ribuck

It's common for children to gain an awareness of death around the age of 5 or 6. I can remember from my own childhood having a disturbing mental image of the world endlessly turning but me unable to be in it. With my own children, I explained it in three ways. First, I told them that after life ends it is exactly like the time before birth - there is no awareness of anything, no sadness, etc. It's just outside of the time that a person experiences and is aware of. Second, I related to them my own life experience. After having children, my own unease about death reduced. A little part of oneself lives on. Thirdly, I pointed out to them that without death it's fundamentally impossible to have life. They responded that they would rather be alive for a limited time than never to have lived at all, but that they still don't want to die. Fair enough, neither do I!

The word I would use is "indignation".

Think of it this way: Who should get the benefit of stolen assets? Someone who is committed to stealing more of them, or someone who is committed to paying them back and ending the system of theft? Obviously the latter is preferable. So you can accept the money, and make a standing offer to return your share of the stolen assets to any taxpayer who renounces the system and makes a claim from you. Now you have a moral solution which also starves the beast. Or if you want to keep it simpler than that, just think of it as an advance against taxes that will be levied against you in the future.

1. Take the money that is offered. 2. Make a standing promise to any peaceful person that you will personally refund their share. A peaceful person, in this context, is one who does not approve of the forceful collection of tax tributes. So, if there are one million taxpayers in your country, you will happily give them each one-millionth of the money you received (if they ask). Voila! You get money. People who disapprove of forceful taxation get a refund. People who approve of forceful taxation are happy for you to have the money. Everyone wins.

You are technically correct according to traditional grammar, but "they" is now accepted just about everywhere as an alternative to "he or she".

One of the reasons people find UPB so difficult to digest is that Stefan doesn't really use the word preferable in its dictionary meaning. It would be so much simpler if he named his theory Universalizable Behavior. The book needs to be translated to English before it can be translated to other languages.

Don't feel that you need to over-plan this. Children can find fun and adventure anywhere, if you have a loose enough schedule so that you can accommodate their needs and desires. Teaching them to swim is a great move, as beaches are a sure-fire hit with most children. Don't be surprised if they sometimes end up making sandcastles or chasing crabs or racing down sand-dunes instead of swimming. Beyond that - lots of outdoor time, and as much contact with other children as possible.

If you're going to cast an invalid vote to avoid being fined, you may as well write your own name on the ballot paper to show that you would prefer self-determination.

You seem to be saying "because Madoff was a fraudster, everyone is a fraudster", which makes no sense If the townspeople don't trust the facilitator, then the facilitator can use an additional market mechanism such as escrow (putting up the potential refund money in advance, under the control of a trusted third party). Escrow isn't just some theoretical concept; it's used every day to smooth big transactions between parties who don't trust each other.

The premise of the original post was that there were 100,000 businesses who each benefit from the presence of taxis. If half of them paid $50, the taxis would be saved. The implication is that the value of the taxis is at least $50 per business. The practical question was: "What's the market mechanism to collect $50 from at least half of the businesses?". I showed you that market mechanism. Yes, the entrepreneur could lose money if he didn't sign up 55,000 people. But he will sign them up. He is offering each of them a deal they won't refuse: pay $50 and either (a) receive $100, or (b) keep the taxi service going which is worth at least $50 to them. Who would not take such a deal? You say "No thanks", you wouldn't want to be that entrepreneur, but that's no problem. It only requires ONE person to be the entrepreneur who makes it happen, and everyone else benefits. You can learn more about Assurance Contracts at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

OK, so you only like the look of the London phone booths a very tiny bit. Anyway, have you understood the market mechanism that I described earlier in this thread? If it's not clear, just ask and I'll put it into different words. I presume you post these questions in good faith, seeking edification.

The market takes care of this situation very easily. An entrepreneur approaches every business, and says to them: "Pay me $50. If at least 55,000 people do this, I'll pass on 95% of the money to the taxi company, and keep the rest as profit. If fewer than 55,000 people do this, I'll pay you back $100." This works every time. It's in every business's interest to pay the $50 to keep the taxi company going, and they can't lose by making the payment. Either the taxi company keeps going, or their $50 turns into $100. The entrepreneur takes a theoretical risk. If he can't get at least 55,000 people to pay, he will make a loss. But of course he understands the incentives, and knows that they will pay, and that he will make a good profit, and that the taxis will keep operating so that the businesses continue to be profitable. The market is very, very cool. Notice how only one person (the entrepreneur) needs to understand the big picture. Everyone else can just operate according to simple self interest on a very basic proposition: pay some money, and either double it or gain the benefit of the taxi company continuing to operate. This scheme is called an assurance market, and can be applied to any kind of public goods. For example, towards clean air through pollution reduction, or towards flood control by building a dam above a riverside city.

Dibble, I think you've described yourself and expressed your hopes and plans very effectively. The only thing I suggest is to mention which languages you speak - if there's more than English and Dutch that would broaden your market. You sound like a lovely person who is well positioned to make a positive future life. If I wasn't married, I'd be responding for sure. Best Wishes for your quest!

Y'know, Philbert, that's not actually a summary. That's just a "trust me please" plea. Here's a great summary of the book itself:http://www.bowstring.net/text/review_gw_cj.pdf That summary is from 2003, published in the London Review of Books. It's such a good summary that it allows people to inform themselves without all the hype contained in the book.

I've been Microsoft-free for 15 years now. I keep coming back to Fedora for my main PC, which is also a server. I would recommend Ubuntu to beginners though, because it includes the non-libre codecs. I also have Peppermint (a low-resource derivative of Mint) running on an old netbook.

