James Dean

I drew Stef as an anime character once because it amused me to look at. I wouldn't consider that idolatry. I think not getting a bust of Stef just because he wouldn't want you too would be the less rational thing to do. You should get a bust of whoever you want, brother. To hell with the rest of these nay sayers.

I don't think we've established that 'unlimited resources' is even possible. The amount of matter in the universe is finite, how can resources be infinite? and no, I don't understand your point, on really two levels. The first is that "The Matrix" and "IRobot" were incredibly expensive to create, and even if it's just me downloading them off pirate bay, I have still expended my capital by downloading those movies and not writing a novel, or picking my nose, or petting a cat. Even if I get to Star Trek materialize anything that I want, I still expend my capital materializing my, "tea, earl grey, hot" as opposed to the infinite other things I could materialize at that moment. Furthermore, who makes the materializers? I have to trade with them at least once to get the materializer, what if it breaks? If the AI that you outline above were in existence (correct me if I'm wrong) but they seem like just human beings made of metal. If they were totally conscious in the same way that we are, they would have property rights and they would have to expend their capital either fixing themselves, or fixing materializers, or building new AI's. How would you know what action you needed the AI to do if there was no price? How do I even get an AI? Can I materialize it like everything else? Who would design the AI? Why would they design the AI if they would never profit from it? I don't really see how "Magical AIs will do everything" fixes the problem. I don't know that I agree with this definition of capitalism. The one I've seen most around FDR and found most helpful is kind of "whatever happens in the absence of coercion" or "The NAP and property rights." As far as I understand it, others please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we respect that I own the effects of my actions (even if I materialize them out of thin air and unlimited resources) and no one initiates the use of force against me, that's a capitalist system because I still have to decide what to do with my time, what to do with my love, what to do with my respect, what to do with my body, all these are decisions I make around the use of my body (my capital). Time manipulation is just fucking impossible, sorry. There are just too many logical paradoxes. You can make a whole bunch of wistful predictions based on the fact that, in the future, we might find a way to fundamentally violate the natural laws of the universe, but there is no evidence now that it will ever be possible. It would be great if every waking moment were like an orgasm wrapped in a heroin LSD magic carpet ride, sure, but that's nothing more than mental masturbation. As far as the friend thing goes, we run into the same problem. AI's essentially become just metal people with property rights so they would need friends and all the same problems and principals still apply. It's like saying, "i've got a great new idea for a product that will totally change the way that we get around; it will make cars obsolete. We won't have DUI's or accidents or speeding or pay for gas or any of the problems we have with cars. It's called an artificial car and it's got four wheels made of rubber, a metal chassis, and an internal combustion engine." then I say, "that sounds just like a car to me." but you say, "No, it's totally different, this one will burn liquified space aliens from the future." I'm not sure that solves the problem....

If I am correct in thinking that you are the author of both the article in question and the open letter to Jeter Poseph, do you, as of yet, have the plan or intention to talk with Stef in some capacity? I found both your article and the open letter (the latter being extra tasty) interesting reads and would enjoy seeing a discussion between you and Stef. Also, I know that Stef has, at one point or another, agreed with TZM in their criticisms of Christianity but I understand your position to be pro christian, or at least more accommodating and less critical than atheist sites like this one or maybe TZM (I am uncertain to what degree TZM and Jeter Poseph are vocal about atheism now). You appear to decry this 'anti-christian' stance but site Stef in your open letter and post the link here on the board. As far as I know, and for as long as I have been listening to the FDR podcasts and posting on the boards (not all that long I grant you) Stef has been nothing but fair to Christians and never uses ad-hom or any of the other snarky and rapacious BS in which Jeter Poseph is emulsified, so perhaps this is the dividing line, I'm just curious as to the attitude of yourself, and the EoC page, towards atheism, as I don't think it was entirely clear. I've always been interested in learning more facts about the 'shadow government' and conspiracy theories and theorists, and as a clear communicator yourself, your site seems like a tremendous resource but the spirituality stuff stokes my apprehension. I guess this is a long winded way of asking, appropriately in the context of your letter, the attitude of EoC towards such a broad criticism of half of its tenants. (ps, yes the spoonerisms are on purpose, they are a sign of disrespect towards Jeter. )

Yeah, people would always talk about the "rules of the road" like there was this book somewhere that contained all these "rules" ... but really I can think of only one rule for driving... don't crash. If everyone just tried their hardest not to crash, I don't think there would be too many accidents; just like in economics, everyone acting in their self interest.

