RuralRon

I'm sitting here listening to FDR2681, and kindof surprised at the conversation. Ok, perhaps this post is a bit of a stretch in terms of practicality, but I actually appreciated the caller's quandry to a degree, and like him am interested in Stef's analysis of the hypothetical example. The point of it is to get at the heart of the moral issue, not to create a silly hypothetical merely for the sake of it. These scenarios call us to question the limits or boundaries of the NAP, and that is important. I have added a few more elements to make the scenario even more interesting than was discussed in the podcast. To paraphrase, Stef's perspective of the essence of morality in this example lies within the complaint, and cited rape vs. rough sex as an example. But that analogy doesn't seem to corelate well to the moral questions contained here, now does it? What I added to the scenario below is done to dilute the moral outrage, such that it becomes less black or white, right or wrong. In today's society people would cry to the government, "there out to be a law against that". Really? Aren't there numerous scenarios where people are "at risk" and without insurance to protect them from that risk? What about unknown risks, like meteors the size of a car falling out of te sky into your house, or space junk? Or throat cancer? Just what is the risk to the community in the examples below, and does that really matter if a nosy neighbor complains? Could Bob sue the nosey neighbor for slander or defamation if his reputation is harmed but Bob's activities are proven to be totally safe? One could imagine many ways Bob's bombs could be safe, such as no explosive materials in his home (they're added to his bombs elsewhere before detonation for example). 1) The basement bomb maker, let's call him Bob, is discovered one day to have been making bombs in his basement for lets say 10 years (arbitrary but lengthly timeframe), during which time no issues or problems have occured. 2) This was discovered quite by accident when a neighbor noticed a bright reflection of the sun coming in his window from a rather odd shiny thing glistening in Bob's driveway. When the neighbor brought this to Bob's attention Bob explained it was for his latest project, and it must have fell out of the box he took from his car. The neighbor, not being satisfied with that explanation started watching Bob and eventually saw him through an open window working on something the neighbor was uncomfortable with. 2) Bob is a long time employee of Acme Explosives, a demolition company for quaries and structure disposal. Acme and several other former employers have recognized Bob for his "extreme" safety conciousness and have awarded him many plaques and other honors for his expertise. 3) Bob is passionate about his craft and has no malice or destructive intentions towards anybody. It is his hobby to build these devices and claims they're perfectly safe. He points to the many uses of his bombs to remove obsolete buildings which are in and of theselves a safety hazard and for reducing the time required to escavate the massive amount of earth for the nearby river dam project that brought electricity to 1000s of homes. 4) Bob would like to continue his experimentation and development of explosive devices and is willing to have a panel of explosive experts evaluate his basement "lab" for safety with the goal being to become certified as being safe for his residential setting. 5) Bob's experience gives him great confidence he will obtain the "safe" certification. But if not Bob will cease all work on his "hobby" devices until he can relocate to a place where there are no concerns for his activities. 6) Bob claims his bombs are no more risky to his neighbors than the sportsman down the street who reloads all his own ammunition. In fact he claims it's much safer. Now who is in favor of letting Bob play with his bombs? Would your decision be influenced if you knew Bob kept no explosive chemicals in his home, except for perhaps minor ones like primer caps or similar very low power, non-lethal detonators? ----- Perhaps another man is a collector of world war 2 biological weapons, claiming he is keeping them out of the dangerous hands of terrorists and politicians. Similar to the story of Bob above, a large underground storage bunker is discovered with these weapons and it has been under this man's control for a very long time. The man is well respected in his community and the discovery divides the community as to this man's motives and intentions for accumulating the weapons. Where would you stand on these issues? Isn't is similar to your stand on living near the San Andreous fault or Yellowstone? Or what about on the hurricane risk of the Atlantic coast or Gulf of Mexico? What about unknown risks? Do you know what dangerous industries are close to you? What about dangerous cargo on a nearby highway?

