regevdl

Thank you for sharing your difficult and clearly emotional experience. I am sorry that this indeed is what you experienced as it is confusing and manipulative on the heart and mind. I read your later comment that you found an outlet to turn this experience into a positive source, so that is wonderful to hear. I think the phrase of your experience is that girl "friend zoned" you. Meaning, you were fulfilling her emotional needs but she was attracted to what I can only assume was a more alpha male (if you think back to who this other guy was and his characteristics....does he fit the more alpha qualities?). Stefan has a lot of podcasts on this topic that may help these things 'click' in more. Gender wars, etc. quite fascinating stuff. By what you have shared, you have made the healthier decision by cutting yourself off. I can understand that it can feel the opposite as you might feel alone, even when surrounded by empty shells of people. misery loves company. Just as you are imprisoned by school, so are they and they are coping by taking the easier route of buddying up to each other...a survival strategy. you seem like a stronger minded person that can resist being friends with people just because of proximity and you can defer that gratification in order to wait for better quality connections... but nonetheless it's still challenging. Just a small suggestion to simmer over, minor but might help in the future... It might be helpful to refrain from giving people ultimatums. Do this, or else. It sort of gives the message that your leaving is a punishment to them rather than a reward for yourself, if that makes sense. That is not to say you cannot make your intentions clear and assertive. Something like, "I am removing myself from these destructive people. I like/respect/love you and wish you to join me....I cannot have those people in my life or in the lives of the people I care about....etc" it's just a cleaner form of communication and will eliminate possible problems in the future of 'buyer regret' meaning, if she acts out of panic and say she went with you, later, after she has thought about it, she might have regret her choice and then blame you for putting her in a 'tough decision'. I'm not saying that was your intention, but that is typically how those things play out in emotional relationships from my experience/observations. Allowing her to decide for herself with all the information and your honesty intentions will show you all you need to know about the decision she (or future people) make. In the end you saw clearly who she was and that's all that matters. Look, you are in a situation that is sort of 'is what it is'. doesn't sound like getting out of the school is an option etc. Even if private schools, indoctrination can exist. The good news is that.... you will get out of there....may take some years but you have this community. Most of us didn't even have internet when we were being indoctrinated and we found our way out! So I hope you can use that as ticket of hope and motivation and optimism. It's almost like living two lives. Just survive in your educational environment while in your free time, breath fresh air with us or other outlets of self-education, etc. It's probably the best and most you can do at this point. You will get out of the 'prison' and have more freedom to do your own unschooling etc. And not to bum you out but just to put some realistic goggles on...even after you get out. most adults are still in their indoctrination phases. So, again, at least you won't be under the expectations of an educational system and have more freedom of how and what to do with your time to re-educate yourself. You already have a head start than what most of us had, so look at the small 'victories' whenever possible.

Well. to a small credit they did mention it goes both ways. However all was fogged with these 'microaggressions' claims ....the ones they claim women feel. I cannot speak for the microaggressions towards men or how men experience them. I mean can't we sum this up in....ALL VERBAL ABUSE AGAINST ANYONE IS REALLY DOUCHEY (oopss...microaggression) DICKISH (oopsy...there I go again)....SHITTY (there we go!) BEHAVIOR. why the need to slice and dice it? I'm actually in the middle of listening to the podcast discussing the N word. I don't say it and don't understand why the black community use it, even if it 'friendly context'. and other people can do what they want and use it in their group...but I'm just not a fan of name calling or using those types of 'slang'. I had female friends who would 'affectionately or ironically call me a slut when they were upset with me or bitch. like Hey bitch...what's up. And I just sort of grew up and realized..... even if it's in a jovial context.... it's still verbal slander and gross to hear. I don't want to normalize hearing that word (as others, etc) If my husband or any guy says what I am wearing looks slutty...i will BELIEVE them. it's hard for a woman who has Hollywood as a cultural cue to objectively define what flatters her body and is tasteful without crossing over into slutsville. and woman can be so increcdibly catty.not all of them...but some. meaning, if you have a friend who sort of resents you (they envy your body/personality, etc) they will encourage you to do destructive behavior because 'girlfriends yo!~' If you are wearing something ugly or unflattering, they will be your 'bestie' and use your trust of them to convince you it's fine. And this isn't just about clothes....taste in men, etc. it's incredibly destructive. I've had 'friends' like that and took the garbage out more than 15 years ago and my friends now are GOLD and honest and really out for my best interest. They won't give you good wardrobe advice as a form of contempt. Women who say...that looks slutty when the 'shoe fits' ARE being a responsible friend. A man who does that is being a responsible male because men know what is tasteful and attractive and know what is slutty and they know other guys that know the difference and if it's indeed slutty, they know guys who are drawn to that. It doesn't make slut-seekers right but it's just a filter tool. I see too many woman who like to lure in those creeps and then get all flabbergasted that they have to fight so hard to get respect from men. It's like. you don't need to dress like a nun to be sexy and still attract quality men who aren't predatory. I agree that any human (male or female) that has an irrational negative reactions towards bodily functions is immature. I know women too who think their body functions are gross and 'unnatural'. I mean if they were proud of their natural womanly figures, bleaching (of unmentionable areas) and nips and tucks and removal and augmentations etc wouldn't be a lucritive industry. Women getting C-Sections so they don't 'tear up' their vajayjays. etc. refuse to breastfeed so they don't destroy their breasts, etc. An ex friend of mine was pregnant and her mother refused to be present because it' grossed her out'. I'm like....whaaaa??? Yes...you read that correctly. A woman who gave birth is grossed out by her daughter giving birth. I'll let you all guess what the daughter (who was giving birth) also thinks about the birth process.... hint. the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. OMG. I live in a freaking tiny ass village in Israel and I farm with my hubby. I drive the tractor and these old fashioned old timers' jaw drops on the floor. i"m hurling huge watermelons (actual fruit...not my body parts lol) and the Arabs can hardly focus on their job (as their women stick to more 'womenly jobs'). So when someone tells me 'for a woman..you do ....xyz well..." TAKE THE DAMN COMPLIMENT. It makes me even more proud as a woman. I mean isn't them recognizing that you can do as well or better than a man exactly what these freak-show femenists wanted all along? Admission that we are capable of achieving the same things?! And then when they hear men admitting that, with the intention of a compliment these bitches (I can say that because I'm a woman...see how that works? lol) ...can't even take the compliment! ARgh... <rant over>

