Existing Alternatives

There is definitely some room for this type of help or external motivation in general. Although, at risk of sounding like a complete douche, nobody can “self-help” you, except for … self. These guys usually work like either a jolt of caffeine to one’s motivation or provide a band-aid solution to a more serious problem. If over-used, however, one may end up ignoring the underlying problems altogether, while developing an outright addiction to this kind of “help.” Scientology seems to use a similar approach (hope I’m not offending anyone here) – they don’t address deep psychological problems, but rather create a sensation of euphoria, which can only be sustained by more “auditing”. Yet another risk is that “self-help” business is very lucrative and as such attracts huge number of charlatans, who just throw in a bunch of profound sounding statements together and wrap a couple of cool sounding stories around it. Often times they would be akin astrology or cold reading, where a lot of what they say seem to make deep personal sense. Personally, I greatly enjoy listening to these guys: Tony Robbins, Zig Ziglar, Deepak Chopra, Dennis Waitley, Brian Tracy every once in a while. I also enjoy a nice latte in the morning to keep me perked up. This helps, but you can’t use any of that as the foundation for your personal life.

Thanks for sharing this. Please don’t take my word as any form of medical or scientifically-based advice, just my thoughts. If you think it’s all pure nonsense, feel free to treat it as such. First thought that came to my mind when reading this was “So what?” So, you stare at mouths, are dyslexic, don’t care for spelling, joined FDR, etc. – I don’t think that makes you any more of a man or less of a woman. There are plenty of men out there who are more feminine than most women, and vice versa. None of us have “perfect” amount of testosterone or masculine/feminine traits balance, but that’s what makes us special. And who gets to define "perfect," anyway? A lot of time we are trying to fit into definitions assigned to us by the society, but at the end of the day we are all individuals and should only be concerned with our own comfort. It is an interesting exercise to try and understand why you are the way you are, but you are running a risk of making it an obsession with some potentially dangerous conclusions. Personally, I would advise you to enjoy what you enjoy and live the way you want to live, who cares what you stare at when people talk! (Unless, of course, it's a medical thing that needs to be taken care of right away...)

Thanks for pointing this out. Canadian financial system has now officially became an extension of government (unofficially it has been one for a long time). I was not aware of the “ability to re-capitalize the deposits” – very re-assuring /s. Interestingly enough, this ability only applies to “Systemic” banks, which in Canada are known as Big 6 (and who control vast majority of the financial assets), but not to smaller players. Very similar situation to Cyprus. Kind of makes sense to consider moving one’s deposits to a smaller bank. Too bad ING is now part of BNS.

I think the problem is that we failed to convince them that state is the “power over” relationship. I found this to be the main strength of Stef’s system both for my personal conversion and the conversations I’m having with my friends – realizing that state = violence.

This is brilliant! I think this test scientifically proves that God exists and (s)he runs USPS! Nice shoes, btw…

I don't think this is particularly hypocritical. Hypocrisy is generally refers to an active promotion of an idea, while living out something completely opposite. For example, standing on a street corner with the poster that claims rape being bad and after going into a basement and through the whole Pulp Fiction sequence will be quite hypocritical. Consistency though is something bit different. Your example of overlaying rape with racism could actually be consistent for someone who believes in racial inequality. This will create an additional burden of proof (whether racial inequality is morally justifiable). The point is that a subset inherits all qualities of superset, superset does not. I thought my mosquitoes example was very clever: let me try and expand it. If you hate all insects - you hate mosquitoes, if you hate mosquitoes - you may or may not hate all insects. Same applies to hypocrisy: hypocrisy is inconsistent – inconsistency is not necessarily hypocritical. Let's go back to rape. Rape is a universally immoral act. Rape is part of the "power-over" superset. Are all "over power" actions universally immoral? (I don't know). Further, outside of this small community, state is not generally considered a "power-over" entity. Therefore, in order for us to claim "their" inconsistency, at least two conditions have to be met: "they" have to accept that (1) state is a "power-over" entity and (2) all "power-over" entities are universally immoral. As of right now, we have neither.