My mother is an ASL interpreter, so she taught me sign language as a baby and I've been fluent ever since. It's really useful to know with all the deaf people where I live.

Brian Reagan is great. He's a skilled comedian, and I always enjoyed his bits on childhood. hooked on phonics, works for me!

Did you at any time try reasoning with him? It sounds as if, from the way you worded your post, that he was just some maniac who had one goal in mind; getting the knives and the minute that you turned your head he bolted for the kitchen to obtain his weapon, as if this was the sole thought that occupied his mind. Kids don't really work like that. I think there was at least 10 or 15 minutes in which you could have engaged in a conversation with him and asked him why he wanted the knives/explained to him the dangers of playing with knives. Kids aren't maniacs, they just don't know about it, obviously he didn't want to hurt anyone, yet you inflicted violence against him.

are you talking about physical attraction or emotional/romantic interest?

It's probably both, if you are apart of the FDR board, with few exceptions, you are interested in the truth. The people who claim that FDR is not generally accepting of truth is like that joke about the guy driving down the road when he hears about a madman driving the wrong way down the road he's on. he looks out the window and says, "one madman?? Everyone's going the wrong way!!"

I don't really know how you're using the word 'love' here. We trade with businesses because they provide value and we repay in kind. Apple wants my money more than their iPods, I want the iPods more than my money, etc. The fact that some of the money that has been freely exchanged is then stolen from them and used to fund violence has little to do with either parties morality. If I send a friend $20 bucks in the mail for his birthday and someone steals it to buy an underage prostitute, I am not 'supporting underage prostitution' because my money/ his money was stolen to fund it. This argument is akin to statists saying "you can't be against the state because you still use the roads." Yes, the government has a monopoly enforced by violence, we are forced to use their """"money"""" businesses are forced to give their property to the government to forward violent ends, this is not "voting with your dollar" for violence, you have yet to explain how buying a computer from apple is somehow immoral because apple is then subsequently stolen from. Capitalism does solve the problem of violence, it's just that now entrepreneurs are violently prevented from providing services in that field because the government has a monopoly. Capitalism does not only solve the problem of violence, it solves problems period. because people solve problems period. you wouldn't (i hope) say that "starvation is a fact of nature, capitalism doesn't fix that." Yes, indeed, it does... because people want it to be fixed. The only people who don't want the problem of violence to be fixed are those invested in it's perpetuation, and they are not the majority.

Even if BTC lost all it's value, how does that spell the end for FDR?

Good point, I guess I get kinda panicky when the IRS points yet more guns at my face.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/25/irs-says-bitcoin-is-property/6873569/ How do you guys think this will effect the value of my coins? (not that I have a lot. )

I think you are right to feel frustrated and even at these people. Likely they cannot address those things because they are normalizing behavior that has been inflicted on them by violent and abusive or manipulative people. I try to have empathy for them, when I see people like that, I just imagine a sign around their neck that reads, "My past is so painful that I refuse to confront it." It does not absolve them of the corrupt and immoral things they advocate and do, but I find it helpful to know where they're coming from, and to have that empathy for them.

This is where determinism is these days? Stating a blindingly obvious fact like "causality exists" then tacking "ergo determinism" at the end and calling it an argument?I haven't found my way to reading the entirety of the thread yet, so I can't say much of import at this time (this being the first thing I read in the morning is like starting out the day by repeatedly bashing my head into a cat while singing "my country tis of thee") Kevin, your posts have been illuminating, as always.

I was strongly in favor of socialism (it's hard not to be with 12+ years of government schools) then I discovered this kind of "left-libertarianism." It's kind of a TVP or Zeitgeist kind of approach and I devoured their literature and videos for a while. This lead me to FDR for some reason, and it rekindled the love of reason and an unquenchable thirst for truth in my heart that has made my life orders of magnitude more fulfilling and happy than it had ever been. I think left-libertarianism is silly fundamentally, but it (and atheism) was a good "statist methadone" to wean me off the violent fantasies that I can now see only served to satiate the desires of corrupt individuals around me. My attitude is, and has been since finding FDR, those who abide and advocate the NAP are my brothers and sisters. These "left-libertarians" seem to abide by the NAP and advocate anarchy, silly though their ideas may be, I still feel they share (at least some small part) of our cause for liberty. While less popular than the traditional "ayn rand" route to voluntarism, anarcho-capitalism, and FDR, the "Noam Chomsky" route can be just as effective at waking people up and getting them to take the red pill to get out of this matrix we all find ourselves in. Just thought i'd share my experience with you guys.

