_LiveFree_

STer, Your original question was simple. So, I shall respond with a very simple answer. Your question, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: Moylneux uses the following argument against government; "If people have power, they will be corrupted by that power and abuse it. Therefore, no government." But then he will come back and say that people are capable of peaceful parenting, while also saying that there is no greater power than what a parent has over a child. Isn't this contradictory, and shouldn't Molyneux stop using this argument if it is? Can people restrain themselves with power or not.....? On the surface, yes, this is contradictory, but when you look at it further it is not. Can people restrain themselves? Yes. Can people restrain themselves in a position that doesn't allow them to restrain themselves? No. Government is non-restraint. The only restraint when it comes to government is for there not to be one. Governments arise out of peoples' dysfunction in familial relationships. Abuse experienced as a child will lead an adult to believe that the initiation of force is the only method to solve certain problems. Trying to fight the government in order to reduce the government is an unwinnable battle. The only way to win the battle is to go to the source and that is parenting. Can people exercise restraint when they are in a position of power? Absolutely. Can they exercise restraint when they are in a position of power that by the mere fact that that position exists implies the constant initiation of force. No way. The problems of government will never be solved with government. They will be solved with peaceful parenting. Being a parent does not mean that by your very existence you are violating the NAP. The very existence of a government DOES imply this. Edit*** --> ("Power", as you have defined it earlier in this thread, is the opposite of peaceful parenting. As a peaceful parent, you are not using "Power", and therefore, you are peaceful. Government on the other hand is institutionalized "Power" and, therefore, corrupts. When parents use power over their children, the parent is corrupted and the child is corrupted. That child will grow into an adult who looks to the government's power as a source of problem solving. Peaceful parenting is completely benevolent. Government cannot be benevolent by it's very definition.) //edit If I become a CEO of a major company (without using government violence!), I have quite a bit of power over my employees. But all of my millions of customers still maintain even more power over me. In a state of nature, there is no monopoly. Government is a monopoly of power and therefore, cannot be restrained. (do you actually disagree that government is the institutionalization of the initiation of force, or are you playing devil's advocate?) This is incorrect. Government is involuntary. To apply the descriptor of "voluntary" to government changes its form and it is no longer government. An orange can be described using many adjectives. But if I use the term "plastic", then I'm no longer talking about an orange.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spaZ4bjfBBU This is a follow up video. The father mentions Stefan Molyneux. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3U9BuoDfs another follow up. This is the video immediately following the judges orders for Parker to go with his mom. Watch this one to the end.

To me, it seems, you are trying to combine two perspectives into one. I don't really follow. Please define "power" and "restraint".

Steve, There is only 1 place in the whole universe where you truly belong, are safe and valued; in your own skin, buddy. Feeling like you 'belong' is something you can take with you wherever you go. Stef is just a really pale dude who tends to squeak (and I'm not talking about the sound of plastic wrap being pulled across the extra fine wax finish on his forehead). However, between the squeaks, and occasionally during said squeaks, he's able to put forth some very logical arguments. FDR is not about Stef, it is about you and your relationship to yourself and others. It is a label we put on this conversation; a conversation that is seriously lacking in bullcrap. Spend your time listening to the podcasts. Start at 0 and go in order. Not every podcast will be to your liking, but that is a really good thing. It shows you that Stef is just a dude. http://freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx And always ask questions. Curiosity is the key! Nate

....she saw that the multiverse structure looked like a piece of Swiss cheese and ate it.

