David Ottinger

As many have already pointed out, "buying up exporters" is the detail that's sort of being thrown out there like, "What if I attacked you with a horde of zombies?" It's just fiction. "What if all my pawns on the chess board turned into queens, what would your move be?" And, what are they telling you with these sort of fictitious economic scenarios? "The rich can buy whatever they want when they want, and that's why they're rich and getting richer" That's what you're really dealing with here.

Good break down. And that last part about responsibility was great comedy, both unintentionally (Ayn Rand's expression) and you pointing it out. One of Ayn Rand's points could be summarized as, "One cannot take care of others if one cannot take care of him/her-self." Which, is essentially what responsibility is all about. (i.e. Ability to respond.)

Producing offspring is as close to eternity as you're gonna get, and there is no guarantee that our species will never face extinction. But, the ego -- which is what you're trying to save here -- doesn't need to go along with this ever changing genetic procession through space-time. Also, I fail to see why I need to pretend there is an omnipresent factor to myself in order to find value in life. I will die. And I value my time even more because I know it's in limited supply.

And yet skin color is the primary identifier people use to categories people according to race. Also, since you brought it up, a doctor charged with malpractice is a legal dispute, not a biological one. As far as biology and medical practice goes, here is Dr. Rick Kittles pointing out how race is a crude proxy.

Humans need food, water, oxygen, shelter, and many other survival needs to be fulfilled constantly and daily to sustain their bodies. This is a fact of life. So, this part of your premise is true. However, the problem with your premise is that you go on further to assume circumstance, specifically unfortunate circumstances, can grant one the right to initiate force against another in order to fulfill a need, that need specifically being survival. But, you have provided no reason to accept that this fact of life, i.e. the survival needs, grants one property rights. Due to your re-assertion of your premise, you are acting as if we do not understand you. Yet, you have by your actions refused to answer the important philosophical questions I and many others have asked thus far. This absence of choice you assert exists because life imposes demands upon your body is a false representation of reality. More importantly, because you are alive, does not mean you are owed life. If you think otherwise, then from whom are you owed life? All these questions serve to inform you that there are contradiction within your premise. It's on you to discover them and think things through. We cannot do the thinking for you. i.e. It's on you to answer these questions.

If you go trade in the markets, you'll quickly find that price and value are not the same.

A similar question and hypothetical was hashed out in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46162-plz-help-me-with-ayn-rands-property-right-vs-starvation-debate/#entry422730

Make the subject matter entertaining. e.g. Use comedy. Otherwise move on.

The difference between trade and theft is a moral theory. Both are an exchange of goods, but the former is consensual and the latter is not. Whether you realize it or not, what you're arguing here is that there is no such thing as theft as it would not be objective to hold that sometimes non-consensual exchange of goods is theft and sometimes it's not. Well, then what is the act if not theft because clearly the exchange was non-consensual? See, by labeling the act as theft you're accepting the principle that establishes this difference between trade and theft. That principle is property rights. So, by labeling that exchange of property as theft, you are acknowledging property rights. If the individual in question has a right of claim on the property, then it cannot be theft as s/he would simply be exercising his/her right to the property. So, why do you keep labeling the act as theft while also holding the individual has a right of claim? Such wording is contradictory. Just as a door cannot both be open and closed, one cannot steal something when he/she has a right of claim on the property. If we apply your premise universally, what we get is that need can supersede all other claims. Atlas Shrugged deals specifically with what you're inquiring about. So, maybe read the book if you want Ayn Rand's perspective. You can get it on audible.com. The narration is performed exceptionally. "Rand: in order to survive you must take action." I have no idea where you got that from, but I highly doubt that's her claim given that she wrote about integrity, thus holding that not all actions are the same. Your claim asserts that all actions are the same. Clearly not her idea. Your new hypothetical asserts the same dilemma. All you're asserting with them is that people are more willing to initiate force when their survival is at stake. No where does your hypothetical ever address why circumstance has any affect on people's property rights, especially the dissolution thereof, i.e. How does the famine of you or your people give you a right of claim on property that other people possess?

Your hypothetical equates food with life. So, if food equals life, and you take food from another by force, you are negating the other person's right to life because you are denying the other person his/her access to property by imposing force. Further more, your scenario holds person 'B' responsible for person 'A's circumstances. How is that possible? It doesn't matter that you're restricting your hypothetical by omitting murder. There is no reason why scale should matter. Death is a probable outcome to violent acts. That is the reality. So, why omit it? There is no rule in life that says, "If you use x amount of force against me, I'm only allowed to respond with equal amount." If you want to deny me the principle of equal consideration, I owe you no consideration in return. Hence, why war is brutal. So, someone dying in a physical altercation is probable, and even more so when you put life on the line just as you did with your hypothetical. I accepted it. But, what you want is mercy from me because you've appealed to emotion by bringing up poverty and famine. You demand that I sacrifice my food for your life. Why should I? Because you hold mercy to be virtuous? No, I refuse to reward your use of force against me for any reason. And, should you decide to pursue seizure of my food, death is not off the table because that is reality. Does that clarify it for you?

