Jose Perez

These are not arguments but mere assertions that "government is good" (force) regardless of the people it is composed of. There is nothing there to "refute" other than putting the onus on them. Still, you can reply to them that, by the same "argument", people can also be good and perform good actions by themselves without the need for a government: "if John Doe had been the one with the money he would have given it to the poor"... In any case, the state – as something that obviously cannot exist without it being composed of people – has been long ago logically invalidated by Stef ---> Disproving the State

Religious people don't know they are irrational; statists don't know they are religious; atheists don't know they are statists... the question is how do you know you are an exception to this rule? That's what I would focus on.

Very good analysis! I agree with you a lot. I often think that things might be naturally getting better, and that the simple spread of information and communication will force humanity to look for the solution to its problems precisely where it hasn't been looking before (other times I think things will continue the same regardless of these external factors). In this sense childhoods are getting all better: children's brains are getting more exposure to a wide variety of stuff and constrasts, which nurtures the true self and stimulates values skepticism. The rational progress of humanity, even though not linear, probably does stick in an irreversible way and naturally improves society, the family...

I don't think this thread was any sort of argument for the state. Perhaps scandinavian countries are more successful because not all violent human interactions can be reduced to a "gun in the room" – and perhaps that's why insisting on reducing explicit violence is not good enough to save us.

I'm still trying to understand it all, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, the quality of life here is excellent excellent, and there is plenty of room for freedom in many areas – especially if you are not from here – no poverty... Another quality I have seen in finns, contrasted with other nordic nations, is thrift. They are quite careful and balanced in the way that they utilise resources, there is very little pomposity or complaints, and even the architecture or design is known for its simplicity and efficiency... I just don't know what to think about the future of it all. People are definitely less overtly violent, spanking is banned, etc. but I have doubts about what will happen - being any positive or not – when recession hits because the sword of social ostracism looms so large everywhere, and people are easily made to obey. The problem is of course the way children are treated, which is horrible just like everywhere else. This is why I question that simply an absence of direct aggression towards children is enough to change things fundamentally. I have already contacted Stef about it and hope someday he will do a podcast or a study on the parts of the world that have been already parenting "peacefully", at least in comparison with other areas. I think that would be very useful for either the validation or correction of FDR's message. Maybe the more free-market tendency of these parts of the world is associated to that better treatment of children, or maybe it will all collapse again... In any case, I think a very important factor to consider is that, regardless of the more or less free market, these places enjoy a favourable ratio of resources per citizen, even if the resource is simply knowledge or skill - as in the Finnish economy particularly with all the IT, etc. And on top of that you have a strong social pressure making people relatively less corrupt, more ashamed... I often say that it is *shame* that makes this country run so relatively well – and not accidentally finns have countless words to refer to this emotion.

As of the competitiveness of this economy... meh... I have been an entrepreneur here for years, with a lot of advantage in terms of skills, and I am just shafted left, right and centre the moment that I want to grow; and I know others too. I know my example won't weigh too much in those statistics anyway, but it's not the only evidence there is. For example, some of the biggest and most monopolistic chains in the world (relative to the size of the country) are here... The way I often explain it is as if their particular history and cultural background had led these people to implement more advanced mechanisms of social organization that kind of resemble a free market; there are these negotiations between unions and employers that are extremely complex, for example, and that kind of represent a struggle to find an equilibrium that would otherwise come automatically in a real free market... but by god the average person has no freakin' idea what the free market is about! There will be a fancy hi-tech button-thing at the end of the counter for you to measure customer service but the assistant will still look at you from behind the counter as if you had come to ruin their day... There will be this or that innovation or improvement, but it is still imposed upon people following the same model that they obediently follow... And the welfare state produces drunks hanging around, students with macs at cafes... not competitiveness. I'd like to understand what these figures really measure, because the reality I see is completely different. There is a work ethic here that comes from the lutheran past, etc. so yes, people tend to be hard workers and productive, so maybe that compensates for what I see somewhere, someplace... It's like things are made to look free-market, advanced and pretty by a clever enough team of educated social engineers, politicians and industry leaders, but who are obviously not clever or sensitive enough to produce any fundamental, sustainable change.

This whole international educational propaganda campaign is pretty funny. Finns are very knowledgeable in general, they will know several languages, have various skills... but they cannot think to save their lives. They will parrot this and that, have sophisticated conversations... but they cannot debate and question anything, especially if it comes from above or leads to certain emotions. (The expression of emotions is something very difficult here for people. I have heard somewhere that there is a study showing the very high level of emotional repression in children here... which of course explains much about the culture and stereotype.) I remember when I first came and watched the anti-smoking law come into force and, to my astonishnment, everybody stopped smoking at once right on the first day. There is very little challenge to authority here, especially maternal-type authority. I have also attended "libertarian" or "liberal" meetings and sometimes participate in online conversations. People's general handling of concepts sounds like they understand free market principles, but it only takes a debate, a look at the form of their arguments or, most importantly, an economic or personal interaction to see their big collectivist heart – fundamentally the legitimacy of the initiation of force – which is of course all thanks to education and the crimes of the parents. I don't think this is limited to Finland, of course, but this is a pretty homogeneous and special sample.

This is simply false, although I can understand how it can fool most people - it fooled me before I moved and got established here. Finland is very authoritarian precisely because of the power of the community. I see it here every day, the subtelty of fellow slave attacks and passive aggression...

