Divvel

This might be more of a social than economic question, but it strongly overlaps with these themes.

A common argument for democracy, be it politically or in the workplace, is that politicians and the government will be "held accountable to the people". I will assume that socialists(collectivists in general), support public education to some extent. My question is then, how are people who were educated and indoctrinated by the government for their entire life supposed to vote impartially in a democracy?

What incentive would a government have to educate its citizens objectively? Wouldn't it be opposed to their own best interests to educate their citizens on Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism for

I'm saying this as a European. It's really depressing how much people look at the government as solutions to everything on this continent. Some European countries even have monarchs, in which they worship a person as if they are a god.

So, this might be a strange request, but I figured to post here instead of on r-tipofmyjoystick or something since this is the MC subreddit.

Somewhere around 2012 or 2013 I remember watching a let's play of a guy playing in a very snowy, mountainous world. One detail I remember was that he was playing with a mod that allowed him to craft rope(before Minecraft vanilla added lead, this was definitely modded), which I think he either used to climb up the mountain or connect 2 peaks. For nostalgia's sake I'd really like to find these videos again but I just don't have enough details to feed YouTube or Google. The YouTuber spoke English, but unfortunately I don't remember the username at all, ju

People who support public education and specifically compulsory education laws should go to jail for conspiracy to commit child kidnapping.

Since the majority of the population has been indoctrinated through public schools, the absurdity of the public education system doesn't come to them outright.

No one has a right to access your child's body. Not your neighbours, not the mailman, and definitely not the government. Public education and specifically compulsory education laws are the greatest threat to freedom, since it normalizes state violence from an early age and entrenches it into the psyche of children who are then supposed to vote rationally in a democratic system.

The idea that p

In order to believe in absolute free speech, you must believe in absolute bodily autonomy. I don't think anyone believes in absolute bodily autonomy, not even AnCaps.

For example, is having children immoral, since they don't consent to being born?

Are sound waves travelling through the air infringements on bodily autonomy? If you believe in sound pollution, you should be against free speech, at least on private property. Maybe public property like roads or something are another story, but that just seems hypocritical, since the only way to fund government which protects free speech is through taxing people and therefore violating their bodily autonomy and therefore invalidating the whole a

There is a generally uncomfortable discussion about whether or not human behaviour and ability is dictated by genes or the environment. The general leftist argument is that the reason why some people are poorer or less intelligent than others, is because they lived in a "bad neighbourhood". The general right-wing view is either an appeal to free will, or biological determinism, in which human behaviour is dictated by genetics, and the reason why some people are richer or smarter is because they have a genetic predisposition.

I'm curious what peoples views on this topic is. Do you think anyone could become Einstein if they were just raised in the right environment? Do you think the reason wh

I don't believe in freedom of speech, since sound waves travelling through the air are transgressions of the NAP.

Of course people can say anything they want on their own property, but on public property that is democratically ruled, it wouldn't necessarily be immoral to have regulations on what you're allowed to say.

It's no coincidence that all high school shootings happened in public schools. Public schools and compulsory education in particular force aggressive low-IQ children from shitty backgrounds with actually hard working and decent children. I'm not surprised there is strife. Further there's the dysgenic effect of forcing young women with these piece-of-garbage men but I won't go into that now.

Besides, gun control is immoral. It's infringing on someones bodily autonomy for a crime they haven't committed. A gun is a tool, it's no different than a bottle of water, it does not have moral responsibility. Buying a gun should be as simple as buying groceries. Any and all barriers and regulation are

I find this period of history extremely fascinating and I'd like to really delve into it. Which is why I'm not interested into cursory reading or intro summaries or anything like that. I'm interested in the extensive, broad, deep reading, and I'd like a book that provides as much detail as possible about this period and the greater context. It doesn't necessarily have to be dry and monotonous, I'd appreciate a "bigger picture" focused book as well, as long as it is detailed and academic.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Why do they use this as an argument against capitalism when it was literally caused by SJW laws to get higher minority home ownership rates through forcing banks to lend to people who won't pay back? It's so obviously caused not just by government regulation but leftist social engineering about muh equality and racism?

This is more of an unpopular fact than an unpopular opinion.

The heredity of IQ is atleast 0.75, with arguments for 0.95(parental behaviour is also genetic). People don't like it since they make the assumption that this removes free will or all accountability from people or something.

At the very least, I think people should treat the hypothesis honestly, instead of smearing it with accusations of eugenics or racism. Intelligence comes from the brain, and the brain is made by genes. All phenotypic traits are controlled by replicators- humans are genes. I can imagine the existence of genes that allow for less intelligence, so the hereditarian theory isn't as unfounded or backwards as leftis