So, how does one have the right to life by taking life from another? That's a contradiction. The difference between conquest and voluntary exchange is morality, and theories of morality must be universal in order to be objective. So, either we all have the right to life or no one has it. Morality is not circumstantial. That would be an argument in favor of morality being relative.

Pantheist is one you're missing.

I haven't encounter such an incident yet, but I've wondered how I'd approach it. My biggest struggle is with the following question arising, "So how should I handle X?" In this restaurant example, the parent might ask, "How would I teach her not to grab the broom?" From my sales experience I know benefits sell. So knowing what I know, what can I do to produce value for this parent? What would be the benefits of an ignorant parent being informed of the long term consequences of such parenting? In this restaurant incident, in the parents eyes he's restricting her in order to prevent commotion of some sort. In the child's eyes she is exploring her curiosity. Thus, he's punishing her for her curiosity, albeit he sees it as teaching her control. How do I share this insight into reality?

Being 100% dependent on viewer donations allows Stefan to have a metric for evaluating the market's demands. If Stefan accepts advertisement money, then he doesn't have to be as committed. If you accept that there has been a form of epistemological conquest carried out by the powers-that-be (e.g. public school indoctrination, media, etc), then what we have here with FDR is a market driven, i.e. 100% voluntary driven, push back against the statist dogma, propaganda, and narrative. The following analogy is going to be rather ironic, but it's tapping into the same "do or die" principle: By going 100% viewer funded, it's like the story of military commanders sinking their own ships so there is no retreat; no surrender. Your only option is to push forward.

Seems? I watched that video, and I'm very annoyed by this guy's nit picking since it doesn't actually negate Essena's premise. And that's what I was expecting to see, so it bugged me to find this guy using obfuscation tactics to re-frame her claims as though they were not estimations, or even exaggerated estimations purposely done to illustrate a point. For example, when she says, "100s of pictures," that's clearly hyperbole, and it doesn't need to be explained. Why would anyone being honest quote that and take it literally? And worse, when he went through the pictures explaining the day, he was pointing out how Essena was modeling various items that day. There were at least 3 outfits she put on if not more. Maybe one was of her day clothes. Whatever the count is, she was taking shots of various items and she was spending the day to do that, so that accounts for her hour estimation and for the amount of shots. And, from what I gather, Essena sat down with them and went through that picture load -- which is, roughly estimated, as 100s of pictures. Essena's overall point was that her uploaded shots on social media may look effortless and spontaneous, but they're not. That was the core of her point, and this guy just substantiated her point despite his efforts to use that evidence to call her out and accuse her of being fake -- which is rather ironic given that Essena's whole video is an admission to how fake she has been acting. And, don't get me wrong, Essena is playing some sort of damsel in distress card with all her crying. But, she is a victim of her own choices. Her farewell to social media was a plea for donations, and I think it's safe to assume it was specifically targeted at men to save her from her distress. I'm guessing this drama got dubbed as news worthy because it appeared to be a scandal. Nope! Just a young girl quitting a business venture while ironically turning around and asking for free money.

So, I'm struggling to figure out what outcome you desire here. There are a few possibilities that come to mind: (1) You want others to acknowledge you're strong; (2) You do not want people challenging you; and (3) you want the ability to address these issues in a non-violent way. Do any or all of them fit?

What was the title of Stefan's video? She was pointing out the hypocrisy -- which I agree with. Also, Islam is just another form of statism. It's a theocracy. And, the two statist systems are at war with one another. And given that Islam has yet to have its renaissance or its enlightenment, I'd prefer to deal with the system that doesn't stone you for dissent. Does that put me on a team? I disagree with your point that the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others. If my overall stance is against statism, and I decide to specify Islam, that doesn't mean I'm now in favor of the others. These statist systems may be under one umbrella from a theory of governance perspective, but pragmatically, they're at war with one another. And Islam's war campaign is relentless in that you either convert; be killed; or, get bred out. If you can tell me how to reason with that, I'm all ears. Because, I don't have a clue.

Dsayer pretty much articulated what came to my mind. Your sister switched to victim mode, and then called in the so called higher authority to regulate in her favor. Edit: To add, this is a defense mechanism for your sister. She developed this defense in the household you all grew up.

