did this in the Stossel Debate, when asked whether a Jewish bakery should have been forced to bake a cake for Nazis. Everything about the question screamed two things. First, Johnson had to find a way to deny the validity of the analogy. People do this a lot–in fact, Americans are great at it. It doesn’t matter how obvious and clear the parallels are; they will deny its validity. Johnson was intellectually honest enough to not attempt this route, though. The second response would have been to stop and re-evaluate his position, to backpedal, and to admit that he may be wrong and needs to consider it further. Instead, Johnson dug deeper, saying there before all the people watching that, in his opinion, yes, a Jewish bakery should have been forced to bake a cake for Nazis.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson went on to quietly rectify this remark–somewhat–and quietly tried to smooth over how he called religious freedom a black hole. It’s revealing that Johnson didn’t do this in the debate with everyone watching; he chose to do it later, rather than appear weak.

I’ve long since stopped bothering to admit that I’m wrong about something, but it’s not because I refuse to appear weak. I don’t have enough of an audience for that to matter.

It’s because those public admissions that I was wrong were never anything more than showcases of ego. “Look at me! Look how intellectually honest and humble I am! I’m so humble and so great that I’ll write a 2,000 word article admitting that I’m wrong!” Honestly, I’m disgusted that I ever did it, but human existence is a constant battle against one’s own ego–I don’t mean “ego” in the Freudian sense, but in the sense of “the image of self.”

As a transsexual person who often finds herself explaining to people that there is no meaningful difference between me today and me of two years ago, the image of self is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. You undoubtedly have some image of me, just as I probably have some image of you. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Your image of me probably doesn’t look anything like me, and my image of you probably doesn’t look anything like you. You might have the advantage and may be closer to “me” if you’ve watched my more personal videos on Youtube, but even then you’re only getting an incomplete picture.

This is intentional, though… Putting up a complete picture has bitten me in the ass at least twice. But even if I wasn’t intentionally separating things today–another reason I took down Shemale Diary and renamed it elsewhere, to write about my personal affairs–you still wouldn’t get a full picture of me. This is neither here nor there, though.

The reality is that you have some image of me in your head, but you know what else? I have some image of me in my head, as well.

And you have some image of you in your head, as well.

The reality is that these images very rarely coincide with us in reality. I’ve always been fascinated by the topic of wondering how other people perceive me, but it’s a question that can never be answered. Where does their image of me differ from my image of me? Where does my image of me differ from me? Who is “me?” Is “me” the image that other people have, the image that I have, or none of the above?

This is the crux of ego: that self-image, and conflicts between that self-image and the actual self. This is why transgenderism ends up claiming so many lives: people don’t just have a self-image, and people don’t just see disparity between that and who they are, but they also have an idealized image. I realize this sounds similar to Freud’s Id, Ego, and Superego. That’s probably coincidental. Anyway, conflicts between these things cause substantial internal conflict. The person who looks in the mirror and sees a man while looking in the mind’s eye and seeing a woman has their work cut out for them in resolving the disparities. We all have these conflicts, whether it always includes gender and sex or not.

I feel like I’m rambling, but also that it’s important rambling.

The point is that my self-image through all of those public acknowledgements that I’m wrong was this ultra-intellectual person who was so humble that they drew pride from their humility. That’s the problem of ego, of course. Attempting to abolish the ego is, by definition, an act of ego. I could put up the pretense of humility, and many people would accept it at face value: “Look at this person so humble that they can admit when they’re wrong! Awesome!” Yet the reality was far more insidious than that. There was nothing humble about it, because it was “Look at me, I’m so humble that I can admit when I’m wrong! Admire that!”

I don’t mean to suggest that I ever consciously did this. Of course not, and I haven’t been clear if that seems to be what I’m saying. An act of ego is so rarely aware that it is an act of ego. I didn’t see the underlying sense of pride in what I was doing, but there it was, nonetheless, hidden beneath the mask of humility.

In the past six months or so, I’ve altered my worldview in several ways, and I will continue to do so as new facts are brought to my attention and as I am exposed to new perspectives. I am more correct today than I have ever been, because that is the search for truth and I have left thousands of ideas lying in the wreckage behind me, but it’s not about never being wrong.

It’s about being less wrong today than you were yesterday.

Yes, Sexism Exists

Remind me to never, ever argue with theists about whether morality is subjective again. My contention is pretty simple:

Morality is subjective because humans are subjects who assign values to things.

It’s a tautology, and it is self-evident. It is as self-evident as a statement can get. It needs no argument, no substantiation, and no more evidence than direct experience. We are humans, and we assign values to things. As we are subjective beings and our experiences and existences are subjective, it follows that the values we assign are subjective.

Then theists come along and say, “No! The values we assign are objective!”

Why are we even discussing this? The burden of proof is so obviously and completely on the people arguing for objective morality that no more of my time should be wasted trying to explain a tautology. If you want to argue that the values you assign are objective, then you have to demonstrate the source of those objective values. Until you can do that, the entire conversation is moot.

So I spent a little while arguing on Facebook–banging my head against the wall would be more accurate–and in the course of the conversation I said two things that really pissed people off:

That is utter nonsense.

You can’t possibly be that thick.

These were taken as personal attacks. I’ll grant that the second one comes pretty close to being a personal attack, but the first one is obviously not. “That is utter nonsense” clearly refers to a statement, and not a person. Ergo, the statement has been attacked. What statement did I attack?

I’m not going back to the thread right now because they’ve kept going and I’ve washed my hands of it, but basically I pointed out that the very fact that we have disagreements about what is moral and what is immoral is strong evidence that morality is subjective. He replied something to the effect of, “So if one person thinks that something is more morally wrong than someone else does, obviously he’s measuring that with some objective criteria.”

No, it doesn’t make sense. Yes, it’s obviously utter nonsense. It’s such utter nonsense that it’s honestly not even wrong, and I wouldn’t begin to know how to explain what is wrong with it. So that two people use internal criteria to assign different subjective values to things is somehow a demonstrate of some external, objective criteria? What? When the guy threw this statement back at me as a “personal insult,” I gladly stood by it. What he said was nonsense. “The sky is blue because the sky is blue, so clearly the sky is red.”

And no. No one can possibly be thick enough to believe such a ridiculous statement. These two insults were tied to the same comment, I should point out; I said them both in reply to this utter nonsense. I stand by that, as well. No one can be thick enough to really believe something so horrifically nonsensical.

But it’s not my goal here to reiterate the argument. They are responding too quickly and Facebook’s medium too limited for it to take place effectively. Moreover, they are repeating themselves and denying that the burden of proof is on them, even though my contention, from the start, has been that morality is subjective because we are subjective individuals and we assign values to things.

Tell me: how shall I convince you that a circle is round?

For more than a decade, I have been arguing with people on the Internet and discussing things with people. I have engaged in undoubtedly thousands of online arguments, started probably a fourth of those. And in my career of arguing with people online, I have never been called “emotional” or “overly emotional.”

Until last year, when I officially switched from being a male to being Aria.

In the past year, I have been called “overly emotional” at least ten times in various online arguments. I am not exaggerating when I say that this never happened when I presented myself as a guy. It never happened, and no one who knows me could agree that I’m prone to becoming emotional in discussions. If I was, I wouldn’t have evolved from pro-life Republican and die-hard Christian to dyed-in-the-wool socialist liberal to pro-choice anarcho-capitalist. My loyalty is to reason, not to emotion, and I’ve written a goddamned book on Nihilism, which is an utter rejection of emotional thinking. It’s not finished, though it’s about 200 pages in.

