49 Comments on “Freedom and Happiness? Or An Orderly Society?”

1. Hi BD,

   As you say in your book and on this blog, if you aren’t happy with an aspect of your life, then it’s your fault.

   I find that the happier I am, the less I see society as being screwed up.

   The beauty of a screwed up society is that it gives people who don’t /  won’t change their circumstances, something to blame. So there is actually an incentive to keep society looking screwed.

   My father was a rather puritanical man who took his wedding vows very seriously, worked hard and did all the right things. BUT, I remember quite clearly, him telling me when I was quite young, that whilst he supported the framework that society had created, the problem was that man was designed to mate with as many females as possible! Now, I’m 99% certain he remained faithful, so that was really something for him to say to his son!

   Most people are self regulating. What we hear about society being screwed is amplified by the fear mongers. A desire for control, be it society in general, or a man controlling his woman (or women) is also based on fear, which actually stems from a lack of genuine confidence.

   So give me happiness any time!

2. What changed?

   The pill.

   Oral contraception utterly re-wrote the book. Never mind imagining a world without internet porn. Imagine a world where sex tends to make babies. Everything else flows from that.

3. This is such a good post Black Dragon…and I agree with you. It makes sense to just adapt and quit bitching about the problems we face today. We can’t change society anyways so why not just take control of what we can: our own lives.

4. I’ve found that when people reminisce about the good old days that they are often delusional and cherry pick “positives”. The 1920-1950s was NOT a great time. Minorities and gays were murdered regularly and openly. Minorities and gays had their homes, establishments, and communities burned down (destroyed and vandalized). If you accurately asses the time period women weren’t happy being “feminine” this was the introductory period of pharmaceutical drugs for unhappy house wives. Coming home to a doped up wife was the norm. Needless to say many men and families had the ability to institutionalize a woman if her behavior was considered “unsavory”. Your wife not happy that you beat her around? Well then institutionalize her! Caught your wife masturbating? Well then institutionalize her! Wife getting too lippy? Well then institutionalize her! Lets say that the institutionalization of the wife was only temporary to “Set her straight” Chances are high that she’ll come back drooling on her self, or with severe PTSD and other metal illnesses from the severe abuse that patient would endure at the time. So many families had a shameful woman return home from the “loony” bin that all the neighbors whisper about.

   I’d also like to mention that all women being housewives wasn’t the norm, and never has been in American society. Being a housewife was and still is a luxury of the middle and upper-class. Poor women and poor wives have always and will always continue to work. Classicism was also alive and well. Assuming that a man did have a decent job it didn’t always guarantee that he would or could find a woman to marry him. Women still had to and did abide by the opinions of their parents. Sure SOME men and women would elope for love. But most people married out of convince and social similarity. Having religious, political, social, cultural differences than the norm would mean that your only options were people in your social group. Interracial relationships, interfaith relationships, est could literally mean ones death at the time (or at a minimal black balling or out-casting). However at this time more men did have the opportunity to marry, more so than they have today.

   All in all I agree with you that men of today wouldn’t benefit or enjoy going back in time. Unless they enjoyed openly killing people, beating their wives with no consequence, selective choice in who they could date/marry, conservative sex, doped up housewives, est. Some people are into that though.

   I don’t agree that society is “gone” though. I would question when it ever was. If you tend to only measure a society by its economic and political success, America is still a force to be reckoned with. But at what point in history can humans say “that was a  good time”? There has always been a period of oppression, chaos, murder, and injustice. Humans are deluded into thinking that the way we’ve always done things, or what we collectively agree on is “right or true.” The average person is so deluded and ignorant they don’t even have the ability hear or listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. Denialism is very strong in the human race. Denialism causes many people to suffer. What people see as “chaos” and “society failing” today is the result of people revolting against ridiculous social oppression that only benefit who is at the top of our social ladder at the time. Too many people believe in pseudoscience when it comes to the human race, how we are structured, and how we behave. The average person doesn’t know shit about sex, gender, cultural behaviors, social behaviors, sexual behavior, emotional behavior, est. So of course they would be fearful and even angry when Gays demand the right to marry, or when minorities demand that they stop being murdered or imprisoned wrongfully, or when women and men reject gender roles/norms. Humans are not and have never been ants or bees. There is no hive mind among us.  If we were all supposed to think and act a certain way according to our sex, gender, race, class, est then we would do it without opposition as animals do. If one way or the old way is the absolute truth, then why doesn’t it work for everyone? Why did the old way fail to begin with? We as a species haven’t gotten it right since the introduction of property/hierarchy came into our species.

    

5. I enjoyed this article. Before I started my own site I was one of the guys that believed in the “good ol days” but soon changed my stance on it.

