You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why I was wrong about Stefan Molyneux
He's not making a case for Clinton over Trump, the point of the article is he believes Stef is advocating a violation of the NAP by voting, a position Stef used to hold. Why does someone have to provide alternatives when pointing out someone is violating a principle? And wanting to rule over other people is itself immoral, not to mention Trump's advocating murder, such as killing a suspected terrorist's entire family.
nowhere in my comment am i referring to your analysis of stefan's position--i only refer to yours. well, i suppose it doesn't matter much now that he's president :)