It wasn’t even that long ago that Thomas Knapp corrected my position on libertarians and abortion, by making me see that I was wrong, and that pro-life people weren’t automatically un-libertarian. Yes, I’m so emotional I reversed my old position because it couldn’t be rationally supported. Totally ruled by my emotions. It totally explains why I’m still saying that Austin Petersen isn’t a libertarian because he’s pro-life.

Except… Oh, wait. I did change my position. I did ease up on Austin Petersen. I still don’t think he’s a libertarian, but it’s because he rejects the NAP, not because of his abortion stance. Recently I wrote specifically about abortion and that libertarianism isn’t automatically pro-life or pro-abortion. This is where a bit of a fracture comes in, as you can see in the comments there. I’m also not a big fan of abortion. I’m really not. I don’t think it’s right, because there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place. I’m 29, and I’ve only once gotten a girl pregnant. She aborted, but that was beyond my control, and it was only last year that it happened.

I’m certainly not pro-abortion, though. I’m pro-choice. Part of the problem is that most people do take “pro-choice” to mean “pro-abortion,” and it doesn’t really mean that. It means pro-choice. It means being in favor of people having the choice to get an abortion if they so choose, not being happy about them getting an abortion. A pro-choice person can still choose to reject abortion and condemn it, after all.

Recently, a girl on Twitter challenged me to demonstrate sexism in the United States. No, I honestly can’t do that. I could, if I cared to spend the time doing it. I could run two simultaneous online presences for the next year, carefully tabulating the results that I get. It would take too much effort, though, and it’s not worth it to me. I know what I’ve experienced.

And what I’ve experienced is that no one ever accused me of being overly emotional until they knew I was a female. Yes, the anarcho-capitalist who recently made a video called “What is Capitalism?” that said “being poor is a state of mind” is “overly emotional.” For pointing out that an argument is absurd and undermines its own point, and for saying that the person who made the argument couldn’t possibly be “thick” enough to believe it–which some could take as a compliment, honestly–I’m “overly emotional.”

And no one ever said that to me when I wasn’t wearing lipstick, you know?

As a cool little bonus, because this came out shorter and filled with more digression than I wanted, here is a chapter from Shattering the American Illusion that I’ve been writing.

Chapter 6: Morality

Warning: We are about to ask a LOT of “What if…?” questions.

Many arguments are presented by theists in an attempt to give their god something to do, and one of the most common among these is something along the lines of, “Oh, yeah? If there’s no God, then how do you explain morality? Western Law is built on the Ten Commandments!” Before we proceed much further, let’s stop and bask in the unabashed glory of this argument—and the one that says “America was built on Christianity!”

A precursory glance at the latter claim will reveal why Science and Christianity have stood at odds for so long: a little bit of reading is a very dangerous thing, especially to the theistic reasoning. Written in 1796, under the leadership of George Washington and John Adams (two of the people directly responsible for the creation of “America”), the Treaty of Tripoli is as follows:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims][1]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan[2] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Dawkins “God” 40).

Let no more be said (ever, preferably) of the idea that the United States was founded on the religion of Christianity. At best, what can be said is that our ancestors fled to these shores to escape religious persecution and then embraced the notion of religious freedom, which requires a secular state by any measure. Not only did our forebears reject the notion of any state-sanctioned religion, they would be scandalized to see the state of American politics today, when a man or woman’s religious beliefs is listed as the second or third most important attribute of them (generally followed only by their name and political association—Democrat or Republican) (Dawkins “God” 40). This is a deplorable state. Using a person’s religious beliefs as a motivation for voting for or against them sets us on the path toward abolishing the separation of church and state.

Moving on to our main discussion, there is the question of morality and why humans have a notion of it if there is no god. Many ideas have been put forth to explain morality, but before we get into that, we must ask: “What is morality? What is moral behavior? What is immoral behavior?” These questions, whether you “feel” the answers intuitively in the form of examples you can easily imagine, are not really so simple to answer as “doing good” and “doing bad.” In fact, it’s very difficult to explain moral and immoral behavior without using words like “good” and “bad.”

In the simplest terms, moral behavior can probably be defined as “doing to others as one would have done to themselves,” and immoral behavior can be defined as “doing to others as one would not like to have done to themselves.” You’ll notice the teaching of Christ buried in this philosophy; that is not accidental or coincidental. I doubt you’ll ever find an atheist who claims that Christ had nothing useful to say (though what he said was certainly not original). At any rate, these definitions don’t really help us very much, because what one person would like might be different from what another person may like. One person may dislike what another person would like. One person may like what another person may be indifferent to. One person may be indifferent to what another person likes.

We have no “universal person” who we can use to make these assertions that any given act “would be liked” or “would be disliked.” So we haven’t really come any further with these definitions than if we simply had attributed them as “good” and “bad” behaviors. Henry Hazlitt, in The Foundations of Morality, likens moral behavior to attempts to “make an is from an ought,” and this is difficult to get into without explaining the context around which he says this (5). We’ll still show, after explaining what he means, that he’s wholly incorrect because “is” and “ought” are just as subjective as anything else we’ve tried so far.

“The world ought to have peace” would be an exemplar statement, but the problem here is obvious: the conditions we’ve created with the word “ought” are an illusory world that is most certainly not the one in which we live. In order to make such an “ought” statement, we must be capable of comparing the “world as it is” to a hypothetical “perfect” world wherein “what ought, is.” Making such a comparison, of course, requires being able to compare any two states of existence (regardless of the disparity between them), and this therefore goes quite a long way in explaining why dogs and cats don’t have such a system: they lack the cognitive processes to imagine this “world of oughts.”

“Women ought to have equal wages” would be another example, and it has the same problem; in the world currently, there is not peace and women, even in the United States (bastion of “freedom” though it is) women do not earn wages equal to men. In fact, one of the presidential debates of 2012 established that women earn 76% of what their male counterparts make.

Moral behavior, then, is a vehicle with which we travel from “what is” to “what ought be.” The actions we take toward establishing peace in the world (as ought be) would be considered moral actions, just as the actions we take toward giving women what they actually deserve would be considered moral behavior (as this is what ought be). Moral behavior is any action that decisively transitions “what is” toward “what ought be.” But this is a minefield of problems, because it automatically presumes that “the greater good” is better than “a local good,” and we can’t justify that.

For example, what if the only possible way, after every other avenue has been explored, to achieve world peace is to nuke the Middle East and turn the entire region into a deadened tundra of snow and ash? Do the many (the rest of the world) outweigh the needs of the few (the Middle East inhabitants)? Would we be justified in killing hundreds of millions of people if we were to spare some countless number of theoretical future victims from dying in needless wars?

I can’t answer this question for you; it is one you must ask and answer for yourself. But I presume that you, like me, would say, “Absolutely not.” I say this because the people in the Middle East are real—we can see them, touch them, love them. They feel as I feel, they think as I think, and they know as I know. The theoretical future people that may be spared from needless wars are not quite so real, even if they are potentially of infinite number. I cannot condone the sacrifice of real people to protect the lives of imagined people—and I sincerely hope that you cannot, either. My sense of empathy forbids it.

What about a simpler, less illusory example? What if you could go back in time to 1940 and kill Hitler? What if you knew that killing Hitler would (somehow) immediately end World War 2 and would cause all the imprisoned Jews to be released from the concentration camps? What if you knew (thanks to your coming from the future) that Hitler would go on to be responsible for all those deaths[3] if he lived and you knew that a great many of those deaths would be prevented by the death of Hitler? You can kill him, press a button on your wristwatch, and return the present, with no negative repercussions on the world as a result of your tampering with the past. What if the only outcome of going back in time to kill Hitler was that there would have been deaths prevented and those people went on to live normal, productive lives? Would you kill him?

