VforVoluntary49

But your argument implies a need for a minimum wage, especially in adult markets. Example-a family with one worker making $9 an hour yes will only make around $1000 a month. If it were say market price (maybe 6 as a simple example) then perhaps two people in family would be employed instead of 1 and the family could bring in 1500 instead if 1000. Also you are conflating cause and effect to a degree- you are missing all the effects and distortions on the economy that an artificially high minimum wage causes which can contribute to higher costs, higher prices and a higher cost of living.

As we all know, in his State of the Fatherland (sorry, Union) address Obama proposed a minimum wage increase to $9 an hour. I think just about everyone on this site (or the vast, vast majority) understands the economic fallacies packed into this one and any minimum wage so that's not what I really want to bring up. But I saw an online poll about this that really struck me-70% of people in the poll supported the increase and only 30% opposed it. The reasons in the comments are the same ones we here every single time any of us debates this with anyone (rising cost of living, can't raise a family on this, richest country in world, fat cats need to give up some of their insane profits yada yada) and it was just so disheartening to read. When you have a small community of people (such as FDR, a few personal friends) who understand these things, it is even more striking when looking out into the public and realizing just how far society is from changing for the better, and in fact many days it feels like it is changing for the worse by the minute. I think much of the minimum wage debate goes back to children not being able to delay gratification and not seeing past the immediate benefits/consequences of their actions, and is simply compounded by the horrifying lack of true economic education in this country (also, I think we should all chip in to buy Obama and Congress each a copy of "Economics in One Lesson", they desperately need it). But my question is, what is the course we should take? It honestly truly feels like the days of Atlas Shrugged, and debating these things and arguing these things with people who are afraid of you and think you are evil/heartless/don't care about anybody but yourself, who don't even realize that you care about the future of this country and people than they can imagine is just simply so difficult and feels so fruitless, and it also feels like by debating these issues it is simply giving our sanction. I sometimes wonder if we are at the point where we should just let it go, and let the system eat itself. If it is truly pointless to try to convince people in general, to show them the truth and simply keep our eyes open for those who are nearly their themselves and simply help them get over the hump. It feels like by arguing and trying to fix things, we are like Dagny and our energy to try to change things and fix the system is just pouring our energy into it to sustain it even longer. The minimum wage argument has been destroyed a hundred times over, by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Sowell etc. and yet 70% of Americans (at least in this poll) are for AN INCREASE-when they don't even understand any of the economics surrounding it. When I first realized the truth about these things (basically everything we discuss at FDR and Stef discusses) I wanted to run out screaming it for anyone to hear, because I felt that if I only said the truth people would realize it and come rushing to listen, and I could not understand how people could be so blind. Now I can see even more clearly and I just wonder if we should continue fighting or if we should be like Galt and just withdraw our sanction from a system that does not even acknowledge our presence, except to deride, mock and spit on us...

Exactly-the only problem I see is the pain of looking at the millions and millions of labor-hours and other wasted resources of the last century alone that were spent on wars, government programs, war on drugs, war on terror, war on illiteracy, artifically restricted by unions etc. that could have been spent much more productively in the the free market to advance our civilization lightyears ahead. We should probably have jet-packs that run on a glass of water a day by now, if we weren't so busy spending trillions of dollars and people's lives fighting to defend or invade imaginary lines on maps.

I have been there countless times as well, the conversations and the common fall-back emotional arguments people give. I've tried to work on it and see different ways that work, but one thing I definitely try to be aware of is if the person is at least walking towards the right road, or is completely lost (Stef's argument that we are performing triage and must determine whether the people in our lives are able to be "saved" or not, or if all our efforts and arguments and pleas will simply fall on deaf ears). If the person seems just too far gone, perhaps it is worth it to do the all-in-gambit discussion right then and there, to save time and pain-if they recoil or don't understand and label you ridiculous, idealist, insane yada-yada, then you know where the relationship stands and can move on from there. But I do think that if someone is at least in the right ball-park (open to rational discussion, not overly emotional, maybe a libertarian or minarchist who just isn't quite there), then I think that a slower, series of small discussions can help break down those barriers. If someone is close I'd rather work hard and try to get them to see the gun in the room as soon as possible, but I will take my time if the alternative is to have them recoil from our perspective if I come at it too strongly and they are unable to understand immediately. I guess it's my personal struggle in these discussions between prudence and bluntness-gradualism v practicality.

Any fellow Ohioans on the board, specifically in the northern/Cleveland area?

