'The reality of self-ownership' -- "We must not manifest what we criticize."

"People are not evil if they don't understand the non-aggression principle... People are in a state of nature, they're in a state of neutrality, they're in a state of propagandized infancy. They do not have moral responsibility until they've come across better information... This is why people are so hostile, sometimes, to philosophical arguments: because it creates an ethical choice in them that they did not have before."

'Morpheus: Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.'

'What to do with this information, and how you and the world will achieve freedom.' -- "It's very important that you have respect for the work that you have done [on gaining self-knowledge], and that's the only way other people will genuinely have respect for the work that you've done and that means living with integrity. Recognise if you've done a lot of work on self-knowledge, treating people who haven't done that work as equals is completely irrational. To treat them as equals is unjust to the work you have done on yourself."

@09:40: "Never ever inflict upon your children a greater integrity than you are willing to act on yourself."

Gisted 2/2 -- It is the truth-telling slave who extends the universalization of ethics to the masters – and thus exposing them as morally evil – who is the greatest threat to every other slave because of their past horror and humiliation of having been enslaved to evil through their desire to be good, of having that which is the best of you turned into service of that which is the worst in humanity: lust for power, domination, theft, murder, war, debt. They react with the hair-trigger psychological defenses called slave-extending-morality-to-masters-will-get-us-all-killed! People can't easily process the universalization of morality, so all they can do is get mad at it. They have to create exceptions to universal morality because that's what we've all been programmed to do throughout the violence of history. So how do we change this? We have to reveal the negative consequences for immoral actions. We have to replace statism with voluntaryism. WE have to replace violence with ostracism.

Gisted -- Because we have not harmed those who are helpless and dependent and subject to our power. And because we have not discharged our negative feelings—in the moment—onto others. The deferral of gratification is fundamental to the development of ethics and foundational to self-esteem because restraining yourself from hurting others means you've placed value on your future self. We have an innate sense of injustice and virtue: we are being abused but we do not discharge that abuse onto others because we sense happiness means not abusing which means that unhappiness is abuse and that if we want to be happy we have to do the opposite of that which is making both us and our abusers unhappy—in the present. Empathy is philosophy; empathy is empirical: I have feelings and I don't like being hurt, others have feelings and they won't like it if I hurt them. If you have harmed others you have done so because you have rejected the fundamental evidence that other people are just like you.

"You *have* to demonstrate freedom before you can inspire freedom in others. You need to *feel* the same fear that other people feel when you talk about freedom. When you say, we need a radical re-evaluation of our ethics and human relationships: from coercion to voluntaryism, from dictatorship to property rights, from collectivism to individualism, from war to peace, from violence to words, from governments to DROs – people feel as freaked out about that as you would about deciding not to see anyone you feel obligated to ever again. It's terrifying. If you talk to people about getting rid of bad relationships in your life, they're going to feel unease and they're going to need to immediately create a defense and label it: he's an extremist and I'm nice – so they can manage their own feelings through disassociating from you and making you wrong in their own mind. And when you talk about the evil of the State it's even worse for people because what they hear is, your parents are evil."

'The opposite of tyranny is curiosity. The opposite of ignorance is curiosity. The opposite of manipulation is curiosity. The opposite of immaturity is curiosity, because to be curious is to be wise. The reason that we are not curious is that we already know the answers, and we do not like them. We can choose not to eat, but we cannot erase our body’s need for food. We can choose to jump off a cliff, but we cannot choose to defy gravity. We can pretend that lies are true, and that vices are virtues, but we cannot turn lies into truth, or vices into virtues. We cannot erase the truth within ourselves; we can only suppress and distort it. Fundamentally, philosophy is not invention, but excavation; not exploration, but archaeology. The lies we believe today are the lives we will live tomorrow.'

"Do you support the use of violence against me? -- This is the true nature of heroism. This is the heroism that you can achieve now, today, this very moment. All moral souls oppose evil. And there is only one fundamental way to fight evil: expose it. -- Do you support the use of violence against me?"

'"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." (William Lloyd Garrison) -- Gradualism in theory indeed undercuts the goal itself by conceding that it must take second or third place to other non- or antilibertarian considerations. For a preference for gradualism implies that these other considerations are more important than liberty. -- Cleaving to principle means something more than holding high and not contradicting the ultimate libertarian ideal. It also means striving to achieve that ultimate goal as rapidly as is physically possible. In short, the libertarian must never advocate or prefer a gradual, as opposed to an immediate and rapid, approach to his goal. For by doing so, he undercuts the overriding importance of his own goals and principles. And if he himself values his own goals so lightly, how highly will others value them? If libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one.'

Against me. Do you support the use of violence against me?