Phuein

I'm curious. Being such a highlighted figure, are there any publicly available photos of Stefan from his younger days? Twenties? This is for no purpose whatsoever.

Animals. It's the first thing that comes to mind. We delegate thinking into verbal logic, so only an animal with abstract communication skills can actually "think". A person without such skills is basically a human-animal; slightly better at communicating with me, but not trustworthy to make wise decisions. It's frustrating, when animals pretend to be people, and then they disappoint. Also true about non-human animals. Raised with a dog, and live with a cat.

Is there a reason I shouldn't just always use Youtube? I find their service very comfortable, even though I don't actually need to see the vid.

If this is really an action that would detract from the show, as it is, then I agree it would be a bad move. But, I don't quite see the proof. Donors would enjoy Stef' getting more funding. This is why they donated, in the first place. To support the show. Keeping the commercializing minimal, unobtrusive (if indeed possible), and passive (by request), means that it will not detract from the show. Actually getting paid for his promotions would be more viable, than free promotions. If I am misunderstanding, and the voluntaristic business model of the show is strictly on purpose (putting ads' on a new show makes less sense, after all), then the other arguments would seem irrelevant (for both sides), and that would be it for this question.

inb4 "no annoying commercial breaks"... How come you, Stefan, don't advertise for products and companies you support? For example, Joe Rogan does it for a few minutes in the beginning of each podcast, without interfering with the rest of the show. It makes sense to start the call-in shows with a quick minute (half a minute?) of advertising for a specific product, or author, which you generally support, and want their success. This would be beneficial to them, and gain the show more funds.

And the fact that homesteading has become illegal, as all land is now strictly guarded by the state, unless you already have the funds to finance it, and any business on it. Oh, if I could only go and farm like people of old, without having to bribe any stranger in advanced and during.

This thread has quickly deteriorated into skull-bashing, so I would like to clarify a few of the questions I've noticed around, as I'm very familiar with the Stef' cult and with anarcho-environmentalism (as mentioned before), together with some good ol' anthropology. In Defense of the Tribal Human In order to understand what it is that lacks in modern society, we must first understand how it is different to any other society we have documented. Most notably, modern society does not work in official tribes, but in rather manufactured tribes. Manufactured in the sense that people group and rank each other according to needs, instead of according to kin. This major change happens, wherever is documented a growing industry. The industry functions outside of the tribe. It is a result of government, of a select few who use force to control and manipulate others. Those who govern are able to force farming folk out of their villages, through taxation and legislation, and then direct them into the cities, where industry is the best option, for a high standard of living. The industry, not regulated almost at all by the common folk, is then inconsiderate of the public needs. It is meant for the benefit of those who govern, and so its' ideal and design are flawed, in the first place. We then see unwanted natural disasters, together with a wanting lifestyle of industrial enslavement. The Two Methods of Solution (as exhibited in this thread and clarified.) On the one hand, any sensible person would have the knee-jerk reaction of seeing wrong, and wanting to remove the wrong at its' most apparent source: the industrial society. This means a return to "primitivism", which is a very unpopular word (in the researching community) to describe the vast variety of tribal nations. Such societal regression is actually a natural phenomenon, well observed by anthropologists, and it is ever partial. Meaning that the regression works as a step backwards, two steps forwards, and thus society forever advances. Modern tribal humans are more advanced than historical tribes, as modern influences ever perpetrate their traditions. However, on the other hand, those who wish to take matters into their hands, see that the problem does not lie in the method, but in those who made it popular. The fascists (government) who used force to utilize the industrial ideal. It is not surprising that those in the edge of society, such as the rare mentally scarred fascist, would be among the first to adopt new ideas. Like with many other well documented modern advancements, we see how evil people use them to harm, while good people use them to make life better. It is not by chance that many of humanity's greatest achievements are both notorious for war, and for the kitchen. The obvious question is "which." Which ideals reflect a sensible future? The answer is all sorts, and a mix of them. The popular science-fiction idea of a future society that is split between those many who regressed, and those few who advanced, is actually from the history of humanity. History tells us that only those societies that will be lucky enough to find the correct solutions to their problems will progress, while the rest will actually regress, instead of remaining the same. They will regress back into the tribal state, as it is our default. P.S. Oh, and any notions about idealised tribal societies is utter nonsense, and the opposite is extremely well documented. The only reason tribes don't destroy their environment is because they literally can't (cutting a tree takes forever, and they have no means of over hunting or fishing.) Tribes are not "a thing", and there is a tribe for each idea or ideal! Natural human evolution at its' best! REFERENCES (the lazy version.) - Look at the history of civilised places, such as where I am, in Israel. Those who progressed (secular Jews that returned after WW2) clash with those who regressed into tribalism (remnants of previous empires still living on this arid rock). Also, this is very evident wherever researchers discovered great city ruins in the Americas. It is also evident in certain locations in central Asia, such as the Babylonian civilization, which not only regressed, but currently suffers the worst, from doing so. - The entire transition into industrialism is heavily documented, with many hypotheses about it. Naturally, it is accepted as a "good" transition, and as such, any word about the human manipulation that took place to achieve it is unpopular. It doesn't take too much thinking to realize that extremely superstitious villagers were not happy to change their lives, and so had to be encouraged. The legislation for this purpose is well documented. I read about how it happened in England, so you can find that rather easily. - The idea of the "modern tribe", how it is different from historical tribes, and its' pros and cons is not my invention. You can find it. - Tribal humans are well documented for transitioning into industrial societies, without the least bit understanding nor care for the natural disasters that ensue, which we are all aware of. Only a dying minority (some assessed millions) have not done so, and are being systematically killed. Tribal humans are just common people, who are more naked. They do not behave differently to modern humans!

