AustinJames

I teach at a charter school, and cursive is part of the curriculum, starting in grade 2. The reasoning I've heard has to do with the way your brain connects phonograms (letters or units of letters responsible for a single sound, such as "a," "wr," "ng," and "ough") and places them in context with the whole word. It also aids in the development of aesthetic sensitivity, as it is much more difficult to write legibly in cursive than in print. Generally, the curriculum is thoroughly research-based, though I have not personally seen the research on this topic. As to why it was dropped? I don't know. When it comes to bureaucrats, however, as a general rule, I assume ignorance, incompetence, laziness, propaganda, or all of the above.

I don't have enough information to draw an ultimate moral conclusion on the actions of individual Israelis, or individual Palestinians. There are some inevitable conclusions that can be reached, however, concerning the nature of state violence. The Palestinians are not the victims of the Israelis, and the Israelis are not victims of the Palestinians. The citizens of both Israel and Palestine are victims of state aggression. This thread is a good example of what the state intends: to incite slave-on-slave violence. The state would have you believe that annihilation is imminent without further exercise of state power. The state bearing the most power bears the most responsibility for the violence within the area of its jurisdiction. The most advanced military in the world cannot strike with surgical precision enough to avoid civilian casualties, so the argument that the murdered children are purely a result of "human shield" strategy seems to me far-fetched. Moreover, what my grandfather did does not give anyone the right to attack me; I agree. However, if my grandfather wrongfully imprisons someone in his basement, and I inherit the house and the prisoner, I am morally obligated to free the prisoner. If I do not free the prisoner, and do not feed the prisoner, the prisoner is not immoral for using force to improve their situation. I don't know if this is applicable (as I said I don't have enough information), so please help me isolate my misunderstanding.

Let us reduce the human shield argument to three men in a room. Tom has a grudge against Jerry. Tom pulls out a gun and points it at Jerry. Jerry grabs Bill and holds him between himself and Tom, begging Tom to reason with him, and believing Tom will not kill an innocent person. Tom shoots and kills Bill, then shoots and kills Tom. Who is responsible for Bill's death? Was it immoral for Jerry to involve Bill in an attempt to save himself? If the point of this thread is to deduce the moral content of taking a human shield, this scenario should do the trick. If you prove it is immoral/moral/amoral to take a human shield, we can extend that principle to the Israel/Palestine situation, and introduce other variables; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, arguments and proofs to define the underlying principle.

This thread has gone off the rails. Anyone read any Michael Pollan? I like his work. I echo his broad sentiment.

I don't know much about BitCoin, but the little I do know seems to indicate this type of regulation would be unenforceable. Why wouldn't all BitCoin transactions just slip quietly into the black market? Can someone who knows more about the intricacies of BitCoin please explain how it would be possible to enforce this law? Does it rely on people being afraid of investigation and prosecution?

Interesting! I like the idea. The difference between subjective and objective types of capital may be worth noting, as in Natural Capital vs. Spiritual Capital. I'm also confused about the difference between Cultural Capital and Societal Capital; they seem to overlap in my mind. Perhaps the difference could be more distinguished. Keep going with it! I think these ideas are worth articulating. Capitalism is so misunderstood, perhaps a more explicit theory can help to rectify common misconceptions.

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is also a good read, along the same lines as, and perhaps a good precursor to, A Renegade History of the United States (though I have not read the latter, I have read reviews, excerpts, and summaries). The pdf of Howard Zinn's book is available for free here: http://www.thegoyslife.com/Documents/Books/A%20People's%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States-%20Howard%20Zinn.pdf I echo the Hardcore History recommendations. The Libertarian Tradition with Jeff Riggenbach is a great podcast offered by The Mises Institute that focuses on the history of libertarianism; though anything from Mises is likely to be well worth your time. I'm wondering if anyone has seen Oliver Stone's documentary series, Untold History of the United States. Is it any good?

Welcome, and thanks for sharing! Have you tried any probiotics for your condition? I have a cousin with Crohn's Disease, and he has been able to live a normal and comfortable life, utilizing homemade yogurt, kefir, and cultured vegetables. I have also adopted a diet rich in probiotic foods, with beneficial results.

Great question! Before I provide a response, can you please provide a definition of feminism for the purpose of analysis? I want to make sure we're on the same page.

I didn't say it wasn't a moral issue. I said it has no moral content. Homosexuality is likewise a moral issue, because, as you said, it offends the moral sensibilities of certain individuals; yet homosexuality has no moral content.