Wyrd is not a god, it is an old norse and anglo-saxon concept of fate from which the modern word "weird" is derived from. Why limit one's self to the favor of any delusion? Why do you prefer the isolation of fantasy to the kinship of reality?

Sorry, i think you're getting mixed up again... inanimate objects are not moral actors and are incapable of being either moral or immoral. A dead person is an inanimate object so same reasoning is appropriate. The coma test is kind of colloquial, at least to me, just a way of illustrating the need to reject positive obligations, there are more technical and syllogistic ways to do that as well. I don't understand what's counter intuitive about it nor why that makes it bad? Nutrition is incredibly counter-intuitive, we don't say "we should tweak the framework of nutrition so that we recommend you eat fats and sugars more because that's more intuitive." Having a man in a white coat drill into your gums to preform a root canal is incredibly counter-intuitive, but guess what, it saves you pain and agony orders of magnitude more severe in the long run. Science is not always intuitive, that's why it's objective, it doesn't matter how we feel about it. The science of ethics, and of nutrition, and physics etc are all kind of "counter-intuitive" (ethics even more so considering the massive amounts of propaganda we ingest concerning ethics!)

No, again, I think you're missing the point. A surgeon saving someone's life IS the moral opposite of stabbing someone because saving someone's life does not violate the NAP.

No, I don't think there is neutral behavior... at least not in that sense. The reason we value a surgeon saving a life a opposed to someone simply not murdering is that we generally tend to celebrate saving someone's life, but it's not a question of was that action moral/immoral, it's a question of how much we subjectively value that action. Me giving you a bouquet of flowers is no more or less moral than me drinking a glass of water, but you value the former action more because it makes you happy. The surgeon saving someones life is more helpful to society, it's a greater display of empathy, etc etc. but it is not more or less moral; that's just not the criteria on which you make that comparison... it would be like judging a talent show on whomever was the tallest; that's not what we compare when we analyze those two actions... Being in a coma must necessarily be moral because you're not initiating force and saving someone's life must necessarily be moral because you're not initiating force. They are equal only in that they equally do not violate the NAP

I haven't had my coffee yet, so bear with me, this is just the thought that comes to mind.. As best I can reason, there is no such thing as a "non-action" No living human being can "not-act" We are moral actors, we are constantly in a state of moral action. When I eat a sandwich, I am simultaneously not doing every other conceivable action at that time. Remember when your parents told you that withholding information was the same as lying? A sin of omission? This is perfectly valid as far as I can tell because speaking falsehood is an action that you should be held accountable for, but not speaking the truth is also an action. In a sense, thought it might be a limited way of conceptualizing it, every action that is not murder, is the opposite of murder since you must prefer those actions over the action of murder... when your preferences are not in line with universal preferences, that is where you are in a state of immorality. I imagine it almost like a computer that constantly checks if I am in a state of virtue by evaluating every action I preform. If action X = murder, or rape, or theft, or assault, then immorality... else morality. It's like nutrition, eating a grapefruit is not "nutritionally neutral" because it does not counter some poor food choice, and likewise I am in a state of health until I eat poorly, then I am in a state of errant health until that is rectified. Like I said, I literally just woke up and turned on the computer, skimmed through the thread, and this is my reaction... it's almost certainly wrong at some point. I love talking UPB though, so I had to jump on this before I started my day. If they are not universally applicable, then they are not valid moral rules, and in fact, they are not even valid aesthetic rules as those are universal as well. Property rights are universally applicable, you have no right to forcibly take my kidney or any other article of my property ever, not 100 years ago, not 100 years in the future, not in ghana, not in baltimore, not while wearing a sombrero, not while singing "don't sleep in the subway, darling." A man living alone on an island is still obligated to not infringe on others property rights, the anecdotal fact that he would have to get on a boat to conceivably do that is irrelevant, he is still prohibited from doing it. It would be like saying 2+2 no longer equals 4 because you don't have a pen or paper to figure it out.

