Mister Mister

Hi I am curious about what your thoughts are which (if any) popular movies are and aren't appropriate for kids, and how you determine this. There are some kids movies I enjoy, and some I find pretty wretched. Obviously there are themes and abstract concepts, proposed virtues, political/social ideologies and so on that are inevitably woven into children's movies which children are not capable of rationally processing, yet still absorb in a deep way, especially in a medium that is as sensually captivating as cinema. For this reason I would be very sensitive and cautious about which movies my kids watch, as well as encouraging them to watch certain movies. I wanted to get the feedback from the smart and sensitive people here on this forum about this.

Wow this is really a fascinating topic. A lot of good points being made all around, I have learned a lot. Though I don't entirely understand the hostility about this subject from some people on this forum. I have known a few trans people, most of them are very nice people, one of them violent and dysfunctional, all of them seem to show symptoms of some childhood trauma though causality is hard to pinpoint here, as the shame such people are subjected to can be quite severe. I think from what I have read I am confident about the following: Sex is an obvious biological reality - a person grows from the synthesis of a sperm and an egg, and some humans make sperm and some humans make eggs. Patterns of behavior associated with sex called gender seem to have SOME basis in biology, and SOME basis in irrational cultural beliefs primarily imprinted through parenting, and secondly through social pressure as the child grows up, spends time with other kids/families, goes to school, etc... At the same time, there ARE outliers, people who do not clearly fit biologically into either sex/gender. They may not clearly have a particular set of genitals, or though they may have one set of genitals, they may also have the neurological characteristics associated with the other sex. Depending on the parenting style, and to what extent the child's true self conflicts with certain cultural beliefs about gender, the child is likely to encounter abuse as a result of this conflict. So while I think there is scientific basis that there are people born with one set of genitals who might think/feel more like people with the other set of genitals, I think the issue is in separating the true self, identity, from the confusion around parental/societal shaming around not conforming to a set of behavior consistent with societies' fucked up ideas about gender to begin with. The danger, and my concern would be that a person might seek external solutions to an internal problem. believing that sexy dresses, heels, makeup, (in the case of a trans woman for example), hormones, or genital-altering surgery, will ease their pain by making them appear to OTHERS in a way that is consistent with a social concept of sex/gender. Because society already has confusion about gender, many of these gender-presentations along with the change in others behavior they may evoke, are already irrational, so I'm not sure that this is t. So I think it would be important for such people to really be comfortable with who they are, to deal with any childhood trauma especially relating to sex and gender, and to love themselves, before seeking to alter themselves biologically or change shallow details in their appearance.

http://www.trailercodes.com/tv/american-dad--the-missing-kink/spanking Has anyone seen this? It aired in April 2013. As far as I can tell there was no significant public reaction. None of the reviews I read even mentioned the spanking. I just find it interesting to see spanking portrayed in popular culture, including drawing the connection between spanking as a punishment for children and as a sexual fetish. I know Stef has talked about how you never see spanking on TV shows although obviously this show is not quite the same form as a family show like Full House or the Cosby Show. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLMJHdySgE8&feature=youtu.be Nice to see this stuff coming into the mainstream.

People think inequality can be solved by giving a small group of people the right to move resources around, print money, borrow against the labor of millions of people, etc. This is the greatest inequality in society. That is the point that has to be hammered. As a consequence we can see that the wealthiest people in a corporatist system are those who benefit from government violence and easy money. Even before so-called "capitalism", the wealthiest in society have always been those who claim ownership over others, kings, priests, slavers, feudal lords, and so on. as a footnote you might mention how debt, inflation, banking cartel, welfare, public education, minimum wage, taxation/regulation hurt the poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmEWStlectkJust a cute video I wanted to share. She seems like a good Mom. She is very patient and helpful and informative while the little boy comes to realize where his food comes from, and expresses a personal preference.

If you don't pay taxes you are stealing government services.

