PatrickC

Interesting historical perspective there, thanks. I'm enjoying re-looking at history again from a more philosophical outlook, as so much of what we were taught, was mostly from a Marxist perspective. In contrast, I'm having a rethink about the disposability theme of late, which you might find interesting on a seperate thread here. They are just ideas I've been formulating in my mind of late for what it's worth. Since meeting up with a local London MGTOW group recently I have some sympathy for this position. If any of there stories were anything to go, they made my own difficulties pale into insignificance, Just some harrowing stories frankly.However, I have found philosophy to be a more kindly mistress (scuse pun) than ideology in the long run. I worry that MGTOW will become less about young men forging a future for themselves and more about the ideology itself. That said, it does make some rather compelling points about modern culture.

Undelution, as usual you have no point.. So bugger off!

Take a look at your own argument Thomas, and be honest with yourself, it's in tatters and a complete projection. Rather than insult people, try and make sense of what their saying.

Maybe he would, but if I was thinking on a similar line, I wouldn't be considering myself (as a parent) entirely helpless in the situation. I'd be proactive enough to just remove them. Having said that, maybe he has.

Good day and welcome.. If you like UPB, then, Truth, the tyranny of illusion you like also I think.

No, no an answer to my question would suffice thanks

Why would I even bother to respond to that Thomas, really! This gutless wonderwoman isn't even confronting the parents.. meh!

Does God not place a condition upon us all to worship him?

Well a heroin addict has a lot more control of their lives, even if they don't apply it. A child however, is beholden to the behaviour and wishes of their parents. Not like a child can do much about the food that's given them. And you can just refuse to give any candy and take the trick of course.

I have to say that I have to agree with the authors thoughts on the treatment of boys in public school these days, in the hands of wiomen saturated in feminist claims that we just need to socialise boys into girls. I'd say he's spot on. Except rather than insist women don't teach boys, I would just remove the boys from school all together. Not sure how the author might react to that mind.

Can you explain where this has happened, where there hasn't been a monopoly of force that could enforce such a situation? In a stateless world where that kind of power will be limited and more evenly spread I cannot see it ever occurring. Not to mention what particular resource could any group commandeer in it's entirety? Again, this is why I cannot take your question seriously. It seems generally to be emanating from historical statist or monarchical systems of power at best. Having said that, I'll still give the book a chew on at some point.

Yes, I agree with TT here, this lady is nothing but a pompous twat. What does she think she will achieve with a parent who is likely to just throw her silly letters away, whilst the child gets a good dose of shame thrown at them, amongst their peers.

Sometimes voice journalling with a voice recorder can be an interesting way to re-examine your thoughts.. I did this for almost 3 years every morning with a light walk at 6am. It sounds like your getting a lot from it already mind.

I've been meaning to answer Kevin's questions, because I thought them rather interesting. Not sure if my answers are of much help, but here goes. Hardly at all on the boards, but much less so on social networking and a select few personally. However, it's always with a feeling of intrepidation Anecdotally, no, they bring them up with relative ease for me. Annoyed, particularly when I've already caveated my position. Yes, although of course it really depends on the way a child is brought up. So I imagine there might be boys brought up that way. My suspicion is that they are all taught to put girls first. I think they bear more responsibility if they find themselves as the primary caregiver. But if that happens to be a man, then it should fall on his shoulders of course. However, the secondary care giver, should be able to intervene and support the primary caregiver. Yes it does, and breaking them down is like floating into the unknown, not quite sure what you're meant to do sometimes which pisses me off too.

Yeah, this does make him less approachable from an integrity standpoint of course.

As I earlier suggested the problems stem from the state either commandeering the market or granting privileges to certain companies within a particular market. The latter exhibited by the current US postal service, which is an umitigated disaster. Where you see large amounts of competition, such as in computing, you see a gradual lowering of prices and better hardware over the years. This despite the money printing by the worlds central banks. But in regards to cities and outside communities in a situation of decentralised or non state environment, i.e. no one person or institution holds the monopoly of force against all the rest. Businesses, farmers, communities, developers, individuals will be forced to negotiate and cooperate with each other. Bear in mind that war is a huge cost and so most people will be looking for the best and most peaceful alternatives all round. If this means cities must shrink and diminish in size, then so be it. Since the market wont be providing it's populations with enough work, then they will simply move elsewhere.It's hard to argue that current city growth has anything to do with the free market, given all the subsidizing of a privileged sectors. So I agree that some form of significant shrinkage will occur, but unlikely while the state still wields so much power with taxation and borrowing. My thoughts are that if there is a need for cities in the market place, then cities will happen, if not, then they will simply disappear and in a stateless society that would most likely happen peacefully and over a period of time I guess.

I have to say that I'm not altogether interested in an RP discussion myself. However, if it sates the appetite of some listeners then it might be useful. The conversation doesn't necessarily have to lean towards the political of course. It might be more interesting to concentrate any conversation on his history and influences perhaps. I see him more these days as an historic figure, that got some of the world to rethink the role of govts.