Haha any time! Stef uses this old Confucius quote often, and I think it bears repeating, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." I think I can extend that just a tad further (ok maybe more than a tad). When you look at the wide spread sophistry and how much language is used by the power structures to control our thoughts, it helps to know whats going on "under the hood" so to speak. That's why I love philosophy, there is seldom a place it fails to stick it's curious nose. yeah, that's kind of my point. That we should "take masculinity back." I don't think I personally would use those words, which I agree aren't as consistent in their definition, if I thought it would be construed as shaming. I can't express the empathy I have for those who have been shamed in this way, as I have been there and know how undermining and destructive it can be.

Yeah, I can see that for sure! However, there is more to an utterance than the objective definitions of the words and the larger social implications, I think we have to consider the intent with which "be a man" is being used (linguistics nerds, like myself, call this a perlocutionary act) Basically meaning I could say something like "keep your chin up" to mean "stop complaining and get over it, you pansy." or I could have meant, "everything is going to be fine, just keep a positive attitude." Both are wholly different perlocutionary acts (one is an act of shaming and the other an act of encouragement). My concern is that the video doesn't address this, instead saying "be a man" are the three most destructive words you can say to a boy, EVER! PERIOD! I can just see this as an outshoot of people's shame of masculinity. In their minds, masculinity = violence therefor saying "be a man" encourages violence. I hadn't thought of it from your perspective at all, and I 100% agree that the perlocutionary act of shaming, when it takes the form of the utterance "be a man" attempts to undermine peoples sense of their own masculinity, and I have felt this shame as well, it is hurtful and destroys the confidence that "being a man" actually requires. I would only argue that people have such a warped sense of masculinity as it is, that maybe a similar utterance could be used, with a much more positive perlocutionary act; again, it all depends on the intent of the speaker. I could say to a boy who had just been bullied "stop crying, and be a man!" The implication here reinforces a negative (and predominantly feminist) view of masculinity, that men are emotionless disposable robots, only good at cleaning the gutters and dying in a god forsaken desert for foreign banksters. But I could also say to that same boy, "sometimes in life, you have to just be a man" meaning that while detail oriented relationship maintenance (a feminine strength) has it's place, and is in fact an invaluable skill, sometimes the best course of action is to address your problems head on with emotional strength and confidence (an inherent strength of the masculine mind). Does that make any sense? (as far as being a snorlax, all that really means is you're prone to taking naps in busy intersections, and no one happens to be carrying a poke-flute ) Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking, you just stated it a bit clearer than I did.

This showed up on my facebook wall and I had a pretty mixed reaction to it... I wanted you guys (in your infinite internet wisdom) to help me through this because it was a rather emotional 3 minutes, that I feel quite conflicted about... this is the comment I made on Facebook... A lot of it might seem like "well duh" to you veteran FDR folks, but Facebook is that dark place full of "the uninitiated" I seldom dare to tread. It's interesting. Men to a large degree, but mostly young boys, are the victims of so much neglect and abuse that I'm glad some of it is getting some attention. It's good that they brought up suicide, because men are at such a pronounced risk of suicide compared to women, along with other things like homelessness or workplace fatality. That being said, I don't know that pressure from other men is the main cause of this problem, or some of the problems that were discussed in the video. All of these brave young men and boys are gifted with natural talents that they cannot express in the gulag of modern schools. Public schools discourage competition that drives people to achieve, they discourage 'horse play' and really any free play at all. Not to mention most of these men and boys come from fatherless households; a relationship with you father is CRUCIAL in developing empathy. A lot of young men and boys, especially those in low income neighborhoods, grow up without fathers and without free play in nature, no wonder they don't develop empathy. In my wholly fallible opinion, the video kinda misses the point. It just seems to me like we break everyones legs as soon as they are born, then blame all the limping on peer group pressure. I don't think "be a man" should be such a vulgar phrase, but it ha become so because we associate so much negativity with masculinity. I guess take the good with the bad, it just seems like the video was all about destructive representations of masculinity yet saying "be a man" was a bad word. just thinking, how did they get to be the authority on masculinity? Especially since this is a feminist organization... I guess I don't know just how to feel about it. yet.

Because without you there would be no chair, in the same way that if you punch me, you 'own' that action because without you, there would be no punch. You own that which you 'cause' or create.