ThomasDoubts

Indeed. By teaching virute, one creates a standard by which they will inevitably be judged. Far too often, we fall short of our own standards, and rationalize it in such a way that it is passed down from one generation to the next. Living with virtue as one defines it is like living with pregnancy; either you are, or you aren't. To make a determination with regard to yourself or others requires examination and testing. Authority, by definition, cannot tolerate rejection, else it ceases to be Authority. As you mentioned, hipocracy is required. For this reason, any authority that preaches love or liberty contradicts itself when it reacts negatively to "subjects" acting in an incongruous or disobedient manner. As Neo said,"The problem is choice." Any form of authority dissolves the instant it is rejected. What follows is a futile fight of reclamation. To quote another fictional character, "You have come to fight as free men. And free men you are! What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?... Fight and you may die. Run and you will live, at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take our FREEDOM!" Of course, we can fight with our minds, our words, or by not fighting at all. I view my struggles with Authority as my internal struggle between courage and cowardice. We are not by nature a cowardly species. Rather, cowardice is a trait learned to cope with violent authority. To live in a cowardly manner, is to live precisely as Authority would have it. This truth is deeply unsettling to me whenever I notice it in myself, and is great motivation to correct my behavior. I reject involuntary authority, so how can I live as a product of it's influence? How can I reject it, yet live as it would have me live? I can't. My anxiety is generally, I believe, directly related to the degree to which I've not entirely broken free. My mind can't be pleased with contradictions. I'm pleased that you've been interested, and I'm appreciative of your thoughst and feedback. If this resonates, it's good evidence that I'm at least on the right track!

[media][/media]

The multiplier effect is measured by GDP and GDP is subject to the broken window fallacy. Government spending requires: 1) Printing money. AKA theft via inflation. This obviously dilutes everyone's purchasing power. Any growth or wealth goes to the minority with first rights to the freshly printed money. Everyone else gets inflated money, which the Multiplier doesn't account for. The US printed money to fund bailouts. GDP didn't go down as much as it otherwise would. A keynesian would argue this is a good thing. I argue it's not. I argue that when you go bankrupt, you don't get to be resurrected at the expense of every else's purchasing power. 2) Taxation: AKA theft. They steal money from individuals, spend a portion on administrative beaurocracy, then put it back into the economy. State spending crowds out the private sector. There is no consideration for the amount of growth that could be achieved if the State hadn't stolen the money from producers and consumers in the first place. If the policy is a reaction to a lack of growth or income among the citizenry, it neglects the simple fact that they could let people keep their own money, and they wouldn't need stimulus. 3) Borrowing: AKA theft against the unborn. Debt creates wealth. Like all State spending, it's about redistributing wealth through force. Ultimately, it's always measured in changes in GDP. If the State borrows a trillion dollars to dig a hole to China, GDP and employment will go up. That doesn't mean any wealth was created; it's just a transfer/redistribution of wealth from creditor to debtor. If it's funded through taxation, it's a redistribution from the taxable to whoever the State wants. If it's funded through printing, it's the king giving gifts, and stealing through inflation. Any way it's done, it's a total misallocation of capital, and rooted in theft. Notice that any policy claiming to make use of the multiplier effect is never universal. Rather it's aimed at, for example, bailing out bankrupt/insolvent banks, because the state is uncomfortable with the consequences of not doing so. Thus, socialized losses, and private profits. They claim to be able to measure it's effects. They can't. 2nd, 3rd, 4th order effects and so on. The benefits of not doing anything. The costs of boosting GDP. These things aren't accounted for. This isn't to economical, and the Mises institute would probably have better info, but these are my off the cuff thoughts on it.

I won't venture to argue that point. It was great. Powerful. Very insightful. For me personally, it was particularly validating, rejuvenating, and encouraging. Keep up the good work!