I tend to think the average reader would. If my intuitions are in touch with the average reader’s, then I am correct, because I know that I would kill Hitler in the above circumstances. That’s right: I would take the life of another human being. And I wouldn’t even feel slightly bad about it, and I doubt that you would, either. Why is this? Why is it that we can murder a human being and not feel, at the very least, immoral, much less can feel that it was the most moral thing we could have done? Why is it that you could approach a random person in the street and murder them, and this act would then be judged immoral, but you can murder Hitler and (I imagine most people would agree) the act would be judged moral?

In either case, you’re performing exactly the same act: killing another person. You might hold up a gun, take aim, and pull the trigger, ending the life of the victim—in both examples. But in one, you are moral (or, at the very least, morally neutral) and in one you are immoral.

This fundamental truth (that statements of moral value are subjective, rather than objective) is universally true, even for such contemptable acts as murder and rape. Though we would be hard-pressed to imagine up any scenario in which rape would be considered acceptable, we can do so, no matter how far-fetched that scenario might be. It follows, then, that rape cannot objectively be immoral, as it depends upon other factors and circumstances. Even though such circumstances would be so rare that they are unrealistic, any proclamations that we make that rape is immoral are still dependent upon circumstances that are almost always true.

The problem with moral claims is that they cannot be demonstrated, for the most part, as moral or immoral, because we lack omniscience and can never identify all of the effects of a given cause.

[1] The exact wording is “Musselmen,” which is antiquated term that means “Muslims.”

[2] “Mohammadan,” perhaps?

[3] We are so not going there.

What is Anarchy?

It occurred to me earlier today that if we’d never (stupidly) allowed Congress to begin taxing us without apportioning the funds (debatable anyway), then we wouldn’t have to deal with the silly “But muh roads!” arguments that we see so very, very often. I mean, it’s the Go To response for statists (a word that means “non-libertarian, non-anarchist”). I’ve seen a few statists recently be offended by being called that, but… it’s simply true. If you’re not a libertarian or anarchist, then you ipso facto favor the state, in which case… you’re a statist.

It’s just what the word means.

Granted, some anarchists may call you a statist as an insult, but to equate it to “infidel” isn’t accurate. It’s more like “fag,” honestly, but even then it’s not always used with negative connotations. When I call Gary Johnson a statist, I mean it condescendingly. But I only mean it condescendingly for people who claim to be libertarians or anarchists and… aren’t. It’s definitely a word that I do try to avoid, though, because I tend to reject dichotomies and, to my recollection, the only person I’ve ever called a statist is that pig Gary Johnson.

Fuck him.


There’s no religion or belief going on here. Anarcho-capitalism is built on science, human nature, and an abhorrence of violence. The scientific case can and has been made for anarcho-capitalism; the rest of the world simply has not caught up. Sorry, but that’s simply true. Anarcho-capitalism is only a belief in the same sense that “People should be free” is a belief.

Anyway, my recent video goes into direct apportionment and how it helps us to avoid ridiculous situations like this. Most damningly, if a billionaire has to pay $5m on his $100m yearly income, then we can readily assume that a person’s “tax liability to society” (terms that statists adore throwing around) must be $5m. If a person’s tax liability to society is not $5m, then we have forced the billionaire to overpay and have robbed him.

So we must proceed under the assumption that the highest dollar figure anyone in the United States pays is the tax liability that a citizen owes. If the dollar figure is lower, then we are stealing money from the people who overpay, right? Since no one is going to admit to doing that, it follows that I’m correct: the highest dollar figure that anyone pays is the citizen’s tax liability…

And this means that we all have underpaid and owe the government a ton of money.

Another addition to the series was Part 5, where I explained why the previous three videos were of lower quality than my usual work, and how that whole thing came about. It was primarily a response to one person in particular, to whom I said, “Fine. My shoes may suck, but the emperor is still naked.”

I’m also pretty sure that Part 4 hadn’t been uploaded when I posted the last update about the series, and in it I addressed a question that Tyler had actually asked before. This was tremendously bothersome, and he never explained why he did it, except that he might have been reading someone else’s question the second time (unclarified presently). Simply put, on 8/7/16 or around then, Tyler and I had a brief back-and-forth through videos where he ended up asking if there could be such a thing as voluntary taxes. In my reply, I specifically answered the question and its more general cousin: “What if it doesn’t rely on force, violence, and coercion?”

The answer, of course, is that then it’s a free market solution and not a state at all. It wasn’t until after I uploaded Part 4 that I realized Tyler had asked that question before, driving home for me the idea that he and the others might have been just playing games. In such a scenario, people intend only to keep asking the same questions repeatedly until we start giving short answers and start telling them to go educate themselves. At this point, they intend to declare victory with asinine statements like, “I guess you can’t put forth arguments then! lol!”

It’s a common tactic, covered excellently in TheraminTrees’ videos on Transactional Analysis:

It’s possible to see that in Tyler’s actions.

By asking questions, he is appearing to be a genuinely curious Adult (per TA terms). “I want to know the answer to these questions, and I am being skeptical. So here are my questions.” Naturally, people like me (who cannot resist) then answer the questions. Then something weird happens–often, time passes. Then subtle variations on those initial questions are asked again. Instead of “What if taxes were voluntary?” it is “Does everything the state does end in force, violence, or coercion?” which, yes, is the same question–just phrased differently.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not accusing Tyler or anyone else of playing games. I’m saying that this is how it appears/feels in this case. It is not an allegation or statement of anyone’s intent or motives, because miscommunication and need for clarification are common the Internet, and especially Twitter’s 160-character limit. Any number of miscommunications, oversights, or poor phrasings could jam communication without anyone being playing games. Even with this clarification the language is still harsher than I intended it to be. I am sorry. I write a lot of fiction, and it trains you to use strong language.

Then, upon answering the question, the players repeat back “criticisms” of the answers that we have already addressed, a vicious cycle, in fact.



“Follow-up question” / “Criticism”

“Answer” / “Clarification”

Then, the next thing you know, the entire process repeats anew. Once we become too frustrated and block them, victory is declared:

tyler blocked

No, Tyler.

He didn’t block you over anarcho-capitalism.

He blocked you because he doesn’t think you are listening, and probably because of statements like:

tyler being dumb

I’d love for you to demonstrate how that has anything to do with me. Maybe be more careful with your use of “all.” I’d love for someone to try to justify calling me selfish.

Anyway, I’m referring more specifically to this:

C'mon, man. You're being downright insulting here.

C’mon, man. You’re being downright insulting here.

The claim that statists have “blind faith” is stupid, yes. It’s not blind at all. You can see the state and its actions. You may close your eyes to its horrors, but you’re still not blind to them. However, you’re blatantly wrong to say there are no examples of anarchy, and you know that I gave you two of them. You know that, because I told you that, and you acknowledged that. I specifically told him I provided two examples dealing with the modern New York Diamond Traders and the Maghribi traders of the 11th century. He said he hadn’t watched the video, but that he would. Fair enough, I said, because the video did suck.

To say “there are no examples of anarchy” after choosing to ignore my video (on whatever grounds, considering at this time he knew that it had information that proved his statement incorrect) that presented them is horrific intellectual dishonesty, and yes, I’m surprised to see that from Tyler, because I’ve seen him correct himself in the past. It also shows, as I pointed out on Twitter, that anarcho-capitalism has been routinely demonstrated, through all of human history, and that he is revealing that he is not aware of what anarcho-capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalism is simply allowing people to solve problems without a state. That’s all it is. Seriously, that’s it. That’s 100% of it, the entire ideology in a single sentence. The only rules are no violence, no force, no coercion, and no stealing. Do you see, then, how we have billions of examples? Any example of people solving problems without a state–without force, violence, coercion, or stealing–is, ipso facto, an example of anarchism, and if they do it in search of benefit, then it is an example of anarcho-capitalism. Such a sweeping statement, but also entirely true.

