ThomasDoubts

Just to preface this, I'm not sure, precisely, what Stefan's views are on Martial Arts. A few thoughts did occur to me though, regarding some of the points you posted, attributed to Stef. This is an issue that I have personal experience with, and also one with which I happen to have contrarian (here) tendencies. I started wrestling when I was pretty young; maybe 8. I continued it through my sophomore year of high school. Not that it's important but I was quite good-- culminating in a 3rd place finish in a Tri-State tournament--- Sort of the best of the best in my region. My childhood was very dysfunctional; this is undeniable. I also loved wrestling, in addition to playing Football (US style) and a few non-contact sports. Stefan said that debates are win-win and MA competitions are win-lose I think this is undeniably false. So much so, that I'm skeptical that Stef has said this. I've seen debates that were, in my judgement, lose-lose. Debate is a winning excersize when it reveals truth or conveys useful information, not in and of itself. Hitler and Satan debating who to murder first is not a winning scenario. Catholics and Protestants debating religious doctrine is lose-lose for the debators and anyone who thinks the debate was useful. When two individuals debate and neither gains anything, they've lost time. I don't understand the problem with win-lose. Henry Ford won, Carriage makers lost. I think Martial Arts are unnatural in the sense that I doubt peaceful people in a peaceful society would gain much utility from MA. Maybe they would though, I can't say. I'm glad that wrestling was one of my outlets, and not burning animals alive or something (not that I ever had any desire to do so). I'm glad that I had an outlet where my very natural assertiveness was encouraged, rather than squashed. That confronting and overcoming fear was encouraged, if only fear of physical pain/harm or being powerless. It's about avoiding threatening situations while moving forward. Stefan said that MA is not practise for self-defense, because if two people were just defending themselves then nothing would happen. The world is a dangerous place. Stef likes to say x,y, or z is why we're not still living in caves. If we wanted to avoid harm at all times, we'd never have left the caves, or our mother's vagina, for that matter. People from abusive childhoods are probably more acutely aware of how dangerous a place the world can be. The child raised perfectly peacefully, and protected from the true state of violence in the world are likely to be a bit naive, should they ever stumble upon an bad situation. Such is the price, I think, of their peace. I don't say this because it's somehow a bad thing; better a peaceful person, made victim, than an abuser. The peacefully raised child will have little desire to specialize in physical self defense, but this shouldn't be surprising, even if it is a skill that could be useful to them at some point in time. Contrarily, the abused child sees the world as more violent than it actually is and overcompensates. The peacefully raised child is vulnerable to the black swan. The martial artist has overallocated resources to his self-defense, and probably ought to find a way to monetize his skills in the defense of others. Somebody has to be the bouncer and I'd prefer the martial artist to the sadist. I wonder if Stef would consider Martial Arts sadistic... I think not. Stefan has subjected his daughter to harm, by bringing her into this world; unless he contends she never has, nor will ever be harmed by another in her lifetime. Of course, I mean no offense, but I don't see how this can be refuted. Should one practice handling such a situation? That's a preference. I don't see any problem with people specializing in self-defense, which I'd argue is the primary skill in wrestling, the only MA I have personal experience with. It's practicing putting yourself a situation: You must (choose to? IDK...) move forward; how do you do so while minimizing harm? It comes as no surprise to me at all that most MMA guys, for example, come from abusive backgrounds, and yet they're among the primary types of people in the world I would want witnessing an act of physical aggression against the vulnerable. These people were often raised in abusive environments, and will often move mountains to come to the defense of an innocent victim, while bystanders stand by, clothed in fear or indifference. This is a generalization, obviously, but I think it's valid. Of course, these people are rarely philosophers, but that's not the point. I'd never call a man who flees a coward, but fleeing is a response to fear, survival instinct. I think there are ideas in this world that are worth one good man's life. Whether that's the price required or an inconsequential sacrifice is another matter... Everyone must decide for themselves where their line in sand is, if it exists at all. MA can help provide people with the tools in mind and body to draw a line, if they so choose. Is it the best or ideal way? Nope. Is it useful? Yep. Is it worth pursuing? I don't know that it's not worth it for all people in all places in space and time.

