st434u

In my view, it's Facebook that isn't worth it. As per Dunbar's Number, your brain is limited in it's ability to conceptualize different people individually. If you think you have 300 friends or more, you're wrong. Social media can create the illusion that you can have thousands of friends, but you really can't. The way I view it, if you have friends, you talk to them directly. You don't need a publication where you can communicate your thoughts and feelings to everyone you know simultaneously. If you don't have time to talk to them personally, there may be a reason why. Some people say it's ok because they are very restrictive with who they allow on their FB. But you know how it goes. You meet someone new, they ask you if you have FB and want to add you. If you say you have it but you don't wanna add them, it's gonna be an awkward situation. It's easier to say you don't have an account there. But if you really do, then you have to lie, which can create problems down the line. There are other ways to achieve the same thing, if what you need is a way to publish information that only a select number of people can view. In most cases, FB and other social media simply become an addiction where people mindlessly browse through the gossip of what everyone they know is doing and thinking, all day and all night. And they make sure to document whatever it is they're doing or planning to do, as long as it's "cool", so they can share it with tons of people they probably care nothing about, as well as people they haven't met yet (because you can go back and look up history); while still not being public, generally. The only reason I see for having a FB account is if I had a business or a career that depends on popularity and I wanted to tap into other people's social media addiction issues by having them follow me.

Well I wouldn't say Rand Paul is a libertarian, at least not anymore than Glenn Beck or Bill Maher, both of whom call themselves libertarians (and Rand Paul doesn't). Don't make the mistake of assigning to Rand Paul all of his father's virtues, he is a very different man. Also, the 9/11 attacks were clearly orchestrated by the same terrorists who engineered the post-9/11 terrorist laws and wars. (the so-called anti-terrorism laws and wars) - If you still haven't seen it, watch the scientific presentation Blueprint For Truth, which is widely available online.

Put distance between you and people who use drugs or alcohol. Especially while they are doing it. Or at least let them know that you've quit and that if they try to get you to smoke or drink again, they'll be harming you. Don't throw it down the toilet, that's a way of telling yourself that you don't have the discipline not to use it just because it's there. Keep it with you as a reminder that you don't need it. Throw it away when you've gone months (or better yet, years) without even wanting to get high. Same goes for alcohol. (obviously, do consider throwing it away if keeping the stuff involves a risk of you going to jail or something). The fact that you feel like it's a waste shows that you still consider this to be a valuable thing that you might need or want in the future. Throw it away when you no longer feel that way. When you consider it garbage, or something that has no use for you (though it might have use for others), then throw it away (or give it away, if it's safe to do that). I'm sorry about your son, but I would consider that it might make sense for your ex to want to limit your time with him if you've been a pothead and at risk of becoming a drunkard as well.

Repeated torture and attempted murder, that's the worst life experience I've ever heard. This is not a joke. You very well could have died during one of these attacks. I can only imagine what that can do to a person, let alone a child. The fact that you're not a psycho or completely insane is remarkable and praiseworthy. I'm glad to know you're not in contact with these criminals anymore. Your brothers are very dangerous, evil people and I don't think they should even have the right to continue living. Your parents are probably just as bad, because they knowingly put you in that situation to begin with. I would consider taking legal action against them, especially if you think you can prove some of this in court. If not to protect their future victims, at least to try and get some sort of minimal compensation for the immense damages they inflicted on you. Whatever you choose to do, I hope you continue with this healing process and that you can live a long, happy and prosperous life, despite their best attempts to make that impossible for you.

I thought Stef was of jewish ancestry as well?

As a huge Hoppe fan I was also greatly disappointed to see him so unilaterally dismiss the point without any analysis. By the way, I don't know if we could say that he turned out alright, since in his youth he was a marxist, up until his late years as a university student, as far as I understand it. That might say something about the fact that the parenting strategy he was subjected to was not the best in the world.

I posted about this a few years ago. If anyone is interested: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/30658-free-cities-honduras-shrugged-two-start-ups-want-to-try-out-libertarian-ideas-in-the-country%E2%80%99s-new-special-development-regions/?hl=honduras

Yes, Rothbard made that point about the optimal level of legal restitution. It is the level at which the victim is left feeling neutral towards the act of aggression/fraud of which they were the victim. Of course, this level is impossible to ascertain precisely in a court of law, but the legal system should strive to get to a situation where the average victim is left as close to that level as possible. This is why I am for the death penalty in cases of murder, rape and torture. It is also why I believe that prisons should not exist.