Fantastic video Stefan. Most of my education was in preperation for a career in the Financial Services Industry. The degree to which bitcoin can make most of the industry obsolete is astounding and underappreciated. The simple fact that Financial Services make up 8%+ of the economy is so absurd. Perverted incentives run rampant among the rank and file, there is no real accountability at the executive level. I liked how you related Bitcoin to the internal combustion engine. Here is someone who truly appreciates how profoundly Bitcoin can revolutionize the world! I wrote a very lengthy and rather provocative refutation of an article Gary North authored, and Lew Rockwell published last night asserting that Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme, bested only by Charles Ponzi and Social Security. After writing a few walls of text, I didn't even post it. I always reconsider posting something for a few minutes before I post it, and somehow I felt like I shouldn't be "infighting," and I couldn't resist being pretty offensive to someone that identifies as a libertarian, yet advocates an Old Testament theocracy. In the end, I felt like his article was so full of unsubstantiated and empirically false claims that it was undeserving of a response at FDR. I should have posted it. One of his central claims was that Bitcoin must increase the division of labor to qualify as money, claiming that it does not. You did a great job of illustrating the degree of creative destruction that Bitcoin is capable of. Parasites are not preferential. Let's get the MIT engineers and snake oil salesmen out of Financial Services and into something productive. In all, I just wanted to say great work. A powerful and true representation of Bitcoin. As far as your economic videos go, this was one of your best, I think. I was in absolute agreement from start to finish, for whatever that's worth. I believe a revolution of money is a necessary prerequisite to a free society. Even those who don't want a free society will fund/strengthen it's money when it becomes clearly economically advantageous. I admit feeling real frustration, and a bit of envy when I see friends/aquaintances/classmates living a luxurious carefree lifestyle, making buckets of cash selling CDO's for Wells Fargo, as an example. I almost always believe I'm more intelligent, I have more value to offer, and a clearer, more empirical, and more insightful understanding of economics, but I've got almost nothing to show for it. On the other hand, they've made a deal with the devil, and he's rewarded them with six figure salaries at 23-24. I've been having a real struggle figuring out where my role is in the economy. Bitcoin makes a lot of things plausible that I could never begin to consider if I had to operate as a part of the system. Even so, I'd surely have to skirt/break the law to do anything meaningful or innovative in the realm of financial services. I don't have to tell you, the Financial Services Industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the US. So thank you for, among other things, pointing out the implications of Bitcoin with regard to Wall Street, Financial Services, Lawyers, etc. This point is so powerful; it represents a seismic shift in the allocation of labor & capital to more productive endeavors.

I am white, and my perspective is surely different than your own. When I think of a man exhonerated in the courts but guilty in the court of public opinion, O.J. Simpson flies to the front of my mind. I'm not sure what percentage of black people think he was guilty, but I have no doubt it's a smaller percentage than white people. Two of my best friends throughout my life were black, but they were black people raised in "white culture" if such a thing exists. My highschool was about 93-96% white. I have no extended experience really with urban life. I spent a night in Baltimore City jail once, and had the opposite experience; I probably saw 2-3 other white people out of a hundred, the whole time I was there. The experience for me, was like a mind-f*ck. These people are from a different planet, I thought. I admit, I thought Obama's comment was irresponsible. Trayvon had a history of less than desirable behavior; dealing codeine, starting fights, general deliquency. Obama wouldn't publicly condone his daughters being involved in that lifestyle, but he implies otherwise, by saying Trayvon could have been his son. What I heard was, Trayvon is black, and young enough to be my son. So what? Zimmerman probably thought of himself as some super-vigilante protecting his neighborhood from petty criminals, and Trayvon probably thought of him as some neighborhood nut that wouldn't mind his own business. Both were probably right to some degree. All I know for certain is: Trayvon lost. Zimmerman lost. People are more divided. Being a racial minority is difficult in ways that I could never appreciate. I believe in my bones, the most rampant racism in the US is in the criminal "justice" system, and most white people I encounter don't want to talk about that. The more black people in jail for non-violent drug offenses, the better And then, blame the race for all the effects of their fathers and husbands being rounded up en masse, and locked in cages. It all just sticks to high hell. I have a hard time finding anything redeemable in the whole ordeal. It just makes me sick, all the way around. Precisely what happened, and how it happened, the night Trayvon died is unknowable, and therefore irrelevant. We're all left to speculate... I wish it had never happened.

