godwin_anarchism

I think I see now. So you suggest only correlating it (gold) with the strength of the dollar then? Just to confirm my understanding, how would one determine if an asset was over or under valued if we don't use some form of correlation / measurment? Gold is a hedge against currency risk, inflation/deflation (people argue for both), and geopolitical risk. It correlates with money supply, interest rates, central bank policies like quantitative easing, inflation, political turmoil, currency and debt crisis.

Thank you for the word of caution. I am probably going about this the wrong way as you stated. The reason for my interest in the gas price is because I believe that the US economy would dramatically slow down with gasoline running over $6.00 per gallon. If their is a correlation (though loose) to gold, perhaps we never get to $3,500. Perhaps it collapses before it can get there. Just a thought. The "value" of gold keeps up with the expansion in the money supply as you stated. Meaning those that hold it, usually are able to maintain their purchasing power. Since oil is also currently valued in dollars another loose correlation can be made there as well. But as you stated, one should take great care in this consideration. What are your thoughts on my main subject that the US economy would dramatically slow down with gasoline running over $6.00 per gallon and thus gold may never reach the predicted $3,500 level since it all comes to a grinding halt? "Grinding halt" implies lack of demand which implies plummeting prices for everything (including the gasoline), like in 2008. I think you are making an assumption that gas prices can move up in isolation from the economy and determine where the rest of the markets go, when the larger picture is that gas prices are moving in the context of other prices and market forces. Gold has many unique properties, so I avoid correlating it with other commodities, or with economic strength.

Be careful following this sort of simple price speculation. No mathematical rules exist that correlate commodity prices. Each commodity moves with its own set of factors. Precious metals have their own characteristics, and within precious metals each has different uses that affect how they trade. Gold usually correlates with money supply which is why the trend is up. Gasoline is consumed, and gold is not consumed (except jewelry and dental crowns) which makes them very different commodities. Low consumer demand from a slow economy can keep gasoline prices low, without affecting gold. The same slow economy could prompt money creation that increase the gold price. Gold is seen as a hedge against geopolitical risks, so its price will increase in uncertain economies, independent of anything else. Gasoline prices correlate more with a combination of consumer demand, crude oil prices, and refining capacity. Basically, I'd avoid simple correlations.

Germany Repatriating Gold From NY, Paris 'In Case Of A Currency Crisis' [test][test] [/test][/test] http://onforb.es/V8l1cs Germany’s central bank announced Wednesday it will repatriate gold reserves held at the New York Fed and the Banque de France in order to have “the ability to exchange gold for foreign currency […] within a short space of time.” Officials at the Bundesbank indicated they have no intention of selling gold, but acknowledged the move is “preemptive” in case a “currency crisis” hits the European Monetary Union. While they tried to minimize the importance of the move at the Bundesbank, repatriating gold is a clear indication of public loss of confidence on foreign central banks and the integrity of the monetary union. Over the past few years, Venezuela, Libya, and Iran have also repatriated their gold holdings. ... more: http://onforb.es/V8l1cs

So far no on has disagreed that these are the conclusions arrived at by BIB. Someone has added that there are other sources for childhood trauma, including natural disasters, and other people in a child's life besides the parents. Here are my objections and where I see the weak links. I'll start with agreeing with 1,2,3 and possibly 6. Without 4 and 5 you can't reach 7,8,9. I see 4 and 5 as the weak links. In 4, It's incorrect to assume nearly all people want to be moral. Morality is voluntary, not innate. I'm certain a significant minority of people are decidedly amoral, and a small percentage are shamelessly immoral. In 5, He assumes reason is an innate ability born in everyone that's in danger of damage from environment. I believe it is a trait, like musical talent, that many people naturally don't possess, or some people might have but are not interested in developing because their priorities lie elsewhere, like just enjoying life. 6 may be true, and it is what he spends most of BIB evidence supporting. However, without 4 and 5, it loses relevance because it may only explain why some people can't or won't respond to reason. Overall, the "any reasonable person would agree with me" fallacy that BIB utilizes is a common debate strategy, and not sufficient to prove a conclusion. put to a thought experiment: I think that if you took the top percentile of adults with the happiest, most peaceful, comfortable childhoods (the ones that are supposed to be the most reasonable by BIB's conclusions), you would not be able to sway more than a few of them with an argument for anarchy, using all the reason and logic you can come up with. Do you really believe those who've already arrived at anarchism through reason are those that have had childhoods with the least trauma? Stefan and most other anarchists I know certainly don't fit that profile. All the above is why I just don't buy Stefan's conclusions that good parenting = path to anarchism, although once again, I support both ends of the equation. I don't believe they relate to one another the way he lays it out. Those that object to making these connections, are really objecting to BIB4, so should be supporting this thread. If you simply think the connection is unimportant, you can choose not to discuss it here. After all it's voluntary! Obviously the connection was important enough for BIB4 to dedicate a 30 minute episode to making the case. Given that BIB4 made that connection, don't act surprised that people would want to discuss them.

