PatrickC

Yea a long term board friend used to wear his FDR tee shirt everywhere he went publicly. When people asked about it he would say, 'this is a website I really like and enjoy and just wanted to give other people the opportunity to know about it.'. To what degree that encouraged people to check it out is perhaps debatable. But word of mouth advertising is often the best form of advertising a company can get. Who wouldn't be curious about a company it's customers freely advertised their services with.

Who knows, perhaps they had tried and done that. But it still doesn't change the option. Why are people expecting the store owners, Garner the police or anyone for that matter, to be abiding by the NAP? The NAP like the free market has been usurped already, by all the threats from the state. So unless you want a bunch of black market guys swarming around your store, taking advantage of all the custom your created and the high prices your enforced to pay. The police these days are sadly the only option to remove this unreasonable advantage. Unreasonable because the store cannot compete with them because of the high risks attached to this advantage. Cantwell suggests it was a dick move to have reported him. Maybe it was, but you can't ignore how dickish it was of Garner to take advantage of the store owners predicament, right under their nose. Of course no one is suggesting that Garner deserved to die in the whole incident. But he understood the risk he was taking, given his history with the police.

I don't know why this has become such a difficult scenario for people to understand. It's neither a property rights or moral issue. The NAP has little or nothing to do with this issue. This is about the circumstances store owners face today. Not in some magical libertarian future. JP very eloquently made the case as to why the store owners may have experienced a violation. This also isn't about free market principles, either for the store owners or for Garner. Since the free market has been usurped by the state already. There is no market that exists between the white and black markets, unless the actors participating are willing to take significant risks with their liberty and livelihood. In this case Garner can turn up outside their store where he is more likely to find willing customers who might otherwise have used the store so he can sell them his own cheap cigarettes. He never paid anything for that store to attract customers. He just took advantage of it. You can disagree if you like with the store owners calling the police. But it's hardly their fault when A: they have to pay taxes on their cigarettes and B: the only action they can take to stop him, is to call the police. As Stefan explained in that video. Store owners can't do anything about people selling loosies anywhere other than outside their store, because they simply aren't aware of them. They can do something when they are outside their store and the police are obliged to assist them in that.

I like the way you broke up the word Freedomain, as the connection sticks in the mind better. I did a Google search check as Free Domain Radio and it still came second in the rankings, so all good.

Part 2 came out recently.. Perhaps she's matured.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPHFX3BLmc No idea why it wont embed annoyingly.

I know when I was in the building industry in the 80's/90's we rarely wrote contracts. Nearly all verbal with some written 'estimates'. Estimates being the operative word, as one had to hold out for unknown contingencies along the way. No one wanted to hold another to a contract that became unprofitable or worst still a net loss to them. As this could put other connected contracts in jeopardy. Depending if it were a large budget, contingencies would often be restricted to 10-15% of the full cost, which would always be written into the estimate itself. This was the closest I ever got to a written contract. Certainly courts would accept estimates as contracts with all the necessary mitigations as I've mentioned. In most cases, if a company failed to meet their obligations they were soon out of business, as no one would use them after word got round. The building industry relies heavily on reputation, so this rarely happened to the medium to high level business, as they understood only too well the outcome for them. It nearly only ever happened to the smaller businesses with less experience and capital behind them. Any leftovers following a bankruptcy they might grab during a liquidation. But mostly it just wasn't worth going after someone or a company with no money. The only court cases I ever saw were from employees not being paid their wages. So in theory, I found contracts to be rarely enforceable even in our current system. As far as I understand in a free society the same is likely to apply. Albeit with perhaps a far more sophisticated and reliable reputation system built in, with better insurance options. That said, as far as I understood the DRO model, that it wasn't about enforcement but more about limiting access to resources and future contracts. Whilst giving them the option to compensate their way out of it by degrees. By the way I'm mostly using the term 'contract' here as means to describe a chosen obligation, not in the legal sense that wikipedia defines it as such.

If you PM me Nicholas I can put you in contact with one of the SFL admin I know (from the boards), if you like. That said I have no idea if he will be actually attending this particular conference of course. But a potentially useful contact and ally all the same I think. Also, I think going there with an open (as opposed to a slutty leftist) mind is entirely appropriate. I hope you have fun all the same.

Our next meet up is this Saturday. Come on you London lurkers, I think you'll enjoy the company. https://www.facebook.com/events/1582497965306748/ If you're not a part of Facebook. I'll outline the event below: Candid Cafe, Torrens Street behind Angel Tube station (Northern Line) in Islington (North London). Meeting at 12pm on Saturday 3 Jan 2015. PM me for my mobile number.

Kevin, as usual (sigh) replies with good reason to these points. I'm of the vein to ask what the heck is 'equality'. What does it mean in reality and what would be its effects? People throw out these terms like democracy or fairness too without any thought as to how they are erected or the consequences to them.