I needed to go to the store earlier. So I went to the store. It didn’t involve the state. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

Apple invented the iPhone. Android came into existence, with BlackBerry and Microsoft expanding as well. The state was never involved. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

The Maghribi traders working out trust relationships across thousands of miles in the 11th century just by talking and working together. That is an example of anarcho-capitalism.

Because that’s all anarcho-capitalism is. It’s the idea that people can solve problems without violence. That’s not me putting some weird spin on it–that’s literally what it is. The only question to be asked regarding anarcho-capitalism is this:

“Can we solve x problem without the state?”

Just think about it for a moment. What does the state do? It exists to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ostensibly).

Can we protect life without the state? Absolutely.

Can we protect life without the state against foreign states? Absolutely, and covered here.

Any and all examples of people solving problems without the state are examples of anarcho-capitalism.

Can we protect liberty without the state? For fuck’s sake, the state is constitutionally incapable of protecting liberty.

Can we protect the right to pursue happiness without the state? Absolutely, as only force, violence, and coercion can eliminate a person’s right to pursue happiness.

The question is, and has always been, “How do we solve this problem?”

Because let’s face it–there will always be problems. We’re humans, and we fuck up. In addition to our fuck ups, the universe isn’t exactly kind to us, and neither is the planet. There is always shit to be done, and on top of that we’re an ambitious species. We don’t just want what we have. We want to turn what we have into something better. We didn’t land on the moon and go, “Cool. That’s probably far enough. Seen one lifeless rock, seen ’em all, right?”

There’s never just one way to solve a problem. A few decades ago, humanity gave itself the problem of needing handheld computers capable of mobile internet and phone usage. The smartphone was the answer we came up with, but it was not the only answer, was it? No, we also came up with the pager, didn’t we? And the tablet. We conceived multiple solutions, some of them better than others, and the winners lasted. Tablets are deprecated and fading out, and pagers are… Well, who do you know who has a pager?

We once were presented with the problem of needing to figure out how to make electronic devices talk to one another. Ethernet is common today, but did you know that it wasn’t the only option? There was also Token Ring, and a few others that I don’t remember because they had basically vanished even before I reached college. Then we had the problem of how to do it wirelessly, and the 802.11 IEEE–a completely voluntary body of experts who set standards of protocols for technologies. Linksys’s routers are 802.11b/g/n compatible because this ensures they will be compatible with all other devices that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no state was ever needed to enforce a standard for everyone to use. Just give people the chance to solve their own problems.

This is all anarchy in action. It’s just… people doing stuff.

In fact, there’s probably no better example of anarchy in action than IEEE. Virtually every electronic device manufactured in the past 30 years is compatible according to standards set by IEEE, but there is no law on the books forcing Linksys to make routers that are 802.11b/g/n compatible, and no law on the books forcing Apple to ensure that your iPhone can connect to 802.11b/g/n technologies.

Just think about that for a moment!

Think about the logistics! Think about what a monumental task that is!

“We want any phone made by any manufacturer running any operating system on any carrier to be able to connect to any wireless device made by any manufacturer.”

Can you even imagine a more monumental task?

Rest assured, we had at least two ways of handling this.

And IEEE handled it flawlessly, beautifully, and masterfully, without one single fucking law ever being passed. The system is completely voluntary. Apple uses it because no one would buy an iPhone if it couldn’t talk to everyone else’s devices. Linksys uses it because no one would buy a WRT54GL if no one could connect 90% of phones to it. Samsung uses it because no one would buy an S7 if you couldn’t connect it to most wireless networks. It’s in everyone’s best interests to use the standard, but there’s no law, no requirement, no prison, no fines for not complying.

Possibly the most monumental task humanity has ever been faced with! And we succeeded brilliantly.

Anarchy succeeded brilliantly.

Rest assured, the state would have fucked it up.

The State

You’re looking at the state as the creator and maintainer of society, and that simply isn’t true. The state is just some thing that exists over there to the side. All we have are people doing stuff. That’s all that exists in the entire world–humans doing stuff. Countries don’t exist, businesses don’t exist, nations don’t exist, and even states don’t really exist. There are only people doing stuff. I think you’re still viewing “anarchy” at least partially as the chaotic bullshit that occurs when a state fractures into smaller states. But as I pointed out here, what people commonly call “anarchy” is actually just several smaller states at war with one another.

Because we are social animals and recognize that our interests are best served through cooperation rather than antagonism, we sometimes come together and form groups, deciding to pool our resources and work together toward a common aim. When two people do this with romantic intent, we call it “marriage” (we are discussing formal agreements here). When two people do this with business intent, we call it “partnership.” When several people do this with business intent, we call it “corporation.” These people set the terms of their agreement, the goals of their agreement, and how they will work together to achieve those goals.

No new entity is created when two people enter into a marriage. There’s not really any such thing as a “family.” That’s just a collective idea we came up with to describe their agreement, to describe their relationship, to make it easier to communicate. Instead of saying “This woman and I pool our finances, live together, go out on dates, sleep together, have sex with each other, and do not do these things with other people,” then I simply say, “This is my wife” / “We are married.”

Businesses and corporations function under exactly the same principles, but their relationship goals and parameters are different. Just as I need other members of my marriage’s permission before dropping $8,000 on a vehicle, so does someone in a corporation need other member’s permission before dropping $8,000 on something. I realistically need my wife’s permission before I quit my job and take up a different career path, and a member of a corporation needs other members’ permission before they start working on a new invention. But the marriage isn’t a thing, the business isn’t a thing, and the corporation isn’t a thing.

It’s just people doing stuff, and finding that they can pool their resources to do better stuff. I may be great, but having a loving, awesome wife makes me greater, yes? Two heads are better than one, and all that? The same holds true for businesses and corporations.

The state is just another one of those businesses. In fact, you’ll find that the state is nothing more than a corporation that has the “authority” to use force, violence, and coercion to achieve its ends, relying on parasitism rather than productivity to acquire resources, and utilizing forced monopolies instead of competition to ensure it has consumers. This is why we aren’t on the same page here–you’re not seeing the state for what it is. It’s just a group of people who do stuff, but who are allowed to use force, violence, and coercion, while no one else is allowed to.

The only relevant questions for anarcho-capitalists involve things that the state is supposed to do:

Can anarchy provide a way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

All other questions are irrelevant, because we do know that “people doing stuff” can solve limitless problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are never necessary for solving those problems. Roads, schools, technology protocols, whatever–force, violence, and coercion are not necessary. These all come back to that simple question: if we can solve the problem without using violence, then isn’t it worth every possible effort to solve it without violence? So we can erase all the questions about roads, schools, NASA, etc.

Whether anarchy can protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can certainly be discussed, and we can also find real world examples of anarchy doing it. However, it isn’t necessary, because there has never been a greater threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than the state, for reasons that I mentioned here: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/04/22/a-crash-course-on-rights/

Any act that threatens life or liberty is, by definition, a state act, at the very least an attempt by one individual to become an authoritarian tyrant over another. It is irrelevant whether this tyrant rules over only one person or one hundred million; a state is a state. It becomes impossible, and is obviously so, to use force, violence, and coercion to prevent force, violence, and coercion. The only thing that can protect life is not killing people. The only thing that can protect liberty is not restricting people’s rights. If violence is universally rejected (as it would be, though, as I’ve pointed out, it’s ridiculous to demand 100% compliance, and neither anarchy nor the state can deliver that) and punished accordingly, and there is no mechanism in place to achieve goals with force, violence, and coercion… then there can’t be force, violence, and coercion.

