empyblessing

What a great post you made and a noble virtue to heal others. I am not the most learned on the subject of becoming a therapist but there are three paths that I'm aware of. One, the traditional route is to go to school for psychology and go through all of the therapist training and certification there. It's long, frustrating, and really doesn't teach you much, as far as my limited understanding is concerned. The second option is one that a lot of people are doing now, and that is to obtain a masters degree in social work. If you already have a degree in another area of study, you can probably apply to most graduate schools for social work. The reason why a lot of people choose this route is because it's less time intensive. The third route is to bypass the state and advertise your service as "life coaching" or "personal guidance" "self-help practioner". You perform the same function but you don't have access to medical referals, insurance companies, licensing, etc. You establish a private practice, offering low or free services for new clients, and bypass the entire state monoply. The difficult part is establishing clients and maintaining them because if you're good at your job, they won't be coming back. They might send their friends though.

One test determines your whole life. Talk about some pressure.

http://singularityhub.com/2009/12/15/martin-ford-asks-will-automation-lead-to-economic-collapse/ "The Lights in the Tunnel goes on to predict some pretty awful results from this widespread automation. With few high paying jobs, there will be less people able to buy goods. Sure, a few robotics corporations and software companies will create a new generation of trillionaires, but the number of consumers with middle class purchasing power will diminish. People will sense that purchasing power is dropping and consumer confidence will also decrease. Eventually all the wealth will be consolidated in a relative few, but with no one to sell to, those wealthy will struggle as the economy continues to wither."

Does japan "import" a lot of young employees from other countries?

I walked away for a few years because the community turned sour. I had trouble finding and keeping a guild and the one's I did find turned out to be malign. I transferred from a pvp server to a pve serve in hopes of enjoying the game more and cutting out some of the stress involved but I couldn't find any interesting people in the community. I played an mmo for so long solo that eventually I just gave it up. The game is meant to be played with friends. Then when GW2 came out I gave that a try. I liked it for a few weeks but the same dull cowlike people seemed to migrate from wow to GW2. Those who weren't vacuous were voracious predators trying to harm anyone as much as they could. In the end it was the community itself that drove me away from playing them but I still enjoy the games themselves and I remember when I did have a good time playing. In fact, I met some really great people when mmos were young, and the chan crowd of semi-autistic sociopaths didn't dominate.

Why not just increase taxes instead of issuing useless tickets which harm people's driving records.

Would China's one child policy support the same advance? Especially considering it's surplus of males who are more likely to be interested in computes and machines.

Insults are verbal violence, used to reduce someone's image and value instead of tactly disputing their arguments. Calling someone a name is an admission that your arguments are not valid enough to be stated rationally and if they're not rational how could they be accurate.

I practice philosophical yoga. I am not a jellyfish nor am I a crab. Most of my thoughts will be wrong. "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing" -Socrates I try and disprove my own beliefs constantly and feel a great sense of accomplishment when I do. Vulnerability and humility are helpful finding the truth. Also, calling a group idiots is an ad hominem which serves the same function as violence and is an admission of defeat.

I'd love to start an FDR/ancap guild if anyone is interested. I used to play wow/gw2 but could be interested in trying out a new mmo. Drop a reply here if interested. Even if you played in the past and quit, I'd love to talk about what makes you attracted to mmos. Thanks.

Please give a more informative description of the video you linked.

I believe you're imagining the current system today where people prey on one another's person and property. In the idealized stateless society there would be far less predation. Infrastructure also becomes cheaper to construct, maintain, and more resistent to elements. Technology decreases in price as its efficency increases. Based on that I disagree that the rich could not consume an inordinate amount of land because it assumes the price of property maintenence today will not decrease. I'm still in the proces of reading that link.

Even if that were possible, how will you satisfy those needs? Most of the water on this planet isn't potable. That's the real problem we're trying to solve, isn't it?

I think alpha in its most simple definition is a leader. If people are following you, you are an alpha. People can follow you for good or bad reasons. Some alphas have people follow them out of fear while some provide value. It is a scientific term even if often abused. Study biology, particularly relations within a species of social animals, and you will see the alpha / beta relation at play. The alpha gets to breed with whomever he wants while a bottom level beta may assist in the alpha's sexual goals, but he will not breed at all. He is a dead end. If you look at any position in society that is male dominated, it is because it is a postion where males receive this alpha status by achieving it. Understand this, and the world makes A LOT more sense. I strongly encourage anyone who really wants to have more understanding of what is going on in society to study evolutionary psychology. It just makes me want to kill myself.

Fair enough; however, I don't see a pratical barrier between that which supposedly ought to be socialized and that which simply will be due to the inertia of the state. They define their enemy as the rich, among other things.

Now that is interesting. I'm guessing that, as you don't include NAP as part of your definition, some of this competition could be through the exercise of force. "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. " -Leviathan Even Hobbes understood that, in such a condition, there could be nothing like trade or commerce. You see, markets and violence are in strict opposition. I'd recommend you read (or listen to) the book Markets Not Capitalism. It's free, and addresses many ideas about separating the state and property. It may be able to help you communicate your argument. Believe it or not, you can be pro-market and anti-capitalist I will definately read what you posted. The web has turned me into an information junkie.

