Zimobog

There are lots of Enlightenment era books to read by guys like Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant about human nature, moral theory. You sound like you are spending all your time arguing with Hobbesian and Calvinist people.

Honestly, he doesn't sound like that bad of a guy. Most people are statists because they don't know any other way.

Just give them air-popped popcorn, ya cheapskates. I think she's gonna get the TP-Egg surprise. And also, Halloween is tomorrow. How is she giving out these letters already unless she just called the news to get her 5 minutes of fame?

Something else to consider is how much do nukes cost? What level of coercion, organization, and taxation are required for one to exist? How about the means to deliver them from a distance that will also not destroy one's own friends and holdings? What keeps nukes from deployment in today's statist wars? Are nukes currently available in today's black market? Does the cost of them keep them out the hands of all but those but the states with the best tax-farms? Does cost of a nuke, the security to protect it from theft, and it's delivery system make it unlikely that they will ever be widespread in a stateless future? Is the possibility of nuclear devises in a stateless future a deterrent to a stateless future?

That was a disgusting video. It sounded like she was getting beat up for eating carrots. WTF? Who beats a kid for eating their vegetables? I can't help it when I see that but to remember my own traumas. Being held down to the floor by your head, interrogated and hit. If the kid was lying it was only to avoid a beating that she got anyway. What is that kid being taught?

I wouldn't doubt that ubisoft IS full of anarchists.

First of all, we need a definition of "violence". I would exclude from the definition of "violence" the actions of defense of territory against aggressive interlopers or invaders of property and also hunting behaviors. Second, Bonobos are a species of ape that are not violent except in the sense above. They, chimps, and humans share over 90% of genetics in common. Could we not claim a non-violent heritage as easily as a violent one? Third, having capacity for violence is not the same as violence being "natural". And finally, if a child is born without a moral ethic, then can one assume that this supposition supports an ethic towards violence, an adversion to violence, or an ambivilance to violence? As the oldest brother of six children and the father of two, I have some experience with the "natural violence" of a small child who hits. As an experiment, the next time a child strikes you try the following: fall down on the floor and wail as if you had had your pelvis shattered by her blow. If you are unable to muster real tears and a realistic visage of pain, cover your face to conceal your lack of acting ability as you scream and moan in pain. Refuse to face him/her, but instead shift your posture away submissively. My experience is that one will be able to observe that the child's reaction to pain is one of instant sympathy and concern, as well as regret, for causing pain. I believe this experiment will confirm that children may have the capacity for violence, but not the natural inclination towards it and that children learn their morals from experience and the reaction of others. Also, it may confim my suspicion f that acts of violence on the part of the child may have been encouraged by adults ignoring or laughing at it thereby enforcing violence as acceptable, or to use your terminology, "natural".

"Facts are largely dependent on which country you live in." "If you don'y love it (enthusiastically gobble the shaft of..) then leave it." "If people want to buy China's exports then maybe they should move to China and buy the exports there." (Duuurrrrr. Those wouldn't be exports) "American workers deserve more pay because they enjoy a higher standard of living" "The best way to improve the lives of workers in China is to make them close the 'sweatshops'."

I get put off by arguements about "human nature". People are molded to such an extent by how they were raised, cultures/states and religions they were indoctrinated in, and past experiences both positive and negative that what emotional and mental state is actually "natural" to humans is unknowable in my opinion. What is knowable, or factual, about human nature is that we are organic, need food/air/water/shelter to survive etc. Beyond that, Im not sure there is a "human nature", at least not one we can scientfically discern. Humans act in two ways: one way is to please themselves and the other is to please those around them. What "norms" will prevail, and possibly be percieved as "human nature" will be those humans observe please those around them. Much normal behavior is learned through the reaction of other to a given action. If one was raised Pawnee and thus seizing several slaves and horses as well as burning a village was met by smiles and approval, even adulation, by their people one would decide that this approval reinforced the ethical belief that slavery, theft, murder, and arson were "human nature". Are they? The converse is also resonably true for reinforcement of positive behavior that doesn't violate NAP. Humans have the ability to reason and thus determine axioms and truth. It is therefore possible to combine reason and truth with positive behavior to determine that humanity can abandon murder/theft/etc.

