Mister Mister

'That is interesting at first glance, but think about it a little further and it doesn't really hold up. "Ancaps want to run their own little states"...really? A man who builds a house for his family is the same as a King or a President or a slave-owner? A property-owner has a monopoly on force within their property? No, not at all. A free society with a rational system of Law would not uphold a property-owner's right to kill, assault, rape, defraud, or steal from anyone on their property. This argument that Property Ownership violates the NAP arises from a total confusion about the function of Property Rights in a Free and Rational Society. They argue that once you own property, then you can and MUST use force to enforce those property rights. Therefore their solution is to just have everyone own everything. Of course this isn't really a solution, it completely dismisses that there will be conflicts of interest over the use of certain resources. Property rights as a concept don't exist so that landowners can shoot people, they exist as a reasonable and consistent way of resolving these conflicts that naturally arise. In the absence of consistent and communicable principles to resolve these conflicts, they end up being resolved by force, or by some arbitrary authority. Property is not a justification for force, it is a methodology to keep the peace. A social ethic, a "Rule of Law", where the majority of people understand and observe integrity to a reasonable and consistent method of resolving property conflicts, is the only possible substitute for the State. It's always occurred to me how the majority of political conflicts come down to a conflict over property. Taxes, abortion, drugs, gun control, environmentalism, etc., all have to do with one group of people objecting to another group's exercise of ownership. In the absence of a public conversation about principles by which to resolve these conflicts, we end up just appealing to majority opinion. Another point worth making is that ownership entails responsibility. The State is very different than property because no one is ever held responsible for the actions of the State, whereas property owners are held responsible for the use of their property as a natural effect of the principle of property rights.

I found this talk really fascinating and inspiring

Can you cite exactly what Stef said and what studies are in question? I don't think it is clear enough to say "homework is not beneficial to learning". Of course self study at home could be very beneficial in many ways. When I think of homework, I think of compelling kids to regurgitate what they were told in school onto some worksheet

If a man is successful, it's just because he's a man, knowingly or unkowingly benefitting from an inherently sexist system. If a woman is successful, it's because she has earned it despite an inherently sexist system. If a woman is not successful, it's because of the inherently sexist system. If a man is not successful, it's because he's a loser. So for women there is a "social safety net", but not for men. If no one wants a particular woman to speak at their conference, she can appeal to pity and cries of sexism, and everyone will listen and give sympathy, regardless of whether she actually has something interesting or valuable to say. But there is no such defense for a man whom no one wants to hire. And no gratitude for any successful male thinkers who bring value to people. Just more of the same Victorian chivalry bullshit. Thank you to Karen Straughan for helping me to see this.

He is not just "into" Discordianism, he is one of its major founders. I was very influenced by RAW and read almost everything I could by him a few years ago. His fiction is the best, really pioneering, humorous, well-researched, nuanced, and never comes to a conclusive end. Along with Pynchon, Vonnegut, and others he is seen as one of the major influential figures in "post-modern" literature. My favorite is the Historical Illuminatus Chronicles, read it! I don't remember him talking much about his childhood except a story where he was taught in Catholic School by Nuns about the book of Job, that the Devil ground up glass into Job's eyes even though Job was a good man, just to prove a point. RAW as a young man lay awake in bed terrified that the Devil would ground up glass into his eyeballs. Later in life he was having eye troubles, and ended up working with a Reichian therapist, who connected the physical pain he was having to its psychological origins in his history. His books "The New Inquisition" about the increasingly rigid dogma of Institutionalized Science and Medicine, and his book "Everything is Under Control" on Conspiracy Theories demonstrated that he was willing to entertain alternative ideas and explore them without judgment, without the emotional need to accept or reject them off the bat. He rejected the certainty both of the mainstream scientiss, and of the New Agers and the conspiracy theory maniacs. That kind of approach really spoke to me, as I found that people either swallowed the "official" narrative on everything, or would swallow every wild idea just to be alternative. What I got from him in general is the value of uncertainty. Of course this is the beginning of philosophy, the humility to admit that you may not know. But unfortunately he just ends with uncertainty as a conclusion rather than a starting point, and gets lost in complete relativism and rejection of Aristotelian Logic and Laws of Identity which I think is a mistake. Also his obsession with Quantum Physics and Transhumanism, both of which I am convinced are in great error, is very problematic with me. But truly an interesting thinker, intelligent, funny, full of compassion and good humor.

Found this talk, you can see some of the themes that are a major part of FDR, such as psychological barriers to public acceptance of libertarianism, and the relation between how children are treated and the political system they grow to accept.

