ThomasDoubts

My family tree is littered with drug and alcohol addicts or recovering addicts(they say after years or decades of sobriety). Almost every one of their recipes was the same: AA and God mostly. They either ended up completely sober, and almost maniacalIy religious, or incarcerated. I have an uncle who's a recovered drug addict running a mental health/substance abuse facility in Ohio, and another relative that was like the president of AA in Pennsylvania or so I've been told. I had some issues of my own, but I never would have considered myself an addict (others may have, what's that big river in Africa again?) . My problem was I would get drunk, do stupid/silly things, and it just complicated my life in a negative way. I've seen it be incredibly destructive for many family members, my father included, so I was always very much aware of what happens when you travel too far down that road. I also hear you loud and clear with regards to being dissatisfied with the black/white approach. I still enjoy a drink now and again, but I really have to police myself to moderate. If I don't make a conscious effort, I'll drink like it's going out of fashion. That's when I remember why it's important to police myself. I still feel like it's playing with fire though. If I never touched a drink or drug for the rest of my life, I know neither would cause me any problems. If I dabble with either from time to time, they could cause me problems, and what would I have gained? I would say, simply a few hours of relief from the anxiety of the day. I think the important thing is, if I do so, I know I'm masking underlying problems. As long as I'm commited to dealing with those underlying problems (preferably in some hazy distant future ) I don't see it as a massive issue. I view it like getting a little tipsy on a sunday to medicate a toothache, while making a note to schedule a dentist appointment in the next day or so. I was a fairly heavy and regular drinker in college, but these days I might have a drinking "occasion" between once a month and once every three months, which generally consists of 4-5 drinks. I know my life is significantly better for the change. Maybe one day I'll accept full sobriety, but I think I'd have to degenerate into being a heavy user again for that to happen, and I think that's highly unlikely. Who knows though, I never really miss it or think about it if I don't have it, but that wasn't always the case. As far as how I reduced my drug/alcohol use; it was two things. Primarily, it was about the company I kept. Certain social circles were triggers for me. I found myself unable to be around certain people without indulging excessively and frequently. I just had to cut ties with some people I considered good friends, for my own good. If I happened to run into them at a bar or restaraunt tomorrow, I might have a few drinks, but I can't maintain regular relations. It just drags me back into bad habits. Secondly, I made an effort to replace alcohol with pot as a kind of temporary measure to at least self medicate with something significantly less destructive. I found I could stop using it entirely at any time, and after a few weeks I did, and kept away from alcohol for 6 solid months to break the behavior patterns. I doubt many would advise the latter of my strategies, and I was hesitant to mention it. I decided however, it worked for me, and I'm conviced alcohol is worse in every way. I think breaking the behavioral pattern, and dealing with the underlying causes are very distinct, but equally neccessary issues to overcome. I got myself clean as a whistle, and then commited myself to dealing with my underlying problems. It was slow and difficult at first, but a breakthrough here and there, and it came all at once, seemingly without effort. That would be my unprofessional advice, for what it's worth, because it worked for me. You didn't detail precisely what your "addiction" entails but these are my general thoughts and experiences on the matter. If you can relate, great, I'm with you. If you find anything valuable in what I've said, even better. Apologies if I didn't come from the reason/philosophy angle too much. That was instrumental to understanding why I was using, but I got sober before I tackled those problems.