0) I'm spending time on it when someone brings it up. Before my posting of this reply, you had spent more time on it (at least in the last few months) than me. 1) Yes. 2) A better understanding of the mechanics of government propaganda, power, and war; which helps me predict their next moves. 3) What I already achieved. 4) No. There is a difference between killing people a few at a time in a war zone through collateral damage or targeted assassinations, and killing them 3000 in one day, indiscriminately, in the most populous area of a country which is not officially declared a war zone, for political gain.

I thought it was 4 planes that were hijacked in total? In any case, you might want to check out this thread https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39855-physic-conflicts-the-911-goverment-fairytale/

Your bias is evident as you purposefully miss the point entirely. He was the one who said that vaccines are not only good, but one of the main reasons why our society is able to exist.

Because, as the man, your genes will not survive if you raise other men's kids instead of your own. And as the woman, your genes will not survive if your children's father has to split his time and resources among the children of many other women.

No. Humans evolved jealousy for a reason. You can't wish it away. At most you can pretend it's not there, but it is. This is especially the case for men. Women have evolved less intense jealousy than men.

Where is the evidence for this?? Since vaccines were first introduced, and increasingly with more and more vaccines being given to the population at large, rates for *all* degenerative diseases have skyrocketed. Furthermore, there has been a widespread tendency toward decivilization, with rising taxes, crime, single parenthood, abortion, drug addiction (both legal and illegal drugs), war, communism, promiscuity, disregard for private property and for privacy... I could go on and on.

Research by Lloyd deMause suggests that schizophrenia is largely caused by what he calls the infanticidal mode of childrearing. In this mode, the caretakers use constant threats to convince the children that they may be murdered at any moment, usually to enforce obedience. This is sometimes, but not always, actually carried out, and witnessing siblings or other children in the community being murdered for disobedience or other reasons strenghtens the paranoid-schizophrenic mindset. The voices that schizophrenics hear in their heads are generally their caretaker's voices. The reason they hear these voices is because it reminds them of what must and what must not be done to avoid being murdered. Left-handed children are often made to behave as if they were right-handed, and this could increase the level of abuse needed to get them to behave according to the wishes of the caretakers, when compared to their right-handed peers. Within a partially infanticidal culture, it could make sense to expect that left-handed children are abused more, and thus have a higher rate of schizophrenia. Furthermore, and because left-handedness is partially hereditary, it could make sense to expect left-handed parents to have been abused more as children on average, and thus tend to be more abusive to their own children than right-handed parents. So this could carry on through generations even after an anti-left-handed bias in parenting strategies is gone. If this was the case, we would expect left-handed people to show other signs of having been abused more than their right-handed counterparts, and not just a higher incidence of schizophrenia. And in fact, that is the case, statistics say. Left-handed people are more likely to have all sorts of problems from autism to communism to alcoholism to even homosexuality. Then again, it could just be that being left-handed is an evolutionary tradeoff, which would explain why only about 10% of the population has the trait. You get worse stats for most things, but win out by being different. That is further corroborated by the fact that men are slightly more likely than women to be left-handed (evolutionarily speaking, for men variance pays out more than for women) Or it could be a combination of both of the effects.

The crazier part is that if you actually try to do the responsible thing if you're driving and have a bit of a buzz, and drive more slowly to give yourself (and others) more reaction time, the cops will notice that you are driving too slowly and bust you for drunk driving. There's even been cases where people are arrested for drunk driving, due to being found sleeping in their car after deciding that they were too drunk to drive. The bulk of the problem with drunk driving is not drunk driving per se, it is that many people do reckless things when they are drunk (and many get drunk in order to do reckless things). So they drive recklessly and then the slower reactions just pile on top of that. It would be interesting to see what -if any- limitations are placed by truly private roads under a private law environment regarding DUI, speed limits, etc. There is a good chance that we don't really need any of these, just like there is a good chance that traffic lights, and in particular traffic signs do more harm than good. As a side point, I think a substantial part of the deaths caused by car accidents are actually a case of suicide or murder/suicide (or just murder) and not an accident per se. I think the mechanics are similar to how many drug addicts will commit suicide by overdose. It is a way to commit suicide and make it look like an accident.

He didn't charge for his podcasts, they were free, he only charged for premium content. And he never made any money off it, it was always a hobby for him and it always costed him money, the fees for premium membership simply helped to reduce some of the costs of producing the show. Also, what's wrong with making more money if you are a billionaire? Do you realize that by making money through voluntary interactions, entrepreneurs are often providing more value to their customers than charities provide for their recipients?