I come from almost the same background. My hubby is Israeli Jew....more traditional, non religious. however I grew up in a strict Roman Catholic background. We raised our children in the US from birth for a few years and then moved to Israel. So it's been interesting in how to tackle these issue and there is NO handbook for it. lol We celebrate Christmas (my fellow Jewish villagers LOVE it). I do the lights and trees and the whole bit. I even have a Morrocan Jewish Santa! lol We do it as a tradition. I tell stories and remind them (as I do throughout their lives) about generocity, how to give but also how to receive (believe me...some people need to learn how to receive. Either they feel they don't deserve or they aren't appreciative enough) so it's a good celebration to sort of reward them of these moral teachings throughout the year. We do random acts of kindness a few times during the year, but mostly for the month of December. So I think it's all in the approach. Have fun, enjoy, it's ok to celebrate by turning it into whatever theme you want. My kids know the story of Jesus and I tell him I don't even know if he's real. Maybe he was a real guy but nonetheless, if a guy like that existed, we can repeat some of his philosophies that were really virtuous. And we go into specifics and examples. We have Santa. I don't say he's real. I don't say he's not real. I let them enjoy and have fun. WHEN my son (he's older) begins to question, I allow him and I answer him honestly. But instead of him asking, is santa real and I say no. I make it a critical thinking exercise. I ask him...do you have doubts? What do you observe that makes you think he's real/not real. etc. He knows the story of Santa's flying sleigh and so we talk about if that could be fantasy or if that could actually happen knowing the technology that exists, etc. I have found this approach fun, exciting and comforting because I don't want to lead my kids on AND be the bearer of disappointment, etc. that's heartbreaking. so this way, they find the truth out with my facilitation and in the end they are so proud of themselves and I of them. It's like a mental scavenger hunt for lack of better term. I don't want him to know /believe what is real or not based on me saying yes or no. I want him to feel comfortable making observations, asking questions, analyzing, etc and coming to the conclusion in such a way so he can have experience and practice as a child for when he becomes an adult because as an adult, the state will try to replace me in his mind and if the state tells him what is real or not, he will hopefully still question since that was familiar to him in a loving way and experience as a child.

don't common thieves take a risk too? Anyway, have you tried asking friends/family/community/Charity for that money? there are a lot of free market small/short term loan programs (even I've dontated to). they are called microloans or gofundme.com, etc. Have you considered these non-gvt options of obtaining the money you need? Ancaps should practice what they preach, would you agree? If we want to convince people that ethics will be the law of the land and generocity will help those in need so we don't need the gvt to take care of us, then you are giving off a mixed message. Have you considered this? It's cognitive dissonance by very definition and it's hard for people to compute when you say one thing but act another. Just a friendly ancap to ancap suggestion. Quick mental exercise: I am sure when Stefan and Michael left their well paid jobs they were in a bit of a financial pinch or uncertainty and also had bills to pay and legitimate things to pay for. Do you feel that they could be the icons of ancap'ism that they are today had they 'stolen back' their money? For me, this act seems more like a Libertarian move since Libertarians still validate the existence of gvt by wanting to be part of gvt and the political system which requires tax money to make even the 'more virtuous' changes they desire...which every political group feels they are doing the virtuous thing. If you are having challenges getting through to people about ancapism....sometimes (not always) it's how we present it, rather than them not willing to receive the information or concept. It takes a bit of humility to recognize and accept that. Furthermore, maybe your method of stealing back money IS perfect for the Libertarian group. pitch it to them and get feedback. I am sure it will be better received than convincing an-caps that it's the prudent thing to do for the long term objective. I am sure if you are implying that you are a kind, generous, helpful and compassionate person who is willing to take risks for the greater good, then surely you have people around you who care about and want to reciprocate your generocity towards them and patience in explaining the moral and ethical benefits of a society without gvt. If you don't have people like that in your life..... then maybe your efforts should be towards asking why that is rather than asking if you should take advantage of the welfare system (which was the title of your post). Or if you really are those wonderful things and the people around you don't appreciate it enough to support you in a time of need as you might have risked your security to help them, then it's time to get new friends/family/community who CAN appreciate those qualities and help when you need.

The part you are missing is that your stolen money and my stolen money is in a 'pool' of money, is that accurate to say? So if someone breaks into my bank account and steals my money and yours and a whole neighborhood and I find the safe they are keeping it in, then yes...by me going in and taking exactly what they stole from me...nothing more, is not stealing. However your approach has no plan or ledger, meaning, do you know exactly how much you need to get back. Have you at least calculated how much tax you have paid for things you have not given consent for? If you have then I have much respect because then, once you have received that total in welfare benefits, then you can stop. Like if you calculate you have paid $50,000 over your life in non consensual taxes and once you receive that back in welfare, then you can get off of welfare. If that's your plan...hey...good on ya. If you have not made these calculations, then you are likely to receive back more than you have paid in which.... you are stealing back my stolen money, indeed.

Living it first and foremost as others have pointed out. I am naturally a pragmatic person so that feels natural and easy to me to explain or convey anarcho-capitalist/free society ideas from a practical standpoint. But, occasionally I encounter those who are less pragmatic and need the 'feels' conversation so I touch on the moral principles or at least point out the immorality of existing structures. BEING consistent and a good representative of the idea is key. being as happy and successful or attempting to reach your success is the best example. I have encountered those who claim to be anarchist who are hurting the cause. They are miserable, condescending, resentful, angry, etc...this is not good. Until you have found your inner balance and goals and methods towards those goals, it's best to keep the discussion with potential newbies out of the air as you (not you directly) might be unintentionally giving a bad vibe/representation of the cause. That is part of the empathy. be empathetic to your audience, meaning, we have to understand that not everyone is open or will be open or will open up at the same pace that we did. We have to be a safe place for them to be honest when they are feeling resistant to the idea or principles, etc. This is where a lot of Libertarians and frankly anarcho-caps fail in my experience in witnessing them try to bring this idea to the table and in all honestly, I was guilty of this in the past. But I quickly learned to have more empathy when people resist and to give them a safe space for that resistance. In my experience (as I am still learning the hard lessons but have overcome a lot of faults in the process), I rarely use the term anarchism or other labels. I simple put the points out there, offer solutions and live by example. THEN, usually what happens is people ask me what religion I am or what political persuasion I am. From that point I get into labels and categories. They are less shocked in this way than if I just say it upfront. By refraining from labeling oneself upfront, it doesn't allow people to pigeon hole you and go on the defensive as they often do. After they have interacted with me, witnessed my consistency and witness my self-correction when I go off course or reaching out for feedback, etc, they might ask me. Then when they understand I am a political atheist/anarchist/voluntarist or whichever label I choose, they find it more comforting. Hey a happily married woman, mother, active in her community, sensitive, compassionate, smart, well spoken, hard working, etc....and anarchist comes off much better than putting the label out there before they get to know me. Many will tell me I should run for office and I tell them that is where good ideas go to die..that's a good icebreaker to introduce anarchy AFTER you have peaked their curiosity and obvious interest by them observing how you live for some time.

Have you tried giving people a peek at alternatives to paying taxes. Having discussions with them about how things will be paid for if taxes didn't exist? Not everyone gets it but when you take the time and patience to explain people common scenarios they think can only exist with and because of taxes and give realistic or already existing alternatives, their mind opens up a bit. it doesn't mean the gvt will come crashing down tomorrow but of course people can't comprehend world without gvt if you don't bother bringing it up. Stefan has a few discussions about this and it's fascinating. People don't realize how much is on the free market that works so much better than the gvt paid services. Private police (detroit), dispute resolution versus gvt courts, etc. I hope in the meantime that you are stealing your money back and grabbing other people's money in the process that you are at least sharing these ideas so people CAN begin to conceive a world w/out gvt. But now you have a conflict of interest and why I worry about these types of approaches to 'stickin' it to the gub'ment'.

Making an accurate statement isn't manipulation. Lying and falsifying to get something you want is manipulation. you are uncomfortable when there is a face on the other end of your actions, I get it. But these are your actions and you asked for people's perspective on a philosophical and mostly anarchist website. You want your stolen money back. ok. But what does that have to do with me or anyone else? you are stealing your money back and mine...so can I steal from you directly or from the state...how does this work exactly? Well, it looks like you have it all figured out, so I'm not sure why you posed the question in the first place. you seem perfectly content with your actions and it appears prefer to brag that you beat us to the punch and we are the suckers. I won't send you the bill. If anyone asks nicely I am happy to contribute, even more than the petty change you get from me at no risk of jail and guns and stuff but seems like you don't need it as you appear to be living large.