And Society

Society is another example of people just doing stuff, but it’s one that happens organically and without conscious agreement; it’s just the product of people naturally having their own self-interests served by working together. It is of critical importance to remember that society is older than the state. Society created the state; the state did not create society. It is impossible that the state could have produced society, just as it’s impossible that religion could have produced morality. Just as religion is a product of humans doing stuff, so is the state, so is agriculture, so is the Internet*.

Society isn’t real, either, and can’t produce anything. Only people can. And people did. Without ever agreeing that we would work together, the overwhelming majority of humans get along relatively fine with one another and can have a functional society. The state isn’t really forcing me to work with my clients, or the people at the gas station, or the people at Subway, or the people at Facebook. I’m doing it because being an asshole isn’t in my best interests, and it’s obvious that, as a social animal, my best interest lie in working with other people.

The state did not produce morality, either. We do not think murder is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think stealing is wrong because the state told us so. We do not think rape is wrong because the state told us so. No, we individuals came up with this, and the state took the majority’s moral code and turned it into law. This is also how we ended up with anti-transgender, anti-homosexual, and drug laws. Once again, we find parallels to religion: religious people say that we get our morality from their holy book, but we know that isn’t true. The holy book is merely a reflection of their morality, just as the state’s laws are merely a reflection of our morality. And just as it’s hard to get religious people to change the morality they get from their holy book, so is it difficult to get the state to change its laws.

People do stuff all the time cooperatively without the state enforcing it. This is anarchism in action.

* I throw these last two in just to make it clear I’m not drawing another parallel between statism and religion, or asserting that all social products are bad.

Statists & Moon Dust Arguments

Yesterday Tyler Preston finally uploaded a video that I’ve been waiting on: Questions that Skeptics have for Anarcho-Capitalists. I did my initial reply only to discover, after I’d converted the videos and was starting to split them into smaller, digestible chunks, that my recording software recorded my Line-In, which is my guitar, and not my microphone. One hour, 47 minutes, and 23 seconds of organic, freeform response were lost. I redid the entire thing, but that was okay because it gave me time to pull together some resources and provide evidence.

This led me to Part 3, where I kinda snapped at these absurd and asinine questions.

The questions have either been thoroughly debunked as nonsense, or are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Like when someone asked how we will protect our borders if we’re invaded in Part 2. This is a bit of both, actually–it’s nonsense and irrelevant. There is no national border to an anarcho-capitalist society, and there’s definitely no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist country. That someone would even ask the question “How would you protect your borders in an anarcho-capitalist country” shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what we’re discussing, just like when someone said that the world’s problems are the result of “unregulated, fascist capitalists.”

What kind of answer do you expect when you ask what I plan to do when the Devil attacks God? Or what kind of answer do you expect when I’m asked to explain why unicorns smell like yellow. It’s not even wrong. There’s just not much of a way to coherently answer that question. The best that can be done is to explain why the question isn’t even wrong.

As I said, this was when the entire thing began getting under my skin, though I handled it pretty well. As I go on to explain in part 3, how is this any different from Christians demanding to know why we believe a tornado ripping through a junkyard would produce a 747? It’s not. It’s exactly the same sort of thing, asking us to explain an intentionally-misconstrued straw man.

I also just uploaded Part 4, but 5 and 6 will be done this evening, as I have to get some work done. Part 4 contains a few clarifications and a little bit of digression at the beginning, things that needed to be said but that I didn’t get around to saying. I also reiterated my position and said that I cannot back down on the assertion that they are just like theists asking about the moon dust, and henceforth I will refer to all such questions and “criticisms” as Moon Dust Arguments.


Happy Birthday, Me

2One year ago today, I connected all the dots and realized that I am transgender, an act I symbolized with the creation of my email address. It’s been a hell of a year. For the time being, please ignore this picture on the left; it’s just there to make it the default picture when this posts to Twitter, Facebook, etc.


That is pretty much how I looked prior to this realization, and prior to accepting that I am transgender.


This abominable pic is how I looked then. I know. This pic is awful. Everything about this picture is awful. It’s not just an ugly female; it is an ugly male.


And that is how I look today. Yes, it has been a hell of a year.

It’s also been a fantastic day. Truly. There is a feral kitten outside that finally allowed me to pet her. But even better than that, I happened to have a supporter share something on Twitter that I just happened to see–someone rebutted some anarcho-capitalist claims. Well, you know me… I’m the Anarchist Shemale. To my knowledge, no one has yet rebutted anarcho-capitalism. So I looked at the video, and fifteen seconds in, I knew I had to do a reply, not because Tyler Preston was wrong, but because the anarchists with whom he was discussing it… clearly had no idea what they were talking about. I set out to do a reply, not to dispute Tyler, but to clear the air on anarcho-capitalism.

In fact, I was tremendously impressed with Tyler’s intellect and, above all, his intellectual honesty.

That is his initial video.

There is my reply. It’s worth mentioning that I realized how belligerent I sounded only after I’d uploaded it, and found it better to simply offer the disclaimer than re-recording my arguments. I had no desire to sound hostile, and I did… I sounded far more hostile and belligerent than I really am. I’m only hostile toward people who make fallacious and ridiculous claims, and Tyler Preston certainly did not.

My Youtube Playlist of response videos is called “Responding to Ignorance.” You’ll notice that my reply to Tyler is not in that playlist. That’s because I was not responding to ignorance. Or, at least, if I was, then it was not Tyler’s ignorance but the ignorance of the people that he was also replying to. As such, I added it to the Anarcho-Capitalism playlist, because he’s certainly not ignorant.

To my surprise, rather than just ignoring my tiny channel, Tyler not only watched the video, but liked it, and then did his own response to my response:

Although I’m sure to mention it in the video I’m doing later where I address Tyler’s last question about how many people would voluntarily pay taxes, I have to say: Tyler, I’m stunned and awed by your intellectual honesty. I can’t count the number of people who have heard my statements and then said, “Yeah, well, you’re still wrong.” To be met with someone who goes, “You know what? That’s actually a good point.” is refreshing in a way that I can’t even describe, and I’m a fiction writer.

I will edit this and post my own video later, but mine isn’t really a response video–it’s just answering a question about voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism.

Here is the first of my three replies–most of my replies deal with “less than intelligent” comments. I say “less than intelligent,” because they’re things I addressed in the initial video, but… that’s statism for you.

Trump v. Hillary: A Case Study of the Devolution of Democracy

If there is any one image that will perfectly explain this Presidential election, it is this:

democracy lolIt’s still going on, by the way.  At least they started using text, but it’s not like they actually started saying anything of substance:

Fascinating, Captain.

Fascinating, Captain.

This particular exchange had me laughing out loud for real:

The lack of self-awareness in these two is baffling.

The lack of self-awareness in these two is baffling.

Of course, anyone who saw the above thread and my comment to it knew that they would say something like this, but to then fulfill that expectation in what we must surely call a Blaze of Glory… it’s too perfect. It’s simply too perfect.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

Seriously. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

Seriously. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

I’m sure these two clowns will keep at it for some time, and I’ve never been so thankful that I don’t supporter either Hillary or Trump. This is truly amazing. Neil’s concern for the life of the ambassador is shocking. He seems to care so much that he’s willing to post horrifically violent pictures to Facebook, while at the same time talking about how he is dipping bullets in pig’s blood to shoot Muslims. If there’s ever been a clearer example of “I only care about my tribe!” than I’m not sure I want to see it.

Of course, they’re right that Neil doesn’t give a shit about the dead ambassador, and that he just wants an excuse to hate on Hillary. People who care about the dead dude don’t behave that way, and people who value human life don’t speak so gleefully about killing other people. He doesn’t hate brown people, as Alex suggests, though–he hates Hillary and “everyone else,” so he will seize every opportunity to bash Hillary and hate on everyone else. Everyone else isn’t based on race as much as it is his own insecurity, though. He’s not racist; he’s insecure.

