gwho

The most difficult to understand kids video ever lol.biiiiig words, mumbly lisp-ed voice, lol.but good stuff.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o&feature=player_embedded

firefox addon: ad block plus lol. absolutely. you run into so many fallacies and off-topic sophistry so much, you have need to get good at instantly spotting them - and that comes with experience.And learning logic will help greatly in quick spotting as well.I'm personally a thinker who needs some times to digest things. When i'm responding quickly, that's because I've already mulled over the min the past, and have already identified them in the past, thought through them, and distilled the key principles to spit right back.Poisonous people will attack you for taking the time to think, or admitting "that's a good point, let me think about that". If you're around toxic people a lot, you will totally avoid doing this, but it's actually very honest and healthy to do so. You should try to meet people who are open, and vulnerable, and won't attack you for being honest and vulnerable. It can be hard if you never really have. But it's so worth it. After you meet some good people and have them around, you will be able to be strong and vulnerable (oxymoron eh), even in the midst of poisonous people - you will have already had the knowledge, the love, and self-value to shrug off their viscious attacks for being honest and vulnerable, and see them as not worthy of your gems, rather than getting nervous, beat down, worried, and edgy.

nice, thanks for the confirmation. you never can truly gauge the level of appreciation or dislike on forums.

war results from your gains being less than the costs. in other words, game theory.no, self reliance won't stop greed, and it sure as hell doesn't affect your potential incentives for attacking and getting even more gain. people don't pay enough attention to game theory, and they don't pay enough attention to economics.

There is the matter of getting it out there: popularizing it. Stef has solid original ideas too, as well as a good library of related information.Rothbard almost died out, but it got resurrected. with today's internet media, i think stef will be much more noticeable.

Back when Ayn Rand wrote, or when Plato wrote, Shakespeare wrote, or any other classic artist/writer created works, it was probably not so glorified during that time period.The level of quality and profundity, is the "core value" and the reason why it gets brought up in the future and christened as a "classic". This is the similar phenomenon as a start up with a core product that has solid value to people, but is in the development phase where they have not realized a return on their investment.I feel like Stefan's works, like Practical Anarchy, will be studied in the future when we do get a free society, or when there are organized philosophiy-oriented schools (online or offline) that will anarchy, in government/econ/gametheory courses. The quality is just so totally there.

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1329_True_News_31_Naughty_Libertarianism.mp3podcast 1555I wish every podcast was as compact as this. It's sooooooo good. and he talks fast in this one.Do you guys also find the prepared, compact podcasts to be the most epic and most enjoyable too?

no, it's a cause for cooperation.in a free society, open trade of arms will result in a more even power distribution, making it more costly to fuck with someone. in this scenario, you can only get rich by doing things peacefully. Dependence on cooperation will mean you will focus all your efforts into providing value - the option for violence will be ruled out for you. This is not a cause of conflict. You are "forced" via higher rewards for cooperating (free marekts will be more abundant), and higher costs of trying to take things by force (more ability to resist your criminal and violent endeavors), to do good. So it's not a cause of conflict. Conflict happens when people fuck each other over, and cheat and get away with it. That is only possible through imbalance of power, and in a scenario where violence pays off more than cooperation and justice.Thus market dependence and interdependence results in peace.We can see this today as well. We specialize nad trade with people, and if you screw them over, where will you get the service they provide? If what they provide is very specialized, you can't. If it is not as specialized, youd be knokcing out competition adn making things more expensive for yourself. Today, on an international level, if we trade with certain countries a lot, it becomes more prosperous to continue trading with them. If we don't, then we're like "might as well go invade them and take their shit"."if goods don't cross borders, armies will" - BastiatWe can see why.

news paper is not the only press.the cycle of government predation:1) regulate businesses, causing businesses to need and want to control government2) cause monopolies and all of its bad effects thru mercantilistic government preferences.3) blame it on the free market, introduce more regulations4) cause poverty and inefficiency after taking more control.5) blame poverty on free markets6) implement more control to ultimately fuck people politically, and militarily, not just economically.The ones in causing this mess stay on the right side of all of these processes to increase wealth and control every step of the way.

