Pepin

This seems right to me. Another function is that it doesn't take the focus off the subject. Like if I were to say "that makes me so mad" in response to something awful that happened to someone, the other person may feel like they need to manage your feelings. On some primal level, they may feel like they caused you to be mad and that they need to resolve it. Or it may be that your emotional response makes you a prime subject for projection, which they likely manage though consoling you. I don't think the word sorry has much to do with its use in these contexts, but is rather one of those things we keep saying despite it not making any sense. Really, it not making sense might help it get past certain defensives. The advantage of saying "sorry" would be that it keeps the focus on the subject's thoughts and emotions, and keeps it off your's.

That is certainly testable. If we use the against me argument on 1000 people, I'd predict that only 1/1000 people would pass the ethical test. For my argument, it doesn't particularly matter if it 1/1000 or 1/50, because the probability that a person who passes the test and is also a physicists is far lower, and the probability that they pass the ethical test, are a physicist, and also a decent and credible conveyer of physics is astronomically low. This is simply to say that if you or I have an interest in any academic field, finding a resource who does not advocate for the state is next to impossible. Really, finding any sort of medium to consume which is not produced by people who advocate violence is very difficult, though the internet helps. I don't think "excuse" is quite the word, but rather it is a practical choice to not isolate myself from intellectual subjects other than libertarianism. Stefan has talked about many statist's whose work he admires, such as Shakespeare, Ann Coulter, and Dawkins. There have been a decent number of guests on his show who Stef associates with who are statists and advocate violence, such as Warren Farrell. This isn't quite an argument, but I don't feel much moral dilemma given that Stefan elicits a similar behavior. If you are willing to detach yourself from public intellectuals who are statists, then you likely have more fortitude than I do.

I got about five minutes in and I had a difficult time listening. There is a tendency for people to speak in extremely high level terms such as "equality", which results in about sixty different arguments being made at once. This is to some degree why concepts are useful, but here, it loses its attachment to reality because the references to instances get cut. After studying this subject for a while, I don't think altruism is too applicable to economics or ethics. Even it does exist, is measurable, and is preferable, it would be difficult to implement as it tends not to be a default state. Many meditators say that they only achieve the ability to be altruistic after five or more years of intense meditation. I would like to see more focus on empathy than altruism, as empathy can be an extreme market force an is very measurable. Of course I am trying not to go off and start arguing against all the Marxism and Kantianism, but I do think that there is potential to swing this altruistic concept into a better discussion about the best way to structure a society with selfish individuals. If altruism is not a practical approach, then convincing people that the question is "what is the best way to organize society given that people are selfish?". The question is of course loaded, as the answer is a market economy, but it would be a good way to introduce people into the idea of decentralized systems.

It's not really a dichotomy that I would postulate myself, as what you likely love and respect about the .01% is the relation of their beliefs and actions to the abstract concept of the NAP. To say you love non-aggression is to say that you love people who are opposed to initiation of force and do not act on it. To say you love science is to say that you love people accept the scientific method and form their beliefs and ideas according to it. If one were to say that they love Objectivism, they do not have a love for an abstract concept, but rather they have a love for the implementation of the concept. If we were in a world where almost everyone clearly violated the NAP, to say that one loved the idea of non-violence would not be love of an abstract concept, but would rather be love of a potential society which followed it.

Though I do not think the issue of car pollution is very good, if car pollution did cause damage to a person's lungs, it would be considered a negative externality. Calling it aggression makes little sense to do, as the harm done by a single person driving a car is likely immeasurable. Where the negatives effects become measurable is when there are many actors involved. Granted that a negative externality exists, even as minuscule as car pollution, a market driven society would likely go in the direction of putting the cost onto those who cause the externality. People who rode bikes instead of driving cars would receive some discount on their DRO cost. Those who created large externalities would have proportional rates. For some/most, the amount they pay to drive a car might be worth it. As argued in my post above, there is a sliding scale as to when self-defense becomes legitimate in response to high levels of pollution. It doesn't particularly matter if an individual intended to do harm, but rather that they were causing a significant amount of harm. A business which deals with high amounts of lead may create a negative externality if unsafe procedures are taken. Lead may be picked up in the air and cause health issues for the local population. Granted that the business didn't intend to cause these issues, the affected population did still suffer damages due their actions, and would likely receive restitution in any sort of settlement.