I don't see why it is "significantly lesser". Also, why is it relevant that it is typical? Obviously you are downplaying these experiences, perhaps you ought to confront the reality of what you experienced without framing it in a way that diminishes its importance. Aikido, as I understand, can really hardly be called a martial art, where martial means having to do with war or combat. Its founder, Morihei Ueshiba, witnessed the horrors of war as a soldier in WWI, and committed himself to peace. He used his background in Judo and Jujitsu to develop a Non-Aggressive method of Conflict Resolution. His short book, "The Art of Peace" is very beautiful and I would recommend it to anyone. An Aikido class seems to me far more similar to more artsy/hippy-dippy stuff like yoga, tai-chi, and certain kinds of dance, combined with some basic self-defense principles, along with a philosophy of non-violence and conflict resolution. This kind of body work can be very liberating, I know Stef has talked about this, and I have found it to be the case myself. Connecting to your own body and physicality, brings you into the present moment, and can be very joyful and emotional. It may facilitate self-knowledge, if so, that's great. But it is a complement, not a substitute for the kind of work that is generally referred to as self-knowledge in philosophy and psychology. Your comment about "lesser-note" and "typical childhood" in reference to being hit as a child, signifies that you still have some work to do in connecting with your experience and your body. It is my understanding that the pain that you would have experienced from these assaults is STILL there, in your body, your brain, your nerves and your bones. So while this physical exercise may be important to your growth, I would think it unwise to imagine that you can ignore this pain and instead refer to a physical exercise as self-knowledge.

Just an insight I had recently that I wanted to share and get feedback on. One of the themes of FDR and of philosophy in general is the emphasis on methodology rather than conclusions. It is more important that we share the same methodology of thinking rather than the same conclusions. Correct conclusions derived from irrational methodology, i.e. "don't kill because God says so", "evolution is true because my teacher told me", can actually be very dangerous. However in public school, we are taught the importance of conclusions, and usually only a tiny few of the "smart kids" if any, concern themselves with the reasoning that leads to a given conclusion. I remember, as a strong math student, I used to give answers to the tests to some of my friends. Of course I was just giving them the "answers", and they did not have to learn the steps to get there. The insight I had was how similar this is to voting. When you vote for a given candidate or policy, it is only the vote that matters, not the reasoning that led you there. People might vote for Obama because he is handsome, because he is black, because he seems cool, because he will give them free healthcare, or because they are well studied in certain schools of ideology and economics that are consistent with Obama's views. The mentality of the leftist academic, for example, is very similar to the "smart student" who gives answers to the dumb students. They don't think that the majority are capable of understanding Marxism, Keynesian Economics, or foreign policy, but are satisfied to give them the "answer" of a candidate, who sells himself to the majority with charisma and promise of free stuff, appeals to vanity and hopes and fears rather than a philosophical argument from first principles. The rational, philosophical libertarian mentality, however, is that we have a much simpler code of ethics that actually CAN be understood intellectually, by most people, and we want to encourage, to persuade, to demonstrate, the totality of the virtue of freedom and self-ownership in every aspect of life. Obviously this is far more challenging.

Regardless of your intellectual stance on it, your subconscious makes judgements based on appearance all the time. Often this is to our benefit, sometimes it is not. The book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell goes into this in depth and is a really enjoyable read.

Pro!!!! Also I want the government to force my employer to pay for it

Just came across this http://feministing.com/2011/12/18/5-rape-prevention-tips-for-guys/ --- #2 is "Don't Drink Too Much". How can they say this shit with a straight face? Men are supposed to be these highly discriminating legal geniuses calculating every decision amidst the sea of hormones, while women are supposedly infantile idiots with no agency at all

That's interesting, and makes sense. So how much general social dysfunction extends from misappropriating emotions to irrational causes? I am thinking of the hatred towards various groups that disagree with a particular ideology, and the "love" people have for Obama and other ideologues

I've heard Stef mention something about Rational Emotions vs. Irrational Emotions. I think I sort of get this, for example "I am angry at my father for hitting me" might be rational whereas "I hate all Men" is not. But I don't quite see what would be the definition that distinguishes them. Can anyone help me parse this out?

Victim shaming is a horrible thing, that happens with all kinds of victims, not just female victims of rape. When people don't want to address violence for social/emotional reasons, often they will shame victims to avoid placing responsibility on a perpetrator who may have greater power. But the feminists are lumping in, "learn from past mistakes, and take responsibility for your own self-protection" with victim-shaming which is really contemptible. Basically it is part of this whole attitude of, "no female behavior is ever problematic or unhealthy, and not subject to criticism, especially by a male". While of course every little nuance of male behavior is subject to criticism. Of course this is really dangerous to women because if we excuse them from any responsibility for bad decisions, in the long run it will not go well for them. It's the same way they lump in any expression of male sexuality they don't like with "rape-culture", which is to minimize the horror of the actual crime of rape. In many ways this provides cover to the predators. I remember Karen Straughan talking about a prominent male professor who peddles this stuff, who has been accused of multiple sexual assaults.