Well, if you are discussing the current state of city growth, then yes there are many problems with that growth. Not less the welfare state and the subsidizing of certain industry. I do think cities (particularly Europe) are likely to shrink, as the division of labour becomes more evenly spread.

I still see this as a lifeboat scenario. It's highly unlikely that cities will grow to such sizes without those resources being met from the outside. Conversely cities would have to provide things the outside need. It's called the division of labour. Suggesting that either community is mutually exclusive would be absurd. Of course it's entirely possible that cities may shrink, as and when resources or that division of labour are not being met. People will simply move to where the jobs are before taking up arms. It is only a state that can hoard in this manner. Individuals will just go elsewhere to find those resources.

Ok, so if one community doesn't, then resources will be found elsewhere. With such a big market as a city, they'll be no doubt lots of people trying to find a market for such a resources. Or they will just offer higher prices to offset the need/advantage for such a community to hoard. There are an assortment of market mechanisms before war could ever ensue. I still stand by your argument being scaremongering

I got to say most of that seems highly unlikely to end up in war. Firstly outside communities are likely to accept a community that only possesses a self sufficient resource and will just look elsewhere for that resource. The chances of a basic need resource not being available elsewhere is just so unlikely as to be absurd. Any community that has an excess resource is most likely to exchange it in trade as they are likely to need some other resource themselves. For instance cities bring the country great art, film or design. This would be a valuable commodity in country communities that were unable to produce such things. This is really sounding like leftist scare mongering and lifeboat scenarios. Which is ironic, because it's traditionally Marxists that did go to war over resources.

Yea, I think it's just that people have to offer more than just a shared world view. In my opinion collectivist (mainly leftist) ideas are normally quite selfish, despite them being perceived as noble ideals, which is what creates the the conflict. A shared mutuality not only includes shared values, but also real practical value. I think it's probably possible, but like you say requires a deeper knowledge of the self.

There is a saying that when nations trade together they never go to war. The moment they stop trading with each other is the moment a war can begin. I mean you can take the most ominous suggestion and assume that nations that want to war will stop trading with their enemies, so as to force them into battle. But war is such an economic suicide for a nation, that it can only be idots or sociopaths that would persue it. Trading voluntarily is the most economically efficient way to become wealthy. How else did the free trade of the 1800's make Britain such a wealthy country that led the world with its industrial revolution. Arguably this brought untold wealth to the rest of the world, with its innovations and creativity. Cities I imagine will change without statism I imagine. For instance London currently equates to a total GDP of the total UK economy at around 34%. This has a lot to do with the incentives that the state employs that means certain industries profit vastly from being in London. This has grown year on year and has seen an almost 10% increase in population since 1993., whilst everywhere else has mostly remained the same or shrunk even. In the past Britians wealth and GDP were evenly shared across the country, when things were much less regulated or nationalised. I really think the idea that people would war over resources naturally is just an old leftist view that assumes greed as some kind of vicarious disease of the mind, inherent in all business owners. Everyone that is in business wants to trade with others freely and voluntarily. Anyone that has run a business knows this. It's only ever been the state that went to war over resources and more often than not, for inexplicable reasons such as Iraq.

I thought this was an excellent distinction between parents and govts Nathan. It stands to reason that govts cannot ever know what's best for every individual under their authority, since those in power are unlikely to ever meet, let alone build a relationship with most of them. The closest group that might would be a tribe, for which every member would offer mutual exchange and value and they would all be well known to each other. In a modern setting this would be entirely voluntary of course, but the value this kind of mutuality offered would be the glue that held them together. The moment you introduce overwhelming force continuously and throughout a whole person's life, you have the basis for slavery and not adulthood. Stef has often likened children to prisoners of their parents, but as I mentioned before, there comes a day when parents have no choice but to let them go..

I think there are two distinct differences between families and govt's. Primarily Stefan would argue that it is a moral obligation that a parent places on themselves, that they raise a child as peacefully as possible. The second is that parents let their children go once they reach maturity. This is more or less enforced on them, rather than a choice per se, as an adult child can clearly overpower their parents, if they attempt to keep them under their supervision. However, the gift a parent is more likely to receive for having practised peaceful parenting is a lifetime bond with their child into old age. No such obligations exist for govt's. Govt's basically control our lives from cradle to grave and no amount of rebelling or defending our independence from it, is possible. But you know all this right? I think you raise an interesting topic regarding tribal cultures perhaps being more conscientious in the business of child rearing, due to a larger field of adults that are aware of them and have some interest in their care and development. Not sure if you're alluding to tribal cultures being similar to govt's, but if you were, I would argue that they are quite different. Tribes share a bonding with each other that frankly never occurs with govts. Govt's attempt to re-enact that bonding with collectivist ideas like nationality and culture. But these faux bonds are mere sentimental fluff by comparison to your fellow tribesman or woman that actually provides you with a meaningful mutual exchange of value. No such mutuality occurs under the state, just meaningless adjectives.