cab21

how?

what have you been doing in your unschooling, and how have you been doing it? why/how do you have complete freedom now? how has your unschooling helped you learn about and form goals about publishing? so here you can compare different school philosophies. looks like you just have expirence in unschooling, so interviews with others who have done other types can get real experence from people for the comparison and contrasting. what is already out there about the philosophy of unschooling, and how can you use your life and stories to show the philosophies in practice, and the stories of others? what ideas do you currently have for your book? what is the outline? a few questions thought of to start with how do you communicate? how do you get the resources you want to learn from? how do you think about how you use your time and other resources? what is the philosophy about your relationship with yourself and others? What is your relationship with nature and your place in the world?

well i just read exam, not written exam in your quote a person can be tested on their ability to perform as a doctor, it does not have to just be some written exam. what i am saying is that for a shoe maker, making the shoe IS the exam. being good at making shoes IS the exam.

how would a empirical exam be anti-empirical? would you like a doctor that has not done any empirical exams , and has not been graded on his abilities as a doctor? who would you rather go with for a important surgery, a doctor that has successfully performed the operation many times, or a person who has not taking any exams or been graded at all and thus has no history or testimonials of doing the surgery?

should we go back and throw out any technology invented by people with a religion? that would turn the usa into a third world country i don't know what state you have, but huge numbers of state education workers have a religion. our politicians can't even get elected without religion

because people funding the WHO want the money?

so the section says “What do I need in this moment?” A cop to someone driving a car: "i need you to pull over" if the person says no this is a situation where the driver was initiating the violence right, or is the cop pulling the driver over without the authority to do so? A teacher to a student: "i need you to do your homework" if the person says no the teacher response is still to fire the student The IRS to a taxpayer: "i need you to give us money" if the person says no the response is to still take steps to receive the money by the law. A parent to a child: "i need you to go to bed" if the child says no a parents next option is maybe to say 'i need you to X" if the child still says no is there really a effort on the child parts to listen to the needs of the parent if the parent says "what do you need to go to bed", the parent has in return asked about the needs of the child then the parent is stuck in some negotiation with a child where the child can say whatever. and it's just rejecting needs from both sides

what is the context of the rules here? are these rules to stay alive? are these rules to give the parents dominance over the child at the whim of the parents? are these ruled agreed to by both the child and parents? are these rules about establishing order and ownership( not of the child, but of the living space) in the outside example, telling someone they can't leave the parents house is taking away a option that they could do. it's stealing a choice to say a person can't just leave the house and die or whatever consequences happen from going outside. someone does not have to pull over after committing a murder/ grand theft auto someone does not have to pay a dept after signing a contract agreeing to pay the dept but in each of those cases, refusing to comply, and taking different options, is a resistance that is itself a escalation of violence. i guess if someone randomly walked up and said "you have to" sure, that person is initiating the violence. i'm just not used to people saying "you have to" randomly putting unneeded limits on rational options is a threat, but having rational rules against irrational options does not seem like such a violation "you have to make sure the water is not too hot and not too cold, before you give your child a bath" i would say "you have to" in this example only eliminates irrational options.

i did establish a whole range of options for the child in the home with options to work within the rules of the parents. say a guardian does not give the child the option of leaving "You have to stay in the house". does that make the person abusive? if its staying in the house or death, perhaps that's in the realm of physics, but sleep is as well a child that does not sleep will die. if a child has no choice but to stay in the house, the child also has no choice but to go to sleep. i think a simple "you have to" lacks context

did the parents create the brutal winter? this is the same argument people use to say the state needs to tax people to provide all sorts of services to people, is it not? the parents are not creating the winter to create a hostage situation. the parents are offering a home as a alternative to a brutal winter that the parents did not create i don't think the only option a parent has for noncompliance is to spank repeatedly while ignoring cry's for mercy, as the OP seemed to suggest. "have to" , is command like, rather than request like, but the consequences of not following that command have more options on the table than spanking or abuse maybe it's just that the way school rules were taught "you have to look both ways before you cross the street", it was not " or we will beat your ass" is was "or you could be hit by a car" that vs "i choose to ask you to look both ways before you cross the street, because i want you to cross the street safely and i value your saftly" neither of these were threats for a punishment if the direction or request was not followed. i don' think it would be great for a parent to say " its your choice how you cross the street" and just let the child run in front of a car to get hit.

the parents can give the child up for adoption the child could choose to leave on the childs own if the child is dependant on those particular parents, why not listen to the parents request for the child to leave the parents room and go to the childs bedroom which the parents are providing for the child?