Apologies in advance for the wall of text. What was meant as a concise and direct reply, turned into my general ramblings, rantings, and thoughts on Zimmerman, selective media, and THE ROADS !!!(in the US) I'm starting to think about self imposing limits on my post lengths... I'm not quite sure how I feel about George Zimmerman. I think it's tragic whenever any young person loses their life, and who knows what Trayvon might have made out of his. I think the case for GZ being convicted of murder was pretty weak. I thought the evidence was circumstantial at best. He made the case that he acted in self defense, and I don't think there was a case to be made that he was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. When facts and evidence are compared to the legal requirement for conviction, they fall short. Better 9 guilty men go free out of 10, than 1 innocent man be incarcerated. That being said, I wouldn't have acted in the same manner as he did. What really rubs me the wrong way about the whole ordeal is the media. If George Zimmerman were a black man, the story would have been lucky to make it beyond the local paper. I live about an hour from Baltimore; people get murdered all the time (among the 5 highest rates in the nation). As long as you murder people in the ghetto, and stay away from the few business/wealthy areas, I'd never hear about it in a million years. Where is the outrage for people murdered in the ghetto every day? I think the biggest reasons that George & Trayvon are a big national story are race, testing Stand Your Ground, and Trayvon being a 17 year old child rather than an 18 year old adult. Just down the street last week, 4 adults (parents&step-parents) went and beat the sh*t out of their 18 year old daughter's 23 year old drug dealer with a baseball bat after he hooked her on heroin, watched her OD, and left her to die because he didn't want to deal with police. He allegedly threatened the 4 adults with a large knife when later confronted, at which point they picked up a baseball bat in the drug dealers home. Whatever they're ultimately charged with, they'll almost certainly plead down to something else, and never warrant a blip on the national media scene. That story is a topic that allows us to ask; What was the parents role in the daughter ending up on heroin? What should the proper response have been? Is the well being of an addict more important than incarceration? Should we condemn the drug dealer for trying to avoid prison at the expense of the girls life when he couldn't be assured saving her life wouldn't cause him prison time. Etc. There are stories everyday that illicit mixed feelings for me, and I'm not sure why Zimmerman and Trayvon deserve any more of my attention than any of the others. I will say though, if someone sticks a shotgun in my face, I hope I would have earned it. Otherwise, I wouldn't want me, or anyone else I cared about, around such a person. Of course, it's only an allegation that Zimmerman threatened his ex-wife, and girlfriend. He said, she said, and can't be proven either way. It seems to me, the allegations are probably true, but I can't begin to prove it. I thought he was a victim of the public, political, and media bloodlust the first time around in the Trayvon case. You'd think going through that whole ordeal would make him reluctant to do it again. Whether guilty or not, it's pretty clear; the dude could use some therapy. Even if he is judged to be perfectly innocent, I won't be hanging out with him. I don't want to be around him. I can still judge him as a potential threat, right or wrong, without condemning him. Such would be the natural response for most people in a free society, I think. He'd really have to earn people's trust, convince them that it's ok to let their guard down around him. So far, nothing I've seen convinces me that he doesn't have the propensity to be an unstable or violent SOB. He might still be alive, but he lost his entire life. If I were him, I'd change my name and move to another country. Nothing personal, but it really irritates me that people cite him being stopped for speeding. So what? I've probably been stopped twice for speeding since Trayvon died. Does that mean I'm unstable, or unruly, or violent? Should we have a national media story about my speeding tickets? I think it just means speed limits were established ages ago when vehicles had a fraction of the performance capability that they do today. 55mph highways with zero crossroads? That makes me want to rip my hair out! If I were to project Statism on drivers, I'd put it in on people who think, "well I can't drive 56mph safely, so I'll stick at 55 and hope I find a couple others to help me block all 3 lanes." I think Pennsylvania highways are much more pleasant than the Maryland/Virginia ones I use most often. The rule is, you drive in the right lane, or you pass on the left. You don't drive on the left unless you're passing. Where I live, you drive wherever you want and generally just piss people (me) off. There are a million ways anarchism could help traffic, but the people who lack courtesy on the road might just be irritated with people rigidly complying with arbitrary or ancient statist traffic laws. I don't always use my turn signal when changing lanes unless someone in the vicinity ought to know I intend to change lanes, for both our well-beings. Other people use their turn signal like the car physically requires it for the wheel to turn. The latter seems a bit OCD to me. They say the average person commits 3 felonies every day; so don't do too much to upset the powers that be. I don't think traffic laws are any exception; the majority of them are only lame justifications to pull people over, search them, and/or tax them. Phooey! Behavior on a busy road is practically anonymous. Imagine if people were as open about their preferences in person, as they are in anonymity. On the road, you exersize your will, with nobody to answer to for your actions, except for mainly passengers, police and insurers. When the idiot in front of you in the fast lane is going 5 mph below the speed limit, you can make him uncomfortable, ride his rear, honk your horn, flash your lights, whatever. Yell out the window "GET OUTTA THE WAY!" It's pretty jerky behavior, to be sure, but so is driving slow in the fast lane. If you ever manage to get around him, be sure to let him know he's number one _ _ | |_ Just kidding, don't do that. Maybe you're not in any particular rush; you ought to avoid people who are, and do so in the right hand lane. I know the value of time is subjective, as is the perception of risk. Anarchism would sort out the conflict safely, fairly, and in accordance with cost effeciency; the status quo does not.

I would ask for an example of rampant sexual abuse, occuring in garment factories, in a nation with a free and vibrant economy. Where opportunity is plentiful, nobody would "need" to bend over for their boss. The reason they "need" to do so, is that opportunity is not plentiful. Opportunity is not plentiful because they lack free information and a free economy. Why can't they go to competing garment factories, and offer to be a worker and spokeswoman, against the abusive factory. Is there no non-abusive factory that would prefer marketshare and wealth over the ability to be sexually abusive? I don't know the statistics, but I would be shocked if the majority (or plurality) of the sexual abuse doesn't come from asian nations. An article was posted here not too long ago; 1 in 4 men in china self-reported raping a woman at least once. Where did they learn that might makes right?

You've never seen my grandmother "use" the computer Point taken though. I guess I'm just saying I think more energy needs to go into making bitcoin idiot proof. If I asked either of my parents, or my neighbor, or my several of my middle aged ex-college professors to copy files to a thumbdrive, they'd have to first ask me what a thumbdrive is. All things bitcoin would be so foreign to people who can scarely use computers to begin with. Of course, one day they'll die, and I'm sure their kids won't have any problems.