Could you maybe expound upon what you think potential problems might be-I don't quite understand what the question is.

As we all know, in the news recently, the wave of anti-gun pro-gun propoganda has been flowing all around, but this post really isn't for one side or another or even about the gun issue at all. It's more a question about how/why people have this major disconnect between the propoganda and what is fed to them, and their daily interactions. Gabby Gifford (the former representative who was attacked and shot years ago) has been in the news and interviews coming out in support of gun control, but why? By that I mean, why don't people realize that she has a vested or rather personal and emotional interest in favoring more gun control. I think that we all sympathize with a victim of a random attack and this is not attacking Giffords personally in any way, but I think any rational person would be able to know that she almost certainly will be for LESS gun control. It's be like victim of a burglary pushing for longer police response times-it just would not make sense. We don't interview cancer patients on how to treat cancer, because they are emotionally attached in one aspect and the other that they usually aren't experts on the topic-but there is this disconnect at times. I work in retail while in school and it is amazing sometimes how strongly media propoganda works on people. They will come in and ask questions about certain products, and whatever I recommend (whether it is my store's personal brand or a outside brand) people respond 9 times out of 10 with skepticism and a wary eye because they don't know my motives/etc. But then other times people will come in after seeing a commercial for a product and absolutely 100% trust what the advertisement said, even though it is blatantly obvious that the commercial for a product will be glorifying the benefits of that product! Same with if they saw the product on a TV show or a celebrity endroser, and I just don't understand where the disconnect comes in with people between personal interaction vs propoganda and why one is constantgly met with distrust when the person can be directly questioned one on one, but then the other is often fully trusted even though there is no way to interview the advert company or endorsers to delve into their personal reasoning. If any one has any comments or theories I'd love to hear them, and thank you for your time.

I can totally sympathize, my grandfather was a police officer for 30 years and the rest of my family plus him had served in the military or guard at some point in their lives and definitely pushed me towards it. The other big reason I was leaning that way was the money for my education etc but when I thought about it and realized that if I ever directly or indirectly caused someone to be killed then I would basically a gun-for-hire and I couldn't reconcile that inside. I understand the honor and honorable combat aspect but I'm glad you realized that there is no honor in blindly following orders. No you can start with atlas it's not a direct sequel or anything. Basically she puts her philosophy out on the individual level in fountainhead and then expands it to the societal in atlas but being that you've already learned about most of these ideas you shouldn't have a problem

Thanks for the kind words as well. I actually came close twice to going into the national guard (was going through some dark times internally and and basically almost sold out my soul in a way but I could never quite make it happen. What made you go into the military in the first place-from the sounds of it it doesn't seem like you would have been happy in there to start, or did you just change a lot while there? Also, highly recommend Rand's books and if I were you I would start with either anthem or the fountainhead before atlas shrugged-atlas is my personal favorite and probably the most relevant to the conversation taking place at FDR but the other 2 are shorter, easier reads and also kind of lay the groundwork for Atlas.

All my life, at home, in school, with friends I knew that something was wrong, that what I kept hearing about the world was not correct. I didn't know how or why and whenever I tried to investigate I was beaten back and beaten down by those around me, and came to think that I was alone, that I was just wrong. But something kept picking at my brain, and I could never reconcile what I felt inside about war, violence, religion, etc. with the world and its words... I don't believe in "god" or any deity but I do believe that if you attempt to remain tru to yourself and your values, the world will give you what you need (or perhaps more accurately, if you keep searching you will find the truth). As a sophomore in high school, I switched into AP english at the last minute and that was the class I first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and instantly found what I was looking for. Ayn Rand was able to put into words so many of the things that I had always thought in my head but could never find the way to speak. I had a few issues with her philosophy but when you find the only water in a desert you devour it, no matter how dirty-at least it isn't like the miles of sand all around you. But for many years I never realized there was more to the ideas than just Rand-I thought her philosophy was from long ago and had died out in the world I was living in, so few people did I see who even came close to espousing these ideas, and so while quietly considering myself a Libertarian I went about my life, trying to put many of the things I believed (independence, integrity, self-worth and "honest self-interest") into practice but always found myself living a twisted life between the world inside and the world outside, and the conflict drove me down a number of times. But then a few years later (this past year or so) I heard my first Ron Paul speech and fell down the rabbit hole, so to speak-reading his work, the work of many of the Austrian economists, moved onto looking at some revisionist history, and ended on Rothbard's minarchism/semi-anarchism. Stuck there for awhile, throughout the election cycle and could not fathom how people were not supporting this man in droves, so honest and correct he was compared to the rest of the dancing puppets surrounding him. After the election ended I could still realize something was just still barely missing, that the movement must have missed something or must have some fatal flaw because it just didn't add up in my mind. In a suggested video to one I was watching on youtube, I saw "The Story of Your Enslavement", and finally "exited the Matrix". Started reading UPB, Everyday Anarchy and listening to the podcasts, and am greatly interested in pursuing these ideas and investigating further-because just about everything I keep hearing is what I've always known but never had the words to say, and now I can't get enough. I am doing my best to internalize and investigate this freedom as fully as possible, and find new ways to bridge the gap for those who are not quite here yet and may not find the way, so small is the window we have in this current world. Anyways, thank you for listening FDR community-I am so pleased and honored to be here. Stay strong and stay free.