I thought I'd share my experiences over the past 5-6 weeks, if for no other reason than to physically reproduce the things floating around in my head. I prefer typing to pen&paper, so I might as well post it here right? Maybe sharing my experience will be helpful, or at least entertaining to one amongst you. Roundabouts the end of January, I began what I can only describe as a self-imposed sabbatical from FDR, and it has been incredibly and astonishingly and surprisingly beneficial for me. At first glance, this may seem as odd, or as surprising to you, as it was to me, so allow me to explain. If pressed to describe my existence I would say I've been in a serious life-rut/existential crisis for roughly two years now.(complete with the drinking bird desk ornament, a la Megamind) I could write walls of text describing how I came to be where I am, and I'd enjoy it; probably because I've scarcely got another human being who I can meet in reality and with whom I can feel entirely comfortable speaking freely. However, I won't have you suffer or scoff at the idea of reading walls of text. I'll do my best to condense my thoughts....... but, ultimately I'll fail, and you'll still end up with a wall of text. I say I've been in a life-rut---- How so, you might ask. It began with a woman, as these things often do. I gave my heart to a she-devil and she tossed it into a sausage grinder. This was roughly 4 years ago. What has escaped me until recently, was the fact that while I slept, she'd also detached my testicles and chucked them in the same sausage grinder. Yes, it was I, the International Sex Symbol, who lost his mojo, and waged a war (of non-aggression, of course) to regain it. Ok, maybe I'm embellishing a bit with the International Sex Symbol I was born in 1988. I had two parents. I played outside a lot until I had to go to school. After spending 12 years in school, I was told that if I expected to ever amount to anything in this life, I should continue going to school. So I went to college, played the game, and got a dual degree in Econ/Finance. Since graduating in 2011 I have been seriously lacking in the department of purposeful living. During High School and College I built houses for people to live in, in order to have a little spending money. Since graduating college I've held primarily one job (with several part time gigs on the side): sub-contracting for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.(DC Metro) If you're reading this from NSA headquarters (incidently, a few miles from my home), I swear I didn't do it. Aaaanyhow, that experience was made up of equal parts: insight and misery. I hope it doesn't offend common sense to say so, but often at work I'd be thinking, "I wonder how different, and how similar, this experience is/would be to living in the USSR, for example. The degree of beaurocracy, and the regulatory environment made the whole experience and operation into a farce of galactic proportions. I was enjoying legislative perogatives that required I be paid roughly double what I could command in a comparable position in private industry. This was great for my wallet and destructive for my conscience-- I hadn't earned that, it was simply taken from someone, and given to me. I had no pride, I was ashamed of what I saw when I looked in the mirror, for this reason, and others. Increasingly, I felt I could no longer continue to act as I had been during the day, and in the evening come home and listen to FDR, or evangalize on behalf of anarchism, or free markets, or whatever. I was nothing but a hipocrite and I couldn't fucking stand it. I don't have the words to describe my hatred for hipocracy, and yet, there it is... Try as I may, no amount of literature, or conversation, or knowledge, or drugs, or masturbation, or entertainment could overcome this simple fact: I was a hipocrite, and I hate hipocracy. Extending, I hated myself. I owned that, though it was plain to me that my hipocracy was learned through the experience of being raised by hipocrites. This came to be my existence. Living my boring and repetitive and hipocritical life, day after day, hating myself for what I was, and hating myself for not doing anything to change it, knowing I had the power within me to do so. So one day, not too long ago, wallowing in my own despair, and pity, and insecurity, and fear, and powerlessness, and hopelessness, I was paid a compliment in passing by an old friend I'd not seen in several years. I'm certain that he hadn't the slightest clue what it meant to me, in fact, it probably wasn't even intended as a compliment; rather he was pointing out how much I had failed in life. What he said was this, "You're one of the smartest people I've ever known. I always thought when we were younger, you'd grow up to do something that was just