andkon

Count me in, I'm interested.

The URL in your original post has a few extra spaces/characters. This is correct: http://www.meetup.com/Vancouver-Peaceful-Parenting-Meetup/

Here's a short video explaining Friedman's private defense agency from his book Machinery of Freedom:

My *guess* is that it pinpoints the location of the "shooter" very easily.

Yet: large businesses started as small businesses and there's millions of small businesses in America despite companies that have revenues in the hundreds of billions Sometimes there's an advantage to being small and sometimes an advantage to being big (ie. economies of scale). Now it's gone so that's good :-)

Sure, if we assume Netscape is only browsers. Netscape could have raised revenue by expanding their services, even if they offered a free browser to match Microsoft's offer. Imagine if they made a good search engine on the Netscape homepage or any of the hundreds of ideas that other companies had around that time. They instead choose to stand still and not innovate.

Destroyed? They set arson fires? Customers could always buy Netscape. Customers did not buy Netscape, however. How is this "destruction"? One company apparently offered a better product, as judged by customers' preferences.

1. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has IQs that are quite low. Now, are they measuring the IQ of people who live then and there? If so, how do they factor out the environment (war, famine, lack of education, worse parents, etc)? Are there any scores of SSA children who moved into higher IQ areas, etc? 2. Some people are innately better at singing. Likewise, some people could be innately better at what IQ tests for (e.g., pattern recognition). The real question is: just as with singing ability, how much flexibility is there in improving IQ scores? Can innately untalented singers be made better, by how much? Analogously, what studies are there on trying to improve IQ scores through education?

If FDR was a medical podcast that 1) helped you personally to reduce your risk or eliminate a disease entirely and 2) offered to help more people do the same in the future, would you be a bad person if you didn't donate?

But Stef is not an irrational priest. Priests may exploit and tap into most people's innate charity and desire to be good. They say, "This is a good thing. Do the right thing." But is it a good thing? That's the fundamental question. So I don't think it's exploitation to say the same thing as a priest ("This is good thing. Do right thing.") when it is in fact a good thing. Stef previously used a story in which a dog runs off when it sees someone lift up a rake. (A rake was probably used to beat the dog and thus the dog has a negative association.) But is a rake an inherently bad thing? Well, no. It's a tool that can be used for good. It may be that requests to do the right thing is your rake. You were told to do the right thing before but it was for exploitative ends, so you associate ANY request to do the right thing with the inevitable con that follows.

If you have Microsoft Word, they have templates included: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Brochures-on-Microsoft-Word If you have a decent BW laser printer, you can print out a copy for a penny or two.

That could be it. I think it may be that NVC proper is a subset of all generic non-violent communications yet the generic group name also refers to a distinct member of that group. As a parallel, in the South, coke is used to refer to the whole class of soft drinks of which the specific product Coca-Cola (coke) is also a member. See generic trademark for more examples (like how Kleenex can refer to any tissues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

If the premise is that a group of people (a corporation) will cut corners and not care, why doesn't that apply to the group of people calling itself the government? At least corporations have an incentive and price system to care and make better decisions.

As with many, he's confusing the means and the ends. We need security, we need someone to put out fires, and we need paved roads. But how they're funded, that's the question.

Do you have another source? I get the following: An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.e335d417.1428897075.336db564

It seems like this was the main problem. I imagine it would have been the same huge hole if there was a stepfather instead of another mother, especially if the father "didn't bother coming around anymore"... what does this have to do with gay marriage though? It's a divorce plus deadbeat father. Would a single mother have been better?

I got a 1450 on the SAT I about a decade ago (10 points higher on verbal than math), before they added the third section. If this conversion chart is to be believed, it's in the 140's.