The study referenced here may be of interest: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_2-7-2014-18-11-12 Emphasis is mine. If dream analysis is valuable in the pursuit of self-knowledge, it's hard for me to conceive how inducing a temporary, conscious, dream-like state can be any less valuable.

The Mises Institute is a great resource for libertarian philosophy. https://mises.org/ offers thousands of free articles, books, essays, and podcasts. I also enjoy Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast. Though he is not, strictly speaking, a philosopher, he often waxes philosophical in his intimate analysis of historical events. I think it's important for anyone interested in philosophy to delve into the classics, as well. https://librivox.org/ is a great resource for public domain audiobooks. There are works available from the great philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, etc. I like to listen to the audiobook while reading the pdf (found easily with a google search), as I find it improves my retention and comprehension.

If by "alright" you mean "moral," there is no moral content in it. As threebobs stated, it is an aesthetic preference. You have not entered into any contract, and choosing not to tip does not violate UPB. If by "alright" you mean "I won't be considered an asshole," that's a different conversation. I don't usually rely on the traditional percent scale for tipping. Instead, I just consider what the service staff has accomplished on my behalf, and pay them what I think it's worth. Even if the service is terrible, I usually give them something, because at the very least they took my order, brought my food, and cleaned up my mess. Even if they do a piss-poor job, I pay for whatever meager service I receive. I would only stiff someone if I felt their contributions were a net negative to my experience. One time, working as a server, I spilled an Italian soda on a customer's slacks. He didn't tip me anything, and I didn't blame him; the dry cleaning would have cost about as much as the tip, so I can understand that. One time I waited on James Cameron during Sundance and I ran my ass off for his snooty party, and he tipped me about 10%. I think that's a little on the asshole side of things.

I often use the word "voluntarism" because it seems more descriptive of my ideals than "anarchism." Anarchism describes what I don't want (rulers), and voluntarism describes what I do want (strictly voluntary transactions). That way, I also circumvent the infamous "what about the roads!" type arguments and hone right in on the morality of the proposition. Instead of starting with, "government needs to be abolished," and reasoning backwards from there, I use voluntarism as a first principle from which to reason. This method is very efficient in determining whether the individual you are debating can think rationally, and whether or not they advocate aggression.

The alternative debate argument reminds me of conversations I have had with women who refuse to accept logic and rationale as standards for discussion. They say that their understanding is more "emotional" or "abstract," and assert that throwing arguments around based on logic and rationale is misogynistic, because their female brains aren't wired to understand it, and I, as a man, have an unfair advantage in producing logical arguments (oddly, they often call themselves feminists). I point out to them that they are using logic and rational thought to produce and articulate their responses. If someone can provide a method whereby we may compare ideas logically, outside the construct of debate, I am open to hearing it. It seems, however, inevitable that someone providing such a methodology would have to work within the very construct they decry. If you use rational arguments in order to convince me of the truthfulness of a claim, you are debating. So in other words, debating the invalidity of debate is like using logic in order to invalidate logic; self-detonating.

I'm curious as to where this leads for you. Are insects regarded similarly? I go out of my way to avoid killing anything, but it seems there must be some degree in the matter. On the moral spectrum, how does killing an animal for food rate compared to killing a human in cold blood? Almost as bad? Just as bad? I've considered going vegetarian for a long time, because of the inhumanity in the industry. Maybe I just need to hear the right arguments for it.

There is a reason that he never answers this: the answer would be so packed with contradictory information his entire argument would self-detonate. I think you nailed it with your question. The easiest way to invalidate anarcho-communist arguments is to ask how collective ownership works without a central authority. The answer is, it doesn't. Also, point out that the most important means of production is the human reproductive system; would they advocate common ownership over sex? Would I have to ask permission from everyone in the world before having a child? Would I have to get the consent of every worker on the planet to produce anything? Many an-coms do this slippery thing where they attempt to distinguish personal property from private property, but it's easy to counter because the foundation is so shoddy. They claim that personal property extends to the things you use, but the absurdity of that standard reveals itself when you ask a few questions. If a horse is used for riding, then it must be personal property; but if the same horse is used for plowing, is it then collectively owned? How can something be both personally and collectively owned simultaneously? Or is the horse owned by all when it is plowing, but owned by one when it's not? How does the collective tend the horse? That is, how can everyone on the planet contribute to feeding and shoeing and boarding the horse? These actions must be performed by individuals, and how can an individual on the other side of the world have equal property rights in a horse they do not even know exists? If you focus on property rights and how they are enforced, the arguments quickly dissolve.