My advice would be to buy if you believe in it. I was never really skeptical of it, but only recently have I begun to think that Bitcoin will really succeed. Looking at the competitive advantages it gives, I am pretty convinced that in 10 or 20 years that block chain will be used for everything. I'm getting in it for the long haul. I'm also putting money into alt coins, not because they will succeed, so much as that I want to be apart of this experimentation.

Pollution does have negative externalities, though it is difficult to conceptualize as aggression. Though I am uncertain what a common definition is, a decent definition might look like: "human activity which causes disperse negative externalities to other individuals". I do get what she is saying with the "minimum level of aggression", though I don't think it would classify as aggression as the effects tend to be small. Though in extreme cases it might be considered aggression. Let's say if someone was releasing so much smoke into the sky that the surrounding area was covered in a black cloud. If this was negatively affecting people's lives, as well as say the viability of crops, I would argue that the magnitude of its effect would warrant the use of force to shut down the plant. A more realistic example might involve children working in an enclosed environment with tobacco smoke. The smoke pollutes the air and has a negative effect on the children. Children can't quite be assumed to understand the effects and risks of second hand smoke, making this a minor act of aggression. If say a parent smoked around their children often, and the child developed asthma as a result, the parent would be liable for causing the condition. In general, pollution tends not to meet a criteria of any large magnitude, at least by any single entity, making adjudication difficult. The solution proposed to negative externalities by economists in the present day is to impose taxes and barriers onto the polluters so that they can pay the price. Though I don't believe in taxes, I do think DRO's would have a large incentive to reduce negative externalities, perhaps by raising rates in accordance with pollution. Privatization would be the best solution to the vast majority of pollution. Air pollution is a difficult problem though, simply due to the issues of ownership and the complexity of weather systems. I could see this being a very easy to deal with issue on a space colony, but at least on earth, having people pay volunteer to clean up their externalities would be a better solution. Really, I think best solution to the problem of pollution is to have moral people who will instinctively put in the work to counteract any externalities they create. If externalities are a net-negative on various aspects on the economy, then they will be reduced or eliminated. I certainly think there will be many issues, but that's why markets exist. I would say she is right in this instance. If we are talking about ethics, then we are measuring the actions a person takes in relation to their will. Ethics does not apply to nature because nature has no will. We charge a man with murder because he took actions to cause the death of a man in conjunction with the preference to kill him. We do not charge a rock with murder not because the rock did not cause the man's death, but because the rock has no preference. In relation to pollution, the argument she is making is that pollution is aggression because it imposes negative externalities and people are choosing to pollute. She does not propose ethical standards for volcano because they have no choice in the matter. Whether it is aggression or not is another matter, but given that it is for sake of argument, then her statement is completely valid.

I could care less about him being a statist. 99.99% of people are statists, which makes the probability of finding someone as awesome as him who isn't a statist very very very low. If I was less into science, perhaps I'd have similar ideas to people here, but I am very very serious about science.

It has been quite common for parents to play no role in these sorts of shows and for it instead to be an aunt or uncle. A common reason is that the show wants to have crazy scenarios, without making it seem like there is bad parenting occurring. The parents are often a plot device that come in to restore sanity when things go too far. Why are adults so stupid in these shows? Likely because it mirrors what most children think of the adults in their surroundings, so it might help them relate. It also probably has a lot to do with the writers, who likely don't look very well on most of the adult population. What is the most likely reason? Well, unfortunately it has to do with writing difficulties. Writing a show with strong parental authorities is very difficult. Writing a good character is hard enough, but a good parent? I feel like instead of taking on the challenge, most writers take the easy route and bypass the parent altogether. It is far easier to write stupid characters. More importantly, if the show centers around hi-jinks, then that is what the audience wants to see. Having a strong parental figure would kind of provide a preemptive strike on anything of that caliber. There would also be little motivation for the children to act in the way they do if the parents were good. The passive aggression and blatant ignoring or authority figures, be they aunt or uncle or parents, is justified because the caretakers actually are idiots. If they were reasonable and nurturing, the children would kind of come across as dicks. This is supported by the trope where one of the characters comes across another child who has very good parents, and still acts very badly. This is never presented the same, but is rather shown as "wow, that kid is kind of a douche". Although the protagonist(s) may also act in similar ways, the one who has no reason to act in such a way is implicitly made out to be bad. Point is, that without an incentive in the plot for the children to behave badly, that it is hard to hop on board with what is happening. There is also something to be said for PR issues. From what I've heard, bad parenting seems to illicit more complaints, usually because parents don't want their children to associate those fictional parents with parents in general.