   I am glad that I was born into the time that I was.  Here is why we are in a better time:

   -Now I can start/run a business from the comfort of my laptop

   -I have access to a vast amount of women currently I’m dating a black girl (would not have been able to do that in the 50’s)

   -I have access to an abundance of information on the topics I’m interested in

   -I can live a great and comfortable life if I’m willing to work

6. I wholeheartedly agree BD.  I have to always chuckle when I read some other manosphere bloggers was nostalgic for the “good old days” of the 40’s and 50’s.  Their lifestyles would be completely impossible in those times and they’d hate going back to that model.   I will always choose freedom over boring order.  Freedom can be a scary thing to many people though and their more natural state is that of a slave.  I’d rather endure some occasional chaos than be a drone worker bee the rest of my life.  You’re just going through the motions and not truly living in my opinion.  I see it with many friends…they get up, go to corp job, come home, eat dinner, watch tv, go to bed, repeat…   No other goals, passions, missions…makes me glad to be a bit of a rogue.

7. Very interesting BD, it’s kind of like the left wing vs right wing argument.

   Would you rather have a society where everyone is considered equal and treated like so, but never truly stand out? (you could stand out but back then I’d imagine, but it was much harder) Or would you rather have a society where there’s more class division, but you as an individual have more opportunities to differentiate yourself?

   I think almost all the readers and myself cater to the latter since this blog is targeting that intended audience.

   Another thing to note however, is that nowadays because of the advent of technology and the internet, if we don’t like where we live we can just move! Whereas, back in the 1950’s a “location independent” business just didn’t really exist. Not exactly time travel, but I’m sure there more than a handful of countries that cater to the 1950’s type of man.

    

8. I don’t post here often,  but it is refreshing to see some sanity breathed into this discussion.  People think I’m crazy, but I thank feminism everyday.  Sure, their thinking is/was fallacious.  Yes, it has unraveled the social fabric a decent amount (maybe completely before it’s all said and done). Allow me to explain.

   Anybody with two brain cells to rub together sees that the so-called “oppression” of women was just male stewardship of women.   And if you have the imagination of a feminist, you could have spun it in the direction of male slavery just as easily as female oppression.  In reality, men devoted themselves to GDP and their families while women devoted themselves to their husbands and their families.  Like religion, it was just a successful social meme.

   But they could not leave it alone. Maybe it was poor self-awareness.  Maybe it was a certain type of social myopia.  Maybe it was they could not delay gratification.  Maybe it was some sort of deterministic correction of a population that had become too successful.  I don’t know.  But somehow, they were able to interpret their reliance upon men as men oppressing them.  By smashing these conventions, they actually think they freed themselves.  Ha. They freed me from them!

   I actually feel kind of bad for modern day women.  Of the genders, there’s is the one not cut out for these degrees of freedom.  Mine is.  And what do I have to do to enjoy these liberties?  Avoid marriage, manage relationships with a little grace, and I get to live a life of possibility in the richest country history has yet produced- a privilege that nearly any man from nearly any social construct past and present would have gaped at in disbelief.  Do I want to go back to the 1950s? HAHA.  Are you fucking kidding me?

    

    

    

9. Very interesting BD, it’s kind of like the left wing vs right wing argument.

   Would you rather have a society where everyone is considered equal and treated like so, but never truly stand out? (you could stand out but back then I’d imagine, but it was much harder) Or would you rather have a society where there’s more class division, but you as an individual have more opportunities to differentiate yourself?

   I don’t agree with the analogy. Passionate left-wingers diligently try to “save society” too. Tell a hardcore left-winger that you don’t vote because voting doesn’t change anything, and watch him go crazy.

   Plus, I think left-wingers are deluded and believe that in a big-government, socialist utopia where everyone was financially equal, you could stand out, via your artistic expressions (or whatever). Of course you couldn’t, but that’s what they believe.

   Neither the left nor the right believe in strong personal, individual freedom. That’s why I’m not either of them.

10. Yup, agree with post & comments. Most people tend to remember the past inaccurately; editing out the bad stuff. We see this re music, movies — ‘used to be so much better than now’. BD it’s refreshing to see the philosophy of Harry Browne’s books still being appreciated and applied today. I’m thankful for blogs like this one and a few others which help us see reality accurately despite all the brainwashing going on.

11. @JE

    Thank you! You’re saying that feminism benefits men. I totally agree!

    And while you may not see it, it benefits women too 🙂 Yes, life can be hard. You say women are less cut out for independence; I say we are less equipped for it. The social transformation is still ongoing. It takes time or, in other words, several generations to learn we need to rely on ourselves for happiness and material security, not on men. While it’s true that the social transformation has only been made possible by the development of technology, for which we largely have men to thank for.

    I can’t fathom why anyone would think that having to be independent is bad for women. Dependence brings about numerous risks, including the risk of being physically and mentally abused.

    (To those who might want to start pointing out the dependence of women on men during child-rearing: Yes, a certain amount of dependence is inevitable in this case, I believe. I’m saying it is generally beneficial for people to depend on themselves for happiness and material security. Not that people shouldn’t have common goals that they enable each other to achieve, or that they shouldn’t have a sense of solidarity.)

