JSDev

it occurred to me that this probably won't have the affect they're going for. If they raise the barrier to exit, you only let the richer productive classes out of the country, leaving only the poor to foot the bill. Kind of an Atlas Shrugged thing playing out.

there goes the love it or leave it argument http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/

What's not known is whether or not that just because the feature will be mandatory for manufacturers to provide, consumers would be able to just turn that feature off. I'll have to read the law again to see if there any specific bullet points in that regard.

What do you mean you're not sure it's true? Anyway, the bill text is here http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962&search_keywords= This part of it is alarming: Here's the text of the mentioned section: (Section 7908) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/california-governor-signs-law-requiring-a-kill-switch-on-smartphones/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=technology&_r=0 I don't think we're getting any more rational as a society. Discouraging.

You've just restated the principle, verbatim. Stefan talks about that all the time. It's impossible for things like rape and murder to be universally preferable behavior, since the moment they are preferable they cease to be rape and murder. Therefore, not raping and not murdering are universally preferable.

So what you're saying is, the question should be what is the most effective means by which the law can more directly reflect the moral norms of society; that monopolistically created laws to a degree reflect those norms, but that as libertarians we should be arguing that private, market based laws are better at doing that? Sorry, I know that's putting a lot of words in your mouth, but it seems to be the point you're making. However, in the context of the conversation I was having, that would have been way too nuanced. He made a pretty direct assertion, for which I replied in kind.

I just had to share this. I was talking to a coworker, who is both a mormon and very liberal (odd combo). He's very inquisitive and really enjoys talking to me about my views on the state and god, so I give him a lot credit. Anyway a bit of the exchange went something like this: Me: the State only has a claim of authority over me because they are pointing a gun at me. Him: yeah but the people make the rules and we can change them any time therefore you at least can't say it's tyrannical. Me: ok, so the people approve of me going to jail for smoking pot (rhetorically speaking... I don't actually smoke pot) Him: well no, there isn't anybody who's actually for the war on drugs Me: what? wait, didn't you say we make the rules? So he conceded that point, but you could actually see him fighting off the cognitive dissonance.

After listening to Sam Seder debate a few libertarians I figured out his game. Sam Seder likes to pass himself off as a cold pragmatist who only looks at data and outcomes. This is the only tool he has in his debating toolbox and he has been very successful in this regard. Yet, if this really were true, that he only looks at data and outcomes, then you could say that he should also be for slavery. Look at what slavery provided to the economy and the well being of the slave owners and their families, as well as the well being of the slaves themselves. Surely, the data and the outcomes should persuade him, no? Of course not! But the reason he would deny this is because there is an a priori moral standard or bias by which he measures the data and outcomes against. Therefore, he doesn't start with the data but rather a moral standard or some other bias by which he can judge that some form of coercion is better than other forms of coercion. The data is secondary. But he will never admit this, at least not in the debates I've watched. If you notice, when he debates a libertarian and the conversation starts veering into moral principles, he'll keep hammering on about how he just looks at outcomes. He doesn't want to question principles, either because he has none and/or his biases will be exposed. And honestly arguing on outcomes alone is not a terribly hard argument to make and is a pretty safe place to be for a statist, so I don't blame him. I mean lots of great things can come from the massive amount of theft and resulting violence. Having data whether or not it's cherry picked really means nothing to him.

Just testing to see if I have permission to create a new topic

Thanks. I guess what I'm trying to convey is not that the this whole statist line of reasoning is invalid (because I think it is) but that I want to play devils advocate and show that even if it were true, that it takes both a willing master and a willing slave for it to even work. I want to point out their error in their attempt to equivocate the kind of slavery we have under the state and the kind they believe will exist in the free market. I'm pointing out that they are not the same which means they should prefer one over the other.

Often when I get into debates with people on voluntaryism, the response from the statist is that they agree with me in principle but that because of human nature , man will always attempt to subjugate other men. On a recent flight I was reading some Spooner and was inspired to write this response to this line of reasoning. I wanted to get your thoughts and possibly help me word it better: --------- If it is to be said that we can't have a voluntary society because man is inherently irrational and will always attempt to subjugate other men, that there will always be slaves and slave masters, let us accept that for the sake of discussion. If this is true and slaves will always by orders of magnitude out number their masters and can over power them when they choose, at will, then enslavement is only effective in so much as man thinks himself slave. Even in a condition of stateless servitude, the masters do not pretend to be anything other than what they actually are. It is only within the servitude of the state that the masters pretend to be the servants and subjects, the masters. Which do you prefer? ----------

It's infecting the IT community now.

In a recent call in show, Stef said that often, the anger we feel toward our children, is really misdirected anger meant for our parents, anger we weren't allowed to express as children. Something to think about.

This is really a discussion about what is and isn't public domain, in disguise. However, the photographer is right; the picture is his, by default.

Wikipedia Refuses to Delete Photo as Monkey Owns It http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html

Speaking candidly for myself as a parent, before listening to Stefan, I prided myself in being philosophical. I was educated and I eschewed the religion of my parents. I thought I made it through my painful childhood history. I was a man now. Now I know that was all bullshit. I was angry and bitter, sarcastic, critical, and just mean to my kids at times. On the whole, and to most people who know me, I'm pretty laid back, and I thought that was the kind of parent I was, but it's the mean stuff my kids will remember the most. I became kind of fatalistic and depressed thinking about what I did. I recall feeling really selfish during a conflict and hurting one of my kids feelings, and thinking, what about my feelings. It was easy to just disappear into my home office and just do work, or stay late at my day job, to avoid being around my kids who probably hated me. Even though deep down I didn't believe it, I excused my behavior because it was how I was raised, and it felt like I had no control over what the universe had determined for our lives, so why even bother. For the record, the last couple years of listening to Stefan, has changed the path for my life, irrevocably, and I work every day on having peaceful connected relationships with my kids. Not saying it's not without it's challenges and setbacks, but there's definitely a lot more joy in the house.

I just picked up nurture shock based on your recommendation. It suggested I would like another one called "How to Talk So Teens Will Listen and Listen So Teens Will Talk [Kindle Edition]" http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V1WW2O/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3645EL1CXIVU&coliid=I1UKT110258K57 For someone raised on yelling and criticism, and determined not to repeat, it's really educational.

for some reason I read that as facts about... spanking in spanish.

I left this comment:

This woman seems to have no capacity to see how much she projects her own failures onto society. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-kester-doyle-/rude-children-_b_5589057.html

As my nickname might imply, I'm a front end developer... mostly working on the engineering side (UI development, client-side javascript, nodejs, build processes, architecture/systems design, deployment operations)

If immortality were possible, I think naturally over time, people would stop having children. Also, concepts like "children are the future" don't make any sense. We are all the future. Further, there would be no moral progress as there would be no out with old and in with the new.

Your proposal is uncontroversial. I hate labels anyway.

I'm not interested in splitting hairs. Sorry.