PatrickC

I don't normally listen to Alex, but this was an interesting video sent to me by a friend. He has an interesting way of calming the great Alex, which could make for an interesting interview perhaps. Great view possibilities of course. No idea how to reach him mind.

I'm right with you on the state conflating tribal loyalties (family/community ties let's say) for its own ends. I mean when we consider all the pomp and circumstance that revolves around state nationalism, such as flags, anthems and sports. Royal family too (in Britain). Largely our geography is an accident of birth which has little meaning other than being a part of our local environment. Whereas families, friends and business/working associates are mostly the communities we hang with and break bread with. For which none of this pomp would be considered at all useful for the flourishing of those relationships.I think I understand your definition on socialism. I'm just ever cautious how that word has become synonymous with integrity and ethics for many people. It being the complete opposite of that for the last 100 years or so, politically speaking. Personally I think it's a word steeped in too much bloodshed to ever be resurrected, but then again, perhaps that's just me of course.I have a similar view (I think) with mutual associations. These gave communities and individuals enormous protection at great value for money. Sadly the state commandeered these services for itself and provided them for free in the form of the NHS and the welfare state. We both understand where that has led us since of course. If you have the time, watch this rather enlightening synopsis of mutualism and friendly societies historically and the advent of the welfare state. I think it might interest you.

Can you give me your definition of socialism in terms of nobility? Only that socialism (from my perspective) has always wanted to claim nobility, whilst mostly ignoring empiricism.. I think I understand you regarding nationalism mostly (tribal).

As a 'maxim'... The NAP is a general term that suffices in most cases, but not philosophically. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maxim

Good job Carter

A bully makes claims aginst another, based upon their unexplored feelings... A person who stands up for themselves, is merely making a claim based on the emprical evidence around them.

Yes, I agree about parents spending more time with their children. I just like the model of them being around other adults that are listening to their needs and learning to negotiate their preferences. From my experience, the younger children perhaps spent 2 to 3 days a week in the school, often with one parent for a day or so of that time and much more when they were 4 - 5. Anyway, it's one of many things to consider of course. Here's a link to the Sudbury Valley School model, in case you or anyone else was interested.

This is why discussing the NAP as a philosophical term is useless compared to UPB. Which doesn't allow for conflated premises like the NAP is prone too.

Yeah happy holiday, xmas whatever KD..

Yes, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word, 'bore you'. I'm sure to many it would be quite interesting. I am conscious mind that this is a public forum, with the all seeing eye of Google. Not that I'm paranoid, just conscious that I prefer to keep some of my more personal life free of prying eyes. But thanks for picking me up on my poor choice of vocabulary.

It's interesting, this might sound rather trite coming from an anarchist, but I'm willing to accept that I have no idea what the future holds. I tend to focus on my own life and those dearest to me and the near future. Having said that, It certainly sounds like the principles are similar. So I'm willing to accept that something could shape out this way in time. Interesting. I will say however, although perhaps it's a definition thing (on my part), I do hope socialism gets decided by the market rather than from leaders. We've had enough bloodshed this past century frankly.

Oh boy, well that was a long and arduous journey I shan't bore you with.. Needless to say, the long and the short of it, was I explored all other religions, got no insight from any of them (inc Budhism). So decided to remain agonstic. I now realise that was just an excuse for my family dogma and I was attempting (poorly) to protect them. I kind of got this after reading Hitchins polemic, 'God is not Great'. A bit of a slap in the face to wake me up, I must say.

Yes, well that's a pragmatic view of course. And the Russians will always have their supposedly 'reasonable' excuses too.. But there is no doubting that many of the political elite in the West of more recent years (who were still living), that had no interest in a review of the Soviet past. Lest they be implicated themselves in any crimes or at the very least looking like Soviet collaborators or sympathisers.

Yeah, misinformation about the definition of anarchy is standard, particularly in film and TV. Ironically anarchism is very likely to be the future, except it wont be the dystopic vison of todays directors. I'm glad to say that the few people I've talked about the topic with. Whilst they may disagree with it's ambitions, they no longer view anarchists as violent revolutionaries.

I'm guessing my journey orginated with Atheism. I used to listen and read a lot of Hitchins and Dawkins for a few years. I then found myself getting more interested in politics, because the govt were basically outlawing all kinds of things that had been pretty much taken for granted in the past. I saw this was a theme that stemmed from the UN across the whole of the world. It became fairly apparent that voting had no influence over this. The game was rigged I began to tell. I then came across some Rothbard videos and reading more about Libertarianism. This led inevitably to Ron Paul who I saw on The Daily Show I think (2007). Anyway, within 3 weeks I stumbled across Stefan's channel. And well it was all downhill from there on. Despite all the really good stuff about liberty and personal freedom. This insight just brought me enormous intellectual strength I thought I could never possess. It's like the kind of thinking I used before, just had no clue what the 'ef' it was I trying to say. Perhaps my journey into athiesm was where the thinking started to improve. Having considered myself an agnostic for several years. Athiesm challenged me in the one area where agnostism had attempted to give me solace, my religious family. This precipitated some difficult conversations with my father, which went on for about a year or so. So, despite what some critics say of FDR or Stefan, I was challenging my family well before I heard of either you see.

Yes, I've listened to Stef for a number of years now and you're not the first to suggest he is too abrupt. I have to say though I'm not particularly bothered by it myself and actually think it's essential sometimes when he's up against annoying callers that want to prolong a poor argument. On the other hand I have also heard him thank callers as well. So I'm not really convinced there is a problem.