For sure. I'm not a tech guy by any means, and I have a hard time being confident in my ability to maintain my security. For many people, even if they're comfortable with the concept, they'd need someone to hold their hand the whole way. I was reading not too long ago about Cody Wilson (3d printed gun guy) working on a new project called Dark Wallet. I'm not sure I understand it all, but I know he's trying to incorporate mixing coins in blocks of transactions to enhance anonymity and something about browser plugins to make the process easier. <-- I don't have much of an idea what that means though I don't want a bitcoin wallet linked to my bank account. I don't want my bitcoins stored on my phone. I think there is a lot of room for innovation in a physical wallet (along these lines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNTseu9SVYk) Bitcoin needs to be easy for my grandmother to use. Businesses are catching on, and I think they'll continue to do so. I'm encouraged, bitcoin is still in it's infancy. For sure. I can't give a real price target, but the one I quoted is certainly lower than Bitcoin is capable of. Maybe we could put together 5-10 bitcoins and buy Hawaii one day. Who knows, I say it's potential is virtually unlimited (not that it's without risk).

I don't really like the term speculative investment. Was the guy that bought amazon stock at $10 speculating, or did he see competitive advantage where others didn't? If I trade my dollars for bitcoin, I prefer the bitcoin to the dollar at that moment in time. What I do with my bitcoin in the future is irrelevant. I may decide I'd like to trade my bitcoin for a TV. I may decide to trade my bitcoin for a swiss franc. Either way, I'm trading my bitcoin for something I percieve to be more valuable than the bitcoin, otherwise I don't exchange. If my primary concern is bitcoin's rising price in dollars, it doesn't follow that I intend to trade it in the future for dollars. All it says is I'm encouraged by bitcoin gaining marketshare as a medium of exchange. Oil prices are demoninated in dollars. The price is a dynamic relationship between the value of oil, and the value of the dollar it's priced it. Sorting out one from the other can be difficult. Bitcoin and gold are similar, but are priced in many currencies, and in many commodities through voluntary exchange. Arbitraging bitcoin across different currencies helps to standardize the value of bitcoins and gold. You could price bitcoins in oil, but you still have to be able to isolate bitcoin value from fluctuating oil supply/demand. You could price bitcoin in corn, or pencils, or 30 minute sessions with a top notch hooker; you always have the problem of isolating the commodity/service value from the "money" value. You could try to price bitcoin using a basket of goods, as we do to measure inflation, but who's to determine which basket best reflects the proper value. It's the whole notion that value is subjective. If I buy bitcoin, what am I saying? I'm saying, I believe bitcoin is more valuable than the market price. I believe my bitcoin will be worth more in the future than the dollar I traded you for it. I believe others will come to realize the same thing, and act upon that belief by buying bitcoins themselves. I could be wrong, and I'd lose purchasing power if I am. I believe bitcoin offers a competitive advantage over ever fiat currency, and thus is vastly undervalued. If bitcoin represents a sound currency alternative to gold, then it could potentially support relatively astronomical prices. I don't give a hoot what it's price is in dollars in that regard. I think people generally underappreciate the extent to which gold and bitcoin are in competition with each other to capture sound money marketshare. Below is a fair representation of my thoughts on bitcoin, and it's unrealized potential. Let’s use a broad guesstimate. One Bitcoin should theoretically be worth 700 ounces of gold or pretty close to $1,000,000, if we adjust existing supply of both to equal eachother. One BTC is currently worth 0.14 ounces of gold. That gives BTC an upside of 5000 times to equal the current price of gold, supply adjusted. Clearly, I and everyone else believes that Gold may well be much higher than here in the next 5 to 10 years, thus versus the US Dollar the upside for BTC could be multiples of that. Now, before you shake your head, simply go back to the chart of Gold versus the US Dollar and just recognise that it has risen 8750% since the 1920s. And just remember that Microsoft rose 61,000% from its IPO to it’s peak. Considering what we know about the world, I personally believe that Bitcoin may well explode in value as more and more people begin to use it. If you stuck $5,000 into Bitcoins and each Bitcoin did go up to a gold equivalent of let’s say, only 100 ounces of gold (not the potential fair value of 700), then at current prices your Bitcoin stash would be worth $3.3m. Now that’s what I call a tail-risk option. It’s either worth zero or it’s worth a truly outstanding amount of money. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-10/bitcoin-plunges-25-government-scrutiny-first-btc-fair-value-reco-has-stunning-price- He gives a potential price target in dollars. I think a better way to think about it, is to consider a world where bitcoin is a dominant currency. If everyone realized how much better bitcoin is that fiat, then fiat demand collapses, and bitcoin demand explodes. Rather than having a small percentage of the "money market," it could have a huge market share, and appreciate accordingly. Rather than thinking about what a bitcoin costs in fiat, consider the trend of what a bitcoin can purchase. Holding out on consumption (not "using" it as money) for price appreciation is simply the key manifestation of a deflationary currency, which encourages saving and delayed gratification. Bitcoin prices in dollars? Who cares, I think about what I'll be able to buy with bitcoin with in the future, as a result of the competitive advantages it possess relative to gold & fiat.