I was just watching an interview of Charlotte Iserbyt on Tragedy & Hope and she makes a great point: it would be much worse if private educational institutions overtake the public schools, b/c at least the public school system has an elected board where grassroots efforts can influence the school's direction. I would expect that most private schools are corporations and are not open to direct public involvement. It would thus be much easier for an outside influence (i.e. Rockefeller Foundation) to control all aspects of the education provided at private schools. I realize these statements are rather broad in scope, and that it is possible for a private school system to implement a corporate charter that requires direct parental involvement. Whether such institutions exist or not I do not know. But I thought the point Iserbyt made was worth thinking about and considering. In the process I thought I'd raise it here to stimulate additional input. One thing is clear, that the public schools are seriously broken, and unless more parents wake up and realize why, get personally involved and do what they can to reduce the state's influence their kids will be doomed to a dismal future. Of course the best way to do that isn't by using an institution, but rather to homeschool. Sadly, most parents will be unwillling to go that route. At this point I'm not sure the public system can be saved, meaning it may be too late to restore real educational value to the students.

I just wanted to say how great that "debate" was. I was very impressed with it's flow and the cordial and respectful nature the debaters extended to one another. Why can't Stefan behave that way more? Even Walter's remarks indicated he was aware of the philibustering Stefan often uses. Occasionally Stefan will end a discussion, prematurely IMHO, b/c he is not able to move the discussion where he wants it to go. Granted it is his show. Although Stefan doesn't end conversations that way very often, and usually when he does I agree with him, but once in awhile I don't. I am a major fan of Stefan & this website but nobody is perfect. I offer this as constructive feedback. Somewhere in the podcasts over the last month I recall a conversation with a guy that had a heavy accent. He wasn't the most articulate or easy to understand and it wasn't difficult to hear the fristration in Stefan's voice at places in the conversation. I felt Stefan kindof rushed him off and didn't let him answer the last question Stefan posed. I'm no expert, and perhaps his termination of the conversation was fine. Not for me to decide, but it is to offer my perspective. Take the best of it and leave the rest. I've certainly not seen anything in the years of podcasts I've heard to stop listing and passing along the FDR website to others and giving Stef all the praise and respect he has earned. It will be interesting to see how Stefan processes the issues Walter raised. I sincerely hope he will share his thoughts on this as time goes by.

Interesting topic, thanks for raising it. I read about a third of the article you cited, so my commens here are primarily based on your OP. You have put forth an excellent point IMHO, and your rationale appears sound. In particular the contrast between ownership and responsibility. There is a growing trend in our society to reduce responsibility, to sever accountability for our actions. It's easy to see why that is advantageous for psychopaths and those with little or no capacity to empathize with others. Corporations are a legal shield of responsibility as an example. Insurance can also be. Does insurance breed irresponsibility? That's isn't an easy question to answer. I am looking forward to reading what others have to say to the ideas you put forth.

