BBE/IE: Christopher Cantwell

Started by bp_28, February 26, 2016, 05:18:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
March 02, 2016, 02:42:05 PM #15 Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 03:21:07 PM by Travis Retriever
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on February 26, 2016, 05:18:27 PM
[yt]aIbuwifp9c8[/yt]
This video is full of fail
The stereotypical Jewish voice he uses in this isn't helping...

The one thing he got right in the video:  that the gun is still in the room to be used by people the liberals don't like.  As long as govco is still a thing, it is free to be taken and used by anyone who can get their hands on it.  Including someone as crazy and wrong as Trump.  Yet another reason why government has never worked, it can't work and will never work.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 28, 2016, 08:46:16 PM
well, to give you an idea of what the website is on about, read this:

I'll spare you guys the details; he's a neo-nazi!
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 27, 2016, 09:32:23 PM
I'm not altogether sure, but from what I gather they believe that the genetic differences between races are categorical and not just statistical.
At this point, I'm going to just assume that "race realist" means "closet racist/racist in denial."
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

March 03, 2016, 08:10:36 AM #18 Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 11:09:29 AM by evensgrey
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on March 02, 2016, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 28, 2016, 08:46:16 PM
well, to give you an idea of what the website is on about, read this:
I'll spare you guys the details; he's a neo-nazi!

Neonazis like Stalin now?

edit:  I think that corrects the quotation nesting.

March 04, 2016, 09:39:07 PM #19 Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 10:12:05 PM by Ibrahim90
QuoteThat's not how it is nowadays. This denomination is not used anymore and the term sub-species doesn't even have an accepted definition. It's pretty much dependant on the person doing the research as far as I know. Well, it's below the species level and ... There is some form of isolation that fixes some traits ... That's pretty much it.

Uh, subspecies is an officially defined term in the ICZN (the international Code of Zoological Nomenclature): so this is the consensus opinion in science. You can find this on Wikipedia of all places (EDIT: no, I didn't need Wikipedia to know. But the article on the subject is more or less correct):

Quote
A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.

you describe a subspecies with a third name (the result is a "trinomen"). For example:

species: Homo sapiens
subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens
subspecies: Homo sapiens idaltu (now extinct).
subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (obviously extinct).

you get the picture? If this isn't clear, here's another example:

species: Canis lupus
subspecies: Canis lupus lupus
subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris
subspecies: Canis lupus dingo

every person alive today, is from the first subspecies I listed--the type subspecies of the species Homo sapiens, in turn the type species of the genus Homo.

Obviously this definition isn't perfect--things are rarely black and white in biology (e.g. ring species). But humans are part of the rule, not the exception.

it's the term "race" that isn't widely used in science.

QuoteYou'll have to explain to me why this is relevant in this discussion because I don't understand ... "Minimal" by what standards ? How often statistical differences do not overlap between sub-species ? Why would the size of the human brain be a good indicator of anything for the purpose of this discussion ?

-humans on average are 99.5% identical genetically. That's less than a troop of chimpanzees (and most of the differences don't express themselves in any way: they're often called "marker genes", which is how we can trace ancestry in our species; it's also why species can be diverse genetically in the first place, but have their members all look, act, and function near-identically).
-the human brain (and its structure) is just one example of a diagnostic trait in H.sapiens, and the basic behavioral outcomes due to the hard wiring of this organ are largely similar throughout the species (culture can play with this, but cannot alter its fundamentals): this part is important, and you should know why if you read my reply about subspecies (actually, if you took any biology class, you should have known this: the brain generally controls behavior in vertebrate animals). So relevant? yes!

Quote
Again, why this standard specifically ? Is there a rule in those scientific fields that says that any sub group that appeared that soon in history is not eligible to be described as a sub group ?

Oh dear...

because mutations happen slowly, and are statistical in nature (a mutation every X years at Y population): you need a large population to have enough mutations pile up to create diversity. a small population can't do that, especially if it derived from a single, very small population (i.e. like humans).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

It has sources too, which you can read.