For Love and Liberty What we see now is like the dim image in the mirror; then we shall see face to face. What I know now is only partial; then it will be complete. Must I ask today: does humanity have a right to be free? For a thousand years, and many more, humanity has striven for one thing. Plagued by a yearning for something more, he prays to the heavens and the winds, “why can I not act, as I see fit?” Authority's answer has never wavered; you are unfit to govern yourself. Burdensome and insignificant though you are, without power or considerable value, I am here to protect you, and will not let you suffer. It is with love that I shoulder you, for it is my duty to protect you, to teach you, and to guide you, such that the determinants of your actions are in accordance with your interests. To know thyself is futile, for your knowledge does not surpass my own, and from that knowledge I derive my responsibility and authority. A time may come when you are prepared to be loosed upon the world, free as the seagull to surf the skies, but not this day. You are not yet equipped, but I will instruct you on all that you need to know. First, you seem to desire freedom. What is it that you understand about freedom anyway? Is it my right to speak? Is it my right choose? Your freedom is everything; when you are prepared and well equipped you may do as you wish, and need not my guidance. Is there anything I shouldn't do? Yes, you must do no harm. What does it mean to do harm? You must not murder. You must not rape. You must not assault. You must not steal. You must not use violence. I have no desire to murder, to rape, to assault, to steal, or to use violence. My heart wishes only to love and be joyous. Well I tell you, this is good, but first, I must be sure that you understand love. What is it that you know about love anyhow? Is love a feeling? Is it an action? Let me explain, love is your involuntary response to virtue. Wait, wait, I don't understand... Ok, let me explain. Virtue is a measure of moral behavior. To love, is to recognize and appreciate in others, behavior in accordance with your morals. An honest person loves honest people. A caring person loves caring people. A generous person loves generous people. So let me get this straight; when I say my heart wishes only to love, what I'm really saying is, I wish to be surrounded by people who share my moral code and act accordingly? Precisely. Ok, well that's simple enough, I think I've got it. Can I be free now, I can't wait to love with all my heart! Whoa, whoa, whoa, not just yet, eager one. How will you ever protect yourself? I hadn't considered my protection. Are there many things I must protect myself from? Oh yes, of course, a great many things will prey on you if you aren't prepared. Your protection is taken care of now, but with freedom, you must protect yourself. Well, I have a good idea. I feel quite safe now; perhaps if I understood how you protect me, I could replicate it when I have my freedom. That sounds like an excellent idea. You're quite right, and learning quickly, I might add. There are several ways in which you are protected. Firstly, you are under my care and supervision at all times. As I explained earlier, I love you, and would therefore do you no harm. Yes, I can see how that works, but can we go back just a bit, I want to make sure I fully understand. This is the second time you have told me you love me; am I to understand that I am a reflection of your moral code and behavior? Precisely. I think I love you too. I'm wondering though, does it then follow, that if you change your moral code or behavior, I will no longer love you? Yes, that is correct. Together, we share a common moral code, and we act in accordance with it. Ok, so a few examples; one thing we have agreed on is to be honest. If you begin to be dishonest with me, I would no longer love you right? Because you love me, you have cared for and defended me when I was vulnerable; so if you assaulted me while I slept, I would no longer love you? We have agreed not to steal from one another, so if you began to steal from me, I would no longer love you? Yes, I think you understand. Surely, I would not love someone who rewarded my honesty with lies. I would not love the one who rewarded my care and comfort with assault. I would not love the one who rewarded my trust with thievery. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. But to get back on topic, we were talking earlier about protection; should we return to that? Yes, of course. I said earlier, I love you and would therefore do you no harm. Since I am always keeping watch over you, this is one way in which you are protected. Secondly, you may notice, you've never been attacked by anyone, have you ever wondered why that is? Well, no I haven't, now that I think about it. Who would want to attack me? I've not harmed anyone. Indeed, however, if you're ever to be free, it's important that you understand that the world has many predators. To a predator, it doesn't matter whether you've done them harm or not; they will prey on you just the same. But how is it that you protect me from these predators? In two ways. First and foremost, by avoidance. I don't send you anywhere that you'd likely encounter them. This requires great caution on my part, but it's well worth it to ensure your safety. I'm curious though, if you started sending me to dangerous places, or brought predators to my home, I would know that you did not love me, right? That's correct, I would never willfully put someone I love into harms way. Ok great, go on. Secondly, if you were ever to find yourself under attack, I would do anything in my great power to protect you. Anything in your power? Yes, anything. You've never seen me use it, and it's unlikely you ever will, but I will never hesitate to use violence in your defense, if no alternative exists to ensure your safety. I'm quite surprised, I've never considered you violent. I'm not, but such is my willingness and right to protect those whom I love. Hmm, love is a powerful thing... I want you to know, even though I am without great power, I too, will come to your defense if you require it. After all, we are becoming like family. That is very kind of you, but I scarcely expect I'll require it, I'm quite good at avoiding threatening situations. Ok great! Let me just stop you for a moment though and recall everything we've been over. You explained to me what freedom means; basically it means I can do anything I wish, with the caveat that I can't harm anyone. Surely that would be preferable to someone else deciding what I must or must not do. Simply understanding freedom wasn't enough though, I still wasn't prepared. You explained your love for me, and what it means to love. Love is my appreciation for another's virtuous behavior, in symmetry with my own. You explained that I cannot love another who's morals conflict with my own. You also taught me the most important skill to utilize in establishing my protection; the avoidance of potential threats. Is there anything else I must learn before I can have my freedom? You really are excited about this whole freedom idea aren't you? Well yeah, it seems like a pretty good way to live doesn't it? I thought you explained that to me... Well yes, I suppose I did, but here's the thing; I can't grant you freedom entirely, the world just isn't ready yet. What the hell do you mean the world isn't ready? Well the thing is, there are a lot of predators out there, they don't understand all the same things you do. Without me to keep an eye on you, who knows what could happen. You could be attacked, and I won't be there. You could have your food stolen, and how would you eat? You could get sick and who will care for you? You taught me well; I will quickly find others I love and we will work together to care for and protect one another. I'm sorry but you're being naïve; nobody will ever love you like I do, nor protect you as well as I have. Others will deceive you. Well that may be, but I promise I will be very cautious. I'm confident I'm ready. No, it's not safe yet. I refuse to let you go... Hey, get over here! Do I need to repeat myself!? SMACK! You know what, Fuck You! I don't need your permission to be free, and I never did. I don't love you any more. Did you find this enjoyable? If so, let me know below. This is my first attempt at writing something somewhat creative since an essay on making a PB&J sandwich about 5 years ago in college. I'm inclined to think I should quit while I'm behind You'll notice I borrowed stef's definition of love, and I'm kinda concerned I did a disservice to the concept, so any thoughts on that would be appreciated as well.

This is my understanding, but I'm not certain it's the case. It does beg a question of mine though: How would transactions be validated after all of the coins have been mined?

I was a bit annoyed that I recieved my only negative vote for a statement of facts. I don't know how technically feasible it would be, but I was thinking it would be interesting to have a scale to the voting. For instance, +.5, -.25, +.73. I haven't yet donated, so it might not be my place to weigh in, but often times I have mixed feelings about a post. I would be hesitant to upvote something I largely agreed with if it also had something I considered to be unsupportable. I think more information would be provided if you could give decimal or percentage votes ranging from -1,1. Just because you don't fully support or reject a post, doesn't mean it's without value. I think this would also encourage more active voting. However, if you did it, you'd have to include a measure of the average value/vote to have any meaningful data. You could go wild; average positive votes, average negative votes, number of positive, number of negative, profiles of each voter with the statistics on their voting record, the whole nine yards. Again, I have no idea how feasible or time consuming this would be, just a thought. There's always a way to get more accurate or extensive data, which I always find interesting. I suppose it comes down to the time/energy/practicality of implementing such a system.

Hey, thanks a lot Dylan, I'm gonna check all that out tonight. Your responses have been helpful. It's quite simple, but your three step process makes a ton of sense to me. I think a lot of my frustration comes when he's at option 3 and I'm still at option 1. When I've had enough, I drop down to Shut the fuck up, and he "wins". Only when I really lose my cool, do I match him at option 3. I think just simply laying out the parameters of the discourse could be very helpful. "Hey dad, I'm just gonna mirror whichever of the three you select." He might shit a brick