I've had some experience of Students of Liberty and I think in fairness it comes down to the degree to which leftist ideology has become so inculcated into the hearts and minds of many young people. Mostly coming from an effect of public school and the MSM. ETU also rightly points out that this has always been the end game for (cultural) Marxists. Getting opposing views mired and bogged down in their left speak. That said, being racist and/or sexist are irrational positions to take. I just don't think they deserve the kind of prominence they get. Mind you, if they wanted to be consistent, then perhaps they could concentrate their efforts on objecting to the mainstream misandry of men and bigotry directed at white people. But hey, we were discussing why they were leftist minded.

The thing is, it wasn't Eric that Stefan was directing his point too. It was for listeners that find (or might find) themselves in conflict with authorities (albeit illegitimate ones, morally speaking), such as the police. Whatever reason we imagine Eric persisted in his justified insolence of the police, death or personal injury would be an irrational desire on his part. Whether or not he considered it desirable. Which by the way, we can never possibly know of course. It's complete conjecture. This xmas eve call in show goes into this topic in a lot more detail regarding the Garner video Stefan made. Albeit from the racist angle, which is different to your own criticism I realise. But he outlines rather well why he took the position he did in far more detail than I've even shown you myself. Rather long (as usual), but useful regarding the points you've raised in this thread. He does actually retract that statement (regarding Garners criminality), after some thought in the show I posted above.

Ok, in our next show we shall be discussing the recent cinema release of Interstellar on Saturday 10th January 2015 at 3pm (CST)/9pm (GMT). We have the Google+ event below. This allows callers to join the call itself. Otherwise you're able to connect as a listener only to the live stream if you so prefer. The trailer in the event link below will end the moment we start broadcasting. Depending on how many callers (maximum 10) want to attend, we shall be giving preference to those callers that take the time to write about (not necessarily in detail) which scenes and themes interest them prior to the call going live. Otherwise it's on a first come first served basis. Make sure you're added to the Google+ profile for the film club, so that we can connect with you directly with the caller link. Try not to do this last minute so as to avoid any disappointment. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/117472908323246912161/events/c2fbnp9h8mstah4gq7kva53sip0 We also have a Facebook group you can join as well. https://www.facebook.com/groups/philosophyfilmclub/

I'm always surprised when people express being 'pissed off' with an argument. In all seriousness what does that even mean? Or to what degree does it even matter. Feminists get pissed off with patriarchy all the time, but we're not building a shrine for their contentment are we. I hear 'piss poor' (for want of a better expression) arguments all the time. Stefan's position here is not that Eric Garner did anything wrong. It's that he didn't 'act' in his best 'self interest'. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to publicly put forward the proposition that people "should" ignore threats from policeman. As they have very real life consequences. It's about prevention, not the cure.

Hi cd, welcome And there was me thinking that was your gaming/Skype headset.. Damn, all is revealed now.

Well that's the source of the awkwardness of course. Particularly when you are a younger man who may have experienced less female flattery. Other than a polite thank you, there isn't much more you can say about a compliment on appearance. If I may put it crudely, it's a call for penis standing to attention. Which might not feel appropriate for you or even unwanted. And importantly it's still no guarantee of penis attention on her part. She can always claim plausible deniability at this point. That said, I've certainly developed ways to avoid that awkwardness by now. But I clearly remember those first experience of female flattery. Sometimes even being laughed at because I flushed red as I was lost for words. Whereas if you're complimented on a pursuit you were engaged in. Or she asked you how you felt after a performance you gave. Those are compliments you can engage with. I think I may have repeated myself, hopefully to useful effect. Believe me, once you start hitting your early to mid 30's and you've managed to keep yourself in good shape, standing and fruitful employment, female flattery will become far more prevalent.

I must admit to have always been suspicious of women that claimed to prefer the company of men. I mean what woman wouldn't prefer being around a bunch of resourceful guys potentially getting resources from them. Finally to bag the most resourceful guy in the bunch. From a biological perspective it makes complete sense. As was my suspicion of them. Some observations and anecdotes I have found about flattery and perhaps this is an age and experience thing. But I find I can now distinguish between seductive flattery and genuine compliments. For instance, being complimented on my physical appearance by a woman I barely know or someone that knows other things about me, but chooses that kind of compliment (as her first one) is definitely a sign of seduction. She may not want to follow through with sex on it, but she is attempting to seduce me. Her reasons might be varied of course, ranging from resources, status to boyfriend/husband potential. A woman that compliments me on something they know about me regarding my advice, work or abilities is far more genuine. It may well amount to the same interest she may have in me. The difference being that my reaction doesn't occur in my groin. I feel appreciated for something I've genuinely worked for. It allows for a more appropriate and reciprocal relationship to flourish between us. By definition this is not flattery of course. When a women flatters a man, his reaction nearly always involuntarily heads for his groin. I'm guessing the same is true of women, except men that flatter need to have some kind of status for it to be effective. That and women that are easily flattered by such men. I think this is why men are susceptible to female flattery. It engages directly with our lizard brains, that sees an opportunity to procreate with a fertile woman.