QuoteIs there a mechanism that we know of that prevents sub groups to form that quickly ?

statistics...if the population isn't big enough, it's not gonna happen quickly. There's a reason people's appearances started to diverge after 15,000 years ago (hint: people lived all over the world, and were getting more common).

QuoteWhat matters is : Do sub groups, in which all individuals share characteristics that they do not share with other population in the same group and that are always transfered to the offspring, exists in the human population ?

nope, because that part in bold is not what we really see with humans. What we see instead are human populations overlapping so much, it is almost impossible to define distinct groups. The only half-meaningful division is "African" and "non-African" (the latter mated with hominids outside Africa, because, you know, their ancestors left Africa), and even then there is considerable overlap (especially in Africa itself--not surprising, as humans lived there the longest, and the group that left Africa was only a small fraction of the total human population back then. So if a trait appears one place, it will spread to other places (e.g. lactose tolerance, sickle-cell anemia, resistance to certain illnesses, etc). Humans as you know like to travel...Even in Australia--a very isolated place--we see this (this tendency to travel is also how we get dingos on that continent: people introduced them ~5,000 years ago). The people in Australia were still in contact with modern New Guinea till sea levels rose, and then started interbreeding with each other, rather than isolate themselves (which wasn't an option anyways: too uniform, too small a population to afford that).

QuoteI mean what is the definition of the word "race" for you ? Does it involve something else ? Any of the standard you proposed  ? And if yes : why ? Because the word was invented way before the study of biodiversity and it really only meant what I said. Basically, a lineage within a bigger lineage. The point about it is that even with all that new knowledge, it still have descriptive value.

I believe I answered that question already, both here and elsewhere: the term doesn't apply to humans, and I have no real definition for it. In fact it's such a nebulous term it is no longer officially used in biology in general (the closest would be an informal term, with Bacteria, who do have lots of genetic diversity, and here the meaning is similar to that of subspecies, just more subtle). I can't define something that is this subjective (for example, the Egyptians believed mankind was of four races. They were one, their neighbors were the other three: Nubians, Lybians, and "Asiatics" (e.g. Arabs and Jews); some tribes in Africa consider neighboring tribes separate races: in Ethiopia people kill each other over the shape of their noses, not the color of their skin. Where do you draw the line? And what about people who are "mixed race"? You see why this doesn't make sense in modern human biology?).
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

Quote from: Ibrahim90 on March 04, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Uh, subspecies is an officially defined term in the ICZN (the international Code of Zoological Nomenclature): so this is the consensus opinion in science. You can find this on Wikipedia of all places (EDIT: no, I didn't need Wikipedia to know. But the article on the subject is more or less correct):

you describe a subspecies with a third name (the result is a "trinomen"). For example:

species: Homo sapiens
subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens
subspecies: Homo sapiens idaltu (now extinct).
subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (obviously extinct).

you get the picture? If this isn't clear, here's another example:

species: Canis lupus
subspecies: Canis lupus lupus
subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris
subspecies: Canis lupus dingo

every person alive today, is from the first subspecies I listed--the type subspecies of the species Homo sapiens, in turn the type species of the genus Homo.

Obviously this definition isn't perfect--things are rarely black and white in biology (e.g. ring species). But humans are part of the rule, not the exception.

it's the term "race" that isn't widely used in science.

-humans on average are 99.5% identical genetically. That's less than a troop of chimpanzees (and most of the differences don't express themselves in any way: they're often called "marker genes", which is how we can trace ancestry in our species; it's also why species can be diverse genetically in the first place, but have their members all look, act, and function near-identically).
-the human brain (and its structure) is just one example of a diagnostic trait in H.sapiens, and the basic behavioral outcomes due to the hard wiring of this organ are largely similar throughout the species (culture can play with this, but cannot alter its fundamentals): this part is important, and you should know why if you read my reply about subspecies (actually, if you took any biology class, you should have known this: the brain generally controls behavior in vertebrate animals). So relevant? yes!