Yes the Statist claims principles, but upon examining those principles, they are not Universally consistent. For example, one argument you get is the Social Contract, meaning it is okay for government to tax you and to enforce laws against you because you "implicitly agree" to live under their protection, drive on their roads, go to their schools, etc. But if I provide "services" to people and claim a right to be paid according to a non-existent contract which they never agreed to, they would get that I was scamming them. Again you could go down the list, but essentially Statism makes exception to principles for people under the conceptual label of "government" which is just arbitrary. As a result, petty, manipulative, dominating, parasitic people of all kinds seek political power, so they can wear this label which turns their evil actions to good in the eyes of the society.My question was, are there situations where you would claim violence or crime is being committed by the exercise of property, which voluntarism overlooks or defends?So if I understand correctly you are trying to get a principle about when violence is justified in self-defense or defense of property. I will address this, but first I want to make a point - I don't think the best way to establish property rights is simply by threatening violence, neither is "justifying violence" the purpose of property rights. It's very important to understand this. People are not just sitting in their cabin waiting for someone to put a toe on their land so they can blow them away, people want to avoid conflict. This is the function of property claims, to avoid conflict, not to start it. A woman has a right to self-defense if she thinks she will be raped, but she would rather take steps to avoid such a situation. In the same way, there are many ways in which conflicts over property can be avoided. If someone doesn't want to avoid conflict, it suggests that someone have a desire to hurt people, which I don't think is caused by philosophy. No one reads a book by Murray Rothbard and then goes looking to shoot trespassers. This is the psychological element that most political philosophy ignores and overlooks in my opinion. The point is that, people want to have a system of property that minimizes conflict over property. They imagine that the State provides this, which of course it doesn't. If you think that greater conflict can be avoided by collectivizing everything or some things, then I am interested to hear more, but historicaly this hasn't worked.When someone is assaulted or threatened, morality is no longer in question. If someone tries to mug you, and you have pepper spray, should you try to spray them and get away? If a man holds a couple at gunpoint and rapes the woman in front of the man, should he try to intervene and save her at the risk of his own life? When a child is forced to shoot his relatives by some paramilitary group, should he refuse, or shoot the terrorists? I don't know if you have ever been in a threatening situation, but your state of mind changes completely. There is no moral action in these kinds of situations. Your brain activity recedes to your hypothalamus, and you act, without thinking about consequences or moral reasoning. Traumatized people tend to be stuck in that threatened mindset, and have a great deal of difficulty making moral choices, so they will choose to dominate the weak, or accept the domination of those they perceive as "other", or submit to domination of the strong.This is where the right of self-defense comes in - when people are no longer in a voluntary situation, they do what they can. Freedom is fundamentally a) a state of mind and b) a condition of interaction between people. When that condition no longer exists, we don't fault people for reacting in the moment. In the case of the campers on private property, communication and negotiation is still possible. Free, compassionate, people will choose this way. Traumatized people will seek conflict regardless of the economic system. I still don't quite understand why you are hung up on this though. Perhaps you are leading to something? Is the structural violence which is a result of the market, somehow caused by people's willingness and belief in using violence to defend property? Do you have some reason to believe that in a stateless society, where market interaction is accepted, violence against trespassers would become a significant problem?

I am curious what is your experience with kids and sharing and teaching moral lessons. Do you have kids? Did you grow up with siblings?

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/This is really a bizarre story, it almost sounds like a joke. What do y'all make of it?

There were some interesting points in your critique, but I wasn't sure of your premise. You say you agree with the NAP and anarchism, but at some points you talk about the good things that government does. Also I didn't understand your position on property. Can you distill the anarcho-socialist position in a few sentences? It seems like you don't throw out the idea of property altogether, but I am not sure what it is you are really saying about property. One thing that has helped me to understand this stuff more clearly, is that issues around property really come down to conflicts over property. the question is, when does one person have a legitimate claim against another person's use of property? If I chop down trees and stack up wood to build a house, and you come along and build your own house from the wood I collected, you have stolen time and energy from me. If your neighbor dumps trash in the river you drink from, I think you have a valid claim against him. Intellectual Property is not considered valid by most anarcho-capitalists, although some aspects of it could be dealt with through contracts. There are many examples, this is the function of case law or common law, but I think you get the idea. So my question for you is -- are there situations in which you think there is a moral problem with the exercise of property that the anarcho-capitalist excludes or overlooks? The main point I would ask you to consider is that most uf us here would not wish to impose some kind of system on everyone else. I tend to avoid the term anarcho-capitalist -- I prefer voluntarist, which I think is more clear. I think many of the things you advocate, are consistent with voluntarism. You can live in a community, pool resources, vote on their allocation, enforce community rules with ostracism/freedom of association, etc. All of these things are essentially an exercise in property rights. Many of the things you are talking about deal with aesthetic or cultural values, such as the danger of advertising, welfare of the community, or a concern for the environment. All of these things are important to talk about, and you are right to be concerned about them. Often people confuse the word "capitalist" for a set of cultural values to do with greed, selfishness, social and ecological irresponsibility, etc. which is why I don't like to use the word. We just don't think the best way to deal with these things is to give a small group of people the weapons and the legal right to use force against everyone else. I hope that makes some sense. Thanks for your curiosity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flge_rw6RG0

yes I think it depends on the specific policy. I have found that explaining national debt and inflation in common sense language helps to show how much wealth governments are sucking out of society, and also explodes the myth of democracy, because the money being promised to win elections in the short term comes at the expense of the future. of course this argument works for young people who are generally frustrated and more open to new ideas, not so much older people who expect government money or are just emotionally invested in a particular political party.