wicked awesome. I gotta be honest man, I've passed you up, you better catch up." I was really flustered by that, and not sure how to respond. I was in a hurry to do something that, in reality didn't really matter to me at all, but I chatted for a minute or two and we parted ways. I wish I had stood in the street and continued talking to him. Anyhow, that night, I sat thinking about what he'd said for hours. Ya know, here's this guy: an older version of the short, scrawny jewish kid who really liked basketball; who wore Volleyball kneepads when we played on a team together as kids because he was too uncordinated to run without falling on himself; the guy who everybody made fun of in school. And he's just pointed out, what a failure I became. It ran over me like a truck. In an instant, I felt repulsed, thinking, "Who the Fuck are you?!" (referring to myself) You're going to let this guy show you up?! Are you fucking kidding me?! If he could, your 10 year old self, would punch you in the face, and kick you in the nuts, if only to provoke some kind of response, or energy, or courage, or passion, or soooomething... Anything. He'd be ashamed of your lifelessness! (Obviously, who cares about basketball. The point I'm making is that I always felt like I was on top of the world til about my early 20's and I just hit a wall of stagnation, and now I'm watching all of these mere mortals, pass me by) So what did I do? I quit my job the next day, and vowed never to return to FDR until I'd satisfied my need to live out my principals. I'm pleased to say that I have done so. The idea of looking for new job, and doing interviews has always caused me great anxiety, in a way that few things ever have. Fueled by an uptick in coffee and nicotine consumption, I did my best to wrestle that fear and anxiety to the ground till I'd squeezed the life out of it, and hopefully I'm not too much worse for the wear. Less than two months ago I was driving a truck full of materials to work everyday, wearing a toolbelt and leaching onto the neck of the taxpayer like a parasite and I fucking hated it. Yesterday I was offered a white-collar position in private industry complete with my own personal private office furnished with a couch and cable T.V, and what appears to be a free, and open and creative environment/culture; one that I'd only ever imagined existed as a possibility for me. I made that happen and I take pride in that. I'm just starting to fear what I could do with a year, and how I'll ever forgive myself if I don't make the best use of that time. It's funny; stress and anxiety and fear can be such beautiful and horrible things. I know that it's not all sunshine and butterflies. I know that this new job isn't and never will be perfect. I know that it will present all kinds of new and interesting and fear & anxiety provoking problems and challenges. I know that the struggle to be a better person never ends. I know all of these things, and I wouldn't have it any other way. For a brief moment though, today I pause to take measure of my accomplishment. I feel like I've proved to myself that I've got some kind of integrity or credibility that makes me worthy of participating in this community. I required that proof, for my own sanity. In recognition of this experience, I think I'll be rebranding myself here, if only as a gesture of symbolic value, marking what I hope to be a transformative event in my life. I intend for this to represent real and lasting change in who I am as a person. Living in the present can be such a difficult to do, but I think I've done so and it's been exhilarating and terrifying and fun and new. I couldn't be more pleased. If you've made it this far, maybe you're thinking, "All this over changing jobs?" You'd be right--- That is the outward facing change. You also couldn't be more wrong--- Changing careers was just a result of me regaining my long lost Mojo, and that was something I desperately needed. It was the result of my first real encounter with my childhood self, maybe, and he took me to the woodshed. I was not being myself, I'd become some crippled, broken, ghostly shadow of my former self. I'd lost all of my self-respect and self-worth and that was made manifest in my profession/employment (and in other ways, no doubt). A two minute interaction of happenstance lit a spark in my soul and I just fed it as much fuel and oxygen as I could manage. I'm pleased to say, I think I've regained my self-respect, and I've done it myself, which is important to me, for better or for worse. Now, I just have to worry about not flaming out, but that's for another day. I'll end with two parting thoughts. First: Never take for granted the power that an idea or a few words can have on someones life. Second: Grab life by the balls, and squeeze until it squeals.