^ because the laws of scarcity, comparative advantage, wealth increase upon voluntary, informed trade are all established, tested, repeatable, and thus true.Once you discover rules like gravity, then the burden of proof becomes on the one who wants to go against gravity.

nice internet marketing attempt. but i hate shit like that. i can spot the salsey copyright marketing style and site in an instant. i guess it still works, that's why people still use it. if more people werel ike me, that kind of marketing strategy would have died out a long time ago.emotional leap: it's because people are so illgoical and stupid that they still prefer those types of pitches and style, that they don't see the style and paradigm of internet marketing video copyrighting strategies (i do ,so i instantly turn them off), and that they purchase at the end of the presentation. If they had more insight, those triggers would flare up and alert and close. and that style would die out so fast. your storys sound a lot similar to mind. I actually think it's a propensity for INTJ, and other NT personality types to be anarchic libertarian, statistically... and that tend to have the same types of struggles growing up, statistically, especially INTJ and INTP. the introverts.i didnt' have the i'm special bit you mentioned at the end. it really is good you dodged that bullet. who did yo usee? how much was he? i'm trying to find soemthign affordable. $100/hour is like geez, wtf. man. lolI also am naturally logic-oriented. I also dealt with things that troubled me emotionally by suppressing it. i got quite good at it, and had a virtue and skill built up around doing so. it was also the most practical short-term way without having to confront my greatest fears. I was shy too. Yeah, i didn't really connect with peopel on an emotional leve, except for some. and they would often be the not-outspoke, and perceived to be losery type , although i certainly had close friends who weren't. Friends overall were just rare. I too almost immediately accepted anarchism after hearing explanations of how this problem and that objection and that issue would potentially get solved. i was libertarian at the time of my anarchic conversion. Also, my conversion to libertarianism when i was confused/very loosely republican leaning was also very immediate as well. I think i just never heard it much - and that i already had a propensity for it. It's like a lion living in a land where there are no gazelles, and then suddenly one comes by - yum, instintual, yes. i woudl totally have eaten that gazelle, i just never saw one before and this land was barren of them.by the way, are you attributing all the factors you mentioned to be generalized as your hypothesis to why/how people end up being inclined to be libertarian? (geez that was a grammatical feat), or just sharing as your own personal factors anecdotally? If it's generalized, i agree that a logical mind is a factor. I would question whether HYPERrationality is a necessary factor. of course, we haven't even defined that, and it's sort of a relative term, but yeah. If yo meant it as just more logical than normal, then absolutely. i just get the instinct that there is some extreme trigger from some kind of trauma or circumstance when i hear "hyperrational" it's just the image and impression i get from hearing that term. If so, then that is what i would be questioning and potentially objecting. My intention is not to nitpick or argue, it's just my honest thought and initial impression.

great point.the differentiating factor is the attention and expertise.

oh look what i've been marking and compilinghttps://www.dropbox.com/s/9yrnjnh2chti3ko/FreeDomainRadio%20Podcasts.xlsxFDR needs a tagging system for each podcast, and filters when navigating. They also need a voting system applied to them.Data for each podcast would include average rating, a histogram view, and volume of listens.Reviews and prices are the two free market mechanisms. Unleash them and let the best podcasts rise to the top. Allow people to comment, and review.This will be good for all of the listeners, as well as Stefan, who can gain better metrics, and adjust and tailor his podcasts.I personally like his prepared, concise ones. They always tend to be better.

i'm the same way. thanks for the tip I guess I can "troll" (the original meaning of the term) the trolls to find out which ones are.and how do i "troll" them? by posting serious posts like these.

