DrTruthiness

And I can't believe I'm seeing self-described libertarians and voluntarists apologize for violence committed at Donald Trump rallies this weekend in Arizona. There is no justification for sucker punching someone holding a sign and kicking him repeatedly on the ground. That is a direct violation of NAP.

I didn't find her annoying at all. She had a point. She realized late in her career that certain traits like being too agreeable or easy to work with were a significant disadvantage to her in negotiations. If you've ever worked in sales, after some time you can easily gauge how difficult a close will be depending on how aloof or agreeable someone is. She sees this pattern being a particular problem for women in particular who can't separate how they're raised to behave in public from how they should assert themselves and their value in private negotiations. I don't entirely share her view on the systematic sexism aspect of it (I think it's a lost opportunity to talk about the importance of self-worth in negotiations in general), but I do respect what she said and how she tried to say it.

I can only speak to the American philosophy behind this concept. And mind you, the philosophical concept. Not the way America actually followed through on it historically. Philosophically, the founding fathers concluded that government was not meant to rule mankind. It was meant to secure the natural rights philosophers like John Locke had written about--life, liberty, and property. And to the degree that government infringed on those natural rights, men had the right to disband or fight back to secure them as a check against tyranny. So the concept of government not having the right to discriminate, at least in American government, is rooted in the principle that it's sole purpose is to be a protector of rights that actually supercede its authority. Not, alternatively, to be a grantor of rights and privileges that it can extend and restrict based on political whims and ambitions. It was a profound blueprint for government; it literally mists my eyes up reading the founding documents. It lasted for about 3 seconds before the pen went on to write in the legalization of slavery and a kick to the nutsack in taxes. I think the lesson learned here is NO. NO YOU CAN NOT WEAR THE RING OF POWER.

It's ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider this anything truly worth the time and energy of being upset about. Resourceful parents will find a better way to instill values in their kids anyway. I'm also confident that kids will find a way to continue playing with water guns, too.

The real impact, rather than the desired feelings, of the Affordable Care Act will hinge on how heavily the tax penalties impact individuals who opt out *while* Baby Boomers begin to actually use the ACA in droves as they begin to retire. Bragging about how great the ACA is before it's even in full effect is like Dick Cheney bragging about iraq being a "slam dunk" before there are even boots on the ground.

Ideally, voting is meant to give individuals a voice in governance. It's an incentive meant to be a carrot. So I'm not exactly spilling my hot coffee in shock and disbelief to see oligarchs floating the idea of using carrots as sticks to beat people with. For the last 50 years, U.S. House incumbents won reelection approximately 80% of the time on average, and U.S. Senate incumbents won reelection approximately 75% of the time on average (Center for Responsive Politics, 2014). [1] This, despite congress being at historically low approval ratings (Gallup, 2015). [2] I'd bet money that without first addressing the jerrymandering of congressional voter districts and the awesome leveraging power of campaign finance laws by monied elites, cumpulsory voting would only serve to help those already in power. In Australia, where voting is already mandatory, one must submit a written statement to the government explaining why they did not vote, or pay $20. If they fail to do either, they will be ordered to appear in court where they can incur a $170 fine and receive a criminal judgement on their record. (AEC.Gov, 2015) [3] For me personally, this kind of legislation is only transformative to society in the Orwellian sense. References 1. "Historical Elections." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. 2. "Congress and the Public." Gallup. N.p., 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. 3. "Voting within Australia – Frequently Asked Questions." Australian Electoral Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.

Ideally, voting is meant to give individuals a voice in governance. It's an incentive meant to be a carrot. So I'm not exactly spilling my hot coffee in shock and disbelief to see oligarchs floating the idea of using carrots as sticks to beat people with. The numbers are more unsettling than my initial reactions. For the last 50 years, U.S. House incumbents won reelection approximately 80% of the time on average, and U.S. Senate incumbents won reelection approximately 75% of the time on average (Center for Responsive Politics, 2014). [1] This, despite congress being at historically low approval ratings (Gallup, 2015). [2] I'd bet money that without first addressing the gerrymandering of congressional voter districts and the awesome leveraging power of campaign finance laws by moneyed elites, compulsory voting would only serve to help those already in power. In Australia, where voting is already mandatory, one must submit a written statement to the government explaining why they did not vote, or pay $20. If they fail to do either, they will be ordered to appear in court where they can incur a $170 fine and receive a criminal judgment on their record. (AEC.Gov, 2015) [3] For me personally, this kind of legislation is only transformative to society in the Orwellian sense. References 1. "Historical Elections." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. 2. "Congress and the Public." Gallup. N.p., 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. 3. "Voting within Australia – Frequently Asked Questions." Australian Electoral Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.

