SimonF

As to some of the other points being made, I don't like the idea of not being able to express all of my thougts and feelings with my beloved, especially when they concern attraction to others.I am not in this relationship to hide who I really am, in fact quite the opposite. For me a conscious loving relatioship demands that we reveal our whole selves and embrace them.

I don't think your feelings need to be justified, they are just an aspect of you. In fact using the word justified kind of suggest to me you are thinking your feelings are wrong in some way. Part of an underlying problem, I would say almost certainly yes. And exploring these feelings and trying to understand their origins could be a very richly rewarding exercise. I have been in a polyamourous relationship with my partner for over 4 years right from our start together. We both sincerely believe that it is natural and healthy to find other people attractive, have love for them and be able to engage in relationships with other lovers (not that we have been so prolific with this, we are quite selective). We start from the principle that our body is our own property, as is our life and that we do not belong to each other. We also understand that in order to be consistent it must be the case that if we are having 1 relationship, then 2 or more must be ok as well. Certainly openly stating attaction to others is doing nothing wrong, unless of course it is somehow being used as an emotional attack. So what about the feelings. My partner occassionally gets triggered into jealousy that only seems to last afew minutes occassionally when I have relationships with other women, more usually she is happy though that I have found more love. I get envious of her liasons usually, but after some weeks of painful emotional processing some time ago I concluded that a lot of my difficult emotions on this arise from parental abandonment and neglect. Afterall it cannot be wrong to love more people or have sex with them, so the bad feelings come from another experience IMO.

Yes, the boys they deal with have lacked a positive father figure.

A charity which aims to turn off-the-rails youths into law-abiding men is on a £500,000 funding quest. A Band of Brothers has won praise from police and probation services for its impact on prolific offenders in Brighton and Hove. Now it wants to build a permanent centre to offer the rites-of-passage mentoring which underpins its approach. A Band of Brothers is made up of adult volunteers who aim to provide offenders who have no male role models, stable family background or role in society with a sense of admission into adult life. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10188453.Band_of_Brothers_want_a_home_after_changing_Brighton_men_s_lives/

like

So they have been fighting over who owns the fish... and the majority conclude the fish belong to them all. What comes next? http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/23/constitutional-changes-in-iceland/ And can fish be homesteaded, it's not like a fence has been put up or that any labour has been invested in production. It's all just about taking what was a freely available natural resource yes?

Indeed, there needs to be a substantial gap in the value of working above welfare before people will be incentivised to work. Welfare is a trap. The cost of property is still far too high for low earners to break out of the cycle of welfare depencency or poverty.

Because you say so? Let's see the facts and logic to support this please.

The LSE are being funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (a UK Government quango sponsored by tax revenues) to the sum of £5 million... nice work if you can get it! A new £5million Centre for Macroeconomics will bring together a group of world class experts to carry out pioneering research on the global economic crisis and help design policies to alleviate it. Chaired by LSE’s Nobel Prize-winning economics professor, Christopher Pissarides, the new centre will encompass experts from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), University College London (UCL), Cambridge University, the Bank of England, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), and other leading global institutions. Five major research programmes will address the key issues of unemployment, fiscal austerity, financial markets, shifts in the world economy, and the development of new methodologies. It is hoped that new methodologies and better communication with policy makers will enhance the research and will lead to better policy decisions. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/01/New-Centre-for-Macroeconomics-launched-at-LSE.aspx No doubt these economics PhDs will point the finger at the states financial manipulations in no time...

How thorough was this examination? A number of studies showing harmful effects have been cited in the videos I presented here. What specific responses have there been to these papers to discredit them?

When a public health body declares that epidemiology demonstrates that something is harmless, it only destroys their scientific credibility. Epidemiolgy cannot be used to discredit a hypothesis. To discredit a hypothesis requires experiments to produce negative data. In the case of aspartame there are already both a plausible biological mechanism for harm and various case studies to suport the hypothesis that harm is occurring. Humans cannot be subjected to dangerous chemical experiments and certainly not in sufficient numbers to prove something is harmless. The existence of a plausible biological mechanism plus negative case studies cannot be dismissed by some population statistics, it is good reasonable evidence. The vast majority of us would be hospitalised by trying a 500lb bench press, yet a very few men can do so. Population statistics can be useful to identify phenomena for further examination, they cannot be used to demonstrate substance safety. Trusting your health to government agencies is a foolish gamble. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tph_Yz_OHpU]

Aspartame-Induced Fibromyalgia http://nutritionfacts.org/video/aspartame-induced-fibromyalgia/

I've bumped into some videos on the topic of artificial sweetners and weight gain at Dr. Gregers channel: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1fZKT4kUDA] [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEdDlFTLcUU]He explains the various theories around the problem, full source disclosure as well.

I imagine the origins of tort laws predate the state and they have been used to cover copyright infringement. The application under tort law would be quite different from what we know of the state and its IP rights with threats, large fines and possibly prison. In my example if I copied a DVD and you had no other losses (no compeling evidence of emotional hurt) your damages could not conceivable be more than the DVD and most likely would be nothing. I doubt you could sue for loss of "potential income" as with existing IP laws, only for actual material losses if there were any. It seems to me you may of suffered a fraud or substantial breach of trust in a business contract, a bit more than a trivial copyright infringement. Being in business with people that are not completely trustworthy is of course a gamble.

I see your point, thanks for explaining. I'm sorry to hear that IP violations have caused you upset. Why do you think you had these emotional responses? You can still use tort laws to prosecute such a violation if there has been emotional trauma, I think you would struggle to make a case though or win much damages - how much were you upset, did you need counselling, what were your other losses? Like I said, in a DRO system it is theoretically possible that restitution for the effects of copying without consent could be effected. Even now there are tort laws unrelated specifically to IP about mental injury. I suggest you investigate http://www.columbiaforensic.com/mental-injury-tort-law.html Fair point.

Interesting stuff... [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8C7XW8-huI]

Does not compute. Violence against a person causes damage to their peace of mind (at least), leaving the person unable to function normally. Whatever the cost of that 'unable to function normally' is at least the value of the damages to be awareded. A psychological assessment could be done to determine some degree of trauma and an award made on that basis. When I duplicate someones DVD they are probably not even aware that it happened, have lost nothing, so how can they have any legitimate grievances to redress?

I don't know that we need to discus details, you can either explore the Xeer system of the Somalis or the Brehon Laws of the Celts. My guess for a rape victim is that at least they would be owed money for therapy, loss of earnings, medical expenses and emotional distress. There could be more damages on that as well. Demostrating that the offence took place could be challenging as it is now unless there is unequivable supporting evidence of some kind.

I see no reason why a DRO (in a free society) could not theoretically apply rules on IP just like a state court can now. However, if DROs are in fact to be used solely to obtain restitution (as they have been historically), then what loss has there really been when a pattern has been duplicated without an actual loss of physical property? Not making a potential gain and making an actual loss are not the same. A statist judge minded to punish "law breakers" may enforce this IP BS, but I doubt a DRO would function similarly (but it could).