Because the few times in life where I claim violence is justified, is based on a principle, one which I would consistently apply to everyone. Government violence is not justified based on a consistent principle. Even though abstract principles are sometimes invoked to justify it, they are reserved for the people who win elections or wear uniforms. The same behavior - legislation, arrest, imprisonment, taxation, deficit finance, central banking, etc, WITHOUT the imaginary label of government would be seen in a different moral light. For example someone who stood up to a mafia protection racket would be seen differently from someone who resisted the income tax. Does that make sense? "Would it be fair to say that at least some frameworks of ownership are flawed and therefore cannot result in legitimate violence?" Of course. Some examples are slavery, claims of ownership over wives or children, abusing workers, taxation, national debt, intellectualy property, and national borders. Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes? "Would you describe the killing of trespassers as the legitimate use of violence if the trespassers were obviously unaware of the ownership claims? How about if they merely didn't accept the ownership claims?" Sorry but I don't see this as such a big issue. Like I said, violence against trespassers doesn't seem to be a huge problem in the world. Self-defense and defense of property and the degree of force which is justified is difficult to just make blanket statements about, every case is different, and case-law or common-law can deal with this. If a woman is cornered in an alley, by a man saying she looks sexy, and she shoots and kills him, it seems legitimate. If you wake up and someone is in your house, most people would accept if you assume they might kill you. If you live in a cabin in the woods and some people are camping on your property, probably shooting them would be looked on as extreme. Recently in Newfoundland someone was shot while caught stealing from a fisherman's nets. Again, its hard to say if this is justified - certainly some fish are not worth a man's life, but if someone is stealing from you, and you simply call them out, they might shoot you, you really don't know. We would rather prevent these conflicts than have to deal with these extreme cases, however, which really ought to be the function of property rights and morality in general, to prevent disputes. "What would be the way to establish the truth of said ownership claims?" Again, common law has dealt with most of these problems, and smart people may come up with better innovations. But what is really important is not the legitimacy of a claim on property, but rather disputes over property. In other words, it is not a question of when does someone have a legitimate claim of property for themselves, but when does one have a legitimate claim AGAINST another person? As I see it, this is the best way to address environmental destruction. Rather than passing new laws, you would hold someone liable for actions which affect your life and your property.One more point - government can be seen as an indefensible claim of property. they claim a kind of ownership over all the land they define arbitrarily as a country or state or county or city, the borders of which are negotiated with neighboring governments, and a kind of ownership over all the people within that land, dictating what a person can and can't put in their body, how they should freely interact with each other, and how much of their income they can keep. enforcement of government borders is way more excessive and unreasonable than most action taken against trespassers - you can only bring in or out certain goods with their permission, if you were not born within that farm, then you can only live, work, or study with their permission, and those here without permission are effectively second-class citizens. So I agree that it is possible to make unreasonable claims of property or excessive enforcement of those claims, but by far government is the worst example of this.I hope that answers some questions, I appreciate the two-way dialogue which unfortunately didn't really get going between Stef and Peter.

would need to find alternate transportation, maybe hovercars or flying saucers or high-powered ATV's, to overcome the lack of roads

Yes getting rid of government does not mean buying land around everyone and forcing your anarchist society on them. It's fundamentally to do with addressing the psychological reasons for why people see government as legitimate, virtuous, and necessary.

isn't it ironic a group of anarchists playing a game where you are supposed to be rulers of a civilization? I play chess though, so I can't really talk...

