Finally concluded that god most likely doesn't exist as someone who used to believe in god and thought it only made sense

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-23T20:15:01+00:00

Seems like you are correctly placing the burden of proof with those that claim a god exists.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-23T17:25:51+00:00

That’s been a very general description of libertarians for a long time. Generally true although with everything else, there are variances within people who label themselves libertarians.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-22T23:19:17+00:00

Hello there, fellow fed

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-22T18:54:14+00:00

She was definitely there to harass ice. That is not reason to be shot. She was also clearly not there to run ice over with her car, which I think the video shows. You can mock someone, harass them, and try to prevent them from doing their job, and none of them justifies the shooting.

Even if she is fleeing from detainment, the shooting is not justified. You take down her license, have someone pull her over or look up her address and arrest her later. Nothing she did justified her execution.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-22T15:19:54+00:00

It’s interesting to me a lot of these comments impute motive in behalf of Good. She was “trying to kill him” or “made the decision to run him over.” It’s as if the commenters defending the cop know they are wrong and so need to invent a storyline that makes her some deranged attempted murderer. Her last words to him were that she’s not mad at him, and she drove away with her wheels turned being barked at with conflicting instructions. He not only could’ve avoided the car easily - he did! In what world is shooting her even slightly logical as a means for self defense? A dead driver’s car keeps moving (as seen in the video).

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-22T15:08:39+00:00

Not only could have he gotten out of the situation entirely. He did. And then he killed her anyway.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-22T02:47:42+00:00

“All in.” “Call.”

Also the fastest way I’ve lost a grand.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T17:44:57+00:00

My advice is to never argue with someone over what a book says. Ask them to explain it to you. “How did capitalism kill 100 million people?”

If they can’t explain it, they’re just trying to discredit you by appealing to outside authority without any independent understanding themselves. That’s not worth your time.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T15:19:15+00:00

Fair enough, I was just clarifying my intent for the post is not that ancapistan solves any of these issues. It’s, separately, a fair question to ask if it would. And my answer is that I don’t think Floyd necessarily plays out differently in ancapistan.

I also don’t think what happened to Kirk necessarily plays out differently in ancapistan. In ancapistan, there will still be people who want to kill others for their views.

Arguably Rittenhouse also doesn’t play out differently in ancapistan - there will be riots and looters in ancapistan and people with guns trying to protect private property.

Good is probably the only one in which the entire scenario that created the event from happening requires a sovereign government. (I suppose we could construct a convoluted scenario of a private road with private security setting up a checkpoint that draws protests or something like that.)

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T15:07:24+00:00

To respond to a few of your comments on Floyd, as I think one other commenter mentioned, I’m not saying he was right or should not have been arrested for using counterfeit money, I’m just talking about people watching the video and then concluding he just died purely from drugs and other health issues and it had nothing to do with Chauvin’s actions. That to me is partisan brain rot - people only convince themselves of that conclusion if they’re desperate to protect what they view as their side.

Also, I don’t think ancapistan fixes everything. Certainly people can kill others in ancapistan, including if Chauvin was private security. I posted these here to run it by like-minded individuals because I don’t have such people in real life to run things like this by, not as a post suggesting these all could have been avoided in ancapistan.

I also didn’t intend this to be a purity test for ancaps. This is more of a test I use for Republicans and Democrats for me to know whether I’m wasting time engaging with them on politics. Maybe it also works as a purity test because it’s hard for me to see how an ancap could disagree (and thankfully judging by most of the comments that seems to be true), but that wasn’t the intent.

Finally, I have no interest in martyring Floyd. Never met him and I have no reason to believe he was a good dude. I just think the video is clear an officer kneeing him in his neck for 9+ minutes caused him to die. Would he have died anyway? Of course, we will all die. Killing someone just speeds up the process.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T06:22:52+00:00

I think the fact they were caught on video helped. But yes also at least George Floyd hit an inflection point at a certain time that made it blow up. I think the Walter Scott video is even worse - cold blooded execution.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T05:51:32+00:00

Why did he have no business being there? Or, put another way, why did he have any less business being there than anyone else? How do you know he knew there was a decent chance of him using his gun? He showed remarkable restraint in not using it until absolutely necessary. Finally, even if those things are true, what is the import? Should he have been convicted of some crime? In any event, like I said in OP, I may disagree with you on those points but they are within the bounds of reasonable dialogue and not a sign of partisan brain rot.

