PatrickC

I'm going to 'assume' [] that she went to either a Sudbury school or a liberal Montessori one perhaps. These schools can be great options of course, if you both decide to go with schooling. Sudbury schooling is perhaps the best option. They are often described as democratic schools where the kids get to vote on important matters regarding their education and conflicts with pupils or teachers. It shouldnt be confused with political democracy mind, as any schooling is a voluntary decision made by each child. The pupils can decide what they would like to learn and then choose for how long. This type of schooling would be a worthwhile compromise perhaps.

This is the oldest and most well oiled argument for regular schooling of course, the 'socialisation' argument. The funny thing is that children only get to interact with kids the exact same year as each other. Hardly an optimum way to socialise frankly. Plenty of homeschooling groups I imagine that you can interact with like Dayna Martin and other parents in the unschooling enviroment. You might need to do a bit of research in that regard and get to know parents before having children. It's a very active and fun community from what I can tell. I think it's fair to say that your engineering career is likely to be more profitable in the long run for the family. Unless she has plans on becoming some top hospital administrator perhaps. However, her nursing career might well prove to be more flexible and adpative than your own career. So in terms of being a stay at home dad in an affordable and child friendly location/enviroment, her nursing career might prove to be more available locally than yours. I would be curious to hear what she experienced as a 'joyous' experience of school. Talk to her about your own experiences of school warts and all. There is also the problem that boys & girls often experience school very differently. Girls are statistically more successful at school, which may lead to more percieved happiness for them when they look back. Whereas boys tend to report with 'disipline' problems and they do have the highest drop out rates. Public school carries a significant risk of failure for boys, even based upon the average statist view of things. Information and knowledge will be your friend when you are trying persuade someone into taking a different view from the norm. I have a some sympathy for them, particularly with someone I care about. So it's only fair that you do all the relavent hard work in bringing the empirical information to them. That way they can at least evaluate the information more dispassionately. Best of luck!

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information. They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival. This is the "scifi" thinking I mentioned previously.. You have made a huge leap here, with no explanation, only an assumption that I should know. Having said that, I have now read your signature introduction. Whilst it's unclear what 'basic human needs' even means and by who they are meant to get them from. I at least understand where your thinking is coming from.

Good point Alan.. That's a reasoanble description of voluntary unemployment of course.. However, I don't think this was the assumption being made earlier, unless as I said, I missed something perhaps.

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information.

This point was a more 'off the cuff' comment on my part.. Since when does the state ever reduce the manpower of a dept, particularly one that is heavily unionised? And like you suggest it's unlikely to result in any reduction in taxes or demand. My main point is that history repeatably shows us that technology and automation has always enriched us and never led to the impoverishment of people. People learn to adapt and change accordingly depending on market signals. Suggesting there is some uber tech that might suddenly cause massive unemployment, whilst theoretically possible, historically has proven to be unlikely. But if there is some anomally, rather than just 'job loss' that I haven't accounted for, then I'd be interested to hear.

Well less state funded jobs would no doubt be a better thing for the economy in the long run. The trouble is with this negative opinion of technology, is that 'historically' it has been proved to be wrong each and every time it has been suggested. You are effectively viewing the future in the same way the Luddites did. It's frankly impossible to know exactly what will happen, but historically it's always been a net gain each time. You would have to provide some significant counter arguments rather than just pointing out the lost jobs themselves.

I'm a donor. But it makes no sense for you to care about that. The merits or otherwise of an argument don't depend on donations. But as I said previously, since you like changing the goal post.. (and decide to confide in your 'apparent' donorship), what has this to do with Stef's original post?

How can you tell? As far as I know, only automated monthly donors get badges. Well those that do, are free to correct me of course.

What exactly does this have to do with Stef's original post? And I really can't help but notice that those going down this route are not donators, which (for what it's worth) irritates me somewhat.

I agree that bribery is less than productive.. The reason because with many family enviroments bribery is met with punishment if the chore isn't completed. I like Dayna's view that when her children need extra money that they can do various chores that allow them to acquire resources for themselves. This seems to fall entirely in line with voluntary decision making, since she has no intention of punishing them for not doing these chores. I had a friend recently that asked his 10 year old nephew to stop playing video games and go to the shop to buy something for him and his father. The child refused because he was enjoying his game. My friend proceeded to call up his friends to arrange a go karting event the following day. He told his nephew that he couldn't come because he had refused to help him. I told my friend how unfair this was on his nephew. How was he to know that he may have gone go karting if he had done this chore? He said, well he needs to learn that when he helps someone he may get rewarded sometimes. I said, no that teaches him to be a slave to your needs and arbitrary rewards. We are all incentivised to do something when we know the rewards we will recieve. What my friend was effectively suggesting, was that he might go to work one day and his customer might decide not to pay him and he would be ok with that.

Give me a time and place when resources were ever in abundunce? What pressure will 3D printing put on the job market that the Spinning Jenny failed to do? I am in agreement that pressures from govt entitlements, market regulations and favoritism wont help the job market, but this has little to do with technological automated innovations. This thread is starting to sound like a doomsday thread. There is simply no evidence that more faster cheaper automation means people becoming more impoverished. Quite the contrary, not only does the new technology often create new markets, but it drives the costs down on previously existing expensive labour intensive productions.