Oh dear...

because mutations happen slowly, and are statistical in nature (a mutation every X years at Y population): you need a large population to have enough mutations pile up to create diversity. a small population can't do that, especially if it derived from a single, very small population (i.e. like humans).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

It has sources too, which you can read.

statistics...if the population isn't big enough, it's not gonna happen quickly. There's a reason people's appearances started to diverge after 15,000 years ago (hint: people lived all over the world, and were getting more common).

nope, because that part in bold is not what we really see with humans. What we see instead are human populations overlapping so much, it is almost impossible to define distinct groups. The only half-meaningful division is "African" and "non-African" (the latter mated with hominids outside Africa, because, you know, their ancestors left Africa), and even then there is considerable overlap (especially in Africa itself--not surprising, as humans lived there the longest, and the group that left Africa was only a small fraction of the total human population back then. So if a trait appears one place, it will spread to other places (e.g. lactose tolerance, sickle-cell anemia, resistance to certain illnesses, etc). Humans as you know like to travel...Even in Australia--a very isolated place--we see this (this tendency to travel is also how we get dingos on that continent: people introduced them ~5,000 years ago). The people in Australia were still in contact with modern New Guinea till sea levels rose, and then started interbreeding with each other, rather than isolate themselves (which wasn't an option anyways: too uniform, too small a population to afford that).

I believe I answered that question already, both here and elsewhere: the term doesn't apply to humans, and I have no real definition for it. In fact it's such a nebulous term it is no longer officially used in biology in general (the closest would be an informal term, with Bacteria, who do have lots of genetic diversity, and here the meaning is similar to that of subspecies, just more subtle). I can't define something that is this subjective (for example, the Egyptians believed mankind was of four races. They were one, their neighbors were the other three: Nubians, Lybians, and "Asiatics" (e.g. Arabs and Jews); some tribes in Africa consider neighboring tribes separate races: in Ethiopia people kill each other over the shape of their noses, not the color of their skin. Where do you draw the line? And what about people who are "mixed race"? You see why this doesn't make sense in modern human biology?).

Who the hell are you quoting?
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

@Ibrahim90

Well, there clearly is a divide about the scientific name of modern humans. It appears that french sources and english sources don't agree on that. Don't know why that is, but i'm not sure it's important either way ...

Is there also a difference in how different communities deal with groups below the species level ? What I can tell you is that I've read in the past that the definition of sub-species is "loose". Maybe the word "accepted" wasn't the right one here, I don't know. I note that a definition based on the oppurtunity of interbreeding is already quite loose so ...

Now, the exact word used by scientists in a scientific context to describe the level below the species level isn't that relevant anyway, that was not my point. I think  you are right : in my experience, the word race is not the word of choice. But knowing what word is in use in a specific context doesn't help us discuss the validity of the concept behind the word "race".

About this part:
Quote-humans on average are 99.5% identical genetically. That's less than a troop of chimpanzees (and most of the differences don't express themselves in any way: they're often called "marker genes", which is how we can trace ancestry in our species; it's also why species can be diverse genetically in the first place, but have their members all look, act, and function near-identically).
-the human brain (and its structure) is just one example of a diagnostic trait in H.sapiens, and the basic behavioral outcomes due to the hard wiring of this organ are largely similar throughout the species (culture can play with this, but cannot alter its fundamentals): this part is important, and you should know why if you read my reply about subspecies (actually, if you took any biology class, you should have known this: the brain generally controls behavior in vertebrate animals). So relevant? yes!

Anf before, you said this :
QuoteNo one is implying that by saying man is one race. Of course humans evolved and diverged to an extent. variations based on the environment are to be expected therefore (for example, skin color and immunology).

But these are minimal, tend to overlap considerably, and don't fundamentally affect the structure of the human brain (which hasn't really changed in 60,000 years--save in size, which worldwide has fallen). The reason is because what people call "races" didn't appear till the last 10-15,,000 years or so, and were in flux for millennia (which is why some human remains--like Kennewick man--have DNA similar to today's native Americans, but have faces that seem non-native: Kennewick man looked more like the Ainu in Japan.).