A valid argument against Stef('s arguments or statements) could take the form: On show #x, at minute y, Stef says "z." This is incorrect or false because ________. Compare to the OP in the linked thread: "I tried to watch one [call-in show] today, and just couldn't. It was a call-in, and Stef just went immediately into, well... I had to tune out." Which one was it? What did he say and why was it well... worthy of tuning out? This is just the argument from intimidation. "Dude, I can't believe Stef even said that! It was just sooo bad!" (But what did he say? And why was it bad?) Then there's name-calling without providing any examples... which is a "complete mean-spirited ass" and "total dick" thing to do. Oh, the irony. Speaking of providing evidence for efficacy, where's his evidence? Moral arguments don't work? So why is it that so many ancaps say that they were turned that way by Stef and his arguments? I don't have a number for it, but it's common enough to invalidate the idea that it's "irrelevant" much less for "anyone." I especially LOVE this because often the other criticism is that "Moly" has gone off the deep end because he's "shitposting about sex and women lately." So which is it? Is there no new content period or is the near daily new content complete crap? The food is bad and there's not enough of it! The OP in the reddit thread shows no curiosity and does not say why the show was apparently so terrible that well, he just had to tune out. It just is. You can't win them all, especially those who refuse to articulate what their criticisms even are. A lot of people just issue these vague discontented statements because it's a substitute for attacking what they really can't. The OP says later in the thread: "For example, his vehement atheism is beyond any kind of reason" and "It takes a degree of maturity to allow other people to live their lives in ways that we may not agree with. Stefan is incapable of rising to that maturity level, as are many atheists." (Yeah, maturity.) So the guy is emotionally uncomfortable about atheism but can't offer any actual arguments so of course it's easier to just tune out than to either 1) address the actual arguments or 2) address the emotional discomfort. The shows I imagine are easier and cheaper to produce since it's two people talking. No research is necessary, no travel expenses, it's just a free flow of often personal topics that is in such low supply anyways. Since the shows (IIRC) are still the most downloaded files, that seems like a better payoff than spending a week traveling to get a few hundred people in a room somewhere.

Yeah, they never really go into it ironing out the details. It's the Nirvana Fallacy of "capitalism is bad, therefore this commune stuff must be better." Well no. A conventional medicine may only cure 50% of the ill, but the snake oil may be even worse. Rothbard wrote a short essay on this topic: http://mises.org/library/syndical-syndrome

Doubt it. It gives them more pretend-work to unfold the bills. They can hire more government workers as well.

TL;DR Version: Karen: [insert complicated history of suffrage] Cenk: Yada, yada, are you thankful for the vote or are you going to blobby blah?!! I thought we're having a rational conversation but you refuse to fit into my black-and-white dichotomy!

In some sense he's correct that it's a social contract. If enough people (the social part) don't enforce it, it's not going to work. To say that it's an imposition on him though is conflating a rapist with a rape victim. Not being allowed to steal from others is not imposition, only the stealing is. Why does he favor the coercive state solutions over non-coercive solutions?

Murray Rothbard considered this in his essay, "Ludwig von Mises and Economic Calculation Under Socialism": http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Moss/mslLvM5.html (The relevant sections start at 5.25) If a large firm started to experience the diseconomies of scale (inefficiency due to its large size), smaller companies would indeed be able to take advantage and offer similar products at a lower price or higher quality.

It depends on your location. Saudi Arabia and France are not places from which I'd want to write.

And if I heave my garbage bag, it also goes into the air (and then lands in your yard). Look, I'm not twirling my mustache hoping that it lands on your head or breaks a window. I don't even know if it's going to land in your specific yard as it could land in other neighbors' yards. But it will impose a slight burden on someone else, as with car pollution. Also, it's cheaper for me to throw it in the air and have it impose a burden on someone else than for me to hire a garbageman (which costs more than my heave-and-don't-worry strategy). Same with car pollution: you could buy a cleaner engine (or whatever) that costs more for you to reduce the harm to someone. Whether little pollution from you in particular violates the NAP because your small pollution doesn't give anyone cancer doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, lots of small harms do add up and might cause some extra cancer in some people. This is the tragedy of the commons/negative externality. Also, how much is minimal? It may be cheaper to build a more polluting engine. If you spend an extra $10, that may take out 80% of the pollution, extra $100 may take out 90%, extra $1000 may take out 95%, and extra $10000 may take out 99%. Which do you choose?