No, they're saying that it's the rest of the world that is under anarcho-capitalism. i.e. the US, Canada and Europe. Apparently they think everybody should have the same insane capital controls and restrictions/bans on imports and exports as Argentina has. Ironically, it might be that Argentina is actually closer to an anarcho-capitalist system, because well over 50% of the real private economy now effectively functions in the black market, although paying all sorts of bribes to govt. agents wasn't exactly what Rothbard had in mind. Still, because Argentina is at a point where basically everything that isn't mandatory is illegal; and because bribed govt agents can't always be trusted, the situation in Argentina is more dire than just about anywhere else in the world. At the end of the 19th century it was one of the richest and fastest growing countries in the world, everybody wanted to move to Argentina and make a great living for themselves and their family. Now it's hard to find a worse place to be in. Real inflation is running at 50-60% and increasing fast (and yes, people still use the official currency, though not for all transactions, but for most). crime is rampant, wages are a joke ($2.35 an hour is considered a good paying job, and overall living expenses are about the same as anywhere else), over half of the population is largely or entirely dependent on government aid or govt jobs as their main or only source of income and necessities. Everything that isn't taxed heavily is subsidized heavily. Argentina is a short distance away from total government planning of the structure of production, and it's stepping on the gas. Still, there are those like Doug Casey who have hopes in the government becoming irrelevant through widespread corruption and just people ignoring them. I'm not one who shares that optimism. While I agree that those are good things, I don't think it's nearly enough. Ideologically, just about everybody is a hardcore socialist, and getting worse. The "right-wing" would make Obama look like a minarchist, and I'm not talking just about the politicians, I mean the actual people and what they think. At least this is the case in the major cities. Perhaps in more rural areas people are more self-sufficient and more liberty-oriented, but I think their ideas would probably flip very fast if they were on the opposite side of the redistribution.

That doesn't prove causation. Just about everybody has had a "non-peaceful childhood", so with that logic we could conclude that everything from painting to carpet cleaning to making a philosophy podcast is caused by unprocessed childhood trauma. But clearly that is not the case.

I know a guy who was an accomplished kickboxer / muay thai figher, having fought for the world champion title in his weight class division, and although he is now retired, he's defeated all 4 or 5 of the last world champions (though they weren't world champions at the time). He was also a kickboxing coach for about a year. He's one of the least aggressive persons I know. It seems to me that a lot of people get more aggressive when they feel they've got something to prove. The typical example is the coward who beats children or women because they represent no threat to him, but he would quickly de-escalate if they thought their adversary was anything close to an even match. Am I saying all professional fighters are non-aggressive? Of course not. But I think the arrow of causality is not what most people think. It's not that fighting makes you aggressive, it's that aggressive people flock towards the professional fighting world more often than their non-aggressive counterparts. Having a porn-star for a girlfriend says a lot more about a guy than whether he is a professional wrestler. And about her. If the title was just "porn-star beaten by her boyfriend", would we be surprised at all?

It might be relevant to mention that Argentina's minister of economy (what would be analogous to the secretary of the treasury in the US) is openly a marxist and has taught marxist economics in various public universities.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101845028 Cliffs: *All firms who transact in crypto-currencies will be required to hold BitLicenses. *100% reserves required by law. *Keep receipts of all transactions. *Report any illicit activity within 24 hours. *Licensees will be subject to examinations whenever we want, and at least once every two years.

All hope is lost with her, as with other people who act like that. You're just wasting your time and pretending like you're accomplishing something. I know because I used to do the same thing. Ironically, once I stopped trying to argue with statists 1-on-1, a few of them started to come around and become interested in my views. The only reason to debate a statist is for the benefit of third parties, i.e. spectators to the debate. I would suggest considering Stef's "against me" approach. Don't just talk in the abstract with your sister, ask her if she's willing to support you being murdered to appease the mob.

The madness of neo keynesians, on a new level: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/paper-currency-gold-004346371.html This article suggests that paper money should be phased out altogether, and have fiat money remain entirely digital. In this way a great burden on the Central Bank would be lifted, as they would now have the ability to pay out (charge) a negative interest rate on all money being held by the commercial banks or the public, which the existence of cash prevents as it allows people to simply hoard it under their mattresses with impunity. Without the existence of cash, the Central Bank would have more of an ability to combat the dreaded "deflation", as well as boosting aggregate demand, by forcing everybody to spend their money as fast as possible, not just by creating inflation but by actually charging them directly and nominally for the economically destructive practice of saving money.

No, that's not the way to go. The way to go is through concentration, negotiation and ultimately peaceful secession arranged with the relevant State(s). Of course, in case anyone else hasn't noticed, even if you agreed with the ideas proposed by this person, supporting them is illegal and that in and of itself could land you in prison for life if not worse...