Mike Larson

I can definitely empathize with you when you say that your mind feels a bit warped during these conversations. I had to reread my own post like 10 times just to makes sure it made sense in my own mind. To say that an objective claim is possible for a human being to make is to say that it is possible to make a claim that is not affected by the way a person experiences things in his own mind, which I believe is a contradiction. If what I'm saying does not makes sense to you then it probably means we are working with different definitions of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity (which is really what I think is going on here). Again, to say that a claim is subjective is not to say that it is false. It is just a recognition that the human mind is subject to the possibility of error, and that all statements made by human beings are nothing more than an expression of the minds interpretation of existence. I see no contradiction in a person saying something that is absolutely true (insofar as it accurately represents existence) and at the same time being less than 100% certain that what he is saying is, in fact, the absolute truth. What does it even mean to be 100% certain about something? Does it mean that you officially close your mind to any further refinement of that thing that you claim to know? It just occurred to me that maybe we need to make a distinction between categories of claims (which may be what you are doing, but I am just missing it entirely). For instance, is it illogical to make the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 with 100% certainty? I'm not sure. It seems reasonable to me. But is 1 + 1 = 2 just a tautology? Is it like me defining a forest as 10 trees and then saying that, according to my definition, a forest is 10 trees. This is a true statement. And I'm 100% certain of it. But who cares? Maybe I should revise my argument to say that all claims made by human beings are subjective (meaning that they are derived from the human mind which is fallible), and that we can not be 100% certain about any non-tautological claim. I dare anyone to argue with that!

Objective: existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind So to say that all human knowledge is subjective is really a tautology given that knowledge (or our understanding of reality) is strictly a result of the experience of our minds. We can only speak of human knowledge being more or less accurate in terms of reflecting objective reality. I think that there is a lot of frustration around the fact that the concept of "subjectivity" is often conflated with error. But I don't think that is the case. My subjective interpretation of the chair that I am sitting on might conform 98% with objective reality. To say that my knowledge is subjective is not to say that it is necessarily wrong, but it is to say that it is subject to the possibility of error, given the fallibility of the human mind. The temptation, then, is for someone to respond with something like... "so are you making an objective claim that all claims are subjective"? ...as if I am somehow making a self-detonating argument. My answer to that is "No, I am not making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim (the only thing that is, by definition, possible for me to make). But that does not mean my claim is false. It just means that it is subject to the possibility of error... which is why we need logic and empiricism to evaluate the claim." The point of debating is NOT to distinguish between objective and subjective arguments (that part is really easy... every argument is subjective), but rather it is to distinguish between more accurate and less accurate arguments in terms of how well they conform to empirical reality or absolute truth. None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate.

Ok, I think I get this whole extrinsic/intrinsic concept now. Here is how I see it. If a person performs an action to get a reward, the motivation is extrinsic to that specific action, but intrinsic to the reward. So the motivation is always intrinsic to the object of final intent (or to the object/action that a person believes will, itself, satisfy some need). The concern a parent might have in offering toys to a child as a reward for practicing the piano, is that the child's ability to play the piano might not eventually replace toys as his object of final intent. Internal motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. External motivation is the motivation of someone other than yourself. External motivation can encourage or discourage internal motivation depending on the approach. But every action I take necessarily requires internal motivation.

The assumption that in order to achieve a free society, we will either need to slowly whittle the state down to nothing through political means or we must have a dramatic revolution involving extreme pain and suffering is a false dichotomy. A third option (and this has already been mentioned in different ways on this thread) is that the state will simply become irrelevant. As philosophy spreads throughout the world, the idea that the initiation of violence is somehow required for peace will become a thing of the past. Society will get rid of the state in the same way that the free market gets rid of a poorly run business. Anarchy is bigger than the state. Anarchy is life. The state is a temporary disease. Technologies like Bitcoin will make the concept of fiat currency untenable. The state will be shed from society like the dead skin of a snake. In the mean time, I agree with RyanT that we ought to focus on the freedom and virtue in our individual lives. This is what we can control. This is what can bring us joy regardless of the speed at which society is transformed. It also happens to be the most effective way to speed up that process.

