Pepin

Why does this girl and her beliefs matter to you?

"It is the best system we have" isn't an argument and it isn't any sort of of a rational thought. It is understandable where it comes from and all of the meaning put into the statement through the choice of words, but it just as much an answer as "God did it".

The content provider produces the product with the expectation that they will receive money in exchange. If the content provider knew ahead of time that they would not make any [significant] return due to close to 100% piracy rates, then their actions would be far different in that they would not make the product. To put it in universal terms, if software was universally pirated by everyone, then it wouldn't be considered pirating because all software release would be under the pretense that nobody would pay for it anyway. Essentially, everyone would know that they were making freeware ahead of time. Anybody who released a product with a price tag would be insane. To make an odd comparison, imagine you go into a wedding dress store during very busy hours and spend about three hours having an employee helping you try on various dresses. Towards the end you tell them that you aren't getting married and that if you were you wouldn't buy a dress from this store. If that is aesthetically unpreferable behavior, then if a group of people spend 4-36 months taking a huge risk to produce a piece of software that you consume the software without compensation, well that is a little worse. I think it is important to remember that APB isn't as cutthroat as UPB, and it shouldn't be. Being late or not showing up for a meeting is not APB. It doesn't require nearly as much scrutiny as UPB because you aren't able to use force in response.

I don't think "intellectual" is a very good term, because what you are claiming a right to ownership over is a particular arrangement of a form of data with some generality. Data is a concept, and doesn't not exist in reality, rather it is just used to describe purposeful arrangements. A specific magnetic arrangement of what could be labeled 1's and 0's on your hard drive do exist in reality, but the data the bits describe does not. You can't sue someone for stealing something from you that does not exist. With that said,this does not mean that piracy is good, just that you cannot use force against a pirate. I can make a decent case to that is aesthetically unpreferable behavior and could guess as to how this issue could be addressed through voluntary means.

Ethics can only apply to objects with particular properties. A rock cannot be considered evil if it falls from a cliff and crushes your guitar as the rock has no free will. A bear that attacks you is not a moral agent because it has no rational capacity of understanding ethics. It might help to think about it in terms of the capacity of understanding and acting on the scientific method. A rock cannot be a scientist for obvious reason. A bear lacks the neurological structure. I say it might be helpful because UPB is essentially based on the scientific method in its approach to validating or invalidating claims.

Could you provide some resources on this idea?

No problem. Also, I believe The Progressive Parent channels belongs to you, so if you have a description of your own I'd be happy to add that.

This thread is dedicated to providing great podcast and internet resources for members of Freedomain Radio. Feel free to recommend any of your favorite podcasts/sites and it will be added to the list. Just provide a general category and short description so that it can be organized properly. There is no stipulation on content, but please only recommend podcasts that are of high quality. If you are having a difficult time categorizing the content, then take a guess on what the author would prefer. The current post is a bit of a work in progress. Economics Alex Merced - A great resource for economics, libertarianism, and philosophy. He has quite the grasp on opposing economic theories and is able to explain many concepts very well. EconTalk - A podcast about economic theory and concepts ranging from a wide array of resources. Peak Prosperity - A site run by Chris Martenson, creator of the Crash Course series of videos. Mises Institute - Named after the famous Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, the site has a large number of ebooks and audio books available for free. Though the focus is primarily on economics, there is plenty of material on philosophy and history. Education Khan Academy - A very popular education resource covering a very wide assortment of topics. The method of teaching is quite innovative. Dr. Physics A - A youtube channel devoted to explain A level physics to quantum physics. Crash Course - Ten to fifteen minute long videos aimed at giving you a basic education in subjects ranging from chemistry to world history. Coursera - Over 400 free course from some of the best universities. Financial Lets Talk Bitcoin - A podcast following the latest trends and ideas in digital currency. There is something for the casual and the technical user of digital currencies such as bitcoin. History Hardcore History - A very in depth look at historical events. School Sucks - A podcast devoted to redefining education. Many topics are covered ranging from the history of schooling, non-compulsory forms of education, self development, and peaceful parenting. News The Onion - Hard hitting news when you need it. Antiwar - Articles and a radio show all about spreading the message of peace. Parenting ​The Progressive Parent - A youtube channel that promotes advances in parenting and gives practical advice. Personal Development Becoming Who You Are - As the title implies, the site aims to be a guide to authentic living. There is a podcast, books, and live coaching offered. The Voluntary Life - A podcast that focuses on personal and business development. A lot of practical advice for anyone who is interested in going into the business world. Philosophy Philosophy in Action - An Objectivist podcast that focuses on how to implement rationality in your everyday life. The majority of the shows are answering listener questions and interviews. History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps - The title says it all. There is a lot of depth and it is a very good resource for anyone who is curious about the progression of human thought. Psychology/Neuroscience Brain Science Podcast - The show primarily focuses on neuroscience, but inevitably overlaps into psychology and philosophy. Psychology Book Club - A pretty wide assortment of books are covered. Relationships ​Porc Therapy - Though the term therapy is misleading, this is a show that focuses primarily on personal liberty and relationships. Sex, Lies & Anarchy - A liberty oriented show where things get personal. Science The Titanium Physicists - Though the podcast hosts are not coated in titanium, the show explains common and strange physical phenomenon in a way that is suitable for the everyday person. StarTalk - A radio show hosted by Niel Degrass Tyson that is primarily about physics, astronomy. Neil's smooth voice will have you coming back for me. Technology Eli The Computer Guy - Lessons in programmer and networking, reviews, business advice, and more. Sovyrn Tech - An anarchist-run show about science and technology, and how they can set you free.