I can understand that. On the other hand, Schiff believes wholeheartedly in capitalism. If his show is not breaking into major markets, he likely views that as a shortcoming on his part in some way. Sure, greed and ego may play their roles in it. But for Schiff, my educated guess is that, in addition, there's a part of him that believes that if people aren't willing to pay, what he's doing is not perceieved as valuable enough.

Love is the manifestation of harmony between individuals, and therefore requires conditions. The reasons why we love someone are those conditions. This is one of those things I agree whole heartedly with Ayn Rand on: love SHOULD be selfish. Your happiness depends on it. If a mother's child kills a bunch of nuns, and she continues to love him on the grounds that her love us "unconditional", why is that so? It's because that person is her child. There are certain conditions that her son meets in order for her to reach that "unconditional" state of love.

When deconstructing a stupid argument one day (I can't even remember what it was) I was challenged by the person who posited it and what they said stuck with me: "Rather than use reason as a weapon to destroy my argument, you should interpret what I"m TRYING to say in the best possible way and address that." Lazy on their part? Absolutely. Good point? ...dammit, actually yes. I have to humbly confess, they raise a damn good argument. What the hell good is it to deconstruct a stupid argument, when the true core of what is TRYING to be said should be addressed? The real gold is there. Maybe this isn't addressing the fallacy fallacy exactly as you intended it, but it feels very close. After all, you're focusing on the failure of a person to make a purely logical argument, and focusing only on that in your response.

Damn. I hope he focuses on the Online Community angle. His information would be more readily accessible by people who a) understand it, b) appreciate it, and c) are willing to donate to support it. I respect his decision, though. I hope to see more of him in one form or another in the future. His voice would be sorely missed in advocating reason in such a crazy time.

You definitely have to *feel* the comment. If you try to understand it logically, your goddamn brain will either explode or go on strike. It feels like he's saying that the masses have a different view of patriotism than the elites. He places no trust in the laziness of non-thinkers who essentially (paraphrasing) say, "[All politicians/nationalist rhetoric are/is the same]. Sounds like he's actually saying that true nationalism requires introspection of what an individual is contributing to the culture of a nation...not what they are told/fed by the elites. Gotta be honest. That shit took me about an hour and a half and some serious drinking to kill enough brain cells to feel out. I could be dead wrong and look forward to reading other peoples' interpretations of whatever the hell he was talking about. Being a life-long socialist turned anarcho-capitalist, he sounds like someone going through the motions I went though. He'll either figure it out or remain lost.

Never called in (yet), but I would say this: Distill your question into the most simple, one-sentence, potent, hard-hitting quetion you can. Explained: One of Stef's most appreciatable qualties is that he'll go on at length about how he really sees a situation. One of the most unfortunate qualities of the callers is that they'll ask the REAL question/add the REAL details at the end. Oh God that breaks my fucking heart. Stef will go 40 minutes about a situation, but then caller will throw in something SUPER relevant like "My boyfriend also physically hits me and locks me in the goddamn basement". Ohhhhh that KILLS me!

I remember Stef addressing something like this in a podcast a long time ago. He said that there can be no morality in a situation of coercion. You have no choice to peacefully opt-out of funding FAFSA. You will be forced to pay for it either through a direct tax or being used as collateral to borrow more money. If you had the option to step away and peacefully not contribute any money, yet decided to tap into money stolen from others, that may be different. By asking yourself, "Am I being morally inconsistent by using some of that money that was forcibly taken from me?" you are trying to apply morals within a situation of coercion, which abusers thrive on. It is a mental framework that focuses too narrowly on your decisions, your behavior, and your actions, while unjustly ignoring the influence of the abuser's actions, behaviors, and decisions responsible for the situation in the first place. The best thing you can do with that stolen money in this time and place in history is to transform it into skills that generate real wealth, while remembering to advocate and demonstrate wherever you can that there is a better way.

James Allen, followed closely by Ralph Waldo Emerson. They were convinced that morality, ethics, and principle divorced from unthinking dogma was the true light of the human spirit. That thought should be cultivated, nourished with the enlightenment of tracing cause-and-effect, and allowed to bloom through consistent action. Although they both dabbled in concepts of mysticism, their work on the power of mind, the soul-suicide of worry/fear/regret, and what it truly means to be alive are worth reading. Like Stef said in a recent podcast: Isaac Newton had some un-empirical ideas he wrote about, but we don't discount his work on gravity just because we personally disagree with an unrelated idea.