The article is a little confusing, but I found that joke pretty funny.

In introspection, its use can get a little confusing as you are often trying to look at yourself from an outside point of view. The process detaches you from yourself to allow for more rigorous scrutiny, so in such a state it makes sense to use "you". There is also the grammatical point of the term "you" actually being a "one", like "you ought to speak up if you want to be heard" actually meaning a more general "one ought to speak up if they want to be heard". It also makes sense in regard to IFS, aka the mecosystem. We are a combination of many parts, and these parts tend to communicate. We, the self, have little direct control over most of our thoughts and behaviors, which means we have a somewhat segmented interaction with other parts of ourselves. For instance, most of the thinking I do has nothing to do with me. Most of the ideas and thoughts I have just come spontaneously from different parts of my brain. I didn't have any control of the process, it just kind of happened. When interacting with others I will act as though I am completely responsible for everything I say and do, mostly because I have can reject bad impulses, but I realize that the me I actually am in my head is not. Instead I am like the CEO of a huge company who mostly makes big decisions and reject bad ideas. I am also quite good at deep and complex thought. Even without that context, talking to yourself in a third person sense is very common. Negative self talk tends to be phrased with "you" instead of "I". "You're a failure, give up", "if you approach that girl, you are just going to make yourself look dumb", "if you would have spent more time studying you wouldn't be in this situation". I tend to find myself talking to my body when it doesn't want to cooperate. Like, "come on legs, do that thing you usually do", or "why is my hand shaking?". This is because I don't associate myself with being the cause of the behavior.

To answer the question for myself... I am split on an completely individualistic mentality where you don't assume anything, and a somewhat statistical mentality where I make guesses based on statistics I've read and patterns I've observed. I really want to judge each person entirely as an individual, but most people seem to want me to make assumptions about them according to their gender. To tell a story, a few years back I used to use the individualistic mentality pretty exclusively. I was training someone at my job, and they said something about a coworker being a lesbian. I was surprised and said "I didn't know she was a lesbian". They seemed confused and asked if I thought they were a lesbian. I said I didn't know. They laughed about it and pointed out all of the other lesbians I didn't know I worked with and said "these are the biggest dykes I've ever seen, I don't know how you can't see what they are so obviously trying to tell everyone". After this, I began to realize that people are trying to tell you about themselves through how they dress and present themselves, and that it isn't wrong to make assumptions. A girl who has short hair and dresses like a man is likely trying to signal to others that she is gay. A girl who wears a lot of makeup, always has sexy clothes on, and who watches too many romantic comedies is likely trying to signal to others that she is stereotypically feminine and will likely freak out if she breaks a nail. A man who wears sports jerseys too often is trying to tell you that he is into sports and not into talking about anything of substance. A female who wears a camo jacket and has mud boots on can likely be assumed to like off roading and hunting. With various signals, we can guess certain things about the person. There are also some tendencies which just seem pretty true. Most men don't want to date a girl who is taller than them, and most girls don't want to date a guy who is shorter than them. Most girls find babies very cute, while guys tend to think they look like aliens. Why these things tend to be true doesn't matter, it just allows me to make some educated guesses. It isn't that I am basing someone off a conceptualization, but rather that I am using it to make predictions, some which will be right and some which will be wrong. The point is to learn more about them as an individual, rather than deriving a person's identity through their characteristics. Also, like in the story above, people are often confused when you don't assume stereotypes, and I don't like feeling dumb.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you in regard to a modern context, but say ten to fifty thousand years ago it could have been the case that abused children were more successful than nonabused ones. If more aggressive individuals were more likely to survive due to the environment, parents who acted in a way to make their children more aggressive would be increasing the child's likelihood of surviving.

