aeonicentity

Just to play devil's advocate here: is it possible that this is litterally the first time this woman's hit her kid? I feel like we're making a judgement based solely off one incident which may (or may not) be indicative of this woman's life. That being said, I think we're ALL hypothesizing off of one incident. This begs an interesting question: Is violence acceptable to convince your child to stop doing an imminent, dangerous, violent behavior? A similar, less controversial example might be smacking a child's hand to prevent them from touching a hot stove (there is no time to explain the 1st law of thermodynamics when your toddler is reaching for the burner). In this case, is the mother simply utilizing violence to get her child to back down from a potentially more dangerous more violent situation which is imminent? And is that like the child and the burner an acceptable option in this case?

Donnadogsoth: I think the only kind of "slavery" you'd see in a free market would be voulntary indentured servitude as an option for repayment of debts, or invoulentary indentured servitude as a punishment for a crime as enforced by some kind of court system. Either way, Indentured servitude differs from slavery in several ways: 1) Indenture is for some term. Its defined through contract, and must expire at some point, usually when the debt is considered repaid through labor. 2) Indenture implies some level of care for the servant. If the servant dies while under contract, repayment is impossible. While chattle slavery death is meaningless because you were never going to release the slave in the first place. In either case, it is unnecessary to treat the servant poorly because their servitude is a voluntary decision reached in compromise for their poor behavior. That being said, I would not live in a voulentary community which supported Indentured servitude as a punitive or voluntary measure. It degrades the dignity of a human being as being solely responsible for their own poor decisions, and you don't fix those problems by selling yourself into bondage. I don't think that any honest objectivist, or even anyone who really believes in individual liberty would agree that indentured servitude is a good or moral relationship, since it generally teaches learned helplessness. Slavery, of the varriety ISIS is practicing, or that was practiced in anti-bellum America is entirely the product of a state run economic system. You cannot enforce slavery without the assistance of the state.

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/exclusive-isis-document-sets-prices-christian-yazidi-slaves/ My favorite argument against free markets: "We can't let the free market determine the price of X because X is so important to the economy!" Well, ISIS just declared X to be women. The real irony here is that if the free market had been allowed to rule here, ISIS might have even slowed or stopped selling slaves, since they glutted the market with a commodity that has no market outside of cookoostan. Obviously the Free Market is too dangerous to apply to the slave trade because it might end human suffering and oppression, so government regulation is needed. I think that its interesting to watch the rise of ISIS, because here we have a classic and unmasked version of how a state arises, and the real motivations behind state control.

I love how none of those solutions address the problem: They have subsidized water use for too long to farmers, and other special interests.

The only thing democracy needs to fail is to let idiots vote...

Is this your bookstore? Anyone who talks about Oppression in our modern era really wants to talk about one things: Money. Since we've long since done away with actual oppression, and the only thing that's left is people's perception that people owe them things, either because of the past, or because of their own choices, or because of the virtue that life isn't fair. Just remember that. Next time someone keeps talking about oppression, ask them how much money they're asking for to stop whinging about how unfair life is.

crazy radical anybody walks into my store I'd probably refuse to do business with them, since its already been established, they're crazy and radical. The gay thing is incidental to the fact that they want to sue you for not catering their wedding.

Plenty of people legitimately want to work for under $15 an hour. For example, kids under the age of 18 probably are willing to work really hard for a small amount of money since video games cost an order of magnitude less than renting an apartment. In fact, before minimum wage laws became ridiculous, those jobs usually were held by kids who were going to school and such. Now those jobs are being held by the kinds of people who should probably be doing some form of skilled labor, who are hiding in a BK because the economy is still bad. However, let me put some things in perspective for you: Low-skill IT workers can expect to be hired for about $12-15 an hour. That's a pretty normal wage for people who are interns in Computer Science, or who are talented kids who know more than your average bear. You're saying that people who've spent at least 2-3 years learning to code, or maintain computers are not needed or worth more than $15 an hour? Their jobs are extremely important, they usually maintain the equipment that runs businesses, and maintains transactions, sometimes for thousands of customers. Damn skippy those guys are important. But often don't get paid in excess of $15 an hour. Old retired folks probably would love to make a few dollars an hour doing some easy task that makes them feel useful, gives them excercize, but has NO BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. Young bucks trying to buy the latest video game system or some new toy, or their first car so they can go on dates would probably love to work at some easy job they can do in between school that lets them both work and have fun while they're young! Your opinion would foist on others the requirement to ad-hear to YOUR sense of moral superiority, and I reject it entirely.

http://www.knrs.com/articles/national-national-news-104668/woman-stole-unborn-now-dead-baby-13452933/ I'm speechless, there are no words.

Can i just point out here that chivallry or 'knightly behavior' has very few perscriptions for behavior towards women except "don't kill them", and most of its codes pertain towards not killing you fellow knights. It was an early convention to try to reign in mass violence in central europe. It is not very sexist, or mysoginstic unless you consider not killing women and children mysogny.

So, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719281/Couple-kept-two-girls-5-10-locked-filthy-trailer-littered-used-condoms-three-years-played-World-Warcraft.html If women get 3/5 of the responsibility for an identical crime, can we only give them 3/5 of a vote? Edit: Accidentally posted in the wrong forum, can you please move this to men's issues?

Please stop growing a Peter Joseph beard. Thank you, A faithful subscriber.

I just looked up "Radical Socialist" in the dictionary and the definition read: Cenk Uygur.All jokes asside, I would define radical socialist as "A socialist who holds views not often found among other socialists, which some socialists might consider extreeme. Cenk Uygur thinks Barak Obama is too conservative, sooo....

Specifically regarding your coworker: Shit happens. Would it do anyone any good if he was running around pulling his hair out and handing in his resignation to the boss because he blew up a transmission? No. Be careful not to mistake people not reacting the way you'd like them to or think they should with cognitive dissonance. Its possible those people who live next to the dam do so to save 20 min. on their commute, or to get the breath-taking view of the canyon. Its worth the risk to them. Cognative Dissonance can and should be more closely linked towards behaviors which are obviously bad and have no rational justification, such as a woman being loyal to the man who is a convicted child molester, or a person who says "I love you so much!" while beating his wife.

I didn't say Nixon was right in floating the dollar, but I am saying that the gold standard (or any other commodity based currency) MAY NOT BE the best idea moving forward, for all of the reasons I stated.