PatrickC

Hey Antony, thanks for making it public, so I could read it. I had a number of thoughts on this. Of course, don't take my word on it, these are just my observations for what it's worth. But I hope it helps. I was curious why she made that particular comment about 'parent blaming', given the context of the picture you had posted. It didn't seem particularly relevant when you were merely making a moral point about the way some parents make excuses for their abuse. Although given that she seems to have written a book which discusses 'parent blaming' then I suppose the picture may have reminded her of something in her past and she jumped the gun on an emotional trigger perhaps. I also found it interesting that she wrote this book under a pseudonym, as a means to protect her family. Presumably the family that abused her. That doesn't have to mean anything of course, but I think it's interesting all the same. However, she did eventually make some quite specific personal accusations of you. This just seems all kind of laden with shaming tactics. Not particularly helpful to you, if you were actually doing what she was accusing you of. Let's say if you had been doing something unconscious, then a more gentler approach with getting you to focus on that unconscious part would have been more profitable and indeed charitable way of helping you understand better. In fairness she does later apologise for this, perhaps realising her approach had been a bit harsh, which it was by the way. Unfortunately she doesn't give you any insight into that harshness or even admit to it. Which consciously or unconsciously (from experience) is all kinds of annoying of course. Highly speculative on my part perhaps, but this could suggest that she is trying to protect her own parents. I could be wrong of course, since she didn't go into detail about how she handled her own experience of parent blaming. However, her approach thus far wasn't entirely about helping you and was perhaps serving some other purpose for her. That being said, I found it interesting that you wrote such a long and detailed response to her accusations. Not that I think there was anything particularly wrong with what you said, as it all made sense. But given what she had said to you (from my previous observations), I found it to be a little out of context. You did call her out correctly on the poor way she approached you (incompassionate) and you later pointed out how unhelpful she had been. But you then proceeded to defend your reasoning for posting the picture. For me at least, any reasoning about your picture posting was off topic by now, because she had made some significant claims about you personally. I want to add before I go any further that I'm sorry to hear about the hell your mother put you through as a child, you have my biggest sympathies indeed. With a re-iterated caveat that these are just my thoughts Antony. I'm not going to claim that they are necessarily relevant to you of course. I think it is definitely true that some people can 'parent blame' as a temporary means to ease the pain of their history. I have seen people do this over the years from time to time. I certainly had a period of it myself too. It is well deserved blame as well, but if used as a shield against real insight can be an awful burden to bear. I believe Alice Miller discusses this point, but I'm at a loss to remember exactly where right now. However, it was interesting that you defended your position by describing the abuse you received from your mother rather than asking her what made her believe what you were doing was unhelpful for you. Not that you needed to ask her anything, you could have always ignored it as baseless of course. But since you didn't I think exploring your responses further might prove very valuable for you perhaps. I hope that made sense and be sure to let me know otherwise.

Just to let you know, that link only works I imagine if you are either facebook friends with yourself or the other party. It's telling me the content is unavailable.

As a means to undersatnding the mechanics of the wider world and the thoughts and motivations of those around you, yes it is helpful. But of course, as I'm sure you realise, that is a whole diifferent pursuit to that of attempting to change a persons mind. No I wouldn't disagree with that as a general sentiment. And within the wider world of the 'freedom movement', they do tend to focus most of their attention on govt like you're suggesting, which does become frustratingly dull (at least for me). I think a whole lot less of that occurs here at FDR (in my experience). The focus on personal relationships and well being are a big part of what gets discussed here. Perhaps less so on the boards, but then again I wouldn't say the boards are necessarily a great reflection of the community as a whole. Personal freedom being a much more achievable goal because it only involves the individual making changes and not the rest of the world. That being said, I agree that many people in the west are oblique to the idea of not being free. Most have been convinced by years of indoctrination in schools and a media that just reads out govt missives verbatim with little critcism. Then there is the other side in which people are often dependent on govt for their jobs, food, health and shelter or at least aware of a loved one that is. Perhaps that's an over simplification of why many people are reticent to the 'liberty message', but it covers the majority I think. I thought you raised an excellent point earlier in the thread, in response to MrCapitalism, regarding the neglected and abandoned. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that these people are important. That merely feeling aggressed upon or violated is just one (albeit valid) outcome of abuse. Stefan has addressed this in some of his earlier podcasts if I recall. Of course peaceful parenting goes some way into avoiding being neglectful of your childs needs. However, I would agree that there is still much to learn, as these are often the hardest people to reach, because the journey to recovery for them is usually a longer and more painful one. However, I am still mindful that there are always going to be people that are uninterested (unreachable). In my opinion learning how to detect those kinds can be just as useful as finding ways to reach others.