Actually, this is so true.. I think I've managed on occasions to devalue any value I got from my microphone, by merely ignoring the environment I was recording in. All said, we live and learn of course.

I think I understand the O/P's sentiments here. Resources are finite in the sense that we are only able to reach a finite amount of them. Some estimates have suggested of oil, that it's quite possible we have only used less than 1% of the planets potential, given that we have discovered more oil as the decades go by. Not that we cannot eventually discover cheaper alternatives. That said, the O/P isn't arguing against scarcity. He's alluding to a more philosophical principle about not constricting ourselves by just the knowledge we know and understand. But freeing ourselves to consider that we can and have proved to be extraordinarily resourceful and should continue to be so.

I'm no expert in this matter, but for the Philosophy Film Club I went for a Blue Snowball microphone. It's the cheapest high quality mic on the market. It has three settings to allow for a circle of people talking in a room. Another setting which cuts out all background noise. The third setting kind of works as an in-between setting. Probably for when the mic is set on a table next to you, but not against your mouth. It recommends a pop guard (not included) for singing. Which I guess comes close to your requirement regarding random screaming. You can use a thin towel wrapped tightly with your hand around the neck of the mic, as a free alternative. But you need to be conscious that the towel isn't rubbing against the mic, as this will cause distracting noises. It cost £60 my end, but I imagine it's no more than $60 or so your end. They do have more expensive alternatives such as The Yeti. But from the reviews I've listened too, including recordings, the Snowball compared surprisingly well against the Yeti. That said the Snowball seems to work better for multi directional use. Whereas the Yeti seems to work better at close quarters. As far as I know, the advantage of headsets is that because of their close proximity to your mouth to the mic, that this always improves the overall sound quality. I'm not sure they wouldn't distort if you screamed into them mind, unless it was some top quality (expensive) noise cancelling headset mic.

Today's Afterthoughts show on The Giver.

Show going live in 15 mins

Just a gentle reminder for those just getting up in North America. The Afterthoughts show on the The Giver will be airing later today. Details above for those interested.

People have already touched on this, but it's really about 'personal freedom'. I'll explain in a sec. In the current state of the world, we just aren't going to see sweeping changes in the social fabric of society. People are literally addicted to statism that they will oppose (probably violently) any opposition to it. Personal freedom is about having better relationships, families and work life. It's about discovering our true capacity to live as freely as we can with our own personal choices. Relying on the world giving up on statism is a form of psychological slavery, that will likely cause you more harm than good. Looking at it from this perspective makes a lot of sense. Since rationally we are only really concerned with our individual self and those around us.

Like threebobs, I kind of fell onto Stef's YouTube channel in either late 2007 or early 2008. Mostly because I was looking for criticism of Ron Paul, despite my liking of his ideas at the time. This may have also coincided with a couple of blurry Rothbard videos, where I first heard someone very seriously and rationally express ideas about anarchism. To be honest I'm not sure of the timeline, as it all happened within a rather short space of time (3 months or so). I was finally compelled by two videos that Stef produced. I saw the video (which may have been my first) where he was promoting UPB after having just finished writing it. I was really drawn to the idea of someone developing a 'rational proof for secular ethics' (without religion yay!). I was like, 'wow, really!'. Looking back, I'd been drawn to nihilism for all the right reasons. Post religious upbringing and strong atheism had driven me to believe (rightly) that I had been lied too. But unconsciously I realise now, I was like, 'this sounds interesting' and a possible escape hatch from nihilism. The video that finally had me never looking back was the original, 'Standing In Blood' video. I was so blown away by this video that I shared it with my father. My father later said, 'oh this guy is far too emotional'. It was then that I realised that I wasn't normally compelled by sentimentality. Having been brought up by this man not to be of course. It was Stefan's rationality that gave me pause, not so much his tears. It all makes sense now from my families perspective of course, but was a wonderful moment of enlightenment all the same.

This Sunday (21st Dec 2pm CST/8pm GMT) will be our Afterthoughts show, where myself and Ady will discuss our final thoughts on the movie, The Giver. We will also be joined by guest Peter Schmitt, who was also on the call last Saturday. You will be able to make comments via the Q&A app attached to the Google+ livestream available below only. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/117472908323246912161/events/cpsbnva8oa1ht90u145k7q4gdpo