PART 5 This is the last segment of my follow up. If this post fails to stimulate any discussion I'll be hard pressed to understand why. Empirical evidence or cold hard facts are just raw data. Proof is a claim about facts and a conclusion based on them. It is a demonstration of a cause and effect relationship. Proof is predictive. When does enough evidence and facts exist to support a conclusion? When does a theory become a fact? If someone claims that intuition or inspiration are real but can't prove it, aren't they espousing a belief based on faith, and is therefore a religious claim? What kind of proof is possible for such a claim? Evidence of creativity is not proof of inspiration is it? If someone says, my intuition tells me X, can that be proven true or false? Attributing X to intuition isn't provable. What about love? Can you prove you love someone? Don't these questions take us back to the fact evidence does not equal proof? Near the end of the show (2:14:09) I made the statement that "Everyone lives by faith to one degree or another, whether they realize it or not". Stefan disagreed. Yet, at 2:14:52 Stefan admits he does NOT live as though he were going to die tomorrow, saying at 2:15:00 that if he "believed he was going to die tomorrow he would be having a different kind of day". He also said if he claimed he would be alive tomorrow that would be a false claim. How is he not then living on faith, if he is living as though he WILL be alive tomorrow but can't prove it? He is living day to day on a belief he cannot prove (by his own words at 2:13:57), yet is unwilling to admit that is living on faith. Perhaps Stefan also has some vestigial trappings of religion in his rejection of the word faith. Whether you live as though you will die tomorrow or as though you will be alive, either way you are living on faith because you can't prove the future. How would Stefan answer these questions? I don't know. I can't answer for him. Hopefully he'll tell us himself. Empirical evidence is the basis for rationality. Just the cold hard facts please. But there's more to life than that. Empirical evidence presented throughout history PROVES to us that what we often rely on as truth may actually be false. We have faith in our facts, faith they will hold true in the future. The future is uncertain, unprovable and unknown in the present. Everything we think about the future is based on faith in the present. So I haven't yet come to any firm clarity about how to determine if a theory is not provable. If I can't think of a way to gather empirical evidence to support it that may simply be a limitation of my abilities or knowledge and not an indication the theory is invalid or is just a position of faith. It seems somewhat arrogant to label something as unprovable when only a small amount of empirical data may be known about it. Theories supported by even the tiniest amount of empirical data are stronger than pure abstract conjecture in my view, to put things into perspective. So how then should we live, quoting the theologian Francis Schaeffer? My answer, "With a balanced perspective". We need humility as we seek truth, not arrogance that what we believe to be right will always be so, yet with rationality and logic that grounds us all in a shared, physical plane of existence, and most of all with love and compassion towards all life. The movie "Contact" comes to mind, based on the life of the late Carl Sagan, played by Jody Foster. The juxtaposition of faith and hard proof was portrayed by Foster & her love interest played by Matthew McConaughey. So when Stefan discussed the movie Elysium, in which Jody Foster also acted, I was disappointed his review was not very positive. I'm still interested in seeing that flick, primarily due to Foster's role in it. She picks & chooses the films she stars in quite carefully, and there aren't many scripts she likes. I have really enjoyed many of her films, and I rate Contact quite highly, as I do the movie "Nell". So that wraps up my long winded exploration of faith, facts and the scientific method, and how this guy tries to make sense of them. I hope you got something useful from reading this.

Not too surprised at the lack of discuusion on this aspect. Math, physics & philosophy all combined can be pretty dry I guess. PART 4 Are inspiration and intuition related? Both are an undeniable fact of human existence. Inspiration is a stimulant for creativity, whereas intuition is knowing without conscious reasoning. Both have elements of the unknown, such as their source. Could their source be life itself? Whether intuition arises out of past experience, subconscious processing of our senses or some other influence such as genetics is not known and may not be knowable. Can "other influence" be classified as "inspiration"? What is the essence of inspiration? What is it's source? Can inspiration be proven, or is it merely a euphemism, an abstract concept? Is it a catch-all bucket we use to describe what motivates humans to action? Can the cause of it be determined? Can it be controlled or forced to occur? Can experiments be devised to investigate inspiration, to find empirical evidence to its cause? Is inspiration provable? If not it must by definition be a religious experience. If inspiration is defined as "The process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative" as it is by the Apple computer dictionary, then is it "inspirational" to ask someone the question, "What is a mathematical formula where 11 is the answer"? It sure fits the definition, and there's nothing mysterious about the process by which the stimulation occurred. The only thing unprovable is the creative process by which an answer to the question is provided. Inspiration and creativity clearly are different but related.