Perhaps Occam's Razor can help guide us in the straight forward path we wish to go.

We will be guided by an invisible hand.

I think there are issues with the base premise of the question, but anyway there is so much I've learned about myself through other's experience of me. There are large parts of myself that I don't have accurate access to and need to help of others to figure out. Most of these are to do with social interaction. I, like many other people do not have a very accurate view of myself in certain social situations. I may think I act in a certain way, but may find that I really don't. This is actually something that I suffer from quite a bit due to being rather disconnected from emotions. My facial expression will contradict my thoughts in the moment. This resulted in a lot of confusion until a friend pointed it out to me. I can certainly relate to this. There are even a good number of ideas that I am skeptical of such as the mecosystem, but with a bit of time I realize that I've always accepted the multiplicity of the self.

Because the arrangement of molecules evolved to deal with particular cases in its evolution. Though a complex arrangement of molecules has some ability to predict the future, it abilities are still quite limited and are often wrong as demonstrated by all the creatures that have gone extinct. There are vast limitations and numerous amounts of errors in the arrangement's knowledge of the current environment, and even more knowledge of a future environment. This can easily be demonstrated with any sort of basic physics test: the vast majority of humans that should know better predict wrongly. Animals certainly have very limited understanding as shown by the number of dogs that jump out of moving cars. As far as scientists are aware, organisms are classical mechanical system. Knowledge of the world is learned through the senses, which requires some sort of interaction whether it be the detection of emitted light, touch, or standing waves through air. Life is simply a complex arrangement of molecules that takes in sense data and reacts to it maximize its chance of replication. The vast majority of organisms can be easily said to be deterministic in their functioning and only process a very small amount of data. Another way to think about the question is to ask what would it mean if all experience was objective. If seven people claim to see a fox jump on professors desk during a lecture, but all differ on the color of the fox, the conclusion must be that everyone is right since experience is objective. If someone was taping the lecture, and it was found that there was no fox that jumped on the desk, this would not invalidate the others experiences and the camera's description of reality would also be correct. According to economic theory, all value is subjective, but results in objective prices. Subjective experience can be measured to objective experience through scientific means. Ask twenty people what color a ball is and if they all respond with the actual color of the ball, we would be measuring the subjective concept of color and comparing it to the objective concept of wavelength and concluding that they are in phase in so far as the visible spectrum of light. Ask twenty people to pick up two weights of similar appearance, one being 10lbs the other 20lbs, and ask them which is heavier. Though the sense of weight is subjective, it can be measured to a scale and found to be rather accurate. A common example of a subjective experience that can't be measured are dreams, yet scientists are even finding ways to measure this. Using the scientific method, they will be able to confirm the validity of their machine by comparing the dreamer's reported experience to what the machine deciphered. On another level, if I say that I like eating carrots, but every time put a carrot into my mouth my expression becomes one of utter disgust and spit it out and begin stomping on it while cursing at it ancient Aramaic... Well, you would be right in saying that my subjective experience of liking carrots is wrong.

I'm having a difficult time understanding the train of thought. I don't really know what is being argued.