a child is not a parents property a child is a guest in the parents house. a child would not have a higher status than the parents on the parents property

why would it not have any "have to"s? if someone is not interested in the material, why are they paying the person giving out the material? why would a teacher want to teach someone not interested in the material, when the teacher could instead go teach someone who is? i don't mean "have to" as a threat, just that it makes sense to discontinue if the person is not doing the homework, since that seems to be a waste of time for both the teacher and the student. if the teacher did not think the homework was essential, why would a student want such a teacher? if the student did not think the homework was essential, why would a teacher want such a student? i'm assuming someone is not doing the homework because it's no longer a win win situation, and it would be better for each to find win win's i thought behavior was based on laws of physics? laws of win win situations still have "have to"s do they not? well i thought "go to bed" meant "go to bedroom" trying to force someone to sleep on command just sounds absurd. sure there are other choices, such as leave the house, that don't assume a parent beating the shit out of the kid someone could provide choices "have to leave the room, or leave the house" maybe i'm just looking at commands as a response to tresspass if a robber breaks in, "you have to get off my property" seems more sound than " you have many options, one option is to leave my property". sometimes choices need to be eliminated,such as in self defence, but sure, if there is no reason to eliminate choices, that can be agression to then limit choices. i'm not seeing the difference "you have to" is already a demand, so it seems the same as saying " i will demand that you" both seem inivitable, unless the person is does not mean what the person says and is not willing to back up the demand. saying "if you do x, you will have to y," leaves many options for the person not doing X, but only one option if the person does do X i choose to ask you to leave my room, because i want to rest. so the cop turns into i choose to pull you over, because i want people to follow the rules of the road and my job is to keep the road safe and and stop violators of the road. teacher to student becomes, i choose to ask you to do your homework, because i want my students to value what i teach and respect my time i don't have one for irs but loan collector to loan debter i choose to ask you to pay your bills, because i want my contracts honered and need to money to support my loan business.

i would think a voluntary relationship would be better if the person does not want to do homework, the person simply fails or gets kicked out of the class, and does not get a refund why should a teacher waste time with a person who does not even participate in the class? have to is also just a cause and effect relationship if someone wants to climb a mountain, they have to climb up, there is no threat if the person does not climb up, the person simply won't climb to the top of the mountain that way it seems like a valid way to say someone has to do something as a attempt to convince it's one thing if a person says another has to do something, or the person will initate agression, thats a thread, and another if the person is just talking about consequences of not doing something or the consequences of doing something say someone says, "you have to stop getting drunk, or you will have to move out of my house" is there a threat there, or is a person just laying out the conditions for the voluntary relationship to work? where did you get "or i am going to get mean and threatening" from? " you have to leave my room after Xpm" is this supposed to be a negotiation every time you want someone to leave your space? "i'm requesting you go to bed"

the owner of the road says to someone driving a car:"You have to pull over"Real meaning:you are breaching a contract and must face the consequences or contracts are meaningless. you are violating the rules of the road and being a danger to others. my responsibility to paying customers is to provide a safe environment and your actions are creating a unsafe environment. A teacher to a student:"You have to do your homework"Real meaning:i will stop teaching you if you don't do your homework, as you agreed that you would do, before i agreed to teach you. you have to do your homework if you want to progress and learn what i am trying to teach you. The bill collector to a bill payer"You have to give us money"Real meaning:you need to fulfill your end of the deal, or else you are violating the contract and initiating force against the company that agreed to give you a loan in exchange for you paying it back A parent to a child:"You have to go to bed"Real meaning:i'm choosing to look after your health, going to bed is good for your health, so you have to go to bed in order to get enough sleep to remain healthy. i'll help you in the process of going to bed so that you enjoy the experience and learn the importance of sleep for your health.

the currency problem i think has the same principle, of legalizing competition of currency and competition of banking that does with that. i don't even know how people do the downvotes on the forum, that part of the forum seems a bit strange.

say producing and selling weed becomes legal job creation in general creates a better economy. if there is a market for weed, people will sell and buy it if weed increases health or productivity, that can lead to people doing more work, or inventing ways to increase productivity increased productivity will increase wealth increased wealth will increase the economy will it somehow end all economic problems? no is it part of a economic law that allows increased growth? i think yes.

there are articles of 12, 9 , 7 all sorts of numbers of different types http://www.cerconelearning.com/12Intelligences.html http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html

perhaps as to how human knoledge will enable less violence from the state getting out of controlling weed meaning better economics such as showing how legalization of weed( or the separation of state from economy) will create a better economy base on a epistemology foundation

what are these 12?

i thought i saw in the news that the state government is drafting legislation that would kill business ideas like this? what is the legal environment for such a business now and in the future?

so what are your epistemology stances?

so where are you now? what kind of work are you looking for?

going the full way is the thought changing how people think is part of it.

well if the argument is that ending government infringement on free markets will lead to jobs and wealth, that seems reasonable. with that, it's about a principle