12. Great Post!

    The thing that always gets me about these traditionalist types is when you ask them HOW they’re going to get back to their fabled utopian past they divide into the delusional and the totalitarian. The delusional simply think they are going to talk modern sexually liberated and non-prudish people into going back to a (never really existed) glorious past or they just moan about how society won’t go back so they hate everyone and hope society collapses and hope everyone dies for not being tradcon prudes. The totalitarians really would like some kind of violent revolution that would allow them have the type of regime that would systematic brutalize and even murder people who don’t try to live some sort of “Father Knows Best” fantasy of domestic tranquility. The latter don’t have the numbers for their revolution and what man would sign on for a rebellion to restrict his sexual access?

13. @K

    You say women are less cut out for independence; I say we are less equipped for it.

    LOL

     

14. Maybe you can help Roosh . According to his post today, he  wants to waste a lot of time and energy trying to stop gay marriage.

15. You say women are less cut out for independence; I say we are less equipped for it.

    Nope, never said that.

    I’ve even said that men are more needy than women, get oneitis more often and easily than women, and usually have a tougher time when relationships end.

    I have said that the women who go around bragging they’re independent almost never are. That’s certainly true.

    Maybe you can help Roosh . According to his post today, he  wants to waste a lot of time and energy trying to stop gay marriage.

    And based on the tone of your comment, you want to promote gay marriage, which as I’ve already shown with real numbers is just as big of a waste of time and energy as trying to stop gay marriage.

    Gay marriage is one of those many “both sides are drama-queen idiots” issues.

16. Maybe you can help Roosh . According to his post today, he  wants to waste a lot of time and energy trying to stop gay marriage.

    All marriage (gay and straight) should be stopped. The government has no business handing out “love permits” or “child legitimization permits” in a free libertarian society.

    The existence of marriage is an insult to freedom, just like every other type of governmental intrusion into the bedroom.

17. The average person doesn’t know shit about sex, gender, cultural behaviors, social behaviors, sexual behavior, emotional behavior, est. So of course they would be fearful and even angry when Gays demand the right to marry,

    I get fearful when anyone tries to establish government paperwork as a cultural norm for legitimizing children or sexual activity, yes.

     We as a species haven’t gotten it right since the introduction of property/hierarchy came into our species.

    This is Marxist garbage. Everything else you wrote was good though.

18. I can’t fathom why anyone would think that having to be independent is bad for women. Dependence brings about numerous risks, including the risk of being physically and mentally abused.

    Feminism today does not preach independence for women. It teaches instead that women shouldn’t empower themselves because it is insulting that they even have to. It is men, and only men, who should change and restructure their own attitudes and behaviors “to make the world safe for women,” while women do nothing but “continue being the beautiful creatures that they are.” That is seriously what feminists think today.

    Take, for example, the latest garbage concept spewed out of feminism – affirmative consent. It goes like this: Women have no free will or ability to assert themselves during sex unless verbally prompted by a man. Even if a woman can say no and assert herself, she shouldn’t have to. She should be dependent on the man to act right because she is a lifeless object with no agency until the man animates her into a living thing by prompting her with the question “is this okay?” Without this verbal prompting, feminism says, women are too weak and fragile to say no or resist a man’s sexual advances and shouldn’t have to.

    Feminism today teaches chivalry and absolute dependence on men and men’s behavior. That’s why they rely on shaming men. Being independent and asserting your own free will regardless of the man’s actions is considered insulting by the modern feminist. Feminism has become a sick philosophy of narcissistic sociopaths and the mentally deranged. When I think “feminism” I think of damsels in distress and every misogynistic stereotype imaginable. Equality for women is only achievable with the elimination of modern feminism.

     

     

19. People think I’m crazy, but I thank feminism everyday.

    You should specify sex positive feminism.

    Feminism today is more puritanical and sex hating than any Puritan or Muslim terrorist:

    https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

     

     

20. BD, yeah it took me longer than most to realize this, but virtually the entire manosphere is just a more secular version of conservative prudery. And that includes most of the seduction community as well. With very notable exceptions, the PUA community is mostly filled with slut shaming alpha 1.0s who want to return women to “purity” and “virginity.” Heartiste wants pre-arranged marriages and slut shaming to be a cultural norm, Roosh is trying to explicitly bring back religion (in his case, Islam), and virtually every manospherean I’ve talked to (with exceptions like you) – whether PUA, MRA, or MGTOW – wants to undo the sexual revolution, stop women from working, and force them to marry at 18 and be good housewives.

    I was attracted to the manosphere because I wanted a rebellion against feminist prudery and their psychotic “all sex is rape” philosophy. I heard other feminists talk about women sleeping with multiple men being empowered whereas men sleeping with multiple women being dangerous predators who objectify women and contribute to the fictional rape culture.

    The manosphere, on the other hand, says that if a man sleeps with multiple women, he is empowered, but if a woman sleeps with multiple men, she is a slut! Neither philosophy is conducive to a sex positive and sexually open minded lifestyle.

    I was attracted to the PUA community because I wanted to get laid. I’m glad to say that I achieved my goal thanks to this community. But most PUAs are slut shaming/female purity enthusiasts. Because they helped me, however, I stick around and try to talk some sense into these alpha 1.0s and bring sex-positivity into the discussion whenever I can.