A most excellent inaugural mid week show I must say. I did like the opening discussion about the workplace and employee value, especially since I found it quite difficult to assess what value I brought to my former companies' bottom line. In previous conversations of this topic I was left feeling a lot of self doubt about not trying to understand that more. In this conversation I was left with a much better perspective of my former contributions because of the role distinctions discussed, for example measuring the development staff against schedules and innovation rather than profitability or contribution to sales. I did however feel as though schedules were often set far too aggressively. I presumed that was more a reflection of working in a startup environment rather than the developers poor performance. I worked for a number of startup companies from the mid 80's on through the .com frenzy for over 20 years. Rarely did I have much direct insight into how I contributed to the the financial goals or well being of the companies. My focus was adding to my abilities (learning new skills) and getting better at my job as a software engineer. It was my boss' job to provide feedback about how well I was contributing to the company. But had I truly recognized and understood my value to the companies' success I would have probably been more successful. Perhaps I'm copping out by not taking more responsibility to at least be more curious about company financial matters, but I was not really encouraged to do that very much. And nobody has ever accused me of not being very curious. But I do see the unfortunate side affects of not having more exposure to the way companies provide value to their customers, as I've attempted a number of failed business ventures. But it was the last conversation I really took note of. I thought the listener made some really great points, and I thought it was telling that Stef became rather defensive near the end. If that were a debate I thought the caller did quite well and never got emotional as Stefan did. Stef did have "the upper hand" when the caller's childhood was discussed but that is to be expected from a detached observer perspective. I give Stefan high marks for how he pursued that line of questioning. It seemed to me that Stefan's statement that the caller was getting into semantics and splitting hairs with regard to a sick society vs. sick individuals did the caller a disservice by not thinking more deeply about what he was saying. I thought the caller's perspective had merit on that point. If society is sick it is because the individuals that collectively comprise it are. Society is a reflection of the individuals in it. Stefan's tone also sounded a bit defensive about the caller's distinction. I couldn't be more in agreement with Stefan however about the contradiction of values espoused by society and how far from perfect it is. Whether to solve that is best done though a focus on the collective vs. on individuals was the central issue being discussed. Stefan correctly cited his work with individuals as one of his primary tools, but also provided his rationale for podcasts where society is the focus. It was great to "see behind the curtains" so to speak on some of Stefan's tactics he applies to his goals with philosophy and FDR. I was glad he shared those things with us. One point I would like to make is that this conversation is another example of how Stefan's perspective can be so rigid he is not free to explore other options such as those raised by the caller. If Stefan were more relaxed and less defensive in his apronch he might have found new insights from that caller. This is similar to the impression I've had from other conversations I've heard from Stefan. I'm not sure what the cause of this behavior pattern is, but I do see it as a manifestation of Stefan's competitiveness and ego. But that's just my opinion as some guy on the internet. The point about domination made by the caller was also handled by Stefan with a defensive posture and tone. Stefan didn't see the importance of the distinction between being THE best vs. being Stef's best and how that implies an attitude of dominating others. Stef's insistence on defining who the "others" are isn't relevant to that point in my opinion. Here again the caller was clear and made his point respectfully, and I agree with it. Who is Stef dominating if he strives for THE best? Of course it is all others he is trying to be better than. If Stef wins a race he dominates the other contestants. Thats different from loosing the race but running it faster than he ever did before. If he came in last he didn't dominate anyone even if he ran his personal best time. What the caller may not be giving Stefan credit for is his motivation for being THE best. Stefan justified that by saying his attitude wasn't focused on a comparison between himself and others doing similar work. No, his metric of measurement was not his "competition" but rather his "customers" or those he is trying to help. And truly only Stefan can know what his actual motives are, so although I understand the caller's perspective regarding domination that doesn't mean it's correct in terms of Stefan's attitude.

PART 3 Are "proofs" based upon mathematics empirical or simply abstract theory? There are clearly cases where theories based solely on mathematics are proven by empirical evidence, such as the equations that allow the path of objects in space to be predicted, providing the means for spacecraft navigation for example. Did proof for the accuracy and validity of such equations exist prior to gathering empirical evidence through experimentation? Even the equations predicting the amount of energy released through nuclear fission were later demonstrated to be highly inaccurate by the actual detonation of the Hiroshima bomb. So how can mathematical formulas be an authority of proof absent empirical evidence when the "constants" used within them may be wrong? In mathematics "inaccurate" = wrong, it is not a science of approximation (statistics aside). To say it provides no value to mankind is blatantly incorrect, but does it constitute proof absent empirical evidence? Can it be said mathematics provides "proof" a planet's orbit will "eventually" crash into it's star? Aren't some theories based on faith, like time travel, despite mathematics telling us it is "theoretically" possible? In my opinion Darwin's evolution of the species is a faith based theory. Evidence is not proof a theory is correct. Sure, evidence is undeniable that evolution within a particular species exists, but none exists to prove one species evolves into another, or so little evidence of that exists the theory doesn't explain why. Why wouldn't there be more evidence of cross-specie animals, or why can't an intermediate species be observed in nature or proven through reproducible genetic experiments right now? I no longer have faith in God or the bible but that doesn't mean I swallow evolution or the status quo hook line and sinker either.