It depends on if we are speaking culturally or genetically. As far as I am aware, there is reason to believe that female humans adapted to be gatherers and caretakers, while male humans adapted to be hunters and warriors. There seems to be a lot of specialization, and it might be advantageous for females to specialize in caretaking. A blatant piece of evidence for this is the ability for women to breastfeed, which men can apparently do as well, but the shape of the breast is fitted for an infant's face while an male's chest is more likely to cause suffocation. Specialization in caretaking wouldn't imply that females would be the best nurturers, as it could be possible that offspring which were hit were more likely to survive due to increased aggression, but it would imply that females are genetically programmed to be caretakers. Perhaps some evidence against this would be the very high death rate of women in labor. This could have caused males to evolve to become caretakers as well. Granted the large time investment in respect to the human lifespan, it seems unlikely to me that so much would ride on the mother when the mother was so likely to die, meaning that caretaker genes in the father were likely also very important. I think my conclusion is that genetically, mothers likely have more of an instinct than fathers, but fathers also likely have a good instinct. Also, a caretaker instinct could imply a lot which we would not consider very nurturing, such as abandoning newborns who are much too small or deformed, or abusing them to increase aggressive tendencies. Culturally, I really don't know.

It is impossible to know what they mean without asking questions. I spent a little time writing up a response and deleted it because I don't know what this person would argue. The claim doesn't seem at all coherent to me, unless they are arguing that equal distribution would greatly reduce consumption, which I suppose it might if it kills 2/3's of the population.

From an evolutionary point of view, grandparents who could not reproduce would give some advantage if they helped in the raising of grandchildren. The advantage would of course be the replication of their own genes, which the grandchildren would share 1/16th. Though this number is small, I think I remember Dawkins talking about it being large enough to influence behavior. If they could reproduce, then there would be a larger advantage given to their genes through producing more offspring than taking care of grandchildren. I don't think the potential costs of grandparenting are very high because recent studies seem to show that high levels physical fitness are very attainable in your 60's. With humans, it seems somewhat plausible to me that grandparenting would have a positive evolutionary effect. Humans are very knowledge driven, making elders a great source of value. Many early human technologies likely provided a benefit which was an economy of scale, which would greatly reduce the cost of keeping around larger social groups. It makes me think that the role of a grandparent might be to ensure that memes are successfully replicated. What I mean is that if there is a meme such as how to weave a basket, or hunt for deer, or how to start a fire, a grandparent can ensure successful replication of the meme through at least two generations. Imagine the game telephone and how easy it is for a simple saying to lose its meaning. We can see this with respect to knowledge over just a couple of generations. But if there was an elder who has had success with the meme, and if this person is verifying the replication of the meme through correction, then its replication is likely to be much more accurate. I do not think that parent to offspring meme replication would be terrible, but rather that the addition of the grandparent would provide a tremendous boost to accuracy, leading to a large boost in survivability. This is of course based on the assumption that knowledge was very important in human survival, which seems to be validated by historical evidence. I don't think I've heard that idea before, I just came up with it, but I think it might provide some insight on a few questions. Provided that there is some validity to it, I wonder if more successful meme replication would be more advantageous for an individual's genes than the capability to reproduce later in life. If so, elders might have lost their ability to reproduce to stop them from reproducing and to instead focus on the 1/16th of their genes that can reproduce. Essentially, the frequency of an older individual's gene replication would need to be higher if they focused on the 1/16th within the grandchildren, than if they were to have an offspring with 1/2. I hope that wasn't too confusing. I had a decent thought and had to expand upon it.

I really liked the show, though around season 5 it started to get formulaic. Think it got better after that, but unsure.

