shirgall

Be aware that any protest movement that lasts longer than a few hours has likely been co-opted or prompted by organized interests. In this case there is some indication that the Hong Kong protests were instigated by none other than the US State Department. Go to nashownotes.com and search for "Hong Kong".

It might make people happy that this officer was fired for this incident. Slap at :30

All voluntary transactions are for mutual benefit. What's the distinction?

We put a lot of effort into that query message, because we all know women receive 100X more queries than we do, and we have a crowd to stand out in. I base this on the idea that the women I knew searching on match.com spent most of their time responding to queries than sending them, whereas most of the men I knew on match.com spent most of the time writing queries in order to get a conversation started.

Try looking at it from a language perspective. Discipline (essentially rule-following) makes disciples (rule-followers). Disciples are people that spread the teachings of an authority figure to others (in the derivation of the word, that authority figure was Jesus). So, in a way, bullies make more bullies and those bullies make more, like a psychopathy virus.

More importantly, how does that make you feel?

You can instantly improve the acoustics of this setup. Turn down that gain and get closer to the mic (a "fist" away from the chin is best) so your dynamics are barely making the overload blink when you are animated in your speech. Cover those reflective flat surfaces in the back of the room with a bookshelf (or a http://arqen.com/sound-diffusers/). If you insist on the mic being off axis like that, put a carpet square on the wall opposite, because that first reflection is awful. If you are just above a desk, consider putting a blotter or a mat down upon it. If you are looking at a computer monitor, try to angle it away from the microphone because it's just another flat sheet of reflection just trying to kill you. If you can put an equalizer into the chain, roll off below 60Hz, and adjust three bands for maximum intelligibility (fundamentals dones from 85Hz to 250Hz, vowels at 350Hz-2KHz, consonants at 1.5KHz-4KHz). Roll off those Sses at the top end (sibilance) from 4KHz to 7KHz. I tend to boost 2K 4dB and 4K 5dB and cut dramatically <60Hz and >6KHz. All of this means you need to run some tests and listen to them closely to see the effect. Pick what pleases you.

I think they want you to defend the choice, not the right. From the look of it, they are asking if you have empirical evidence that conforms with the expectation from the scientific research. I'm not sure how it blew up into something bigger than that.

For those that want more ammunition against the police state... http://benswann.com/riot-training-ends-in-disaster-cops-wreck-3-cruisers-deploy-tear-gas-on-elementary-school-students/

Yeah, when I was 5'9" on match.com I got a lot less hits than if I tested with a lie of 5'10". Another amusing thing is if I included my salary I was "bragging" or "lying" but if I left it out I was considered unemployed. My now-wife saw my profile on match.com and skipped me because I looked "snarky" in my picture. Didn't even read the blurb. We ended up going out because she came to one of my firearms classes I taught.

Actually, in any free transaction the participants are getting something they want more than what they are trading away. They may desire a better deal, and they can freely refuse a worse one, but if they do decide to exchange, it's always for mutual advantage.

Hrm. If we defined selfishness as "being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others" that might apply, but not "acting upon one's own desires." I think the Ayn Rand definition you are looking for is more like "concern with one's own interests." If you are concerned with your own interests, you might not live solely for the benefit of another, but you might be generous. If you develop a reputation as a fair, honest, and logical person it benefits you. It doesn't have to benefit you tangibly, but it may lubricate your relationships with others immensely. Always giving to random beggars on the street no matter what the circumstance does not have the same rewards, but I have offered beggars to join me at lunch when I worked in downtown Portland and few ever took me up on it. My concern for my own desires makes me want to have fair dealings with others, and rewarding relationships, but that doesn't mean it's solely financial. As I mentioned in another thread every person has the right to expend their efforts how they see fit, whether it's for income or for entertainment or something else. If it is selfish to resent being forced to volunteer, then we've got a few more rounds of definition refinement to do.

A political institution's metrics for efficiency are: 1. ability to influence policy 2. ability to raise funds 3. ability to organize people to affect the above

One way to look at determining morality is universality. Look at the opposite of non-aggression, where it would be moral to initiate force. If you universalize it, so that everyone, always initiated force against others, does that make a consistent moral framework? I think such a society would fail pretty quickly, and it would be next to impossible to raise offspring (let alone procreate). So, if aggression cannot be universalized, it is not a a valid moral rule. As for "selfishness," what do you mean by the term? We should settle on clear definitions.