Here is how I see the situation you have described: 1. A child has an emotional response to his interpretation of some event. 2. You suppose that his emotional response was at least partially due to an inaccurate interpretation of the event. 3. You acknowledge/validate the emotional response. 4. You attempt to help the child avoid inaccurate interpretations of similar events in the future. And you are concerned about moving from step 3 to step 4 without somehow diminishing the effect of step 3. First of all, I don't think there is anything particularly troubling about the process described above. I think it is generally a reasonable and empathetic way to respond. But here are some questions that I think would be useful to ask... - Do I have an accurate picture of why the child is responding in this particular way? - What is my core objective in correcting his understanding of the event? - Am I really just trying to manage his emotions by trying to diminish the event that triggered them? - What was my emotional response to his emotional response? What is my relationship to fear? - Despite what I am saying, what is my tone and body language communicating to him? Is he getting the impression that I am uncomfortable with his emotional expression? I would pay attention to the fact that you "felt" like you were somehow discounting his feelings. For me this sort of a thing occurs fairly regularly. And when I look really deeply into my own motivations and feelings, I almost always recognize that there is at least a part of me that is simply uncomfortable with the emotion being expressed by the other person. And for me, that is where I need to start in determining how to proceed. Perhaps none of this has anything to do with your experience, but if it does, then I think that there are a couple of considerations that could be useful. First of all, as Prairie mentioned above, it might be helpful to be more curious about what triggered the emotional response in the first place. In this case, the interpretation of the movie as "real" or "fake" may have had very little to do with the his response. And secondly, given that help is needed in correctly interpreting the event, it might be useful to create some distance between validating the child's emotions and correcting his interpretation... so just focusing on being present with him until you perceive that he feels understood. Then allow some time to elapse before correcting the interpretation-- and then do so without referring to his emotional response. Just some ideas here. I think it really depends on the situation. I mean you could go into different scenarios like what if the child is about to go to sleep (wouldn't it be good to explain things right away) etc, etc.

I took some notes when I read the book... here is one quote that I recorded that is interesting and relevant to this discussion: "Incentives will have a detrimental effect on performance when two conditions are met: first, when the task is interesting enough for subjects that the offer of incentives is a superfluous source of motivation; second, when the solution to the task is open-ended enough that the steps leading to a solution are not immediately obvious." This seems to suggest that when the task is uninteresting (at least in the beginning) and when the task is fairly straight forward, external incentives are not detrimental to the performance. Although this really says nothing about the outcome of the child's character... just the performance.

I'm also very interested in this topic, and I look forward to Stefan's review of the literature. Here's just a few thoughts/questions I've had about this topic... I've often heard the use of bribes/rewards justified on the basis that they are voluntary transactions... no different than any other exchange that occurs in the free market. But even if that were true, it does not necessarily follow that all voluntary transactions are equally effective in achieving a desired outcome. If there are important differences between paying an employee for labor and giving your child a sticker for practicing an instrument, what are they and why are they important? Is there a difference between rewarding a child for mowing the lawn vs rewarding him for brushing his teeth? The argument has been made that rewarding a child to perform a task ultimately decreases the child's internal motivation to perform that task. But for things like memorizing some basic math facts, does it matter that the child will not be motivated to memorize these math facts in the future? Once they are in his head, chances are they will be there to stay, no? It seems like there are a lot of things we do that require getting over a certain "hump" or past a certain point before they become enjoyable (like playing an instrument). I wonder if rewards could be useful in getting children past that point, so that their internal motivation can then carry them forward, without the need for future rewards. In the past, I have sometimes used a small reward as an incentive to get my children to try something or go somewhere new (that I think they will really enjoy). More often than not, they end up really enjoying the new experience and no longer need the reward to do it again. Now is the net affect of my using rewards in this manner going to be positive or negative? Will they always expect rewards in order to try something new (I know the anwser to that is "no", since most of the time I can still persuade them without rewards)? Am I not seeing some huge negative effect that will show up later in their lives? I have read the book "Punished by Rewards" and found it to be rather convincing. But while I think the use of rewards should be limited as much as possible, I'm still ambivilent about whether or not they should be avoided completely.