Refer to "wage slavery" as the term was intended. "At a time when self-sale contracts were one of the most direct ways to become a citizen in ancient Rome, Cicero wrote in his De Officiis that: 'whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves.' " - Wiki The term is only not relevant when there is the option of living without wages. When owning land does not imply mandatory taxes. When nothing bars people from selling their produce. When land is not available, and it is not possible to freely sell your produce, then all there is left is getting a wage from somebody else. All that is left is dependence. This is only possible through state fascism, not allowing people to live free on the land, and trade freely. There is hardly a person who is not a wage slave, these days. Even an independent person like Stefan, could not afford to not sell himself to others, because the state does not allow him to be independent of it.

I'm going to ignore the blog, as I find myself not relating to the content, and address the idea of a "demand for coercion." It is an impossibility. An oxymoron. Being coerced, means that you have no choice in the matter. Having demand, while having no choice, is meaningless. It's equal to being "horny for rape." Worse, to say such an oxymoron is to misunderstand the ideas of demand and coercion. Only ignorance mixed with apathy could create such a linguistic fallacy.

square4, only addressing your question of proportionality; being practical, if you had a misdeed acted upon you, then what logical course would you take, to mend it? Naturally, the answer varies widely, from emotional responses, to materialistic responses, and maybe some other mystical ideas of revenge. To claim proportionality, when self-defense is at stake, is to excuse the aggressor, and attack the victim!These situations are rare, and are hardly at the heart of any practical philosophy, especially the NAP. Stefan, too, expressed his dislike with extreme situations that deviate from the practical norm. Such situations cannot have well designed solutions, as they are too unstable - not well defined, in reality.

While I agree with Osho's fundamental observations, about thinkers and societies, I disagree with his conclusion that this is a social conflict. It isn't. This is a natural, logical, conflict. It is a conflict not between people, the "deviant thinker" being "more" than the traditionalist, if I may use that word. This is a conflict between methods. When I say methods, I mean that each person is designed differently. We all have different properties. Some are stronger, some are quicker thinkers, and others may be more patient, or more sympathetic. Each method, or strategy, has its' pros and cons, in different places, and in different times. I feel that due to the rarity of "thinkers", it had always been a rather socially unrewarding strategy. This conflict is between the person, the thinker, and the nature that designed them to be this way. Don't blame people for being different; blame nature that wanted variety, and heed nature, as it says, "too late, buddy."

I don't know any details, at all, but I get a rather good feeling from another monarchy - Jordan. The country seems to handle the generally disastrous political, economical, and environmental situation here in the Middle East, quite well. I wonder how the inhabitants feel about it, when it comes down to daily life.

Haha Fair enough, if you prefer the rules of your local university. Overwhelming the readers with your information would not lead to the expected results. The point is to keep short, as to avoid confusion. Naturally, if keeping "too short" will create confusion, then it's better to write more. It's a tender balance, I feel.