Experiences can be measured. At a common sense level, if you are with a group of people and a flock of seagulls fall dead from the sky, everyone will report the same event in isolation. Upon hearing the report, you are able to go to the spot where the event was said to have happened and see if there are a number of dead seagulls. If you were to find a dead dove in the mix, this wouldn't invalidate the experience of the people. On a neurological level, experience and memory becomes quite confusing because of the brain's ability to falsely store memories, to color data based on bias and so on. Fundamentally: particles are being used to interpret and store experience. It it quite difficult to conceive on some level how particles that are not fundamentally representative of anything become capable of understanding its own existence when in a particular configuration. But despite there being some downfalls, the findings of the scientific method show that the brain is really quite accurate in its modeling of reality, so much so that delusion is seen as being the result of a brain that is not operating properly. Based on the above, it would be concluded that the subjective experience of a human does not exist in reality, but that the subjective experience is an affect of reality that is dependent upon 3.6 billion years of evolution and interaction with objective reality, the laws of physics, and the ability for subjective experience to be an accurate reflection of reality. I write all of this because the statement that "subjective experience does not exist in reality" is true as the matter does not take on any additionally properties, but is very misleading. It is similar to claiming that the data stored on your hard drive does not exist in reality. This is true, but it would not be true to say that there is no data on the hard drive, as the term data would refer to the interpretation configuration of the direction of the magnetic fields encoded onto the disk in a particular order. I'm not sure if this post was needed, but I do find that it is something that is difficult for many people to really understand especially since the wording sounds contradictory. I hope it is useful for anyone who is a little confused about topic.

Would the question then come down to the difference between the effects the child wanting to use their other hand and not wanting to yet still being forced to? Personally, I would think there would be a difference based on activities that were derived through the a similar argument in my schooling. As an example, in music class it was suggested to work on your rhythm to sing it as opposed to playing it with an instrument. This technique never worked for me as a child because I didn't want to do it and found it to be quite dumb, but as an adult I find that the technique is of great value.

Well I think that would be fun and interesting, though that could be the wine. The hypnotic/tribal/spiritual aspects to self are underutilized in the modern day, and tapping into them might be productive in building relationships and self-development. Personally, I could use some form of activity that allows me to let loose in a social environment. Though it probably has been good in the long run in so far as the context, I am really quite disappointed that I haven't ever had the sorts of experiences and feelings that others do during these sorts of events. I find this frustration rather difficult to convey accurately, and to some degree it is irrational. Could you expand upon this? The idea that is popping up in my mind is that theists are taking the "thou shalt not question your parents/god" from childhood and are recreating this sort of involuntary environment through their practice of religion. Though I might be far too tired.

The government is very much like the negative conception of a corporation, yet with an involuntary aspect. For many liberals, they tend to project onto government onto the business sector. When dealing with the "people will run wild" assertion/feeling, I would approach it in different ways depending on the person. Me: Is there a rational behind this claim, or is it a gut feeling Them: It is both. My reasoning would be that since the government provides law enforcement, courts, and other essential services that when these services collapse, people will act on their immoral nature. M: When you say act on their immoral nature, what do you mean? T: Many people are likely to steal. Whenever there is a crisis, there are always people who break into shops and take as much as they can. There are likely to be more murders because without a investigation team ready to swoop in, the probability of getting caught is rather small. There would be many routes to go here, and it would depend on the person's values. If for instance someone accepted that taxation is theft and were knowledgeable of the level of democide, it would be quite effective to ask if they are accounting for that in their assessment. If they already accept that and it seems like this is more of a technical "in transition" type question, bringing it up might annoy the person, and it ought to be addressed far differently. M: The latest statistics I've seen is that 2.75 trillion is being stolen from people every year within US borders with unfunded liabilities of around 70 trillion which unborn people will be forced to pay. This money and debt is being used to fund wars which results in the death, imprisonment, and displacement of an incalculable amount of innocent people. There is one calculation that 250 million have been murdered by their own government alone. When comparing the private to public crime statistics, the differences are rather hard to grasp. I say all of this just to make sure we are on the same page, that in the absence of a state, private people will not only commit roughly the same amount of crimes as the government does, but will far surpass it? My advice would be to help them clarify their position, and bring their claim into the real world.

There are some neurological effects of handedness and it seems like handedness might be determined in infancy. This is a complete amateur opinion, but I think most of the negative impact would be in the opportunity cost of the child having to retrain how they use their brain. It would be much more difficult to retrain the brain if wiring was already somewhat in place, and the average right handed wiring wouldn't likely be achievable.