The cognitive dissonance I am referring to, is that people create an alternate moral category for the State. They accept that theft and kidnapping are wrong, but believe that governments must tax and arrest for the good of society. Often people will say that government is necessary because "there are dangerous people" or "most people can't make the right decisions", seemingly oblivious of the fact that police and politicians are people who can also be described this way. So my point was that, allowing for an exception to moral rules for certain people, based on an arbitrary label called government, necessarily leads to corruption, exploitation, violence, etc. I think this is a more significant problem than landowners shooting trespassers. So if I understand what you are saying, is that there are other forms of falsely legitimized violence other than the State. I would agree -- people who think it's okay to spank or yell at or circumcize their kids, smack their wife around, or beat up homosexuals are some examples that come to mind. But you also think that property rights creates violence? Please elaborate. I am interested in this line of thinking and I don't think that PJ did a very good job of explaining it. One thing that comes to mind, is a time when I lived in India volunteering as a teacher. I noticed that other foreigners and myself who were only visiting could afford guest-houses where running water and hot water was readily available, but people who actually lived in the town often did not have these things. In some of the apartments, water would only run certain hours of the day, when everyone would rush to fill up large plastic tubs which they would then use to bathe and cook with. Now, it may seem like there was only so much water to go around, and the more wealthy could afford more of it, so their wealth could be perceived as taking water from the poor. But I'm not sure this is the case. Actually this region of India receives more rainfall than almost anywhere in the world, and is permeated with rivers carrying beautiful fresh water from the rivers. So it is really a question of lack of infrastructure, as is so often the case with money. The problem could be solved with a relatively small amount of capital and human effort, compared with the effort involved in selling stuff to tourists, internet cafes on every block, building and maintaining temples, and so on. So I always wondered why wasn't more energy invested in getting clean water to everyone? Is this the kind of violence you are talking about? I am curious to hear yours and others' thoughts about what could be the cause and solution of something like this.

Yes some libertarians might agree with that statement, but I certainly don't and I don't think most people here would. I would never use the language "right to kill", I think self-defense can be justified. My experience on both sides of this has usually been that the owner asks what the person is doing, informs them that the property is privately owned, then either asks them to leave or to respect certain rules, and the person happily complies. If they do not, there may be reason to get angry or feel threatened. But again, it seems to me you are assuming that people are motivated by abstract philosophy. If someone indiscriminately kills trespassers, I should think there are deeper psychological reasons than that they read too much Adam Smith or Rothbard. Property rights are about the exclusive use of matter necessary to human life. If I knock on a stranger's door and ask to use their phone because I locked my keys in my car, (this actually happened to me last night) they shouldn't feel threatened (in fact they were very nice) because I my standing on their front steps does not significantly affect their life, except for the 2 minutes of their time (which I of course apologized for).But the state of the world is not in disarray because people overzealously shoot trespassers. It has a great deal to do with the cognitive dissonance involved in people making an exception to the moral standards which work in their personal life, for those who supposedly "run society".

what would it mean for an action to be "good for the economy"? I think my position would be that such a thing does not exist. Currently it is defined by several indicators, namely GDP, which is really just a measure of dollars changing hands, including government spending (most of which is military spending, destroying lives and property, but hey, it's good for the economy). Of course this serves the government, as the more dollars that change hands, the more taxable income there is. For example, when women entered the workforce in large numbers, they had to hire people to do the work previously done in the home by women, laundry, childcare, etc. So now not only are they working and providing taxable income, but they have created a new job which is also taxable. But many economists will see this as simply a rise in GDP and therefore "good for the economy". Though in reality it is probably not good for the people involved, especially the children.If people in large numbers stop watching TV, ride bicycles rather than drive, plant gardens, stop smoking and drinking, live in smaller houses, exercise more personal and family time, this would be result in a huge drop in GDP and might be considered "bad for the economy". But maybe these are good choices for the people involved. Peoples' lives are complex, they make choices for all kinds of reasons, and it is the height of arrogance for central planners to think they know what is best for millions of people.This has to do with what Stefan calls as Arguing from Effects or Utilitarianism vs. Arguing from Principles or Universal Morality. We oppose government intervention in the economy because it involves force, in the form of selective enforcement of laws (arbitrary words written on paper) or the allocation of money acquired through theft, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through debt or inflation. If we were to argue about which policy or philosophy creates better effects, we could argue all day, citing endless statistics. Utilitarianism supposes that in order to know what is the right thing to do, you have to be an expert economist who can predict all the effects of your actions and calculate cost/benefits. Whereas voluntaryists believe that the moral principles taught to little children "don't hit, don't steal" should apply universally.