...she puts the "m" in E=mc2

I want to go back to your original post. Your first paragraph is interesting. Parents don't have a monopoly on the use of force. They are simply bigger and stronger. There is a difference here. A monopoly can only be granted to a certain entity, it can never be achieved in nature. I think the point is not that parents use their bigger and stronger -ness for good, but that they don't use their bigger and stronger -ness at all. Once a parent has to use the 'i'm bigger and stronger' position to parent, they've already lost. Peace doesn't come from having the biggest gun and pointing it at everyone while pretending to maintain an air of benevolence. Peace comes when you simply put down the gun. So to begin with, I do not think you fully understand what Stef means by "Peaceful Parenting". However, I will continue just in case you accept my first paragraph. I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. Paragraph 3 is where the misunderstanding in paragraph 1 begins to cause some problems. Peaceful Parenting is not "use the gun well" but "don't use the gun at all". Government, by it's very existence is a gun in the room. Here is the proof. Theft is the initiation of violence and, therefore, morally wrong. Government can only exist because it taxes. Taxation is theft. Therefore, government exists because it initiates violence. Government is morally wrong. Government IS the gun. That's why it must be put down. Too much power corrupts not because man is flawed in some way or susceptible to evil or any of that religious stuff. "Power corrupts" is an awkward way of saying that man's mind cannot handle the billions and billions of facts, data, and information that goes into the billions and billions of decisions that must be made in order to do the greatest good. In other words, Man is not smart enough, fast enough, or have enough time in the day in order to wield vast amounts of power over other men. I know what's best for me because I have all my thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experiences. When I have a child, I'm the 2nd person in the world that knows what's best for the child, and most of my decisions regarding this child are based on what this child tells/shows me are his/her needs. If I am the mayor of a city of 3 million people, where on the scale am I for knowing what is best for all of those people? Not even close to 3 million, because it's exponential. In fact, the more power you accumulate, the less you are able to perform positive action because you simply do not know the needs and wants of all people. Government is typically drawn as an upright pyramid with the most power at the top. In reality, it is the exact opposite. The more power you achieve, the lower you are. And in fact, this is shown in nature. There is no greater power than a parent over a child (1 to 1). That's why anarchy is so brilliant and obvious. To maximize actions that are good for every person on the planet, power must be local (i.e. the individual). As for your last paragraph, step-parents are far more likely to physically abuse kids.

I learn so much from you's guys

Culain, there is a lot to deal with here. First off, you're 26. Do you live at home? And whether you live at home or not, what are your relationships like with your immediate family?

I'm 31. My 18-29 sound just like what you are now experiencing. My parents screwed me up to. You're right. No one here can illuminate your path. One tip I can give you that helped me quite a bit. . . .don't add. Just subtract. You're a beautiful glass that has been filled with shit. That shit was put there by your parents. You've got to take out the shit before you pour whatever you want to pour in there. If you aren't keeping a daily journal, start today. Doesn't matter what you write, just write. Doesn't matter how neat you write, scribble if you need to. Channel the energy that is preventing you from moving into that journal. You'll know what to do then. Happiness is knowing yourself. Right now, you're looking at all the shit and saying, "Damn that glass is ugly!" No, the glass is beautiful. Just subtract.

StrongestSelf, that was good video. Thanks for sharing! One thing that is common between masculinity and femininity is authentic confidence. Part of the problem of identifying masculinity is that typically people think the opposite of it is femininity. And they confuse lack of confidence with femininity. Therefore, the opposite of masculinity is a lack of confidence, which is feminine. This is not true, of course, since a woman (or man) who is feminine or displays feminine qualities can have authentic confidence. Likewise, the opposite of femininity is not masculinity, but also a lack of confidence. (There are more qualities and descriptors of masculinity and femininity, but to keep my point simple I'll stick with confidence.) To help picture this a bit better, think of love. The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. The opposite of something is nothing. Therefore, I put forward the idea that to better understand masculinity and femininity, we should disassociate both terms from genitalia and apply them to behaviors only. How one behaves a majority of the time will determine if they are considered masculine or feminine. And it is not bad in and of itself for a woman to act in a masculine way, nor bad for a man to act in a feminine way. And no one, in my very humble opinion, can say they only act one way or the other all the time. Is a penis an inside out vagina or is a vagina an inverted penis? Ever have a coat that you could turn inside out? No matter which way you turned it, it was still a coat. The opposite of The United States is no state, not Russia. So, masculinity can be defined as assertiveness, while femininity can be defined as passiveness. But do you see how that doesn't work based on how I just defined "opposite"? Femininity is not the opposite of masculine, but the opposite of assertiveness IS passiveness. So maybe we need a new term? Passive assertiveness Aggression is direct; passive aggression is indirect. (aggression = initiation of force) Assertiveness is direct; passive assertiveness is indirect. (assertive = confident peaceful action through conscious choice) Masculine is direct; feminine is indirect. So what is it that masculine and feminine are describing, since it has become clear (to me at least) that they are describing complimentary sides of the same thing? Is it simply sexuality? Is there more to it than that? I think I've reached the end of my thought train, so instead of leaving you with "God did it", I'll just let you all take over from here! (Quick note: I am not gay, but I was raised by a single mom from 6-15. Then I moved in with my gay dad until 22. There was never a consistent masculine figure for me to interact with. So at 31, after realizing what I didn't receive, I've set out to find it. I don't feel not masculine, but have had to weather the constant barrage of "assertiveness = rape" propaganda, which inevitably led to a complete lack of self-confidence. My mother was raped by her step father and my father was molested by the neighbor. So I'm beginning to realize that we are having to define and rediscover these incredibly simple and obvious concepts because they have been so aggressed against. That's why I think it's important to first identify what masculinity and femininity are descriptors of. In doing so, we will be able to much more easily define masculinity.)