Have you attempted to debate people yet and if so what kind of successes/failures do you find yourself having? Also, congratulations on finding your way to FDR and freeing yourself-the more the merrier!

Greetings-glad you were able to find your way to FDR. Don't be ashamed of being in the military, because you realized what it was and that at least shows you have integrity and virtue that wouldnt be corrupted. What made you decide to leave, specifically-was it the whole charade of honor, justice, virtue etc. or was it something more specific than that? Either way, welcome aboard!

Any time we can hear stories like this it lets us all know we aren't alone-unfortunately while going through it we almost never realize that and I wonder sometimes how many people have made half-excursions down this path but were beaten back by the propoganda or the peer-pressure or simply the loneliness that comes with having these ideas picking away at your mind. If you don't mind my asking, about how long was your conversion process, months, a year, years? I'm curious if it tends to be more drawn out for some people or more like it was for me, more of an accelerating rollercoaster that started slowly but then inertia and gravity took over. Either way, congratualions and hopefully you are finding many of the answers here that you were looking for.

How soon do you expect the novel to be completed, and how do you plan on getting it out to be read (sending it to publishers, self-distributing etc.) Just as a curious observer, but it definitely sounds like a novel with great potential.

Well done finally freeing yourself of nonsense-it sounds like you have done well for yourself and hopefully you can find some like-minded people here, so welcome!

It's even worse than that-Stefan discusses this in "Everyday Anarchy" and elsewhere for sure, but the main fact is that you need to ask yourself "How did this man get on the ballot in the first place?". The answer is that you truly have no choice to begin with in this facade of "democracy", especially at the state and definitely the Federal levels. The men in front of you have already been bought and paid for 10 times over, and are answerable only to those who give them the money and resources needed to remain an "option". Nor does that man know who votes for him, why they voted for him, what policies of his they agreed with, which they disagreed with but were outweighed by the first, etc. We are fed the fairy tale that these men are here out of a sense of duty, altruism, justice, etc. but then look at their campaign contributors. It's all smoke and mirrors, the distraction presented to you while they pick your pocket from behind. And it's self-perpetuating; the only men with the power to change this "system" (outside of outright revolution) are the ones already embedded within the system! Apart from pleasing their owners, their next major concern is consolidating their own power and authority and adding additional obstacles to entry into the power structure. That's one reason why it costs so much more to run for office each year-its the same as any union or protectionist legislation, simply a barrier to entry in the field.

My girlfriend and myself literally had this same conversation today (although the parts you seemed to have sticking points with went a lot smoother with us). Just a few questions-what age bracket are the two of you and is it feasible to push having children out for a few years or not. Also, even if home-schooling your children did you discuss allowing them to participate in community sports, activities etc. of their choosing at an appropriate age-those seem to be good situations for social skill development, especially when it is in an environment where the child doesn't seem like he/she is forced to go but has voluntarily chosen to go to. Finally, are you religious at all or are you an atheist, and what does she consider herself. That is a major issue that (no matter how emotional she may get when it is discussed) you have to hash out, because it will surely be the cause of major issues in your future relationship.

Just another sign of both how far we've come as a society (50 years ago it was probably 6/10) and how much work there is still left to do

I think his situation is very similar to many situations people like himself and in his age bracket have experienced-the idea that all he has to do is present an idea or the truth and that it will be obvious to people and they will take it to the next level. Major kudos to him for despising that that wouldn't happen and taking it upon himself to actively work at changing the world around him instead of falling into despair or giving up when he realizes how alone he is down there. Too many people have too much vested in these falsehoods-anyone speaking the truth has to not only fight the lie but all the parasites clinging to it. I hope more people see him fighting his fight andy it gets them to stand up too