Hey Atticas, how are you? How have things been going? I want to apologize to you for not responding to your message sooner. It's been more than a month, and I just now saw your message. I'll be starting another thread shortly, and among other things I'll be explaining why I haven't been active on the boards for several weeks. I wouldn't ignore you and I'm sorry. I really appreciate you having some regard for my thoughts, and I hope you're doing well. Daisy's post(#22), particularly the 2nd half, in my opinion, is beautiful, brilliant, and spot on. I'd give it careful consideration. My apologies again, for talking so long to reply. I sincerely hope I've encouraged at least one novel thought. Please, let me know if I've been helpful to you at all; I'd really like to be as useful to others as I possibly can.

I can't say for sure, but I would guess that it's a fine substitute. I'm kind of anal about going to primary sources, but in this case, I think you're safe. Certainly better than nothing

I have a hard time telling whether Joe is truly in disagreement or playing devil's advocate, and I think both are the case at different times. I guess it's a mark of someone who's good at playing devils advocate; which is probably easier on topics where he's changed his beliefs, but is still very familiar with the opposing arguments. He used to believe the moon landing was faked until he brought it up with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I'm sure he could still argue strongly from that side, without maintaining the belief.

I think you could get by with just the audio, but he diagrams a lot of things that might add to your understanding. I guess it depends on what works best for you. Towards the end of the playlist (last 7-8 videos) I would just listen to the video with my eyes closed and focus my attention on what he was saying. That seemed to work fine for me. The great thing is you don't have to become an expert all at once; just take in what you can, and then address any questions you might have. That's my approach anyhow. I would recommend trying to listen in rather large chunks though, as opposed to a ten minute section here, and a ten minute section there. I think it's 37 videos, roughly 10 minutes long, covering the first 3, and most important, chapters of the book. Maybe taking in a chapter at a time would be a good idea. I did the first two chapters one day, and the third chapter the next day, and that seemed to work well enough for me. I've got Kindle for PC with Accessibility Plugin. I've got NVDA-- Apologies, but this is almost a foreign language to me. Nvidia graphics driver? If so, I have no idea how that may or maynot matter. I wasn't aware you could do anything besides read books on Kindle. I managed somehow to build my own linux system, but at the same time, I'm kind of retarded when it comes to tech-knowhow.

Haha, I watched that whole series ^ I should have linked it for you, Dsayers He's kinda long winded but ultimately helpful (roughly 5-6mins/page of text) If you're more of a visual learner, he's all about the whiteboard. Before I ever posted this thread I watched all of Stefan's related videos on this and somehow I didn't get it at all. I understood the individuals parts but I didn't get any cohesive understanding of how it all fit together. He does a podcast on the analytic/synthetic dichotomy that I also checked out but didn't appreciate the importance of it, I think because Stef was pretty dismissive of it. I understand now, why that is. Watch out for Muggles.

Interesting Idea. Basically, for every ounce of gold I deposit, the percentage on the note reflects how much of that gold is guaranteed to be returned to me, right? In essence, you can limit your losses, and risk what you please. That would be my general investment advice to anybody, not that they're asking It's also simple enough for 5 year old. This illustrates the different purposes a bank may serve. If all I want you to do is keep my money safe from home invaders and fires, that would be a service for which I should pay. On the other hand, if I'm lending you the money knowing you will use it to pursue risk and reward, I've provided the service and deserve to be compensated. Simply put: Full Reserve banking, I am a customer; Fractional Reserve, I'm an investor. I often wonder which system people would prefer if they didn't have to take risk to keep up with inflation. More often than not, people today are already paying a fee for bank deposits, when you account for inflation. The status quo is so preposterous when you think about it that way. A person lends their money to risk taking institutions and are only compensated with a fixed rate of interest that doesn't even break even. What kind of investor does that? When the downsides of a Fractional Reserve bank rear their ugly heads (Bank Runs, Insolvency) the State steps in with a Bailout. "Look, it's a Full Reserve Bank; Your money's still there!" "This is why you need us!" Meanwhile the whacko with gold and cash in a safe in the basement pays for the bailout... Insanity that only free competition can correct.