Yeah, if anything, then that. This is a tip that makes each post more readable & accessible. Naturally, it depends on the conversation and the idea discussed, but in many discussions people have their disagreements. The conversation has less text and more understanding, when people don't insist on putting emphasis on their own specific notion. This tip is more important for argumentative discussions, really. It takes time and patience to reach an understanding, and that should be that purpose of arguments. Do notice the purpose of these tips. They are not always relevant, but they do always work for the benefit of the reader.

I prefer to discuss the social consequences of this idea, rather the genetical relevance of it. However, in just a few words of response... I actually did consider this in a genetical way. Genes respond to their environment, as we all know. I'm thinking that this is a human flexibility, which makes human groups respond in such a way that certain people are selected for the Thinker role. I do not doubt, even for a moment, that a genetic predisposition for logical/deep thinking exists in all of us. It does make me wonder. If the parallel is a profession, then how would a mechanic or a doctor be treated, if they were found taking advantage of their clients? And how are frauds usually identified? I'm starting to think that this would work like giancoli said, like the free market does. Avoiding errors or fraud is ever an issue in all things, and not just in the issue of strategic thinking. Any professional who is wrong in such ways, may pay the greatest price! This is not taken lightly. However, if anything, the reason that those in the "head" of society, today, do not feel that price - is exactly because there is no Thinkers free market. People need university degrees, and diplomas, and the right skin color, and the right surname, and all that yada yada, in order to be considered as reliable Thinkers. Right?

Fatigue. Repulsion. Disinterest. Confusion. Those are some of the emotions that come to mind, when I see a thread or post that includes page-loads of text, page-length paragraphs, and no italics or bold text, or other markings, whatsoever. So, here are some useful tips I've learned throughout the years, browsing the majestic internet. Each makes discussions and information sharing more accessible and appealing. 1. Keep paragraphs short. As short as possible! Each paragraph relays an idea; if the idea requires more than four or five sentences, then split it. It probably already leaked towards another idea, or sub-idea, as it is. Don't be ashamed of one or two phrase paragraphs! 2. Don't answer yourself in the same post. In other words, if you feel that you've continued writing into your own response (of the idea you started writing about, in the same post), then it makes sense to simply get to the point. Only write the response, or final idea. Your approach can be cleared, if necessary, later on. 3. Draw your text. Especially, if it is rather long, or feels complicated, even a bit. What do I mean? Use italics, bold, underlines, different fonts, different sizes, and even different colors! Each can be used to emphasize or de-emphasize an idea. You want others to read your text, as they would hear it, as if you were speaking it aloud. Also, you want them to notice some things, more than others, naturally. 4. And finally, keep each post short! Yes, even though you can/could/would/might/want to say more, you need to deserve the effort of your readers, first! After you write anything, go over it, and try to keep it as simple and short, as you literararily (mind the pun) can. If Stefan's daughter can't/won't get it, neither will anyone else. Cheers.

I am not the first to raise this question, without a doubt. Still, I find it more curious than ever, to wonder maybe human society - naturally - is supposed to propagate only few serious Thinkers in each group / tribe. Could it be that nature designed us, as animals, to have a very limited amount of people capable of deep strategic and logical thinking? Maybe replace that with 'people who see it as their duty and profession to think deeply, strategically and logically.' And if so, does that mean that - in order to not be fascists, it is the role of the Thinkers, to convince the general population of possible future strategies, for the entire society? And, yet, if so, could it possibly mean that a big chunk of what the Thinkers should focus on, is their skill in convincing the general population? Maybe even excluding the other Thinkers from that part of the process? And, finally, if so, could the "human problem" originate in the fact that in modern society, most people don't have a specific Thinker, or group of Thinkers, that they personally know and trust? Just like people have their trusted doctor, or cook, or even plumber. What do you think?

It is fair to wonder, how could another culture be "capitalistic" or even "free", yet seem unattractive and oppressive. The answer is manifold, and in its' source is the culture itself. People have developed different unique cultures, all over the world, for millennia. Even if they do embrace certain aspects of other cultures, such as some technology, trade & business methods from the West, they still will only integrate those into their own existing culture. Capitalism in a culture where slaves are accepted, will include slaves. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, itself. The same is true about culturally accepted working hours, working days / vacations, expected wages / quality of life, and the social status achieved through occupation. P.S. It's ironic that Darwin will criticize the Africans, without seeing that the other adventuring (imperialistic) nations find their origins in the African nations, themselves.

