Libertus

When I started to look into this kind of stuff, over ten years ago, I was laughing about funny pick-up-lines. But it leads into so many different things, among them how to be a better lover, why it's good to work out, why you shouldn't drink yourself senseless before talking to a girl, and in general, how to better groom yourself, dress yourself, how to get ahead at your job, how to start a positive inner dialog, how to make friends and influence people, all sorts of social skills, how to motivate yourself, how to diffuse a dangerous situation with a bully ("AMOG"), how to master any skill, how to affect change in yourself if you just work on yourself and apply principles consistently, how to not get taken advantage of, how you become the person you have always wanted to become. Because, let's face it, nobody is attracted to a loser. You can't fault women for not being attracted to a loser. "Just be yourself" is great advice if you're already a cool, good-looking guy, but "make the best out of yourself, work on yourself tirelessly, focus on your career, your inner game and your skills, and the women will come" is much better advice if you're kind of in-between, needing some work. As most of us do. What I wanted to say is, it often starts with pickup-lines, but ends with the fantastic journey that is your life.

"Atheist beliefs" - there is no such thing. Atheism means you don't believe in a god. Every belief you hold, that would be the basis for any lashing out is your own problem and has nothing to do with your or anyone else's atheism.

He is afraid of dying because if he dies now, his life would have been pointless. He hasn't done anything with it yet. This fear goes away when he starts on a path of fulfillment, meaning, he needs to understand that what he's doing right is the best he can. Become strong. Educated. Good. Kind. Patient. Resilient. So in a way he's looking for fulfillment, and sometimes risk taking is part of that, and at the same time, in terms of security and safety, not take unrealistic or unnecessary risk. He is looking for some spiritual guidance or plain life advice.

It's selfish, and that is OK. You're giving up something you value less (money, e.g.) for something you value more (another person's well-being, and the nice feeling of doing good in the world) and that is selfish, and it's cool.

Communism failed because people like to own stuff. Oh, and because some people like to own other people. If you're not letting them do the first, you're actually doing the second.

Does the article also make you glad you're not a Brit? Or over 30? Does it make you feel ashamed to be white? And what does this have to do with male rights? If a black man kills a child, does that make you question anti-slavery laws? All this has a name: group-think. You're thinking of humans as groups. We are individuals. Consider this, please.

Human needs are infinite, but that has no bearing on any number of resources that are being used in order to fulfill them. We can make more out of less. Human needs are infinite in a sense that, whenever our most basic needs like clothing and food are being covered, we find new needs - for example education and philosophy. And when we then have access to such things, we might need better transportation and art and culture... meaning, the ladder of wants and needs is endless - we always strive for more and better things. What is commonly overlooked, is, that we don't necessarily consume more and more resources while we climb this ladder; we also produce more resources, and make more out of less at the same time, the wealthier we become. We are not just using more energy than 1000 years ago, but we're using energy much, much more efficiently. we don't just consume more food, we have a much more efficient way of feeding ourselves. If you just look at infinite needs and wants on the one hand and finite resources on the other, you can easily overlook this crucial development.

Yes, it would violate the NAP. It would be immoral to do so. However, you might still do it, wouldn't you? Sometimes people do things that are immoral, don't they? What is your question?

There are actually two common meanings of the word "scarce", one means "finite" or "non-abundant" and the other means "rivalrous". Property rights are needed not because resources are finite, but because they are *rivalrous*, meaning, their usage by one person impedes upon the usage by another person. It doesn't matter how many cars are on the planet, but if I use a specific car to drive North, you can't use that same car at the same moment to drive South. It doesn't matter how much water is in the oceans, because that glass of water I'm drinking, right now, is mine and you can't have it. This explains why we need a concept of property rights. And those are the basis for libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29

utopian, the washing machine has killed millions of washer jobs. Are you saying that is not a good thing? Jobs are a not an end, they are a means. When you eliminate a job by eliminating the need for a job, everybody is better off. If you don't believe that, then you would have to be in favor of eliminating all machines. We'd have full employment now, in the whole world, and nothing to eat.

Improvement of technology has not taken any jobs, all in all. Have you heard of the booming technology sector?

Sure, if every person knew exactly how much money would be created, and when, at any time in the future, be it 10 or 60 years, sure, the amount of inflation would be factored in the price of the loan (interest). But why start off with a complete counter factual, impossible premise?

How do theists explain this? "God did it" is not an explanation.

Has he written an article? It's a hassle to quote youtube videos.

There would be plenty of great jobs, but government has made it to expensive (taxes) and risky (regulations) to hire people.

I always thought it was freedom-main radio, although I wonder what happened to that extra 'm'. Because it's about freedom, not free stuff.

They are wrong. In any economy, there are debtors and creditors. When the money supply is being watered down, by more money creation, that would benefit debtors and punish creditors. How can they say nothing changes ("in a meaningful way", whatever).

You're right! I'm sorry. What was I thinking...

Don't strawman me, bro. Unwise is not the same as stupid. If you want to correct me, don't make stuff up. That would be unwise. But to the point, even if my suggestions were moral in nature, are you suggesting it would then be OK to say he'd be stupid to do otherwise? Where is the logic in your comment?

Your parents pay for private schools and they have the nerve to try and indoctrinate you with Marxism? Do your parents know about that? About your questions: you can only justify human action, a justification / non-justification only makes sense in that context. So, when the Nazi bashes someone's head in, how does he justify it? He doesn't care. So why would he care how you justify the NAP, then? It's just a rhetorical device he's using. Next time, when the Neo-Nazi asks you that, you tell them, it's because you're going to shoot him if he attacks you or anyone else. That's your justification, in a language he understands. Seriously though, he is the one who would have to justify his actions, first, since the only actions the NAP justifies are retaliatory. The second one rests on Marx's use of labor theory of value (LTV), which no living, breathing, thinking economist or philosopher in the world subscribes to anymore, if he's worth his salt. Read up on labor theory of value, from your favorite economist, be it Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and I'm guessing Stef has a few comments on that, too, for example, FDR 193. Or watch Stephan Kinsella address this, here. Generally speaking, I'd be careful not to get into a fight with your teachers. They can seriously hurt your career. Better tell them what they want to hear. Better tell your father that they are teaching you how wonderful Marxism is at the private school he's paying a fortune for you to attend to. He can tell other parents and they can complain to the school. This teacher should be fired, and if gets into trouble, he should not know it came from you until after he's gone.

Use it wisely, as in, don't spend it, save or invest it. Spend the money you earn on the job you'll be taking. Read my whole post.

Georgia the country or Georgia the state?

At the end Cenk was really trying to get Karen to supplicate to him. He was trying to bully a woman to agree with him, by verbally abusing her and trying to elicit some emotional reaction. He really acted like a classic chauvinst - the typical white knight, who thinks women need his aggressive support, without even realizing it.

If you hadn't made this post, how would we have known you were a theist? We wouldn't know unless you rubbed it in our faces. So what is this post really about, do you want to talk about your theism, or did you just want to make a statement, or get a "it's OK"? This is the second time lately somebody felt the need to bring up their theism. Do you want to talk about your god(s)? If not, why bring it up then? I don't buy into this "I just wanted to know I'm still welcome". It really depends on what you're going to be advocating for.

I would suggest you watch all videos by and with Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience on youtube. He addresses many common Theist objections.