To LovePrevais: Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Just because there isn't empirical evidence doesn't mean a theory is incorrect. And in the example you gave there wouldn't have even been a way to test the theory 200 years ago. Truth will ultimately prevail. Yes, that's a faith statement, but one that seems to be supported by a considerable amount of empirical evidence in my opinion. Secrets and oppression of the Truth seem to keep failing, though not 100%. There is still plenty of untruth out there. With the scientific community moving more and more towards quantum physics and embracing Kant's view there is no absolute truth, the statement may seem odd, as I oppose the corruption of science and the slow migration away from logic and empirical evidence. It's my intuition that gives rise to this faith in Truth. So the question arises, is it arrogant to ever say "that's impossible"? Based on FDR philosophy and Stefan's perspective that's so deeply rooted in empirical evidence I'd say no. I'll bet Stefan says "That's impossible" much more often than I do. But I understand and generally accept the need for a foundation based on empirical evidence. But when it comes to drawing a conclusion about facts or the lack thereof I'm much less willing (but I sometimes do) to claim "X" is impossible. I am a skeptic of all absolute statements, and the more emphatic a statement is the more I ask questions to get to the root of their steadfastness. To FiddlerTheLeper: Most excellent points you raise concerning the word faith. I agree, and that's quite possibly what some of my confusion / tension stems from, especially when you consider my past roots in religion. For the sake of this discussion however, we need a working definition, and as you so eloquently explained a dictionary definition (cited in part 1) is the least overloaded and plain to understand. I will continue to use the word based on that definition, but this discussion is not only about the concept of faith (belief without proof) but also how we live or don't live with it. It's at least worth exploring as an exercise in self awareness. But the discussion also involves intuition, inspiration and creativity, and it's my position these are all related. I don't want this to only be about faith. As for your thoughts about pursuing an avenue of research in the face of opposition and on the basis of intuition, I thank you for your words of wisdom and encouragement. Fortunately I am not in an environment such as a university or government subsidized research lab in which that would be a problem. But for those that are what you said is very important. Doing a cost / benefit analysis before embarking on any pursuit is usually a good thing. But it's also possible to over analyze and become paralized in that too. As in so much of life one needs to learn how to strike a good balance. And don't worry about "Ranting" in this thread, I can be the worst at that. Besides all of your response was quite on topic and contributed positively to the discussion.

Although I mentioned this myself in the podcast, I wanted to start a new thread on this topic. If I am missing the heart of this topic in a discussion elsewhere on the forum, I'll go there and chime in instead. This is a brief comment about on the 2nd caller named Lauren on FDR2451. This reminded me of similar discussions I've heard on the Corbett Report. The idea of building alternatives to the monopoly based systems of control that enslave us, to encourage cooperation in solving the problem of getting out of this trap is great. I also heard echos of that sentiment in podcast FDR2446, "The biggest Obstacle to the Liberty Movement". I'd love to see more discussions like that. I also like listening to callers with more personal issues, but I prefer topics like Lauren's. I'd hate to see the former go away though!