Thanks for the reply! I laughed out loud at your 3 options. This is precisely how I feel. I'm not even sure he's capable of rational discourse. I'm not even sure he knows what it is. I think he makes concerted efforts but it's a bit like watching Charles Barkley play golf. I try to avoid getting into option 3, but occasionally my emotions take over, which wasn't the case today. I've never really had anything productive come out of option 3, except he'll always attempt to make restitution. Most of the time it just gets my blood pumping, gets me stressed out, gets me angry, and then I'm right back where I started. It does feel good to let it out though from time to time. We have a few issues here. He wasn't offering to help buy me a car. I think he just meant, if you need to borrow my car for a couple days, if you need a ride to the bank, that sorta thing. I said I obviously told my mother because I was in the same house; kinda unavoidable... Had the situation been reversed, he'd have been the first to know, and she might have been out of the loop for a few days. The only reason I was at her house was because it was 25 minutes closer to the scene of the accident. He wasn't the only one that didn't know; to my knowledge my mother and my friend's family were the only ones that did know. I found out after the fact that my cousin found out about my friend and notified the world. This idea of "mentoring" accurately describes my father. The problem is, his mentoring involves praying to skygods, working for the government, and doing as he says, not as he does. I take it with a grain of salt. He has good advice from time to time, but you have to sort out a lot of bullshit to get to it. His heart is in the right place, but that doesn't mean I should follow every bit of advice. You remind me to bring up another important fact; my younger brother has been estranged from my father for 3-4 years, and I see the heartache he feels every day because of this. He's made every effort he can think of, but in my brother's mind, forgiveness or restitution is impossible. I won't get into all of those complications, but I try to tread carefully on my father's heart because he's lost one son, and surely doesn't want to lose another. I think you're right to point out that he'd prefer a closer relationship, in fact an unhealthy need to have my love for him confirmed. He told me, "we're all worried your mother's influence or lack thereof is causing you to get in these situations," implying, if I was simply under his watchful wing, he could influence me correctly. I apologize, but at 25, I don't think I need influencing. I'm capable of making my own determinations, and living with them. Thanks for the reply though, hope I cleared up some of the confusions.

Apologies, this ended up being pretty lengthy. Ok, so a little background first would be helpful I think. About three weeks ago, I was in a minor car accident on a back country road I was unfamiliar with. I attempted to avoid a deer while negotiating a turn and ended up in a little ditch. I caused probably $1000-1500 damage to my car, and decided to junk to car, since it was a 15 year old POS anyways. I figured it was a good opportunity to upgrade my vehicle, and it wasn't worth sticking money in the old one. Nobody was injured and I told my dad about it the next day. He reacted in an understanding way, as if it was no big deal, glad you're ok, if theres anything I can do to help, etc. Flash forward to this past friday night. As a passenger in a car with my friend and his brother (who was driving) I was in a second car accident. This one was quite different. My friends brother drives a kinda nice Firebird. Basically, imagine the stereotypical testosterone fueled joy ride, and you'll get the idea. Anyhow, we lost traction negotiating a turn, ended up sideways in a farmers field, the car began to roll, I was ejected (not wearing a seatbelt), and rolled to a stop in such a way that I looked up in time to see the car continue to roll a half dozen times or more coming to a rest upside down. Both my friend and brother were wearing seatbelts and were not immediately responsive when I ran up to check on them. I got 911 on the line as soon as possible and did everything I could possibly do to help them. My friend ended up being airlifted to shock trauma, and his brother driven to a nearby hospital. His brother was released the following morning with 30 staples in his head and 100+ stitches. My friend is still in a medically induced coma, with plenty of injuries, but nothing life threatening. I had what I suspect is a broken finger, and a couple minor bumps and bruises. Having no serious injuries, I had a police officer drive me to my mother's house because I lost my phone in the accident and they wouldn't let me access the vehicle. I obviously told her about it, and we began trying to call around and figure out where everyone was at, and make sure they were ok. Over the course of the next few days, my friend's well-being has been my primary concern. His parents advised me against trying to visit the hospital, since he's not conscious, and instead asked that I check in on his brother from time to time, and make sure he's taken care of (they've been staying at the hospital). I happily obliged, and have been doing so, while trying to talk some sense into him. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference though; he almost killed his brother, and thats done more to change his thinking than I could ever do. He feels terrible and rightfully so, I think the lesson has been learned. My problem begins with the fact that in these past three days, I did not notify my father about the accident. I suspect the main reason I didn't tell him about it, was I knew he'd react unreasonably, hipocritically, and in a manner that would make me uncomfortable. So he shows up at my mother's house about an hour ago and confronts me. Apparently, my cousin somehow found out about my friend and notified every family member in the area looking for me, thinking it was somewhat likely I would have been with him. To make a long story short (or not so short) my fathers side of the family has been all worried about me for several days, unknown to me. I did lose my phone in the accident so communication has been difficult, and I've basically been focusing exclusively on my friend and his brother. As for the confrontation with my father: It was immediately hostile. “What the fuck are you doing!? You can't fucking call anybody!? Nobody can fucking get a hold of you!” etc. I explained to him that I was in an accident and suffered no real injuries, and that the other two were in pretty bad shape. I explained to him that my primary concern has been making sure they were ok, and doing what I could for their family. I explained to him that I have been unable to access the car to retrieve my phone, or wallet, and have been more or less stranded until I can do so (not having a vehicle, as it was wrecked a few weeks ago, and not yet replaced). I explained to him that I didn't think he, or anyone else really knew about it, or had any reason to worry. His response was “what the fuck does that matter!?” He accused me of trying to keep secrets from him, as if everything would be much better if he simply knew every detail about my entire life, and could tell me exactly what is right and wrong, and praise or scold me accordingly. When I told him I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, he said “I'm glad you care enough about me, and enough about yourself to not be wearing a seatbelt!” He particularly didn't like that I pointed out I'd most likely be dead right now if I had been wearing a seatbelt (I was in the back seat, which was crushed into non-existence). I was very fortunate to not be wearing it, not that I would generally advise it. Of course, he rightly explained I should never have been in the situation to begin with. At some point the conversation degraded into personal attacks on my underemployment, which has persisted far too long. Personal attacks on the company I keep. Attacking me for not fulfilling my obligations/responsibilities to my parents/family also occurred. I have demonstrated in the past, that obligations to family are/can be retarded, but he only accepts that in extraordinary circumstances. “I never raped you, or beat you!” Well yes, but you did do some othe stupid shit, and relevant to the situation at hand, you did drive drunk with me and my brother in the car for the duration of our childhood. You were arrested for DUI on three occasions with my brother and I in the car as children. “I never fucking killed anyone, or got in any accidents!” Yes, well that's very fortunate. I've not been as fortunate. Projecting, he explained, “If you just get a real job, and a girlfriend, you'll be happy. I don't understand why you aren't taking up these job offers I've helped line up for you. I don't understand why you won't just go find a girl to make you happy.” I explained to him that a shitty gov't job and a marriage to the wrong woman will not make me happy. I don't recall a coherant response. As an aside, actually, I said shitty job, not shitty gov't job. My father recently retired from a gov't job he held his entire adult life, and has explained how irrational my anger towards gov't is. After all, they're the ones that “stop people from raping, killing, drug using, and being degradations to society/black (those two are basically synonomous unless you're Ben Carson, Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice).” I felt under attack for the entire conversation. Perhaps it would have been better if I told him about the accident immediately afterwards, but I was in no danger and would have prefered a face to face conversation. In my mind, it just didn't seem like a pressing matter to notify him. He obviously disagreed. I started writing this mostly as a therapeudic exercise. I just felt angry at him, like who the fuck are you to tell me how to live my life. Who the fuck are you to attack the company I keep. Who the fuck are you to tell me what a "good job" or "good woman" is. In 50+ years, the only answers you came up with are pray really hard, have a woman committed to you, and swear your highest allegience (besides god) to your family as long as they don't rape or beat you. I don't recall what exactly preceded it, but the conversation ended with him turning around and walking to his car saying passive agressively, “Have a nice day.” I'm not sure I really have a question, maybe how should I feel or react to this? As I said, this began as something therapeudic for me, but I may as well post it. Hopefully I haven't overburdened it with detail, but I just typed what my fingers told me to type. If you've made it this far, any thoughts or questions would be welcome.