And here’s me pwning a totalitarian piece of shit:

"Let's just make up something to support my opinion! That will work!"

“Let’s just make up something to support my opinion! That will work!”

The sad thing is that this person’s mentality is not unique or rare:

not aloneHere’s another “I’m perfectly fine with forcing people to do what I want them to do.”

It stems from an utter inability to realize that I am not their property. That’s where we have gone so wrong in the United States. We’ve come up with this Society > Individual bullshit that makes it okay to destroy the individual’s rights if “society” wants to, because “It’s for the good of the many.” Let’s look at some more harm that was brought to the few for the “good of the many,” shall we?

No, we don’t have to go that far, because you know, before I even provide a single example, what a travesty that entire idea is. Entire history books have been written about the way that various states have killed and tortured the few for the good of the many and for the betterment of society. As rational, thinking adults, we should know by now that it’s an idea we want nothing to do with. Yet here are two people, proudly saying it. Not explicitly, no, but that’s clearly what they think.

I happen to find forcing someone to do something against their will to be abhorrent. In fact, I find that to be absolutely despicable and unforgivable. What if DigiWaffles found it “abhorrent” that his wife dared tell him “No,” that she didn’t feel like having sex?

“How dare you tell me no?” DigiWaffles might scream. “I am your husband, you are my wife, and it is your duty to have sex with me when I want it! It is absolutely abhorrent that you would forego your responsibility, as decreed by God, to serve your husband! I will, then, force you to not be abhorrent! And since it is abhorrent for you to refuse sex with me, I will achieve this by raping you!”

I’m not calling DigiWaffles a sexual rapist, but it doesn’t change anything. That’s exactly what he’s arguing about this behavior that he finds it abhorrent. He finds it abhorrent, and therefore he’s okay with forcing people to do what he thinks is best. If he finds his wife saying “No” to be abhorrent? His own mentality means that he would rape her.

The Christians we were discussing find tolerance for LGBT people to be abhorrent. What if these Christians “completely fine with forcing people to not be abhorrent”? Considering they find his acceptance of LGBT people to be abhorrent, they would be within their rights to force DigiWaffles to not accept LGBT people, to force him to spit on LGBT people, and sever ties with any LGBT people he knows.

I'm now calling this the "Aria Nuked Yo Ass" Thread.

I’m now calling this the “Aria Nuked Yo Ass” Thread.

I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve encountered this literally every single time I get into this discussion with someone. When I talked with The Non Believer about Mississippi’s Religious Freedom Law, even he asked whether or not the idea applied to racism.

It’s so deeply ingrained in us, this idea that racism is an ultra super duper bad form of discrimination that absolutely must be stopped at any cost, that we just take it for granted. This is, it’s worth mentioning, the guy’s only reply to my lengthy rebuttal of his ideology and the totalitarianism he suggests. Because he couldn’t reasonably address what I said, he pulled out a race card.

And ran smack fucking ass into a stone wall.

I almost left it as just “Yes,” but chose not to. It was a conscious decision to split my reply across three comments, though, primarily to find out which one he chooses to reply to. Usually, when I split a reply across numerous comments, that is exactly why: you can learn a lot from someone by seeing how they choose to pursue the argument. Of course, all three of my points will come back up; his reply won’t possibly be sufficient, and I would wager that he’s simply going to post an image about how badly segregation fucked over blacks in the south. That’s easily addressed, and I’m going to do so now, before he replies.

First, segregation was enforced by the state; it was not an organic product of the free market. The government mandated segregation. Segregation was not a case of business owners choosing with whom they would do business. It was a mandate by the state on how they were to do business. The idea that most of these business owners would gladly have continued segregation of their own accord is demonstrably false, as well–it still is not illegal for a business to try to segregate its customers. They simply don’t do it because it would be suicide for the business.

Second, it would be suicide for the business in today’s world, and it hardly matters whether that would have been true 60 years ago.

He’ll choose to reply to the “Yes,” though, probably with some messed up image showing the very real plight of black Americans before the end of segregation. One thing he will not do is try to discuss the free market or how he holds racism as a trump card.

One that won’t work on me, dude. Sorry.

Donald Trump Rape?

The DNC has already shown that it’s willing to do a lot of really underhanded stuff to win the election, and Bill and Hillary have their own little history of rapes and stuff. Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right; my point isn’t that. My point is that Bill and Hillary would have the idea to accuse someone of raping a girl.

And I’ll be honest with you. For $250,000, shit, I’d say Donald Trump raped me. At this point, I’d do it for $5,000. All you’ve got to do is find someone who is hard up, who is reasonably attractive, and who has been in the same city as Trump at least once. That’s not a difficult criteria to meet. You offer that person to waive their criminal history, or money, or drugs, or whatever, and bam, you’ve got someone spreading the rumor that Trump raped them.

This is precisely why we can’t take these things seriously until they get to a point like Lewinsky’s did, or unless there is a police report or hard evidence. It’s simply too easy to accuse someone of rape. I could accuse Trump of raping me, and if I was popular enough, people like this guy on Facebook would be spreading that story, without giving any thought to the possibility that it simply wasn’t true.

We all knew, once he secured the nomination months ago, that allegations of rape were inevitable. My ex-wife once accused me of raping her, because she agreed to anal when she didn’t really want to do it. She just did it to make me happy and, no shit, later accused me of raping her. If I ever ran for president, I have no doubt that she would come forward with that bullshit and say that I raped her. The sad thing is–she isn’t alone. I don’t think I’ve ever dated a girl who didn’t claim that someone has raped her. And when pressed for details, these stories usually came back to “I agreed to do it, but I didn’t really want to, and he should have known that” and “I didn’t want to do it, but I went along with it” and “I didn’t say ‘No.'”

And I’m just throwing this out there–there might be less rapes each years if women didn’t say “No… stop…” when playing coy. My ex-wife did that shit all the time. I’d start kissing on her throat, and she’d go “Mm-mm” and twist away playfully. Granted, she never accused me of raping her over that (She knew what she was doing, and I’m just making the point) and only did over anal, but my point is that girls saying “No… stop…” because they want to be seduced while playing coy might accidentally contribute to the problem. Though it’s also true that it’s not hard to tell when a girl is playing coy and when she means it, that’s a pretty major thing to leave for the other person to infer, you know?

It’s like they said on Family Guy:

Fifty “No’s” and a “Yes”… means yes.

But it becomes all too easy for a girl to later be offered $30,000 to say that she actually meant it that one time she played coy with Trump, you know?

Austin Petersen Debates the Anarchist Shemale on Twitter

Now, look. I don’t have anything against this guy. I think he’s probably a fine (albeit misguided) human being, and he’s certainly a lot better than many other candidates, but “being better than people like John McCain and Mitt Romney” doesn’t really count for much with me. I won’t support someone just because they suck less than someone else–I’ll only support someone who doesn’t suck at all. Obviously, that person is the Libertarian Presidential candidate John McAfee.

But today I posed the question on Twitter:

I’d really love it if someone could explain how and are and not just very conservative. Any takers?

I tagged Austin Petersen because I want to give his supporters the chance to defend him and to explain how I’m mistaken and how he really is a Libertarian, and I’ve simply misunderstood his positions. But I got the man himself. Yep. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, came at me personally.

Well first of all, I’m personally socially liberal. Being pro-life doesn’t mean you’re conservative. It means you respect life

I’m simply going to report here what was said, and I’m not going to criticize him for his position or his tweets–at least, not very much. There’s no point in doing that. I will, however, explain some of my positions, because Twitter isn’t a great place to be making well-reasoned arguments. I am going to edit nothing. To that, I replied directly:

And that doesn’t answer the question. How is controlling what >50% of the population can do with their bodies libertarian?

