st434u

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3085625444001/kids-snorting-smarties-candy/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips Definitely worth a watch. Best part is at 1:59 (go to 1:43 for context if skipping)

Whoa, hold on. I didn't say this was perfect negotiation or perfect parenting. In fact I said I think he could've handled the situation better. I simply said that what he did is much better than what most parents would do. And certainly, there is more negotiation involved in offering a wide variety of options to which the father is willing to comply, and letting the boy pick one he agrees with the most, than to simply do whatever the father wanted in spite of the boy's wishes, or do whatever the kid wanted in spite of the father's wishes. A negotiation is a process by which both parties make offers and counter-offers as to what they're willing to agree to. Of course, in the case of a parent-child negotiation, it's better to delve deeper into the issues and provide as well as request explanations and assign values to each preference (so that each knows how much something matters to the other and why it does so), and finally coming up with the best solution to fit both parties' wishes. There's a high likelihood that the father didn't do a great job in this area, because the negotiation, from what is reported, seems to have been too short and quick. Of course, we can't know that for sure. But what I was saying is that if we're gonna put something up as an example of bad parenting, we have far better options to choose from than this one. Sure, this father has a lot to learn, but let's not demonize everyone who makes the smallest mistake.

What I find most interesting is that if the father would've grabbed the child by his arm and dragged him kicking and screaming to a restaurant, or to his house, then fed him whatever food he thought was appropriate, we would not even be hearing about this. Obviously FDRers would show contempt for something like that, but not the mainstream media or people in general. The only reason this father is in trouble is because he gave his son a choice: Would you rather go to a restaurant of your choice (other than Mcdonalds), or not have dinner? The child chose no dinner. Most parents would never allow this level of freedom and negotiation to a 4 year old child. It's not a punishment to go home without dinner when that's what he chose to do. His father was not trying to starve the kid, just refusing to provide what he considers unhealthy food and instead offering a large variety of other things to satisfy the boy's need for food. While I most often find myself in the opposite position, arguing that parents should not force their kids to do things, or forcibly prevent them from doing things, in this case I find that some posters here seem to be saying that the child has a right to be taken to McDonalds simply because he wants to go there to have dinner. This is troubling to me. I think it's very important to grant children the same basic respect that adults get, but that doesn't mean they should be entitled to get everything they want, and that the wishes or thoughts of the parents should be disregarded. While I agree that the father could've handled this in a better way, I can't see myself blaming him for the way he engaged in this interaction. Most people would do far worse things in this situation. Sure the father made a bad choice by marrying this woman and having a kid with her, but I don't think that means we have to consider everything else he does as wrong also. It seems to me that the example that things like this set for the kid is that he can use his mother and the family court system (which is incredibly biased against fathers in the favor of mothers) as a weapon to basically blackmail his father into getting whatever he wants. This would be very unhealthy behavior and it should be discouraged, but unfortunately it is too often the case in instances such as this, with divorced parents, because of the dynamics that the family courts create which are piled on to the already existing conflicts of interest between the divorced parents.

Have you guys seen this? "The Unseen Costs of The State", by Michael Shanklin I think it is very inspiring and insightful. You should definitely check it out. It's not as gory as the image suggests. There's only a couple of images like that in the video, most of it is very calm and soothing, even while the things he's talking about are terrible evils.

That sounds great ccuthbert, congratulations on the hard work and raising a happy and healthy family! I absolutely do not think you're a dinosaur, I think your rule is very wise. I would've thought differently when I was younger and less wise myself. And it's nice your son understands I was wondering, how old were your kids when you stopped sleeping in the same room as them, or did you stay with them until they fell asleep and then went to your room/carried them to theirs? And if you all slept in the same room, how did you manage issues with privacy, such as being alone with your husband?

Yes, I heard what they said. It's still statist and evil because the problem is the tax laws and the tax collectors. The smugglers are providing a benefit to everyone who wants to buy tea. If they wanted to oppose the problem they would deal with the collectors and the legislators, even if they are they same people, why do they refer to them as "the smugglers"? And even if they suspect they are the same people, killing someone based on a suspicion is still evil. And why would you destroy the tea anyway? Even if these people deserved to die, why not keep the tea and sell it or give it away? It's a valuable good. By destroying the tea they are contributing in the state's effort to reduce the availability of tea and thus raise the price. Thus they are clearly becoming part of the problem.