It's interesting, and sad, that he feels the need to deny his "inner-child" and his genuine experience of laughter to them. He has some idea of what it means to be a good Dad - stern and firm - regardless of his feelings. I remember seeing a comment on an article about spanking where a father said he feels horrible when spanking but "knows" that he has to do it. This is teaching a subtle but dangerous lesson to these kids - Erase yourself and put on a mask to fulfill some duty or obligation. Another thought I had, is that rather than a punishment, have the kids help you clean up. Even if they can't do that much to help, but just see the time and effort it takes Dad to clean up, may give them a sense of the consequences of their actions, without imposing a penalty. I remember all through my childhood being screamed at for making a mess, and even offering to clean up, but being denied, because my Mom thought she could do it better (and maybe liked playing the victimized housewife). As a result I became a very sloppy young adult which I've had to unlearn. What do y'all think about this?

because sensitive and vulnerable men are a threat to a primitive tribe that needs warriors and laborers

Ya it's interesting, but the average public school supporter will easily dismiss this as "sure you don't need school if you're from a rich family"

Right, like "My dog is a Unicorn, and Unicorns have horns, therefore my dog has a horn" or "Christ is both God and the Son of God, therefore He is His own Father", or "The proper function of the State is to pass and enforce laws that protect people, therefore drug users should be put in prison."

Logic as I understand deals with how we use language to describe the world, and comparing language which is used, to reality, to evaluate claims, and to . It is as much the rules of language as it is the rules of thought and argument. Fundamental to this process is to distinguish between objects and events we can sense, and can therefore be verified by others, and concepts, which tend to describe relationships between objects. For example, we can all see a tree, or a person, or a car. Children can be taught these words, and they will associate the word with a tree, person, or car, they have never even seen before because they are getting similar enough sense data to categorize their experience. On the other hand, words like forest, society, or traffic, are more conceptual, they deal with aggregates or relations between said objects. Children don't start to get words like this until an older age. This is where things get tricky. People often use concepts as if they are objects, ( ex. "The Will of Society" Will is something ascribed to an Individual, whereas society describes a group of individuals, which cannot have a will), or they encounter conflicts with one another because they use concepts which are not clearly defined, or have different definitions (ex. the liberal or conservative definition of Justice or Freedom tends to seriously differ) or they simply refer to Concepts that are not rational, such as Christ, America, or Social Justice. Another important aspect of logic is the ability to "syllogize". A syllogism is a conclusion based on an already defined principle. "If John is a Bachelor and all Bachelor's are unmarried, John is unmarried". Again, children tend to be very good at this. A more challenging one might be "Theft is the unjust acquisition of property through violence, coercion, secrecy, or deception. Taxation is the acquisition of property through coercion. Therefore taxation is theft." Essentially the function of logical thought is to continue to extend a principle into as many areas of life as possible and see what conclusions, however startling or emotionally charged, we come up with. "Logical Fallacies" are common mistakes people make in coming to a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. For example "When there are fewer ice cream sales, statistically there are fewer murders. Therefore the government should outlaw ice cream to reduce murder". As I understand, the limits of logic have to do with what is called inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is where we encounter a thin slice of information from the world, and come up with a principle or a pattern which governs this. This process is most visible in language acquisition in young children, and is one of the things that computers simply cannot do. So I don't think that logic is ever invalid exactly, but there are many important capacities of the Mind which lie outside the realm of Logic. Also, we can have wrong or irrational concepts and principles, in which case when we apply logic we can come to wrong conclusions. To act on these can be very destructive. Hope that gives you some ideas, I'm maybe not the biggest expert on this but this is my understanding. Why do you ask this? Is there some instance in which you think logic is not valid?

So an abstraction is far preferable to an experience? That's a fascinating sentiment, and worth exploring, but doesn't really have any bearing on political philosophy. Unless you think that your feelings and preferences are binding on everyone else.

"Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants." Well that about says it all, huh?

not particularly funny, like most skits on this show, but somewhat insightful. any time people talk about bullying as if some kids are just "bad" I refer them to http://www.naturalchild.org/robin_grille/natural_born_bullies.html

Once the non-aggression principle is broken, self-defense becomes a valid course of action. If manipulation is aggression, then force would be a valid response. This isn't really an argument, just a syllogism about the consequence of concluding that manipulation is aggression. But it would seem unreasonable to me to respond to manipulation with force. The same goes with fraud I think, which is a specific category of manipulation with the intention of unjustly acquiring property from someone.

Reverse Osmosis filters are incredibly expensive, 2 or 3 grand I believe. However, many grocery stores and food co-ops have a reverse osmosis filter machine where you can fill a container for about 43 cents a gallon. The hard blue refillable plastic containers are not known to significantly leech plastic into your water. You could use glass if it's really a concern. Also I've heard that pumpkin seeds help convert excess estrogen into other things your body can use. Found this article for more on this http://www.drzepp.com/Anti-Estrogenic%20Diet.pdf

Two years ago I went to a Rainbow Gathering in Montana. It's a kind of hippy/alternative lifestyle event that takes place in a National Forest. Needless to say law enforcement tends to spend enormous resources having a presence at these gatherings. At this particular one, there were Park Police on horseback with cameras on their chest, using facial recognition to catch people with outstanding warrants. At least those were the rumors going around. Is it possible the government already has prototypes for this kind of technology? Also I had to share that my immediate reaction to the story you told about is that is not about a futuristic Surveillance State, but about the masks people wear to blend in modern culture.