Good points Mike. I thought I'd add an important element to what you're pointing out. The FDIC. Nobody cares where they deposit thier money because the government insures all deposits below $250k, and have paid out on claims above and beyond 250k. In a free society, a bank would have to prove it's safety to earn your business. As it is, they don't have to prove anything to customers. They just have to placate bureaucratic regulators. Moral Hazard comes from both bailouts and deposit insurance. To MJ: Check out Magnus' video; I was showing my nerdiness by linking something so long. His is shorter and more to the point. There are also audiobook versions on youtube if you'd prefer that.

If I could just chime in on this phenomenon-- I get this in almost every aspect of my life. The other day I was watching a eulogy delivered by Kevin Costner at Whitney Houston's funeral. He was going on about their shared experiences as children in the baptist church. He describes abuse, and everyone laughs, at the funeral of a woman who struggled with, and lost a battle against drug abuse. Does he point out that child abuse is correlated with drug abuse? Fat chance... Five years ago, this would never have occured to me. Now, I feel like I'm on the outside looking in at the insanity. It's hard for me to enjoy insanity, and it seems like the insanity is everywhere! I used to be massively into the mainstream American sports, and now I find them terribly boring and mundane. This week I was invited to a SuperBowl party, and I think to myself, "Out of everything I could be doing, do I really want to go to SuperBowl party?" Not really... Comedy I used to think was funny, now seems retarded. Fuck, Stefan, where's my blue pill? To answer your question, "Why is this happening to me?"--- My guess is that you begin to constantly frame everything in reference to your concepts of truth and virtue. Any time that your actions/beliefs conflict with what you know to be true and virtuous, you feel this anxiety or guilt. It's like your brains way of calling out to you, "Hello? We've got a contradiction here... Are you going to deal with this or not? Hello?" It's important to differentiate from catholic guilt though, in that it's not based on mysticism and threats of hell and damnation. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by bad art, but I think it's natural to adopt a new perspective for evaluating art. I'm assuming here that Stefan is your kind-of authority on truth and virtue and anarcho-capitalism. You're simply asking yourself, does this piece of work tell a story, and if so, does it reflect my values? Of course it could just be a giant painting of a grasshopper; in that case, I don't know if Stefan likes grasshoppers or not...

Hey, MJ, welcome! Before answering your questions I'll link you to the first of a four part series, "A History of Money and Banking in the United States." You may find this informative, and that it covers several of your questions in addition to many others one might have. Beware, in it's entirety, it's several hours of enjoyment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8e-e9xtFWA&list=PLDiz2cb2sFmTDhsKg8JPA7w_Gsk5waV7s 1) One of the causes of bank runs would be bad bank management. If the bank starts doing things it's customers disapprove of, they withdrawal their money. The Federal Reserve did not solve the problem of Bank runs: Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and others experienced a Bank run between 2000-2010 in the US. If anything, the Federal Reserve created a breeding ground for Bank runs. 2) Yes there was. To your second question: It's open to debate. I take the position that full reserve banking is preferred. I also tend to think of fractional reserve banking as a semi-fradulent, juggling act/ponzi scheme. I will point out though, when you talk about monetary policy, you imply a central policymaker. In a free economy, banks could operate as fractional reserve or full reserve banks, and consumers would decide which they preferred. Runs on the Bank are only possible with a fractional reserve policy; If it's a full reserve bank, there will always be enough money to satisfy depositors, by definition. The worst case scenario would be that you have to wait a few days for money to be geographically moved to your bank, assuming they safeguard the majority of money elsewhere and you want cash. 3) You're not giving them enough credit. They are well aware of the inflationary effects and it doesn't hurt their agenda. By using fractional reserve banking, they can lend out 8-9 times more money than they would otherwise be able to. Who cares about a little inflation when you have the power to create money out of thin air and lend it at interest? 4) I'm assuming you're talking about our 17 trillion dollar national debt. It isn't real in the sense that it's not backed by any hard asset. The reason governments like inflation is that we can pay back 17 trillion devalued dollars. Suppose the money supply doubled; we'd still owe 17 trillion, it would just be worth half as much. Anytime you owe someone a ton of money, you should want inflation. I don't think Fiat currency should exist; it requires laws and the use of force for adoption. Anytime competition is outlawed, it's safe to assume that the reason is it wouldn't win in competition. These aren't the most thorough answers, but hopefully I've given you some good information. Was this helpful?