    The manosphere needs a divorce from itself. We need to become two communities – alpha 1.0 prudes on one side and sexually liberated men and women on the other. Hell, I’d stick the 1.0s with the prudish feminists (they are opposite sides of the same coin). Both must be abolished if sexual freedom is to be maintained.

     

     

21. Today’s feminists tries to tell women to be afraid of men. Men aren’t scary.

22. Today’s feminists tries to tell women to be afraid of men. Men aren’t scary.

    Men are scary for women with low sexual market value. But what they really hate is high sexual market value women, but they can’t come out and say that because that would make them look stupid. So they attack masculinity for reasons of public relations in order to ultimately abolish female heterosexuality (which masculinity is the source of).

23. Hello Jack Outside Side the Box,

            I practically always agree with you. A minor point of contention this time around would be that a number of the real MGTOWs, such as Barbarossa, Stardust, and RazorBladeKandy, do seem to want marriage abolished and women forced to earn their own keep in society. It is interesting how things have turned out recently. Roissy and Roosh are turning into tradcons with age and Barbarossa, a man who argues for the men going MGTOW, has his girlfriend bring him other women to have sex with. 

         Some tradcons and MRAs have spent the last couple years arguing that MGTOW is dying but I see nothing of the sort. It looks to me like MRA is being partitioned between tradcons and MGTOW and gradually absorbed into these two camps. PUA looks to be gradually fracturing as well. A number of PUAs seem to have either aged or failed at the lifestyle and have established a post-PUA tradcon camp called “neo-masculinity”. Meanwhile, more consistent PUAs, such as BD, seem to have more in common with sex positive MGTOWs, such as Bar Bar and The Fifth Horseman. Perhaps sex positive MGTOW is the future of the men’s movement.

24. Ofcourse, the manosphere guys only want to go back to the 50s after they had their 21st century freedom and fun. They didn’t give a shit about decent (but boring) women when they were young. No, they just wanted to bang as many women as possible. I think alot of the extremism of the manosphere simply stems for a search for meaning and stability after years and years of pure hedonism.

     

25. This is Marxist garbage. Everything else you wrote was good though.

    I get fearful when anyone tries to establish government paperwork as a cultural norm for legitimizing children or sexual activity, yes.

    Current day marriage is a direct result of hierarchy and the accumulation of property. Early humans had little to no possessions (due to their constant migration). What they had was shared among the group. To survive humans had to cooperate peacefully within the group. As we can observe with many ape species and present-day tribes members of the group that are seen as selfish, unproductive, and anti-social are rejected or reprimanded. One individual hoarding items would not benefit the group. Hierarchy in early Humans is also disputed (comparing how we view hierarchy today). It is assumed that early humans were not as aggressive towards other humans by observations of their artifacts. Also the fragility of early human life would make high aggression/violence within the group (or outside of the group) detrimental to the survival of the group. While there may have been social norms and customs that granted one human or multiple humans within the group more influence, there were no humans being forced into unnaturally subservient position compared to our society today. There also was no forced organized collective behavior. Groups also populated according to resources available.

    Once humans began to cultivate they began to acquire more possessions. Now this is where things get murky in the human behavioral time line.  With the boom in human population and cultivation being in its infancy, less resources were available to everyone. At some point making individual possession accumulation a thing. It can be argued that settling in one area, stability in life expectancy, and population increase lead to an increase in human aggression. The survival of each individual group member was no longer important to ensure the survival of the group as a whole. More aggressive and intelligent humans began to hoard dwindling resources leading to isolated ownership vs collective ownership. I would guess this is along the timeline that greed became a thing. Now this is where things get fun, or not so fun. Humans who had resources started to have power and weight that was unheard of in human social groups. It became a game of listen to the human with food if you want to live. Now naturally the human with the most would use his or her new found influence to serve not only their best interests, but to keep them in positions of social power. Keeping their resources is the number one keep to keeping their power. By keeping resources to ones own family, they can continue to keep power. Humans at this point were still polyandrous. Meaning that multiple males mated with multiple females, and the entire group of humans would rear children. This mating behavior was an advantage point for early humans because it not only ensured genetic diversity in human offspring, but it also allowed humans to take advantage of not being an estrous species. In other words if a human infant or child died, or pregnancy failed, the human female would be able to reproduce at anytime regardless of environmental conditions. Engaging in sex was also a social tool in early human society. Sex bonded groups socially and eased tensions. In order to ensure that one can keep resources/possessions within the family humans began hoarding mates. Eliminating sexual competition via social construction gave the wealthy the ability to keep their resources to themselves and their offspring. Hoarding sexual partners also reduced the chance of the poor to not only reproduce, but to break up social structures among the poor.

    With the poor being divided socially and and disadvantaged economically the wealthy gained the even more social influence but a new power “political power.” Granting them the ability to instruct the poor to do as they wish in return for safety and resources (which used to be provided by the group as a whole). This is were many of our current day beliefs, laws, behaviors, social/cultural norms, stem from today.

