Hugh Akston

No, I'm saying I'm skeptical and the lack of skepticism is suspicious.

I used to be skeptical but I took the blue pill and now I understand! http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm

I read the power of now when I was going through my divorce after 23 years of marriage. Looking back at it now it was the worst book I could have read at the time. Ayn Rand's Anthem and other works did much more to make me understand what was wrong with my life. I feel there is too much mysticism in the book. Logic and reason is what helped me to gain insight into myself.

My wife shared this hillarious video with me. Very instructive on how we do not listen to children because we have authority.

I must misunderstand UPB then. I did not realise that the justification of the use of force was an aspect of UPB. If I tell a lie would that be UPB or APA? I think you have answered my question. I will have to give UPB some more thought then as I don't think I understand the crux of the argument.

Perhaps I should have said childhood history? I've listened to UPB on the radio but must have missed the definition of APA, this term is new to me. I would understand APA as being something like not swearing in polite conversation, would that be right? So what you are saying is that an ad hominem attack or perhaps even a relevant argument against a formerly abused person using knowledge of that abuse or a suspicion of that abuse is simply a matter of personal taste and not ethics? Would that not be an indirect way of perpetuating that abuse?

Is it ethical (universally preferable behaviour) to use knowledge of or a theory regarding someones parenting history as a tool to win or taint/colour/slant an opponents argument?

I was recently at a mises seminar here in Brisbane and there Jeff Tucker said exactly what I was thinking about money, but then surprisingly glossed over the point. The fact that money arises because of the alternative use of the commodity. The Bitcoin vs Gold debate is a false dichotomy. Just think about it. Money historically was the most marketable commodity in a society. Is it Bitcoin (more correctly defined as a currency not money)? Is it Gold? Might have been so a few centuries ago but this is certainly not the case in our modern world. A currency backed by a commodity that has a ready alternative use would have its value rooted in the general value / the productive use that commodity represents and would therefore form a stable enough money that can form the basis for economic calculation and be predictable enough to serve as a unit of account and standard of deffered payment. The most logical and powerfull money that you can use to circumvent the state would be a money that can be readily employed in an alternative productive use when the state hinders its use as a medium of exchange.

I have no friends other than my wife. I always thought it was due to a character flaw or a lack of social skills. I have grown greatly in these areas but I now understand that it is simply that very few people think like I do and it no longer bothers me. I do however like to do social things like going to the footy or dancing, as I do enjoy human interaction. Something I have learned is to ask people about themselves, it seems to help in making a basic connection required for pleasant social interaction.

I've listened to a show on gubmint TV the other day. "Child Protection" services often put children in the "care" of very abusive foster parents.

As a South African, I have admiration for the man, although I choke at the hero worship. I was overjoyed the day I heard he was going to be set free, not because I could care a hoot about him, but because to me it meant that my two year sentence of "national service" was going to be shortened. I will always be gratefull for the fact that he did not advocate a violent course of action when he represented the powers that shouldn't be as President of South Africa. After all these years it should be clear to all South Africans that the end of Apartheid did not ring in an age of freedom for all as promised. Instead the oppresive state machinery was simply handed over to new masters (or maybe not). In the end I hope people realise, its not left vs right or black vs white. It's us against the state.

I can independently assess that the value of water in the desert is higher than in the Amazon. I do not see the square circle? If objective value do not apply regarding goods, surely they can not apply to moral values? I can not objectively state that the red Ferrari is going to be more valuable than the yellow one, but I can objectively determine that the Ferrari is going going to have more value than the rainbow coloured Volkswagen Beetle, whilst acknowledging that there might be circumstances such as the Mardi Grass in Sydney that could conceivably lead to a situation where someone might have a different preference.

I had some coffee with my son and youngest daughter yesterday afternoon and on their way home they encountered this lady in Hurstville, Sydney. She dragged the kid approximately 30m on the leash. The kid was forced to get up when they got to a metal grate and he realised he was going to get hurt. He layed down again and his mum simply kept going. Some Asian ladies was urging the child to get up but was too afraid to confront the mother.

Much good the Asian superiority in numeracy is doing them! They can count all those worthless Dollars you Americans are giving them as payment for enslaving their population.

So you believe if I go to the beach and put my towel down to claim a spot to sun myself after having a nice refreshing swim that I've acted immoraly?