Fair value requires a free market, voluntary exchange. Once you start talking about standards of living, you're making a consequentialist argument. Who cares or knows how standards of living will be affected by a free oil market; the point is that the oil market is not a free market. Monopoly via dollar denominated oil is antithical to free exchange. Funny enough, those who attempt to sell oil in anything other than dollars end up having problems. Hussien, Gaddafi, Iran, Venezuala. Of course, this is entirely unrelated... The justification for the status quo is also consequentialist. If the global economy doesn't need dollars to buy oil, dollar demand contracts. We can't have the planet sending us back all of the inflation we exported, can we? Your argument fails when you talk of fair value in a market without free exchange. Fair value and coerced exchange backed by violence are incompatible.

Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated. I was unsatisfied with the transition in tone as well. I played with it a bit, but I was never very happy with it. Perhaps it would have been better to scrap it altogether and find a new way to introduce the dialogue. My goal was to not be clear with who "authority" is. I wanted to allow the reader to project the ideas on any form of authority they wished. It could be the State, a parent, religious leader, etc. It's about the supremecy of the individual, and the unmasking of unjust authority. As a child, we are taught rules that parents exempt themselves from. As a student, we are taught the moral principals of governance, which the State regularly violates. As a religious person, you may be taught tolerance, and churches can be the most intolerant. It's about revealing a tendancy of all forms of authority to practice the doctrine of "Do as I say, not as I do," that is, to aviod the universalization of principals. To show how the true character of authority is revealed the instant you choose to act outside of it. I was raised in a authoritative family, an authoritative State, and under an authoritative God, and that's where I drew my inspiration from, I suppose. My intention was to characterize authority in all its forms. I struggle sometimes with putting my foot down and standing up to authority. This was my way of revealing to myself, the reasons for my reluctance, as well as the simplicity and righteousness of disolving authoritative relationships.

If I work 18 hour days painting manure pink, how many credits will I earn? How many credits should I sell my pink manure for?

Assuming this is all accurate and unbiased, and I have no reason to believe it's not; I think you are right to point out the real problem. Honesty. I really feel where you're coming from. Unsettling, no doubt. It's like you climb way out on a limb, and out of happenstance realize you may be climbing on a rotten limb. What else might he be lying to me about right? How am I to know if he only lies about porn, without putting everything else under greater scrutiny. What would be his reaction if I start digging around looking for damning evidence of lying about other things? Would I be justified doing that? I'm reminded of a scene from the show House where a vegan couple in an "open relationship" comes into the clinic; the woman explains to House that her boyfriend's stool is floating, and she says it shouldn't be. Later House explains to her that her boyfriend is cheating. She doesn't get upset; says she understands, men have needs and she's not always around, etc. House says not on you, on the diet; he's been eating meat. She freaks out, breaks up with him, goes out on a date with House... The point being; are you making a mountain out of a molehill (porn), or are you making a mountain out of a mountain (lying)? I'd be curious, and clearly you are too, why he'd lie about porn when you explicitly explained it isn't an issue to you. Maybe he's trying to protect you from feeling insecure about him watching porn. Maybe he has suspicions that you were being disingenuous when you said you didn't care, trying to entrap him. Maybe he's ashamed of it. Maybe he thinks you'd think differently of him. Maybe he's a closet porn addict. Maybe he's unsatisfied, but unwilling/hesitant to talk to you about it. Maybe he wants to be punished. Maybe he just wants a little jerk off session every now and again, without it ever having to be a conversation topic, like a small island of privacy. Maybe he'd tell you anything he thinks you want to hear. I don't know, I'm just throwing out random possibilities, but this, I think is the important question. I got caught making love to my left hand by an ex who had your exact opposite attitude towards porn. It turned into a huge blowout fight, especially when she attempted to shame me for it as she was walking away. I told her, well at this point you might as well stick around for the grand finale, lend a helping hand . Not well recieved at all... She was against porn, but accepted or "permitted" me to watch it, and attempted to shame me if/when she caught me. Talk about mixed messages... I hope you aren't sending mixed messages, and it doesn't appear to me that you are from your post. I tried to put myself in your shoes and think what I would want to say (not that this is right, just my thoughts) "I don't buy your bull about checking out the societies trends in porn. I don't buy your bull about it making you sad and morose, because this would cause you to not look at it. I told you I don't care if you do it. I told you I don't care if we talk about it often, or not at all. I have been 100% open and honest and curious with you(if this is the case). I'm not mad that you've been looking at porn, I'm mad that you've been lying to me. Either be honest with me regarding porn, or admit that you've been lying, and we agree to keep your thoughts/actions regarding porn your own and private. What is, and will always be unacceptable to me is dishonesty. If you decide to be honest with me about it, I'll be ready to either talk or not talk about it. If you decide to maintain the story that your porn history is some kind of market research, empathy practice, I'm unconviced." When you hit new tab in Firefox it brings up the 9 most often visited sites, not the nine most recent, I'm pretty sure. I know this because that's the quickest way for me to find my porn, and some FDR. Perhaps I'm being dismissive to his side of the story, but as you tell it, I'm a skeptic. I hope I haven't been too insensitive, tossing in some lame humor, but that's me. I really do feel your pain though. Once you set a standard with someone called complete honesty, a crack in the wall could foreshadow a bursting dam. On the other hand, maybe you can grap and handful of wet concrete and slap it in the crack, and everything be ok. I should say though, given my relationship history, I feel like the fat guy selling a weight loss plan. Nonetheless, I'm sorry for the upheaval you're feeling about being lied to. I think you were right to say it's something you need to talk to him about, and I also think you were right to not do so in an overly emotional state so

