Jose Perez

But you said you had convinced all of them, and that this not being "for the most part" meant their still being in statist conundrums. I then asked you if you as an engineering student are not yourself in a statist conundrum. This is still not consistent. If that is the standard for convincing someone then you have not convinced yourself either. On the other hand, you say that having not convinced them means your brother having problems letting go of the idea that the state is necessary. If this is the standard then I suppose your mentioning your brother only means that your parents are fully anarchists, is this correct? That's a good question. I would have to say it's because I don't want future suffreing for myself or my loved ones. I don't have kids yet, but I do have two nieces that are near and dear to me. Imagining them and future generations of children growing up under a more repressive statist regime is tragic. Does your care for the future of children thus increase with their closeness to you, or do you have equal care for all children? You say you want to prevent your own suffering also, but you seem to be going through suffering in this process. How would you rate the trade off between current suffering and future reduction of suffering? Does a reduction of suffering of others in future generations count to you as a positive and worth your suffering now? Speaking from experience, I have the opposite mindset. I screwed around finding myself as a young adult and only recently found a path that I really wanted to be on. That drive has gotten me through some hellish physics classes. Had I not really cared for the outcome of this degree program, I would probably have failed out by now. I think I understand where you're coming from, but it sounds very nihilistic. We weren't talking about degrees but about (convincing) people.

First of all, I really appreciate that you take my questions seriously and honestly as you're willing to answer them. It really helps me believe you if you say you hold curiosity and such as virtues... What you first said: "I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly." Sorry, too much inconsistency here. I think you realise why. I'm happy to continue after you resolve it. Well, then I'm interested in why you want a better future so bad. I am genuinely interested in your answer. The saying "the more you want it, the less you get it" has a lot to do with what I mean here. Again, I'd like to make sure we're both interested in understanding each other and being rational before proceeding any further.

Here is some fun music! it means: "the village cows have already escaped, riau riau..." [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf7YrrwTeAc]

Dude, you're the one retorting, making fallacies and avoiding my questions (you are not in a statist conundrum?). You clarify your position.

Sure, the problem is that Stefan and Michael are also making an argument about Nathaniel's self esteem. They're mischaracterizing it first, then declaring it dead or useless. To be honest I don't even think Nathaniel Branden fully understands or lives his own concept, which is completely understandable for anyone. I have read that book. Any obsessive compulsive person would also do what they do even without getting payed. It just doesn't go deep enough in to the causes. Children often get into states of flow precisely in order to escape the interactions – with parents and caregivers – that are undermining their self esteem in the background. Yes, I agree completely that it is about relationships. The high self esteem of children is eroded and damaged through the toxic interactions with parents and others in childhood. It's a very unfortunate infectious cycle.

So NAP is valid, but you shouldn't tell anyone about it who isn't already comfortable with NAP? Where am I saying that you shouldn't tell anyone? Another non sequitur. You are also not podcasting. Right. Still he doesn't seem to show much frustration or personally seek to convince people. He contradicts himself a lot too and avoids the points that show or suggest it.

Joseph, if you read the thread you'll see how the issue is precisely that some people do not think children are people. (They even think there is a point in their development at which they magically turn into people with all the same rights as their parents.) The very mention of parents/children in this context gives this away.

Not being able to drive a car does not disprove you own it or have the potential to drive it. Potential? Nearly all people have the potential to drive my car. Nearly all people have the potential to own your car too, what they do not have potential for is controlling your self, which was my argument – as well as the argument of anyone here differentiating between things and people. This all points in the direction of children being owned by the parents (half ownership by mother and father to be more precise) and being enslaved to similar accidents of birth. Not in the least. Genetics is different than either parent alone, so we are unique. Even identical twins are unique because of mutations. Our metabolism is made more and more independent after birth. Well, you are the one who will have to enter that ownership debate if you disregard the far more simple standard of psychophysical control, and the team that considers children are not so biologically unique has clearly quite good arguments. They would be rightful owners indeed. I don't understand why you think that's an argument. People effectively controlling other people is no different that cells controlling other cells. Luckily, as it happens, we do not have that kind of control on each other. Why? Is not ownership a moral claim? Whether you can do it is different that whether you should. Does this idea of control causing property necessarily lead to the concept that those who can do evil things are morally right to do so. An organism that has no exclusive self control is not alive or is "people", and can hardly be a moral agent. Anyone who cares to control and maintain such humanoid does effectively own it.

I don't regard those examples as healthy for the most part, as they tend to be motivated by the standards of others. Sam Vankin, too, is an academic and not very likely to be using reason as a standard for identifying narcissism or be very sensitive to the actual pervasiveness of this trait in himself and others. That's like saying voting poses no danger to others. "Healthy" narcissism poses a danger to children, primarily.

No, both ends of the spectrum are unhealthy only when the standard and reference is power, and not reason, which is the standard of narcissists. Only selfishness is moral. Selfishness only appears narcissistic to the narcissist, who does not understand reason.

This false dichotomy is exactly what makes Obama appear both non-exploitative (altruistic) and exploitative (dictatorial), the same as any collectivist, abusive parent... none understands the differentiation or non-differentiation of the self other than with power as a reference.

I have long thought that things that are broken through force can only be fixed by force, in the light that life cares fuckall about morality. (EDIT: life does care about morality, as do children, and that's our hope, so let's just stress "fuckall" compared to profit and survival) You cannot make it unprofitable to be a violent thug, by the very definition of profit. What you can do is take the necessary steps to demonstrate that free market forces are indeed more powerful, as they are. FDR does a dismal job out of this, for obvious reasons. If this makes sense to you and your idea goes along these lines please contact me privately.

I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly. You are not in a statist conundrum getting an engineering degree? I have no problem with that, the state is everywhere, but your position seems contradictory. That is a good question. I don't know if I can identify the root cause. I am averse to irrationality and immorality in myself and others. I would prefer that people try to convince me that some illogical or immoral action I undertook was wrong and should be corrected or discontinued, therefor I extend the same courtesy to others when I can. I wouldn't call courtesy something that creates such feelings in you or that is motivated by aversion. In fact, giving people "good things" they haven't asked for – and considering oneself virtuous for it – is common collectivist (statist or religious) practice. That seems to imply that going to any length to prevent a murder defeats the purpose of protecting human life. I don't find that to be a very compelling argument. See the point before. In statism you have the best example that human life is not protected by going to "any lengths" to prevent murder. I am criticising your means, not your intellectual ideals (and I am ready for you to disregard my criticisms and not feel frustration about it )

What part of your family were you unable to convince? Why do you want to convince statists so bad? Have you contemplated the possibility that wanting to convince them might be defeating the object?

Metric, that's a very interesting set of propositions. Please explain how it is that human babies' physical properties change, why this gives them self-ownership and make them different from animals and equal to their parents... At which point in a child's development does this happen? Also why are they extremely valuable to their parents?