tasmlab

That's the only job they can get! If Harvard releases x many scholars on metaphysics every year and the one Harvard position is taken, they have to teach elsewhere. There's not much market demand for metaphysics except at churches. Losing $4K isn't bad. It's crummy but isn't enough to change anybody's life here in the US. Easily survivable. I just sold my house for $125K less than I paid. Once it's gone, you probably won't miss it.

I think Schiff made most of those points, particularly if you make some assumptions on his statement that bitcoin represents some improvements over money and gold. I think the intrinsic value he is speaking off is gold's non-money use e.g., making jewelry for women, which bitcoin doesn't do well.

So are you looking for a refund from the college? Is that your complaint? It's not clear from your post. If that's the case, you shouldn't burn stress over the money. It's a triple-penalty, you lose the money, you don't get the classes and you get to be stressed and tired. Try to drop the last to minimize your losses. You don't want the classes so that's fine. If you want to try and get the money, pester the university with constant requests and appeals but don't expect much. Do so heartlessly with just the intention to annoy. Or if they haven't invoiced you, consider just not paying. On the college decision in general, a liberal arts degree only gets you your first entry level job and then nobody ever cares about it. So unless you crave the knowledge (and college isn't a great place to acquire knowledge) than just happily bail. IMO.

I thought location would be helpful, but it wasn't ;- My recommendation* would be to move to a student ghetto. When I was in college, we'd live in cheap houses, sometimes up to 7 housemates or so (essential to have roomates) and everybody was just situationally poor but nice people with ambition. Anytime we attempted to move to a regular poor neighborhood we met lots of psychos and criminals, get robbed, see guns etc., When I moved to Boston at 22 yrs old I took the same strategy, finding neighborhoods where college kids lived. The prices were comparable to the poor neighborhoods but the population was smart and engaged, not insane/systemically poor/criminal/losers. * From a stranger on the internet who hasn't sniffed low-income in 20 years.

This debate of Sam Harris vs. Deepak Chopra is annoying. Highly not recommended: Basically, it seems Chopra has invented a lot of his own spiritual fantasy. Maybe some of it is emotionally comforting or helpful, but it doesn't seem to be true.

What city/state/country do you live in? There's nice places too.

If you are young, there's nothing wrong with being poor for a while. You're supposed to be. Find a room in a house with other young folks and live pay check to pay check and own/consume almost nothing. Learn how to work. If you can provide value on YouTube, you probably have more marketable skills than flipping burgers.

This sounds right. The only reason to invest so much explanation in a 'see ya later' is probably to do some hail mary to get her back/in the swing. (casual observation from stranger on the internet). Converting someone to anarchy/atheism also sounds like a rough nugget to put into an early relationship. But then we all know that we've picked a tough road. Political views don't matter much, IMO, since studying politics is a hobby.

Oil is a pretty fucked up fascistic business. Our petrodollar status is enforced militarily, the oil companies have bought their oiline security through warfare and claiming rights in the foreign land, the banking sector (and perhaps economy) relies on petrodollar status, the MIC needs the reason to fight and further fleece US taxpayers whilst murdering innocents. And then it isn't uncommon for the citizens to be ruled by dictators and theocracies in those countries. (mostly speaking of middle east) I'm not sure the 'people' of the country have much to do with it. The price could be anything and great hordes of the population would still be poor, I think. But Statoil in Norway seems to produce tremendous wealth for the citizens. Supposedly things are bonkers in North Dakota where menial Mc-Jobs are paying pretty high. I digress, but I do some work in the oil industry. Some of the most delightful people to work with. This thread should probably be under 'economics'