I have come across many people who have mistaken my kindness for weakness, especially women, but I take neither responsibility for their arrogance nor for their emotional reaction for their assumptions. If they see me as weak and try to manipulate me, then I'm thankful that they showed me their character. It makes it a lot easier for me to discover who is worth associating with. Although, this may be in some part my own arrogance talking which is a defense mechanism in and of itself because there is a such a thing as being nice insofar as to be manipulative. This is something that is more of a concern for me at this point because am I being nice simply to avoid rejection/conflict? Am I wearing a mask of platitudes to conceal myself from others? Of course, in the past I didn't see this "threat" of rejection this way because I was unaware of that possibility, or rather I lied to myself about its nature as I viewed it as though I didn't care if others rejected me. That's what I literally told myself. I went further into hardening my position by entertaining how dangerous I can be, especially if this anger within me was unleashed. My martial arts training is something to be reckoned with as well. Thus, I also have the fear of hurting someone, not that I would. I just know that such an outcome is a real possibility. But, here is the thing: Why am I worried that a mere social disagreement or a disagreement of core values is going to lead to war? Is it my own anger I'm afraid of? Or, is the environment already Machiavellian in nature that my kindness keeps me neutral? i.e. If I assert myself, will I make enemies, thus provoking threats in the environment to focus on me? And, should they focus on me, how far will this disagreement go? Will it become a feud? Worse, will it become a blood bath? Overall, what is going on in your environment and/or within yourself that is causing you to anticipate a threat thereby triggering thoughts of fighting?

So, her point is that I ought to feel guilty about my anti-islamic sentiment because there are other evils out there just as bad?

Colby, If I'm not mistaken, the taxes paid when you fill your gas tank go towards a road fund. But, that's beside the point you're getting at. So, if I understand your main point correctly, you're basically asking: Why don't market entrepreneurs lobby the state in order to free up the market? (I'm assuming you're familiar with the market entrepreneur vs political entrepreneur distinction.) What you pointed out with the roads is what I see happening with the prison system. However, when the entrepreneur is lobbying the state for business, then he/she becomes a political entrepreneur. All monopolies arise, either directly or indirectly, due to state intervention in the market place. And one way government does this is by claiming via decree that something is a public good. On a side note (if I'm not mistaken) Disney World -- which has its own zip code -- has its own private road system, and they have their own security and fire trucks, etc patrolling the roads as needed. But, I think the roads are still deemed a public good and thus fall under the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal authority. So, maybe roads aren't the best example here. Government grants permits as well as seizes land for roads. To my understanding, no legal construction on any land can be carried out without a permit. So, such restrictions, for example, can hinder competition. I assume I'm at least in the ball park of what you're getting at.

I think what you're looking for is agorism. But as far as dealing with the state, rather than lobbying, I think you'd be better off pulling money together to present grievances to the courts. By lobbying, you're essentially bribing your way into gaining the kings favor. By taking it to the courts, you're presenting grievances, i.e. moral objection, to the current method of governance. But, this is an uphill battle that has been fought many time now from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence. How does a slave get the master to surrender his authority? Revolution? This simply leads to a coup d'etat. In other words, engaging the state for remedy simply rearranges the deck. You're expecting the state, or rather those who impose it, to remedy these issues when the issue is the state, or rather the force that comes with it. What incentive do they have to stop the game when you're joining in and bringing money into the fold for them to use? Essentially, you're trying to take the state head on. And personally, I'd rather not make the state my enemy. I want to make them irrelevant.

Once material goods are abundant, then one's character can be evaluated based on how one chooses to utilize the given goods rather than the performance of obtaining them. However, I think the more objective way to phrase your initial question is: How does wealth affect mating strategies? Because, as you phrased it in the OP, there is an underlining assumption that wealth changes the decision making. Something I immediately jumped on as well, but after further thinking, I have to ask if that is a false dilemma. And I think it is because if you focus on females, i would say their hypergamy remains intact. So, in essence, nothing changes. Women will still seek a man that masters his domain regardless of how abundantly survival needs are met by the environment, and men will seek women that know how to assess value. Although, I would caution against this sort of perspective because it can lead men into thinking, "I achieved X, therefore women should love me." That would be tantamount to thinking, "I created this hover board, therefore everyone should pay me." And, needless to say, the market doesn't work that way.

My guess is that when all essential survival needs are met, the men will demand intelligent women to help with the management of the household.

I see the video as more of an introduction into the dilemma, so I give it a pass for not going into specifics like that. That particular piece comes from Johann Hari's presentation, and he points out that the disconnection occurs from trauma, isolation, or unfortunate circumstances. He also focuses a lot on punishment as a tool for effecting change. So, I think he's covering the same principles, albeit in a broader sense.