look, the entire premise of this "rebuttal" is just flat out false. how do you reply to it when it's so fundamentally misunderstood. like it's not even representing TZM correctly? I've heard peter, jacque, and the other guy, and that's not what they say. like if you're going to rebuttal, say things that are true.i gave you an entire lesson. i actually did it, when you should already know the basics of TZM if you're defending it, just as you should know how free markets work if you're posting on this forum at all. like, excuse me for rambling, but at least it's on point. you can't trust my interpretation? PLEASE. you get facts wrong. dont even go there.It's much easier to be curt and wrong. At least give me credit for writing it out. I don't even care about that, say something true.And if you're going to agree that money will be needed, then answer the freaken question: what then? how will an RBE deal with that? will they stamp it out? will it let it grow? What will it do, since it sees money as the root of all evil, and the cause of structural violence and artificial scarcity? just sit by and let it take over? If a police force is used, to enforce RBE, then it will also be used for other things.Like, add to the discussion. Don't veer off track with false statements, pointless agreements that is already acknowledged, and actually literally part of the question. an implied reiteration of the question is not necessary.You ask how the free market works? You think after that shitty comment, i'm actually going to explain it to you, just to have you dismiss it? you're on the freedomainradio board. how do you not know the points pro-free marketers make? If you have a problem with any of them bring them up. Actually don't. do that on another thread. and take yourself out of this thread too. you haven't added anything to the discussion, and frankly, if I was a serious TZMer, i'd want you to stop misrepresenting it too. how much do i owe you? oh, so you basically don't read... or answer questions. gotcha.

if i had the time and motivation, i could pull up quotes from various TZM people that directly contradict ... every point you made ( not trying to combative here, i'm stating dry facts).i've heard peter joseph and the other guy stefan debated with.... a nicer sounding guy whose name i can't remember. They both say scarcity goes away. From their contexts you can tell they mean the colloquial definition (i.e. scarcity as opposed to abundant). But it doesn't matter. because you will get scarcity in the economic sense. Both peter and the other guy subtly conflate these two. Why? because they say we can do away with money, that a supercompter can handle it. I don't know how anyone would get that they still do think money would be around, that money would be around, or how either of the men would resolve the paradox. It sounds to me you're agreeing with the more logical points i raise, and trying to have your other food on the TZM side.I also think basic needs can be met... it doesn't have to be through a super computer and getting rid of all mediums of exchange. it's simply doing away with violence. Plus, if people go with money after RBE has been achieved, that will reintroduce the profit motive, middlemen, and withholding. in that case RBE is not a sustainable model. Once you hit resource limitations, you then have to choose between using resources for "basic needs" and other stuff. Of course people might say go with basic needs, and use the excess for otehr stuff. but this is silly. you then have to have this enforced, which requires a monopoly of power. Also, "basic needs" and "other stuff" aren't clear cut disctinctions. fuzzy goods and services, like say, bandwitdth for paying bills vs bandwidth for doing calculations... or a crab for a family vs a crawfish for someone who has slightly less wealth than the first family... ... like wants and needs are in a spectrum, and you will run into the problem of drawing a line in the sand. who decides this? RBE and TZM are all silly. They haven't thought this through. once you get money in, how will you get it out again? how will you enforce anything without power? If we had DROs and RBE, why do we need RBE? just go with DRO and free exchange with whatever competing currencies come up. AFterall, even in an RBE + DRO society, you will inevitably get money.There are easily seen logical problems that arise when seriously considering RBE that TZM never address, even when they are explaining by themselves with no opposing debater, that are quite plain to see, honestly.a money system takes into account all preferences, wehtehr it be basic needs or luxuries, or anything in between. It also gives people the freedom to choose certain luxiries over basic needs if the ywant too. Given the inevitability of money, i don't see why we need an RBE in the first place. An RBE is great central power and dependence. corrupt people will be attracted to its management. You will need ways to enforce quotas, rules, needs, preferences, etc. which pretty much is a state. with no bid/ask, floating price system, you end up having to get in line or put on a queue list, and end up having the closer, more privileged managers of the RBE/enforcement getting priority and giving people connected to them favors.. just like the old kingdom and communism days. money already is a rationing mechanism. this is embarrassingly similar sounding to TZM. you might as well say magic. I think TZM approaches things from a very idealistic point of view, which is not bad, but they have major blind spots to very basic and pragmatic obstacles that should be addressed, but never are, and that they cannot see even when they're pointed out to them. They have leaps of logic when it comes to macroeconomics, as evidenced in the Peter debate, where he says states are a natural outgrowth of free markets - without any evidence, or willingness to develop the point further. IF someone disagrees with you in a debate, you make arguments and cases for your side. TZM, including Jacque sees too much of hte negative sides of free markets, which is not bad, but they refuse to honestly reexamine their ideas with other aspects of Free markets for a rational, evidence and logic based theses.I just kind of got wordy and spewed out many things here. to address your points directly, in light of my spew, I don't know if you really have what TZM are actually saying. The magical supercomputer has many problems with it, even aside from the point that it's technically not achieved or being worked on right now. Problems include enforcement, how to handle allocation when resource limits are reached, how to prevent abuse and "runs" on resources when it shortages start to occur - since that would spur people flocking to it before it runs out, whereas a market system would provide increasing prices to curb that. I'll commend you on your honesty regarding money. I'd ask you to take it a step further, just like the supercomputer point, and tell me why we need RBE if we already have a peaceful society (which TZM claims would occur if their plan was implemented), and we have money. free market works (unless you want to disagree with that too). The supercomputer idea is just ... not thought through well enough,,, I hope you can see where I'm coming from with this.