The meritocrats consider themselves social-capitalists. Socialized medicine, health care, educaton, and inheiritance.

"free market" is just another way of saying, people shouldn't use violence against other people (NAP) or their stuff (acceptance of property). Which of those two principles do you have issues with? And why? If you don't mind me asking I disagree with your definition of free market. Non violence is nonviolence. Free market is free market. I cannot see them as inclusive. Then please give your definition or the term. Everyone here (or at least every AnCap/voluntarist) understand the free market as NAP & Property rights (correct me if I'm wrong, guys). So if you chose to use the term completely differently then at least provide a definition and make explicit what you're talking about on on what principles it is based. Else it's just purpesfully misleading and a straw man from the beginning, which doesn't really allow for a productive debate to take place. Just to clarify, I define myself as someone who wants to best help people while keeping an open mind to all possibilties with the belief that everything changes. I do my best to apply this constancy of change to everything I believe in with regards to the most current state of our collective knowledge. I am not a statist because statism does not recognize the need to continually revalue itself. If it did, it would realize that violence is ineffective in improving the means of production and expanding knowledge. I believe that evolution leads to a constant graduation to greater levels of complexity whose only "conclusion" is infinite knowledge and it's inevitable revaluing to the least finite form in our perputual state of non-stagnate existence and the process begins again, waxing and waning, from the novel to the mundane, from the greatest potential to the greatest actualization ad infinitum. My goal is not to follow any moral code but to become, on both a personal and universal level, the most complex being possible. That being said, I cannot see much value in debate as it currently exists in our language as its confrontational nature usually leads to excess emotional banter and belittling others in order to dispute their claims. Also, debate implies that I have a fixed position which I will rigidly adhere to, defend, and support, and that is simply not the case. As Hereclitus said, "You cannot stand in the same river twice." The information is more complex as well and is explain in greater detail on the site I linked, and while I do not support their position on the majority of things, the information they provide on philosophy and metaphysics has changed my outlook. I would include more but I've digressed too much already. Which brings me to how I define free market capitalism. I would define free markets as the competitive exchange of resources and services based on a pricing mechanism. I'm confident that this definition could be improved on but unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to do it. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by defining what is and isn't violence as it will submerge the conversation in a vortex of minutia and insanity which will leave us as chimpanzees hurling feces at each other.

once back in the Commonwealth's hand, who gets to decide where the money is then allocated? Wouldn't you just be creating a new dynasty, namely, the people who get to decide where the 'returned' money goes. lol, hardly. greed is a human emotion, nothing we can do to rid ourselves of it. What we can do is create a society that channels that greed, as Smith suggested happens in a true market economy. Greed is a product of scarcity and contradicts all empircal date collected on emergent human nature.

When we argue out of emotion we argue for our authority over the truth not for truth as authority.

I wouldn't try and I don't advocate this sites meritocratic society but it does address some problems that are not looked at today: LCD capitalism and inheirted wealth. It's capitalism which is responsible for the vanity markets today which have ruined the body image of men and women, provoked them into pursuing mindless materialism. It's capitalism that sponsors the millions of advertisements that people are inundated with endlessly. Capitalism which supports plutocrats and ogliarchs in the form of inheirited wealth, which even viewed as future capital used to create jobs does not address the problem of massive hoarding of resources. Nor does any of the proponents of capitalism address the social problems of inheirted wealth where the children of the rich are given greater access to the best schools, best business contacts, best doctors, all which ensure their supremacy over others. Too many ancaps wave the magic wand of the free market and assume that anything which comes out of it must be good and anything which is bad is not the free market but the state. One could easily argue that the state does not exist but is in essence the natural extension of free market capitalism that exists today. Everything can be purchased, including politicians and their monopoly on violence. Removing the monopoly of violence from the system instills a power vacuum which is assumed by ancaps will be filled by beneficent and yet fiercely competitive businessmen who must, by nature of their own survival, struggle with all power in their ability against all competitors in their market to their eventual bankruptcy or form partnerships with those business and collude in a cartel.

"free market" is just another way of saying, people shouldn't use violence against other people (NAP) or their stuff (acceptance of property). Which of those two principles do you have issues with? And why? If you don't mind me asking I disagree with your definition of free market. Non violence is nonviolence. Free market is free market. I cannot see them as inclusive.

Bread, water and a blanket perhaps? I really have no idea what other peoples basic needs are. I know my own of course, but that includes a laptop and an internet connection for me. The ability to choose my own diet and clothes, where I live etc. I was curious since your introduction stated that these needs would be granted by right of birth. Who or what would grant this right and decide on what those needs were and how would it be enforced? Human need can be quantified. Human need is not infinite. It's not some magical economic theory or other religious dogma floating around in the ether. Need is for food and shelter. Science would determine human need with little use for opinion. Your laptop is a psychological need. If you start choking on a piece of food, you'll know exactly that human need works on a quantifiable, revaluable scale that can be determined with precision the same way that numbers are ordered. No human opinion is needed to value 2 as greater than 1.

I'm going to come off sounding really stupid when I ask this but what is an alpha? Is this some scientific term or have a rational explanation? From my understanding it seems bogus and if Roosh is an example of an alpha than it seems like its a euphemism for a neglected and abused boy.