I don't want to stay to much on that part because I think we already derailed from the point I was making. You agree that "variations in different populations are to be expected", which is great, I, in turn, wasn't expecting anything else here. But I still don't see the remaining of the points as being relevant : Should we expect sub-groups in the humans species to present the differences in the brain you talk about ? I don't think so. Those differences could have happened ... or not. Behavioural outcomes, structures ans sizes of the brain of a given species could possibly be statisticaly close, as in virtually identical, if the pressures on the different populations of that species are not so radically different as to generates those brain differences ... If they share the same genetic makeup to start with (same species), I would think that this kind of similarities, wether in the brain or eslewhere are bound to be found. There can't be such a gold standard because as we already agree on, most differences we find between different population are statistical. In that case, the brain would be an example of a small statistical difference compared to the other differences.

The rate of genetic diversity doesn't seem so convincing either because it doesn't tell us where the differences are and how they are correlated or not. It just tells us how many they are. But the number is not important. What is important is if those differences are correlated with a given population for example. The commonalities are irrelavent because they are established by the fact that all population observed are from the same species (in our example at least). What matters are the circumstances "around" the differences (I used quotaion marks because I'm not sure how I should phrase this). if there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that different groups within a larger groups can only be discirminated by differences because logically, if they belong in the same larger group, they will necessarily share a lot in common. Therefore, what is relevant has to do with the differences only, which renders the rate of genetic diversity irrelevant to my specific point.

I'm not going to go back to the "do not share" in bold because I assumed that people would assume that I was writing with the fact that differences are statistical in nature in mind ... Even in hindsight I still think the expression was correctly used but whatever. Also, I might not be a native english speaker, or the best non native english speaker but I know what expressions like "get it now?" "oh dear ..." means and I don't know where this animosity comes from so this further encourages me to not focus too much on the things that weren't relevant to my point to being with.

So my point was that the concept of race basically describes a lineage within a bigger lineage, and we can categorize any given group that way because that is the way evolution generates new populations, by making lineage branch out into smaller lineage. So as a generality, the concept applies to humans that way. I don't think I've suggested that it should apply to scientific fields with a definition that broad. And if it was understood that way then let me state it another way : Since it is a fact that smaller lineage have appeared within the human species, regardless of the "fuzziness" of their limits in relation to each other ("fuzziness" which is itself a consequence of evolution), then it means that it is a valid line of scientific enquiry.

I think it obvious that with that definition, I don't have to draw any line. I never even suggested that we could draw a line. Even the line between species is only drawn because a huge chuck of the family tree of the living has died off today. Species are only a valid taxonomic group for practical purposes and are the result or either a "chronological bias" (we see it that way only because we see it today) or the discretization of evolutionary events that took place over a long time, and sometimes in a non linear manner.


Sorry. It didn't show who it was from for some reason, so I figured it was someone in the comments of the videos.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

March 05, 2016, 12:51:25 PM #24 Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 06:03:19 PM by Ibrahim90
Quote from: AdeptusHereticus on March 05, 2016, 09:15:35 AM
@Ibrahim90

Well, there clearly is a divide about the scientific name of modern humans. It appears that french sources and english sources don't agree on that. Don't know why that is, but i'm not sure it's important either way ...

the real divide is about fossil humans, not the ones alive today. This has to do with the recent genetic tests, which if true imply that neanderthals and us are two sub-species of Homo sapiens. The previous belief was that they and we are separate species, based on morphological differences.

That's a problem with paleontology: species are harder to sort out, as we can't observe mating habits. So morphology is used instead.

Unless you refer to the multiregional hypothesis--but that's just not possible (doesn't stop the Chinese though...damn mixing polotics and science)

QuoteIs there also a difference in how different communities deal with groups below the species level ? What I can tell you is that I've read in the past that the definition of sub-species is "loose". Maybe the word "accepted" wasn't the right one here, I don't know. I note that a definition based on the oppurtunity of interbreeding is already quite loose so ...

Not really: as I mentioned, subspecies is official everywhere (it wouldn't be international otherwise). Race is informally used in bacteriology and mycology, but is so vague it can substitute for subspecies. That's the problem: it's a very vague term.