Something I've been finding helpful is getting in touch with the statist(s) within me and to have an inner dialog with them in the car. This is pretty effective for any position, but is particularly effective for something you've been propagandized for. You are likely to get far better rebuttals from parts within you. You also will start to come up with some great arguments and witty retorts, like: Statist: We need to get money out of politics Me: I agree, let's start with taxation If you are a little confused as to what I am talking about, take a bit of time and start making the average statist argument out loud. Be aware of your experience, and see what happens.

I am having a difficult time understanding this because is goes from "could" to "must of". "Social hierarchical" really needs to be defined. I don't know what this means for so many reasons. Statism is a specific concept. States tend to not be static and have not "progressed" at on an evolutionary time frame. Any genetic theory would apply universally across the whole, and statism requires contradictory properties for the same species. This ignores that betas pursue power, particularly over those that are of lower rank. I have no clue what the second sentence means. The final statement is untrue in accordance with your hypothesis, as minor increases voluntarism has been far more beneficial to survival in terms of infant mortality, birthing mortality, starvation, illness and disease, and so on. If your theory is true, evolution did not at all pick the best means of survival. I understand that there are likely some rebuttals and clarifications that you can give, but I would really like to urge you to spend more time developing your train of thought and putting it in a way that will be convincing to another. Your post really doesn't have any argumentative force, it rather feels like an idea where it is the reader's job to fill in all of the gaps.

I felt rather sick to my stomach watching this.

Why would you need to explain the concept of DROs to prove that taxes are immoral?

Sounds quite frustrating. From your account, it seems like they do not wish to make philosophical claims without discussing philosophy. This is like someone making a claim about physics, and when asked what evidence there is to back up such a claim, responding by saying that you are incorrect in your questioning just playing a word game. What I think is essential is that if you hold empiricism to be of the highest rational value, then in debates with others, you must also apply such a value. In your arguments, I get the impression that the impression that there is a large sense of not wanting to expose themselves to rational discourse. If this is true: you cannot have a productive debate with these people. If they do not seem interested in understanding your argument and will simply assert that you are wrong, part of them is making it quite clear that this is not something they want to speak about in rational terms. I'd recommend watching this series of podcasts called The Bomb in the Brain because it really helps in understanding what is occurring. I understand that this advice likely isn't very helpful, because if simplified all I am saying is: you can't reason with those who don't wish to reason. But this is a major pitfall that almost everyone who is interested in philosophy, who is interested in truth falls into. I used to spend hours and hours on some forum picking apart all of the nonsensical arguments people were making, and when people were confronted with these errors, it did not at all concern them and they continued making even worse arguments. After about a year or more of this, I just had to accept that I can only have productive rational discussions with people who value truth over falsehood, with people who care more about reason and evidence than about conclusions.

Personally, I find that I have a difficult time doing any sort of deep introspection without prior relaxation and calming of the mind. A large portion of parts within my mecosystem are inaccessible or difficult to interpret without at least some relaxation. Another issue I have is that my impulsive/unconscious thought process, which almost makes up the whole, is far too fast for to really keep up with. It is kind of like when someone says something so wrong that about twenty objections pop up in your head automatically. Meditation helps slow down this effect significantly, and I am able to focus on one stream of thought, as opposed to being overwhelmed and easily distracted. Learning how to focus is pretty key for anyone who ignores/represses trauma, and recognizing when it happens is a lot harder to do when it is so ingrained. It is very easy to deflect and get off topic. If you have listened to any of the FDR listener conversations, that tends to be a repeating theme. A great use in the in visualizations is to put yourself in a situation to gain a better ability to empathize with those in that situation. This I believe has had the biggest impact of my ability to empathize with children, as I used to have no reaction at all to abusive parenting practices. Speaking scientifically, there have been found to be many positive benefits in emotional processing and self improvement. Personally I find the neurological findings within the brain to be the most convincing evidence, particularly in regard to the amygdal. I do not really wish to make this discussion about meditation unless the original poster wishes to delve deeper on it, so I'm stopping here.

I'd recommend the book Meditation by Relaxation in Plain English by Bob Sharples. It is very practical and will clear up much confusion. The author describes three different types of meditation (relaxation, visualization, and concentration I believe) and there are many exercises in the book. I find it to be a good way to get in touch with my internal world and to understand it. One meditation exercise I like is sitting in a dark room and staring at the flame of a candle. If you remain relaxed and still enough, your vision will zoom in on the flame and that is all you will see. There is a neurological reason for this occurrence, but I forgot what it is, but it is really cool when it happens.