Ask @truediltom:

What books would you recommend for someone going into philosophy?

Mike
If you are a beginner, I would recommend looking at readers and online lectures on whatever area you are interested in as opposed to reading raw materials (Hume, Kant etc).

View more

What would you say has persuaded you more towards monetarism (and away from Austrianism, if applicable)?

Probably in accepting Operationalism and rejecting Praxeology, also rethinking some Austrian views on inflation and etc.

View more

Nigga, the mathematical evidence is there. Become a keynsian. Read Steve Keen "Debunking Economics"

Ill look it up, I have actually began adopting monetarism and other positions that make me uncomfortable lol

View more

do you have a good relationship with that guy t?

I speak to him in the dms, were both at being libertarian, we frequently retweet each others shit and we appear on each others livestreams.

View more

Kendrick Lamar or Eminem?

Despite one being a self-hating, unhinged leftist and the other a 'we wuz kangz' history revisionist, I'm gonna go with Kendrick Lamar.

View more

How would someone coming from a libertarian perspective understand or be convinced of the propertarian perspective?

Rather than reading Curt Doolittle's work, first read the work of his supporters. Some good websites / blogs would include: The Propertarian Forum, The Pakistani Reactionary, while also Curt's videos and podcast appearances are informative too.

View more

Is a socialist economic policy coupled with hard-right social views necesarily self-defeating (more in the effect that the economics has on the rightist social norms than the fact that socialism is a bad economic policy)? I ask because I am noticing third-positionism growing online lately.

I don't know if I would say they are self-defeating. But it is surely hard to maintain a good society when you are impoverished by socialist economic policies. Im sure any natsoc deep down would rather enjoy the living standards of the US as opposed to Nazi Germany where economic planning was made so impossible they couldn't even make shoe sizes.

View more

Do you think nationalism is inherently anti individualist or do you think the two are reconcilable

I think individualism is a 'half-truth' for the most part, but to simplify that term to just mean 'liberty' for the sake of answering your question. I would say I think nationalism is not only compatible, but is necessary for a free society.

View more

Do you listen to any Metal (core not included :P)? If so what are your favorite bands/subgenres

I am a big fan of heavy music, but don't worry I think metalcore sucks. Some of my favorite bands would be Meshuggah, Fallujah, Ne Obliviscaris, Deafheaven, Nails, Xibalba, Code Orange, Cattle Decapitation, Death, Emperor and Burzum ;)

View more

thoughts on being followed by lauren southern on twitter?

Pretty swag I guess. I had a brief exchange with her through private messages once. Despite my video on her book, she seems like a genuinely nice and humble person.

View more

Please respond to both questions to show them in the feed please

What am I responding to? That wasn't an argument but just several mere assertions as to why Capitalism doesn't work. All I would be doing in responding would be asserting the opposite of what he said, which is highly unproductive. For those interested the question(s) was this:
"Why a purely capitalist society couldn't work. Even if on the scale of a small country fair where resource distribution in this system of pure competition is self-regulated through the price mechanism. On a much larger scale it's seen that if you privatise law enforcement and police then trust evaporates, credit vanishes and business withers. Hence humankind cannot be salvaged purely by the laws of supply and demand governing a pure market system." - From a book called 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by some smart Chinese feller named Ha-Joon Chang. (2/2)

View more

What is your justification for exclusion as a principal governing a society? Why should it remain a core tenant of the right?

Because exclusion is a foundational method of preserving the value of ones land, commons and property, that is, through preventing undesirables from devaluing it either by their behaviour or their mere presence. For instance this is why a university prohibits bad students and an insurance company excludes people with risky behaviour and etc. It is for this reason, exclusion is foundational to the right, including the non-libertarian right, and whether it be ancapism, fascism, monarchism or etc, all of the right demands the removal of undesirables at some level whether it be the decision of the individual or at a level of state policy. While also, I would argue that the principle of exclusion is in essence, what divides the right from the left as most of the lefts doctrine can be traced back to an assumption that resources are infinite, scarcity is man-made and that any infringement on ones supply of resources is necessarily an injustice because of which, such injustices including the exclusion of others from ones own property.
While more importantly I would argue that for the libertarian right, exclusion is innate to private property rights in and of itself. That is to say, what is it to own something if one cannot exclude others from it? If to own something is to have authority over it, then what authority does one have over something if others are granted a right to expropriate it via non-exclusion? Thus, it would seem when one denies an individuals right to exclude others from what is theirs, they have denied the age old system of private property rights as well.

View more

I asked Jeffrey Tucker why he didn't think libertarianism is right-wing. He said he considered left-wing to be globalist, right-wing to be nationalist, and himself to be an individualist. Thoughts?

Tucker's understanding of left vs right is extremely unnuanced. For instance, by Tucker's metric, the traditional socialists of the 19th century (being extremely against global cooperation and supporting national self-reliance) would be right wing. So it would seem to me that nationalism and globalism can be tenants of both the left and the right. While I would also argue that Tucker himself subscribes to some form of globalism making him left wing by his own standards. But moreover, I think the task of defining what is left and what is right is not easy, however, the facets of hierarchy, exclusion, traditionalism and etc that prevail in all right wing ideologies, whether it be conservatism, fascism, monarchism or so forth, are equally as present in libertarianism. Thus, despite how tempting it is for Tucker to see himself as having transcended traditional politics, libertarianism is clearly right wing.

View more

Since you are no longer ancap, what would be the functions of your ideal state?

Well, if we are speaking of what is 'ideal', than ancapism would qualify as the most 'ideal' societal arrangement. However, what use is this if man is not ideal, in fact, he is innately barbaric and irrational and through great efforts must liberate himself from the natural state of affairs he is born into. It is for this reason my system of ethics demands aristocratic rule similar to the ancient anglo-saxon or germaic modes of governance. Where the local costs one would have to pay in each transaction (as in the state of nature) is instead centralised, maximising cooperation. While also, the culture of property rights is sustained through violently suppressing parasitism. But none the less, I don't think it is useful to think in ideals when man himself is not ideal.

View more

What is your opinion of the political structure of Liectenstein?

Perhaps it is not ideal, but it seems far more desirable than most other nations.

View more

Next