I didn't dismiss them (at least most of them, a couple of them I do dismiss if they just aren't accurate). I mainly keep pointing out that their answers don't seem to be ones that most people in the public would be motivated by. I'm shining a light on the gap between the things people on FDR feel strongly about, leading them to this general sense of being somehow oppressed by the government and the sense in the general public, which I think is more on the other side, if anything - that they are too often neglected and left to fend for themselves. Like I said, I certainly don't mean to diminish the frustrations people really do feel. And I'm sure many of them are quite real. I just find it an interesting contrast between the view of government on FDR as oppressive and limiting of freedom and the general sense in the public that, for the most part, in the West, we can do as we please as long as we aren't being too extreme (more extreme than most people care to be anyway.) It goes back to the last part of my OP where I said "I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort." The thing I find interesting about this view (of FDR), is that it doesn't quite live up to my experience of it. Having said that, I imagine everyone has a different experience of FDR and what draws them here. So perhaps you're right and there are people on this board that think this way. Certainly I've seen many people come and go on this board over the years and mostly for very individual and personal reasons. That said, my take on this idea of convincing people is a somewhat null one for me. Insofar as I realise I have very little effect on changing people. Trying to convince them of my way of thinking, often just leads me into a world of frustration and despair (at least historically). Personally, it's hard enough convincing myself of a better course of action in my own life, even when I'm presented with the evidence. That to imagine I could change someone else’s mind, would I think be tomfoolery on my part. I enjoy a good debate and argument like many do here on this forum. But I try not to emotionally invest in it (unless it's a loved one), because debate and discussion are often fun, interesting and a great way to meet people. I feel a lot more peace, now that I'm no longer responsible for changing peoples minds.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise for this thread STer. It seems that people are giving you their particular reasons and then you go ahead dismissing them one by one with no more reasoning let's say than their own. What is the purpose of this thread for you?

I had a further thought that Peter Boghossian might make for an interesting guest too. Since he runs a rational thinking workshop and courses on logic, he might be a very interesting as a guest for the Sunday show perhaps. It certainly seemed that both he and Stef got allong pretty well from the interview Stef had with him last year. His Facebook is https://www.facebook.com/peter.boghossian?fref=ts

Oh wow, broad question deserves a broad answer I guess. Personally I would like to hear from people that have made big changes (for the better & how) in their life that are real and beneficial to others. However, I would also like to hear from the interesting pundits (like Jeffrey Tucker) in the world that bring us all a very certain amount of joy and inspiration too. []

I would like to invite Ben Lowry to the show perhaps in future.. He has done an enormous job on himself fitness/diet wise recently. Notwithstanding (I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning), that he lost all his hair (alopecia) in 2012. He seems to have a great outlook on life at the moment that I think the community would benefit from. His Youtube channel is here.. http://www.youtube.com/user/benlowreyhimself Facebook https://www.facebook.com/benlowrey?fref=ts

Hmmn, for a critique of Adam, it would seem that this Scott Creighton has a lot to learn. Baseless assertion, logical fallacy, strawman, poisioning of the well and ad hominem that verges on character assination are not evidence of anything. Adam does some crazy stuff sometimes and could probably do with a rational critique from time to time. However, I'd sooner listen to a man that follows the NAP as his principle, than a self professed 'everyman' who would gladly use magical bits of paper (law) to put me in a cage.

He's got a point about people like Rockwell and his contemporaries. They completely ignored his plight. Whilst I don't wish to follow the kind of escalation Adam encourages, it was no joy hearing that he had disappeared for days, unaccounted for. Their lack of sympathy for his situation was noted. +2 Nathans post as well

I wonder who will uncover the psyops amongst them, that are now uncovering all these psyops like Kokesh and Snowden.. oooh, spooky!