In Australia, the Whitlam government repealed the television tax ("licence fee") shortly after winning the 1972 election. It was one of their most prominent election promises, and in my opinion is what won the election for them (because just about everyone had been paying this tax). The New South Wales government repealed death duties. In the past, people used to go to Queensland to die so that their children could inherit their estate intact. Also in Australia, in the 1980s there used to be a Bank Account Debit tax ("BAD Tax" . And when I was a child in Sydney in the 1960s, a shopkeeper had to affix a tax stamp to make any financial document legal. I remember my mother asking for a receipt in the newsagent once, and the owner had to stick a penny tax stamp on it to make a receipt for two shillings legal. Luxury tax (a high-rate sales tax applied to items such as cosmetics) was repealed when GST was introduced to Australia. Individual taxes do get repealed, but the overall tax take always seems to increase.

It's always good to give children information before they need it. That way, when they are ready to understand it they will feel like they "already know it". This avoids the traumatic discovery of a previously-unknown fact. For example, with adopted children they should be told from the start about their adoption. It is then something that they have "always known", not a sudden and traumatic discovery. The same with the nature of death. If they have always known that a dead animal goes back into the earth and becomes part of new living things, they'll apply that to their own mortality when they become aware of it. Like marginalist says, it's easiest to explain this as an incidental aside when helping children to discover how composting and gardening work.

Exactly. Telling the truth is best for the child. It doesn't need to be upsetting. You can have a warm, positive ceremony of rememberance as you bury the pet. You can plant a memorial tree above it, and explain that the nutrients will feed the cycle of life. Indeed, there is an old Asian saying: "If you want a mulberry tree to thrive, plant it over a dead donkey". Children often develop a fear of death around the age of five, when they come to understand its permanence. But it's a fear of their own mortality, not a fear on behalf of their former pet kitten.

If you want your kids to brush their teeth without a fuss, it really helps if they see you brushing your own teeth every day. Many parents brush their own teeth after their children have gone to bed, which makes the child's own toothbrushing seem like an added burden. Brush your own teeth together with your children, keep the mood happy and upbeat at toothbrushing times, let the children choose the type of toothpaste (stripes, etc), comment afterwards how much you like the clean feeling in your mouth, and the chances are that your children will be happy to brush their teeth without a fuss.

Firstly, congratulations on abandoning violence. That's the best possible first step. I don't think there's anything a parent can do to "get" their messages to their children. What a parent can do is to "let" their children receive the messages. To do this, one must create an environment where the children are receptive to messages, then put the message out there. Let me illustrate this with an example. Suppose a meal is ready, and you want your children to come. Here are two completely different approaches. (1). You call your children to the table, but they don't come because they're occupied doing something else. So you yell, and they ignore you. You yell louder, until they eventually come because the yelling is making it hard for them to do whatever else they wanted to be doing. This goes on day after day, and no-one is happy. (2). You make it a habit to warn the children in advance, by calling out "five minutes until mealtime". This puts them in the frame of mind where they're more likely to come when you call them to the table. But still, sometimes they don't come because they're occupied doing something else. So you say, calmly and happily, "OK, come when you're ready. Your mom and me are eating now. We'll serve you some leftovers when you're ready to eat". Nine times out of ten, this will bring the children to the table right away, but sometimes they'll choose to come later for leftovers. Eventually, there will come a time when their favorite part of the meal has all been eaten and the leftovers are less appealing to them. From that point on, they will come straight to the table 99 times out of 100. On the remaining one time out of 100, you can be sure that they must have a very strong reason to not want to come to the table right at that moment, and out of respect for your children you can indulge that occasional whim. 99% co-operation combined with 100% peace and happiness is always better than 100% compliance combined with stress, unhappiness, and verbal or violent abuse.

It's 20 bucks, so I suggest trying it out with a couple of stacks of books first, to see if it works for you. Plenty of public toilets are squat toilets in Asia, and there are still a few squat toilets in rural parts of France and Spain. When there's an ablution block with one squat toilet and one "western" toilet, I don't see many people queueing to use the squat.

I don't see it as a "change of mind". Rather I see it as a realization that raising children did provide great value, but that doing it a second time would not bring further value. I doubt anyone here will criticize you for considering a vasectomy. It's a big decision (because it's probably permanent), so it's not a decision to be undertaken lightly. But you're obviously not doing that - you have considered the issue and worked out the pros and cons based on your situation. Incidentally, you may have difficulty finding a surgeon to perform the operation given your age of 22. In the UK it would be virtually impossible. If you are in the US, I guess it's not a problem.

As you say, there is zero sperm in the ejaculate three months after a vasectomy so there's zero risk of pregnancy from that time onwards. Before I had children, I heard a lot of older parents say "I'm glad I had children, but now that the children have grown up I would never contemplate going through parenthood again". So the decision seems to be a close one. Now that my own children are getting older (late teens), I am starting to experience a similar feeling. For all the expense and hard work, children can be intensely rewarding. But those who didn't have children will always be wealthier, less tired, and probably in better physical shape too. In the past, it was the children and grandchildren who stopped many retired people from being lonely. Nowadays no-one can count on their children being around, when they can move around the world so easily, so that reason to have children no longer exists (if it was ever a valid reason anyway).

Start at liberty.me, where you will get some traffic. If you outgrow the constraints of what is offered there, move to your own domain. Don't forget that you can also point your own domain name to your liberty.me site, so that it can be accessed as (say) benj.liberty.me and also as benjliberty.com

It's a pity the benefactor didn't congratulate you in person, and ask the secret of your success. But congratulations anyway!