Morse, I don't think it's one way or the other. There needs to be a healthy balance between working on yourself and working with others. In the beginning of waking up, it's about 99% self, 1% others. I'd imaging working on yourself never drops below 65%ish. But how you do it is up to you. Just try and have a good idea about what you're trying to accomplish and what the best strategy is for bring the desired results to fruition. Engaging in debate because of personal dysfunction is a great way to turn people away. But of course, the false self ALWAYS wants to tell others how they're wrong! lol It can be tough to balance, but the more you do it, the easier it gets. Remember, it's not just having the truth, but how you deliver that truth. I fresh out of the oven New York double cheese pepperoni pizza is awesome, unless delivered on some sweaty guys hairy back. Keep asking the questions that you're asking. You're doing it right.

When I started to live my values it was one of the biggest and greatest changes in my life. I wanted to share my experience in this thread so that people are aware that really amazing things can happen when you speak up in uncomfortable situations. It might help someone to know that its possible for their lives to actually improve in many ways by following their conscience. This thread is about speaking up in public about evil and that is what I have been sharing. Dood, count how many times you've said "I" in this thread so far. You sound like a baptist preacher or mormon missionary. You're proselytizing instead of using logic or reasoning to engage in discussion. You're saying "I've had this experience, and it was so great so everyone else should, too! And if they don't it makes me sick!" or some such mess. Here is the last line of the original OP... "I can't say why I simultaneously felt the urge to speak up, but also keep my feelings to myself about this sensitive subject, but that's something I hope to discuss with some of you here." Maybe we can refocus a bit.

I am always willing and prepared to accept responsibility for my actions. You assume alot about my approach. I always speak out against evil (except if someone has a gun to my head or is going to put me in jail) and when I do the arguments are rooted in evidence and reason. I have exceptional verbal skills and I am quite good with verbal debates. I shame someone if we have had weeks if not months of conversations and they are unwillng to accept the truth. I have never in all my adult life been "trampled" for speaking up but maybe im just lucky. Is it possible that by saying you cant bring truth to a tribe of violent people your making an excuse not to live your principals? You are definitely not going to bring truth to them by sitting idly by. You will never know if people will accept truth unless you present them with it. If jay doesnt want to speak up thats his choice and it doesnt make him or anyone esle a bad person. Now If your goal is to change the world you really should in my opinion speak up. The voice of truth needs to be a lions roar not the squeak of a mouse. I know I have had wonderful success in my approach and it may work for others aswell but I cant be sure. Writing this post makes me think of all the times when I was a kid and no one did or even said anything to defend me agiasnt evil. It makes me sick. I think thats why I have a hard time understanding peoples reluctance to speak up. It also may be why I will always speak out agianst the evil in this world. If people claim to have certain values I would urge you to live them or atleast work on it so you can get to a point where you dont feel scared to. OK, but this thread isn't about you.

