shirgall

It doesn't help that when you seek out groups that many in the group like to categorize you into one such area immediately. For example, I got classified as a "drug legalization" libertarian by the folks in Oregon's party because of the people with whom I came into the party. This despite I really had the path that was totally different (I was part of the early Internet and the gun culture of the 80s and 90s). By background I was actually more of the economic libertarian, I was just more into universalization then than most. People put me in a slot anyway. Imagine their surprise when, as a member of the judicial committee, I didn't rule on factional lines but rather on the merits! They eventually made me parliamentarian until I moved out of the state. I've still got a loin of a sacred cow in the freezer, waiting for BBQ season.

Rainbow, thanks for showing that girl some empathy. I think you understand the idea that everyone is a customer better than the mother does, even if it is a future customer instead of an immediate one simply because you showed you cared about their feelings, wants, and desires.

If I might advocate for the devil a little here, let's just say they were responding to the fact that the state forced them to collect taxes and was not applying the same force to Garner. They already had the gun in the room pointed at them, and they merely said, "Why aren't you pointing the gun at him?" Unequal application of the law is a form of abuse, too. Sure, it might be jerk behavior because they are redirecting police power at their competition, but that competition was thriving *because* of police power. To make it comical, imagine that next you will harass the shopkeepers for selling aspirin instead of heroin even though heroin has fewer side effects as a painkiller.

I suggest that the first step is gathering information. How open are your family members to reason and evidence. Do they have honest arguments where any participant is willing to change their mind given sufficient cause? Who would be your allies in proposing and supporting peaceful parenting? These are crucial factors in making the determination that someone is truly toxic and must be avoided. In my opinion, surrounding yourself with people that have honest, empathic discussions is more important than the particular tenets they might follow. In contrast, a toxic relationship is one that more often than not harms you by continuing it. There are books about "emotional vampires" that help with identifying the types. Of course, I'm selfish in this answer, because 1) I am on a journey of change to peaceful parenting 2) I am not a perfect philosopher.

This is why we argue about those cases when negotiating the contract instead of when the problem arises. There's no "sunk cost" fallacy on top of the negotiation to make it more complicated at that point. I've occasionally had to eat a bad deal, but I've never had to deal with a lawsuit.

The dichotomy I see is related to priorities. When I was a membership director of a Libertarian political party, the "left" libertarians were about "legalize everything" and the "right" libertarians were about "US out of economics". Most of the time they were compatible, but there was an inevitable schism between what was called "ex-republicans" and "ex-democrats".

You left out heirloom seeds and iodine pills.

Actually, the edge cases I encounter in contracts are usually related to whether some material condition of the performance has changed (it cost me more than I expected to do the work, or the business requirements have changed). I don't see them as encouragement, as usually the path through the edge cases costs more than simple performance of the contract. I write up change orders to a project, and the agreement, as a matter of course. I seldom make it cheaper, and it ends up costing my team the time to re-estimate the work, and write up the change as well.

If it was a crime of passion, then I would expect immediate regret, shame, heart-felt apology, and a commitment to never do it again soon after the incident. However, I don't think that's the common experience. A sociopath knows something is wrong but does it anyway. A psychopath doesn't accept right and wrong.

When the Saudis have suppressed fracking for long enough for all the states to ban it safely, the price will come back up.

What are the odds?

Why develop a technology if there's no expected return from it? Incentives working is not religion, they are attributes of human psychology.

I don't think you read the same book I did, then. He runs through a number of actions and tests them against the framework to find out whether they are good, evil, or otherwise.

I have pointed out, repeatedly, I've said that there's a whole book on this exact subject, called Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux. I'm not going to quote the entire book and the arguments within it here, but please follow the link.

You have repeatedly stated this conclusion on this message board, but you have not pointed out what in UPB you find to be in error. It's not so simple to just reject it because you don't like it or its conclusions. If you don't think it is in error then it does stand as a logical framework for determining if actions are good or evil and it does make claims about morality analogous to mathematical ones.

No worries, I've done the same thing myself.

Agreed, everyone is free to throw a party for whatever reason they want. I got married on a beach in Mexico. I had a "reception" in a restaurant on the Columbia River in Portland, OR.

Kevin was working on a branch of the tree related to parasitism, because there was an unclear definition there. If I understand things correctly, I'm going to summarize a lot of the arguments (explicit or implied) in this thread. It goes like this: people make conscious choices that bring children into their lives, unwanted or not while wholly dependent on parents at first, children aren't parasites (and there was a lot of disagreement on the term "parasite") children provide more and more value to parents as they live and grow children who are not abused provide more future economic value than children that are abused children who are not abused provide stronger, healthier, more happy relationships than children that are abused children who are not abused are more likely to care for aging parents (who also aren't parasites) than children that are abused abusing a child involves initiating force against them (if a child is stealing from you, or attacking you, that's a little different) ∴ children should not be abused Next: people who abuse children care more for utility in the moment than more future economic value, strong healthier happy relationships for those children, or care for aging parents; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children are not willing to put the work into a solution to problems that involves negotiation and discussion of the merits of "correct" activities; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children initiate force, and it cannot be universalized that using force is good ∴ abusing children is, at least, "not good". I have trouble with defining the full negation of "good" to mean "evil". I reserve "evil" for those that enjoy hurting others, children or otherwise.

Already blocked. Classic movie though.

"Brandishing" is the act of displaying a weapon with the intent to threaten or cause concern for safety. If the 12-year-old intended to intimidate the police by brandishing what is immediately recognizable as a likely firearm, we know what the result of that will be. It is an interesting question as to how a free society would deal with such an action. Would it become like a Klingon empire where brandishing an intimidation are commonplace? Would it become some other culture where acting defensive in any way is considered uncouth and provocative? At the risk of a non sequitur, what does seem clear to me is that entitlements paid by forced labor and reinforced with victimization propaganda lead to contempt. I feel it is that contempt that leads to posturing, aggressive postures, and bad attitudes. Race doesn't enter into it, in my experience.

Zelenn, I don't thank people enough for this. Thank you for standing up to abuse and holding your ground.

Rainbow, I don't thank people enough for this. Thank you for standing up to abuse and holding your ground.

I am always afraid that when I'm approaching someone abusive to their own child there's absolutely nothing holding them back from being abusive to me. I like to think I'm tough, and standing up for a kid is noble, but it always makes me think twice. As a result, I haven't done this yet, but I haven't seen anything like this in over a year either. Joel, I don't thank people enough for doing this sort of thing. Thank you for standing up to abuse and holding your ground.

Thanks, FattyWatt, for putting ideas into action. It's a brave thing to stand up to abuse and hold your ground.

Only according to the government, in order to protect existing plumbers from competition and earn some politicians a little lobbying cash from the plumbers, inspectors, and gougers union. Even then if you want to "fix" your toilet to use more than 1.5L of water per flush even a licensed plumber isn't allowed to do it.