    IMO our current laws regarding kinship and marriage isn’t the government getting into our bedrooms. It is far more complicated. Birth certificates are to ensure that the blood or adopted offspring of a man or woman inherits their property, by identifying the who birthed the offspring.

    Marriage as we know it has gone through many changes. I’ll summarize by saying that currently it is intended to protect ones financial well being with-in a business arrangement. I’d argue that when finances are involved that there should be law to protect oneself. Most people simply don’t protect themselves financially when they enter into a relationship and that is why the government must get involved.

    *edit- I meant the government must get involved in contractual relationships when there is a dispute.

26. “I think a lot of the extremism of the manosphere simply stems for a search for meaning and stability after years and years of pure hedonism.”

    I feel this desire for “greater meaning” is something of a neurosis. Greater meaning may not exist and I wonder why pure hedonism can’t be a greater meaning unto itself.

27. All marriage (gay and straight) should be stopped. The government has no business handing out “love permits” or “child legitimization permits” in a free libertarian society.

    The existence of marriage is an insult to freedom, just like every other type of governmental intrusion into the bedroom.

    Correct.

    With very notable exceptions, the PUA community is mostly filled with slut shaming alpha 1.0s who want to return women to “purity” and “virginity.”….virtually every manospherean I’ve talked to (with exceptions like you) – whether PUA, MRA, or MGTOW – wants to undo the sexual revolution, stop women from working, and force them to marry at 18 and be good housewives.

    You know, I really want to object to that statement, but I’m saddened to say that I think I’m seeing the same thing out there.

    We need to become two communities – alpha 1.0 prudes on one side and sexually liberated men and women on the other.

    Yeah. I’m beginning to agree.

    This concept of “I hate women, now I’m going to go have sex with a bunch of them” is so incongruent, so against long-term consistent happiness, it saddens me (and that really is the word, saddened) to see so many men get excited about it. It’s not the path to male happiness.

    But again, many of these guys want to be pissed off. You can’t forget that.

    Perhaps sex positive MGTOW is the future of the men’s movement.

    That term describes me best: sex-positive MGTOW.

    Though I’m not interested in any “movement.” I gave up on society at about 15 years ago. I’m only interested in helping the 5% of betas out there who are tired of being slaves, and the 5% of Alpha 1.0s who are tired of the drama. The other 95% of men are free to go down with the ship; not interested in helping these guys. (Namely because they don’t want my help, as I stated in the article above.)

28. @BD:

    Nope, never said that.

    I know 🙂 Was addressing JE.

29. I remember a manosphere writer once talking about the trade offs once of traditional women.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/55800/in-defense-of-american-women

    As for the marriage part I agree with it not being worth fighting for. Mostly because ideally both parties will have their ( alpha 2.0?) income that together would be over $120k. (If you’re past that threshold you are together being essentially taxed to be married.) Which in my mind makes it not worth it to the interests of men and most women (unless they are consciously considering the tradeoffs for alimony later on :p)

30. A true Libeterian society would be a Wild West were only the strong survive. Most American males wouldn’t make it aftee the super weak get decimated by force (physical, weaponary, groups)

    Let’s be frank most of the Libeterians that wish for such a society would be the first to get eliminated when government laws that ensure their security and protect their assets get decimated. Try living an Alpha 2.0 lifestyle without the current American government structure intact and see how far you get

31. @Themaster

    Unless you’re referring to a very extreme form of Libertarian-ism, I don’t believe it would be some sort of wild west mad max style world.  I lean Libertarian but still believe government has a role in security (military, police, etc…), enforcement of legal contracts(but not mandating said contracts) and some basic infrastructure.  Our current government is far to big and wasteful and has their nose in almost all aspects of daily life.  I, like many in these parts, simply want government intervention out of our personal lives, especially our love lives.  Hence why I see great irony in the big gay marriage debate as well-the state should not be involved to begin with, so making it “legal” now just subjects gays to all the same BS laws hetero couples have to endure.

32. Was addressing JE.

    Sorry!

    Unless you’re referring to a very extreme form of Libertarian-ism, I don’t believe it would be some sort of wild west mad max style world.

    He’s using the standard stupid argument of pretending libertarianism is anarchy, which of course it isn’t. I’ve gotten into the habit of ignoring this common “argument.”

    If the only way to attack something is to pretend it’s something else, then you have no point.

33. Government can either exert controls on our personal or economic life. True Libertarians want limited/no controls on both. True Conservatives want greater controls on personal and True Socialists/Liberals want greater controls on economic.

     

    Mentioning Government controlling Military, police etc are all ensuring personal security which are controls on your personal sphere. Cherry picking which sphere in your personal life is arguing for the depth of personal controls which is actually Conservatism.

    Anarchy happens when there is no government. My point in the wild west analogy is that there would be a period of the strong rising to the top and exerting controls in a true Libertarian society.