To me the underlying meaning of the term "political" has meant "systems and techniques intended to generate consent." Its symptoms range from persuasion to manipulation. The politically savvy can evaluate a person, or a district, and figure out whatever is needed to appeal to them, or at least appeal to them enough, to get what they want. By itself it is a neutral term. So, yes, all groups will have politics, so long as there is something that they need to decide together. Efficient political institutions systematize this activity. They may be very efficient at generating consent (with a nod to Chomsky here) but that does not mean they are efficient at anything else. It seems pretty unlikely that they will excel at anything other than accumulation of power.

Obscuring an important part of the truth (or outright lying) as you convince someone as to a course of action is not morally justifiable. It's a "ends justify the means" problem. To leverage the categorical imperative, imagine that "manipulation when persuading others" was a moral requirement... that everyone had to use it, always. Does this lead to a non-contradictory society? I don't think it does because everyone would manipulate and everyone would know they are being manipulated, so they would never have valid information from others to choose a course of action. Compare that to the maxim, "when negotiating a transaction, provide truthful, relevant, and complete information as to the value of what you are offering." It's clear that if this was universal it would not be contradictory.

Yeah, it rings true, but it doesn't make it true. For example, there's a sharp difference in personality between the religious and non-religious libertarians I know. I served as a Membership Director for a state party, I got to meet a lot of people. I don't like big crowds either, probably because I dislike the mentality of large crowds. However, that doesn't stop me from having people over to dinner or a Walking Dead watching party.

It looks like I have a lot of reading to do, but understand that the questionnaire is based on this (quoted for academic interest, therefore fair use): So these guys developed a moral model and a questionnaire based on that and the report in the original post is about self-identified libertarians answering the questionnaire. Even so, the conclusions aren't going to surprise most people here. Libertarians use reasoning more, and use emotion less, than either typical conservatives or typical liberals (from the conclusion):

It's totally okay to be skeptical or just not like something, but I hope we're getting across what the non-aggression principle is, what it implies, and that a libertarian philosophy does not have logical contradictions. I also hope that we have demonstrated that other approaches *are* fraught with logical contradictions, if not abuse. The way I go about it is to point out contradictions where I see them to people that are interested, but I generally try to leave people alone, and to leave people that want to do me wrong out of my life. I dabble in politics, but I hold it at arm's length (so to speak). What I encourage is self-examination as to what appeals to you and what doesn't and understanding it for yourself. There might be useful knowledge to you there.

I need to commission a garishly-colored shirt with multiple comic-book style "flipping the bird" hands all over it, in case I need to do a press conference.

Go over there and risk your life to defend them. The whole point of this is that you should be risking your blood and treasure if you think it's right and not be risking someone else's. What people's issue is with NAP is that it generally means that someone will risk themselves to save their family and friends, but that tendency diminishes the less people know about a situation, and that's probably a good thing.

This kind of problem happens all of the time. There should be a distinction here similar to the distinctions given to the Bible. There is an official Bible, stories of apocryphal gospels that were not voted into the official Bible during Constantine's era (most likely because it did not serve political interests), and a bunch of things that are just simply unknown. Similarly, there's the official account of 9/11, the material that was left out of the report because it offended at least one political interest on the congressional committee, and a bunch of stuff that was just not known or verifiable. For a more recent example, look at the death of Robin Williams. There's the official account of his death. The coroner's report clearly states that no "illegal" drugs were found in his system. But we all suspect that there were some perfectly legal things in there that contributed to the situation. Almost every significant event with political impact has this problem. Can we just agree to distrust what we cannot or did not experience and move on?

I was celebrating the confidence, resolve, and plan to make a positive change, and encouraging the same. I don't think anyone forgets that there is risk in any endeavor.

There's a reason I said earlier on that the people that really think they know enough have a choice to do the defending. This stuff is personal, individual. I'm not talking about indiscriminately bombing everyone driving a white Toyota. Let's start with the moral principle that applies to individuals (and therefore also to states): the circumstance that justifies the use of deadly force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or the innocent. Having sufficient knowledge to meet this standard is difficult, as I keep pointing out.

The smart folks realize they are not in the carrier pigeon industry, but rather in the message delivering industry, and are always looking for ways to innovate. The bad things about erecting barriers to market entry is the complacency of a cushy position. Creative destruction exists, but we sure as heck don't want to stop it because things are merely good enough.