It's nice and cathartic to see some artists fiddling with self-knowledge and creating these superb songs [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN0sU5RncQw] by Richie Kotzen I don't understand itI just can't understand itand i feel crazyI know one way or anotherI've got to try to finda reason to motivate myselfoh I don't know where I lost the wayOh maybe in time I'll remember what you sayHelp me with the path I fall away fromWon't somebody tell meHow long, 'till I get to where I wantJust tell me that it's easyHow long, 'till I get to where I wasTell me that it's easyFrom the lightning and the thunderThere's a spell it that put me underIt change meI was clear and I was fastAnd I was so far from the pastBut now I'm falling back againI get so tiredI wanna be strong againI need somebody to lift me upSo that I can seeOh tell me what?Tell that I got a chanceTell time gotta go thereI gotta go fastOh tell me How long, 'till I get to where I wantJust tell me that it's easyHow long, 'till I get to where I wasTell me that it's easyHow long, 'till we can live with who we areYou know it isn't easy----solo-----How long, 'till I get to where I wantJust tell me that it's easyHow long, 'till I get to where I wasTell me that it's easyHow long, 'till we can live with who we areYou know it isn't easy

Even if parenting was the "be-1% and end-1%" it would still be justified to focus on it. Why is that? Because of its moral nature and the fact that we have the necessary control (freewill) to change it. In the light of this, what is your purpose with the case you are making? Is it that we should focus on genetic engineering instead? You completely mischaracterize the function of parenting when you talk about certain activities and practices when interacting with children, etc. Children are not pets or robots. Current scientific studies of parenting also have no idea what constitutes child abuse – and to what extent parental behaviour constitutes abuse – and are therefore completely flawed, precisely because of the primitive stage of moral development that prevails in society – also in the academia – and the taboo of questioning parental virtue and authority. This is not a question of engineering nature, but a question of human action and responsibility in the light of facts and reasons that are clear as day, such as the power differential between parent and child.

They would go to that debate and **debate**, much like Larry Pratt did in the other exchange..

This is not entirely correct. Lines on the ground that divide countries do follow some criteria – for example mountains, coast and other land features. It is political lines that are completely arbitrary. Countries do have a certain level of objective existence – even though not as obvious and fixed as a cup or a tree. Anything that can be given a name for a practical objective reason does enjoy a certain level of existence – think for example towns, hills... If this weren't the case, then cups and (especially) trees would also become nonexistent by simply strengthening the boundary criterion – which can go all the way to the quantum level or be extended to greater time scales. Canada as a part of the geographical or social landscape of the Earth can perfectly be an entity, and its name and boudaries be objectively determined or reasonably established by consensus. That's a great point and metaphor thanks!

because it's the only one left to be disregarded? [snoopy]

You are talking about anarchic society as a political model, implemented by people who do not exercise anarchy in their families and personal relationships. That would indeed not succeed. The argument that past anarchic societies – as evaluated from the same abstract, political standpoint – have not survived is not an argument against anarchy itself, which keeps surviving and permeating the reality of successful social interaction. I think this is a great point anyway, thanks for bringing it. I do believe there is a threshold of sustainability for total anarchy, but that lies with personal relationships and philosophy, not with politics.

yes, interesting response, which is probably related to the child feeling able to hit him... I have never seen children hit their parents but here; I think this is remarkable – which doesn't mean it is healthy, of course.

It happened at a public swimming pool's shower room here in Finland. It is a big place with many people around, and at that time also lots of fathers with their kids showering before going into the pool or sauna, all naked. The little one (about 3) seemed to be crying in his father's arms, who was sitting, but the two older siblings (about 5 and 8 y/o) were joking and smiling in a playful way as they stood watching close to the father. I looked at them for a while as I showered, trying to find out what was happening, as I thought maybe the little one was laughing. The boy's crying increased in intensity as he struggled to get away from the father, who was making play out of the forceful way in which he was holding him – probably because he was in public – as well as from the teasing of his brothers. The eldest one had a sadistic expression in his face and was spraying him with the shower head. It was all truly awful, explicit and abusive. My face went red with anger and I just stared at them trying to establish contact, which the siblings noticed and they started looking puzzled. The little one then got off his father's lap and started hitting him, to which the father replied in a soft, contrived voice "you are not allowed to hit me" as he tried to keep him from running away. The father ended up cornering the child, who was visibly afraid and crying harder. At this point I walked up to the father, poked him and told him to stop. He replied that the child would not obey him, and seemed somewhat ashamed; then I said that his child needs help. Getting his attention seemed to impress the children, and the little boy calmed down. I stood there waiting for things to improve. The father seemed ashamed and took the kids back towards the locker room. Later on I found them again in the sauna. They were all calm and the little one was being assertive about his wish to not go swimming, which they seemed to respect. I was surprised by this. The father seemed also ashamed. I really wonder what was going in that family that created that situation... Spanking is banned in Finland, and social disapproval is a very strong force, so perhaps it is not so peculiar to see a father's authority thwarted in public like this. Maybe he wasn't their real father, or maybe children are really becoming more people in some parts of the world. The whole time I felt my anger was rightful and well restrained, and I had no doubts or lack of confidence – which I have felt in past interventions. After they left and the danger had passed I felt like crying and very sad that something like that had to happen. It also felt very cathartic and sparked a good many hours of useful conversations with myself.