Just as a disclaimer, I don't have any evidence, but I do have theories. I'm a big proponent of volitility, or variation. I prefer to sleep 6 hours one night, 10 the next, 8 the next, etc. I like to keep my body guessing, the theory being, like your muscles, the body becomes stronger by adapting to it's environment. I do the same with my diet. I might really pig out one day, have 3 squared the next, fast for 2 days, etc. I like to mix it up, and confuse my body. Anecdotally, I find it much easier to cope with less sleep than others. I find it much easier to cope with hunger than others. I don't know precisely how this effects my body, but I don't like routines. Most of the time, I think optimization comes at a price. I try to encourage flexibility, and adaptability in my body, rather than optimizing for one environment. It kinda goes along the lines of the notion that it's healthier to smoke one cigarette a year, than to not smoke at all. I think stress does more to strengthen your immune system than living in a plastic sterile bubble, up to a point. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, sometimes. I will say though, studies like this are generally fraught with correlation/causation fallacies/issues.

Some random thoughts: Pencil, self, hurricane describe particular emergent phenomenon. Society does not describe any particular arrangement or interaction, but rather every possible arrangement or interaction of humans. You cannot arrange wood, graphite, and rubber, in any manner and call it a pencil. You cannot arrange cells in any manner and call it human. You cannot arrange air molecules in any way and call it a hurricane. Because it is not an emergent property of society. Society is simply an requirement. If I lock ten people in my basement for 20 years, they form a society, but are incapable of producing a pencil. The self requires cells, but is not an emergent phenomenon of any group of cells. Rather, the self describes a very particular emergent phenomenon of a very particular arrangement of a group of cells. If I exist only as a concept of individual cells, I think it should hold that any group of cells arranged by the "rules" of the concept, should duplicate me. If this were true, determinism seems the only rational consequence. Of course, this doesn't disprove anything, simply an observation. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and a prerequisite of free will.

I saw this video a while back. What I think someone should take away from it, is that they have no interest in fawning over the US. They, in fact, don't like American influence. RT is a great place to find commentary on Snowden, but that doesn't mean Russia is all about freedom of information, challenging authority, etc. They throw rocks and harp on the US as a way of propogandizing their people. It's "look how bad they are! Do you want someone like this running the world? Do you want Americans spying on us?" They're perfectly willing to censor the truth when it's exposing something about them, but when it comes to showing how bad another country is bad, the truth makes for a convincing argument. It's just another form of holding truth as the highest standard when it's convienent. When it's not convienent, bury the truth in a deep dark hole. It's holding the truth as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

We all agree abuse is immoral. Once this simple truth is realized, there is little merit in arguing how abuse can be productive. Thus there is no general contention. I view an upvote as an agreement with my argument, and a downvote as a rejection of my argument. I'm trying to think of an example of a contentious issue; maybe animal rights. It doesn't seem to me that there exists a general concensus here on the treatment of animals. If you make the argument that eating meat is violates NAP/UPB (which I may or may not agree with) but use poor arguments to reach that conclusion, how can I upvote you? A contentious issue is one where proof is absent, or acceptance of proof is negligable. Voting based on an emotional knee-jerk reaction is antithical to FDR. Ideally, every downvote should carry with it a justification. Maybe this is where I'm wrong; we should just explain why someone is wrong without downvoting them? I dunno. Maybe downvotes should be reserved for "Thou shalt not" offenses. Again, I think the root problem is an ambiguity towards the meaning of and upvote/downvote/reputation. Perhaps a sticky thread outlining how voting should be practiced could be helpful. I suppose a simple question would be, why is a downvote a bad thing? If FDR is about philosophy, reason, and evidence, then a downvote is simply a general measure of your aptitude at applying those principals. It is evidence that you have work to do. I think problems arise when one takes a downvote as an attack, or a disapproval of their existence, or a measure of their "unwelcomeness." In the realm of argumentation, if you're doing anything creative, "cutting edge", challenging the status quo, etc.; you're likely to fail many times before you succeed, if you ever do. An upvote is a good way for the community to recognize a good argument, and lend it credibility without posting "yeah, what he said." Outside of argumentation, I think it's a useful tool for encouraging and supporting individuals that are learning to accept the foundational principals and put them into action in their lives. I think it's a useful tool for ostracizing abusive people. Someone with a million upvotes, and no downvotes simply stays within the confines of what the community believes to be true. I'm reminded of Stef's quote about conforming to the past making you invisible to the future. There is nothing wrong with this, as the community, by and large, is well grounded in reason and evidence. It does mean though, you'd be unlikely to create anything new; your focus would be more on catching other people up, and we all know there is plenty of work to be done there! Everyone has a role to play. If your goal is to "catch people up," you're likely to have many more upvotes than downvotes. If you're inclined to challenge generally accepted arguments, you're likely to have many more downvotes, but so long as your efforts are well intentioned and and supported with reason and evidence, you shouldn't be unwelcome. For example, if I assert that we should use "self defense" against the state, and fight violence with violence, I should know going in I'm probably going to get a million downvotes. I should know, it will take a superb air tight argument to avoid the downvotes. I should know that patience will quickly wear thin if I reject reason and evidence, and that I carry the burden of proof. In other words, it's my job to prove to others; not their job to refute assertions.

