Nick Coons

would love to see Stef do a rebuttal video on this article: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/mb5pm3/women-unpaid-work-three-times-as-much-as-men-un-study?utm_source=quora

Right, because that's how morality works. </sarcasm> To some degree, yes, but that depends on how one uses it. The block chain contains every single transaction between every BTC wallet that have ever existed, so the transaction history of every transaction is publicly available. If you post your wallet publicly for someone to transfer BTC to you, then every transaction to and from your wallet can be tied back to you (or at least to whatever information you used when posting your wallet online). Additionally, any commercial entities accepting BTC (like Newegg, Overstock, or Expedia) certainly wouldn't be anonymous. So legislation like this wouldn't prevent individuals from secretly transferring funds back and forth. And being strictly in New Hampshire it might not have much of an impact. But if it happens in larger states (like Calfornia), or in states where these companies are headquartered, or even at the federal level, it could very well hamper or even halt the adoption of competing currencies -- BitCoin could go the way of the Liberty Dollar.

Further evidence that the idea of a "free state" is an oxymoron: http://news.dinbits.com/2015/12/bitcoin-now-prohibited-in-state-of-new.html

That's kind of where I was at with this. Man vs. Nature could work, but even those (the ones I can think of off-hand) have their major plot lines based in conflict among people. In 2012, while the instigator was the coming end of the world, the conflict was among who would survive, which ended up being the politically connected. I'm not usually a fan of dramas as I typically find them predictable, or I find myself thinking about what the characters should have done to avoid the drama. I do like sitcoms though simply for the humor, despite the drama though, not because of it. The superhero entertainment often times falls into the same drama-based categories though. I do enjoy Iron Man a bit though, because of Tony Stark and his technological prowess.. not a big fan of the other ones though. I've never seen any of the Hobbits or Lord of the Rings or any of that, so I can't comment on whether I think that would be viable in a rational society. I saw jurassic Park once when it first came out, and other than the overall plot that they genetically recreate dinosaurs, I remember nothing about it.

Most entertainment that I'm aware of (TV shows, movies, etc) are typically considered interesting because they undertake some form of conflict, a conflict which typically arises from subjective, whim-based moral opinions. There is often not a clear "good guy" or clear "bad guy", but rather both morally justify their actions to oppose the other. The characters usuaiing can't/don't resolve their conflict in a mutually-beneficial agreement, but rather resolve the problem by force or some form of deception. The audience, also having a morality that is subjective and whim-based, is in awe trying to determine how the characters can resolve the problem, and feels the entire scenario is a gray area so that a proper resolution isn't possible. It seems that with an objective basis for morality, resolving the issue is much less complicated, but if that were to happen, the movie would be over in five minutes, and no one would pay to see it. When we achieve a rational and free society, identifying these will be second nature for the mainstream. Given that it seems that entertainment is based on seemingly unresolvable conflict given today's understanding of morality, I'm wondering, what are others' thoughts on what entertainment would look like in a rational society? I'm having difficulty formulating an intriguing plot for a story without the above requirement, but that could very easily be my lack of imagination.. I'm certainly no writer or story-creator.

Are you asking because you've interpreted that what I'm saying would imply that to be the case? I know that my first post and the thoughts contained are not well-formed, so it's certainly possible if not likely that it was somewhat confusing.. completely my fault if that's the case. In answer to your question, I would say no. An objective truth is true regardless of any experience, in fact, even without the possibility of experience (i.e. the Earth is still round even if there is no one nor ever was anyone here to experience it). But it may be possible, if not likely I think, that subjective experiences make it can make it more or less possible for someone to accept than an objective truth is true.

That's a good point. My initial reaction is that they would be the minority, because it would seem (no statistics to back this up at the moment) that most people that experienced bad child abuse do not end up on death row. On the other side, I don't know any anarchists/atheists that experienced no child abuse. All of them that I've spoken with have experienced what they would classify as above normal levels of abuse.

I have an idea, a hypothesis; I don't want to call it a theory because I don't think it deserves that kind of credibility yet.. it's just based on my observations. The saying goes, "You have to suffer in order to appreciate what's good, or understand what's bad, or..." etc. While I don't think this is entirely true, I do find that there may be some truth it in. For instance, it seems that people that I know who have had the worst childhoods are more easily able to recognize bad parenting and the empathize with those who have had those experiences. Those same people also seem to be more open to the ideas of arrived at by rational thought (anarchism, atheism, non-aggression, etc). To contrast, people that I've talked to who have had only mildly bad childhoods (I don't personally know anyone that had good parents by the standards I would judge, even though many of them would self-report has having good parents) who most in society would consider to be "well-adjusted" seem to have the most difficulty with the acceptance of rational thought at a non-superficial level. They also seem less empathetic, and will respond to claims about another's bad childhood with comments like "stop blaming your parents." So the hypothesis is this. There is an evolutionary component to human psychology that prevents really bad things (caused by other humans) from propagating for extended periods of time, because such events would eventually lead to extinction. As an example, if people alive in the 1940s didn't recognize the evils of the holocaust and therefore did nothing to stop it, those practices would have spread until humanity was extinct. People who suffer bad experiences are able to recognize those as bad and make a major shift toward improvement because not doing so would more likely mean their early demise. People that don't go through the same degree of suffering have less of a survival-based need to recognize it or do anything to combat it. In other words, there is an evolutionary backstop to human suffering in order to prevent extinction. If the hypothesis doesn't hold, I'm sure there would be some things that could easily nullify it. I'm interested in the thoughts of others here on this. My goal here is to try and explain why it is that, from my observations, people that have had more early bad experiences tend to be more easily able to adapt and improve even beyond people that have not, and I don't particularly careful the corollary of "therefore, everyone must suffer at some point."