PART 2 If it is possible to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis does that mean it can't be a question of faith? What if I have intuition that something may be provable, such as when doing scientific research. My "gut" motivates me to pursue truth, to seek proof based on empirical evidence even if that pursuit flies in the face of what is already known. Perhaps new evidence will be uncovered that refines or invalidates what was previously accepted as truth. This describes a process that can lead to new discoveries and to new knowledge. Perhaps my intuition inspires me to investigate. Perhaps that's just simple curiosity. We all know that such pursuits are often seen as aggression against "common sense", or rebellion to authority and those so rigidly locked into the status quo they reject other possibilities. The Wright brothers were considered to be the lunatic fringe until they birthed an industry based on aerodynamics. Genetics was once considered to be the cold hard blueprint for physiological characteristics, but research has now demonstrated that the environment does influence genetics (epigenetics). That is an explanation for adaptive changes that take place from one generation to the next within the same species. When Stefan objected to my statement that I often felt as though he relied too much on empirical evidence he quickly disagreed and offered his exploration of dreams as a defense. I readily agreed with him about that, given the context there is obviously speculative and open to interpretation. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says perpetual motion is impossible. I am going to go out on a limb here and say I question that, despite no "accepted" empirical evidence demonstrating it is possible. Besides, that "law" is true for closed systems, but not when an outside force acts upon it. Although the Earth is considered to be a closed ecosystem, it isn't. The sun and moon both exert their influences on the Earth. What makes an electron spin around the nucleus of an atom? What about the rotation of planets around a star? Are those not literal examples of perpetual motion? If you counter with arguments based on time (eventually the orbit of a planet will decay and crash into the star, like man-made satellites do), how can a theory involving extremely long periods of time be proven? Perhaps by mathematics you say?

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the topic. You appear to understand my dilema, it being related to a distinction between things that may be possible to prove vs those that are not, such as knowing events in the future. And even that may be possible according to Einstein's mathematics. Sometimes it's best to simply say I don't know. But that answer leaves the question open, and given how indoctrinated society is in the concept of duality (either you're with us or against us) often leaves people in an uncomfortable state. The conversation didn't focus on faith until near the end of the discussion, and after reflecting on it later I realized my dilema was more closely related to the provability of an assertion. But provability is an essential element of the definition of faith (that something of faith cannot be proven). Your definition, in which provability isn't an essential element of faith seems to be at odds with Stefan's, though not necessarily with all dictionaries. It sounds to me like your definition may also arise from some past influence of religion on you. Do you think that's possible?

This is a follow up to the Sunday call in show of August 11, 2013 (FDR2451) where I was the last caller. I don't know if Stefan will have the time or care to comment, but I would greatly appreciate it if he would, or anyone else for that matter. I don't think on my feet as well as Stefan, and I am not as articulate verbally as I am in writing. As I tend to be rather verbose I will post my thoughts in several segments. If I could just be more concise… I'm saving the deeper discussion about faith till the last segment, and I have much to say about that, including what appeared to be Stef contradicting himself. But perhaps I am mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time. PART 1 I have spent several hours thinking this over. The process of writing and thinking are inseparable and this is why I have such voluminous posts. I don't stop writing until I feel like I've covered the entire spectrum of the topic. That's probably due to being offline and outside of real time. The writing and result would be much different if I were in a chat room! I will try to limit the size of this kickoff post. Let's see how that works out… The conversation Sunday was about the tension I feel between relying on empirical information and the realization that I can't know everything. After discussing this with Stefan it seemed I was confused about what faith is. Dictionary definitions differ subtly, and this was the cause of some of my confusion. Although the discussion was helpful, I'm still troubled by the questions, How can I know if something is unprovable, and what role does intuition and inspiration play in how I figure that out? Stefan took the position that faith is belief in the unprovable. Dictionary.com defines it as "Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact". When I use the word faith I don't always use it in a religious context, as in that perfect example. My comprehension of what Stefan said was that he agreed with that definition. We went on to talk about intuition and inspiration, but I'll stop there for now and see what kind of response that stimulates. If you liked the discussion Sunday read on for more analysis and questions.