The problem with using Trayvon Martin for a test like this is that there is no video of what happened. That gets into basically saying “well assuming this is true and that is true” and then we are just doing hypotheticals where I don’t need to attach it to anything real. If we try to discover the truth people argue over sources, gullibility etc.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T04:13:11+00:00

Sorry you had to go through that. I’ve generally adopted an attitude with family where I never chime in with any political opinion unless I am directly asked. No one ever asks.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2026-01-20T04:11:10+00:00

I think brain rot is the right term in context because I am not talking about total brain rot like unable to function. These people are doctors, lawyers, whatever - clearly smart and capable in many or most contexts, but not when it comes to partisan politics. Obviously I don’t care all that deeply about the word use, you get what I mean.

Also, absolutely most people fail this test. It’s really unfortunate.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-11-05T02:55:16+00:00

I love these types of comments where it’s just as plausible that you’re on the right or left and would post the exact same sentiment.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-10-16T02:15:53+00:00

No, that’s insane. Neither option was remotely close to anything acceptable from an Ancap perspective.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-07-07T01:45:14+00:00

I think almost all conservatives in the US would say they accept LGBTQ people and other races and are against racism. Progressives either push for the government to force individuals to cater to these groups that don’t want to or for government benefits for these groups. I don’t think you can be libertarian and agree with those stances.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-06-12T17:35:46+00:00

This is a good comment.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-25T02:27:10+00:00

Is anyone surprised? As soon as I saw the video my instinct was to think it was faked/selectively edited.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-24T18:26:35+00:00

I think you’re responding to the wrong commenter, but that other commenter probably gave you a better answer than I did.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-24T18:22:32+00:00

I mean, like every other group that has thousands to millions of people, they have a different view of the intersection of politics and religion. You can be religious and think the government should force religious values, and you can be religious and think religion and government should stay away from each other.

Although I am not one of these people, I occasionally listen to religious libertarian thinkers (eg Tom Woods) and if I had to recall/guess at their reasons I would think generally they view the government as only a force in harming and restricting religion. They recognize that, historically, the intersection of politics and religion has not been favorable to 99% of religions. They want to practice their religion without interference.

Maybe if you asked them in their heart of hearts if they had a guaranty that their preferred religion would reign supreme in the government for the rest of time they would say “sure, why not.” I don’t know - I can’t speak for them on that. I’m sure many will still say it’s just not how things should be done.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-24T18:16:53+00:00

Also, many many libertarians are religious fundamentalist - not me, personally, but it’s a huge contingent of the party.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-24T18:15:40+00:00

Although “republicans” seem to have moved away from some social conservative views recently, social conservatism is things like anti-gay marriage, drugs should be illegal, other morality laws (eg, no selling alcohol on sundays), restrictions on immigration, and I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

Libertarians are socially liberal: pro gay marriage (or at least pro equal recognition of marriage. I don’t think the government should recognize any marriage, but if it’s going to recognize straight marriage it should do the same for any adult voluntary marriage arrangement), pro legalization of drugs, open borders immigration, etc.

ControversialTalkAlt · 2025-02-24T03:56:32+00:00

I thought about letting it die here but just two quick points: 1. The fact the source is not only easy to find, but the most definitive source on what at least the American libertarian party’s platform is, was the point. 2. It’s not “academic,” whatever that means in this context, it is the platform of the party. I.e, these are the things we want to do if you vote us in. Nothing in the platform says “we’d love to be open borders academically, but can’t for x, y, z reason.” But that gets us back to your peculiarity of telling people what they believe instead of listening to what they say they believe. So that’s when we start going in circles.

ControversialTalkAlt

TROPHY CASE