Demoralized?🤣I've never been so excited and white pilled. Imagine thinking begging at the slaves' suggestion box for yet another election is "doing something".🤡Let the plebs into that cuckoldry be demoralized (they should be—it doesn't work—we have 200 years of data for that).

Money is the advanced technology of peace and prosperity. We are the only species that uses it because the others cannot comprehend consent nor care about your self-ownership. The alternative is the opposite of anarchy—might makes right, the strong take, the weak starve or die.

We're letting our will to survive force us to run from accountability and rationality, as usual. You own the effects of the actions you control. That is the libertarian position. Culpability is not a pie of fixed size that must be divided among participants or assigned only to the person at the top of some baddie hierarchy. It accrues to those with agency over their own actions. Duress may spread the pie around more, but it does not remote-control your brain. One still chooses and still acts, and therefore remains responsible for the means chosen. B’s right not to be killed constrains C the same way it constrains anyone else. A’s aggression against B, without B’s consent, does not cancel B’s self-ownership nor enslave B’s body to C’s disposal. If C’s only means of stopping A foreseeably kills B, then C’s act is still an act against B. Rapists would be overjoyed to hear that ones failure to sufficiently resist erases one's self-ownership and consent.

> Your options are voting or violence. Precisely false. Those aren't even the effective options, much less the best options, much less the ONLY options.

Its because we reject authority... Like they did when they were young, before it was abused out of them by authoritarian parents and government schooling. They see us as never having left what they experience as childish rebelliousness instead of self-ownership and consent. Change parenting, change the world.

Libertarians have lower allegiance to group identity and collective relationships than any other measured category—even down to familial one's. This is why there's nasty infighting. We have no qualms about getting sideways with other members of our group when they're wrong, and no problem gatekeeping and ousting bad apples. This tendency can also poison and kill cohesiveness necessary to work together. This dictates 2 requirements for our success: #1 It is critical that when working together we DO NOT bring our other ideological baggage with us and DO stay centered and focused on the NAP. You're a black, christian, programmer, into homeopathy, and sucking trans tri-binary ultra-queer d*cks, while smoking weed and dreaming of your rigid covenant community that only allows white people on vegan-keto diets? Cool. None of that has anything to do with libertarianism. Leave it at home. The more you bring it up, the harder time we'll all have. And whatever you do—stop hyphenating our labels! There's no such thing as an anarcho-vegan-keto-queer-christian-itarian. Stop it. Just stop. Try to ignore people that violate #1. Low IQ people are unable to separate their mental concerns. They won't accept you as a libertarian unless you are one of them religiously sucking vegan-keto-peen. Calmly tell them to stop, and move on with working towards liberty. If they're not too toxic or obnoxious you can still work with these people. Try to relax as much as you can and don't sweat different kinds of people as long as they agree with you on the primary focus of non-aggression. #2 Protect, gatekeep, and socially remove entryist subversives. Some people come into liberty with preconceived notions that violate the non-aggression principle. Some people change their positions over time to include such violations. (IE: Dave Smith bordertarians or anti-property woke intersectional lefties) The Libertarian Pahtay is rife with these people. There can be no quarter for anyone advancing coercive ideas under our labels. If they are serious and firmly decided in their coercive positions, denounce them loudly. Exclude them. Move on. Careful to have patience for those still trying to figure things out too.

Your personal predictions on what may result in your death do not justify creating innocent victims. If you do not have the fortitude to hold consent and property as your prime directive then call yourselves something more apt—like republicans.

If the president of @Stanford themselves asked me to write the entry on democratic socialism, I would have enough self-awareness and integrity to suggest they find someone else that isn't actively working against those ideas to do it. You possessed zero qualms though?

@Stanford just handed the SEP "Capitalism" entry to a UChicago political theorist whose current live book project is "a normative critique of capitalism" and a case for democratic socialism. A critic got to fix the map: what counts as "capitalism," which defenses are "only of aspects," and which critiques are "of the system." Capture with footnotes is not a "survey". If Stanford wouldn't let a capitalist define communism, why did a professional anti-capitalist and author of "What Is the Wrong of Capitalism?" get to define capitalism?