He is a bare-chested urine drinking anti-war protester from Albuquerque, New Mexico. He has an interesting way of fighting the war – he earns the least amount of income necessary to survive but not enough to pay income tax, so no money of his would support the war. He also write a slew of letters / articles on the subject. To me, he sounds like a libertarian without even knowing it. I would consider (partially) sponsoring a trip for this interview.

Evangelicalism is good business. You need flashy websites and lotsa bling to sell the word of Jesus.

That’s a very interesting point that I never heard or thought of. Usually, I would argue that corporations are income producing tools of individuals and since individuals are taxed on the output of their tools, taxing tools is nothing short of double taxation. But saying that corporate tax is simply “protection money” for the liability removal – that’s something I’d need to internalize. Thanks!

If the sales tax is moral because you have the right not to buy anything, wouldn’t income tax be just as moral because you have a similar right not to earn anything? At the same time, since you can avoid being raped by locking yourself in your own house, does it make rape any more moral?

Governments are usually only successful in raising funds through lotteries when they set a monopoly on issuing these lotteries. In a true free-market environment there is always competition that will undercut the profits and all but eradicate any funds being raised. These monopolies are usually maintained by means of … violence. So, no, no dice for “voluntary taxation”. Funny enough, as government always grows, there are tonnes of examples in history of these voluntary lotteries eventually becoming less voluntary, but rather just another form of explicit taxation.

I think in this situation it is important to be very honest with yourself and clarify why you are doing certain things. In my experience with school, I was able to identify three purposes for any given class or classwork: (1) genuine interest in the subject / professor, (2) something that provides me with necessary knowledge / experience in my future field (i.e. open source electronics), (3) stuff I need to get the degree. Once you classify all your work in this manner, you should be able to allocate the absolute minimum effort to the last category, while freeing up time for the first two. Will a “C-” in English 101 keep you legit at school? Would it not require barely showing up in class? There goes an extra hour a week you would have spent worrying about that. Keep in mind that GPAs are only good to maintain scholarships or for entry into grad school. Other than that, they have very little bearing in the real world, unless you are applying for an entry-level job at Google. “Time and money are never enough, but you can always find a little bit more”.

I think that type of thinking is probably inconsistent, but not particularly hypocritical (unless they actually support or perpetrate rape). You could also look at it as a special case of violence. For example, I hate mosquitoes, but it would not be hypocritical or even inconsistent if I am ok with the rest of insects. I am sure most people who oppose rape not only look at it as a special case of violence, but also not consider it to be in the same class as state. Provided they actually make the state-violence connection.

You mean, “…at least we have universal healthcare…” kind of pride? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for you - it’s been my struggle up here as well. Please let me know, if you find a solution. The standard response I’ve been given in any argument, was “if you like capitalism/guns/freedom/you-name-it so much, just move to the States.” How do you respond to this? Better yet, even libertarians up here tend to be more of a “liberal” variety, as in “government bad, but somebody needs to provide healthcare.” My favourite battle was with an NDP-leaning friend of mine about “two-tier healthcare system”… pointing out that Maple Leafs players have their own MRI machines, and don’t have to wait for months for a routine scan seemed to have made a slight dent in his thinking.

Hope you feel better, Martin. While you are recovering, I would recommend listening to Stef’s podcasts 248 and 249, where he addresses a lot of this in (obviously) much more cohesive manner. One point I would challenge you to ponder on is the connection between violence and the state. You (personally) have no control over the law production. So, despite your best intentions, someone will come up with heinous laws. Why would you want to give anyone power to create these laws upfront? We don’t know whether anarchy is sustainable, but we do know that minarchism isn’t (easy example is the USA). Btw, I was thinking about your earlier comment on there being no “shred of anarchy in the world”… Actually, there are plenty of such “shreds”. For example, let’s take your personal interactions with friends, storekeepers, employers, employees, etc. – how often do you resort to the state or violence in those? If your answer is none, then would not that qualify your little world as anarchic? If everyone else is in a similar situation, aren’t we all already living an anarchist’s dream (with an unfortunate overhead of leaches)?