Wait. We are under no moral obligation to anyone except our spouse and kids? How in the world did I even get my spouse? before we were married he was just 'someone'. So if at that time, I was under no moral obligation to him and he to me, then we could have lied, cheated, stolen, murdered? If we engaged in such behavior and STILL got married....boy would that have been a mistake for the both of us!! That doesn't seem very consistent and enlightens me why there are so many bad relationships out there if this is what people believe. He became my spouse (and I his) because we discussed past relationships and even discussed how they ended and we acted as if we were morally obligated to each other as...human beings. we didn't know at that time we would be each other's spouse. if at anytime he (or anyone else I dated in my past) told me that they just 'left' a romantic relationship or a friendship w/out notice, I would have stated that was a deal breaker for me and left THAT person with notice and explanation. They can use my explanation to help them in the future or they can ignore it. not my problem at that point but I would be honest and tell them why I do not want to continue further. Does marriage have some sort of 'event horizon' that magically makes people MORE moral and caring to one another after the wedding? Am I not obligated to be moral to the cashier so I can steal from her register? am I not morally obligated to my neighbor as to not murder her? am I not morally obligated to my child's friend so I can hit them? You assumed I mean by 'talking' to them that means continue fake conversations and fake interest in the other person. that is not what I was saying. I was pointing out that if one person has a grievance in the re;ationship, that they SHOULD communicate it before bailing. They should Talk about that, not about mindless b.s. just to 'be polite'. of course not. This person did not claim that the relationship was violent or life threatening which would be a reason to leave without notice. But if they shared intimate time together and shared personal experiences, etc then they deserve the final conversation of why the person who wants to leave is unhappy or no longer interested. .. State the case and intention of leaving and leave. From that point they have no obligation to further communicate with the other person. such as, "friend/lover/other, our relationship has gone dull. I am unhappy and really see no point or interest in continuing it. I don't want to work on it. I don't want to hear what you have to say and I simply want to go about my life without you and you do the same." there. that's it. That's all it takes to end a relationship with dignity and civility. Just because a relationship has run its course doesn't mean we need to intentionally hurt the other person or make them confused or worry. I don't think it's immoral to leave w/out notice but I think it's incredibly self righteous and douchey and will only set them up for failed and miserable relationships in the future for the sake of 'saving' them a bad or crumbling relationship in the present. They walk with the attitdue that they are taking out the garbage in their life but it's like taking out the garbage without a bag...it's gets messy all the way to the dump and leaves a slimy trail behind them. finished with the relationship? no problem. bag it up and walk away...don't just walk away. Yes. relationships hit roadblocks. sometimes it's worth it to bail (properly) and sometimes it's worth investing repair. They always deserve communication of the intention. And anyone who supports this theory of disappearing without notice or practices this won't suddenly change because they are married, or worse...they will get married and be living a lie through their unhappiness because they refuse to be honest from the get-go . Have I had previous relationships that have gone dull by my fault or by the other's fault or by both? absolutely. I still can't imagine not telling the person or having the other person simply walk away without informing me of their discomfort. We are not mind readers. yes. I know. even when we are super intimate with someone, from time to time we can still miss the queues of dissatisfaction or simply think it's related to another cause (work, family, money) etc. It's a bit narcissitic because the person abandoning is in the mindset that the other person 'must know' or 'get the clue' which means they assume that the other person is thinking about them 24/7 about all the possibilities and circumstances and assuming fault or responsibility on it all, etc. And the person leaving is really doing a disservice to themselves and society because believe it or not. if say, she did something abhorrant to cause this person to leave, then why not tell her so she can improve rather than inflict that again on someone else. So they think they are leaving a bad person/relationship but are unwilling to call out whatever it was that caused the relationship to be bad, which will cause the pattern to repeat towards another person. But if this is the accepted 'lack of moral obligation to others' as you stated the 'ehhh...not my spouse or kid...so what do I care?" syndrome, then that means, everyone in society or most behave with that mentality and the next person he/she meets may have a quirk that no one called them out on and the person can bail again and never figure out why they cannot find quality people to not bail on.

The state has no money. Repeat after me. The state has no money. The state can only give what it firsts takes. So you have no moral obligation to the state, correct, because it doesn't exist, it's not a person or human, it's a concept. We have no more moral obligation to the state as we do to a forest. ...but the money the state is giving you is mine, my children's, all the people on this thread and their families, etc and you do have a moral obligation to us. We are paying you, not the state. The state is simply a conduit to get my money to you so by 'cheating them' means nothing. They always get their cut...it's guaranteed. It might be emotionally more comfortable for you to think you are cheating an imaginary entity that has no wealth in order to serve your self interests but the reality is you are cheating the people also enslaved by the system. It's a slave attacking another slave thinking they are hurting the master. Please stop calling people sheep. They are victimized by the system as much as you. Some are in denial, some are aware and some are inbetween but putting yourself somehow higher than they doesn't help your case, especially when you lack the compassion of your and their circumstance AND to add insult to injury you are lying to get their money AND calling them names. Your actions and honest admissions reveal how broken the state is and how you are knowingly stealing from us and the state isn't aware and just like a cheating partner, if they do it to me, they'll do it to you, the state will cheat you on the backend somehow/way. Cheating the 'state' means nothing because you are forgetting to put the faces of the individual tax payers in the equation. You are just making it more expensive for yourself in the long run and for everyone else. They are printing money for you and anyone else who either A. legitimately needs welfare. B. committing fraud to receive welfare C. are lazy and on welfare. So now you are cashing in but you will become accustomed to the subsidized secret income and what's your exit strategy? We all know that very few get off of welfare, even those with jobs. BTW, no one happily pays their taxes. They pay their taxes like they pay the mafia. To keep them off their back so they can live a somewhat productive and peaceful life to be out of the cage enough to wake people up. Prentending to be happy supporting the system is a coping mechanism of a slave. good points but...metaphorical guns? so if/when he gets caught there will be men with metaphorical guns arriving to his home/work? The guns don't appear so long as you comply. And laws aren't necessarily created out of morality. taxes are not moral, they are theft and theft is immoral. Even if one thinks they are, they don't stand the test of moral arguments. So by not paying doesn't make one immoral, regardless of how many people believe it and regardless of how many metaphoral and actual guns are pointed. If that were the case then that is to say Hitler was moral because almost everyone complied and there were a lot of guns pointed at people who went against the 'laws'...but we clearly understand even laws can be immoral and enforced with guns. I get that people can choose to be moral or immoral but that's not really clarifying what is moral/immoral. Just because someone behaves 'correclty' when a gun is pointed at them doesn't make them moral either. Their behavior is not genuine. If there were no enforced consequence then they have no choice but to take responsibility. Do you think this guy will now take responsibility? He is trying to justify it 'morally' because he doesn't have a clear definition or understanding of morality. If the state wasn't trying to be the 'moral' enforcers without clear definitions of what morality is, then, this guy would be left to either a. ask for my financial help or b. steal it. if he steals it, as he is doing now but in a very indirect way, then there will be consequenses...from me and anyone he stole from. Not the contracted (loose term) state.