Taken by itself, a fair point, but obviously it invites further discussion and can’t just be left at that. Before we can say that’s a fair question, we have to analyze its details–right? No, not really. It’s a simple, direct question, and requires a simple, direct answer. I did not get one, which provides further credibility to my previous claims that Austin Petersen is more or less a Republican in a Libertarian hat. I added:

Surely you realize that your personal belief that the fetus is “a living person” is just that: Your personal belief?

This put me on shaky ground, but the issue is murky enough that I’m comfortable being on shaky ground here. He replied:

We can discuss the issue, but please admit you incorrectly labeled me as a conservative. Please read:

And provided a link that I’m not going to bother with. I’m not going to bother, because I don’t believe he would bother with mine. Plus, as I replied:

Policies speak louder than words. You’re also against the , right? I judge on your policy, not your expressed associations

Yes, exactly that. I don’t care that he says he isn’t a Conservative, and I don’t care that he says he is a Libertarian. I care about his policies, and where his policies fall on the political spectra. He can openly reject conservatism all day long, but if his policies are distinctly those of typical conservatives (small government, pro-life), then I’m going to call him on it, regardless of what he says. I also added:

While my facts may be wrong, I stand by my conclusion based on what I know. If I’m mistaken about your policy, I’ll gladly recant.

A beautiful statement, yes? If my facts are incorrect, I will gladly adjust my position so that my conclusion is in line with the facts. I will let the evidence dictate my conclusion, not allow my conclusion to dictate the evidence. We should all be so humble to say such things. Austin Petersen, unfortunately, totally missed the point:

If your facts are incorrect, how can your conclusion be right?

This inane dribble received 3 likes–indeed, it’s the “most liked” reply in the conversation. This bullshit he spouted at me because he failed to understand what I said is the most liked tweet of the thread. That’s sad, isn’t it? It’s sad that Petersen’s reading comprehension is so bad that he couldn’t discern the meaning of what I said, but it’s also sad that at least three people didn’t bother to see if he was talking nonsense or not–and he was. Anyone who read my comment would immediately conclude that I was simply allowing the possibility that I was wrong, and allowing him the opportunity to clear the air. I was most certainly not asserting that I was right while simultaneously saying that I was wrong, and a presidential candidate should have the self-awareness and literacy comprehension to have understood what I meant. I would almost say that he did understand, and merely stooped to the lowest possible route by attempting to convince people I had admitted that I was wrong, when he knew damned well what I meant. I say that because it’s pretty obvious what I meant, isn’t it? “Based on what I know, that is my conclusion, but I might not know enough about your position for my conclusion to be accurate. If you would explain your position and if I am mistaken, I will gladly recant.” I mean, c’mon. That’s what I said–only within Twitter’s character limit. There’s no way he thought I was saying something so asinine as “My facts are wrong but my conclusion based on those facts is right.” That’s silly.

you seem to not understand. If my facts are wrong, I will change my conclusion to fit them. Are my facts wrong? 1/2

I’m allowing the possibility that my information, and therefore the conclusion derived from it, is wrong. That’s not saying I’m wrong

Yes, I actually had to explain to him what I meant, because the lightbulb didn’t go off in his head and he didn’t say “Oh! My bad. You were simply allowing for the possibility that you’re mistaken–you were being humble. My bad.”

When he said that, I began to sense something was amiss. Because, no, there’s really no way that he misconstrued what I said. It’s possible that he read it quickly and typed out his quick response, but he must have surely immediately realized that he’d just came to the silliest possible conclusion about what I’d meant. But that asinine reply got three likes.

Getting things back on track, I added:

Are you not pro-life and anti-nap? Very close to the policies of Rand Paul? These are fundamental questions of liberty.

For those unaware, the NAP is the Non-Aggression Pact and is the agreement that it is never justified to initiate the use of force, violence, and coercion. It is not a vow to pacifism; it is a vow to not be aggressive, and it is a fundamental pillar of the Libertarian Party. From Wikipedia on the matter:

The Libertarian pledge, a statement individuals must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party of the United States, declares, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

So being against the Non-Aggression Pact, as I’ve heard that Petersen is (a claim he never denied, by the way, leaving me to conclude that I’ve heard correctly) outspoken against the NAP. He’s outspoken against the pledge that one must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party. So I repeat: How, exactly, is he a Libertarian? He is against one of the most sacred tenets of Libertarianism.

Petersen replied with:

I’m an agnostic, pro-science libertarian. The child has separate DNA, therefore it’s a separate human body. This is logic

Oi vey.

I ignored that unrelated, irrelevant remark, and said:

So if a woman could donate a kidney to save a child and she refused to, we’d be justified in forcing her to?

Since we have the right to make woman make sacrifices of their literal flesh for the sake of others.

Petersen replied:

If you’re familiar with DNA, you’d understand that if you are pregnant, the child is a separate person.

It was here that Petersen began tagging several of his tweets as #prolife. We all know why he did this. He did this because he wanted to bring in people who were pro-life; he wanted to bring in backup to help him out. There’s literally no other reason he would have added that to the end of his tweet. That’s what tags are for, after all.

So I replied:

No one is disputing that. That’s not at all what I’ve claimed, though that’s still your belief, and many disagree. Not the issue, tho

…which isn’t actually true. I do dispute that, because I think deciding that x number of cells that have the potential to grow into a living, separate being is not quite the same thing as a living, separate being. A fetus in the womb is clearly not a separate being–it is attached to the mother via an umbilical cord and resides in the womb. If removed from the womb and severed from the umbilical cord, the fetus would die. This is not indicative of a living, separate being. It is indicative of a parasite. That’s a term that a lot of people don’t like, but that changes nothing: until birth, a fetus absolutely is a parasite on the pregnant woman. The only way people escape this scientific classification is by saying that the parasite is the same species as the host. Yeah, that’s true, but my dad is still a fucking parasite on my grandmother.

What’s right isn’t always what’s popular. What’s popular isn’t always what’s right.

This riled me quite a bit, and I didn’t hesitate to show it. Plus, another pro-life tag. That’s really transparent, especially for a tweet that didn’t really have anything to do with pro-life things specifically. Besides, the pro-life position is extremely popular… among other conservatives. I dropped the hammer on that asinine statement:

You haven’t addressed the point. Don’t throw weak platitudes at me while dancing around the contention.

There’s nothing for me to add to that. It stands on its own. A weak platitude isn’t an argument. It’s a weak platitude. So I returned to my parallel:

By that reasoning, it must be okay to force a woman to donate a kidney. Abortion doesn’t kill a fetus; it terminates a pregnancy.

This is a critical point, and one that I expanded in subsequent tweets. As Petersen so gleefully points out, the fetus and the mother are separate beings. Ergo, the fetus has no claim whatsoever to the woman’s body; the woman and the woman alone has the claim to her body, to her womb, to her time, and to her umbilical cord. The fetus, as a living and separate being, has no right to claim these things that are part of the woman’s body.

No it’s not OK to force a woman to donate a kidney, since a kidney is not a separate human life. Logic evades you

Let it be known. Let it be inescapably clear. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, threw the first insult here. And not only did he insult me, he completely missed the point.

Child needs kidney. Woman has kidney. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder.

Child needs womb. Woman has womb. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen disagrees: society can force the woman to give the womb, and that refusing to give the womb is murder.