QuoteNow, the exact word used by scientists in a scientific context to describe the level below the species level isn't that relevant anyway, that was not my point. I think  you are right : in my experience, the word race is not the word of choice. But knowing what word is in use in a specific context doesn't help us discuss the validity of the concept behind the word "race".

not by itself, no. But You have to combine this with what we know about people (or really, any clade), to look at the issue. These terms were picked for a reason: notice how they have straightforward definitions. Granted, they aren't perfect, but it's still clear and still works. I got that you were going for the bold part, but The concept you refer too is still too vague--too open.

Definitions matter--as you know. So if you mention race, the question beomes: "what is it?", and "does itvrelate to modern taxonomy?"


QuoteI don't want to stay to much on that part because I think we already derailed from the point I was making. You agree that "variations in different populations are to be expected", which is great, I, in turn, wasn't expecting anything else here. But I still don't see the remaining of the points as being relevant : Should we expect sub-groups in the humans species to present the differences in the brain you talk about ? I don't think so. Those differences could have happened ... or not. Behavioural outcomes, structures ans sizes of the brain of a given species could possibly be statisticaly close, as in virtually identical, if the pressures on the different populations of that species are not so radically different as to generates those brain differences ... If they share the same genetic makeup to start with (same species), I would think that this kind of similarities, wether in the brain or eslewhere are bound to be found. There can't be such a gold standard because as we already agree on, most differences we find between different population are statistical. In that case, the brain would be an example of a small statistical difference compared to the other differences.

You're right, but Again: local variations arise in humans, and then spread and overlap. This is isn't  contradictory. And again, that was an example. I could go with bone structure or blood types. There are plenty of data points we can go with.

But you're getting at the difficulties in genetics. This is a problem widely worked on (not humans, the statistics)

QuoteThe rate of genetic diversity doesn't seem so convincing either because it doesn't tell us where the differences are and how they are correlated or not. It just tells us how many they are. But the number is not important. What is important is if those differences are correlated with a given population for example. The commonalities are irrelavent because they are established by the fact that all population observed are from the same species (in our example at least). What matters are the circumstances "around" the differences (I used quotaion marks because I'm not sure how I should phrase this). if there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that different groups within a larger groups can only be discirminated by differences because logically, if they belong in the same larger group, they will necessarily share a lot in common. Therefore, what is relevant has to do with the differences only, which renders the rate of genetic diversity irrelevant to my specific point
.

You're absolutely right. But then, I basically said this earlier, when I remarked that most genetic differences don't code for anything.  ;)

but again, you run into that one problem: humans love mixing: a feature that evolves in one place will spread quickly with us: tech trumps geography in our case.


QuoteI'm not going to go back to the "do not share" in bold because I assumed that people would assume that I was writing with the fact that differences are statistical in nature in mind ... Even in hindsight I still think the expression was correctly used but whatever. Also, I might not be a native english speaker, or the best non native english speaker but I know what expressions like "get it now?" "oh dear ..." means and I don't know where this animosity comes from so this further encourages me to not focus too much on the things that weren't relevant to my point to being wit
h.

My apologies for coming sharper than I was. I did find it to be a funny question, but didn't intend an insult. but nonetheless it was discourteous of me.

QuoteSo my point was that the concept of race basically describes a lineage within a bigger lineage, and we can categorize any given group that way because that is the way evolution generates new populations, by making lineage branch out into smaller lineage. So as a generality, the concept applies to humans that way. I don't think I've suggested that it should apply to scientific fields with a definition that broad. And if it was understood that way then let me state it another way : Since it is a fact that smaller lineage have appeared within the human species, regardless of the "fuzziness" of their limits in relation to each other ("fuzziness" which is itself a consequence of evolution), then it means that it is a valid line of scientific enquiry.

But then you go back to the question of how you define these "lineages", when people constantly mix and match?