i studied MBTI for years. and know a good amount of socionics. NT types tend to be overrepresented in an/cap libs for sure. Personality theories have been immensely helpful but I feel like i've been thinking about them too much. I want to try to approach things from different perspectives, as I feel the personality theory paradigm has reached its limit for me. I really love the psychological and neuroscience stuff that sheds light onto issues.good point bringing up personality theory.

^ FASCINATING. one of the first posts that reaches the level of my expectations on FDR boards.I hope you do write more.

i appreciate the refinement. it's certainly true that exposure to power and parenting wouldn't lead to projection, splitting, etc. i was loose with my words and not careful enough. It definitely would be negativity in one way or another, like abuse or neglect that result to these. thanks for the correction, absolutely correct. this is what i had in mind, and didn't write. thanks. good point about anarchy being the default. seems like a plausible hypothesis. with the little information i have, i would incline towards that hypothesis too. It does make sense. great point. I'm really not taking it to that level of specificity. I didn't use the word "push" to put great emphasis on the active aspect. I was just referring to the general phenomenon of people being more inclined by past causes to be more resistant or receptive towards anarchy.... I ask this because Stefan talks about childhood abuses and factors, and psychological mechanisms that cause a person to be more "pushed" or "inclined" towards statism. You see a big distinction between the two, so let's go with whatever you're comfortable with. I wasnt thinking about that distinction, so i just picked one. don't read too much into it.The only reason I was loose with the words was because it wasn't a big deal to me, or on my radar. Other times I do it to reword the same concept to add layers of clarity. Sometimes I'm miss potential points of ambiguity or distinction that should be the other way. don't read too much into it in this case. But great eye, and watching out.But I'm sure you understand the core of what i'm saying with that. My core concept isn't even that anarhcy is the default and statism must be pushed, although that is certainly adding to the conversation, and a pretty good insight.I've had a pretty bad childhood at least psychologically. Yet I gravitate immediately towards libertarianism after first being exposed to the republican platform in a very hazy, eerie, unsettling way that resulted in a loose, but confused preliminary inclination towards republicanism over democratism.....Once I heard stefan molyneux's first few podcasts, I almost immediately jumped over to anarchism. I couldn't see the feedback mechanisms, and how society would rise to solve those problems if the problems are huge. I had knowledge of game theory, and bashed anarchism because I thought the incentives would be all screwed up and the Nash equilibria in various scenarios would point towards violence and thuggery. Once I got direct, thought-out answers that made sense immediately with game theory, I totally almost instantaneously flipped my position regarding anarchy. Of course i had questions, i had reservations, but i kept devouring the information. So what makes someone like me so readiliy accepting of it, despite my childhood and resentment towards my family, to continual anxiety in society, and various other issues? That's my main point of curiosity. although now you've gotten me curious about the point you made. perhaps they're related. What do you think?

