PatrickC

Yes, this is how cities are produced of course.. However, to start out, it carries some potential risk, since it might just develop into a small hamlet or less even. On a more meta point in this regards. We can all benefit from people developing their property, because it can flourish into a much richer resource in time, as in cities etc. So I think the question of those who benefits, is not necessasrily just a landlowner or landlord if that makes sense. Many people can benefit from a personally unowned resource created, owned and developed by others.

I'm going to use Stef's argument or a subset of his argument for this one...They are diagnosing society as healthy and the child's rebellion to the irrational as unhealthy. In that case of course firm discipline makes children conform to society better...the problem isn't the results of this study, it's the standard they are measuring it to, in my opinion. Yea, I think you hit the nail on the head.. It's all about context and expectation of course. Good point.

Ha ha, I've long suspected this myself too and it does put a rather interesting slant on the question. However, I'm assuming you know the obvious problem with this of course. That it's mere speculation and just an assertion. It's not something one can particularly hang their moral hat on.

Yes, I'd like to see the studies details myself. It appears to be an interpretation by the Daily Express as it cites (with few details) at least two studies. Having said that, science or no science the question of hitting (a person) in any other circumstance is considered as universally wrong. So despite lofty expressions like 'tough love', it's probably not a study I could take seriously frankly.

Really happy to hear you are looking back to try and understand the situation from an historic perspective. I think that is indeed very brave and honest of you. Just to point out that when Stef criticises single parenthood, he is genrally talking about those people that choose it. It's quite clear that you didn't choose it and the fact things went badly for you shouldn't categorise you in the same vein. It sounds to me like you are trying to make sense of your past and best wishes with that.

Yes, not his greatest piece by any chalk. I think Banksy's genius (if I can say that) is more evident in his artwork and not his statements. In my opinion his imagery generally speaks much more about the truth of the world than the words he's ever chosen to use.

Meh, how is an artist meant to immortalise a philospher in his very own stone bust, especially one that fidgits a lot. More philosphical poses from Stef please, in the Greek vein. Toga's and bay leaves are optional extras of course.. []

I share your ambiguity with this topic Robin. And I'm afraid I don't really have any answers either, merely observations. On an aside these days I generally only downloaded material that is unavailable to me in my own country. Also that in every case, with a TV series or film that I have genuinely enjoyed watching, I have ended up buying the blu ray box set at the end of the shows run. This apparently is not an uncommon statistic amongst downloaders. http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/file-sharing-doesnt-discourage-buying-study/ More interestingly is HBO's reaction to piracy. http://www.npr.org/2013/04/07/176338400/pirates-steal-game-of-thrones-why-hbo-doesnt-mind I appreciate none of the above necessarily justifies the means. But I think it underlines the disparity that many content providers have with their customers. And since they can apply a massive amount of force to what they see as the problem, they do. Unlike the rock seller, it does seem, given the huge demand they have for their products that they should be able to find a business model that could suit everyone's needs and desires. It seems many of them choose force and more force each time.

Sorry to hear about your experience with your ex partner. Glad you managed to walk away from the abuse. Good for you and your children. Best wishes!

As I alluded to with David L., this is a difference of epistemology. FDR is a place dedicated to a certain epistemology based on reason, evidence and empiricism. That means that when we feel something, we question it and test whether what we subjectively experience matches reality or not, we don't just assume our feeling is accurate. David L. (and probably many of the people in the group you keep mentioning) have a different idea of what constitutes knowledge. They believe that if you feel something strongly enough, it must be there. I could lay out all the arguments for why those of us who don't believe that believe as we do. But I think that is a whole subject deserving of another thread (and that surely already has plenty of threads). The bottom line is this discussion seems to be between empiricism and a form of subjectivism (or is there a better term for it, anyone?) I thought this was well said.. I would only add (for better clarity), that the feelings are indeed real (ofc). Just that our conclusions about them can be wrong. Or at least in part wrong or perhaps an unconscious (misunderstood) projection on our part.

No disrespect Mishelle, but I have no idea what that means. I'm careful these days that I don't project onto an idea, especially from an immediate emotional response. So whilst I enjoyed this video, I'm cautious that historically I have had a tendancy to be drawn into arguments that merely 'touched' me, without thinking further as to why. Back in the day I could mix up a beat that could get some folk into a stupor. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that per se, I think it's reasonable to ask what those feelings really mean, if that makes sense.

