Jay Paul

Bump.

Because the state demands that I earn a piece of paper to prove my competence to perform in my desired profession, personal fitness training and physical therapy. The university requires us to take prerequisite classes before we can enter into our major (as if 12 years of schooling prior to college isn't enough waste of our precious resources). I enjoy teaching people how to and assist them in healing their bodies, and luckily in this field I'll actually be subjected to the least amount of political bias compared to my fellow students. If we had a free-market I'd go get a loan tomorrow, purchase the equipment and facility I need, and begin my business tomorrow, but thanks to so many hurdles to enter the market a degree is preferable for being a personal trainer, and required to be a physical therapist. That's not to mention the business permits. I wouldn't agree that I'm actively supporting them. They'd get their pensioned paychecks with or without my ass taking up one extra seat in their lecture halls and classrooms. If this is the game their making me play to get where I'd like to go in life than I'll follow their rules. To me it's no more different than paying your taxes even though taxation is immoral. I'd just prefer to play along, take out student loans and subject myself to their propaganda, which to me is only a minor inconvenience to not spend my life practicing my passion.

I just noticed this the other day, and I found it empowering. Ben Rice, a young powerlifter with a youtube channel began accepting donations with the message that with the money he receives he'll invest in a new camera for higher quality videos. Now, just two days later he's posted a response video saying that he's already raised more than enough. I'll link the videos below. It really just goes to show that with the right audience and an honest request donations is a viable model for getting financial assistance. This is not to say that Stefan's tight-rope walk away from his old comfy salary praying that views like us would catch him has been enough evidence to prove our points. I just wanted to share that with you all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Yb_7hL9a0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FSeqK6Mq8

My two favorite channels (besides FDR of course): Elliott Hulse/StrengthCamp Jason Blaha/JuggernaughtFitnessTV Elliott takes a very holistic approach to strength, fitness, and general health covering a lot of functional body modalities, joint integrity, etc. On his self titled personal channel he talks about some of his pseudotheories on philosophy, spirituality, and mind/body integration. Jason Blaha talks more about the particulars in weight training programming and the science of nutrition. Combined they make a pretty formidable force of brain and brawn within the YouTube fitness community, and would encourage anyone, even if they're not into weight training, to check out some of the ideas they discuss and the manners in which they do.

When I said they have a monopoly I simply meant that as the majority if they all use a word to represent a particular meaning than that's basically what goes even though their sheer numbers doesn't make their misinterpretations correct, of course. I do see your point, and I actively try to remind people either in casual or academic conversions to avoid using any language that can be misconstrued. When they do use statist terms for things I also make an effort to correct them. "Arrest? You mean like normal men like you and I can remove you from wherever I am against my will and lock me room that I'm not allowed to leave, and if I try evading or escaping them at any time they'll shoot me dead? I thought those things were called kidnapping, holding hostage, and murder." *Sigh* It's really a shame that things even have to be pointed out. I mean, I'm 20 years old, and I believe I have an alright grasp on the whole application and implications of acting on philosophy thing, but how can most other people (>99%) not even have a fucking clue about what virtues are and how to act on them. I empathize with those who are curious, who have questions about the nature of our world, but are surrounded by people who just won't allow for their curiosity to flourish. And I understand those people (presuming their adults) are free to leave those relationships, but lack the strength of integrity to do so, because they likely haven't had the practice and training to prepare for such a terrifying false-self threatening endeavor...

Oh yeah. Of course. Unfortunately, like the roads, military/police, education, and a million and 1 other things statists have their monopoly on language as well.

I just had a thought. Yes, I have those from time to time. There's a reason why they call them "intellectuals" and not "rationals" or "universalizers". I'd say "philosophers", but unfortunately so many people who are self proclaimed "philosophers" don't in fact philosophize much at all besides justifications for their own personal incentives and preconceived preferences.

Well, of course. My geology prof mentioned on the first day of class that he has friends who work in the private sector who are millionaires and how easy it was for them to do it, and I immediately thought to myself, "Well, why in the hell do you teach at a university when you could be a millionaire doing something that is supposedly so busy? Because he's most likely a terrible employee and lacks the skills for success in the free-market."

Good points, all of you. Thanks for hearing my rant. Like I said in my original post, I was feeling frustrated, and felt the need to voice my thoughts. I guess that may be because I felt the need for confirmation about my feelings and ideas, and that my peers don't/wouldn't necessarily agree with me. I don't want to see my peers around me hear their misguided professors reinfect them uncontested. I don't consort with any of the other students in either of these classes, so I don't necessarily mind their foul opinions of me, so I enjoy being a gadfly to the current social paradigm by any means. Someone has to stand up against these inconsistent and irrationally immoral theories, right? Fortunately enough for me I've been doing much better avoiding negative self-talk and chastising myself. I've also been improving my ability to unapologetic when sharing what I believe is the truth, what is moral, and what is necessary for spreading these ideas of liberty in society.

Boy, oh boy. I just got out of my BS geology class at uni, and my prof was spewing so much statist propaganda for over half the class period talking about natural threats to humans on this earth of ours, and how it's the governments responsibility to protect us with their money. In my mind, I could see myself jumping up on stage beside this human microphone for blindly consenting to evil, and debate him on every point he made. I have a feeling it's going to be a long semester for me, and I don't know how long I'll be able to hold my tongue before I verbally lash out at this guy from my front row seat in our auditorium style classroom. I feel frustrated, annoyed, and helpless. I understand of course it's my responsibility on whether not I engage this man or not on his misguided and destructive theories about how state power should be used to fund his rock hobby. Honestly, I could care less about what this asshole thinks, but it's just that there are roughly 300 of my fellow students may actually believe what he says. I have another professor for my sociology class I have to leave for in just a little less than a half hour, and she's the bad kind of feminist as well as a statist. I can't just help, but think about how these two instructors of mine have failed in the private sector after they had graduated with their degrees to turn back around to the state out of their udder incompetence to suckle from it's tits like a baby without the ability to function outside from under the breast of the state.

Alright. Thanks Robin. I'll look into those.

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.

[bump]

[bump]

Yeah. She was conscious of it, and seemed to be honest with me. Here's her story. Maybe it'll help. Her parents got divorced when I think she said she was 4. Her parents' shared custody and her. Her dad got remarried and his new wife was physically abuse. She told me she was afraid to tell her biological mother that she was being abused. because her step-mom would kill her. I think she felt afraid, because she unconsciously knew that her mom knew her dad was capable of being with someone who's abusive. When she was 13 and she could choose who to live with permanently she choose her mom. She told me since then she hasn't had the best boyfriends, which is of course shows how she doesn't have the best judgement. Her most recent ex was a drug dealer and had a kid. So she still seams to me an unprocessed victim, because she's made no mention of therapy or how she recognizes that she hasn't always had the best relationship with men.