Yes, I think I understand that. I presume the inclusion of government bonds and the S&P500 is based on a historical trend of their inverse relationship, which has since been proved to not be as strong a correlation as previously thought, and several times refuted for extended periods. Money Markets are presumably included because they're traditionally so stable that you often lose money when accounting for inflation. Gold is the inflation hedge. What I'm suggesting is that the theory is a theory, not a fail safe strategy. If that were the case, the argument is falsified by the several years(4) of negative nominal returns in the data ribuck provided. From '70-'03, 14 of the 33 years produced negative returns adjusting with government reported average annual inflation numbers. This isn't precise, but illustrates the point. The market environment is extraordinary, and ought to be treated as such. Central banks around the world are flooding markets with cash. This was not a concern 10, 15, or 30 years ago. The effects of that cannot be fully known, nor can we know future political policies/responses to the effects. We can only make educated guesses. My educated guesses incline me to think US government bond performance will be poor, stock performance will be poor, money markets will likely underperform inflation, and gold could do quite well. Nothing inclines me to think government bonds will do well; in fact they couldn't, yields are already incredibly low, historically. Why would I invest in those bonds for the sake of diversity, if mathematically, they have very little room to increase in value (unless we decide negative interest rates are a good idea). This a huge problem. Everyone wants to be invested, so as to not lose purchasing power to inflation. Chasing yield in government bonds is like stabbing a buzzing beehive with a butcher's knife because your wife bought cheerios, and you like honeynut cheerios. The value just isn't there, in proportion to the risk. I'll find my 3% return elsewhere, thank you very much. I don't mean to be stubborn about this, but the title of the thread is "Failsafe Investing". There is no such thing in perpetuity. Maybe I'm just being a bit of a stickler, I foolishly just realized that Failsafe Investing is the title of the recommended book, not Trout's title. It just rubs me the wrong way when someone sells investment advice and presents it as a golden ticket, free of risk (not directed at you Trout). If I were to advocate Browne's strategy, I would feel pretty awful if someone used it to invest their life savings and lost 40%. I feel obligated to provide a contrarian viewpoint to at least illuminate, what I see as, huge downside risks to enacting such a strategy for the foreseeable future. Hopefully my arguments are of merit. I'd love to hear a defense of investing in government bonds with prices near the highs, thus yields just off the lows, and IMO risks much greater than reflected due to market intervention. I don't believe this imbalance can be maintained. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=o3K

I understand the principal. What I'm saying is, I doubt the sufficiency of diversification. In the future I suspect stocks and 30yr government bonds will move together (down), rather than inversely, as is the historical trend. Money Markets are frequently net negative investments when you account for inflation. Of the 4 asset classes you mentioned, I consider the next big move for 3 of them to be down. I think the strategy is a fair rule of thumb for allocating across asset classes in a free market but consider: 30 yr bonds are not priced in a free market; rather they're priced artificially through QE & the Fed. Stocks continue to make all time highs, yet this is not reflected by meaningful metrics of the underlying economy. Money markets are particularly succeptible to liquidity problems when markets correct abrubtly. You are advocating investing in asset classes that are artificially being upheld. I don't believe that will continue in perpetuity. I don't doubt that you've used the strategy with good results; I doubt that it will continue to produce good results. Who the hell knows what a 30 year bond is worth without a free market to price it? I would not buy something if I couldn't determine it's value, and the only thing I know about government bonds is that they're overvalued. I would not buy something overvalued simply for diversification's sake. The broad story effecting the entire market is QE, Zero interest rate policy. In my view, the inevitable correction to this market interference will be negative for stock, bonds, and money markets. There is no fail safe investment, else everyone would be making it, and it would discontinue being failsafe as prices were bid up.

Did some quick math on that. Between 1970-2003 he would have had an average annual return of just about 2%, adjusted for inflation, and assuming you think government inflation statistics are valid (I used CPI). Of course that would be revised lower with data for the next decade, and what I believe to be more accurate measures of inflation. There is an assumption, and a dangerous one I believe, that stocks and bonds are just about universally inversely related. I think it's quite intuitive that the end of QE will cause a great deal of turmoil in the bond markets, and I don't believe that will strengthen stock markets which continue to make all time highs. Rather I anticipate crises in the bond markets dragging down the stock markets too. Money Markets could very well freeze up, as they did in '09. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that an investor ought to make an early play on long term seismic shifts, which are foreseeable. A prudent investor doesn't rely on historical trends; rather he manages risk. For a long term investor, I think it would be unwise to diversify across a stock/bond market that isn't self sustaining 5 years removed from the financial crisis. I quite agree with the importance of diversification, but I don't invest in dog shit simply because I don't have any exposure to the dog shit market. Government bonds are, in my view, akin to junk bonds, but QE has suppressed yields and inflated prices. Demand is artificial in some respects as many bond funds/pension funds are required by law to own US bonds. Either you believe QE will last forever, and government can decree it's creditworthiness to the market, or market forces will eventually intervene. In that respect, I'd rather be a year early than a day late. If I'm going to have a high risk tolerance, which I do as a young person, I would much rather incur high levels of risk with the opportunity of massive returns in bitcoin that be exposed to government bonds or a good deal of the stock market. If I'm nearing retirement, with a low risk tolerance, I'd probably prefer to sit out from the markets all together for a few years. I'd much prefer my purchasing power be stored in precious metals or hard assets than in pieces of paper.