Your concern is not unfounded... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage!

After watching the BIB series twice, this is what I am perceiving to be the argument to tie together the issues of child abuse and anarchy in BIB Part 4: 1. most people cannot process reason2. if they could process reason, they would be able to see that the state is initiation of violence3. initiation of violence is immoral4. people want to be moral. they are not able to use reason to process that there is a contradiction in wanting to be moral and wanting the state.5. so why can't they process reason? people cannot process reason because their brain is damaged6. the damage is cause by early childhood trauma7. therefore, if we stop child abuse, people's brains won't be damaged, will be able to reason and recognize that the state is immoral and unnecessary.8. if we accomplish (7) we will be able to eliminate the need for the state.9. therefore, if we want (8) our priorities and energies should be focused on stopping early childhood trauma. Before discussing this topic further, it would help if we confirm whether on not we see the same thing in BIB. Then, we can discuss where it is someone might have a problem with any of it.

My agreeing with your conclusions is irrelevent in this case.. You made a moral claim about his intentions, I was wondering how you could possibly stand by that claim, since it's a very bold statement.. So far I 'm experiencing deflection, which is fine, you don't have to answer me ofc. Yes. My claim is based on my opinion that, after listening and watching a great deal of his material, I see that he is able to recognize, deconstruct and criticize other political propaganda and the methods used, yet is willing to employ those methods himself to advance his (moral) causes.

... and I said those reasons have been gone over many times all throughout the thread. Basically, I feel the logic he uses to tie the two issues trying to make them reinforce each other in BIB4 are flawed and deliberately misleading. You most likely disagree with what I've said, and it won't make any difference if I re-type it again. We disagree.

Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, I worry about the message my niece is getting when she sees us appease my mom, but direct criticism is what sets my mom off the most. It's been tried, and it makes her hostile. She responds to non confrontational approaches (like "hey, we don't have time for that now!", "can we talk about something else?") but it is only temporary, because of course, she still won't accept that what she's doing is wrong. No one wants to get into a scene with her. I've tried talking with my brother before. He is a giant wall of denial that I've never been able to crack. He will defend himself and yell back when she tries to mess with him, but if I try to point that out, he'll deny she did anything or that anything happened, even right after the episode. I have no fear of ostracism. It's quite the opposite, with constant pressure to attend family events that I don't enjoy. She fears rejection and is obsessed with public appearance of looking like a perfect family. I've identified those as the only points of leverage I have to reason with her.

Those are pretty bold (moral) assertions to make.. Not to mention the possible implication your statement (convincing people to stop child abuse) may have on those children being abused now. What exactly are you saying? I've stated what I meant in detail in preceding posts. I'll restate it again in a way less offensive to FDRers. I support peaceful parenting and support promoting it. Independent of that, I support striving for an extremely reduced, or non existent government apparatus, in a method that doesn't employ violence. BIB connects the two objectives using arguments that I disagree with. I'm concerned that by drawing the conclusions he did in BIB4, he proposed an ineffective, incomplete strategy for accomplishing statelessness. Once again, I support the independant objectives, but I'm not convinced they relate to each other the way he portrays it. And I don't think people have to believe his conclusions to support both goals independently. Details are all in previous posts, said in many ways.

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse). That's the definition of manipulation.