I would first suggest to you to apply this scenario in first person, meaning...put you in the position of person A and instead of horse, it's your car and tell me if you would NOT try to go after C to get your property back or you would roll over and think he was a brave, noble individual. Second, if you feel C is virtuous or noble then you do not believe in theft at all as you WANT this person to steal property and if you WANT them to steal property (and universalize that point) then it's no longer theft....rather an exchange of property which means your principle is applied to everyone abouty everything. Welfare is money but you cannot single out one type of property to shoehorn your inconsistent principle. It must apply to all property and to everyone. So if you think that by stealing my money and it gets into someone's hands and then to another's then that is one form of theft. If you agree with that then it must apply to your car, your personal bank account, my house, your family's land, my neighbor's bank account, my mother's jewelry, etc. otherwise it's not a principle, nor it is virtuous. But most people have no problem with gvt stealing the property of money but won't accept any individual or the gvt stealing the property of the home. If you don't pay your taxes, you will have no problem if the gvt came and kicked you out of your house, would you? Afterall they will transfer it to someone needy, right? No, that's why IRS come with guns because even the most hard core statists don't want their tangible property stolen from them. It would ONLY be virtuous if C returned the horse to the initial owner and none of this 'well...it would be better if...but if he didn't he still.." those are loophole excuses that get everything foggy and everyone justifying their douchey behavior and why crime exists in the first place because the 'good guys' subsidize bad behavior with murky, fogged out jusitifications and somehow they think by 'acknowledging' how the behavior could have been better, makes it ok. No. just do the BETTER behavior. C in no way knew that the property he/she was stealing was stolen property. So either way, C was acting in his/her own self interest, not the interest of A. It's re-stealing the property of A, nothing more, nothing less. The property does not magically now become C's. It's still A's property. If I steal your car and someone steals it from me, will you, the owner be cheering and waving a noble flag to the 2nd thief? I mean you have to keep your principles consistent so, my gut tells me you will not. you would still want your car back and if another person steals it, you would probably be in MORE panic because it's that much harder to track when it switches through many hands of faceless thieves.

I have to disagree here and that is a contradictory statement. Talking honestly about WHY you don't want to continue the relationship (friendship, romantic, business) is honesty and respectful. Simply dropping off ESPECIALLY after you have poured your deep inner thoughts and emotions is like emotional theft. The person deserves to be responded to, for closure but to respectfully end the relationship if that is desired. Maybe the person really is busy. Maybe a tragedy occurred. By not responding is passive aggressive as it leaves the other, who obviously cares about that person, in the dark and subject to worry and dis-ease. Let's universalize. We would expect a boss to give a reason or communicate with an employee if they are fired correct? We would not accept a boss simply not responding to the employee until the employee figures out that 'silence is the communication'. If a spouse wants to end the relationship, we would expect them to be open and honest about their grievances, correct? Or would we accept that their silence "will speak for itself". It's perfectly fine if the other person no longer wants to continue the relationship but to honor the relationship and the value that both parties gained from the time the relationship existed, the best, honorable thing to do is be honest about the absence. If a tragedy occurred, it may take time for that person to come around. But, if a tragedy occurred and you were not contacted then it shows you are not part of the inner circle of that person. In the end, it is best to move on from these people and not badger them, but what they are doing is not kind or respectful in anyway. If you don't mind I will share a short personal experience on this issue. In my village, there is one family that everyone despises with good reason. In our village, you have to be accepted and voted in as a member. YOu have a 1 year trial period. Non members are welcome here but nee to be vetted since we are a small/remote/private community, we don't want loonies. One family found a loophole and they are losers, violent, abusers and racists. TRIFECTA of human garbage. Since we are a community of kind people, we all tried to give them a chance. One by one, people slowly disconnected from them....silently. I, on the other hand, when I had my fill of being 'tolerant' to their disgusting behavior and after I tried slowly extracating myself from their perimeter, I confronted them to let them know WHY I will no longer be in communication with them nor will my children. Oddly they claimed they were in shock and never heard anyone else complain about this. And...from their experience, they are right! No one ever told them or complained to them and everyone around assumed 'well...once they see that no one talks to them, they will get the point'. but they don't. Maybe because they really don't see it or are in denial, maybe they are stupid or maybe they want to play victim. They chose the last. So, now, they have imagination and lack of evidence to their advantage. So, they go around and say how snobby everyone is for excluding them for no reason. I tried to encourage other memebers to be more honest and give them a REASON for being rejected and ostracized. People can't/won't change if they are unaware of how others are experiecing them. even this change is not a guarantee but at least they won't be left confused or make of self-defense stories that make everyone else look bad. I had a friend who we shared EVERY deep emotion and thought for more than 10 years. I moved overseas and we still continued our conversations. Even in the U.S. we didn't speak everyday but at least a few times a month. That was a comfortable 'pace' even while I am overseas. Then, suddenly she never responded. By that I mean, I would wait weeks since our contact wasn't daily. Then after 2 months, then 3.... It was strange because she would usually update me if something was going on even a simple, "I am going through something heavy and need to disappear....so give me space"... she used to be that honest. Finally, after 6 months of being worried, confused and hurt, I decided to leave it alone. I tried and if she valued our DECADE long friendship of the deepest level and can't even continue being honest to say...I don't want to continue then the friendship is already dead. So....honest direct and clear communication will only move things forward. mysteriously slinking away is gross and manipulative because again, if you have had a deep connection with the person, then clearly the person would care or worry if they are unable to reach you and to not have empathy for the person you are putting through unnecessary worry is cruel just because people think "my silence will speak for itself". You know what else speaks for itself? Words. Words speak for themselves.