Sorry but I think that this is a tautology. The State is defined as a monopoly on legitimized violence. "some framework to use violence in the 'legitimate' pursuit of their desires, while those without power accept this framework" -- This IS the State by definition, in all its forms throughout history. The Anarchist believes that "legitimized violence" doesn't exist, therefore the State is a myth. Ending government doesn't mean blowing up the Capitol or imposing some system on people, it means ending this myth.I would rephrase your words, "If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing desires, then their WILL be a State". I think this has been realized by many in the past, but what Stef brings that is new is deep insight and a conversation into the roots of WHY violence is seen as legitimate. PJ keeps saying that all the structural violence is the result of a gaming mentality which exists at the root of all capitalist philosophy like John Locke and Adam Smith, as if people are motivated by philosophical treatises from the 1700s.

Just a funny anecdote this made me think of. I remember in HBO's Talking Funny, Ricky Gervais was saying something about how the comedian needs to be humble and involve the crowd, not act like he is more important than them. Jerry Seinfeld responded "Of course you're more important than them! You're the only person in the room who is talking!"But I can certainly relate to feeling nervous in front of crowds. I have been performing in a musical capacity for over 10 years, and now I rarely get nervous, but I certainly used to. The only recent times I can remember was my Senior Recital in music school, and a funeral of a close friend. I still get a bit nervous with public speaking, tend to stumble over words, freeze up, etc. Even when I perform I don't like to talk much as it makes me uncomfortable. I tend to think that part of this is natural. If you watch a little kid playing, enjoying himself, as soon as he/she realizes they're being watched, they will tend to freeze up. Or if they enjoy singing for their parents, then the parents put them on the spot to sing in front of others, they get very nervous. If you've ever been at a party, and were having a conversation that attracts people's attention, and feel the room quiet down and all the eyes come to you, you can feel a significant change in your body. Normally if someone is watching or listening to you, the tendency is to try to empathize, to understand what is their motivation, what is their perception of you. When a large number of people are doing this, it becomes overwhelming. It's like a kind of empathy resonance overload that takes some getting used to. This is just my crackpot theory, take it for what it's worth. One thing I have come to believe as a performer is that this nervousness we get is really a source of power, a strength rather than a weakness. A lot of techniques that people will tell you involve imagining they are not there, or that they are naked or something. I think this is entirely the wrong approach. I find that with experience, I have learned to embrace the moment, and let it push me to be my best. Learning to breathe and calm my mind and emotions has been very helpful here. Get in some practice, whether it is speaking in front of a mirror or doing it in front of a friend, part of the anxiety comes from doubt about your competence. If you have a lot of reps doing the speech and kicking ass at it, you ought to feel a bit more comfortable doing it in front of others. Also getting experience with less pressure - Open mics are great for this! Just some thoughts, good luck with your troubles.

Yes I think it's potentially a great thing to do, I have a suspicion that quite a lot of adopting parents are abusive, though this is somewhat anecdotal, I'd be interested to see statistics. I would just say be prepared to be patient and to help a child heal from the stress of abandonment or whatever else has happened that you may not know about.

I found "Django Unchained" to be totally ridiculous and kind of unsettling. It seemed to me that the movie was just about showing gratuitous acts of torture and violence of slaves, to set the stage for a supposedly cathartic bloodbath of white slave-owners and slave-hands. All this came at the expense of actual empathy with slaves themselves!!! You never get a real sense of what life was like for these people, just a cartoonized version of violence to make you feel uncomfortable and see all the whites involved with slavery as evil. In reality I suspect that most of the evil to do with slavery was more subtle, and had to do with propagandizing and frightening children, and using Christianity, so that they would grow up to be obedient slaves for the most part. But instead of empathizing with the victims, he creates a fantasy where the gunslinging freed slave miraculously murders all the goons and rides off with his beloved. I think this says a lot about Tarantino's psychology.

Well aren't there solutions to those problems? What is different about Ithaca hours that has allowed them to be successful? Why can't producers issue the currency, in the same way they would issue coupons? The idea is that anyone can issue currency as a credit on their future labor, in the same way that anyone can form contracts. It's like giving your girlfriend an I.O.U. for a free backrub if you can't afford a gift. I agree that we don't know what is the best form of currency, but this seems to me like something that can be done NOW by people at a local level, that will actually teach people something about economics, and shows the power of voluntarism. Often I hear from liberal types that the poor are poor because not enough money "trickles down" from the top. Of course this is the completely wrong concept of money and value - the poor are not poor because of a lack of money, but a lack of education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. Instead of accepting that money is something which must trickle down the pyramid, a system like this can teach that value is created, not distributed.Anyway I would love to see Stef do a short interview with Wayne Walton.