JasonL

That's a pretty silly question to ask someone in the FDR boards. Why would any liberty lover be scared of such things? The question shouldn't be "legalizing" such things but what right or reason is there for the government to be involved in it. I am terrified at Trudeau increasing government involvement in all aspects of daily life, further limits on firearms, increasing the welfare state, limits on speech etc... I have family still in Canada.

You misunderstand, I am in no way making a claim that he was anything beyond horrible or necessarily any different from the vast majority of politicians. What I am saying is that there is a large public perception of him having been a positive example and this perception of him lends unjust creditability to his son. The "just watch me" mentality of Trudeau needs to be exposed.

Maybe it is just me but I think that would be a very interesting topic as many from around the world still think of Trudeau when thinking of a Canadian PM. The road to ruin is traveled by many "leaders" from other nations and it'd be nice to have a quick video to point to when given the "Trudeau was awesome" line. His son being poised to further damage people in the north makes it pretty relevant.

Hey guys, I have no idea of the video and a quick search didn't get me a result but there was a video where Stef talked about orchard owners in England suing for pollution damages to their crop during early industrial revolution years and common law being overruled due to "common good" of the factory people outweighing the property rights of the farmers, Can anyone here point me to some details on that instance or maybe the episode number if it has any footnotes? Thanks!

There is all the difference in the world between initiation of force and defense. Who am I to decide when someone should or shouldn't say enough?

"maybe even shake a few lefties into giving FDR a fair listen" As much as I wish that were likely, I think it is probably that situation of defining terms before a debate. Lefties have a very different definition of "fair" than I and most here probably do.

Violence against me is a wonderfully simple argument. If we all used this instead of getting sucked into the cause and effect arguments for which there is always an "exception" things could change more quickly.

In the eyes of a cop the government owns you and has a right to tell you how to live your life. - Don't wear a seatbelt, well we'll fine you for that. But, it is only for your own good. - Decide to ingest something that government has decided is bad for you? We'll fine or imprison you. But, it is only for your own good. - Don't want to buy health insurance because you've calculated the risk vs. reward? We'll fine or imprison you. But, it is only for your own good. Some cops may honestly have good intentions but they're far from rational. A few actually go into action when there is an actual victim like the law is supposed to but most are nothing more than people with a bully attitude acting as the enforcer for the state who demands to have the role of a horrible parent that dictates how a child lives their life. Regardless of the argument, there is no crime if there is no victim and since the state doesn't really exist as an individual it has no individual rights or property and cannot be a victim. There are lots of ways to deal with liability and protection of individuals that don't require initiation of force. And if you claim a ticket isn't force, try not stopping for an officer and see how long they stay calm if (cue Cartman) you fail to respect their imagined authority.

This is nothing more than "if you're not for our programs, you hate the poor" nonsense that the left wing always spouts. You're not going to change an opinion formed without logic by using logical thought. The entire show is pushing a viewpoint for the audience that as most "news" is simply intended to reinforce their existing views. Without fail, all ethical and historical arguments fly in the face of the validity of their programs so it is natural to resort to "they hate the poor" mantra.

I've read similar things in the past. I think there is a lot of truth to the argument, The Gary Taubes notion that increased carbs also increases the desire for carbs seems true for me anyway.

Of course, socialism always drives good people out. I worked with a fellow in Russia on a project that had left in 2009 because of the nonsense. He was still tied somewhat as his mother was very old he was unable to take her out due to siblings that thought Chavez was a great guy. Of course, they were takers and he was one of the makers so he took his knowledge and left. Last time I heard from the guy he was starting a project in Kazakhstan and e-mailed to see if I might want to expatriate. Apparently taxes are quite low and there is a good expat community but I already fled Canada and moved to the US so while I will work nearly anywhere, I am not anxious to move again unless I can see real improvement. As much as I loathe the direction this nation is going, I don't see anything but other farms out there and having worked all over the world, I meet more liberty minded people here than anywhere else. Socialism doesn't work and we shouldn't have to point to obvious evidence but the statists market it well and play it perfectly. Most people are not thinkers, they are followers. Like the notion that getting in shape is easy to know what to do but difficult to do, our message isn't sold well.