What if you were being paid a lot? Not sure I entirely understand the premise for your question Lowe.. But if I were in his position and considered all the subsequent fall out I was likely to encounter, in both the long and the short term. I think leaving my job (if that was the cause of my unhappiness) would be a very rational and healthy thing to do, despite how much they paid me. I really admire the guys bravery and I suppose these sort of events chip away at people's belief in govt. It just seems that his potential loss of freedom was a pretty dreadful sacrifice to make.

Yes, this was Snowden's biggest fear. Which makes you wonder why he did it. Because if I had evaluated my potential disclosure in the wake of Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. I think I would have just quit my job and said, 'you know what, not a lot I can do here'... Having said all that, I wish him well of course and that he keeps safe.

I have to agree with joseito's take on this. This was one of the first things I discussed with a few friends when we watched it last Christmas. I'd also throw in Galadriel as the mother figure of infinite virtue as well. It's part of why a book I once remembered enjoying as a child suddenly became everything that I despise now. I can handle my fantasy, as I do in Game of Thrones. But at least in GoT's no one is considered beyond reproach like that of Gandalf and Galadriel. It's interesting to note (for what it's worth), that The Hobbit was originally a story Tolkien wrote for his children.

What an interesting idea. As an old hand in portraiture myself, can I recommend that people take their picture as close up as possible with an HD camera. make sure you have a bi directional light source from a 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock position. This will give Nala the best details and features of your face for drawing purposes

This is quite true. In a world where no one challenges you and accepts every silly thing that jumps into your mind. Having someone challenge that effectively (and kindly) is very often a source of relief for them. I'd say that men in general have a tendency to favour women, beautiful or otherwise. Men just seem to be driven by a desire to meet womens needs.

I guess historically it had to do with paths of passage for ships and boats. But primarily you cannot own expanses of water largely because you are unable to manipulate water in quite the same way as you can soil. That being said, if you could adapt some kind of seastead then I guess you can. Notwithstanding the ability to reclaim land from the sea. In terms of a harbour then you would need to show that you are utilising it to it's fullest extent. I imagine many harbours were once owned by a consortium of owners as they developed the harbour with new and expanded uses.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion. There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason... Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well? There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable. It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes. Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion. I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman. I feel fairly certain that the general anonymity of the Internet and the distant relationship between some corporation owned by murderous GE in Hollywood and the low-income downloader makes this seem less rude. If you personalize it, the rudeness (or morality) becomes more apparent. If the downloader and the content originator were in the same room and were friends and had to talk about the act, I think both parties would find it rude. Yea, you could be right. Certainly APA would encourage you to look at the past actions of agencies and individuals as a guide towards your eventual decision. But generally it is concerned with the action in hand. Aesthetics are of course open to interpretation, insofar as there isn't any moral obligation. APA is a subjective decision one makes in a given situation, sometimes dependent on the desires and wishes of the other party (good or bad), sometimes not. If I recall rightly Stef actually categorises APA into different parts, but I don't have the book to hand here at work. APA is generally the start to real integrity. APA are often the hardest decisions we make. Having said all that, this is just the way I see it at the moment, because I understand the ambiguity with this particular topic. No one has convinced me yet of a decisive answer. APA is about the only way I can begin to unravel those ambiguous parts, if that makes sense. And just to be clear it doesn't mean that I am pro IP. This is all about finding voluntary solutions and personal integrity of course.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion. There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason... Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well? There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable. It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes. Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion. I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman.

Nathan The point is that he cannot own the whole lake, or in my example, the whole harbour. He has no way of stopping one of his own employees developing his own fishing business. This employee may have rented a portion of his previous employers dock or built his own in some other spot perhaps. But the harbour remains a resource to all those that can find a productive use for it. He cannot claim any kind fee for land he has not yet developed. If there is an untouched piece of land 20 yards from someone else's development, then he has to provide some reason for him making the claim. Of course in my fisherman example they would be working together and will have probably negotiated a mutually acceptable plot of land that suited both of them. You seem to think that renting is a lay about job. Do you own property yourself? I ask this because I work with many landlords in my line of work. I can tell you that managing properties and buildings can be and is a full time job. If they stop providing their tenants with the services they provide, not only do they risk losing tenants, but they will certainly make less profit. I think you need to rethink your opinion of them and what they do. Lastly the only way that a massive land or sea grab like the one you describe can be made, is through violence. This of course is not an acceptable way of becoming a landowner. But I appreciate that historically it has often been the case.