The author seems to me like they are full of hate for themselves and for children. Now I see why they dislike Dayna Martin so much. All radical unschooling says is, children are people. If your wife doesn't brush her teeth, do you grab her by the arm, drag her to the bathroom and shove a toothbrush in her mouth? No. You talk to her. You explain why it's important for her health, as well as for your wanting to be close to her. You negotiate and explain the problems this is causing. Then she will want to brush her teeth. What do you think would happen if you did shove the toothbrush in her mouth? She probably wouldn't have very warm feelings for you anymore. With children, it's the same. It seems to me that the author just liked the idea of unschooling without a set method of education, but they don't seem to have a problem with using force against children. They don't understand the massive psychological damage that this does. And they are completely wrong, many children absolutely DO have traumas associated with being forced to shower and brush their teeth instead of being provided an explanation as to why these things are important. It's why so many adults don't do it as often as they should! Because as children they felt their feelings were negated and their needs crushed for the benefit of the parent. So they associated doing these things with fulfilling somebody else's desire and not their own. Just because something is healthy or desirable for your kid to do, doesn't mean you have to threaten them with violence or arbritrary punishments if they don't comply. Yes, violence is easier and quicker. But down the line you're not saving yourself any troubles. Much the opposite in fact. And you're not helping them become healthy individuals, emotionally or physically.

The Montessori method of schooling is like limited government on the political side of things. It keeps aggressive force to a minimum, but it's still there. I would suggest to you that, while this is immensely less damaging for your child than dropping him off at your average pre-K or daycare, it's still not a healthy environment for your child and he knows it. That's why he doesn't want to go, and why he insists on not being left alone there. Have you looked into unschooling? While the time you need to invest can be an issue, you can find ways around it. For example, it would be better if you could find someone you know and trust personally to take care of your child while you're working, rather than dropping him at a place he doesn't want to be in. Also, you said you and your wife work from home? If so, is it absolutely necessary that your child be outside while you're working? You don't necessarily have to interact with him 100% of the time. He could be around playing while you work, as long as he understands what's happening, it shouldn't be a major problem. In fact it helps children build a stronger sense of "work ethics" when they're around their parents while they work. Especially if you can show them how things are done (which may prove hard in today's day and age where most work is intellectual and he needs to learn how to read first). I'm not sure if you can keep an eye on him while working so that he doesn't accidentally harm himself, so if you can't, this may not work. You could also consider taking turns with your wife, if that's a possibility at all. And btw, you said you use force to prevent him from doing dangerous things to himself or others or other's property. That's ok the first time if he doesn't know what's going on. But the best approach is to try and explain to him, as best you can, why these things are dangerous or why they could have negative consequences for him. I'm not saying you're not doing that, but if it becomes a repetitive thing you have to be watching out for, then you might want to try and explain these things to him in more detail. Even if he doesn't understand *why* something is dangerous or risky (which he should in most situations), just knowing that you think they are dangerous or risky will usually be enough for him to not want to do these things. Most people just grab the child's arm when he's trying to walk into traffic or playing with a metal toy around a power socket, but because they don't explain, the child often feels like they are being controlled for no reason other than to satisfy their parent's desires instead of being allowed to fulfill their own. On not using force... While there are plenty of articles and books out there, just pose the following question to the people who disagree: Imagine you are him. Would you want to be held down crying and screaming while your father walks away? There is a reason why he feels this way, and pretending that the feeling is wrong and must be crushed is not only not a solution, but will scar him for life and he will lose trust in you. Of course this is not a problem for most schools and daycare centers because that is actually their main goal. Modern day schools were designed to break children down and destroy any emotional bond between them and their families, so that they can be turned into brainwashed, mindless, obedient, patriotic zombie soldiers who worship the State above all else. The Montessori method is interesting because in a lot of ways it embraces individualism, peaceful interactions and freedom. But at it's core it still has many things in common with the wretched State system of schooling (and I don't mean just public schools here, as regular "private" schools are still State-sanctioned and model their system off of the State's system)

2 weeks ago, three police officers tasered an 8-year old girl in the chest because she had a knife and pointed it at one of the officers. The little girl was lucky to survive the electrical discharge so close to her heart. http://www.argusleader.com/article/20131009/NEWS/310090036/Use-Taser-8-year-old-girl-justified-Pierre-police-say?nclick_check=1