I'm kind of feeling STer and Snipes frustration in this conversation.. But like Mr Fingolfin suggests, it's all about definitions (isn't it always). [] Anyway, not sure what to make of this video with Mr Sagan. But I think it touches on both sides of this debate perhaps. Certainly I can accept some aspects of 'onesness' as a metaphor I think. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk]

Before i go to inalienable rights I first look for UPB and the NAP. Having said that, an inalienable right will never cause you to break either UPB or the NAP. Freedom of speech only exists because we have a political system that if we were to take it at all seriously, requires people the ability to express their views in the public domain. Since private property is not part of the public domain (at least in an AnCap world) it has little use within that setting. I totally understand that when reparations are called for that inevitably (due to a lack of knowledge) some existing property and land ownership might escape proper repatriation. This will be partly due to the family and kin of previous owners not being alive. Also the complexities of multiple ownership and simply not knowing. However, this should not be a cause for conflict, since it will be in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful resolution. I appreciate that isn't the most succinct answer, but you can't blame the future's failure to make amends for the injustices of those historic individuals that were the main perpetrators. I hope that makes sense.

Freedom of speech is only a right given to you by your benevolent masters. It's never been considered as 'inalienable', despite being often conflated as such. The right has always been used as a propaganda tool by mainly democratic states to hoodwink their population into believing they are free.

Just to add as extra to the excellent points that have been mentioned. Modern day property and land speculation is due to govts throughout the world controlling and regulating the market. Thus driving prices up and up by deliberately making it harder for land owners and builders to decide what they can and can't do with their land and property. You simply can't compare apples with oranges I'm afraid.

Yes, Lloyd has some valuable coin in this discussion.

Yes of course, you should still explore with them as much as you wish. Breaking long term bonds (if it ever has to happen), should be a well considered process indeed and not taken lightly of course. I was curious if you had ever read Stefan's book Real Time Relationships (RTR for short). I think it could be a useful aid in your quest for clarity. Anyway, best wishes all the same.

How is that a problem and more importantly how does that effect UPB? Just to point out that renting or leasing land is an entirely reasonable way of using and owning land. If the owner or landlord has developed the land in such a manner that it is useful to others, then it's entirely reasonable to still assume them ownership. Also they're many people that only want to utilise the land for a temporary period of time and not have all the responsibilities and liabilities that will come with owning the land.

Without first reading through the links you've provided, which I will do later. I just wanted to point out that it's not 'production' of the land that denotes ownership. It is the productive output that happens on that land. For instance, it is highly doubtful that anyone is going to want to own a piece of land such as a deep gorge in the Himalaya’s. Since this land will be very difficult to access and will be of relatively little use to anyone. However, land that serves a purpose for living, leisure or manufacture will be highly sought after and will likely end up being owned by those that make the most productive use of it. Inherited land such as that belonging to royalty, or land that was rufflessly stolen from previous legitimate owners is an area I have heard An Caps discuss, as well as Stef. It would seem that some kind of reparation and repatriation would have to be negotiated. How that would work out in reality, I'm not entirely sure myself. But the principle sounds about right and fits into UPB.

Mishelle I have to agree with STer and wonder why you still feel the need to be around this community. To me this stuff sounds deeply toxic. It reminds me of much of the contradictory stuff I learnt growing up in a Christian household. It's the embellishment of language, which may have some poetic license elsewhere. But in this case, I think is a deliberate obfuscation of the intent. Having said that, I do understand what it's like to realise you no longer agree with people that you once shared a bond with. That it's quite isolating and scary of course. I wasn’t sure whether this was what you were dealing with rather than a better understanding of 'we are all one'. Since you seemed to understand the problems with that concept from the start of this thread. Just a thought I had.

John Stossel makes a mention of this event http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2013/05/28/government-kills-private-online-currency

For me, the realization of oneness signifies freedom, wholeness, harmony. So it's just a metaphor then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22680297 A further discussion on the topic and the possible Implications for Bitcoin investors.

Sorry David, but this requires further explanation.. This sounds like one ought to ignore ones perceptions of the world around them and start to embelish on them. OK. Would you say the body is inseparable from the world? Ok, I don't want to have a conversation about something you have already been discussing with STer. I want to know what the significance is for you about this 'oneness'?

Sorry David, but this requires further explanation.. This sounds like one ought to ignore ones perceptions of the world around them and start to embelish on them.