Yeah pretty much; an insurance plan is like a payment plan, but you're prepaying. I'll pay you x every month, if you cover the occasional large expenses. When the company evaluates a customer they determine statistically what he is likely going to incur in costs to the company over his lifetime. Then they determine the amount he should pay each month to roughly offset those costs. It's about paying a little each month rather than paying nothing every month, and then being hit with a monster bill you can't afford. Some people end up better off economically, some worse, but that's determined by chance. On average, insurance companies are very good at figuring these things out. You can never predict when an individual will die, but you can predict the average life expectancy very accurately. If you go to buy health insurance the day before you get sick, you risk profile is pretty close to every other healthy person of similar age/lifestyle. If you go the day after you are diagnosed with an expensive, incurable, long term disabling illness, you know longer present the same risks to the insurance company. This is a main reason ACA forcing people to be covered for preexisting conditions is a huge problem. If you force an insurance company to say a healthy person and a sick person present the same risk profile, they can't make economic decisions. The moral is, if you want someone to pay your huge bill when you get sick, you have to pay a little each month to offset that. Of course, you don't have to buy insurance, but if/when you get the big bill, it's your job to pay it, just like it always was. Buying insurance is saying, "I no longer want to be responsible for paying a large hospital bill all at once. What amount can I pay you (insurance company) each month, so that you will be responsible?" Market forces and competition drive down that amount you pay to very small margins. They have to make a profit for providing that service, but relatively speaking, it's very small, and encourages very accurate measurements of risk, and opportunities for individuals to reduce payments by having generally healthier behavior. Glad I could be of some help.

With regards to Two and a Half Men; it's only "funny" because it works this way. Subconsciously, the audience should know Alan is the preferable man. No woman watching should want to marry Charlie. It's like if I make black white, and white black, and toss in a couple jokes, it'll be funny. For people who are already color inverted, it's just a confirmation of what they think is true. These members of the audience stick around for the one-liners and validation. Probably before the show was ever on air, I would have really identified with Charlie's charactor, particularly the womanizing part, but today I would identify much more with Alan, minus being such a goofy wuss, I hope. I have to say, the more these kinds of things become apparent, the more disenfranchised I've become with TV. It just becomes so bland... The only TV series I watch with any regularity is the The Walking Dead. I couldn't come close to naming half of the most popular shows, if that's any indication of how much I watch. I'm all about the internet, I can watch a video about anything I want, rather than choose between a couple dozen primetime shows. Especially if I hook up the laptop to the TV-- That's where it's at As far as the audience being necessary to tell you how to think about the conflict; that was something new to me. Of course it's so obvious, but something I never really consciously picked up on. At least I wouldn't have been able to articulate it. I see this as a kind of general evidence of a good idea. I happened to catch V for Vendetta on TV last week, no doubt November 5th. This might provide some new food for thought...