Logical and succinct.

I've heard it said that the perfect age for a lady is half his age plus ten. So using that, a 34 year old lady isn't beyond reproductive prime at all. I'm not sure how adoption agencies view single parent adoption these days, either. Something to look into if your serious. I know my parents spent a lot of time being interviewed, finances looked into, we biological children were poked and prodded by nuns, state agencies, etc to find out if we were healthy and that sort of thing. American agencies rejected my folks because of financial reasons, how many children they already had, and what other reason I'm not sure of. India was not nearly so "picky" and one could almost call it a transaction: cash, vitamins, supplies, etc. offered to the orphanage. My parents went there to Calcutta and stayed for awhile and got to know the family that ran it. Obviously it was very, very poor there and they really just wanted the children to find families. A good stepping stone is foster care, but this often involves children who are truamatized by crappy parents, kidnappings, abuse, etc. I think that system is pretty messed up, but it be a win-win for a child without a good parent and a someone wanting to take responsibility for a child's welfare.

I come from a large family (oldest of 6) and my youngest brother is adopted. He's a grown man now. One thing to consider with adoption is that you not only are completely in the dark regarding any possible genetic history with a child who you might adopt as well as any tramua that may have occured while he/she was a fetus or before they were given up. Some of the seeds of very bad problems were planted in the womb and the types of stress that occured from the birth parents, possible kidnapping by state thugs, etc. are the major risks. My brother, for instance, was and is today petrified of anything remotely snake-like. Even garden hoses used scare him if he came across them in the grass. I imagine what must have occured in this crib back in Calcutta to cause that life-long fear of snakes. In the process of trying to become adoptive parents, my own parents agreed to take foster children. Once there was an emergency situation involving three siblings who were removed by the state from a sexually abusive home in a remote Alaskan village. "Social workers" dropped them off at our house in the middle of the night. They stayed with my biological family for about a month- yep, you guessed it. They in turn sexually abused my own biological brother who was only 4 at the time. I am not against adoption in any way, let me be clear. It has many positive outcomes for both the children and adults who have experienced it. But concieving a child with love and raising him/her in peace from day one is the best.

Hobbes is the source for several anti-libertarian ideas still circulated among statists today. Social contract and the natural state of mankind being violence and chaos are two. Grab up some cliff notes for Leviathan to get the gist of it.

My daughter can get her ears pierced when she wants to but not when I want her to. It's not up to me to tell her what she can do with her ears. She's nine.

Too easy to come up with examples. If hitting your kids is off the table completely, you will always be negotiating. Just tonight, the "other half" asked our 6 year old could he get out of the tub (where playing with squirt guns indoors is allowed ... another negotiation result) so his sister could use it. "Not yet", he says. "Ok, we are going to have dessert in two minutes". 1.75 minutes later.... kid at table in his PJs, hair a little wet but did it all on his own. No screaming, no crying, nothing. Raising kids with the NAP is funny sometimes: My son when he was 3 ran into the room where the adults were sitting and tattled, "Dad, she initiated violins against me!" lol Of course we then had to resolve the dispute by determining who's property was in question and even though this comes up from time to time between the siblings and not everyone is always happy with having to return the property, it works. Another time, I heard my daughter yell at her brother it was "Her room, her property, and her rules." He wasn't properly playing her dolls. I thought I'd better stick my head in the door and both of them were pretty upset with each other. I asked him if he wanted to play with me in the other room and when faced with having to play with the dolls alone, sister decided to make a generous concession to get him to stay. I, and I'm sure all of us parents here, could proudly go on for days on this.