What definition of "land" are you using? What do you mean by "their land"? I'm sure we can agree that he didn't create any space. He moved stuff around in space. He created property (a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house) by transforming physical "land". Perhaps you're asking if he deserves (in the sense of being unquestionably entitled to) "recompense" for his human action? I say, no. The Labor Theory of Value is false. He doesn't own value, he owns his property which others may value in terms of the property they are willing to exchange. He can't demand others give him their property in exchange for his just because he believes his property has value. If he wants a monetary reward, he needs to make an exchange. Nothing has value prior to an exchange; value is discovered in trade. Regarding the prosperity of the locations/exclusions... What do you mean by the word prosperity? Do you mean the property resting at those locations/exclusions that he and others have created by transforming physical "land"? Do you mean the increased value of access to those locations/exclusions as measured by the property people would be willing trade in order to secure limited or exclusive access? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the potential property that could be transformed from the "natural opportunities" available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on their current and potential access to the labor (employers and employees) available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the opportunities to trade that are available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the social opportunities available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? What would the lone fisherman be claiming with respect to this prosperity? What would all the others working at those locations/exclusions be claiming with respect to this prosperity? The amount of his labor appears to be that which was necessary to produce a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house. Ok, I'm thinking this is mostly a problem of definitions, because the way you have framed some of my points, I don't disagree with you entirely. This I think is the trouble with providing short examples, since they can be easily dismissed for lack of detail or as a 'one off'. Perhaps I've been a little 'meta' with my point and I think I agree that it could seem that I'm mixing up 'market value' with deserved recompense. The market will ultimately decide the value of anything of course, including land. I'll be sure to take a look at the theories you have mentioned, because I freely admit that I tend to look at these topics from a philosophical approach, which means I can sometimes miss important details of course.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

I should have said I have no formal theory, but that I do have a theory of sorts, which may or may not converge with those more formal ones. The only way I can attempt to illustrate my point better, would be with an example of a lone fisherman looking for a spot to fish and raise his family. He discovers a natural harbour where he can build a safe dock for his boat to moor. He discovers that he nets a week’s haul of fish in one day. He decides to employ 3 other men from a local village to help him and he starts selling his catch to that village's fishmonger. The three men he employs decide to build houses next to his. One of them manages to save enough money to buy his own boat and decides to do the same. Another fella then decides that he can provide a road from the village to the docks and charge a reasonable sum to the fisherman that save them on broken wheels and get them to their destination more quickly. So on and so forth, the land between these docks and village starts to develop as more and more people decide on the goods and services they can bring to this prosperous fishing hamlet. various plots of land being developed over time by individuals for the benefit of others until it flourishes into a massive metropolis. So, my point being could it not be said that the lone fisherman who kick-started this created a space which became prosperous to others. That maybe in time he gets to develop his docks into a large roll on roll off ferry port. But maybe he decides he doesn't want to do that and allows someone else to develop the docks instead for a small annual fee and the promise that he can still moor his fishing boat there. To suggest that he has sat on land, 'rent seeking' as such I think would be a trifle unfair, given the amount of labour he put into it beforehand. In terms of compensation, isn't the development of a large metropolis providing all manner of goods and services to people not compensation enough. If people want to be a part of that much later into its development, then it becomes subject to the market. If the price is high, then it's simply a reflection that people value that area highly. I'm not sure if that helped you understand my position better. I'm just not convinced that people would do nothing with their land in the long run. That mostly if they do it will fall into rack and ruin and will disappear. Mostly all the modern day dereliction like Detroit and Manchester are normally always to do with state run industries or projects that leaves land empty and fallow with little or no prospect of ever entering a true 'free market'.

Isn't that the labor theory of value? The prospector moved their body in space seeking some kind of material advantage. So where is the material of the sought advantage? Did they transform physical "land" into property? They certainly didn't transform spatial "land". I'm not sure what that means Adam, in terms of any kind of theory (I have no theory).. I just mean that if a person develops a plot of land, which later encourages others to develop the land around his/hers to such a degree that the land becomes more valuable and popular with many more folk. Then one can say their personal investment of time and labour into that land improvement deserves some kind of recomepence in terms of value for their great foresight and improvement, if that makes sense.

Yes, but you missed my earlier point from the same post. They could just as easily found their development valueless. The fact they took a risk developing land with a certain unknown prospect attached deserves some recompense in terms of value. Saying they did nothing is an over simplification, because they did.