So many fiction stories tell of struggle against conquering mad men, but none of them seem to end with actual freedom. The ending is always a restoration of what is considered the status-quo of hierarchy. The best case scenario is where everyone simply goes back to their regular servitude, under a "better" ruler, or a "more deserving" ruler. Fantasy is one thing, where-in stories such as the brilliant Discworld series mocks our accepted social hierarchy and its' history, or the Wheel of Time series uses the Aiel tribes, as an example of a more free and more brave society; where leaders are never simply obeyed, as they are all "free people." But, although I cannot recall the same in a science-fiction example, I wonder, why is it that no story puts emphasis on the value and merit of a free society and free people? It should not be just a side dish, on a platter of abnormal societies. I wonder, does anybody, at all, have any examples of fantasy or science-fiction stories that do put emphasis on liberty as the accepted social custom?

The more the anarchist in me grows, the more I notice how ridiculous violence and statist ideas are in fiction. It's not surprising that literature and games, the whole entertainment category, is full of random violence and extreme hierarchies. It is a notable part of our history, after all. What bothers me is the lack of game worlds and stories that do not require random violence to be adventurous, nor be extremely hierarchical as reasoning for story progression. An anarchic society does not have to be a society without challenge or conflict. There can be battle without nonsensical kings. A villain can do many vicious things, other than conquering or destroying a nation. I wonder just how important entertainment is to the moral perspective of people.

This humoristic sketch might be helpful to those who want to share this unpopular idea that hitting children is wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx7s_N79nco WKUK - Season 5 - Spanking Dads

I suspect that this is the scariest thing for people. Imagining those that can manipulate such a strict system, let loose in a more free environment. Myself? Nah, I'm not scared. :-D That'd be silly.

OP Summary #2 First, it's important to note that this is a discussion. Naturally, conclusions are not mandatory here, but it is expected that their place will be at the end, rather than in the beginning of posts. While the opposite would be more comfortable to the reader, the natural way of reaching conclusions in a discussion is by defining statements that seem true, and only defining conclusions after the statements. So, let us make order in this thread, for the sake of future readers! :-) The Perspectives 1. Market dependency cannot be avoided, and so it does not have a moral value. 2. Market dependency is beneficial, as we can see in cases of countries with good trade relationships and little conflict (e.g. America with China.) 3. Market dependency is a major cause for conflict. Local independent sustenance should be considered a defensible right (self-defense) and morally justified. 4. In a stateless society, where coercion is an unaccepted practice, market dependency will not be a cause for conflict. In other words, only a state would benefit from using force to get resources, but free traders would never benefit from initiating force to resolve trade disagreements over dependencies. What does it mean either way? I asked the questions about market dependencies, because my freedom is conflicting with the interests of those in power, and I wanted to understand better why that is so. Why is it that those fascist pigs care that I have my own water and a remote piece of land? What do they lose if I am really free? What do they gain if I am not free? After all, they have so much, and I have.... Well, just about nothing, in comparison. Kings and Emperors would take crops, slaves and soldiers, but they would not, otherwise, bother the common people. People were free, if they managed to stay out of sight, which was an actual practicality for most, as farmers and partial nomads. So, I'm trying to understand if this is simply another case of NAP violation, or if it is a case of human greed, that is not yet defined as a violation of NAP, so clearly, such as in the case of not giving water to a thirsting person, in the desert. What do you think about my conundrum?

I just bought some lesser known Chinese smartphone for tenth the price of an iPhone. Just sayin'. :=D Recently, I had an argument with another, who finds Libertarianism interesting and important: Anyone rich can only be so, when others are forced to be poor. While it is true that trade is natural and right for us, it is not true that anyone could hoard so much wealth and possessions, without initiating force. Therefor, the only way the rich could become and remain rich is by using their wealth to free those who are not rich, so that they become an asset to those who would otherwise see them as a liability. In other words, Apple would not be remotely as rich, if they had not the protections that governments offer against competition, such as patents, land restrictions and occupational restrictions.

I really relate to the Ayn Rand quote, there. I've seen too many people follow the path of moral agnosticism, thinking that they are neither liable nor affected. It's a sad and disgusting perspective to have on life. It's also dishonest, as all people do judge, but very few will be outspoken and brave enough to act on their honest moral opinion.