Culain

Paraphrasing from memory but I believe Stefan said this about his daughter, "I would never want my daughter to live in a world where she is shielded from the consequences of her actions." The point is learning to take responsibility for ones actions. However taking responsibility is different from punishment, through negotiation one can avoid that form of discipline. Negotiate the rules together, and the consequences of violating those rules. The relationship must be treated as voluntary and equal so the same rules apply universally.

I made a topic for this just a few days ago http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39900-unlocking-the-cage-a-flowchart-conversation-project-by-larken-rose/

The most important distinction I believe to make is the "why" which is the reason behind Stefan arguing that morality is not like physics but rather like biology. You have to think about who the victim would be or who would press charges if possible, a crime requires a victim, someone who initiates/attempts murder can not by definition be The Victim, thus stopping an initiator of force with force is not an act of aggression but self defense. The level of force used by the defendant could be called into question based on the options and availability of alternative means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaskaHHnos This is quite an ambitious project with a lot of potential that I'm seeing. The goal is to present a type of interactive Socratic dialogue to guide users into discovering the inherent contradictions within their own thinking without giving any direct answers/solutions.

Thanks for the follow up, I wonder what kind of 'reduced' sentence he will get.

Austrian Economist Bob Murphy gives his take on the film. I have not seen the film myself so i can't comment too much, but near the end of the video at 10:30 Bob makes the point that the husband sometimes has to abandon his own personal interests and comfort for what is right for the 'family', I disagree with this line. The husband is a part of the family and part of what needs to be 'right' is for the family to acknowledge that one of it's key members is struggling. Though of course, I don't know what the kids want seeing as I have not seen the film, I only know that the mom wants to stay and the husband wants to leave.

Where's yours? Lol J/k, it probably requires one of the admins to set it. But yeah, Jeffrey Tucker wrote that it had something to do with copyright violation, to take down a 150k subscriber channel for almost any reason instantly without a word of warning is strange. I could understand a video being removed but a whole channel?

While I don't have any stories myself, I did run into this story today. http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/4/15/social-security-treasury-stealing-every-last-penny-from-amer.html#6317

Can you give me a simple breakdown of how he handles it and the logic used.

I've learned a little bit of the structure of Latin from spending a few years in the medical field and I found that it really helps me break down a lot of english terms. English is a compilation of various languages with many of its roots in Latin or ancient Greek, language is the most powerful tool in the world and learning another language will help you develop defenses against sophist attacks.

Just a rant I'm going to have here, and probably completely nonsensical. Suppose I am an "all-powerful" being and wanted to be "all-knowing", I want to know what will occur tomorrow and with my "all-powerfulness I granted myself the ability to be "all-knowing". I now knew what was going to happen tomorrow and forever-after. Thus, the moment I became "all-knowing" I branched into the path of determinism, all the actions I would take over the course of my existence were decided/known in that instant because the actions I would take were part of my "all-knowingness", thus from this point I lacked the ability to change my future and I lost the ability to be "all-powerful".

Alex, I don't believe rights exist. My post was supposed to imply and maybe I did a bad job at it is - that it's the State that creates these fictional rights and then creates its' legitimacy by protecting those fictional rights. It's like having your leg broken by the government, being offered crutches, and then being told that without the government you wouldn't be able to walk.

The problem with rights is that people only bring them up when they feel like they're being threatened or if they want to impose threats on another. There are two kinds of rights that I see, "The right to self", and "The right to another". The right to self is your ability to exercise property rights, to basically voluntarily do what you want. For example the right to speak, the right to do drugs, the right to do business. The right to another is to take from another for "the common good", the right to education means that someone must provide you with education, the right to healthcare means someone must provide you healthcare, it is a form of imposing slavery on others. The reason I bring up these two is that they both only exist in the presence of coercion, if there was not a government regulating what you can choose to do or forcing you to do x then nobody would even consider the existence of rights. We only consider the existence of rights when we believe they can be taken away.

I wouldn't say that cooperation= collectivism as cooperation simply means to work together and collectivism means to place value on the group over the individual. You can only have cooperation in a free setting. Thus we actually need more cooperation.

A really well put together video by one of my new favourite anarchists, Larken Rose

Can you share with us what depersonalization disorder actually is, the dangers, and the signs of having it?

I like the style, it would be nice to add a caption to it. it may be something that would draw in the some of the younger crowd.

Skype name: Brian.Gottenstrater

Maybe he wants to prove that Jesus was an Anarchist or something.

If I were in court and on the stand I would pray that there was an anarchist in the jury. That being said if I was summoned for jury duty I would certainly go. Though, I do hear there is a screening for jury members and if you bring up anything like jury nullification or even appear morally sane they simply won't let you on, that's how sadistic the system is.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism An article that I came across today where Tucker separates libertarians into two groups: Humanitarians and Brutalists. I really enjoy listening to Tucker, but reading this article sent off flares in my brain as I honestly had no idea of what he is talking about and if he is attacking me or not. He never labels who these Brutalists are other than a vague description of how they are unbending, strict, and rigid with ideals. For example, does using Stefan's "Against me" argument make me a Brutalist because I will end a debate instead of pretending to debate with a clear statist? The term itself "Brutalist" sounds very demeaning, while he takes the position of Humanitarian. In the end I feel as if I'm being mislead by his advanced written word play and just had to stop reading.

A little argument I've ran into where someone is claiming that: 1) A box can be filled with nothing. 2) A box can contain nothing. 3) X Person can put nothing in the box. This reminded me of the recent show where Stef-Isa gave some examples of bad philosophy. Are all three of these self-contradictory statements? 1) Runs into the problem of "what is full?" 2) Contain is a form of ownership, can it be measured? 3) Is one able to perform the action of "putting"?

Zeta, welcome to the forum. Which work of Molyneux's in particular was the most inspiring to you? Have you his book "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics"? It expands on the NAP and is well worth the time. Though I must ask, why did you mention religion in your introduction? It almost begs for a response... no, it DOES beg. Were you testing the water- so to speak? You're not being dishonest in any way by not bringing it up; to "fit-in" all that is asked is to provide a respect to reasoning and self-knowledge. IMO Dsayers took that invitation. Enjoy your stay.

I don't have the old articles but here is an interesting source that came up: http://www.historyofwomen.org/wifebeating.html You should also remember how children used to be abused in schools right with physical attack. Morality is expanding I don't want to be on the end that wants to explain that they're sorry for beating their own children. My parents wouldn't do it for me, I'm not going to repeat the same mistakes that they made.

I didn't feel so bothered by their arguments against spanking, it was rather the laugh they gave which made my whole body chill. I just wanted to vomit after hearing that first barrage of laughter. Jeffrey tucker was the only speaker there that I knew of with respect, thankfully he didn't say anything or laugh but his inaction to comment made me feel uncomfortable as if he was assessing his own parents and the consequences if he were to say anything (he is religious). This just reminds of a few snippets and articles I've seen from the 1950s where panelists in the New York Times, began laughing about the how ludicrous the idea of stopping to beat their wives was. These articles in this very popular paper said that you need to beat your wife and she will turn out alright. I don't want to be on the side that would make any supporting arguments towards violence, perhaps in 30 years people will look back at us in horror for these acts.