We've had it in Massachusetts for six years. The online exchange is the only shopping place, they will not allow you to buy it outside of the site. Low cost insurance (catastrophic) is illegal due to coverage laws. There's a one month a year (August) where you can buy or switch plans. You can't do anything otherwise. If you don't comply, there is the mandate: a fee paid to the government for 1/2 of the least expensive plan. Both the enrollment period and the mandate are to prevent you from only signing up for insurance only if and when you are sick. The no pre-existing conditions rule. Without the above, they would quickly go bankrupt. The state negotiates rates with the insurers, thereby destroying the pricing system. Premiums go up 17% per year, predictably. The made-to-pay/mandate system has a republicanny sense of personal responsibility or markets, but it is no different if they just made us pay more taxes and then gave the healthcare corporations the money. It's wholesale fascism / third position economics, but nobody in the media or government says that out loud. In MA, the subsidies are generous. If you have a large family, for example, you can be low income and subsidized with a $108K salary. The care itself so far is superb. But I think that is going to diminish quickly. Esp after people start beefing on the price. I could write another 5,000 words on this. Let me know if there is something else you'd like to know. __________________ Here's a reply I've written in the past: MY STORY WITH ROMNEY/OBAMA CARE (surely a re-post) As politically neutral as I can be, I'll describe my experience under the past seven years of Romneycare (the model for this bill) in Massachusetts where I was just an ordinary guy who bought health insurance for the sole and boring purpose of taking my family to the doctor and hedging against catastrophic acute interventions. My first plan I bought on my own around 2004-2005 was about $350/month for husband/wife. I didn't replicate my previous employer plan, as it was too expensive. By around 2006, I had a baby and had to upgrade to a family plan, the premium was about $1,100 per month. Or about $13,000 per year. No deductible, minimal co-pays. No co-insurance. THE MECHANICS OF THE SYSTEM How it works is you go to a website (the connector) and shop for different plans from different HMOs. They are rated Gold, Silver, and Bronze for quality and have different sub-levels based on coverage and premiums. You are only allowed to switch plan for two months out of the year and then are locked in. These two months are the 'enrollment period'. If you are low income, the government will subsidize your payment i.e., they will send a check to the corporate HMO on your behalf. The qualifications are generous. If you have a big family for example, you can earn $108,000/year and still be considered low-income. The HMO, like an employer, sends everybody a special 1099 type document that you file with your taxes. If you don't have one, you get a fine. This is the 'mandate'. The penalty is 50% of the lowest premium. Currently that would be about $6,000 and you still would not have insurance, just the regular bad-debt ER room crap that many endure now. The mandate is the counterweight to the "no pre-existing conditions" aspect. Neither can function without the other. Without the mandate, you wouldn't bother to pay premiums until you needed care. Even that first night in the hospital after the heart attack would be less expensive without insurance than paying the premium month after month. Just to keep this straight - Penalties are paid to the govt - Premiums are paid to the HMO corporations - Subsidies ultimately get paid to the HMO corporations - HMOs pay doctors and hospital systems - Medicare payments are from govt to HMO corporations MORE ABOUT ME So by around 2009 or so my premiums had grown to $1,550 per month or about $19,000 per year. No deductible, reasonable co-pays. Had I stuck with my employer's plan it would've been around $26,000 per year. Finding this rate unattractive, I downgraded to a plan that was only $700/month but had a $10,000 deductible and more meaty co-pays and fewer things covered. For example, ER visits would be $500 co-pay. THE STATE PROTECTS THE CONSUMER AGAINST PRICE GOUGING Premiums are actually negotiated by the state government on the public's behalf by our democratically elected representatives. This is the public's safeguard that the companies won't gouge us. I've gotten several letters in the mail from the state explaining how they have frozen and reversed previous decisions. Rates rise about 15-17% annually. This is a great case study for monopoly buyer vs. monopoly seller, but we can do economics lessons some other time. By 2012 this exact same plan had rose from $700 to $1,200 per month, or around $14,000/year. $10,000 deductible, same coverage. This year I've now switched to the lowest tier of the Bronze i.e., the very lowest payment to be compliant with the law. $970/month or about $12,000 per year. This is the absolutely lowest level of coverage available with the most out-of-pocket cost and the narrowest of provider networks. GREAT CARE The care we receive is generally superb. We go to the doctor frequently. We pursue anything and everything medically. I even got an MRI once because my golf swing was causing me pain in my shoulder. So, congrats everybody. I personally wish it was done differently.