Yes. The first episodes of "The Fascists..." series goes into how the clever ones are able to camouflage themselves. So, I think they will have the edge even if they exist in small numbers. I don't know if Bernie Madoff was abused as a child, but I am sure that he was able to swindle so many people for so long because he used philanthropic circles he was a part of to find unsuspecting victims.

I felt it was emotionally manipulative. It felt like propaganda, for a good cause. I do think abuse does result in higher possibility of violence and other problems. No I don't think genetics matters more. I never said that. I think genetics plays a role though. However, the BIB series denies the role of genetics completely (in the BIB quotes I posted previously) I think that is misleading. It also suggested heavily that peaceful parenting will result in a peaceful society, which I don't think BIB could prove.

Schumer And Casey's Ex-PATRIOT Act: Details Of How They Plan To Get Saverin's $67M And More http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/schumer-and-caseys-ex-patriot-act-details-of-how-they-plan-to-get-saverins-67m-and-more/ "It’s pretty big: any ex-pat with either a net worth of over $2 million, or an average income tax liability of at least $148,000 over the last five years, “will be presumed to have renounced their citizenship for tax avoidance purposes.” The ex-pat will have to demonstrate to the IRS that this is not the case if it is not. If there is a “legitimate reason” for that person living outside the U.S. no penalties will apply. But if the IRS finds that someone gave up their passport for tax purposes, they will impose a tax on that individual’s investment gains “no matter where he or she resides.” The rate of that capital gains tax will be 30 percent — the same that non-resident aliens currently pay on dividends and interest earnings. The tax detailed this act, if approved, will backdate for 10 years after its approval." ... "As long as an individual does not pay his or her taxes under the scheme, he/she will be barred from entering the U.S., forever." Why the Ex-Patriot Act Is a Creepy Law http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ "Even if you disagree with some of that analysis, the most disturbing part about this is that two Senators are targeting a specific individual with legislation, and attempting to punish him for legal behavior because they find it personally offensive. It's an affront to the rule of law (as is putting the burden of proof on individuals rather than the state), and telling that of all the Wall Street crooks who've gotten away with actual illegal behavior in the last several years, the guy two U.S. Senators are singling out is a Facebook co-founder who has done nothing but benefit this country."

Well, now we are in agreement, but you are writing as if we are not We're both saying that early violence doesn't lead to kids growing into stupid violent adults; Stefan and many others are living examples. However, BIB uses that argument to scare parents to not abuse children. It feels like the film "Reefer Madness" applied to child abuse instead of smoking pot. In Reefer Madness the film's intent was to curb pot smoking. It showed that pot smoking would result in becoming a junkie criminal psycho. While wanting to prevent drug use is a good thing, the film attempts this by exaggerating the truth in order to scare people into doing the preferred behavior.

I suspect there will be some form of taxpayer bailout of the $1 Trillion + in student loans in the near future. It's probably what they had in mind when government took over student loans in 2009.

This video was recently posted on Youtube talking about pro-active asset protection. Protect Yourself from the Predatory State Published on Jan 12, 2013 Thanks for the information in this video. I'd really like if you continued in another show on the subject you touched on at 18:30 in the video ... that as government gets more desparate for more revenue, they will try to close options. Maybe after the conference, since it isn't being recorded, share some of the ideas that were discussed. Over the past few years, the U.S. has aggressively been forcing banks in other countries to disclose information on U.S. citizen accounts ... like in 2009 with UBS Swiss bank accounts. Since most banks are now in a symbiotic relationship with governments (and central banks) for mutual survival, they are acting in cooperation and unable to "protect" their clients in ways they did before. The U.S. is now on to those that are seeking to go elsewhere. The Ex-PATRIOT Act was a bill introduced in 2012 to go after people that leave the country to avoid paying our higher tax rates, something that's becoming a trend. As they seek more revenue, they will continue to hike rates in every bracket, and lower the threshhold for the higher tax brackets. I suspect more people will join the growing trend to leave. The Ex - PATRIOT Act is trying to find a way to tax people after they leave, rendering this strategy useless. Please do a show on this topic. If you already have, someone let me know which episode it is.