Hey Trout, how's it going? I thought I'd share a couple of my thoughts for consideration. IMO US stocks and bonds are significantly overvalued. Diversification is important, but I believe the big story will be a global failure of fiat currencies. That being the case, I'd be looking for ways to diversify my medium of exchange. I'd rather have 1/2 precious metals and 1/2 bitcoin than have 50% made up of government bonds and US stocks. This isn't to say you can't make money doing so, but I would advise against it. It's like the turkey; every day the farmer feeds him and every day the turkey becomes more confident he'll continue to be fed. On the day he is most confident the farmer is bringing his breakfast, the farmer comes and chops his head off. Such is my attitude regarding QE fed stock markets, and QE suppressed bond yields. Money Market yields make it such that you'd be just slightly worse off (or perhaps better) with your cash in a safe in your basement. The whole point of inflating is you're forced to invest in order to maintain purchasing power. I'd argue that's much more easily done by storing value outside of the fiat currency. The notion of failsafe investing kinda bothers me if I'm honest. If it's failsafe, why not go max out a dozen credit cards to finance it. You can't diversify against systemic risks in the system, and fiat economies have never been more vulnerable. For me, I want to be in defensible hard assets, or sound money, which make up only 25% of your strategy. I can't prove my strategy is better, but if I had significant money to invest, that's what I'd be doing with it. I'm always curious when someone gives investment advice. I'm only vaguely familiar with Harry Browne, but does he invest all of his money in the manner prescribed? Often times I find people write books or sell investment advice that isn't reflected in their personal investments.

I left Facebook months ago. I find it interesting that it's made impossible for one to comment on an article without a facebook account. I went so far as to create an acceptable email address but balked when I was required to link an email account with a facebook account. Feel free to convey my sentiments if you're so inclined. I'm not sure what it says about me that didn't overcome that frustration...

Sanctimonious. Self Righteous. Projecting. Deviod of solutions to acknowledged problems. Absolving parents from the ownership over the products of their labor, or lack thereof. I often wonder if/when I am responsible, and my parents cease to be responsible. I don't have a reasoned answer to that question, but neither does the author. Lacking empathy, he is condesending and humiliating the reader for being adversly effected by their childhood without offering any means of correcting the adverse effects. Essentially, he argues that bad parents cause physical/emotional/psychological damage, and so long as you don't correct that damage, you'll be just like everyone else who's normalized it. And normalizing trauma is the preferable thing to do.

I think we would disagree about what constitutes a good school. Can you tell me how many philosophy courses you took from K-12? I won't put words in his mouth but I don't suspect Stefan was universalizing. Provided you proved your argument, you'd be right if Stefan was making a universal claim; all it would require is one instance of falsehood. Your problem in proving your argument arises from the fact that you can only be in one classroom at a time. Tell me about your experiences with the classrooms you didn't experience. I highly doubt Stefan is making a case that in every classroom, of every public school, children are attacked for abstaining from the pledge. Given a choice between non-comformity with something you presumably didn't support, and blending in with the crowd as a blurry faced go-alonger, you chose the latter. For what reason would you make that choice? It's like saying, I disagree with this but I'll pretend to agree because the consequences of disagreeing are uncomfortable to me. What school would make a child feel uncomfortable expressing their preferences or acting on their beliefs? What school would allow students to attack another student for expressing their preferences and acting on their beliefs. If neither of these conditions would have applied to you, why pretend at all? I don't pretend to like mint chocolate chip ice cream or sweet potatoes just because a lot of people do. Did you fear you would be wrong for disagreeing with the pledge, or that you wouldn't be given a forum to explain why you didn't agree with it? Did you think it was unimportant? I'm genuinely curious why you pretended. You say because you didn't want to draw attention to yourself, but the opposite of that is to have nobody pay attention to you. Who should prefer to be a ghost? I must admit I'm a bit perturbed by your defense of public schools. They are by definition, the manifestation of no free market. If you aren't defending public schools, it seems to me like anecdotal nit-picking on a peripheral issue. You are attempting to anecdotally falsify Stef's claim that students are attacked for abstaining from the pledge, and yet you pretended to say it every day. It's no wonder YOU weren't attacked.

In one breath you try to give credibility to your school by comparing it to favorably to others, and in the next equate it to the schools that compare unfavorably. Well which one is it? You don't have experience with public schools, but with a public school, perhaps a few. Your largest paragraph discusses your experiences with one teacher you presumably respect. Why are you not discussing dozens of teachers? Is this simply one example, with dozens more equally or more worthy examples? I had a teacher in high school that finished just short of a finalist (of which there were 5) for national teacher of the year in 2002. The structure of the class was in every way I can think of almost entirely anarchic (so long as it wasn't abusive) We spent months discussing the evolution of the Abrahamic religions and the associated fairy tales with equal validity granted to all. We discussed all of the arguments for war overseas and the moral implications. All of this was in the fairly immediate aftermath of 9-11 when everyone had to choose to be either a terrorist or star-spangled awesome. That doesn't mean I went to a great school. I had teachers that were lucky to figure out how to tie their shoes in the morning. Of course we had the right to do whatever we wanted during the pledge of allegience but was there any discussion about why we say the pledge, or whether it was right to grant your highest allegience to God and Country? Of course not. Nobody was ridiculed for not saying the pledge, but those that abstained were almost universally outcasts in most ways anyhow. Not saying the pledge was just another reason to ridicule an outcast, even if it was never mentioned in the ridicule. I wouldn't expect you to make the case that peers rarely attack non-conformity, whether reasoned or not. If that were the case, anarchism would be an easy sell.

