thornyd

I like Adam, but I don't see how civil disobedience offers anything positive to anyone. It makes those of us who understand what's happening very anxious and concerned, and it makes other people who don't understand upset and angry. He's just running up to a big bully and blowing raspberries in it's face...

What a fantastic premise for a show. Downloading now Stephen C, thank you for the kindness you showed to your baby-self. Hopefully we can all strive to be that protective of the children inside us, inside others, and in the world.

I reckon an auction could be a good idea, then the most determined buyers would get the resources. Not sure about settling the public debt though... The people who loaned money the government were gambling on good returns, and they didn't care that their money was being used to enable crimes. Imagine some bank loaned a lot of money to the mafia, then the mafia went and murdered a bunch of people with weapons bought with that loan. Eventually when that mafia went "out of business", and their assets were auctioned off, I'd think the proceeds should go to the victims, not the enablers. A victim restitution index could include: War victims Police and prison system victims Public school victims Taxation victims When the USSR collapsed, a small elite group of people gained a lot of assets, and the victims of communism got nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

If he really feels advertisements are constantly attacking him, I feel sorry for the guy. Must be absolutely hellish to walk down a street, or browse videos on youtube

Yes, they definitely look a whole lot more appealing. And splitting the really long Sunday shows into smaller videos for each topic was a great idea. As a big fan of FDR I never minded watching/istening to the whole 2 hour show, but I know that whenever I see a youtube video that goes on for more than 10 minutes I get turned off (unless I'm really curious about it). Thanks for all the changes you've been making, Mike. Great stuff

Not sure if there's been a podcast dedicated to the topic, but I found some interesting stuff from the Vegetarian Society. "Thirty percent of the earth’s entire land surface – a massive 70% of all agricultural land - is used for rearing farmed animals." "In fact, a third of the world’s land suitable for growing crops is used to produce feed for farmed animals". http://www.vegsoc.org/page.aspx?pid=628 I don't know if that would solve world hunger (I'm pretty sure it's a political problem, not an agricultural one) but it would certainly free up a lot more resources to create a lot more food - and more food means lower prices. Just think about the amount of crops that a cow eats, and then the amount of food you get from a cow. I'd hazard a guess that what a single cow eats could feed many more people than could be fed from just the meat of the cow. As a side note, I became a vegetarian a few months ago after seeing this video: I'm not a fan of PETA, but the video made me cry and I've never felt the same way about animals and meat. Oh, and check out this video of a kid telling his mother that he doesn't want to eat octopus. I thought it was incredibly touching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRNNzMZgrzs

Oh snap!!! I loved "To Where the Stars Begin". That whole arrangement was just so awesome and put a grin on my face Reminded me quite strongly of my favourite band "Muse". I don't think there will ever be enough music. You should feel proud. Thank you for sharing!

I looked at some of the images that came up in google, and it looks like a really cute book

I was surprised when you said you lunged at the man in the red suit. Were you startled by him which caused you to lash out - was he threatening or something? What would have happened if you didn't chase him into the shadows? I feel like I could come up with a million things that the dream could mean, but I don't know if that would be very helpful. It sure sounds like very poignant dream though.

It's already 1/3 funded! That is so awesome. Really good to see competition with services that were traditionally provided by the government - although I don't know how much luck anyone would have with a kickstarter project called "Let's Invade Iraq!"

You are certainly right about your speech being subject to the property owner's approval. But why would someone who doesn't own land have NO inalienable rights? They still have all the rights any other human being is born with simply by virtue of being a person - the right to self-ownership and to be free from aggression. As a side note, I find it interesting to observe that people who object to private land-ownership often have a paranoia of being helpless and abandoned in a cold, uncaring world full of high fences and locked doors. StormCloudsGathering had similar concerns about being unable to freely express himself in a world where he has no property and therefore no inalienable rights. But how would you just pop into the world owning absolutely nothing, with no family or friends to stay with? This view of the world seems pretty sad and bleak to me... but I can totally relate to it. I know I certainly felt that way as a kid in public school.

"you don't get to exclude someone from our common heritage of the land without negotiating some compensation" How is land our common heritage? Why should people be compensated - what has been denied to them? Does this theory only apply to land on Earth? If I set up a mining operation on an asteroid full of mineral resources, do I then owe you something? Am I inflicting some kind of harm on you by claiming that land for myself? If nobody but me knows of my asteroid mine, then do I still owe people something?

