Leo Gura

The fundamental answer is: because when you see how horrific and ugly it is for long enough, you will want to end it. Whenever consciousness looks at its own selfishness and ugliness long enough, it awakens, has a change of heart, and drops the selfishness in favor or selflessness and love. Even if the North had not invaded the South. Eventually even the South itself would recognize that their slavery was too ugly and selfish to be sustained. It would have just taken a few hundred years longer.

Yeah, that's how most libertarians argue because they are stage Orange, which tends to get comically "rational" when it is threatened. The entire stage Orange worldview is grounded in a religious-like faith in logic, without realizing that logic can be misused by the ego-mind to justify any sort of nonsense. Every deluded ideologue in the world feels that his worldview is logical. Case in point: Ben Shapiro. Logic cannot ever be trusted to understand the nuances of reality.

I don't think he's a cult leader. As I said in my Cult Psychology - Part 2 video, there are many cult-like dynamics in society and online which do not make for a true cult. Although they are still problematic. People call me a cult leader all the time. It's all too easy to call someone whose worldview you disagree with a cult leader.

So progressives don't have kids???? WTF kind of logic is that? If you have kids you should be extra concerned about climate change, income inequality, rising healthcare costs, rising education costs, war with Iran, and all the other problems of late-stage capitalism.

Ah... okay, fair point. So what I mean is NOT that one nation will become so powerful as to physically dominate all the others into one global empire. No! That cannot happen because we are too developmentally evolved as a species for that. Global unification will happen along the lines of how the 13 colonies became the United States. There was no bloody war to force the colonies to unify. They did it peacefully and willingly. So what will happen is that all the countries of the world will start to unify through a natural desire to do so rather than through domination. It will so be obvious that having a unified world government will be a net gain for all parities who join as it will bring great cohesion and peace and prosperity. Another possibility is if there is an alien invasion. This will force nations to unify in self-defense. But I think most aliens are going to be far too conscious and selfless to invade us. An advanced alien species who can build fast ships will have to be extremely conscious and loving and shouldn't even has a desire to harm us.

I was too uncharitable to call him "a hack". To be more precise, he's just ideologically stuck in a Blue/Orange worldview. That's really my only issue with him. I don't wish him any personal suffering. I don't see him as a fraud or charlatan. His heart is in the right place, it's just clouded by ideology.

Yes, of course.

I see your question. Okay, yeah, in that case you need to factor in development psychology and the moral developmental line. Yes, as people become more educated and conscious thanks to the order and peace and technology afforded by the unification under monopoly of force, eventually they develop a higher sense of love and selflessness, which then leads to things like abolition of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, police reform, etc. There will be one world government, of course. Take a look at how it works in Star Trek. They have a United Federation Of Planets which is the monopoly of force in the region.

And? How does this contradict what I said above? Both are true.

I find him sincere. I don't see why you must call him a failed philosopher or insincere. You simply have a different worldview than his. His show was about as successful as you could expect it to be and it seems like he earned his success through hard work on his show. Why begrudge him for that?

Human society will always have a monopoly of force, at least for the next 500 years. Society evolves from and builds on top of monopoly of force. There is no problem with space corporations because there will be an over-arching government body with a large military force which oversees those corporations and keeps them in check if they get out of hand. Thanks to Trump we already have a Space Force We don't need fantasies when we have reality.

Well, just look at how it worked historically. The history books tell us what happened. Kings unified warring tribes. People accepted it because as bad as a king might be, warring tribes are worse. But once all the tribes are unified under one banner and culture for some centuries, people start to wonder why they need a king. Why can't they rule themselves as one unified nation? The king also usually becomes corrupt with power by this point. And so they stage a revolution to overthrow the king and put in place some kind of legislature and constitution which distributes the power to more than one person at the top. Voting rights are eventually established. Then voting rights get expanded to more and more ordinary people, not just aristocrats. Of course kings, aristocrats, and elites never give up their power willingly. They must be forced into to. Look at the police protests right now. The police are not willing to give up their power, but the mob of people is stronger than them and will take away some of the police's power because the police have been using their power recklessly. Most kings, bosses, and dictators must be killed. They are rarely willing to step down peacefully due to some personal realization. There will be more leadership videos in the future.

Yes No they don't. They slaughter each other. You assume they make peace all the time because everything you see around you is the peace created by monopoly of force. No one said it works every time. It doesn't have to. It just has to work more often than its alternative. Of course everything comes with a cost. But the whole point is that the cost is outweighed by the peace and order it produces. The cost of libertarianism is worse. So your point is moot. Peace and war are the same thing because there cannot be peace without war. If there could, war would not exist. Again, those turn out to be the same thing. War is conflict resolution. Inside/outside is also a relative and fluid distinction.

If you talk to 2000 girls, at least a few of them will turn really bad. The girl could be having a terrible day or she just gets spooked. She could be drunk. Her husband or boyfriend could get very defensive. etc. It's pretty rare, but if you go out long enough, you will encounter even the most rare scenarios.

Of course you do. That's your personal morality which you naively expect others to obey -- which they won't. Why should they? Violence is a relative notion. But you don't understand that. There cannot be peace without violence. The entire point of monopoly of force is that that is the only mechanism by which peace between humans is even remotely possible. Like I said, if humans were angels then liberartianism could work and we wouldn't need monopoly of force. And if my mother had balls, she'd be my father. Of course there isn't. Which is precisely why it must be decided by violent force. The right to rule a pure fiction of the human mind. The right to rule simply comes about when the ruler kills anyone who challenges his rule. That's the free market at work. In a free market I get to kill you if you don't follow my rules. And if you don't like it, tough shit, there is no higher authority you can appeal to. You can either be my slave or you can fight me. Lol, nice gaslighting there, buddy.

You are loved no matter how ignorant you decide to be.

El Chapo is classic Red. Watch some documentaries about him.

The biggest problem with debunking libertarians is anticipating their level of denial and foolishness. It's hard to nail jello to the wall. Libertarian philosophy is so abstract and idealistic that it's very hard to debunk.

@Robi Steel No one's banning you here, bro. It's just that some of the political stuff you say is absurd and we can't help but laugh at it. Nothing personal, but it is amusing.

Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives/Libertarians Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives - - - - - - - Of course conservatives don't have a monopoly on all the above, but they sure are good at it.

Bahahahahahaha.... BTW, the European refugee immigration issue is a legitimate one. You can certainly make a valid point that a society can only integrate so many people from less developed countries. But this point needs to be made very carefully, based on science, not based on nationalism and ethnocentrism. If you want to limit the number of immigrants to a country, that's a legit discussion we could have. You will need to provide some studies/proof which shows that your country cannot accommodate more immigrants.

Yeah, free-association and improv is hugely valuable for being good with girls. You gotta become silver-tongued.

You will become that carefree cool guy. Girls aren't attracted to some one stereotype. They are attracted to fun cool guys, period. It doesn't matter if you will sleep with her one night or marry her. Her attraction to you will be the same in both cases. And I enjoy long-term relationships with the right girl. I'm not really big on one night stands. You can find girls who are into either one. That's a deep topic. Like I said, you should be careful and responsible not to hurt girls too much. Obviously don't mislead them about your intentions. At a nightclub, one night stands are so common that the issue of a long-term relationship won't even come up in many cases since both of you know it was just a casual fling. But if you start seeing her repeatedly, yeah, she will start to expect a relationship, in which case you gotta be clear with her about what you want. I suggest you don't see a girl repeatedly unless you really like her and are willing to commit.