andkon

If I dump a bag of trash on your lawn because it's more convenient for me than to pay a garbageman to pick it up, how is that 1) nature and 2) different from the convenience of dumping smoke into your lot (as opposed to finding more expensive ways on my part to minimize or eliminate the pollution)?

Well, that may be your answer. With that said, I will offer a short rebuttal to " humans are inherently bad so if there are no governments people will immediately start killing others to gain resources instead of trading": If humans are altruistic enough to agree upon and vote for a government, why create a monopoly with all its inherent inefficiencies (you wouldn't want to be told you can only buy one sort of shoe)? If people can cooperate enough to form a monopoly, why assume that if people formed several insurance-protection companies, there'd be chaos? Why resort to violence and not cooperation if the very premise is that people cooperate (at least long enough to form and maintain a government)?

Does he notice? Does that bother him?

After years of running a business and realizing that taxation was theft, I searched for alternatives to monopoly courts (everything else wasn't that hard to research or imagine) in maybe May 2012 and I found Stef's old LewRockwell articles.

Release the hounds lions!

I got another idea for a sitcom. You're a black gay atheist and your father is Steve Harvey:

If the woman who 1) took out the loans and 2) had consensual sex to have a child isn't responsible, then why are taxpayers who did neither of those things? When someone is forced to pay taxes, the taxing agency says, "You are responsible for this. If you don't pay it, you will go to prison, especially if you make a principled case against us." How is "society" at large more responsible to pay her bills than the woman herself?

Did you ask for the money?

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy

It's a relationship, so it's not a matter of I, but are both of you working it out? If you're the only one paddling... That doesn't sound like working it out, that's just walking on eggshells to minimize the damage. She's still in control when you're not raging by you managing the situation. Is she willing to go to couples' therapy and to listen to your concerns?

"Does the government have a monopoly on roads, or does the existence of toll roads mean it's not a monopoly?" Well, does any other organization get to put a tax on gasoline because they built the roads? Why doesn't government fund its operations the same way as the supermarket or a charity? The "leave it if you don't like it" argument is circular. The money the government used was taken from people by coercion to begin with. Imagine people paying for a road voluntarily like they would for a computer. Do they get to go around to gas stations and tax them because they promise to 1) let anyone use the roads and 2) let the taxed vote for the board of directors of the road company? That would be crazy, but why doesn't the state get to be special? Even worse: the original roadbuilders didn't even use their own money, but took it from others!

No difference, says science: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

"Ayn Rand can fuck off" Hey, look, it's bomb in the brain in the wild!

Interesting article from 2013, anyone have more info? Has this been discussed previously? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/psychopath-empathy-fail-use-switch-cure-disorder-494556

The Amazing Pope: http://libertariannuts.com/15-amazing-pope/

So God as pure act... how can we separate out act from physical beings as if we're separating egg yolk from the egg white? Does "actuality" just float somewhere? And how does it make sense to have this actuality outside of spacetime on top of that?

How do you know this?

Limited government? Ha, Ventura supports increasing the "minimum wage" via the state:

A question about the title. The only possible reference that I found above was that your mother liked to make attention seeking situations. So why is it I, attention whore?

It works on the website and as a download; I skipped around before and after 1:35:00 on both.

That's not necessarily the case. Many people say that spanking taught them to "act right" and "be respectful," but we know that's just the rationalizations of the abused.

Things to thank government for: {(>_<)} Then he mentions fire fighters and police. It's magical genie theory: only government (forcing people to pay for X) can provide X!

Well, all I can say is good luck! Often people will say they want to do something but then don't dedicate the time to do so. That's not the case here then. College might be a good idea to find like-minded people. If the engineering or business stuff is too complicated for you, a partner may help. Google (and so many other successful companies) was founded by two guys after all :-)

Your friend cannot empathize with her inner child: "my parents wooped me but I am not mad at them for doing so." Beating small kids is okay. It's nothing to get mad about. Let's change the conversation, okay? Is it surprising that she cannot empathize with your inner child and desperately evades the conversation? No. She has taken a stand: she's on the side of the abusers by not wanting to talk about it. This is co-dependence and enabling: the problem is not that mommy beats kids, it's that the victims talk about it. The overriding value is "politeness," that is, covering up child abuse: yours, hers, everyone's. You did give her a fair chance, she took, ran with it and got evasive: 1. It started with: "we are not at that level yet" (But... she doesn't talk to her best friend about a deep issue either, so that can't be the reason.) 2. So why have we not talked about my mother? Answer: "you never told me I could talk about your mom" 3. Alright.. talk about my mother all you want. Answer: "You dont just talk about someone elses mom" (The rule shift from "you didn't give me permission to talk about it" to "we can never talk about it.") 4. What about spousal abuse, can we never talk about that? Answer: "but thats a different situation" because??? 5. So why shouldn't we talk about abusive mothers again? Answer: "I dont want to hurt her [victim's] feelings" So her value is that it's better to not talk about abuse because talking about abuse hurts... the victim? If the roles were husband and wife, well, that's a different situation.

The idea that from 1450 has been decay is nonsense. People in the West where capitalism emerged stopped starving. This is History 101, even socialists have to grudingly admit it: they may say that they can manage the capital better. The idea that Dark and pre-Renaissance Ages had "stability" is true with an asterisk: people were stably poor and starving. Credit money has no opportunity cost... all they did was split the opportunity cost and risk cost between two parties and pretend they did something. Look, money confuses people. Just picture barter without money... or that money stands for real stuff. Instead of gold or credit or whatever, imagine goats. So you get lent ten goats, with an interest of one extra goat (they reproduce -- you get to keep any extra goats on top of that) due in three years. The goat-bank then has ten goat notes and expects an extra goat note to be made. But whatever money or credit is lent out: there MUST BE something of value to cover them. If you have ten goat notes but five goats die, ten goat notes are redeemable for only five goats now (2 notes for 1 goat, instead of 1 note for 1 goat). Simply making up credit or notes without anything backing them means inflation. There is no free lunch!