That's an interesting way to frame things. I have no doubt that humanity has become more fragile than at any moment in time, in terms of risk profile. We've gone to great lengths to mitigate harm, but this doesn't come without consequences or second order effects. Just as the antibiotic cures the illness, it's overdependence creates fragility, exemplified by the virus' increasing resistance and accelerating rate of mutation. I don't claim to be an expert on the science of GMO's, but this would be claimed as another example of marginal increases in effieciency breeding systemic risk. From an evolutionary standpoint, diversity of risk and volatility are essential; never should humanity overoptimize effeciency at the expense of a catostrophic systemic risk, even if it's a 12 sigma event (murphy's law). Just as many of the greatest discoveries occur as the result of error, so should outlook be regarding human survival. I guess I'm just saying in a fancy way, never have all your eggs in one basket. Humanity has a great deal of genetic diversity in many respects, but our genetics haven't yet been diversified into subspecies with unique survival traits that may or may not be advantagous. So long as threats are introduced gradually, I'm confident we would adapt, but scenarios certainly exist in minute probabilities that could theoretically cause us great harm or perhaps cause our extinction.

I think I understand your position. Would this be a fair implication: Every soldier who voluntarily participates in a war of aggression and initiates force by killing another is immoral? As would be the commander/abstraction who "authorized" or initiated the war. This would presumably grant immunity to the cooks, engineers, and such. Was Hitler's declaration of war THE initiation of force, or AN initiation of force, followed by a gazillion others? Having always (to my knowledge) delegated murder to others, was Hitler a murderer, or only those who directly commited murder? Your post indicates you'd hold both responsible but Restoringguy's post demonstrates this conundrum. If every soldier, when asked to kill, rejected Hitler's request, we'd have been left with an abused lunatic that tried to convince others to murder people. He'd have never been a murderer, all else equal. In fact, I'd be Hitler's equal if I simply gave you some propaganda and told you to kill someone, to which you would say "no." I have far more questions than answers but these are the things that illustrate my confusion when discussing abstractions. I'm inclined to think that joining an Army, as we traditionally think of them, is thought of as an abdication of responsibility to abstract authority. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Americans, for example, have shown a preference for less freedom in return for less responsibility. The individual can be held to account for his actions, but if he gives up his responsibility to an abstraction, "it" cannot be held to account, nor can he (maybe). I don't believe, however, than an individual can give up his "responsibility" to act with moral integrity, for morality is an abstraction itself. It doesn't exist in reality, isn't universally binding, and requires a positive commitment. All we could say is that the moral man who contracts himself out to an abstraction/authority rejects morality if immorality is a condition or forseeable consequence of fulfilling and abiding by the contract. The immoral man who does the same, simply continues to reject morality. At your bottom wrung IT position you were asked to do something that conflicted with what you anticipated would be required of you in your commitment to the organization/hierarchy. Given the choice, you chose to maintain your commitment to morality rather than reject it. Your leader, at that point, either had to give up, commit the immoral act himself, or find someone else willing to do so, but did the organization didn't commit the act. This is disheartening to me; I'd prefer to argue that the abstraction is immoral, rather than argue that you (immoral person) are immoral, and should therefore do xyz. Much more difficult...

Thanks for the reply. I want the world to be a good place. If I don't spread the information, I don't feel like I can justify the frustration I feel towards people content with the status quo. If I do justice to the arguments, and they are still rejected, my frustration may be justified; if they're accepted, then I've made the world a better place. What seems irreconcilable to me is being angry or discontented with the status quo, and not engaging in the action required to alter it. Perhaps responsibility is an improper term, but I feel impelled nonetheless, and probably more so than I would if I were surrounded by likeminded individuals. As for my personal relationships; I am dissatified with them. I abandoned most of my friendly relations with people who had an unhealthy influence on me, which closely examined, turned out to be the vast majority of my friendships. I feel a bit like I'm stuck in limbo at the moment; I've removed the bad things, but not yet replaced them with much. Deterministic is probably too strong a term, but the connotation is closer to what I'm aiming at. Absent incorruptable people, power attracts those wishing and willing to exersize it. Having gained power, their integrity doesn't strengthen any over time. In a given game, players play approximately within the rules, and the rules of government consist of lying, cheating, stealing, and killing.

A few thoughts occured to me this evening which have rendered me incapable of sleeping until I put my them on paper, so to speak. I fear my questions and ideas are entirely unoriginal, but I did a bit of due diligence, so please forgive me if I missed some of these questions raised elsewhere. Free Will is an exhausted topic, so much so that I didn't want to spend the next week reviewing it all, particularly since I'm not interested in the free will/determinism dichotomy (preferring my free will). I'm hoping someone can enlighten me, so here goes. I own my body, and endowed with free will, I am thusly the owner of the effects of my actions. This seems entirely reasonable to me. The implication being, that I would obviously not be morally responsible for the effects of my actions if I didn't possess the free will to choose. Stefan makes it a point to hammer on this; that we should refuse to strip people of moral responsibility, and I agree. My confusion arises when we start talking about the morality of abstractions made up of groups of individuals. Can a moral judgement be made of Governments, of Armies, of Societies, of Corporations? It seems clear to me that we can make judgements on actions and their effects, but this is where my certainty ends. Consider the following scenarios: >The State owns itself, and endowed with free will, owns the effects of its actions >The State owns itself, but deviod of free will, does not own the effects of its actions >The State does not own itself, and thus cannot exersize free will, nor own the effects of it's actions >The State is unownable, simply an abstract entity made up of it's individual agents, exersizing the agents' free will in proportion, relieving the abstract entity of ownership over the effects of it's actions. >The State is unownable, simply an abstract entity made up of it's individual agents, exersizing the free will of it's citizens, relieving the abstract entity of ownership over the effects of it's actions. >The State is unownable, simply an abstract entity made up of it's individual agents, deviod of free will/choice, and not responsible for the effects of it's actions. For Corporations: substitute Corporation->State; employees->agents; customers/shareholders->citizens For an Army: Commander & Chief/General->state; rank & file soldiers->agents; funders/citizens->citizens Which, if any of these, is true? Is it possible to make a moral judgement against a group, in the same manner that we would treat an individual? If so, how ought the responsibility be aportioned? If not, must we be contented with The State as an amoral entity? It would seem so, as a moral judgement requires a choice, and choice requires a chooser(s?) Absent the legal fiction of The Corporation, the owner of a business would be responsible for the effects of the actions of his business, which I believe to be preferable. I'm reminded of Tolkien's preference for either monarchy or anarchy; at least you can kill the king, and hope the next one acts in his self interest. My inclination is to hold all parties accountable, to the extent that they have a choice, and act with complicity. As a Statist, I was unaware that Anarchism was a legitimate, rational, preferable, moral position. I'd never heard or read an all encompassing, yet concise, persuasive argument for Anarchism. One day Youtube presented me with a gem of a "related video", and I became an Anarchist very shortly thereafter. As they say though, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I believe we have a responsibility and duty to provide people with the choice, although I feel I've significantly underachieved in that respect so far. Nonetheless, I suspect making converts out of government employees would be quite the fruitless endeavor, and it seems almost everyone I know personally is either a waiter, a waitress, or a government employee. But alas, my need and reluctance to upgrade my own personal relationships... Enough of my rambling though, I'm curious what y'all think? Am I missing some gaping chasm rendering all my thoughts drivel? Must I grant an abstraction free will, in order to hold "it" accountable? If groups of individuals are individually responsible, how can one escape the deterministic effects of the principal that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Surely, that's a pillar in the argument for Anarchism, but it leaves me a bit depressed and pessimistic, if I'm being perfectly honest (could be due to my hunger and tiredness though, I can't say for sure I know he was only a fictional hairy-footed child, but noble as he was, Frodo never tossed the ring in the fire. What do you guys/gals think?