I read the article and it just seemed like a terribly low-quality smear campaign. They say Dayna wasn't there to help, that she had her own agenda. No explanation whatsoever as to what this actually entails or any description of the ACTIONS she took that were so harmful. Nothing, just a big pile of bad words and thoughts for her. Same with the stuff on the review on amazon. No posting of the actual "bullying" message, whether real or invented. The author is simply going off of the one-sentence that the reviewer wrote as to their perception of the message that they received from Dana's husband, which didn't go into detail at all; and from there the author concludes that "if this isn't cyber bullying, I don't know what is". Ridiculous. And really, anyone who talks about "cyber bullying" has already lost a lot of my respect. Bullying is a "nice" word for beating. There is nothing of the sort online. All you gotta do is press a block button or close the program. About the plagiarism, I didn't read the links. Maybe I will do it later. But in most cases, people who accuse others of "plagiarizing" are just resentful that someone else has expressed the same ideas in a more effective manner or reaching a bigger audience. It's not a big deal unless there's clear intentional dishonesty.

Kill the smugglers, destroy the smuggled tea? Sounds statist to me.

Most "militant atheists" worship the State with much more fervor than your average religious person worships their god. The State loves something like vaccines because it gives them an excuse to tax everybody and then buy the vaccines from a few labs who develop and produce them, then forcibly inject everybody in the name of "the public good". Whether the vaccines are actually effective against disease is not a concern for them (the State and their lab friends). Even if they are not, they must pretend that they are, and wage a propaganda war to ensure support and compliance with the vaccination system. Almost any studies of vaccine effectiveness is carried on by funds derived from State organizations or the labs themselves, thus they are completely biased from the start. But even then, in many cases they don't even show what they are supposed to show (the effectiveness of the vaccine). And in other cases, doing proper studies is considered "unethical" because of the herd-immunity concept. Even if it has been shown time and again that many vaccines have caused serious side effects that are often worse than the disease they supposedly protect against, these must be swiped under the rug and no serious studies are conducted to try to establish what the rates for these are, so that proper cost-benefit analysis can be considered as to whether it's worth it for a given individual to be given a particular vaccine. The assumption that doctors make is that vaccines can't possibly harm, so the more the merrier. They not only forget the potential for immediate and obvious side-effects in terms of illness, but also the fact that, even supposing vaccines work exactly the way they think they do, forcing the body to create antibodies against a plethora of bacteria and viruses it may never come in contact with, necessarily taxes the body's ability to protect against other potentially harmful diseases that it does come in contact with.