The parallel is obvious, and it only gets stronger if we assert that the child is the woman’s son or daughter. It becomes:

Child needs mother’s kidney. Mother says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder. But child’s need of a kidney is a direct result of the woman’s decision years earlier to get pregnant and have that child; the child’s need for the kidney today is absolutely a consequence of the woman deciding to have the child in the first place. Ergo, according to Petersen, she must accept her responsibility, and if she doesn’t, then we must force her to. That’s the only way for Petersen to be consistent. It doesn’t matter if the child is 5 months old or 5 years old when it needs part of the woman’s body–she is responsible for that need because she is responsible for getting pregnant and having the child.

How Petersen missed the parallel by such a wide berth that he concluded I was comparing a kidney (the organ needed) to a child (the entity in need) is something I can’t grasp. Again, I think he purposefully misunderstood in a weak attempt to wriggle away from the hammers bearing down on him. My parallel contains a woman, a child in need, and an organ the child needs that the woman can give. Petersen’s reply is blatant intellectual dishonesty or foolishness of such scale that he cannot possibly be qualified to be President.

The person who would receive that kidney IS, dude. The point has eluded you.

The umbilical cord and womb aren’t real people either. The logical parallel clearly escapes you. It begins with a simple statement,

and proceeds with a mightiness of reason you evidently cannot keep pace with.

I absolutely threw a condescending remark back, and did so by paraphrasing the master of such insults: Thomas Paine. Not only that, but the parallel did clearly escape him, and he came to the most outlandish conclusion about what I meant that he possibly could have.

Killing a child is murder, whether that child is born or unborn. Not your body. Not your choice.

More tags, eh? Really hurting for some support? Needing a pat on the back and a “Well done, Petersen”? Other than a few likes here and there, no one came to Petersen’s defense. I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to argue with me, either. So far I have trounced him at every turn, and now he’s back to simply stating his position because he’s been unable to justify his position. More to the point:

Do you not see the obvious contradiction there?

To clarify: the woman’s body is not the fetus’s body, either. To use the woman’s body is not the fetus’s choice, either. I mean, really. Did I have to point that out? This is why my point about “abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a fetus” is critical. Unfortunate though it is–and it is unfortunate–the fetus cannot survive without the womb (see the kidney point above). But that womb belongs to the woman–it is part of her body, not the “separate” fetus’s. The woman and the woman alone owns her womb. The fetus does not. If the woman does not wish to share her womb, then that is her right, since it is her womb. It is unfortunate that she does not want to give her time and womb to a fetus/child/living molecule, but that is her right, just as it is her right to not give a kidney. The kidney and the womb, after all, belong to her.

The woman’s body–not your body, not your choice.

So, again, we’re discussing terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. Unfortunate though it is, the child does general die. Still

it’s obviously the woman’s body and obviously her choice whether to give of her flesh to another.

Rock solid argument.

No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body. Separate DNA.

Yet another pro-life tag??? Really, Petersen? Are you that desperate for support against the lone Anarchist Shemale? God, I honestly didn’t realize how many times he used that tag… It’s kinda funny, really. Anyway, who the hell knows what he’s talking about. The reply is to my last tweet above, which, you know… is rock solid. It is the woman’s body, the woman’s womb, and the woman’s umbilical cord. So what “No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body.” is talking about is, again, anyone’s guess. Is he saying that the womb is part of the fetus’s body? Because that’s obviously and scientifically false. The womb is part of the woman’s body. That’s seventh grade biology. The umbilical cord, to be fair, could go either way–I’ll concede that. However, the bulk of the umbilical cord remains with the woman, not the fetus and birthed baby, so… it has to belong to the woman, as well. The womb, however, is certainly the woman’s independent of the existence of a fetus. So… No, Petersen. You’re simply wrong. The womb is part of the woman’s body, and therefore the woman has say-so in what happens with it.

That has literally nothing to do with what I said.


unfortunate, but it is morally wrong to FORCE a woman to give of her body for someone else’s benefit, even when the cost is death.

He replied:

No one forces a woman to get pregnant except in cases of violent crime.

I retorted:

You talk of it as though it never accidentally happens. It most certainly does. Not the point anyway.

To this, Petersen said the most banal, inconsequential, and irrelevant thing yet by quoting Michael Crichton at me:

“I don’t blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them.” -John Hammond

I finished the discussion with:

More banal platitudes. I expected better of you. Honestly, I did.

At any rate, thanks for the conversation. I’m still betting that you join the GOP by 2030, though. 😉

And so that’s the second Libertarian presidential candidate with whom I have had some sort of discussion, though this one was more of a disagreement than a discussion. Of course, I follow John McAfee on Twitter, and John McAfee follows me on Twitter. Man, when I got the email that said @eTheRealMcAfee had followed me… I was stunned, and extremely happy. It appears to be the real John McAfee, going off the tweets, how they’re written and expressed, and the positions expressed. It might not be, but, if it isn’t, then it’s a damned good fake.

In the greatest tragedy of this election, McAfee is polling only at 4% among Libertarians, which is exactly what we would expect to find, if the Libertarian Party had been taken over by liberty-leaning republicans. I mean, just think about it. How well would an actual Libertarian do in the party if it had been taken over by liberty-leaning conservatives?

Poorly is the answer.

And that’s exactly why McAfee, despite being the only Libertarian on stage in the Fox Business debates, is polling at 4%. I’m only thankful that I watched the debate and saw how bad Johnson’s policies actually are, and how horrendously bad Petersen’s policies are. I’m writing in McAfee’s name no matter who gets the nomination, unless there is a very strong chance that the LP nominee will win the White House. And even then, I’ll never vote for Petersen, because he’s the lesser of evils, at best. Johnson merely has one bad policy, and I’ve urged him to reconsider that position. A Johnson supporter did challenge me on that, and I tore him apart, too. Johnson himself, though, has been silent thus far. In seeing what happened to Petersen when he took on the Anarchist Shemale, I can hardly blame him for his silence.

But his position should be defensible if he wants my support, and it isn’t. Neither is Petersen’s. And, in the end, Petersen didn’t defend his position. He merely stated his position while I pointed out the flaws in it. He pulled a great deal of foolishness or intellectual dishonesty, and he repeatedly tagged his posts in order to bring in back up. If there was a slim chance before that I would one day support Petersen, that chance has since evaporated. If there was any possibility that I could have looked past his pro-life position–as I once did for Ron Paul–that possibility has been wholly undermined by the insults, intellectual dishonesty, and weak attempts to call in backup to gang up on the Anarchist Shemale.

I don’t mind Petersen as a person. He seems decent enough, despite his insults, his underhanded argument tactics, and his attempts to bring in backup. But I adamantly disagree on his policies, and his intransigence in the face of well-reasoned arguments, his unwillingness to address counter points, and his strong similarities to republican Rand Paul mean that I cannot support him. And neither should you, dear reader. When I post this, it will go to Twitter, and it’s possible Petersen will see it and attempt to come here and challenge me further. That is not my goal. My goal here has just been to present my side of things, and he is more than welcome to create his own fleshed-out, 3500 word response.

And I’ll rip it apart, too.

Because the fact that there is a glaring contradiction in his position means that there is hypocrisy in his position. And what did I say about hypocrisy? That it is the duty of the rational person to challenge hypocrisy wherever it is found. And I will continue to do that whether the hypocrisy comes from a multinational corporation or a bloody candidate for President of the United States.

need I say more

lol, what?

Really, Petersen? These are the kinds of people who support you. Typical conservative pro-lifers. And you dare challenge my contention that you’re just a conservative? For fuck’s sake, that’s a Rubio supporter. A Rubio supporter.

Think about that.

In the interest of history, a few (presumably) Petersen supporters have carried on the debate. Here’s the best thing I’ve seen in the thread. For some context, he was specifically trying to tag in Gavin Whoever. Just like Petersen’s tags, I think it’s hilarious when people can’t take me on alone, without trying to call in help. And by his own admission, that’s what he was doing.