I believe there lies at the root of your dilemma a common question: what is the best way to create a free society? Do we ostracize those who reject voluntarism, or do we attempt to convert them? This is a false dichotomy; it presumes we cannot tell the difference between those who can be converted, and those who will always reject voluntarism-- in spite of the arguments presented to them. It takes time to cultivate the skill of discernment; and, more than time, it requires that you be unafraid of abandoning those who will never change. If you have resistance to the idea of ending relationships based on principles, a therapist can be incredibly useful in helping you determine which relationships are worth maintaining, and which are toxic. Have you really tried the "against me" argument with everyone you know? Do they really say that the world will end?

I wouldn't bother. How currency would be used (or not) in a free society is an interesting quandary, but it's really not worth arguing about, in my mind. If someone thinks that currency is illogical (sophistry, I'd say), they are more than welcome (in a free society) to refrain from its use. If that person wants to initiate force to stop me using currency, then the argument shifts to the non-aggression principle. It would be similar to me if someone were trying to argue that "roads are inefficient and illogical!" They may be right! I don't know. I could come up with a lot of reasons roads should exist, but the debate isn't worth my intellectual energy. Moreover, we'll never really know the best way to deal with social problems until we're free to implement these opposing ideas. Once we are free, the market will dictate the best system without the need for a debate. This is sophistry. Though subjective, relative value is explicitly measurable in any voluntary transaction. If a man trades a pencil for an apple, the man who receives the pencil values it more than the apple. The man receives the apple values it more than the pencil.

Shirgall is right. The law requires that all customers (all citizens) inevitably subsidize birth control. In the face of Obamacare, this ruling is rather irrelevant; symbolic. The argument is, nonetheless, hilarious: "I have the right to force my employer to buy me birth control!" or, "I have a right to force wealthier people to pay for my babies and non-babies!" Don't worry, ladies-- the progressives will make sure everyone has plenty of birth control. How else will they reduce the population and save the earth?

For some time now, I have been interested in the Cuban Revolution. Before Night Falls is a biopic that offers an interesting perspective through the lens of poet, novelist, and playwright, Reinaldo Arenas. While the majority of Hollywood movies on this topic is socialist propaganda, this one shows some of the horrors perpetrated by the revolutionaries against peaceful citizens, such as Arenas. Beyond that, it is a beautiful piece of work. I can provide a full review (just request in the comments) if there is interest, but I think the film speaks for itself.

It's definitely not that hot. Here's a site that gives a pretty good idea of the climate: http://weatherspark.com/averages/31629/Salt-Lake-City-Utah-United-States "The warm season lasts from June 12 to September 11 with an average daily high temperature above81°F. The hottest day of the year is July 22, with an average high of 93°F and low of 67°F. The cold season lasts from November 20 to February 25 with an average daily high temperature below 47°F. The coldest day of the year is December 30, with an average low of 22°F and high of 35°F."

I'm a teacher at a charter school, as well as a working musician and writer. Because it's a charter school, I don't get paid like the district teachers; but I don't need the 'official bullshit' certificate, either. I also don't answer to any state authority-- the founder of the school is an entrepreneur who has taken great advantage of the grant-writing process. She is very open-minded and anti-state when it comes to education, so I consider myself very lucky within my field. I'm able to implement my own behavior modification procedures, curriculum, and teaching strategies. As a musician, I have performed small gigs like weddings and parties, as well as regular part-time employment singing Catholic mass and Evangelical services. I am a writer, but as of yet have only been paid for a single writing project-- a grant proposal.

There have been a few of these, all failed. Here is an article from Mises that may also be of interest to anyone interested in this topic. http://mises.org/daily/5067/Josiah-Warren-The-First-American-Anarchist

Salt Lake City is the best kept secret in The West (don't tell anyone I told you). Cheap rent, low crime, nice people (mostly libertarian), tons of jobs, thriving counterculture, beautiful setting, lots to do... I could go on. I hated this place when I moved here, but then I pulled back the "Zion Curtain" and fell in love with the place. I pay $700 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in a GREAT location with good amenities-- pool, fitness center, volleyball court, greens, parking, internet. Two dogs live with me, and pet rent is $25 each, bringing the cost up to $750. I have paid as little as $450 for a decent studio in a good part of town. Deseret Industries is the thrift store of my dreams-- a bunch of rich Mormons getting rid of their stuff makes for good business, I guess. Like you, I'm NOT a big clothes shopper, but when I need them I usually go to the DI where I can get a shirt, pants, and shoes for ten dollars. It's also great for furniture, electronics, appliances, bicycles, and pretty much anything you can think of. Not far from SoCal either. Good luck!