    My point is most Libertarians like CrabRangoon who just stated your ideal government as actually conservatives. Why cherry pick what government does in your personal life? You are for government military but let me guess you aren’t for government healthcare of housing. You want the government to ensure your personal security militarily but not your health, that you will take care of your own. A real libertarian will ensure his personal security by handling it himself. Acquire bombs, guns, train martial arts etc.

     

    You faux Libertarians kill me.

34. There is nothing limited government about a military or police force.

35. True Libertarians want limited/no controls on both.

    And you’re confusing “limited” with “no,” a common tactic among people who hate libertarians (which is most people, so be thankful you’re in the great majority). Libertarianism is not anarchy. (Though I do admit there are many anarchists who call themselves libertarians; I honestly wish they wouldn’t do that and simply called themselves anarchists, because it muddles the conversation).

    A real libertarian will ensure his personal security by handling it himself. Acquire bombs, guns, train martial arts etc.

    Yeah, if you’re talking about burglars and rapists, but if a huge military force with tanks and bombers and nukes invades your country, your shotgun and karate will help…how?

    You pull out your AR-15 and go into the crab stance while a distant bomber drops a bomb on your house. Yep, that was a big help.

    Anyway, I’m not getting into a political debate. The point is it’s clear which side you’re on: You don’t mind giving up personal happiness for a more orderly society. I do mind, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. Have fun being pissed. I’ll be over here not giving a shit and being happy.

36. A true Libeterian society would be a Wild West were only the strong survive.

    False. You’re describing Anarchy. You obviously can’t distinguish between those two concepts.

    Most American males wouldn’t make it aftee the super weak get decimated by force (physical, weaponary, groups)

    A libertarian society would not legally allow free will violations of any kind. Consensual fighting would be allowed, but both people would have to voluntarily fight/duel each other. Things like assault, rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, etc…, however, would be criminal because those things violate human rights. The individual’s free will would be legally protected. So consensual murder, mutual fighting, and so forth would be fine. But non-consensual murder, assault, etc.. would not.

    Let’s be frank most of the Libeterians that wish for such a society would be the first to get eliminated when government laws that ensure their security and protect their assets get decimated.

    False. That’s anarchy, not libertarianism. How are you distinguishing between the two? Laws that protect your physical body from unwanted harm and your property from unwanted harm or theft would exist.

    Try living an Alpha 2.0 lifestyle without the current American government structure intact and see how far you get

    ??????

    Government can either exert controls on our personal or economic life. True Libertarians want limited/no controls on both.

    We want no controls whatsoever on consensual social, sexual, or economic activities. We do, however, want to criminalize physical force.

    True Conservatives want greater controls on personal and True Socialists/Liberals want greater controls on economic.

    Correct.

    Mentioning Government controlling Military, police etc are all ensuring personal security which are controls on your personal sphere.

    What? You think murdering or raping someone belongs to your “personal sphere?” Dude, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Free will violations would only be acceptable in a state of Anarchy, not Libertarianism. You obviously don’t know what a libertarian is. It’s someone who wants the government to protect him against free will violations, and nothing else.

    Cherry picking which sphere in your personal life is arguing for the depth of personal controls which is actually Conservatism.

    Completely false and absolutely ridiculous! Conservatism wanted to regulate and prohibit consensual activities between adults. Libertarians simply want free will violations based on either physical force or fraud to be criminalized and nothing else.

    Anarchy happens when there is no government. My point in the wild west analogy is that there would be a period of the strong rising to the top and exerting controls in a true Libertarian society.

    No. That is what would happen in a state of anarchy.

    My point is most Libertarians like CrabRangoon who just stated your ideal government as actually conservatives.

    Completely false. See above.

    Why cherry pick what government does in your personal life?

    We are not cherry picking. The government shouldn’t do anything in our personal lives. The only job of government is to protect our human rights.

    You are for government military but let me guess you aren’t for government healthcare of housing.

    Correct. The military protects us from foreign free will violators. But it’s not the job of government to give you a house or take care of your health as if you’re some kind of a baby/loser.

    You want the government to ensure your personal security militarily but not your health,

    I’m baffled by your logic. The only purpose of government is to protect your free will against other people. Giving the government control over your health is suicide. The founding fathers would have never rebelled against Britain if King George were giving all of them Medicare.

    that you will take care of your own. A real libertarian will ensure his personal security by handling it himself. Acquire bombs, guns, train martial arts etc.

    False. A real anarchist would do that. Dude, don’t tell us what a real libertarian would do. Let us tell you. You can tell us what a socialist would do and we will listen. But when we libertarians speak about libertarianism, you listen!

    In a libertarian society, the rich would be given the option of hiring bounty hunters or private security to bring free will violators to justice, but the government police force would be open to everyone whose human rights were violated by another person.

    As for guns, their only purpose is personal security against trespassers and when a threat is imminent and there is no time to call the police, or to overthrow a government that is doing more than just protecting people’s human rights.

    You faux Libertarians kill me.