I'm a bit troubled by using the word 'persuade'. I can only speak for myself but I arrived here (and still evolving) by nuggets that woke me up when I least expected it. It seems that the more someone was trying to 'persuade' me, the more I resisted....say...my religious upbringing. My husband sounds like your wife, only in terms of doesn't actively or even passively seek out emotional or intellectual ideas. Much of his perspective is naturally inline with mine but I had to work really damn hard to get here and he just seemed to have evolved by a lot of trial and error and a natural ability to swim against the current. So my humble suggestion is to first stop trying to pursuade because then it becomes a 'pet project' and that's not fair to your wife. I am SURE that is NOT your intention but try to consider possibilities of how she might be experiencing your attempts. She might be internalizing it as if you are trying to change her (and you sort of are), even if for the better....change needs to come within. My husband hit several unpleasant roadblocks and unfortunately when those occurred, I pushed the gas peddle and try to force-feed him with my 'enlightenment' even harder. It was a losing battle and a very, VERY destructive one. We've been married 13 years and this occurred in the last 2 years (when I first became introduced to FDR and anarchy, etc). So, after we survived our marital battle, I realized I was being the WRONG advertisement for the cause. I try to experience me as HE experienced me and it was not good. I was so embarrassed by my behavior. It didn't mean that makes him 100% right. It just means, you have to remember to be humble and let people find their truth on their time. AND AND AND be the BEST example. I found in this last year, which has been the BEST and continues to improve between me and my hubby. I found that simply but NOT talking about specifics and simply behaving in the best way in all aspects of my life and not constantly have to point out "hey...look! This is moral and ethical! that's philosphy'....really helped. I literally didn't say things like that but I did have the tendancy to attach 'anarchy' or 'philosophy' to particular situations and that got annoying, even for me. So, I stopped doin ghtat and continued to live in the words I was preaching. If certain topics came up (like news or current events) we would discuss and I would put my anarchist viewpoint on it without labeling it. I see slowly and slowly my hubbying agreeing with me and the best part..after about a year...he would put an 'anarchist' view before I would! I doubt a day will come that he would ever openly 'come out' as an anarchist....who knows and it honestly doesn't matter to me. it's more important that he is evolving and adjusting his behavior in the world accordingly. I hope that helps. Stop trying to control it, stop talking about it and just live. live in the shoes, continue to be curious about her and her beliefs even if you are still in disagreence. I think if she sees you first trying to sort this stuff out with yourself and sharing your experience rather than using it to 'convert' her, it will earn you respect point and have a more liklihood of inspiriing. But since your marriage is so new AND your introduction to this stuff if fairly new....it's a bit of a large pill to swallow and it's vital to be compassionate of her experience of that. As you internalize a lot of your new perspective, simply share. 'hey honey, I used to think xyz about the state/religion/etc but I heard this compelling argument that stated XYZ and it's really got me thinking." something along those lines. It's not demanding that she reflects on the issue. you are sharing as a partner a process you are going through and she has no obligation to change in the moment. I live in Israel and I remember me droning on about stateless societies and how that would look for Israelis and Palestinians and bla bla bla and my hubby was just driving in silence 'listening'. I went ON for EVER. looking back I am totally annoyed with myself! lol But now, more than a year later, we were driving again and I was asking questions about the Beduin villages we pass (they are makeshift villages by nomadic arabs). I inquire a LOT...constantly asking questions and getting his perspective on things. Anyway, I simply stated. You know....if Israel wasn't founded by Communists/Socialists these nomadic villages wouldn't be an issue. He was intrigued. I simply stated, that the new state gvt took ownership of the land and made communes (kibbutz) and other villages but people weren't free to own their own land and if they HAD been allowed, the wealthy could simply buy huge patches of land and develop them. If the land was purchased but unused or portions were unused/claimed while developments were created, then they could sell/rent the land to the beduins (rent is better since they move away every so often) or they could kick them off the private land, or choose to buy their own land to develop with other beduins, etc. That was it. I didn't get into the moral implications against the occupation or treatment of arabs or non jews in Israel...etc. I just simply made a 'property right' argument and he finally engaged with me and was actually internalizing what I stated. It's too late to change anything now but it got him thinking about other things. It was a 5 minute conversation that ACTUALLY moved the needled a bit considering I spend HOURS droning on before, choosing the topic or getting into an outright fight! So.... bite-size pieces after you have already become interested in your partner and choosing a topic that is already on both of your minds. If you didn't arrive in your current state by one person constantly talking or arguing about it, then you have to give her the same courtesy. You have your whole life ahead, these things take time and patience. Show her that. you seem new to this so you first must walk in these shoes a while before you can inspire others. And to each his own but Adam Kokesh may promote anarchy and such but he is a provocateur in my humble opinion. He projects out rather than changing from within so it makes sense as to why your approach maybe not be working with your wife as you seem to be doing the same thing (knowingly or unknowingly). I used to listen to him but after about 3 months, I couldn't take it anymore. I outgrew it I think and his version of 'practical' is quite provoking and abrasive and shows his lack of understanding of human behavior. It came off very childish to me. best of luck!

Well done! I also don't believe political action will eventually give us a stateless society. The only way that could occur if people were offered a vote of 'do you want gvt or not'. And that will never happen and honestly, it should NEVER happen so spontaneously and instantly. Just like voting or throwing massive hissy fits to take down the Confederate Flag doesn't instantly wipe away racism, nor should we believe instant destruction or mass spontaneous negation of the system will bring a moral society. Like going cold turkey. Sure...it works but sometimes without additional therapy, the junkie lacks the recognition of how he/she became a junkie in the first place. the society NEEDS to evolve to that consciousness and awareness in its own ebb and flow. This is the value I see in political parties such as Libertarian. I will say that then you have your hard-core Libertarians who think this is the best thing since slice bread and those who recognize the minarchists and anarchists. I like Tom Woods for this purpose. He, in my opinion will always be a Libertarian but he has interviewed Stefan and others who have moved beyond Libertarianism and don't see it as a threat, so he uses his base as a platform to further bring other viewpoints that the political platform won't accept or even acknowledge exists. However, I will say that since we are immersed in state-fullness, there is benefits to parties like the Libertarians and classical liberals that use the very political system they are trying to undermine. Many candidates in the past have used it as an educational tool. use the system to simply add a different viewpoint, even if it doesn't catches immediately or get 'elected' into the highest most prominent position. This shouldn't be the only way to spread the idea, of course, but it helps to have a multi pronged approach. I myself came from the left by American standards, mainly as a rebellion against my religious-conservative parents. drifted more towards libertarianism....simmered in that viewpoint for awhile but once I was challenged to reflect on inconsistancies in polices, I had no choice but to reflect on my own inconsistancies in which I drifted toward minarchism and eventually anarchism. The point of sharing my personal experience is that if we keep getting stuck int he political process, then rarely do we shift and drift or really challenge ourselves. However, we have to be realistic that most people have separation anxiety the moment you even suggest or mention anarchism. So there does need to be a 'transition' option for lack of a better term. Some people get stuck there as it's cozy and warm and fewer continue the self reflection work and iron out the inconsistent wrinkles in their principles. This is my biggest criticism of libertarians that they still have blind spots they keep on purpose or lack of self awareness which eventually becomes the Dunning-Kruger effect

That caught my eye too. I was thinking that term is extremely loose in this context.

I live in Israel and saw snippets about this situation via people's reaction on FB so I admit I really don't know anything other than a lion named Cecil is dead, killed by an American dentist. Reading this thread has actually sparked my interest since it's full of some tongue in cheek humor but mostly intelligence analysis of the situation. I will say during this time, an evil man who believed he was religious and dressed up as a religious Jew went on a stabbing rampage at the Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem 3 weeks after he was released from a 10 year prison sentence from.....committing the same act prior. :-/ Also the same week some evil teenagers who also believed they were religious and dressed as such burned down a home of a Palestinian family severely maiming the family and unfortunatly the infant died because of injuries of this crime. After that a Palestinian, not sure if dressed up like a religious person or not, was throwing hand made bombs at passing cars in Jerusalem injuring people. So while this was all going on, a woman I know was posting stuff about Cecil and I get really annoyed by that. I love animals and really think conservation (which sometimes includes controlled hunting) is important but this over-correction reaction about a dead animal while people in our vacinity, regardless of where you are in the world, are being killed, hunted and maimed is really starting to gross me out. but of course, the over-reporting of Cecil and apparently this man is clearly used as a convenient distraction from other important things like terrorism, revenge terrorism, and whatever the US gvt wants to distract its citizens from etc russoft, thanks for sharing that article and your experience. That is a very important aspect to have the cause/effect understanding. People always focus on the aftermath and think they can solve that when really it's just a symptom of a bigger problem that they realize they don't have the time or care for. Much easier to look like a caring, noble human being carrying pitchforks to a dentist's office than actually discuss the disparities in African government.