If exposure to power, parenting, and conditions while growing up have psychological effects that make people project, split, dissociate, suppress, repress various things to ultimately support and justify a state irrationally and emotionally at an unconscious level...then can a parallel effect occur for pushing a person towards anarchy/libertarianism... BESIDES rational objective philosophy? In other words, what childhood experiences contribute to a person being more inclined or open towards an/lib?______________________________ warning: long personal family background dump I grew up very shy, bullied, not very popular with the girls, plagued by unachievable standards of morality which had a strong effect on me because I wanted to follow the rules, to be good, and to strive for perfection just naturally and not as a defense mechanism. I am still struggling with timidness today, although I am much much better. But I upon deep examination, I still have a lot of limiting factors, that the fear is still there, holding me back, not letting me fully go for what I want... etc. I have gotten so good at self-denial that I become complacent. Perhaps that's not correct. PErhaps it's my fear giving me an excuse and falsely attributing it to the virtue of self-denial. Anyway, I haven't had serious relationship to date, and I am really trying to break through currently. I have broken through a lot in the past few months, but I see there is still a lot more. I come back to the same feeling as when I moved in 2nd grade and felt shy and scared and lonely. I guess because I never dealt with it, and for the majority of my life suppressed those emotional challenges, it's just coming back up in the present. There is a lot of fear conquering I have to do.My impression of my dad is irrational, bullying. He would always have to get involved, get mad, lay down whatever he thought was right, pronounce judgement to me and my other family member who I happened to be arguing with. Sometimes he would blow things up that weren't and wouldn't have been big if he would have just stayed out of it. Perhaps I this contributes to the way I view the state: stop meddling - gtfo. you're irrational. you're contrdictory. You're self-righteous and blind to your own faults. I disctintly remember when he would overpower me verbally, impose irrationality, that I would hate him forever. I had that many times, but of course it always went away with time. To this day today, when a disagreement or an opportunity to clarify comes along, I feel like he raises his voice ad escalates things way too prematurely for an unwarranted reason. Conversations blow up way too easily with him. He is always right, always has a comeback, always makes me feel bad. Wow, as i'm writing this, I had the urge to write "I fucking hate his guts". We stay apart most of the time now, but i still see him. I've been contemplating, and avoiding confronting him and being vulnerable about everything as Stefan recommends doing. I also really dislike the image of my dad. and I hate it when I seem like him. I HATE IT.My mom and grandmother gave me very fucking poisonous, meek, terrible fucking advice for life. As I mentioned, I am very principle-oriented, and really adopted every standard I heard to achieve them. My exposure to things wasn't so various, so I only slowly discovered contradictory standards, rather than sooner. I get really easiliy annoyed by my mom. I find myself acting badly taht I wouldn't towards others. It is a combination of already knowing, what she's like and what she will do, as well as the fact that she stubbornly always does the things I object to. She doesn't learn. And the things are like offering me food. supposedly it's for me, so initially, i guilt trip myself for rejecting and saying to stop giving me food. But over time, it's just ridiculous. It's even silly that she keeps doing it "to benefit me", when I'm the one who gets to decide whether it benefits me or not. She actually is quite exasperating, stubborn, and takes very little feedback. Even more frustrating is that she will never be open or explain or respond to my questions or objections or reasoning when i critique her behavior. Why are you doing this? Don't I get to decide if I want it or not? What does it benefit you to offer me food? (She's a terrible terrible cook, literally the worst I've ever encountered - not taking feedback and sturbbornly doing her thing is part of the reason why she is such a bad cook too). She doesn't answer, and keeps things to herself,I know she has thoughts but she won't ever really say. This is all influenced by my overwhelming dad who beats down objections with his self-righteousness and his overwhelming anger and persona (there just are those types of people who can reach into your heart and strike that fear in you... my dad is one of them... my drill seargeant is another. But there are those who don't, no matter how much their words and actions go. But others can just give you that look, use that tone, and really get that into you. IDK if it's a general thing, or if certain people with certain issues are susceptible to certain queues from others). I feel bad about treating my mom that way, but I do think there is legitimate reason to get frustrated at her - she is quite an annoying person. But I KNOW I am in the wrong too. Over time, I see her insecurity grow, which I know I have contributed to. Simultaneously, had i not been assertive (and i know domineering and yelling is different from assertive, but i grew to be like this after a really horribly mentally devastating time in high school. It was and would have been very hard for me to be assertive without also doing wrong under such duress, stress. It was a time i felt all my efforts were in vain, that all of the ideals i've been taught were so wrong, that no one was there to help me, that i was being ignored under all this hardship, that my dad was a worthless body who never taught me anything or had any solutions for me, and would always end up illiciting blame, incompetence, and just generally bad feelings whenever i asked for help. Also, as a teen you really dont go to your parents for help, especially when you think they're the ones who let you down, let alone the whole coolness and feeling like a failure aspect of going to mommy and daddy. ______________________________ Anyway, it's all kind of a random vomit of my family background here. I kind of do see some parallels of my outlook towards govenrment and my family, especially my dad. But I always find psychology and the unconscdious really counterintuitive and confusing. I have a lot of blindspots when it comes to my own. When people make statements like whatever is repressed will be recreated, and whatever is suppressed will be spread, and the state is a projection of your family exprience.s... like.. they don't ring true. I can't see the logical steps with my intuition to see that they're true. They're really unrelated claims that I am seeking to bridge the gap between. Listening to more podcasts helped me understand some of those logical steps, but I find whenever Stefan makes those statements, they aren't in every instance backed up by logical steps. I suppose it's something that rings true with Stefan, and it just comes out as a more emphatic reiteration of the claim, rather than backing htem up logically. He does in other podcasts, but not always. So I'm just pointing out my struggle to understand psychological concepts like those, not necessarily say that Stefan is wrong. I'm sure those statements could be quite reasonable, and perhaps very established in the field of psychology. I am not in the slightest arguing that those statements aren't true. I want to understand how and why they are. So if you guys see things in the limited way I described my family background here, please do share your insights.