I've always considered the Golden Rule to be non-synonymous (and even in conflict with) the NAP. But someone presented an interesting argument to me today in such a way that that would not appear to be the case. I'm posting the back-and-forth discussion (minus personally-identifiable details) below as I'm curious as to the thoughts of others on this board: Other Person1) It is logically impossible to ***want*** someone to aggress against you (that would be a contradiction in terms).2) The Golden Rule says "Do unto others as you would ***want*** them to do unto you."3) Therefore, under the Golden Rule, you can never aggress against anyone, since it is impossible to want someone to aggress against you.4) Therefore, the Golden Rule prohibits aggression.5) Therefore, the Golden Rule is logically equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle.MeI like that you put this together syllogistically. But I think there's something a little muddy in here. In #1, you indicate that you can't want someone to aggress against you because it would be a logical contradiction, presumably because if you want it, then it's not aggression. I would agree with that. Two people voluntarily boxing would not be considered an initiation of aggression, but one person beating on another would be even though the two acts are physically the same. I think we're on the same page so far.But I think where the problem is is in that what each individual wants is not the same. If I want to be punched by you, I would punch you if I were to follow the golden rule. If you then punched me, that would not be the initiation of aggression, because I wanted to be punched as indicated by my actions. But it is not necessarily true that you wanted to be punched, so I would be simultaneously following the golden rule and initiation aggression against you.Let me know if I misunderstood something about what you said.Other Person"Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes or wants in common."~Walter Terence Stace, The Concept of MoralsMeThis would seem to present an unresolvable conflict between "I want my neighbor to take my preferences into account" (and so I will take his into account by not punching him) and "I want to be punched" (so I will punch my neighbor).Other PersonIt's not unresolvable. You must necessarily want your preferences to be taken into account *more* than you want any particular things, since all particular desires are mere instances of wanting your preferences to be taken into account. Therefore, even though you may want to be punched, this is merely an instance of wanting your preferences to be taken into account as a whole. Therefore, the prospect of punching your neighbor has to be rejected so as to reconcile with your neighbors overall preferences, which may include not being punched.

I know the title of this post won't shock anyone here, but it did surprise me to find out how far back this actually went, only because it didn't occur to me that it was technologically possible. A New York Times article published yesterday titled Lincoln's Surveillance State talks about how his administration had telegraph lines run through the War Department (side note: they should have kept that name, it made more sense) so that they could spy on telegraph conversations.

Well that's the whole point. Depending on who you ask, there are between 134M and 155M jobs in the US. So I wonder how she got there.. is she just a willing puppet?

Typically I operate under the assumption that politicians aren't stupid (as corrupt as they are, they have to be fairly intelligent to get where they are), but acting in their own corrupt self-interest. But I can't make sense of this other than to call it stupid. Can anyone think of another plausible reason that would be in her self-interest for making such a claim?

I think that's a valid distinction. I think anyone that subscribes to the viewpoint of statism starts with the proposition that states are necessary for civil society, and that that proposition is a "zombie idea." I don't agree with that though. For example, there are people who work for the state that want there to be a state because it benefits them. They may not believe it's necessary. Some may even think it's harmful but just not care. There are people who support states for different reasons, not all of them because of the benefits they think it has for society as a whole. Okay, but that's not the primary point, that's the secondary point (the primary point being the last few words of the last sentece of my previous post). But let's change "anyone" to "some amount greater than 0% and less than 100%" in my secondary point and that should clear that up :-).

I think that's a valid distinction. I think anyone that subscribes to the viewpoint of statism starts with the proposition that states are necessary for civil society, and that that proposition is a "zombie idea."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/krugman-rubio-and-the-zombies.html?_r=1& Given this definition, I "Statism" sounds like a zombie idea.. thoughts?

His attorney's and his son's signature appear on documents filed with the court, so I imagine he's not only aware of this but endorsing it. I don't mean in general that it's suprising that a statist (and Ron Paul is a statist) is being a statist, but that someone who is believed (at least by his supporters) to have a huge amount of integrity is being hypocritical in such an overt way. It may not be surprising to a lot of people. About that, all I can say is that I'm surprised about it. But it certainly is consistent with the idea that statists are statists, so maybe it shouldn't surprise me.

Perhaps, but whether they are or are not supporters isn't really that interesting, I don't think. What is interesting is Ron Paul using the state to seize something that belongs to someone else because they won't give it to him on his terms. One who supports a free market and lives those values would negotiate, and ultimately walk away if a mutually-agreeable solution could not be found.

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations to Confiscate Domain Names of His Supporters