    You don’t know how to distinguish between a libertarian, an anarchist, and a conservative. I have just distinguished all three for you above. You’re welcome!

    There is nothing limited government about a military or police force.

    Yes there is! We are limiting the government just for human rights protections.

     

37. A minor point of contention this time around would be that a number of the real MGTOWs, such as Barbarossa, Stardust, and RazorBladeKandy, do seem to want marriage abolished and women forced to earn their own keep in society.

    The men you mentioned viciously slander openly heterosexual men, dismiss them as “impulse driven monkeys” and “biological itch scratchers,” and claim that actively trying to persuade women to have sex with you, or seduce them, is itself an act of pedestaling. Barbarrossa once said “the juice is not worth the squeeze.”

    Further, in his deconstruction of the PUA community, he (Barbarrossa) said that game is just one step away from physical violence between men and other men as a result of men and women being financially equal. He said that professional competition between men for women is healthy, whereas he described violence and game in the same breath as “unhealthy male vs. male competition.” That’s why, he said, in the black ghetto of the 1970s we first saw game/seduction arise.

    The only practical conclusion to his views is that men and women shouldn’t be financially equal, so that men can engage in “healthy competition” for females in the professional sphere. In other words, he wants to abolish sexual liberation by chaining the woman’s sex drives to economic dependence on men (i.e. create the prudish 1950s society).

    The only reason he is claiming the opposite now is because women aren’t willing to do this. So he wants to force women to be financially independent and abolish marriage until the collapse comes. When it does, he thinks women will be humbled and accept financial dependence on men in order to promote healthy male vs. male competition in the workplace. But when both men and women work, he says, the only way men can distinguish themselves from other men (be more attractive) is through violence and game – both of which he described as unhealthy.

    What he doesn’t understand is that polyamorous and open relationships make physical violence and unhealthy male vs. male competition unnecessary. Unhealthy male vs. male competition for women only happens when (1) men and women both work and (2) there is monogamy. Abolish monogamy and there is no more need for men to fight over women because no woman will ever be “taken.”

    But if you keep monogamy, then he reasons that you must stop women from working, because the only other way men can be more attractive then other men is to either physically fight other men or psychologically compete against them with game, which he considers destroying male friendships.

    Polyamory and OLTRs never occurred to him as a solution, nor did he address the problem of all women becoming gold digging prudes when you chain their sex drives to economic necessities.

    A gender neutral economy precisely solves the female low sex drive problem because money becomes divorced from sex (as it should be) and polyamory replacing monogamy solves the male vs. male problem by allowing any man to sleep with any woman who’s willing, regardless of whether she’s in a serious relationship or not. He just doesn’t get this though.

    Listen to this and tell me with a straight face that he is against female economic parasitism (he’s not, he’s just against government or the private sector giving women money):

    Barbarossa, a man who argues for the men going MGTOW, has his girlfriend bring him other women to have sex with.

    I have never heard this. In fact, in one of his videos he said that a true MGTOW is either celibate or has casual sex with women only. Anything more than a fuck buddy and you aren’t MGTOW. He seemed very adamant about that, as he thinks all relationships fall into the monogamy model.

    It looks to me like MRA is being partitioned between tradcons and MGTOW and gradually absorbed into these two camps.

    I unfortunately agree. That’s why we need a third sex-positive movement.

    PUA looks to be gradually fracturing as well. A number of PUAs seem to have either aged or failed at the lifestyle and have established a post-PUA tradcon camp called “neo-masculinity”. Meanwhile, more consistent PUAs, such as BD, seem to have more in common with sex positive MGTOWs, such as Bar Bar and The Fifth Horseman. Perhaps sex positive MGTOW is the future of the men’s movement.

    All MGTOWs have ever done is shame me for my lifestyle, calling me a pussy begger, female pedestaler, white knight, vagina sniffing traitor, and so forth. In my experience with these assholes, a “sex positive MGTOW” is a contradiction in terms. They are more like the male equivalent of lesbian separatism except without the homosexuality.

    And yes, the PUAs are gradually turning into tradcon worshippers of female virgins. It’s sick. We need something new.

    Edit: I actually agree with Barbarossa when he says that monogamy is unsustainable (except through unhealthy male vs. male competition) if both genders work and make money. Monogamy is incompatible with gender equality, but gender inequality is incompatible with sexual liberation. Thus he wants to abolish sexual liberation and gender equality whereas I want to abolish monogamy and gender inequality.

38. That term describes me best: sex-positive MGTOW.

    No BD, the MGTOWs would call you a “pussy begging loser.” I see lots and lots of anti-male heterophobia within the MGTOW community. Being a practicing heterosexual who endorses serious relationships with women (even open ones) is considered being a “traitor to the brotherhood” over there.

    What we need is a sex-positive masculist movement!

39. There is nothing limited government about a military or police force.

    If you actually believe this, then what is the difference in your mind between anarchy and libertarianism?

40. And yes, the PUAs are gradually turning into tradcon worshippers of female virgins. It’s sick.

    Sadly it’s true.

    We need something new.