Hi there, I help run a private Google hangout group with others based in europe, where we discuss philosophy, psychology, economics and just about anything else inbetween.. We are pretty much an fdr related group with some exceptions here and there, but it's an enjoyable safe space for people to meet other likeminded folk from the boards. You're welcome to join us each Saturday around 7pm (GMT). Members can also create their own hangouts spontaneously from within the group whenever they feel like it. Just request an invite to the link below with a brief introduction of yourself and we'll add you. Philosophy Europe Call

Your memory is quite correct, she did say that.. @ 31.28 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOt6-DLcKGM?t=31m26s]

One simple way to look at this is via history.. Since the industrial revolution (let's say 1800) we have had automation breakthrough after automation breakthrough. This has been followed by a massive population growth and yet more jobs were created. Of course we now have a huge unemployment situation which kind of started in the mid to late 1970's, but this has been far more about government intervention than anything else. We actually had a decline in unemployment due to the advent of more powerful computing and software from 1993/94. Of course it's entirely correct that jobs are lost, but since technology replaces labour by a minimum of 3-1 and often a whole lot more it frees up the available labour to work in different markets. Take the Iphone for instance, which has created a whole new application market that never existed before this technology was created.

I think I understand the business model. Stef has explained it dozens of times. Go out into the street, practice philosophy, get free meals. I just don't see it working in the long-run. If revenues are gonna go up, there needs to be a product. Enjoying good conversations on a forum is neat, but not a product... or at least, not sold as one. If not advertising, why isn't there an extensive collection of merchandise? T-shirts, bumper stickers, books, mp3s, mugs, DVDs, anything. There's a large audience of interested people who would buy stuff if it were set in front of them. Socrates didn't have any access to mass media or eCommerce. I can't imagine that the philosopher wouldn't have sold a DVD collection of his greatest hits or manuals on philosophizing. As I said previously... 'missing the point'....

Then respectfully Arius I don't think you understand the business model.. Advertising is an entirely legitimate thing to do of course, but in the context of how Stef wants to do business, not an appropriate one. People can consider this to be a problem all they like, but for some people to suggest that Stef expressing his feelings don't matter because he doesn't advertise is to completely miss the point.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, so correct me here of course, but I'm not entirely sure that's the root of your fear... I'd suggest that perhaps it's their prior displays of aggression that you have either experienced first hand yourself, or seen others experience that drives that fear. It's not logical to think that asking someone to stop being aggressive, as 'being' aggressive, if that makes sense. With that in mind you certainly have my sympathy. Of course you are under no obligation to do anything. Although you can just gently point out to them what you are experiencing whilst they are being aggressive, such as fear etc. Suggest that some or all of those feelings are what the child is likely to be experiencing as well and how necessary is it to make the child feel that way. Approaching aggressive people is very scary of course, but it can be done. Just 'check in' with yourself beforehand, since some of those feelings are there to protect you.

My agreeing with your conclusions is irrelevent in this case.. You made a moral claim about his intentions, I was wondering how you could possibly stand by that claim, since it's a very bold statement.. So far I 'm experiencing deflection, which is fine, you don't have to answer me ofc.

I was specifically referring to your previous accusation that Stef was being "deliberately misleading" and being manipulative.

Those are pretty bold (moral) assertions to make.. Not to mention the possible implication your statement (convincing people to stop child abuse) may have on those children being abused now. What exactly are you saying?

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races[/font] and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves." If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily?

Great discussion with Brett from Schoolsucks regarding this topic that I thought people might be interested in. http://schoolsucksproject.com/187-logic-saves-lives-part-9-alex-jones-vs-piers-morgan/

Wow, where did that come from.. Leftfield indeed.. I'm curious to know how this social program could ever happen.. voluntarily?

Well, it just so happens that it has been white men that have (at least historically) been in the most powerful positions throughout western society. Not entirely surprising given white people have been the racial norm within the west. And men tend to take more risks than women and have had more time to dedicate to their careers, whilst the woman raised children. Of course since the indigenous population are having less and less children there has been a huge rise in immigration so as to keep the population from declining to bankruptcy levels. This has been going on for some 30/40 years now. Racial tension was very high back in 1970’s England. Having indoctrinated your population into believing that Great Britain was great because of its people, it was hardly surprising that people took umbrage to many black and brown faces appearing in their towns and cities. However, this racial tension has declined substantially since then. People have been trained to think of these groups as having special powers (multiculturalism) as a means to us all just getting along with each other. This has been at the expense of the perceptions of the white population and in particular men. Since part of that training has been to assume that all white men were responsible for slavery. I still hear white men apologising for such things. Philosophically speaking this is barmy thinking of course, since no one alive today is responsible for the slavery in the cotton fields. Of course those tensions are rising again with the rise of islamic terroism and economic decline. But denegrating the white man has always been about livestock control imo.