I imagine it would be hard for any logicky atheist to devise traditions and be able to recommend/do them with a straight face. But then many/most adopt the existing ones without a problem. For example, my family is going to erect a dead pine tree in our living room next month and hang glass balls on it and then sneak presents under it while the kids are sleeping. For moderate Christians, we really only have Christmas and Easter as religious holidays. In the US, our holidays include Presidents day, MLK day, veterans day, memorial day, independence day, and labor day - all government-bred holidays. Could non-statists come up with a holiday? (the leftovers: mothers day, St. Patricks day (religious?), fathers day, halloween, thanksgiving) Halloween isn't a bad secular holiday.

I read once that prior to about 150 years ago, the third largest cause of human death was diarrhea. There must be a thousand little quips like this that would make most shudder at the thought of primitivism. IMO.

Yan, I have to admit, that angry profile pick of yours makes me read each of your posts like it is in an angry growl. It's very effective. As for atheism as a main topic, doesn't a thread like this make the case that people want to discuss it?

Armitage, on 14 Nov 2013 - 8:04 PM, said: Be careful, Stef's a bit of a delicate flower when it comes to hearing these things. You may break his heart. Let me reflect on this point in particular: In my experience, interacting in the market is rarely a competitive situation. You don't, for example, compete with your grocer, your landlord, your employer, your employees, the stores you frequent, the service people you hire (plumber, lawyer, etc.), your dependents (children), your parents or almost anybody whom you interact with economically. The brief bits of personal competition come in those infrequent times one is frictionally unemployed, up for a promotion, or if they happen to be a salesman or entrepreneur by trade, a minority of people who sign up for a competitive job. So to characterize free economic association almost always cooperation may indeed be the rule, not the exception. I will concede that government is a powerful and destructive tool in the hands of competitive corporations. I think it is important to remember that capitalism isn't a system that is employed to achieve something. It's a lack of a system. It's free people interacting as they choose (presuming they are not stealing as you mention earlier). So any alternative that injects control, coercion or a layer of rules will be thrown out on first principles.

To be nit picky, you didn't mean fascistic (as it had nothing to do with fascism) but more like 'absolute'. Yea, working does suck it. I don't think Stef would deny that there are unhappy parts of being an economic actor. We don't know how the mix of good or bad would be in a free market economy. I admit that libertarians tend to have a positive projection of a free market, but it is a sight unseen at this time. One of the things about the Peter/Stef debate that bothered me was that Peter seemed to think government was a product of markets, and this meant there could be no discussion about a free market vs. a hybrid (i.e., fascistic) economy. And this makes the 'market' a thing when it's really an anti-concept like atheism or freedom. It doesn't describe what it does, it describes what it is missing. In this case, violence. And by violence I mean the plain-ole understanding e.g., actively hitting people, shooting people not the way violence is being bandied in this thread where it means any category of suffering or unpleasantness regardless of where it comes from.

One of my main personal goals in economic terms is to spend as little time possible working while making as much as possible, which is why I'm a big fan of hiring employees and selling things for less than they cost me. I'm not sure this system would work well for me. Sounds like it might be terrible for landlords or people who owned parking lots.

Hi Armitage, I'm confused on two things. When you use the word "fascistic" do you mean the common definition of third position economics that is collusion between corporations and government paired with a strong promotion of nationalism and militarization, or some other meaning? It would be tough to imagine SM of all people promoting govt' corporatism and nationalism. What is the libertarian tunnel-vision specifically? You mention it often but I still didn't grasp what it was. Thanks in advance!

Our 2 year old wasn't talking much, so we enlisted a speech counselor*. As part of the therapy/lessons, she taught her a few signs that were helpful. "More" and "all done" are the ones most frequently used and it did end some frustration my daughter was having. Now about six months later, she's talking a lot and still signs "more" and "all done" but says them too. I don't have any massive opinion either way, but this was helpful for my family. We did have a 'teach your baby to sign' video, but they taught words like "dinosaur" and "duck" which didn't make any sense to me since the most important communications were day to day stuff like "can I have more food" or "I want water". * Free from the state! What's a principled ancap to do...