What you describe too general to be of any use, even as you define it. And judging from the coversation, quite circular.  :P

EDiT: it's also too similar to the terms "taxon", already used in biology

Besides, we have other divisions we can use, with clear definitions. That's what I'm gettimg at: we don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

,
QuoteI think it obvious that with that definition, I don't have to draw any line. I never even suggested that we could draw a line. Even the line between species is only drawn because a huge chuck of the family tree of the living has died off today. Species are only a valid taxonomic group for practical purposes and are the result or either a "chronological bias" (we see it that way only because we see it today) or the discretization of evolutionary events that took place over a long time, and sometimes in a non linear manner.

Oh, now you tell me!  :P

Actually, you're right. I would argue though that genus is also valid, since it has a definition we can test.
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

@Ibrahim90

Sorry for the delay ... My previous participations were done "on the spot", I'll try to take more time to formulate the next one. I'll do it during the next week ... But before I can do that I have two questions, one that is important and one that might be less so.

First :
"And judging from the conversation, quite circular."
Can you expand on that ?

And :
"Oh, now you tell me!  :P
Actually, you're right. I would argue though that genus is also valid, since it has a definition we can test.
"
I don't know what that part in bold means in that context so I need an explanation...

Thanks.

March 18, 2016, 08:26:05 PM #26 Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 08:28:55 PM by Ibrahim90
That's fair enough. I've been busy myself, so little time  :shrug:

First :
Quote"And judging from the conversation, quite circular."
Can you expand on that ?

We keep returning to the same question: how do you define the term you provide, as distinct from terms we already use in the field?


QuoteAnd :
"Oh, now you tell me!  :P
Actually, you're right. I would argue though that genus is also valid, since it has a definition we can test.
"
I don't know what that part in bold means in that context so I need an explanation...

It took you that long to say, in effect, that you agree with me  :P . I refer to that part:

Quotethink it obvious that with that definition, I don't have to draw any line. I never even suggested that we could draw a line.

I think we're going at the problem from two different angles, and perhaps talking past each other to an extent; that once we're on the same page, we'll find we don't differ as much as you think.
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

https://twitter.com/TravisRetriever/status/751443520532152320
knilsen_  (thought to be fair, he's nowhere near as bad as Hawkeye was near the end of his stint with the co-host chat and on my DA page...and this other bloke is overall a lot nicer...anyways...) in that thread is also a fail (posted here instead of fail quotes because relevant).  It really is amazing to see the insane lengths the stefbots will go through to defend him.  The weaseling, the handwaving, the "IZ SUBJECTIVE!" when dealing with matters that aren't opinion or subjective.

I've said it once and I'll say it again.  Stef is a hack.  He acts like he's the greatest thing to happen to philosophy (has this guy NOT seen his "The Salvation of Philosophy" videos? Where he just flat out says he's saving the field.)  But with the possible exception of the "stop hitting/abusing your children for liberty" bit (and even then I can't confirm if he was truly the first to ever say that) pretty much everything else he has said that is pro-liberty or seen as insightful, etc has been said better, with less verbiage and more insight than anything he's ever posted.  Acting like he's a savior of this crap is just falling into a cult of personality.  Same could be said of Ayn Rand, whom, last I checked, supported war, genocide of the Native Americans, and never met a tax she didn't like.  Calling her a "Libertarian Giant/Legend" as even some of the folks on Anarchyball (and even Mises.org) sadly do (sigh, everyone has their gris-gris, eh?) is just wrong.  Especially when Anarchyball love to bash people for voting, even if it's for folks like Gary Johnson.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

August 09, 2016, 12:11:19 PM #28 Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 12:14:45 PM by libertarian__revolution
You also need to talk about the physical removal principle, which says that if you have people in your country who advocate socialist policies, then they can be aggressively removed from the country, since they are advocated violence. My initial problem with this is it tries to twist the non-aggression principle and turn the physical threat into one not imminent.
[yt]nlPdUafTwAg?t=180[/yt]
This video illustrates some of the arguments used to support the principle (I time coded it; the relevant part is until 5:07)
The video also just uses arguments against Clinton to support Trump.
Also around 8:43
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.