Yes BorisM, It seems difficult to make any progress in this discussion without first having some kind of a common understanding about concepts like rights, aggression, property, ownership etc. That being said, I think that it is possible to validate the essence of the non-aggression principle (using UPB) without using any of the concepts mentioned above. For instance, we can simply ask questions like, "Is it universally preferable behavior to not hit each other in the face?" or "Is it universally preferable that, if a person finds an unused piece of land and plants a garden there, that others should not take the produce without his permission"? Etc. Etc. Does this make sense?

I agree that the foundation for any approach that we take has to be a commitment to principled living. I think that once we get our own internal systems functioning properly, the optimal way for us to interact with and influence those around is will happen quite naturally. The internal family systems theory suggests that the way we interact with those around us is merely a reflection of how we relate to the individual parts within ourselves.

If you take my life, then you have violated my right to not be aggressed against physically. You have not violated my right to life. I'm not even sure what the right to life would mean. Actually I think that I agree with Culain on this one... I think it can become problematic to speak in terms of rights at all. I think I'll just simply state that I concur with the non-aggression principle... that it is universally preferrable to not initiate aggression against each other's person or property. What constitutes property? Well, that is, of course, what we are discussing here. I'm not sure I have anything significant to add to what has been said other than I don't think we can discard the homesteading principle by using the argument that we have a right to life. What does it mean to have a right to life (beyond what is stated in the NAP)?

Yes, but I think there is reason to believe that "having someone listen to me" could (potentially) lead to the ultimate goal of getting them to stop hitting their children. I agree that there is no guarantee. The likelihood may be very slim, but the question is "What is the approach that is most likely to result in the desired outcome"? I think you are right that, in the case of addicts, it is particularly hard to influence a behavioral change. I just got through reading "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" by Gabor Maté and completely agree with his conclusion that the most effective way to reach these people is to help them deal with the underlying pain. There is, of course, no obligation for us to do anything. But If behavioral change is the goal, I think there is value in at least being curious about different approaches and their potential for achieving that goal.

The argument from effect is not necessarily a negative approach at the personal level. We use the argument from effect all the time to justify our actions (and rightly so). In fact, it could be argued that everything we do, we ONLY do because of the argument from effect. My understanding of what Stef is saying in FDR1645 is that it is not valid to use the argument from effect to make justifications for violating the NAP.

I think there is some confusion in this thread as to the fundamental principle of libertarian theory. We do not have a "right" to life, nor do we have a right to homestead. The only right that we have is a negative right... the right not to have our person or property aggressed against by others. I just think we need to be careful not conflate the constitution with the NAP.

Ahren, I agree that just because one or two vaccines appear to be unnecessary, it does not follow that all vaccines are unnecessary. But when one vaccine is being pushed as absolutely essential (and you are told that you are putting your daughter's life in grave danger if you don't use it), and then it turns out that the vaccine is completely irrelevant, I don't think it is unreasonable to question the necessity of the other vaccines that are being pushed. I think that there is some room for curiosity here.

BorisM, The "use" of natural resources is necessary for survival, but not "ownership". I can borrow or rent natural resources. Every one of us requires the "permission" of others to survive when we first come into this world. We require the permission of our parents. We don't own anything except ourselves. From that starting point we begin the process (using our parents resources) of developing the ability to create value (either for ourselves or to exchange with others). And from there we can homestead (if that option is still available), work, trade, or receive gifts in order to obtain the necessities of life. We may or may not choose to own natural resources.

Ownership of natural resources is not required for survival. If a person is born into a free society where all of the natural resources are already legitimately owned, it just means that the "homesteading" method of obtaining wealth has been removed. But there are other options, like simply trading your labor or knowledge for wealth. And if everything is already owned, and we are talking about a free society, chances are that the opportunities for him to use his specific skills and talents to gain wealth will be abundant. He may also be gifted wealth as part of an inheritance. With the wealth that he acquires he may or may not choose to purchase "natural resources" from those who own them. He may be perfectly happing to live his entire life without ever owning a single natural resource.

