Mister Mister

^he makes a good point. Also I'm not sure exactly what it is you're advocating. To institute a "True Democracy"??? You may be barking up the wrong tree here, as Liberty and Philosophy and Reason are not consistent with Mob Rule.

it's summed up in his conclusion quite nicely.

That is not how governments come about ever. http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/156/the-social-contract-part-2-facts

what surprising or shocking facts would come up about Malcolm? My impression is that he was taken in by the more militant and fanatical Muslim extremists, which is obviously not good. But he also encouraged some degree of self-reliance, and the right of blacks to self-defense, whereas MLK and others turned the other cheek, and went to the State for help. He was also critical of black leaders for "making deals" with the Democratic Party with its history of racism. He also began to stray from the Nation of Islam doctrine and encouraged a less hostile tone, which may have been what got him killed. So there's some good stuff and some bad stuff there from what little I know.

I agree with you. All morality is objective.

How very passive aggressive of you. Did you learn that from your mother? I still have a suspicion you are kidding. Your scenarios are so ridiculous, I thought you were being clever, spoofing the people who bring up these scenarios, "how would a free society deal with X?!?!". But if you are serious, I would ask, why is this important? Given the very real and scary challenges we are facing today and will be for the next several decades, why should I waste a single brain cell on r-selected aliens?

You're trolling. Also the free market will create sweet plasma rifles to deal with aliens. But if apes ever become sentient, we'll probably need a government again.

It's a good point. How much money and expertise were put into this campaign?

While I think you have introduced a topic that is somewhat beside the question of the thread, you have raised an important point. Obviously as a libertarian I don't care if someone chops their dick off -- the science of whether this is a mental illness, or a way of capitalism and technology allowing a biological anomaly to live a more actualized and happy life, is still out as far as I understand. And the bathroom issue is easily solved with respect for property rights -- as you rightfully pointed out, this is WAY too complicated for the government to figure out, and seems to be just another way to bully and extort Christians and traditional conservatives. But where we should be concerned in this area, is with parents and doctors giving hormones to kids who are confused about their identity, the far majority of whom, after puberty, turn out to be ordinary homosexuals who just went through a phase. There was the case where a teenage boy who wanted to become a woman, but his parents refused to consent to the treatment, killed himself -- Dan Savage, who is an all around horrible person, organized a protest and harassment campaign against these people that was so bad, they were unable to have a funeral. What if an under-aged kid wanted to get their tubes tied or a vasectomy? They're not even legally allowed to get a tattoo for chrissakes! Anyway it's a good point I wanted to agree with you, but maybe it should be a new thread.

Women also are more likely to be employed by the government, college is a pathway to public employment for many people.

what does that mean?

He was also Zoroastrian, once a very popular religion in the world, but fell victim to the early Muslim conquests. I imagine this will only strengthen Stef's resolve and criticism of Islam. As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said, "there is no fun in Islam". I can only get down with a religion that is compatible with rock and roll.

all good arguments here, I would just add that in my experience, I've found that people tend to have problems with self-ownership as a principle, because they don't want to assign responsibility to themselves, or people in their life.

That's a really annoying comment to me. It's like saying "just because you don't invite rapists into your home doesn't mean you're ending all rape everywhere". It's no one's responsibility to "remove violent Islam from the world". It is a responsibility, the argument could be made, to preserve inherited freedoms and safety for future generations.

Is the person comfortable with the implications of this? Because if you own your baby, then everything up to and including baby rape and murder is within your rights as a property owner.