There is a scene in Renaissance Man, when DeVito’s character arrives at Fort Liberty for the first time. As a part of a training exercise, soldiers were stabbing their bayonets into dummies while yelling “Kill! Kill! Kill!” In shock DeVito asked his guide, “Are they yelling ‘Kill’?” To which his guide replied, “Well yeah, this is the Army!” For some reason this scene really stuck in my mind for 20 years now.

I don’t think it’s an assertion or claim at all, left alone logic of any kind. It is simply a definition. Living organisms are categorized based on many characteristics, one of them being feeding behaviour, i.e. whatever the organism regularly consumes. If they eat primarily flesh – they would be carnivores, plants – herbivores, fungus – fungivores, all of the above – omnivore (hence, the “omni” + “vore”). Because we (as species) eat a diverse cuisine, we are classified as “omnivores”. If we start eating nothing but mushrooms as species, we will get reclassified as fungivores, etc. This classification is independent of anatomy, biology or even the amount of money you spent, but rather behaviour and ecology only! It is also fairly generally accepted – as in by anyone with “scientific credentials.” Although, I am not sure why “credentials” as so important for stating anything at all… You call it “claim,” I call it “definition”. Yes, in definitions both sides of the equation mean the same, where is the break down? I have not put forward a single finding. So, you can’t possibly be at variance with me. But I sincerely wish you all the best in your research, although, I would suggest you either put your definitions upfront or use generally-accepted ones. Ultimately, I don’t disagree with your research or findings. I would love to learn more about it, for that matter. But just because something is not healthy, we can’t just change the definition. Well, that was your discussion with another member, which I hijacked – apologies. Btw, as a matter of clarification, Oxygen Poisoning is deadly.

Btw, I am assuming that we closed off all previous discussions, since you did not answer a single clarfying question I posed…

I am not familiar with “law production facility” concept, or why it is inevitable, but I will attempt to rephrase both questions at once… So, you think (these are just thoughts, not absolute truths, right?) that absence of state will result in violent biblical or socialist dictatorship and you’d rather build a foundation for a state yourself, albeit a small one. Is that correct? So, all these creators will have to do is to build up and expand the existing state as opposed to start from scratch? Would it not make a stronger case for anarchy? At least this way they’ll have a lot more work to create something from nothing.

Can you be a little bit more specific? I spent an hour looking for “scientific literature” in the library and saw nothing remotely related to the subject. There's no science to support this idea either, all the human anatomy and physiology indicates that we are plant eaters. Let me throw in my two cents concerning biological terminology (but not ethics). Living organism (animals and plants) are classified into a number of categories based on their feeding behaviour. Carnivores eat primarily flesh, Herbivores – plants, Omnivores – a bit of both. (There are many other categories, of course). There is also an order in Animal Kingdom called Carnivora, which includes primarily carnivores that possess many characteristics that Bbeljefe described. The two overlap, but not completely. There are Carnivorans that are not Carnivores and vice versa. Anatomy has less to do with this then ecology. What’s around – gets eaten. Having certain teeth or eyes on the back of one’s head may predispose one to a certain feeding behaviour, but won’t necessarily exclusively result in it. Having said that, Homo Sapiens (aka those who read FDR) are not Carnivorans, but rather Primates as far as order is concerned. However, because they consume both plant and animal matter they are classified as… Omnivores. That seals it… again!.. So, now we have… double-seal!… Tell me about this when you discover that oxygen is atherogenic or can refute that animal products cause endotoxic inflammatory reactions after consumption. Actually, I don’t think he meant that Oxygen causes Atherosclerosis (i.e. atherogenic). But, you can get poisoned with oxygen. It’s called… um… Oxygen Poisoning