I don't see this topic as being too different from any other in that everyone has their own justification for their choices. Speaking for myself, I was fortunate to have been raised by wonderful parents and am very close to my sister as well. As long as I can remember I was very independent and fortunately I grew up in an environment where I was allowed to ask questions without having the "because I said" statement given as justification for something as so many of my friends did. Nobody has it perfect but I couldn't really ask for a better immediate family and I don't know anyone who I'd trade families for so that should say a lot. I always assumed I would get married eventually and have kids. Once I reached my mid 30's that began to change as I have never been married and to be completely honest, I have thought about it once but never moved past the consider it stage. Many talk about the bad things that set up how you interact with others but I suspect seeing my mother and father have a good relationship has set a bar that means I won't have kids. It's not going to be easy anyway so I can't imagine having kids without that kind of relationship being there first. I have zero desire to be with someone who I don't really enjoy spending time with and have respect for. Now nearing 40, I just can't see it as a likely occurrence that I'll meet someone and have the time in the relationship to be sure about it enough to marry and then have kids. Sure, having kids at 45 is done but being 65 when your kid is in college isn't exactly easy either. Add in the fact that my work requires a lot of travel so a child would mean changing that to allow me to be close to home, the financial aspect, what friend/family support structure would we have close access to if raising a child? So many things to consider. When someone asks and I say I am not planning to have kids, there is usually shock and some people find it weird but I see how most people raise their kids and that is what I find weird. Why have kids if you're going to throw them in daycare and not spend time with them? Why have kids with someone you don't truly love and trust? There is pressure to conform without any examination of the variables. This chaos even enters the dating aspect since most women in my age range already have kids, are a serial dater or are in biological clock count down. Never married - check, educated - check, owns a home - check, earns a reasonable living - check and so on. While I have not completely ruled out the possibility, there isn't much probability. An additional factor is the unknown. My sister and brother in law have a daughter who is autistic so that is an extra challenge and they decided to stop at one because even with two good parents and my parents being close as extra support, when your 5 year old barely talks and while smart is considered non verbal, it isn't easy to communicate effectively. The number of children born autistic increases every year with 1 in 50 being the most recent stat. Speaking for me, I feel you're assuming too much in your initial statement. My opinion is that seeing it done well with two incredible parents and knowing some of the challenges makes me far less likely to rush into being a parent.

Hi Melissa, I am originally from eastern Canada and I work all over the world but I've been living here for 8 years now and I really like the area. The libertarian mindset of Nevada is changing in that like all states, the population heavy city of Vegas runs everything so we're feeling the effects of it being so heavily union infected and during the housing boom a lot of people sold their homes in CA and moved over the hill since they could buy here for much less and still be close to their beloved "progressive" state which resulted in clashes between new homeowners in the area and locals on things like shooting in the desert etc. to the point that "I don't care how it was done in California" bumper stickers became quite common. If you're on this board then you probably accept the concept that politics is nonsense but I just wanted to point out that it isn't the place with the brothels, no state income tax and mind your business attitude it was and political BS is being pushed more each day. For me the cons beyond proximity to CA are that I find summer too hot, the desert can play sinus havoc and I miss being in wooded areas. On the other hand, I've met quite a few people who moved from CA to get away from the crazy taxation and regulation. I like the high desert weather with not much snow making it past Tahoe while still having that winter oasis so close. If you're into skiing then the proximity of Tahoe is a huge plus with the obvious downside being 2/3 of it being CA. The area has a road course for motorcycle and car with multiple trackdays in Fernley about 1/2 hr east of Reno. Lots of off road motorcycle riding also. Because of the casino industry and Tahoe this small 1/2 million population area has more concerts and entertainment events than a lot of places far more populated so you get the benefit of both worlds. In terms of arms, that is one of the reasons I moved to Nevada since lots of desert gives some options for easy access to shooting. There are 3 clubs in the area with a Carson city club, Stillwater in Fallon (about an hour east of Reno or Carson City) and Western Nevada Pistol League at the Washoe range 1/2hr north of Reno. While I prefer the desert as we usually set up an EZup and make a day of it every couple of weekends, the club can be fun too and I try to get a couple of IDPA matches in during the year. The nice thing about the desert is we can set up and ring steel at long ranges. The Washoe range has 600 and 1000 yard ranges too but it is only on certain days. We have a couple of local remanufacturers for ammo (Jack Ross & Titan Arms) along with a few good local shops along with the sportsman's warehouse, Scheels and Cabela's retail chains. If you're in our neck of the woods perhaps you'll come shoot a match or something and if you move, bring on the 40 round PMAGs. Well, since motorcycles, skiing and shooting are my three main hobbies they are the ones I mentioned but I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you have if I can. Like all places there are pros & cons but what I see as a pro, you may see as a con so it's a personal thing. Shoot me a PM if you like, I'm all for anyone who is into liberty moving this way.

Just wondering if there are any folks who follow the NAP in the area who would like to meet others who strive toward rational thought. At present, I only know three regular FDR listeners in the area but it would be nice to network. PM me and we'll talk.