Near the end of this podcast Stefan asserts this (paraphrased) principal: If you can't measure a negative impact on your adversary you must not be fighting effectively against that adversary. Lets examine that principle more closely. I'd like to do so by comparing two strategies of fighting adversaries: 1) Raising children according to UPB and non-violence to eliminate the state and create a free society2) Curing cancer or driving it into remission by means of controlling dietLet me say first that I believe strongly in item 1 despite the fact that the state continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. The effect of strategy 1 does not appear to be effective towards the goal of making the state smaller, or put another way there is no metric we can devise to measure the effect. If it is having an effect it is "in the noise" and thus defies measurement. Influences must be inferred.My primary argument is that one cannot always rely on feedback as a gauge in determining the effectiveness of a battle strategy. In scientific terms there is no way to draw a conclusion from an experiment if the data obtained from it can't be differentiated from noise. Another important aspect of my argument is that time must be factored in. It may simply be a matter of the time it takes to collect sufficient data to recognize a pattern or for a pattern to emerge from background noise. The effect may be accumulative and insufficient time as transpired to gather enough data to represent a meaningful sample. Given enough time I believe strategy 1 will yield plenty of empirical data to show Stefan is totally right about the cause & effect relationship between peaceful parenting and it's affect on the size or even the very existence of the state. The same might also be said of potential cures for cancer based on diet; however if it takes to long to obtain useful feedback for a particular dietary substance the patient may die. For strategy 2 time is a very crucial factor.You cannot know if the cancer is aided or thwarted by a particular substance without a means of measurement. Whether it can be measured may also be a matter of time and the number of samples taken. But these factors were not discussed in the podcast, despite their relevance.Does that mean we conclude strategy 1 is erroneous or invalid? I don't make that conclusion and I doubt Stefan would. Yet, based on direct empirical evidence and the scientific method that would be the typical conclusion. Isn't is more accurate to say "I don't know?" Why the arrogance of presuming it isn't possible? It is a matter of hope and faith that Stefan employs that strategy to end the state. He cannot prove it is having that effect by any metric of the state's size or influence.I'm well aware that "ending the state" is not the only reason people follow strategy 1; I agree with Stefan that UPB and non-violence is the best way, the only truly moral way to raise children and work towards the goal of a free society. So lets put those other reasons aside.Another example of a strategy to eliminate the state & work towards a free society is to drop out of the system completely. Stefan has asserted he believes that is an ineffective strategy. Does he say so because that strategy is counter to his own personal goals and how he desires to live in this corrupted society? In my view he takes an easier path through life rather than working out how he could follow the more difficult path of minimizing support of the state and living life underground. I'm not saying he is right or wrong in his choice; it is clearly his choice to make and most people never even consider that option.But many people do choose to drop out of the system despite the risks. They figure out creative ways to achieve their goals while minimizing their risk of being discovered. Could such a person be a talk show host? Of course. Could that person fly all around the country and be highly visible and vocal about their opposition to the state? Again I say yes they could, though the methods they might use to do so may be too risky or produce too much anxiety for some to consider. The threat of going against the state's laws may cause far too much anxiety for some to go underground, while others realize in the eyes of the state they're all guilty of breaking the law anyway, so that doesn't matter to them. Whether such people are brave or foolish is a matter of personal perspective. Stefan's argument that morality is irrelevant when a gun is in the room could also be used to justify the methods of those dropping out of the system to do so. Before you quickly jump to the contrary conclusion that someone living underground could not travel freely and express themselves to a large audience, take some time to think about the problem. Don't criminals thwart the system, work towards their goals and take increased risks to do so? Don't they make alliances with other criminals and even get involved in legitimate businesses to obtain fake credentials, IDs or other "papers" to get the state's approval or to launder money? If you say no then you haven't thought about it deeply enough. How do you think the resistance movement in Germany under the Nazi police state existed? They figured out ways to live under that corrupted system because their goal of defeating it was more important to them than the risk. It doesn't matter if those people won the war the point is there were people that lived underground despite the risks and worked towards the goal of removing their oppressive, tyrannical government. If such measures seem extreme but and a hardship to bare so what? Isn't that still a small price to pay for freedom, or peace of mind in terms of not being a knowing accomplice to state violence?And there are also rewards to those living outside of the system that cannot be dismissed, such as not paying most of what you earn in taxes or the elimination of anxiety that comes from knowing they're not contributing directly to the expansion of the state. Isn't that essentially what Galt's Gulch was, an underground society? The gun of the state can't be pointed at such people because the state can't "see" them. In our society they hide from the state in plain sight.As much as I love Stefan I have to push back on some of the conclusions he draws, as in this case.