Forgot to mention, but all these wars in the middle east are with countries (without nukes) that have wanted to get out from the petrodollar and use some other currency to buy and sell oil and gas with. The is the real reason the US doesn't want Iran to get nukes. I think I can see a war with Iran in 10 years or thereabouts probably. The rest of the world is only to aware of this and so cowtow to American demands. Fiat printing is the kickback for complying of course. This why I see the military being the last thing they will cut. They would sooner have desubsidised farmers up in arms than give up the free money supply.

It's fascinating to realise just how much collaboration went on between the USSR and the USA. The communists have seemingly won idelogicaly at least, given how leftist people are these days. Partially thanks to all those socialists in power from the 30's - 90's in the West, that were Soviet sympathisers. That said, it could arguably be made that even Churchill himself was a sympathiser, given the amount of money he shovelled into their economy. The only significant difference today of the socialists of the SU, was that they had to stop murdering their own people, except foreigners overseas of course. It always struck me as interesting that there was never any kind of review or trial of the Soviet system and it's participants, after it's collapse (like Nuremberg). But I think too many western politicos with far too much grease on their hands never wanted that kind of scrutiny.

Actually you make a rather good case for what the state does, in terms of taking advantage of tribal loyalties. That makes a lot of sense to me. The trouble as I see it, is that you're suggesting a nation is the answer. These aren't facetious questions, but what does that nation look like? And would everyone want to be a part of it? I think things are so disparate in that regard these days, that it would be impossible to manage everyone's desires and needs under one umbrella called a nation. Regarding social order. There is a very good case how this can happen spontaneously. Recalling how law and order broke down in Egypt. Yet you had herds of men patrolling and protecting their neighbourhood. The same was true of the Sikh community in West London during the riots. This works from a bottom up authority. Whereby a group of people express a need (protection). And they all work together to achieve it. Top down authority is where a privileged few have the power to enforce their desires on everyone else. Which ends up being the opposite of protection. Of course this is where we differ perhaps. But given that the sociopaths are relatively few in number, compared to most people who are fine with leaving each other alone. The challenge is to build institutions that protect those freedoms from the bottom up. If it's not too diversionary, but mutual associations were an excellent example of that in Britain during the industrial revolution. How to similarly provide protection through voluntary means is the challenge I think. I've enjoyed your analogies of tribal culture and state degeneracy, they make a lot of sense. It's also nice to have an opposing (British? I think) view that isn't leftist either. At least you understand their is a problem with the state as it is now.

Yes, Lance touched on some of the reasons. Essentially the US and historically the UK have been forever bailing out currencies by inflating their own as and when they needed too. They even used to support the Russian Rouble back in the day. Generally speaking the rest of the worlds currencies follow suit by inflating their own. Thus acquiring free money each time. It's a kind of Quid pro quo thing. This is why you don't see the inflation ever getting out of control. The only reason these countries have summits is purely to discuss currency. Although they'll have us believe otherwise. I'm of the opinion that recent Libertarian projections about a dollar collapse are far further away than they thought. However, TT is quite right to point out that the US is spending like a degenerate gambler. But this only gives them some slack, as they start pulling out of domestic spending gradually. I think you'll start seeing the cuts after Obama's reign. It sort of follows why the Police have been militarising themselves, as the future riots that are likely to ensue, will make the London riots look like a picnic in the park. My guess is that any kind of total dollar crash could be as long as 15/20 years a way or more. Bitcoin is the only thing I can see as capable of shortening that timespan and potentially being a game changer. I know people who disagree with me vehemently and that's fine, I'll glady eat my hat if it happens earlier.

You might want to look at this recent thread, in which this topic gets discussed http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37061-desire-for-age-similarity-in-relationships/

Well, you'll probably not get much traction here with such ideas. Anarchists are anti state by definition. Which I suppose makes us anti nation, because i don't quite see the difference. Certainly anarchism isn't anti community, which you could call a nation. But they are generaly smaller and more manageable voluntary collectives. The problem as anarchists see it, is that they have no wish to be forced into any kind of collectives, without their express permission and choice, individually.

Yes, MM makes a good point... I might think a young lady is pretty or attractive at 44, but I am able to distinguish between what seems like a possible romantic inclination as opposed to one that just isn't something I can take at all seriously. However, if someone was 20 and attracted to a 16 year old we are talking parameters that are possibly reasonable. Making assumptions about Stefan's preferences or attractions, especially if they are the opposite to what he says is only likely to cause irritation on Stefan's part. And understandably so I think.

Well, again I don't have much context. Why not approach him about your ambiguity privately.

Yes, thanks Wesley, I am familiar with that study. I'm more interested in what Stefan actually said, but I'll have another listen again. Ok, I had a listen again. So I think you are over conflating and embellishing on what Stefan said. He mentioned that Walkers predilection for young girls probably had more to do with a word ending in UST rather than with love. This would fit with my earlier reference to physically mature youngsters being sexually attractive to adults. Stefan didn't mention whether he'd been attracted to them or not. He merely said they were 'functionally retarded' as far as a relationship goes. I might agree that the above study Stefan referred too that Wesley kindly posted, doesn't necessarily mean that all people aged up to 25 are of the same retardation compared to a 16/17 years old. That said, I'm fairly sure Stefan wouldn't either. But if it still bothers you, then I strongly suggest talking to him about it. It's normally resolved things for me.