But wait a minute. If $70,000 was going to be everyone's salary, including his and now even he isn't earning that. Then how is that fair. you state that he is sacrificing the ability to extort others..... but where is the equality in that? How many jobs did his employees create to even offer $40,000 let alone $70,000? You mention that "if a capitalist were required to reinvest all of his profit...what would be the incentive"... exactly. It is silly and unrealistic to reinvest ALL profits back into the business and not take some to live on. but the moment he makes a profit, everyone yell exploiter! or...extorter...which doesn't mean what you think it means...you are using the word incorrectly. So just as employees are motivated by profit (turning their time/energy/skill into money for the least amount of work), he too is motivated by profit. I mean you admit that owners are motivated by profit yet oddly ignore that employees are also driven by profits. Earning the most for the least amount of work. It doesn't make them bad...it's just the reality. If they hated profits, they would be sitting at home. Even tribes in the middle of africa love profits. They plant seeds and try to do so the most effecient way (even if in a more primitive way compared to industrialized nations) andfor their work, they are rewarded with a proportionate amount of food. In that scenario the plants wouldn't take sympathy on the farmer and say....we will produce 30,000 more vegetables because we see you are struggling. lol I mean clearly that is impossible. if the farmer wants 30,000 more veggies, he needs to put in that amount of work, so he is re-investing his profit (seeds from earlier crops, rather than eating them) to create more output. If he undersells or overeats his output, then yes....his work won't produce enough but his lifestyle is adjustable. how much one seed can produce is not. that is the overall point. I am going out on a limb here and guess you have never owned a business with employees. If that is not accurate, please let me know and I apologize for the assumption in advance. When owning a business with employees, before that business even gets to a point to hire anyone, it's typical to live in very poor conditions, sometimes working 2 jobs WHILE getting the business started. In order to earn seed money to even create my company with my husband, he and I worked 2 jobs each. I worked as a server in 2 restaurants. One was a shi^^y diner working shitty hours and the other was at a more upscale. Using your definitions on extorting and exploiting, I was then trying to exploit the customers to spending as much as possible while in the shortest amount of time (so I can turn tables over and have more profit opportunity). Are individuals not deserving to be compesated for that time they sacraficed to even CREATE jobs for people? I never understand why business owners are always bad. I mean in the very least. Can one socialist at LEAST give the tiniest of credit that they created jobs that didn't exist? They created an opportunity to someone who was earning $0 to now earning more than $0? Even if that new income is still low...it's ABOVE $0. if there is room to improve, great but admit that more than $0 is better than $0. Also, non-salary earnings (benefits) MUST be taken into consideration. One of my employees had a terrible drinking problem. He tried to quit and couldn't afford help. he would spend his rent money on booze, etc and get evicted and then couldn't find housing because of his bad history. So, we made a deal. We lowered his salary BUT put a downpayment on housing and paid his rent. If you calculate the cost of downpayment and monthy rent and utilities plus his small weekly paycheck it came to the exact amount or slightly above what he was paid in his previous weekly payments. He could go and show people his new paycheck and call us evil capitalists and people would believe him from this sliver of evidence if he chose not to show or explalin that we also paid benefits that were customized to his needs. So when people don't take time to consider if benefits are attached to the 'low' salary, it really bothers me. My husband worked at a job in the same industry we were opening a business in....his boss was as crooked as they come so our 'fight' against crooked employers is to use them as a paycheck and seed money to create a more ethical business to compete and drive business AWAY from them. And it worked! So, after we had seed money to start the business, we still didn't earn a decent income for many years, however when we began hiring, of course we have to pay our employees ON TIME and IN FULL. We deferred our salary in order to pay them. This is how businesses work. Finally....when we finally started making a profit, we set our salary higher than our employees because if you calculate the hours we spend consistantly running the business each week, it works out. The employees trade immediate pay and comfort (weekends off, clock out at 5pm, etc) for lower pay. We trade harder work, longer hours, more stress FULL RESPONSIBILITY of lawsuits/customer complaints, employee complaints, etc) for higher pay. In the video, the woman said $40,000 was barely enough because Seattle is expensive. Ok. Does she own a car? she could downsize just as the owner....who...admit it...without him she wouldn't even have $40,000. He downsized to make his $70,000 make due...she is exempt from that? That's not very consistent. Does she live downtown or is there a less expensive neighborhood she could live in and commute? We know it's an expensive city but we don't know that she made the best economical lifestyle choices. But mathmatically a employees need to bring in more than they make in salary because their salary is an expense to keep the business up and running but there are other expenses, accounting costs, taxes, electricity/utilities, furniture, general overhead. Then if the business is part of any merit-organizaztions specific to their trade. BBB or the like. Don't underestimate the expenses to keep the business up and running. So yippie! they got a huge bonus and now they don't have money. was that worth it? Even if the owner liquidates ALL of his personal assets (again....that is one of the reasons I feel you have never had business owning experiences because a good business owner keeps their personal expenses separate from business. every competent accounting will tell you this. Anyway, even if he liquidates all of his assets and uses that to sustain the business and his salary promises.... you do realize it still won't sustain itself. He could be living on the streets eating cockroaches and giving up EVERY conceivable exploitive opportunity and it still won't work because he will run out of personal assets. So how many he has or not is moot because it's finite. The ONLY way they can sustain that is by the employees performing in such a way that brings in more than they earn. If they cannot, then their salary needs to be adjusted to their performance. And don't underestimate the microcosm of the macrocosm of this situation. You do realize that those who were already earning more than $70,000 because they offered more experience/higher education etc were actually pissed off by this offer. So even though they are the employees earning this salary, it's because they invested to make them more marketable and worthy of that salary and in one day someone just handed their co-workers the same amount. How hard will that make the guy work who was earning $70,000 he earned on his own merits? Probably not hard at all which then plays back into what I described...he stops bringing in more than he earns and it's not sustainable. This is a perfect illustration how people will always tend toward comfort in the here and now at the cost of self sacrafice. How? No one objected, no one took even 2 seconds to think it through. Only about me me me and not....we we we. because the WE is the company, their job security and the job security of their co-workers. Isn't that what socialism is about? the WE not me? But in their testimony...now I can start a family. Now I can buy a car, now I can buy a house. There was NO thought or comment of the microcosm of the working community. Not, wow, this is comfortable for me and my co workers which makes us want to work harder to bring more prosperity to all of us and maybe hire more employees so there are more people included in this prosperity rather than stuck at low paying jobs or on the street. none of that was discussed yet this is suppose to be an argument for socialist ideals? I only hear me, me me and then somehow the owner is selfish? lol he's the only one that downsized while the others upgraded. Aren't they all suppose to be equal? So they self sacraficed for the short term gain. They couldn't see down the road nor were willing to ask the challenging question....how will you pay for this boss? Is this sustainable? Because they gained an extra $30,000 for one month and now are earning $0 if he goes out of business for probably a good 6 months according to the average unemployment search. So.....sustainability IS a vital question. He can be as equal and socialists as he want. it's his business, I don't care but if I were the employee I would feel pretty stupid to be blinded by a one month $30,000 increase in trade for 6 months of no pay or pitiful unemployement checks to find another $40,000 job since that is the value of my skill.