It wasn't a conversation until you replied. In doing so, you let me know you tried to address my issues in other posts. I have yet to see an argument making the case that cell phone technology would be what it is today, had a RBE been adopted 20 years ago. I have yet to see a direct response/rebuttle demonstrating a RBE allocating resources more efficiently than a free market. I've yet to see anything that explains how value could be measured or compared. I've yet to see a refutation of the inherent (shout out to PJ) risks and waste associated with centralized decision making as I demonstrated in the Edison/Tesla example. I've also yet to see a moral argument that justifies enforcing the idea that individuals cannot work for profit. If individuals have the opportunity to work for profit, for whom would it be advantageous to abstain? You made posts. You did not address the issues I raised. You gave me a link to a conceptual cell phone.

If you don't manage to respond, you've done nothing to incline me to see your cell phone idea. I'm asking fundamental questions about effecient resource allocation, not for a futurist concept of a cell phone. I don't mean to be rude but you essentially said "I considered your points, I'm not going to respond or refute them, look over here." Forgive my skepticism.

This isn't just Austrian, but you are correct. Your example describes a forward contract. It is often adventageous for a farmer to lock in a price for his goods in advance of the harvest. He is willing to agree on a sale price today for delivery in the future, rather than agreeing on a price in the future that may be more or less. By entering the contract, the farmer shifts half of the risk of price movements for his grain from himself to you. For this reason, the agreed upon price is almost always less than the current market price for immediate delivery. Essentially, you get a discount for bearing the risk of falling prices (could have bought it cheaper), he is willing to bear the risk of rising prices (greater profit), in exchange for certainty. This is a form of hedging risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_contract#Relationship_between_the_forward_price_and_the_expected_future_spot_price Any time you attempt to determine the future value of something today, or determine the present value of a future promise/asset, you consider the Time Value of Money. A $100 bill today will buy you more than that same bill in ten years due to inflation and/or the opportunity cost of earning interest rather than keeping it under the mattress. Finance attempts to reconcile the difference and determine prices/values at any time other than today, or payments made in increments over time (mortgages, annuities, bonds, etc.). This is also not particular to the Austrian School but generally accepted by most everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money It goes against everything I've ever been taught but the concept of usery being a bad thing seems foriegn. It implies that by lending you money, I don't recieve anything in return for bearing the risk that you don't pay me back. By lending, the best I could do is be made whole, right back where I started. On the other hand I could never be paid back at all. It's intuitive that if I'm risking not being paid back, I should require a profit in order to take the risk. In a world of finite currency (bitcoin for example), the creation of debt that creates the ponzi effect would manifest itself in ever falling prices. Rather than trending toward inflation, you would trend toward deflation, thus the advantage of infinitely divisible, and free currency (bitcoin). Such a paradigm shift isn't without it's own challenges, but it does encourage saving, reward delaying gratification, get rid of taxation through inflation, and many other things. I should note, bitcoin will require very little computing power once they've all been released, and they do have several key advantages that traditional currencies/stores of value lack. For a more refined opinion on usury, you'd have to consult religious texts. Speaking on alternative currencies in general; who know's what will work best. You need a market to determine the answer to that question, but competing currencies are invalid by decree from on high. It is, however, encouraging to see people experimenting with currencies. Government currencies will go the way of the dinosaurs, it's simply a matter of time.

So in the transitory environment, cell phones will become abundant and proper waste disposal exists, as opposed to today's reality? You know, the one where the number of cell phones in service outnumber the population. You know, the one where you couldn't begin to count the businesses whose only function is to recycle cell phones. I'm distraught that the transition didn't occur twenty years ago, and provide everyone with a single function brick, built to last forever. What if someone tried to provide me a cell phone that gave me access to the accumulated knowledge of humanity? Imagine having to waste something built to last for all eternity. Imagine someone else not having access to the magic phone. It's unfathomable; obviously, we'd all be better off sticking with the brick. I jest, but you can't ignore the simple fact that people respond to incentives. In the fully adopted "post scarcity" society, ONE individual will improve a product and feel like he provided more value than ONE other individual. How do you reconcile equal outcomes with inequality of inputs? How do you assure rightfully skeptic people that it would not fall prey to same problems of every centrally planned economy? To perfectly plan an economy to not waste resources requires perfect information about the present and perfect information about the future for the duration of the planning time horizon. If the goal is not perfect resource allocation, than surely it is efficient resource allocation? By all common understanding of "effeciency", how might central planning surpass free markets? If not centrally planned, and not a free market, then what the heck is it? If someone desires a profit, and someone desires his product/service, who enforces the idea that such behavior is not allowed? Would such enforcement be moral or just? I did ignore all of your Free Market Perspective, but then again, you ignore economics and the premise that individuals respond to incentives. You also ignore the fact that no company has lasted forever, and eventually they always fire all of their employees, which is a sign that the business sucked at it's job, and someone else was doing it better. Are we not all beneficiaries of that? All the businesses could join together under one banner, cooperate, share everything, and still suck at thier job. It seems we would be left wanting, with no alternatives. Imagine Eddison and Tesla being forced to work together and provide one solution for powering our homes. Eddison's D/C is chosen rather than Tesla's A/C. They spend years/decades building the infastructure of the nation on a subpar idea. It then takes ages, going back to start from scratch, to convert to A/C. Hardly seems efficient. Just imagine the waste of energy and resources... It boggles the mind. My impression of the interview was that Peter Joseph should put his vocabulary to better use. A pig is a pig, whether it wears lipstick or not. Of course, I've never met the man, and I have no animosity, nor intend any offense. That being said, while I share many of the sentiments of Zeitgeisters, i have little respect, in all honesty, for it's foundations. To allocate resources requires information. At what expense of labor, time, energy, resources, is it worthwhile producing a product? I'm still waiting on a better solution to that question than the pricing mechanism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/number-of-cell-phones-exceeds-us-population-ctia-trade-group/2011/10/11/gIQARNcEcL_blog.html http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/more-people-have-cell-phones-than-toilets-u-n-study-shows/