Can it be as simple as being a preference? It's easy to run into somebody who doesn't like beer or the beach or Woody Allen movies and we just write it off as different strokes for different folks, not necessarily a flaw. For my own taste, having kids has been bonkers awesome. It's a lot of fun and a lot of work. My three are my best friends and it's crazy to think that they might not have existed. My situation was too easy as well (I make good money, I work at home, my wife is full time mommy, stable loving marriage of 15 years and counting) I guess not wanting kids or not choosing to for certain reasons is fine, but I tend to feel sorry for people who decided to not have them for reasons such as it would've changed their identity or they didn't want them to experience this world (as if there was another) or it would've wrecked their career or other reasons that would spark regret. It's such a big beautiful part of life to skip.

Nope, I managed to do that with my wife's parents and her family. My sister and I clashed on this brutally and my mother would appease whomever she was talking to at the moment. To your last point, there wasn't much of that in that sense. More accurately, people I didn't know would tell ME how I should personally feel or would try to describe my emotions. They didn't reveal their own (I was unclear in my earlier post). A few speeches at the podium but they were rehearsed. My mother's boyfriend was genuine and crushed and we empathized a lot with each over the two days, as much as anybody. Sorry for your loss. My week with death was brutal. This is the first person who I really cared about that died. I guess the religious stuff is comforting to the family, it maybe seemed that way with mine. But it would be easy to imagine comfort without it too.

In Dr. Paul's new book, The School Revolution, he plainly says in the first few pages that political activity is completely ineffective in creating change or pursuing liberty. If for no other reason than to attract more budding libertarians to FDR, Stef should absolutely have Dr. Paul as a guest or be a guest on Paul's new channel. They could talk about homeschooling.

I just buried my mother last week. Very painful. The funeral through FDR-eyes was pretty abysmal. The religious service was complete nonsense, and I don't mean like "this isn't objective reality" I mean what comes out of the preachers mouth does not even make sense as English sentences e.g., "Come hither unto god with rod and stone, for he who sense the butchered cast into shadow..." for a half hour. Everybody nodded along and nobody really understood a word. The random gathering of family was tough too. So arbitrary. As the son, I was sort of the main guy at the funeral (along with my sister and mother's long-time boyfriend). It was a real collection of familial nut jobs, and too many people I barely knew either hugged me or told me deeply personal information. It was the worst day of my life for a lot of reasons. Only once did my atheism come up, I heard another group talking about it, wondering if I would be OK with the religious stuff. My sister is full-on evangelical go-to-church three times a week religious crazy. But, yea, my strategy was to keep my mouth shut and not use the event as a springboard for a metaphysical debate. There was already enough grief and insanity in the room without it. (I was going to start my own thread on this topic, sorry if I made my post too much about me)

I digress, but I wonder if today's Western world would look 'scarcity-free' to someone living in the 1600s or even the early 1900s. You could paint this great picture where even the poorest American has an abundance of food (to the point of obesity), indoor plumbing, housing, medical care, a phone, a computer, a television, etc. That person imagining this in the 1600s would assume that we'd be all done progressing. We made it! they might think. But really, they wouldn't even have imagined it that way. Their idea of scarcity free would just look like how the king lived sans medical care and a toilet. Could our TZMers be similarly lacking in imagination?

To waste their money of course! Romney sent me huge packages for months, including several handsome 8x10 photos of him standing by a barn. I wouldn't be surprised if he spent $100 sending me campaign material. Obama wasn't nearly as aggressive. I just got a sticker and a few letters and never-ending email. I also wanted to hear the direct messages they were sending. And it was good info for cocktail parties and the like.

Dentistry. Most appointments are $100 for full 30 minute cleanings/check-ups. Even majorish surgery with anesthesiologists is only $1000. My wife had her four wisdom teeth out for $1,200 recently. Hospital equivalent would've probably been in the neighborhood of $15,000 or more. They glom on to their customers, insisting that they come back every six months and even borderline harass with calls and post cards. You never see a doctor do that. They are also handy with para-professionals, so patients aren't constantly seeing the Dr. herself. And this is just because it is more free market, they could still do away with licensure and legalize pharma to get the costs even lower.