Yes, the biggest problem with a peaceful society based solely on voluntary interaction is that it will be in constant war with those at the top taking all that they want through violence... On a more serious note, becoming any sort of warlord would entail a short life. The meme of going after footsoldiers as opposed to leaders would cease to replicate, and those who attempt to gain extreme power through force will be killed before they could conduct any too immoral. Rewards would be given to anyone within a terrorist group to kill the leader and ought everyone else. Essentially, in a society which is based primarily on non-aggression, there would be extreme disincentives and risks for those who would attempt to resurrect the state. If someone were to use violence to gain power, they would be stamped out quite quickly. Even better, there would be many mechanisms such as peaceful parenting to prevent this sort of behavior to begin with. There is also the logistical problem of what to take over exactly. Markets are incredibly interdependent, and taking over a few towns or factories may provide resources, but since the means of production are so decentralized it really has little control. Nobody is going to be happy about it, companies are going to not comply and will fight back because you are hurting their business. There being no existing government infrastructure to take over, it would be difficult to actually gain any control. When power is put in the hand of the individual, it becomes very difficult to take power from people. It is kind of like trying to take control of the internet. Lastly, things would be good enough for almost everyone to not revolt. Even in the current day, it takes near starvation for people to take up military action. In a voluntarist society where not much is wrong, people are going to be infinitely less willing to take up arms.

In my experience, it depends a lot on the group. Male groups can be very annoying when there is someone trying to be an alpha male. This usually happens when you just kind of meet up with people you don't know too well, and the "alpha" will try to show dominance over you through sophistry and purposely speaking over you. Worse, if there is a female in your group too, the "alpha" will attempt to structure the conversation like he is the only one of value, and will take any chance to denigrate other males in the group. But if it is a group of friends, there tends to be some sort of non-conflicting energy, like nobody really cares that much, and the atmosphere is more chill. Nobody really cares if you say something dumb, and you can really relax. Males tend to talk about intellectual matters more, and debates are often very fun. There isn't quite the judgement of character when talking about beliefs and ideas as there is with females. With mostly female groups, there tends to be more tension. Even if the experience is going well, there is that nagging thought that if someone says just one stupid thing, that the cohesion will dissolve. There are often very small scale wars being fought. What I like about females is that they seem to have more physical energy and are less prone to just sitting and chatting. There is also a pretty natural feelings to conversations. Having what you said being ignored is also less common. They are often more interesting in many respects, which is not to say that they are always sane, but they will almost always have complex reasoning behind their beliefs and ideas. Most males tend to have very little thought and reasoning behind their beliefs and ideas, which isn't to say that they are wrong, but I usually wish there was more substance. It is hard for me to say which I prefer. Males tend to prefer more philosophical conversation, while females seem to like relationship talk more. I haven't really been able to talk about any hardcore philosophy with a female yet because they show uninterest, while males really seem to find that to be very interesting. I don't mind conversations about emotions and relationships, but they are far too draining on me, and there never really seems to be a point. It just seems like they want to voice an opinion and get confirmation as opposed to other people's thoughts. I don't think generalizing the above is too accurate, but I've asked a lot of people about if they perceive the same thing, and they do. There is likely some truth in cliche, though more often than not, there are mold breakers.

Of course I am guessing based on observations below, so take it with a grain of salt. I am basing a lot of this on general ideas I have about how people think and how I think. Stefan does not do too much conscious thinking, yet rather delegates most of his thinking to other parts of his psyche. This is how I tend to think, and it very useful as you just wait for answers and ideas to come to you. A common occurrence when he is asked a tough question or doesn't quite know what to say is that he will stall for time in order to allow his unconscious to process an answer. Where I think Stefan is relying most on his self is when he tries to process something that doesn't really make sense. He has the habit of rubbing his forehead in this instances. I don't know why this happens exactly, as it is common to most people, but I think it has something to do with relieving an overworked prefrontal cortex. Maybe it brings in more blood through massage? Or perhaps stimulation around the surrounding area has a corollary effect of stimulating regions of the brain in proximity? Or it might just be a way of relieving stress. I don't know. I would also credit his understanding of epistemology as a large factor. It is hard to convey, but a mind with a good epistemology can organize itself extremely well. Having conceptual definitions, non-contradictory concepts, and the ability to automatically deconstuct arguments into a epistemologically correct statement can save so much time and processing power. I personally have gone through a huge mental organization since learning about epistemology, and I have to say the the fluidity of my thinking, and the connections I can make are far enhanced. Lastly, Stefan has a very instinctive skill with universalizing ideas. I think this is related to his conceptual capacities, but regardless, it really helps in the field of ethics.