Other research, such as those conducted by Lloyd deMause, shows the opposite. That war is very natural among primitive hunter-gatherer tribes. He finds not only that wars were common, but that the child-rearing method used by primitive peoples generates a psyche that is prone to war. But I think there's more to this than deMause has uncovered. You can use economic theory to predict that war, as well as tribal communism and the rejection of private property, will be beneficial and selected for in hunter-gatherer societies. And this in turn will tend to select for the child-rearing methods that will produce the bloodthirsty, tribal communist warriors. Because primitive hunter-gatherers can only extract the food that the land naturally provides, but cannot increase this production, two things will happen. 1) With respect to intra-tribal relationships (relationships between members in the same tribe), almost all if not all property will be regarded as communal, and any attempts by any individual to increase production and keep it for themselves or their family will be met with utmost resistance, and will be characterized as greedy and exploitative (in fact, the very concept of "family" is foreign to most hunter-gatherers, as is the concept of marriage, both of which only become beneficial after the introduction of agriculture). Because when an individual hunts an animal or gathers food and keeps it for themselves, there is less food available for everybody else. What's more, in many cases increasing production this year will result in lower production the next year, such as in the case of over-hunting a pack of animals, or removing too many bulbs/root vegetables from the land, so even if the individual is sharing the production equally amongst all tribe members (or "from each according to it's ability, to each according to it's need"), production of food will tend to be highly regulated/controlled by either the leaders (representative democracy), or the tribe as a whole (direct democracy). This explains why in the modern world, there is a clear natural tendency for people who do not understand economics to become socialists/communists. For all it's ills, religion did a great job at curtailing this tendency in the past, even in the lack of economic understanding, but as the world becomes ever more secular, this effect is wearing off. 2) With respect to inter-tribal relationships (relationships with other tribes), there will be a tendency to regard people belonging to neighboring tribes as mortal enemies. While there can be a period of standoff between two neighboring tribes, especially if the available land is large enough and the resources plentiful, at one point or another, one of the tribes will find it beneficial to attack the other and kill as many of their members as possible. This is because the neighboring tribe is, to some extent, competing for the same overlapping pool of natural resources. And because the situation applies both ways, both tribes will know that if they wait too long, the other tribe could become too strong to defeat, and at that point the only options left are escape to foreign lands (with the huge risk that this implies) or death. Once the war is waged and won (meaning all enemy combatants are dead, with maybe a few having escaped), however, the triumphant tribe faces a decision. They can exterminate every single member of the opposing tribe, and keep all the land for themselves and their own offspring. What often will happen, however, is that there is too much land available for the one tribe to take over in one swoop, especially considering the casualties of war. So what they will do instead is kill all the males, but keep the females alive and come back repeatedly to rape them, and so spread their genes onto what's left of the other tribe, providing genetic diversity as well as maximizing the rate of reproduction. Because of this, one would expect that primitive child-rearing modes not only prepare boys to become warriors as they reach adulthood, but also rapists, and indeed that is what Lloyd deMause finds. Likewise girls will be raised in a way that will prepare them to comply to male aggressions and rape, and not try to fight off attackers from another tribe, but to instead discharge all their pain upon children and so prepare them for adult life; for this will tend to maximize their rate of reproductive success, as of that their children, under this environment. Notice that none of the 2 applies under an agricultural setting, where each individual can increase the production within their own private piece of land; and peaceful cooperation (relying instead only on defensive violence, but not offensive), private property, lovemaking based on seduction instead of rape, and marriage and family unions instead of polygamy and tribal unions, are much preferable in order to maximize production and standards of living. The problem is that it takes many, many generations to shift from one childrearing mode to the other, apparently opposite one. And there is reason to believe that until very recently, nobody had even figured out what the optimal childrearing mode was for the agricultural setting, because they had not even figured out what the optimal sociopolitical system was (private property; monogamy and family unions; and no central, coercive monopoly of ultimate law enforcement, creation and interpretation). Or to the extent that somebody did figure these things out, their ideas did not become known. Another problem is that even if you understand what must be done, you're still faced with the issue of getting the masses to adopt this system. It was religion that originally turned the savages into more civilized peoples, and despite the perceived benefits of a secularization of society, the results so far have not been too bright. I'm not saying religion is the only way to get the masses to behave in a civilized fashion, but so far, no other belief system has achieved this. (again, for the masses. I'm not talking about the few intellectual elites who can understand Stefan Molyneux and other writers like him) It is true that religions aren't perfect in any sense, but maybe what I'm saying is that it could be helpful to have a new religion, one that doesn't compromise as much, and doesn't give in to the barbaric urges of the masses as much as the religions of old have had to do to remain popular. Or perhaps we have entered a new age where religion is no longer the most effective way to spread an idea among the masses. That could also be a possibility, and I'm certainly open to it. But if there is another way, the answer eludes me.

My view is that if you wanted, you could sue him for damages, and if found guilty, he would be forced to provide restitution, and to cover all legal costs. If the damage inflicted was large enough, such as in cases of murder, rape or torture, you (or your heirs if you were killed) could ask the court to also pass an execution sentence, which would likely be carried out by a separate entity (the type that would enforce the courts's rulings in cases of noncompliance). The court would be agreed upon by both parties, but if the defendant refused to agree to any court with a good reputation, you could still go ahead and sue and he would be tried in his absence. After the trial, appeals to other courts could be made, but they would have to be recognized by the first court, or by the enforcing agency, to be considered valid. Because courts and enforcing agencies would want to minimize conflict, they would tend to be honest, as being corrupt would not only yield them a bad reputation and loss of customers, but potentially put them at risk of having to wage war against all other competing agencies. A war which they would almost surely lose. Many writers think that legal execution is going too far. I don't think it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable in most of the abovementioned cases, and would be more effective at deterring and preventing crime than any of the alternatives (prison, banishment, etc) Some writers even believe that in forcing the guilty to provide restitution, only negative enforcement should be used (i.e. withdrawing services), but that threats of violence for noncompliance should not be used. I disagree. I think that would severely restrict the ability of the victims (or their heirs) to seek justice. Some other writers also suggest that debt slavery would be a possibility in certain cases where the guilty is otherwise unable/unwilling to pay restitution, and the crimes are very severe. There are arguments for and against that. I'm not convinced either way.