Here's your flagpole! All kidding aside, and I am kidding, I found this really fascinating. I had a real nice mental masturbation session on the applications of libertarian ethics for these nice young girls. That they both desire to be a mother, for instance, I found very intriguing; assuming they wouldn't adopt, I wonder how they would go about picking the father(s)/husband(s)... They practice negotiation by virtual neccessity, though there was definately an Alpha/Beta dynamic at play. How else could they be driving?! The fact that they have contrasting personalities makes perfect sense to me, but it makes me wonder what determined who was who if personality isn't innate, and they share as much common experience as any two individuals could. I find abnormal people to be so incredibly interesting, so I thought I'd share with y'all. (I say abnormal in the kindest way possible) This also brings up an old dilemma, for want of a better word. That is, how do you navigate respecting the individuals rights and desires, while recognizing how much they have to offer scientific researchers? Obviously the individual's rights prevail, but there is a long line of scientists/doctors that would love to have access to them... Another theme at play was that the community is kind and strangers are rude and inconsiderate. I was pleasantly surprised with how well treated they seemed to be in public school. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't abused, but I didn't get the impression that they were either. Have a look-see if this seems interesting to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axKkNI6Ialg

Yes, I'm working my way through it for a second time. I found it fairly dense, as a lay-philosopher. I'd be reading the same sentence three times and still not be sure what she meant I feel a bit silly that I hadn't taken the time to read much of Rand's published work, or anything Plato besides The Republic. There's been so many other people I've been reading and I never made myself aware of how much of a philosopher she really was... I already have a vastly greater appreciation for her work, and I'm sure I'm not quite fluent enough to grasp the depth of it. I get the feeling that this is one of those books I'll come back to in 5 years and find all kinds of stuff I didn't appreciate/notice before. I'm quite relieved to have found some sanity in Epistemology; I was worried all of philosophy was built on the foundation of gummy bears. For me, definately worth owning a hard copy, and I don't just stick anything on my bookshelf

Check^ I'm tremendously sorry for what you went through. Nobody should ever have to endure such a thing. It's not for me to offer you advice, but I completely share Coreforcruxes sentiments. I'm so sorry, and I'm almost sure someone here can give you what I cannot.

Overall, a pretty good show, check it out. I was a bit disappointed however with Peter's handling of the environmental questions. These were discussed at length and I don't recall him ever referencing property rights. Joe goes after Peter on fracking and the BP oil spill and argues that environmental damage is unquantifiable and should be avoided at every cost. I wish Peter had made the arguments from a property rights perspective, rather than going on about market mechanisms. Maybe this would have led down a rabbit hole of "does any have a right to own a section of the planet and do anything they want with it," or "who owns the ocean." Most, if not all, of what Peter says is true, but perhaps not most effective if you're trying to speak to the "environmentalist" crowd. Of course, maybe that wasn't his goal... I also thought he could have handled the questions about China better, but he made some pretty good points in doing so. Happy listening