    I don’t know if we need a “third movement” or “something new”, or whatever. Maybe going back to our Alpha roots and sticking to it long-term could be enough.

    The real issue I see is most guys who call themselves PUAs, gurus or whatever are just disguised Alpha 1.0s who got butt hurt by some chick they loved, learned PUA stuff, became really good at having sex with lots of women but deep down never embraced it as a lifestyle. Even if they don’t realize, they’re going through a phase.

    Their real goal is to find The Girl of Their Dreams ᴛᴍ and live the good life of a married Alpha 1.0 (who cheats, enjoys drama, etc). By the way, I’m not ignoring that age and desire to raise a family are huge factors here. What I’m saying is most of these men are the good old Alpha 1.0 with cool angry words and a more inflated ego. I’d probably bet they never had a plan or long-term goals in place for their personal lives.

41. No BD, the MGTOWs would call you a “pussy begging loser.”

    I know. I’ve been bashed on several MGTOW sites before…because I like to have sex. (GASP!)

    The point above is valid: there are sex positive MGTOWs and sex negative MGTOWs. I get a lot of positive email from men who identify as MGTOW, but they’re sex positive. Sadly the sex negative MGTOW bloggers are the ones the get the most attention, since outrage and negativity sells.

    Even if they don’t realize, they’re going through a phase.

    Correct! So many men mix up “This is how I am” with “This is what I happen to want right now based on my current relationship status.”

    When I say long-term monogamy doesn’t work (for example), most single guys overwhelmingly agree with me. Most long-term married guys also agree with me (though privately over email, not publicly in comments). But guys in new mono-marriages or relationships (under 3 years) completely lose their shit and call me names.

    I feel sorry for them. I would really hate to have a 100% subjective view of life. It seems like a lot of work.

42. Here is Barbarossa newest piece where he talks about his relationship with his girlfriend (it is a bit long):

    Barbarossa is talking with Niko Choski, another MGTOW who has promiscuous sex, on this video. Not too long ago, sex negative MGTOWs were harassing Lui Marco, a sex positive MGTOW, for his sleeping with many women and Razorbladekandy (himself a sex negative) defended Marco’s sex life saying that MGTOWs are free to choose how to conduct relations and are not beholden to some sort of sex negative requirement.

43. Stardusk, on his Thinking Ape channel on Youtube, has a video called MGTOW: Untouchable (I don’t want to add it in order not to crowd BD’s comments with so many videos) where he likewise states that MGTOW are not required to practice a celibate lifestyle like the sex negatives do (he also mentions Bar Bar’s relationship in passing).

44. I don’t agree with the analogy. Passionate left-wingers diligently try to “save society” too. Tell a hardcore left-winger that you don’t vote because voting doesn’t change anything, and watch him go crazy.

    Yes, if it was an analogy, it wouldn’t be entirely correct. It just made me think of politics for some reason, hence the “kind of”.

    Not sure what left-wingers trying to “save society” have anything to do with my post though.

    Plus, I think left-wingers are deluded and believe that in a big-government, socialist utopia where everyone was financially equal, you could stand out, via your artistic expressions (or whatever). Of course you couldn’t, but that’s what they believe.

    Neither the left nor the right believe in strong personal, individual freedom. That’s why I’m not either of them.

    Yes, you could stand out in other ways, but I meant financially (unless you are the leader of course).

45. Correct! So many men mix up “This is how I am” with “This is what I happen to want right now based on my current relationship status.”

    Yeah, it’s like a never ending cycle. Get together, be monogamous, cheat/become bored, break-up, whore your way through some weeks/months/years, rinse and repeat. I’m shocked most guys do not realize this.

    And it is as you said…few times that I was stupid enough to say out loud “long-term monogamy does not work” people were horrified and looked at me like I just got the plague (even if they agreed they had to act their part because of social acceptance)!!! It’s really depressing.

     

46. few times that I was stupid enough to say out loud “long-term monogamy does not work” people were horrified and looked at me like I just got the plague

    Yeah, you can’t do that and change any minds. You have to do it slowly, piece by piece, then people eventually come around. SP is too powerful to overcome with a blunt frontal assault like that.

47. Comment deleted for violation of rule number one.

48. Think a lot of manosphere bloggers arent get laid that often tbh. Esp not a lot of the roosh guys. And he definitely isn’t getting laid as oftenas he says. According to what I heard about his book bang. He claims a 1 in 3 cold approach succes rate. And he seems pretty bitter recently. (I stopped reading his negative stuff a few minths back).

49. All marriage (gay and straight) should be stopped. The government has no business handing out “love permits” or “child legitimization permits” in a free libertarian society.

    The existence of marriage is an insult to freedom, just like every other type of governmental intrusion into the bedroom.

    Correct.

    You cannot not know what would happen to the bulk of people and society without any constraint.

    The rightist who dream about re-strengthening marriage et al. are thinking politically and about society.
    You and libertarians are thinking for yourself, which is probably the right thing.

    In an old film they say [for most people] there is no other burden like freedom .