Kirk and ThoughtTerrrorist, Thanks for your comments. Yeah, so far there doesn't seem to be any negative side affects in my daughter. Sorry to hear what happened to you, ThoughtTerrorist. My logic at the time was that either way, I was dealing with very remote probabilities. But the doctors scared me enough about the possibility of tetanus that I just went with the vaccine. I'm certainly no medical expert, so I appreciate your corrections. But yeah, the most compelling evidence for me are the stats (which don't require a lot of medical knowledge to understand). It certainly did feel like I was being bullied. Perhaps the most annoying thing to me was when the doctor kept saying "this really isn't about the vaccine... it's about your daughter's health." Super manipulative. I tried to correct him on the logic of that statement, but he kept on saying it. I'm kind of kicking myself now that I didn't think to ask the simple question, "what is the likelihood of my daughter actually getting tetanus if she does not receive the vaccine?" Surely, if the medical establishment is encouraging this as a routine practice, they should at least have some of those basic stats readily available.

Yesterday, my 2 year old daughter tripped while we were hiking. She fell down and hit her head on a flat rock which gave her a pretty bad cut. We weren't sure whether or not stitches would be required in order to preven scarring, so we took her to emergency just to be cautious. Up to that point, my daughter had not been vaccinated for tetanus. The doctor strongly recommended that she be given the vaccine as well as tetanus immunoglobulin in order to prevent infection. Initially, I told the doctor that I would rather not... that I would go home an research it a little further, and take her in that night if I though it was necessary. So he went away and came back with a second doctor. Together they used manipulation and scare tactics (no facts) to finally get me to aggree to the vaccine. Last night I did some research, and I am now very much regretting my decision. Not that I found a ton of evidence to suggest that I should be really worried about some adverse reaction from the vaccine... but what I did find is evidence that the vaccine was completely unnecessary. Here are some ot the things I found: 1. The liklihood of death from tetanus in Canada is roughly 1 in 6 million (and even if you make the assumption that immunization is 100% responsible for the decline in tetanus infection/deaths over the past several decades the likelihood only increases to 1 in 2 million). 2. It is nearly impossible to get a tetanus infection from an open (bleeding) wound since tetanus is an anaerobic infection. 3. A very high percentage (as high as 77%) of tetanus infections are from intravenous drug use (mostly affecting herroine addicts). 4. At least up until 2002 the US government admitted that only 60% of the population was immunized against tetanus. So even if you assumed the vaccine was 100% effective, you would only expect the frequency of infection to drop by 60%.. But the drop in the rate of infection is closer to 99.5%. 5. Of the known cases of infection in the US from 2001 until 2008, the percentage of vaccinated individuals was the same as the general population (ie. 60% of people who were infected with tetanus, had received the vaccination). 6. The rate of tetanus infections in the US was already on a rapid decline prior to the vaccination becoming commonly used. 7. "Unlike childhood diseases, it isn’t possible to gain natural immunity to tetanus. If you’ve had it once, you can have it again. The body does not produce antibodies to Clostridium Tetani. Vaccination is the act of injecting a viral or bacterial substance into the body to make it produce antibodies to that disease. However, since no natural antibodies can be made, then there is no possible way that artificial antibodies could be made either. If the disease cannot give you protection, then how can a vaccine?" Please let me know if you can find anything that contradicts/supports these findings. I apologize for the lack of citations. I just made a bunch of quick notes as I was going through the material last night. Most of this information comes from government sponsored websites. I can get you the sources if anyone is interested in something specific. (fyi.. no stitches were necessary for my daughter

