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?

Soon after things collapses and descends into chaos our statist friends will have, in addition to Somalia, another example of a country where Anarchists can go if they so much believe in not having a government.

By modern practice I mean what Stef and most progressive states advocate these days.

I got to discuss parenting as I walked into the refinery where we work with my colleague the other morning. We got to talk about our grandchildren and I was mentioning the interesting parenting techniques my daughter is practicing (teaching baby sign language, playing calm music before bed time etc. etc.). My colleague made the comment that it is interesting how things have changed, as he said: "When we were children, we were ignored". I agreed with him that was exactly my experience growing up, with the mantra "children should be seen but not be heard" often repeated in conversation. I found it quite interesting that he, an Assyrian from Iran would have such a similar experience of childhood as I, a white protestant boy growing up in the back streets of Johannesburg. He commented that it was interesting that despite these drawbacks, we are both working as highly paid engineers and we were lamenting the great achievements that probably were denied us, had we had the advantage of skilled parenting (on the other hand it does not escape my attention that some of the great achievers seem to be those with the worst parenting imaginable). I wonder if the modern parenting ideas are also spreading as far and wide as those old-fangled ideas seems to have spread in the past? I do not know whether it is my prejudice based on my upbringing, but I still retain some of the skepticism regarding modern parenting ideas as I remember when raising my own children having contact with liberal parents (typically of anglo heritage), proclaiming to everyone who would listen how they never hit their children and then notice how my children grew to be independent, well behaved and courteous with others whilst their children turned into the proverbial "spoiled brats" who's anti-social behaviour was evidently self-destructive and disruptive to order in their own lives (but I guess you can never tell what was in truth happening behind closed doors in those children's lives).

I have noted some of Stefan's inconsistencies, and I believe we all have those. This critique is baseless however. If you wish to judge Stefan's consistency, you should judge it against the beliefs and standards he supports and some evidence. Stefan would be actually less consistent if as a voluntaryist he starts making exceptions for people in power based on whether they are leaning left or right. You mention "personal issues" implying that these should have no relation to his public stances. Would anyone believe Stefan's position on child abuse if it was discovered that he likes to slap his kid around ever so often? What he is critizising is that no one is questioning the system that allows someone of glaringly defective moral character reserving the right to use force to extract money from others and tell others how to live their lives. Stating that Rob Ford is the lesser of the evils that would have befallen your city does not mean he is no longer evil. What no one questions is that if those drugs are illegal and he purchased those drugs it would mean that he has engaged in some form of transaction with people the state (or the people who calls themselves the government) consider to be criminals. Does this mean those criminals have an influence on this Mayor? Does this mean that they have some influence in promulgated rules and laws that govern how you live? Perhaps this video only surfaced because he did not want to "fall into line" as directed? The proliferation of people with defective moral character in government is actually proof of his position that the worst of the worst are seeking political power. Not inconsistent at all I say! On the contrary, I believe you are the one calling for inconsistency on his part.

The centre is defined as the point equidistant from all the points at the edge. I contemplate the distance to the edge of the universe. To my left it is infinite, to my right it is infinite, above it is infinite, below it is infinite. Holy mother ..... !!!

Taking things less seriously, is stated as a problem. Perhaps that is the solution to your depression. When I was young I was a serious dickhead too.

I'm amazed at the lengthy arguments to a rebuttal that is so simple. Truth is Anarchists do not have a problem with peaceful government. Many would gladly participate in government where violence is not an option. This would necessarily mean that when I withdraw my consent there can be no threat of violence to elicit my consent. These types of governing bodies will exist in a free society.

The more you like an idea, the more likely it's utter bullshit.

I agree with LIBFED. Don't let someone else's mommy issues become yours because they seem so smart and convincing. As he said himself 'enjoy the smart, beware the convincing'.

My daughter is doing something I find quite fascinating with my granddaughter (20 months). She is teaching her sign language. She just sent me a video showing my granddaughter making the signs for tree, baby, dog and milk. I think that could help alleviate the frustration of a child unable to communicate verbally? Anyone else have experience with this?