I think the fact that standards for rationality differ is a problem. I think discussion is useful for figuring out exactly what you believe. In the case of determinism though, there are boatloads of posts dealing with the debate. This is Stef's forum, and he closed the topic because he considered it resolved. If you disagree, you must prove why he is wrong, or why you are right. I hope I'm not coming off in a "jackassy" way, but it's about the arguments. I would enjoy reading and considering an innovative approach, but 99 times out of a 100, it's an old argument presented in a new way. I would be the first to upvote you if I thought you had effectively refuted free will, or proved determinism, but it's a difficult task. This illicits a thought for me. If I were to downvote your post, am I downvoting you or your argument? This is why I brought up the idea of scaled voting earlier. It's difficult to convey an idea of "A for effort." How do I downvote what I think is a bad argument, while still being supportive? How do I upvote good or novel ideas, extended to poor conclusions. If I were to downvote someone, 9 times outta 10, I feel a justification or explanation would be owed. Maybe I don't see downvotes as negatively as others. If I try to deal with a particularly contentious issue over time with dozens of downvotes, but eventually resolve it with an effective solution, I wouldn't care that I had more downvotes. Hopefully, when I solved the problem, I would get a ton of upvotes, recognizing the achievement. I think a lot of the issue lies in intent. What does a particular voter intend his up/down vote to convey. If a downvote is a reflection on an argument, I'd expect 99% of the arguments should get a downvote on contentious issues. They are contentious for a reason. If you upvote because you like the conclusion, and fail to recognize flawed reasoning, you encourage flawed reasoning. If you downvote a bad argument, and provide proof of it being a flawed argument, you encourage finding new ways to argue that are consistent with reason and evidence. I should mention though, if someone isn't making an argument, then I wonder what my criterion would be to vote. I think it's preferable to upvote as a congratulations for an accomplishment. If someone makes a breakthrough with the family, or through action makes a positive impact on someone's life, absolutely upvote. If someone says something abusive, absolutely downvote. In the middle ground, it can be more difficult to know how I would feel or vote. I suppose I wouldn't vote in either direction. As I said earlier, I still have to clear the donation hurdle, so feel free to ignore me ( :

Not if you make a convincing or rational argument. Perhaps not, if you introduce a new argument. If you restate arguments that have been refuted, then yeah, probably.

They became uninsurable because they got sick. You buy insurance to pool your risk of being sick with the rest of society. Once you're sick, it's often too late. You don't get to soak your house in gasoline, start a bonfire in the backyard, and then get the insurance company on the line to agree on a policy as your house is burning. You don't get to call geico at the scene of an accident to purchase car insurance to cover the damage. You don't get to wait until you get sick to buy health insurance. It's unprofitable. You have (or at least you used to, prior to ACA) a choice whether you purchase insurance or not, but by not doing so, you assume the risk and responsibility for covering your own damages. This is the pricipal of insurance. Defined: a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium. If you don't pay the premium, don't expect compensation. If you have a long term disability or illness, or a short term illness that's expensive to treat, you'd never possibly pay in premiums what you would get in compensation. This is why you are uninsurable. If you are healthy, you may pay more or less in premiums over your lifetime than you recieve in compensation, and the insurance company manages those risks in an equitable manner. With certain illnesses, they know with certainty that you could never be a profitable customer. If you have MS and need $2,000 worth of treatment/medications every month for the rest of your life, you'd have to pay >$2,000 in premiums every month. You are never uninsurable, per se. The problem is that the premiums that would be required would skyrocket beyond your means. If Bill Gates were uninsured and diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, he could get a policy that satisfies both parties; for example, paying $2.5 million dollars a year in premiums. It becomes impossible for the individual before it becomes profitable for the company.

Ditto. On occasion, it was so clear what the thought processes were behind my general behavior. It would make me incredibly uncomfortable, and feed a kind of general paranoia, i.e: do other people percieve this about me? Am I really this retarded? Look at me just bouncing aimlessly between stimulus and response. Let me quickly distract people before they realize this, etc. The experience was like downloaded by my subconscious, such that I would immediately recognize it anytime thereafter. I remember well, an instance in particular, where I realized just how retardedly shallow some of my conversations were with a particular "friend", because he was essentially retarded, and I just played along/parrotted. This was something I always knew intellectually, but the experience hit me in a powerful and emotional way. Like I really absorbed the information and it's implications, rather than just being aware of it for a fleeting moment and then distracting myself from it. It was SO unavoidable, and I felt ashamed. I was getting no intellectual stimulation or reward, and that was so dissatisying, and it induced a revelation regarding my general dissatisfaction. I have no idea exactly how it works, but it just seems to soften bias/subconscious barriers. I feel like it would help me get to the root causes and psychology behind an individuals behavior; like I could almost see into their soul (forgive the metaphysics). My focus would be directed entirely on observation in social interations, rather than being actively and thoughtlessly engaged, or managing competing interests for my attention. Sometimes I observe others, and often times I observe myself, but it's like I'm vacuuming up and analyzing data, rather than just "being." With some effort massaged in a particular direction, I made some real breakthroughs. If, and when I get into a habit of using regularly, is when it becomes destructive for me; like a self-medicating stupor to allow me to procrastinate without the rational corrective consequence of anxiety. For me, building a tolerance introduces a problem of diminishing returns. Used on occasion, I have found it to be a useful tool. Used frequently, I have found it to be counter-productive. As much as I'd like to retest the hypothesis of frequent use, I think my experiential evidence is pretty strong. I would never call it addictive; scientifically, it's not. People that make it a daily lifestyle, are just determined to avoid/hide, or are entirely too complacent or unambitious, in my opinion. It's a medication that suppresses symptoms, and symptoms are simply diagnostic information. What I find unique, is the ability to manipulate the experience with intent.