Magenta, I think you have made some really great points here. Violence is only economically efficient when positive obligations are accepted. To put it another way... violence is only economically efficient in the absence of philosophy. This is the truth that, as you suggest, would quickly dismantle Peter Joseph's primary argument that leads him to reject a free society. Peter kept on suggesting that the free-market will inevitably lead to some sort of violent domination by a small group of people over others (the state). To us, that sounds like saying non-violence inevitably leads to violence, which is kind of bizarre thing to say. And I think Stefan focussed on this incoherent proposition in his counter-arguments. But this is what I think Peter was really saying... "Human beings (in their current and historical psychological condition), believing that things are scarce (and wanting to survive), are willing to initiate or accept violence as a means to get what they want or need." This is the statement that I think both Peter and Stefan could agree upon. Peter's solution: Human beings don't need to believe in this "scarcity" thing anymore. We now live in a world of abundance. Why adhere to such irrelevant and antiquated ways of looking at the world. Remove the belief in scarcity, and you automatically remove violence. Stefan's solution: Scarcity is a fundamental reality of the world we live in. Failing to acknowledge it will not make it go away. The only way to deal with the problem of violence is to promote philosophy and virtue (beginning with ourselves and in our own families). Perhaps a future debate might focus on the concept of scarcity and the idea that the rejection of philosophy is necessary in order for violence to be an economical approach for survival.

I'm so sorry to hear of this awful news. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to face such a prognosis. I'm guessing you probably don't want to hear a lot of eulogizing right now, but I would just like to say that I really appreciate your contibution to the quality and richness of my life. I am deeply saddened by this news, but am not giving up hope that I will have you as an engaging, entertaining, and enlightening "commuting companion" for years to come. I hope to meet you at "Liberty on the Rocks" in Toronto this month, if you are still planning on attending. Best wishes to you and your family.

Welcome aboard!

I think that one of the most important reasons for understanding our own histories is that it enables us to give ourselves the empathy that is required for real healing to take place. But as to whether or not the same sort of healing can come through some other means... I'm not sure. I think it is a really good question.

Have you ever considered the actuarial profession? It is very "math oriented". It pays very well. It is typically a low stress job. Having great computer skills is a big advantage for actuaries. I've been an associate actuary for several years now and quite enjoy my work. The down-side is that it requires a fairly significant investment in time and energy to progress through all of the exams and modules. Many would-be actuaries get burnt out with all of the time required to prepare for the exams. But you would certainly have an advantage with your degree in math. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me

LovePrevails: Thanks for your reply. Yes, I did take your prior comment as being aggressive, and maybe I took it a little too personally. In any case, I do appreciate your comments and enjoyed those youtube clips that you posted the links for. I think what I am finding is that it is hard to settle on any absolute rule for parenting, because it seems as though there are so many grey areas. For instance, I agree that it might not be in a childs best interests to pay him to do something which ought to be his responsibility to do in the first place. But who's responsibility is it to clean the childs room? Who's responsibility is it to clean up the forts made of blankets, chairs, and pillows in the living room? Maybe it is the wrong approach to even think in terms of responsibilities. What I've tried really hard to do during the past few months is to take a very respectful, non-coercive approach (not that I have ever spanked or anything like that) to interacting with my children... specifically in those cases where I have a need for something to be done that my children do not seem to have the same need for. For example, when I see a big pile of dishes in the kitchen sink, I will simply make a request (and make it very clear to my children that it is only a request and not a demand) that they help me to wash the dishes. What I'm finding is that my children have been responding quite positively to this approach. They won't always jump in and help, but I was actually quite pleasantly surprised to see how often they do. Still, there are times when this approach can be quite frustrating, specifically when I feel like what the thing that needs to be done ought to be the responsibility of the child in the first place. Maybe it is just my perspective that needs a bit more tweeking. Oh, and I actually do occasionally pay my children for odd jobs like cleaning the car, mowing the lawn, and other things like that

I find it intersting that you said this: Followed immediately by this: Just not sure how you can scientifically come to that conclusion when I have only been asking questions up to this point. I have never specifically said what I do or not do in relation to offering rewards or incentives to my children. I'm simply engaging in a philisophical discussion about parent/child relationships... trying to figure out through logic, reason, and emperical evidence how to achieve greater happiness in this area of my personal life. And even if I would have said that I sometimes pay my children to do odd jobs around the house, would your statement be objective and proveable? How much rewarding and/or manipulating would it take to "make a child selfish" and "rob him/her volition"? Does this "research" you are referring to address the option of putting a list of chores/compensation on the fridge for your children to pick and choose from at their own leisure?