Fascist P2: 10:00 "... nature v. nurture, so there do seem to be some genetic predispositions towards sociopathy, but of course the epigenics argument is that genes determine nothing, the genes plus environment plus some choice determine nothing (I think that he misspoke there), the evidence that it's environmental is very strong, very strong ..." he then uses fluctuating percentages of sociopathy as proof that it is the environment that's influencing the changes. Fascist P3: 02:00 "... nature v. nurture, there's no clear answer"03:56 "as to why there are these people, ... theories around social reproductive strategies ..." 05:00 paraphrasing: He says if this sociopathy was kept at a low rate in a population, they'd be neutralized because they'd be at a social disadvantage. (I completely disagree here. Sociopaths are very adaptable and would thrive in a population that's accomodating and cooperative, because few people will have their guard up.)08:56: "mildly agnostic tending towards environment"

Since Stefan seems to want the BIB series to speak for his views, I am posting where in this series I am getting the impressions of his viewpoint on this subject: Part3: 02:00 "infancy and brain development. The mind and emotional content of the brain are created in the first few years ... created ... we are not born violent, we are not born warlike, we are not born aggressive... the mind and emotional content of the brain are created" the emphasis are his Part4: 03:37 "you have to know this stuff if you want to change the world ... you have to study how the brain processes beliefs" I think the titles themselves also say a lot about where he stands: The Bomb in the Brain Part 3 - The Biology of Violence: The Effects of Child Abuse The Bomb in the Brain Part 1 - The True Roots of Human Violence . The Bomb in the Brain Part 4 - The Death of Reason - The Effects of Child Abuse

Thanks LiberalRaver: I figured out early that something was wrong with them, kept to myself, and avoided them as much as I could growing up. Their general disinterest made it easy. I just had to watch out and take care of myself so as to not attract my mom's attention. The issue has resurfaced recently because she's starting the behavior with my niece and nephew now. Now that I can speak to her as an adult, I am trying to see if there's a way I can get her guard down, and communicate to her that it's not appropriate, especially the put downs because it makes me cringe when she starts doing that to them. She gets so defensive when I tell her to stop. I consider my brother a lost cause because he always says he didn't see anything or he doesn't remember. If I try saying something to him at the time, he ignores me. I think it is his way of avoiding her. I'm not around them much, but I see the same dynamics each time and it frustrates me. So, if anyone has any helpful suggestions ... I'm out of ideas.

in general I feel the topic has generated controversy and defensiveness. I felt that way reading the original text I quoted from your post which seems to accuse those that support some genetic explanations and research as motivated by their own participation in child abuse: I also engaged in some speculation that FDR does not want to dicuss this topic because it relies on the narrative that abused children turn out stupid and violent in order to scare parents to be non violent because it was more effective than convincing people all initiation of violence is wrong.

I don't think that's accurate. Stefan is a proponent of the non-aggression principle. So he is against the initiation of force. I don't think he is against violence in necessary self-defense, for example. the 'self defense' technicality is easy to get around for instance, FDR defines the State as initiation of force, therefore violence against the State would be justified by FDR if I apply some rudimentary logic

no, that's not the right analogy. The correct analogy would be: It would be like trying to get someone to stop smoking by saying second hand smoking could cause cancer in other people. Somehow, their concern for others' welfare would convince them to stop smoking, where concern for his own health was not sufficient an argument to convince him to stop. See, if the person was convinced violence is morally wrong, it would be so obvious he should not hit his child. But if that argument didn't work, and you have to rely on the nurture argument to get him to stop, he is not truly a believer in non violence, but in his own self interest to not end up with a screwed up kid. so if you rely on the nurture argument to achieve your noble objective of reducing child abuse, you should admit that you are trying to appeal to the parent's self interest, and did not achieve the goal of convincing the parent that violence is fundamentally morally wrong. it is the result you want, but there is a difference in strategy. the subtle difference relates to this topic because if you rely on the nurture argument to achieve a moral result, you will resist any challenges to it. if you relied on persuading people (to stop abusing others) using the non aggression principle, you wouldn't need the nurture argument, and wouldn't have to defend it so vehemently. it wouldn't turn a nature vs nurture discussion into accusations of it condoning child abuse.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.