Sorry but this is all hypothetical. Of course I agree that, in a free society, discrimination by private groups based solely on race, is a bad idea for several reasons. One, you are limiting your talent pool, two, it's going to be bad PR and you could be subject to ostracism and boycott even by the race you favor. As Shrigall put, you want to discriminate based on values. No reputable scientific organization is going to reject a theory because the proponent is Arab, just like no professional basketball team is going to reject a really great Chinese player who is 7'2" with a great shooting touch like Yao Ming. BUT, if we do discriminate based on values, we will not find anything close to equal representation of the races in many areas. Most of the best basketball players are going to tend to be black, most of the best scientists are going to be disproportionately Jewish/Asian/White, and so on. But the problem we are dealing with today, is not whether or not we can choose to discriminate or segregate based on race, but that the State is mandating FORCED integration. Just as with so many things, the State tries to make up for historical injustices by applying force in the other direction, which creates a whole new set of problems. I went to a school, for example, in a district of mostly upper middle class whites and Asians and Jews, where blacks were bused from outside the district, to keep the diversity numbers up for funding. So you had two different populations of kids basically, with completely different needs, that most likely, a free market would come up with different solutions for, and there would be a kind of natural segregation, which would have been better for everyone! Instead, there was a lot of conflict, not least of which was applied towards the black kids who may have been more ambitious, and intelligent, and didn't conform to the stereotype. In my opinion, these are the kinds of real issues in this area that we are dealing with today. Then there is affirmative action, phony discrimination lawsuits, and all the rest of it. It reminds me of two kids in a class who aren't getting along, and instead of allowing them to separate from one another, or getting at the core issue, the teacher just sticks them together and escalates "YOU TWO ARE GOING TO GET ALONG OR ELSE!!!" It's not a solution, and only breeds resentment and further strife.

Yes, a lot of these people are very smart talented and funny, but unfortunately they have gained a lot of cache and attention by taking easy positions on complex and difficult issues they don't understand.

I would also recommend the Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't seen it, it's really essential. Stef also did a speech condensing the info from all 4 parts, into about an hour. I noticed that you said something about "winning the argument". I think that herein lies the problem - as soon as we set ourselves in opposition to someone who has a differing opinion from us, we are in a win/lose scenario: most people, in their history with their parents, siblings, teachers, priests, and so on, are humiliated and have it "rubbed in their face" if they admit they are wrong. The more adversarial you make yourself, the more you are potentially recreating this scenario in their mind. Rather than working together to solve a puzzle, to expand our understanding, you have entered a winner-take-all boxing match. I always try to be diplomatic as possible, and if the other person escalates first, bring attention to this. Otherwise I don't think anything productive can be achieved. Just a thought I had. I have the same challenge with this as the rest of you.

He is not portrayed as a good person, but as sympathetic towards Clarisse, and in opposition to the very unlikeable character who runs the psych ward in the prison (who he presumably kills at the end). He also takes the young female agent protagonist seriously, he shows curiosity in her history, and believes in her capacity to figure out the case and catch the killer, and at the end expresses some affection for her ("I have no plans to call on you, the world is far more interesting with you in it"). All this makes for some sympathy for Hannibal on behalf of the audience, despite the fact that he is a psycho killer. In some ways he is more honest and authentic than most people, and he has a strange code of honor, where he kills the man who says "I can smell your cunt", but favors Clarisse who is polite to him. This is similar to how mafia movies often portray the mafia don sympathetically - though he is violent, he has a code of honor, a set of rules that, so long as you follow, you should be fine. This is also similar to peoples' relation to the State of course, particularly in a Western Democracy with some semblance of Rule of Law, where so long as you follow the rules, you won't be subject to their capacity for ultra-violence, unlike a theocracy or communist shithole, where the violence of the State randomly takes people out left and right, a la Wild Bill, the villain of the movie.

Yes I don't know that much about it, but I assume it was always about greater, more consolidated, centralized power, particular over banking and currency, and the breakdown of national borders.

Tech is easily the least regulated, most entrepreneurial, free sector of the economy, largely populated by the least "traditional" minded people in the society. Any woman who is willing and able to contribute to the field will be able to do so. The burden of proof is on the feminists to show that there are any active barriers. Otherwise there is no issue.

....did we? Was National Socialism defeated in 1945?

lots of reasons - they may be mentally ill, have addiction problems, criminal record, or just no work experience or pedigree.

I'm not sure how you can wage war with a belief system. Does carpet bombing count as self-defense? Just curious what you actually mean. It's easy to say "go kill the bad people", but the question is, how do we identify them, how do we prevent collateral damage, and what will be the consequences? I have mixed feelings on the issue but I lean towards non-intervention.

Friends, family, whole foods, science, free trade, common law, guns, gold, glory, peace, love, harmony, sex, whiskey, and rock and roll. Also a good cup of tea.