In your example of him smacking your face out of excitement, consider this: He is not doing it intentionally. At that age they are still trying to control their bodies, so be patient. If he is happy and excitement and flails his body and occassionally causes pain to you or others, I would refrain from turning it into a 'negative' moment. Meaning...ouch...that hurts (sad face) etc. I reserve that suggestion ONLY when it's an isolated situation as you described. during feeding, etc. If he were to be playing on the floor, gets excited, runs over to you and smacks you out of his 'excitement' then of course, address it immediately and use your tactics to allow him to understand what you are experiencing (pain, etc). . It sounds counter-intuitive, I am aware but here is where I am coming from. you mentioned he is 1 years old. His experience of that situation is...I"m happy/excited and that hurts mommy. He is probably unaware of what his hand did during his excitement because his body is still not in his full control lol . Now, with that said, that doesn'tmean the issue should be ignored. In the heat of the moment, I would suggest gently preventing his hand from getting near your face. It's hard to explain in words without visual examples but while he's feeding, keep his hands occupied by 'massaging his hands or giving firm but gentle compressions so he 'feels' his own body (this is a GREAT exercise to improve proprioreception). If he still gets excited and flails, just put your hand out...palm down towards him and put your head back away out of his reach. Share his excitment with him with smiles but at the same time, keep his hands out of your facial vacinity. deflect. You don't need to say anything....after some tries, he will get the point. After he has calmed down (and is finished feeding), is a good time to discuss body control. "when you get excited you accidently hit mommy. That hurts sometimes. I know it's not on purpose but please be careful'. And then show him what you do when you get excited. Example: When mommy gets excited I.... (and then actually do something...) make it silly and fun and in a way that you exert action in your body in a way that a kid could mimic without hurting himself or others. Example: fist pumps or hand clapping (great to help him with coordination!!) or make fists and squeal....whatever. The overall point that after the moment has passed he is calm and not feeding, gives him an opportunity to listen and learn some safe examples to express his excitement. this works on many levels, physical development and body control and mental/emotional development as kids LOVE learning knew things. It's like handing them gold when you give them 'adult' advice. Many above mentioned that kids love to mimic and when you simply outright explain 'mommy does this when excited'...even if it's not what you do, but showing him kid-friendly alternatives. Hope that makes sense. lol! good luck!

I understand where your point is coming from and sometimes Stef and Michael have me rolling on the floor laughing. My caution to do a more 'concentrated comedy bit' is that.... the comedian in that scenario needs the laughs all the time...meaning...reality can't set in too deep. it's pun after pun in order to be successful. And if that is the approach, then you can't really touch too deep on these really important issues, which misses the opportunity. Just think if he DID. we all know it would be great. you get the token 'sidekick' Michael in there and it's a hit. But then you are attracting people who only want shallow temporary relief. It would be the next George Carlin for sure but as I mention later....that didn't cause any actionable change in people. People need to stop expecting a Clown show. I love laughing as much as the next guy but I also understood that sometimes I need to take life seriously and not always need full time entertainment to be interested in something. It HELPS but that's part of growing and maturing emotionally and intellectually. Comedy is good to break the ice and over exaggerate a situation in order to make a larger point but in a 'bit' then that's as deep as it goes. Sometimes I like the feeling at the end of a show when I am left with this looming 'OMG' feeling because it sparks me to think and act. If I left high on endorphines from laughter then I would be less likely to act or process the 'doom and gloom' aspects further because the comedy was my 'relief' which IS useful at times. That is a diversion from reality, which there is enough of and why Stef's show is so refreshing. I am sure you notice how most people either in online chats such as FB posts or in real conversation cannot sit through an explaination that is more than 15 seconds long. I mean I haven't seen MSM for YEARS but you know what I am talking about. They have a guest on and it's 1 sentence or cliche phrase banters back and forth and then that translates to the format of discussion in real life with people who are obsessed or only know this format. Even George Carlin....amazing speaking a LOT of truths and powerful statements through the art of comedy....did it cause anyone to actually act? No and I'm not blaming George Carlin as I am sure his comedy awakened some people's mind. So everyone has their part. You have some of the comedians who make people laugh and might get a few of their fans to go beyond that but what I also appreciate about FDR is they give PRACTICAL solutions to everyday. A comedian can't and doesn't do that. I know your suggestion was out of love and support but really think that it's actually sort of demeaning of a format of its own kind and that acheives so much bECAUSE it's entertaining but moreso REAL and DEEP. I say that with loving criticism to you. And I has SO much appreciation for Stef's show in sharing philosophy ANd the call in show where people can discuss openly and without time restrictions or constant interruptions....it's VERY rare in society and we must treasure that and create a HIGHER demand from other podcasters (Josh Tolly and Tom Woods comes close as far as patiently allowing his guests to speak uninterrupted, but overall their shows are commercial based and time-limited to 30 or 60 minutes. But better than the mainstream 'talk shows' for sure. So again, I would really caution and sort of label your suggestion as 'withdrawl' symptoms of the status quo of spreading ideas and information. Stand up is the status quo. It does have it's purpose, but no full on revolution started from stand-up. Reality needs to set in. I like that I chuckle or laugh out loud maybe once or twice during a 3 or 4 hour podcast because if it were any more, then it wouldn't be getting deep enough into these issues and that's where the real answers and solutions lie. on another cautionary note, Some comedians (John Stewart) in MSM are seen as gatekeepers. Meaning, they will mock important points in order to dismiss them and then when society shifts towards acceptance of those points, then he jovially embraces them for laughs. It's quite insulting yet because everyone laughs it takes society a really REALLY long time to pick up on it. You have to remove yourself from it, away from the laughs and the instant-endorphines from laughter to really see it and once you do, it's quite sickening.

For me, I guess I always have confusion when I see people use the word 'utopia' because it's a loose or subjective term, isn't it? You described a lot of technological labor replacements for humans and yes, those exists and are becoming more popular for sure. Is that really utopia? for me is sounds like a nightmare for the human existence. On one hand I have great respect for the inventors and creators of such machinery but it still needs to be kept in balance, so to call a total robotic takeover utopia, sounds...I can't think of the word but maybe, not accurate but again, we need to agree on what 'utopia' even means or how its defined or how it would manifest so all could see this 'utopia'. Because my version of utopia is not a full on robotic takeover. When we see how many jobs there are flipping burgers and thus the robots that come out of it....it actually makes me sad because that is how unbalanced the UNeducated and UNskilled workforce is compared to Educated and Skilled are in the society. So it's a bitter sweet 'celebration' of technology in my humble opinion.