does anyone even understand the OP?

I approach politics from a principled point of view. so it is applicable to me. i don't get caught up in what those other people do, and whether they think wrong. in that sense, i don't "get caught up in politics" either. But i do see injsutice, i do see how i can make it better, i do see that there is truth, and that the use of power and propaganda prevents the truth that we can all be very extremely prosperous and peaceful. So just becuase assholes are spreading nonsense, does that mean I should stop thinking about things? I'll think about what I want to think about - and that's truth. I'll engage or disengage in what others do to the degree I want.

why is this so? why can't people not be in some places just because? the natural state is emptiness. people go there and start to be there. Just because people aren't in some place, it doesn't mean that they paid others not to be there. it's not fine tuning. it's making a point - that scenarios such as those are limited in occurrence before the long-term solution pops up.

i didn't get an answer.TZM's ideas will work because it hasn't been done yet? that's not sound logic.It may be true that the world is scared of it, but that is beside the point, and doesn't answer why RBE will/could work.Whether people believe it will fall like other systems only explains why it's not being implemented now, or why it's hard to implement..... NOT whether or why the system as described will and can be successful.Ideas can be respected, but it doesn't prove them or disprove them. (As for me personally, I have ZERO respect for unfounded assertions, especially when objections to it cannot and will not be addressed. It just happens to be a different idea, but that's the same violation and process of propaganda, religion, and patriotism - and I think you should demand the same too).This is the kind of stuff that irritates me about Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco, and every other TZM spokesperson ever. They don't answer the question, and always point to irrelevant points, or overly leapy, or completely provably false points.

idk if that fully addresses my question, but you brought up such a great point. love it love it love it.