Howard county versus Baltimore county might as well be Earth vs Pluto. Howard is wealthy, rural, agrarian and conservative in many respects. Baltimore County is not. My cousin is a Baltimore city public school teacher, and in fairness, probably a pretty poor teacher. That being said, many of those children, by virtue of thier families, or lack thereof, don't stand a chance. To pretend that the educational issues in Baltimore have anything to do with students in Howard County, Carrol County, Anne Arundel County, Frederick County, Western Maryland, is a farce. Let Baltimorons do as they wish, but why should that effect anyone else. Black is white, and centralization of power and decision making is good... The Maryland State Department of education does not represent the majority of Maryland. Montgomery County, PG County, and Baltimore are the largest voting blocks, and share a common assbackwards ideology. They drag everyone else along for the ride. I dare you to find non racial diversity of any value. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/stateboard/Board_Members.htm The objective is to ensure equality by adopting State run standardized "shared goals and expectations for what students should understand and be able to do in grades K-12 in order to be prepared for success in college and the workplace." That the State presumes is can on average equalize the outcomes of poor fatherless children raised in the ghetto with the outcomes of children from largly intact family units, of relative wealth, is preposterous. Baltimore is like Detroit's little brother, while Maryland also has several of the wealthiest counties in the country. I don't know much about this Common Core State Standards program, but I'm quite curious now what my mother (Also a Maryland public school teacher) has to say about it. I'll ask her this evening and would be glad to report my findings. I'd also like to comment on the arrest of this man. This whole idea of arresting, and dropping charges later is so bothersome to me. If you are going to arrest someone, then stand by your decision and prosecute. Let the judgement be made in the courts, and in the court of public opinion. It seems to me like a mechanism to squash dissent, followed by benevolent mercy handed down by the State, for which one should be grateful.

Being no relationship expert, I feel nonetheless obliged to reply, if for no other reason than to empathize. With the exceptions of the hallucinogens, and leftist political beliefs, I can identify with almost everything else described. For me, the story played out 3-4 years ago, before I found FDR, while I was happily riding the Ron Paul bandwagon. My girlfriend, at the time (spoiler alert), had an abusive childhood. Her father was as verbally abusive (with some added physical abuse for good measure when he could get away with it) as any man I've personally known, and who's political beliefs were as strong as they were indefensible. I never engaged him on the topic for the same reasons I don't argue with members of the flat earth society, and to my knowledge niether did she. Your paragraph above could be no more accurate of a description of my ex's childhood. It's eerily precise. My relationship lasted about 5 years, the first few of which were enjoyable, if a bit meaningless. The longer it lasted, the more conflict took place. Though I would have described it differently at the time, most of the conflict centered around the issues of what it means to love someone. The reasons we began the relationship were in hindsight superficial, but at the time seemed like ideal reasons to justify the relationship. The more she let down her emotional guard to me, the more evident her abuse became, and the more tragic it's consequences appeared. I foolishly (?) tried to drive a wedge between her and her horrible family, and encouraged her to become financially independent of them, and myself. She resented it, and defended her abusers to no end when confronted, despite lamenting them at seemingly every opportunity. Though I wasn't an anarchist, I was very much interested in political philosophy and economics, while she had no interest whatsoever. The longer we were in the relationship, the more our differing interests became apparent. I hated The Real World and Jersey Shore; she hated learning things (mostly) and all of my intellectual interests. When I would try to engage her on the topics that I found interesting, she would show her love by smiling, and unhappily listening to me talk. When I was done talking, the conversation was mostly over, due to boredom or her inability to think critically/uphold her end of the conversation. I would push for more give and take, but it was almost immediately apparent that I was subjecting her to some form of torture, while she seemed to think that listening and feigning interest would be sufficient to earn my future participation in an interest of hers, which I wouldn't enjoy. To the outside world, we were obscenely happy together, but in private, our relationship deteriorated over the years to the point where we spent most of our time arguing, snapping, and fighting over the most trivial of things. It took much longer to learn experientially what should have been painfully obvious; we had little in common. Ironically, as an economics/finance major in college, I fell victim to the sunk cost dilemma in continuing attempts to repair the relationship. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunk-cost-dilemma.asp We even doubled down, by moving into together. All this did was double the misery for each of us, but for a variety of reasons, it continued far too long. I really approve of, not that he asked : ), a definition Stefan used of love: an involuntary response to virtue. I'd like to say it would have been greatly beneficial to me 5 years ago, but I might have just thought of him as a wimpy bald philosophizer, or defined virtue such that it validated my preconception of love. Nothing teaches quite as well as experience. I hestitate to give any advice, if for no other reason than that I failed to repair a relationship in a similar circumstance, and didn't cope particularly well with its termination for a period of time. The great thing about free will is everyone gets to decide every day who they're going be. However, overcoming the inertia of psycologically engrained behavioral patterns is a daunting task, particularly in a dynamic relationship with second order implications. I'll leave it to others, better suited to give you advice, but I thought I ought to express my empathy, and let it be known that you obviously aren't alone in your experience.