My approach is this: 1. First, proactively address the predictable arguments from the statist. Example: The state is there to stop slavery/prevent XYZ horrible act of humanity, etc. ---- States made it legal for these atrocities to occur, so it's hard to argue historically that they prevented or stopped them. Even when states did 'stop' it, it was after the public had a moral repulsion against it and cried to the gvt. The gvt didn't suddenly have a moral epiphany. if that doesn't work then I try plan B which is explaining fthat first....ask them the courtesy to keep an OBJECTIVE mind during your explaination and they are welcome to return to their original convictions after you finish explaining. This sounds cheesy but I have been using this for years and it works well. It doesn't mean that by the end they instantly agree with me but it does help in putting their guard down. The thing statist LOVE to think they are is...open minded, until you challenge their viewpoints. So when I ask them to keep an open mind and be objective for 5 minutes.... they sort of have to...for their own vanity. lol that anarchists or the approach to statelessness is not to do it BEFORE people have had a full grasp of morality and universiality and consistency. People like to throw 'Somolia' as a stateless example but they became stateless before they went through the necessary and often times multi-generational steps of awakening philosophically and morally, etc. So anarachists are at least realistic in that they see far into the future that what they do now will resonate and carry on with others...like a wave that starts far in the middle of the ocean, eventually catches momentum and reaches the shore. With that said (if they are still willing to listen lol) Laws are simply unrealistic because it gives the illusion of spontenous order. Something that often the statist accuse Libertarians or anarchists of demanding. That's it's a naive approach to spontaneous order. When in fact, laws and voting is the naive belief that by putting in a new face, everything will be better. By signing a new law on a piece of paper, all will be well and if not, then you just do it again and again and again.... The fact that there are laws and punishment and people STILL break it shows no evidence that state-fullness even works. It's a false positive. Who knows maybe statelessness WON'T work, but often they use the existence of the state in which we have no choice in as if it IS there by choice. I remind people that solutions to MANY of the issues today are already in place and would still work the same in a stateless society. This usually catches their attention. Mediation (or Dispute resolution). Is often used between people who want to avoid the costly and unjust Justice system. This is from individuals to multi billion dollar corporations. Privatized police (look at detroit!), etc. There are MANY examples ...just do your research beforehand so you have them locked and loaded. Those who push for statelessness are prepared and accept that it may not and most likely will not occur in their lifetime but doesn't stop them from pushing for this goal (as many statists need their ' mark' to be seen in their generation...it's about vanity and 'legacy). ...btw....listen to Stef's RvsK reproduction series..it sort of touches on this and is FASCINATING! In our desire for a stateless society we work on peaceful parenting (and there are many linear logical and practical arguments on this that even the most resistant statist has to pause for thought). A few examples being that if we stop bribing kids and using punishment as a deterrant rather use moral arguments and universally preferable behavior, then there will be a wave of a generation that will find the 'rewards and punishments' of gvt repulsive and will find other ways to sustain in society and it will grow and it doesn't even take a majority in a population to make this drastic change. Even if gvt still exists, it will eventually reach a point where those who want to pay into it and reap the rewards will and can and those who don't won't and if there are so many, the gvt won't have enough resources to 'catch the tax slaves' just as many stopped slavery by simply stop catching the slaves...so on and so forth.

Thanks everyone. I will look into the suggestions and links you provided. I greatly appreciate it. I also like listening to Tom Woods for economic discussions but often he has minarchist or anarchist guests on (I think he and Stef did an episode together...I don't remember who hosted who) but nonetheless I remember Tom Woods' response to voting is "well, if I was in a concentration camp and we could vote to get out, I would say voting isn't so bad" (I am paraphrasing) but that never resonated with me and often outright irritated me as a weak argument coming from such an intelligent, well spoken man. If you extrapolate his analogy it's to then suggest the gvt will offer up a vote for 'do you vote for gvt or vote for no gvt'. which is sort of circular logic, no? If the majority already wants no government, then voting would be participating in a gvt they do not want! lol Anyway, I digress. Thanks again everyone!

Today I saw a meme which depicted a mass of people on the left with Tshirts that read 'I voted' and on the right a mass of people with blank Tshirts. The caption above the mass of people on the right "We didn't vote because it doesn't make a difference." Obviously the message portrayed is that had those on the right joined in the vote, it would have made the voting mass bigger/stronger, etc. the 2012 election was my last election that I voted in and after the results I made the conscious decision to no longer vote but I have always had trouble make the argument against voting in a concise way. Besides the obvious corruption in the voting system that many fail to WANT to see, I simply feel that why do I need to vote just because there are choices. I used to say that if there was anyone WORTH voting for, I would but until then, I won't participate. But this flies over people's head. I think I also can't wrap my own brain around the concept at times. lol My comment to the image I described was this: ...As much of a difference can be made if the non voters all joined to vote, voters can make a difference if they join the non voters. I mean just because their are a few choices every few years doesn't mean 'difference' is always for the better. For the sake of opening our minds for a minute. If no one voted.....what would happen? Would we no longer be able to make a difference in our world/country/community/day-to-day interactions? Of course we could. And if none of the candidates at any particular time are worthy of a vote. we should do it anyway...continue settling just because we want to 'make a difference'? I appreciate if anyone has good arguments that support not-voting to help me clear up my own fog. Thanks!

oh my. I am so sorry for their and your experience! First. Continue treating the children like human beings. bravo...keep that up! This isn't a tip, so I apologize for that but what I noticed about pain and children is that they tend to react to pain how they see their parents react to pain. Pain...to a degree is taught, in my observations. Not to say that a needle prick doesn't hurt, but certainly when my children witness me stub my toe or really hurt myself, I refrain from wailing and making a spectactle and I discuss...as best I can in the moment...what I am experiencing...or at least after I can breath normally. lol This is from a small paper cut to a stubbed toe, etc. Then I notice they tend to react the same way when the same happens to them. Sometimes they 'laugh it off' if it's not that serious. We never joke about injuries but once we see it's nothing serious, the laughing helps breathing and releases endorphines for pain. I'm not in the business you are in and even I have heard parents' theories on hyping up the pain so it won't seem that bad or downplaying it just to get them into the office and then.... The only thing I can think of is pamphlets or some 'required' reading before they come to their appointment. Something they are given or emailed when making appointment with tips that help children and the parent signs or electronically signs that they read it. If they exhibit any of the don'ts from the pamphlet (that they signed) in your work space, then they will be asked to reschedule or re-read/sign and return. This will all be told upfront to encourage them to actually READ it.... the 'recourse' of ....if you hit, threaten or scare your child, we will not do the proceedure and you will need to reschedule...for example. I don't know if there are any legal red tape against that and would require a lot more concern from more people in your line of work which sounds pretty apathetic group of individuals, I"m sorry to say. I just thought of this...to add to Carl's clever suggestion..... after they pinch their arm, offer they pinch yours! lol I mean I don't know how many kids you see in a day on average, so maybe that would be a tall order but if it's usually only a few, give them the ole' 'eye for an eye' treatment so they feel ' in control' or 'equal'. Best of luck and thanks so much for caring! It's refreshing to know there are empathetic health workers out there.

I've seen this movie. This particular scene is after a LOT of changes. I won't spoil but this movie is worth a watch, in my humble opinion. I watched it with my kids and it opened up a great opportunity for discussing emotions and actions on those emotions and overall attitude. Don't judge the movie by that 2min snippet, especially this particular scene. There is MUCH more to it. It is a VERY ...how to say.....serious movie done in a playful way. But it's not bubble gum and unicorns which... I sort of found it refreshing for Disney to create such a movie that isn't about princesses and lollipops and fairy tales. This was VERY practical and relevent to actual human experiences. I cried in this movie. It stirred up a lot of my family history and emotional bonding I lacked with my parents. And I have a more 'serious' sense of humor so if you are expecting slap stick humor, don't get your hopes up but there were a few clever puns and snickers and giggles...which again, I think it's ok too. It helps children become exposed to more 'intelligent' and less obvious humor rather than constant toilet humor. Regarding the stereotypical argument, I didn't read too much into it. I mean we are still in this mentality in our society so I felt it represented the current reality and how we get there with these emotional 'wars' we have with ourselves and it can all be healed when we have more self knowledge and honesty with ourselves. I think using some stereotypes is effective (so long as it's not overplayed) to show where we are and to get the view to 'relate' if they have similar experiences and then show them what 'can be'. If that make sense. Keep in mind I saw this movie in Hebrew which I am not incredibly fluent in, but good enough and I still got a lot of the messages. I am interested in seeing how it is in English! OH! And the title translated in Hebrew is "All in the Head" ...which I find more accurate than 'Upside Down'. Just wanted to share that if anyone has thoughts on how titles/dialogue in English/American films differ drastically than the same films overseas.