I've wondered if humanity widely managed to stop supporting slaughter of one another if the statists would then build massive arsenals in the name of facing the "terror from space" that had never been seen or heard. Or if the statist regimes would blame violent acts of terror, even internal power struggles, on these unseen aliens. I'd call it more deist than atheist due to that "Great Bird of the Galaxy" stuff where all life was "seeded" by some Trek deity who then flew off and didn't interfere. But I can see why you'd say that with all those gods that turned out to be aliens or computers and stuff. However, there is that OS episode "Bread and Circuses" where all the slaves are "Sun" worshippers to which Uhura informs the bridge crew that it is the "Son".Even if technology advanced to the point portrayed in Trek, there would still be economics. Oxygen is free on Earth, but if we lived on Luna like in a Hienlin classic, oxygen might be transported and purchased at great cost. Even with all their tech, the Trek crew would have been bound by economic concerns if the show had been not been written by socialists. They were always zipping around looking for dilithium to power their ships (which was pretty scarce), latnum was prized and scarce, people bought drinks, grain, tribbles, etc... All that tech did was allow the plots to express highly collectivist values without explaining how all that other stuff happened.My point is that the writers often wished to express a vision of an "evolved" humanity and Earth: one that had evolved into a socialist dream without a need for money or goods where everyone is a happy drone who does their job for the good of everyone else. Everyone works together under the one big blue flag of a statist unified government. Even the "Prime Directive" is pretty odd- the idea that we would want to contact aliens without exchanging ideas and goods/tech and just hide in the bushes and watch. Trek does have the scope due to it's longevity as a series to examine some cool concepts though, like crime and punishment, cloning, and many others.I think that NASA is a done deal. The real push into space for humans will come from a desire to find resources and develop profitable inventions.

Be productive because it benefits you and your partners in life. Stay mad about getting robbed. But be productive.Many people are happy "getting by". I shop at thrift shops, heat with wood or coal, plant a garden, bring home the wild meat and fish, ie all kinds of things that could be considered "getting by". HOWEVER: I hate having other people telling me what to do. So working hard to get to a level where I work so that no one can tell me what to do also brought financial rewards. A fringe benefit of working hard/smart/efficient. Money can bring you more freedom than the other cattle. But stay mad about being robbed.Look at it this way: if millions of people on welfare and trillions dumped into militarism couldn't "bleed the beast" than how can little old you?I say I am better off making more money, investing it wisely, enjoying my vacation package, and having the money to attract a decent hard working mate who partnered with me to raise freedom-loving children.You want to hurt the bastards: raise kids who laugh at them.

I didn't become An-Cap because someone answered every question I had, but because I don't believe that evil (the initiation of force) is ever necessary or preferable to a win-win. Think about what evidence you yourself required to come to the truth and you will find that perhaps certain facts sparked your imagination. For me, the truth that initation of violence=evil and government=monoply on the initation of violence lead me to the conclusion that government=evil. Debating just how awful a Mad Max world without a government might be stimulating to the imagination, but not nearly as awful or stimulating as the reality of living in Washington DC .

I loved Star Trek when I was a kid. One thing I realize now is that it is (aside from a being a fun tv show) a preachy platform for soft-serve socialist Hollywood values. There is only one resource known that isn't "limited" at all: desire. One of the basis that Trek operates under is that replicator tech has made all human desire obsolete. If you want something, the replicator just builds it for you out of waste or carbon or whatever. This supposedly removes all desire from society by instantly providing all material goods one might want so that everyone acts for immaterial motiviations like pride, personal drive/ambition, ability, wanting to help others, etc. They have no "need" for money, food, shelter or anything else because all is provided by advanced tech. The show and it's writers try to then present alternate motivations for explaining why humans might go to space since trade is obsolete. Exploration and basic curiosity are supposed to explain it all. They are always zipping around outer space like they are the UN and delivering pious moralisms to far more advanced races. Every now and then a libertarian line or to slips out on TV, but for the most part Trek embodies capitalist societies like the Ferangi who run around the quadrant rubbing their hands together and who hail from a polluted planet where women are oppressed.

Thanks so much for the welcome!

Ok, I don't want to drag it all out since we just met. But basically, Im a married father and husband with two great kids. We live in south central Alaska on a small hobby farm. I work in disaster restoration and the lady of the house full times it with children and the animals. I used to be a minachist but I finally gave into the moral arguments. I had always seen "anarchy" as something one spray painted on cop cars. About a year ago at the urging of a young man from the internets I started reading the 'Bard, the Block, and watching AVTM and Freedomainradio vids on the Tube. So anyhow, looking forward to conversing with y'all.