This is self-destructive. Unless you feel prepared and WILLING to accept the responsibility and consequences of your actions, speaking up just because "it is right" can lead to far worse than good. Being a "shotgun for truth" is about as useful as being a watergun for truth. Laser focus is what is required. If you are hunting an elephant in the dark, the last thing you want to do is to fire off a shotgun that is going to be really loud but only piss off the elephant. What you want to do is to fire a highly energized and focused laser right into it's brain. The shotgun approach has a very low chance of successfully killing the elephant and you're likely to get yourself trampled. Then you won't be alive to try again in the future. Having the truth is not enough, you MUST use your brain in delievering it. This relates to one of the arguments against the Judea-Christian God. How could an infinitely smart being who can see all things past/present/future choose to deliver the news of his existence and of man's salvation, to an obscure tribe of violent people, in a language that would be dead in a few hundred years? What a dumbass. If I want to confirm a date with a girl, I call her up and talk to her directly. Maybe God should have gotten laid. If Jay didn't feel ready or willing to speak up, then he made the right choice. Scouting your target before attacking is a sign of a keen mind.

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter "what if she was..." or what not. EVERY person on this planet has dysfunction. You won't be able to change people, therefore, you should focus on yourself. If you really need to practice arguing your points online, I'd suggest creating an account on a board somewhere where noone can identify you, and then just go to town. You'll find out exactly how fruitful constantly arguing with people and trying to get them to see really is (when they are not interested). We see Stef making a life out of arguing/discussing/being a pain in the ass, but he's REALLY good at it! lol 20 years of education, practice, and gaining self-knowledge. Doing what you're trying to do seems easy because all you need is a computer and internet, but the actual execution of it is muuuuuuuuuuuuch trickier. Something I've learned to do is to argue outloud with myself. Usually, when I feel a "need" to get my point across to someone, what is really happening is that I feel threatened, disenfranchised, or wronged and I want to get some type of intellectual revenge (to put things right). So when that insatiable need to be right comes up, i let it out on myself. When it's gone I think about the points I was making and realize that I did not put them together or articulate them well. Don't go TO people. Let them come to you. But quietly put yourself in situations where they want to come to you. Be a sneaky bastard.

The approach was completely flawed from the very beginning. Facebook is not a medium to discuss ideas. It is a way for people to feel like their lives have validation. It is one huge massive circle jerk and if you aren't participating, you're the enemy. Only challenge someone if they engage you first on the level or you can look them in the eye. There was no "right" party in this exchange. You were both wrong. On the up side, you just rid yourself of someone who was not truly your friend. That's like getting a tax refund.

I think your mistake, hazek, is with your overall view of change. This is a multi-generational change. In other words, give it 100 years or so. Change that happens quickly is not likely to remain. Just like the alcoholic overweight porn addict who says he's going to turn his life around by cold turkeying beer and porn, starting an extreme exercise program, and getting a good job to focus his time. Maybe he goes out and gets a good job, stops drinking, and stops porning. Why are his friends and family skeptical? Because they've seen this before and know that in a week he'll be back to boos and asians. This movement has really only been in high gear for 5 years. We are still very much at the beginning. In fact, what we are doing right now is setting the tone and direction of where we want to move in the future. Therefore, if we stay focused on peaceful parenting, we will have made some serious deposits into the warchest to be withdrawn from in about 25 years. The state can only exist through the voluntary participation of the people. When the people withdraw their consent, the state no longer exists. This is like reverse prima nocta. Breed the bastards out! lol And there is no scientific evidence i can show you, but I'd bet 1 person with deep self-knowledge is worth 1000 people who suck the teets of violence.

"You will never end war by taking part in one." You will never end politics by taking part in politics.

^^ Absolutely! When you are not allowed to express how you feel, you'll express by proxy via listening to music that reflects those feelings.