I've often struggled with this concept as well, but an interesting persepctive that I have found helpful is to imagine the planet as a spaceship. On a spaceship everything would be already owned by people, and a person born into this spaceship community would work to gain property, or have property given to them. No child would ever be born thinking they were owed some property that they had not been given. With that in mind, it is impossible to exclude someone from property that was never theirs. I realise that doesn't really help to figure out who should have the right to un-owned property, but I think it helps dispel the notion that we all have the right to land just because we were born.

Hi Matthew! What a great post to read. Your situation sounds really interesting, although a bit of a bummer about the Jehovahs Witness stuff Sorry to hear about that. Regarding your thoughts about a project, I think it would be really eye-opening to see a short documentary about people's lives on the reservations - how they got there, why they stay, and what their lives are like. A film like that could make a really compelling case for freedom, especially since it seems like it has the potential to be quite emotional. Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

For most of the time while I was watching that show my stomach was in knots - I felt so anxious! But the way Dayna treated the kids was so endearing and lovely to see. I hope she achieved her goal of spreading the unschooling message.

BRILLIANT! When you made that point about people not sharing their car or their house, and then how children are often forced to share, it made me think about the kind of world we might have if children were given full property rights and allowed to share when they wanted to. Then I thought that, paradoxically, property rights in childhood could create a socialist paradise in the world, with everyone voluntarily sharing stuff! Imagine living in a world where you aren't afraid of being stolen from or aggressed against by ANYONE! I know I would share a lot more

Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian-Socialist. I guess that's similar to being a Vegetarian-Carnivore?

Awesome work, I really like your channel. The video "Celebrities call to ban guns from government" with the images of devastation in the middle-east was very moving.

Really cool dream! I can never seem to remember my dreams clearly enough to write down the whole sequence. Could this dream have been influenced by the recent Assault-weapons ban debate perhaps? My amateurish interpretation of this dream is that you know you have something incredibly powerful, but you are afraid to bring it to bear on the people in your life - in the dream you are in a perfect sniper position to take out the head-statist (the President, possibly your father), and you have the necessary tools to do so (the rifle with a scope, AKA very powerful philosophy). At the moment you don't really take this philosophy seriously. You view this philosophy is just a neat toy - a really badass toy, and your friend thinks it is pretty cool too. But all it takes is a neutral look from an authority figure and you give up. (You fear your family's disapproval?) You are alone in your stand for truth, as your friend bails when it looks like there might be the slightest bit of trouble. Then you are in a crowd. An older woman (possibly your mother?) insults you, and you tell her she's small, then you turn back to watch the president. This seems like you are surrounded by empty people with whom you share little in common, and even though they antagonize you, you still cannot leave them. You have a desire for connection with people combined with contempt for those same people. Finally the authority figure is sitting right beside you and neutrally tells you that you are rather loud and should keep it down. You agree with him, and turn away. You don't confront him about his unjust authority. You don't walk away. You are paralyzed. Maybe you need to talk to your parents?

Brilliant! The idea of reflecting back their emotional experiences instead of immediately offering advice or smothering them with sympathy is a very powerful one deeply rooted in respect for the individual. I liked the measured and gentle way you spoke in "Empathising with Your Kids - Some Approaches". You have a great voice for this kind of material, and it really does deserve good quality audio recording. This is great stuff, I hope you continue to make more videos!

Hello! Great questions. As far as I understand it, Universally Preferable Behavior is the method used to determine whether or not something can be a moral rule. If you universalize the maxim and find a contradiction, then it cannot be a moral rule because it cannot be logically universalized. When Kant said lying is morally impermissable because of the contradictions in trying to universalize lying, I believe he had made a mistake. He had only disproved the maxim that people should lie when convenient, so he had shown it cannot be a moral rule. He then took a leap by saying all lying is immoral, but he had only proved that lying cannot be a moral rule. "Lying cannot be a moral rule" is not the same as "People must never lie". As far as I'm aware, the Categorical Imperative determines what people must do (Imperative), whereas UPB determines whether or not a theory can be a moral theory. UPB does not proscribe morals, it simply validates or invalidates moral theories. With regards to it being dishonest to use other people's intellectual property to further a philosophy; isn't this what all philosophers have done since the beginning of philosophy? They take the good parts of past philosophies, and leave the bad parts behind. It would be excellent if you could post some of the criticisms of Kantian ethics so that we can put them through the ringer of UPB and see how it turns out. PS: Here is a past thread on this topic that you may be interested to read. Also, here is a link to the full text of UPB, as well as this very helpful appendix at the end: [*] Reality is objective and consistent. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

I really love it when you do videos jam-packed full of information like this. A few alarming looking graphs can really drive the message home! Thanks so much for your amazing work here.