It isn't as though bartering can't be useful or can't work decently, it is rather that a medium of exchange will almost always come into being due to market forces, and that a medium of exchange will be preferred over bartering in most instances. Historically, this is rather true. The DCOF is one reason why medium of exchanges are preferred over barter. I think an issue with many Austrian economists is that they tend to spend some time arguing against a barter economy, which I think what is confusing you. They do this because of some Marxist idea of eliminating money and reverting back to a barter economy. I believe the Marxist reasoning for a barter economy not causing exploitation has something to do with the metaphysical exchange between real goods are always equal due to the objective value being ingrained in the item, while currency is fictitious in that its value is subjective, which makes it liable for unequal exchanges on two parts with one party making an unhonest profit.

Well, if you have average genetics, are working out with enough progressive overload, and are in a calorie surplus: you ought to be able to see results pretty quickly. It might take up to five years to look like you are really strong, but you can get really good results in just a year. I've been lifting with a good program for about 10 months and I certainly now look somewhat muscular, not extremely muscular like a bodybuilder, but enough for most to consider me muscular. Honestly, looking muscular is a bit of a farce, as you get mostly judged on your arm size. It is difficult to see the chest, back, and legs when you are wearing a shirt. I've shown a progress picture to my boss at work, and he knew I was muscular, but didn't think I was that muscular.

I do not know if candy and other bribes aren't actually used. I could see it as a good tactic in places where there are people because it would look pretty normal and the child would likely just go with it. The child without a bribe would likely become startled and start screaming for its mother. Bribes would be pointless if nobody was around, but then again you may not want a screaming child at least until they are in a car or house. Not sure if there is data on this. I might guess that most kidnappings happen in seclusion, but I do know that some occur at busy places like malls, and I think it would be more difficult and risky without ice cream.

I am not sure if this is good or bad. The mind at that age may have a difficult time understanding social aspects, especially if they believe that people are resources and the world is a great place, so the muscle memory approach might be most effective. There is going to be differences in intelligence which may make the understanding part difficult despite the level of parenting. I mean the girl in the video isn't really understanding what is happening, which may be because she is watching TV or something, or it might be because she isn't at an age where she can really understand what to do, making route muscle memory important. I want to believe the opposite is true, that teaching the child would be the best approach, but I don't know enough about child development to say. Up until some age, it might just be best to tell a child not to touch something without explaining why, because what does a word like "hot" mean to someone so young? Even if memorization is the best approach, which I don't know if it is, I am unsure if it is addressing the risks properly. Most kidnappers are friends and family, so having the emphasis on strangers a little dumb.The gender specificity also might provide some harm. Though it seems men do tend to kidnap at twice the rate, the female rate is still pretty significant, and it might enforce a "if its a female stranger, she is safe".

Hard to say as it depends a lot on how fast it comes. If it is gradual, say over a few hundred years, well then the changes are pretty easy to envision. If they come fast, well, there will be a lot of chaos and confusion. Many different solutions will be tried out, lots of bad decisions will be made, and eventually the market will begin to stabilize. To be clear with my prediction, there likely won't be any sort of equal opportunity for acquiring government assets. Those with connections will likely have first dibs, people who have no reason to make out on top will, and most people are likely to be left out. Public land is a different matter as it isn't even homesteaded for the most part. A scenario I like to imagine is of a government collapsing, multiple groups trying to establish a new government, and since violence would be out of the question at this point in history, you'd have multiple DRO type governments attempting to provide services in order to win over people in a certain area. This over time would transition into real DRO type businesses.