Emotions aren't "negative" in the sense that there are emotions to be avoided. You feel what you're going to feel involuntarily. Controlling emotions is impossible. Controlling actions is what is important. As a human being, ideally you'd want to be able to empathize with every emotion. And you can't agree or disagree with something that is involuntary. That's like saying, "I disagree with the way my heart beats." Now, if you are not resonating with a certain piece of music, just turn it off. Music can only spread if their is a host to listen to it. It's the chicken/egg, cart/horse, hand shaking the opposite hand thing. Does violent music arise out of violence or the other way around? This is what I was saying about manipulation. When music is used as a repetitive tool to shape thought patterns and, therefore, action, this is a negative ACTION taken by the listener. You can't blame the music itself nor the composer (believe it or not). Take "The Star Spangled Banner", for instance. Originally written as a drinking song for a soceity of British poets, it is now the tune for numerous national anthems around the world. In the hands of a moderately skilled composer, the same music could be set for any number of situations. The listener always brings his or her bias/experiences/preferences to the tune. Do you think any one in America will ever be able to hear this tune without thinking about the American flag? And yet, that was not the intent when it was composed. What would the U.S. national anthem mean if it didn't have any lyrics? All of it comes down to, "Listen to what you like. Don't listen to what you don't like. Don't listen to any song over and over and over and over." Pretty simple. Just don't blame "the music" for spreading negativity. The negativity is in the mind of the creator. If it wasn't music, it'd be something else.

my thoughts on what music is.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naBSCmIHUf8 [up for critique of course ]

I think Stef's point is more like, if someone has lots of physical beauty, that means the odds are stacked against them being intellectually and emotionally advanced. Genetic physical beauty means that this person has most likely had people handing them things and providing a cushion for them their whole lives. In other words, they haven't had to work as hard at actually solving problems, because the solution to every problem is the same, "be beautiful". This also means that they haven't had the need to gain self-knowledge, because again, the solution to everything is "be beautiful". Now if someone has worked very hard at being physically beautiful, that means they've put in a lot of time in doing so. And it also means that physical beauty is high up on their priority list. And that means that they are wanting to be noticed for their appearance as opposed to any other trait they may possess. Now all of this is in degrees of course. In fact, a little vanity is a good thing. (brush your teeth and hair, shave, shower, exercise, etc.) And all of this takes time. Just remember, people can really only be exceptional at 1, 2 or maybe 3 things in their life. So I think the overall message is not to "avoid physical beauty at all costs", but simply to be aware that physical beauty comes with sacrifices just like everything does. When looking for a partner, try and find a whole person; someone who has balanced physical beauty with everything else that you deem important in a partner. Can the minefield be navigated and is it worth it? Don't know, dude. Trying to figure that one out, too. At this point in my life, I'm simply incorporating into who I am the things I find beautiful, valuable, attractive, what have you. Instead of looking "out there" for it, I'll make it "in here". Maybe by doing that my "mine dectector" will become supersensitive and I'll be far less likely to blow myself up! (which has been a problem in that past! lol) You ask very important questions.

OK, well I hope you find the answer you're looking for. []

Wow! Cool! So I haven't listened to all of it yet, BUT I CAN'T WAIT! "Once Upon A Time" made me feel like I was a 12 year old boy in 1955 sitting under a tree at dusk staring up at the Milky Way Galaxy dreaming of traveling through space in the year 2013! (or was I the space traveller dreaming of sitting under a tree in 1955?). I don't know, it could be either! [bigsmile] I kept thinking to myself that this was the scaled down mellow arrangement of a great uplifting piece for a 100 piece orchestra. I kept waiting for that huge swell to begin with the strings, iced with the woodwinds, and crescendoed by the brass to a righteous climax! *chills* ....but then I remembered, I was just a 12 y/o boy sitting under a tree in 1955. From a musical standpoint, I love it! It's a wonderfully grounded transparent sound with just the right amount of "electricity" (figurative and literal) to feel aspiring to something greater. Wonderful balance! This is cool stuff! Will be listening to it all this weekend GREAT WORK! [bigsmile][wavehibye] edit: "Right Behind You" I hear crickets!! LOL I'm under the tree at dusk!