Japan is much more homogeneous than the US, culturally as well as racially, and the average as well as the mean levels of wealth and standards of living are higher. IQs, both average and mean, are much higher than in the US. They don't have the huge proportion of war veterans (especially young) that the US has, the welfare system is smaller, and they have less drug related problems, as less people use drugs (again because of all of the above).

Exactly. So in a way, he was right.

I know it's easy to hate on fundamentalist religious people, but do you realize that this means that the State gets to decide what medical procedures your kids must have, and if you disagree, you go to prison? What if the kid didn't die? Would they be charged with endangering a child? What if they took the kid to the doctor and the kid still died? Would the doctor be charged with murder? No, because the medical community and the State are pretty much one and the same. A lot of times, medical procedures do more harm than good. But as long as the State considers it proper medical procedure, there's no problem. However if someone uses alternative health care methods and something goes wrong, they can be charged with a crime solely based on the result.

Left handedness is genetic. About 10% of the population is left handed. It offers some advantages in the wild, as well as in modern life. Noticeably in sports, particularly tennis or boxing or other 1v1 sports, left-handed people have a clear advantage as they will always have most of their practice against right-handed people, but right-handed people will also have most of their practice against other right-handed people. This means that the left-handed player will be very experienced in countering and reacting to the moves of their right-handed opponent, but the right-handed player facing the left handed won't be.

I haven't watched the movie yet so I didn't read your post, but just wanted to say that I will post my thoughts here after I watch the movie which I plan to do during this week if possible

Interesting analogies, but I still think Scar represented communism/democracy, and Simba and Mufasa represented absolute monarchy. Timon and Pumbaa represented primitive anarchists. The hyenas represented the mob, whereas the lioness pride represented the capitalists, merchants and the aristocracy. Most every other animal like the elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and the birds, represented the workers. Rafiki was the priest who validated the rightful king in the eyes of the workers. Nala was part of the aristocracy and was arranged to marry Simba, the future king. Zazu was Simba's private teacher and babysitter.

Like others said, labor is not a commodity, in the same way that a chair is not a commodity (it is a manufactured product), and a haircut is not a commodity (it is a service). These are economic terms that are used to broadly categorize items due to the nature of their role in the economy. I short, labor is not a commodity, labor is labor. However, the govt saying that "labor is not a commodity, therefore we should not allow it be freely exchanged, the way we allow commodities to be traded" is a senseless argument at best, and an evil manipulation at worst. If you want to hurt labor, then you put restrictions on it's exchange and contracting. Which is what they want to do.

My god, Warren Mosler is not only terribly wrong about a lot of what he says, but also plain evil! (watch from 1:04:07 until 1:06:58)

I should probably also mention that different stores have different prices, and some of the factors that make one store be able charge a higher price and still get customers is the general service offered within the store, the "shopping experience", as well as the location of the store (better locations are more expensive, but make it easier for customers to get to or pass by the store and buy things). So this law should disproportionately affect those stores that don't offer much quality in terms of shopping experience and benefits (such as point systems, prizes, free stuff with your purchases and whatnot), but that have lower prices. Besides this, the law will entice stores, liquor stores in particular (or other stores that derive a significant amount of their revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages) to invest more capital in making the shopping experience more enjoyable for the consumer, as lowering their prices on the alcoholic beverages will no longer be an option to attract customers. This will again generate a misallocation of resources, with capital being invested in an area of the market where it shouldn't be, and where the additional returns generated by it are not sustainable.

I don't normally link to wikipedia, but this article is good (as of this posting anyway) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor

That is exactly what a price floor is. Yes, there will be. Normally in a market, when the price increases it is either because production has fallen, production costs have risen, or demand has increased. In this case, none of the above will have taken place. However the price increase will result in a diminished demand. The leftover production that cannot be sold at this now higher price will become a surplus that cannot be cleared by normal market mechanisms (the normal and quickest reaction to a general surplus is for prices to fall, but that will be illegal here, so production must adjust downwards... but until it does, there will be a surplus). It looks like it's the second thing you said, but it would not be a subsidy per se. It can be considered a subsidy for the producers that will not be forced to lower their price, because their price was already above the minimum; but for those who are forced to raise their price, it's not a subsidy because they would prefer to be able to sell cheaper (which means they would make more money selling cheaper).