Let me try to less simplify this… Do you agree that government is the outmost initiator of violence in any society? If so, would not having less of the most violence initiator lead to less violence? Further, would not elimination of the most violence initiator lead to even less violence? Would not NAP be better that approximation to NAP? I am actually slightly offended by this. Where did you get death penalty from? For Blasphemy, nonetheless… Not sure what your point is here… Do you think that US Constitution is horrible because it enabled freedom? My point was, that arguably (and I am not a constitutional expert here by any stretch) US Constitution is the closest we got to a recipe for a minarchist society. In many aspects it explicitly limited federal government and explicitly guaranteed certain freedoms. Despite all this, paper does not work against guns (or scissors). What are you basing this on? It sounds like you are suggesting that it is possible to write a document that everyone will voluntarily agree, clearly understand and automatically and permanently abide to. Is that correct? And you don’t think American “Founding Fathers” had a similar intent, is that correct?

Welcome to the board, Martin! I am a former longtime minarchist myself, so I think I understand where you are coming from. I crossed over when I realized that force = bad, government = force, less government = still force. To build on Bbeljefe’s analogy, a little bit of cancer is still cancer, and, most importantly, cancer always grows. Your points more specifically: 1) Anything “can be abolished through concentration of military power and a sociopath in charge.” Hopefully, in a stateless society, a sociopath would have hard time recruiting enough military power among freedom-loving people. Also, the same freedom-loving people will be able to resist any such concentration with their own means and arms. Btw, there is no one “in charge”. 2) I would say anarchic society “leads to less initiation of force” than minarchic by very definition. 3) Aren’t constitutions of the world designed to do just that? I would say Prime Law is contained in every single one of them in some shape or form. At the end of the day, they are still just pieces of paper, and fail every time to stop any kind of aggression. The question you should ask is WHO is going to enforce minarchistic limits? Wouldn’t that be the same guys with guns who we are trying so hard to limit against? Ultimately, minarchism has been tried and failed (see USA), anarchism has not yet, maybe we have a chance. For more information I would direct you to Stef’s podcast number 248, where he speaks about this at length. Good luck in your journey!

Welcome Andy! Congratulations on crossing over! It is a great feeling to realize that you own yourself and no one else has any claim on you. I am also very happy to see that you want to build and create tangible things that will benefit humanity and your own bottom line. As far as your educational experience is concerned, I am way passed that stage, but, having spent enough time in school, feel I can comment. College and even post-graduate education has nothing to do with advancement and freedom. Rather it serves two purposes for you: (1) provide technical knowledge, such as physics fundamentals, etc. and (2) certification, ie degree which will allow you employment in your chosen field. Beyond these two, you must learn, explore and grow on your own, oftentimes in direct contradiction to what you are being indoctrinated with in school. Good luck and welcome!

There are very bright minds in government that are getting paid handsomely for figuring out ways to get ahold of your money, so, nothing is off limits. Gold is a good alternative, but it too can be taxed, levied or otherwise expropriated (there are too many historic precedents). I see Cyprus affair itself as inconsequential – it barely represents 0.2% of Eurozone economy. All Russian money will leave tomorrow for Latvia or whatever next offshore centre is still in business and their banking system will simply implode. What’s more important, in my view, is that they seem to be using Cyprus as a testing ground for similar actions on a bigger stage. Notice, that the levy is 9.9% instead of 10%, single digits would be better received than double. If there is not much calamity, this thing will be implemented on grander scale someplace else, Spain, perhaps. There are plenty of places to keep your money outside of Eurozone. Switzerland and Liechtenstein, for one. Feel more exotic – Singapore, Hong Kong, Mauritius, entire Caribbean. The key here is to diversify, you should not keep all your savings in only one country or same currency zone or highly correlated economies.

This reminded me of Prince Harry’s assertion that “killing Taliban is more like playing a video game.” The real question is killing which would make you happier Iraqis or Taliban