AustinJames

I can't view the documentary, because the BBC likes to keep their propaganda out of the light of international scrutiny... Nonetheless, a few questions come to mind, based on the premise. 1. If you purchased a printer cartridge with the guarantee it will pump out 10,000 black/white pages before it goes kaput, and it does; would you feel deceived if you then found out the cartridge could have done 15,000?

And what is the benefit of explaining this? What will be gained if you convince the people in your life that your sister is demon spawn?

Welcome This list is flawed. You say that these are pros and cons of a vasectomy, but they are conflated with the pros and cons of having children, and having biological children. For the sake of clarity, it may be helpful to make a list of pros and cons of each category (children, adopted children, no children). The only pros that are exclusive are #1 (with the caveat that you can ejaculate without other birth control, without the concern of consequences) and #3. All the other pros are not unique to having a vasectomy; you can achieve all those things without a vasectomy, by utilizing other birth control methods. The flaw in this list reveals more than the list itself. The way you have gone about posing the question indicates to me that there are forces from your past that are driving this decision. I don't know your situation or your history, but I would make sure these are dealt with before even approaching such a life-altering decision. You should add to your list of cons (of not having any children): -The next generation will have at least one fewer well-developed, peace-loving, philosophically-inclined individuals (I assume you would be a peaceful parent) - You are less likely to have people around to take care of you in your old age -You are less likely to have a positive impact on future generations -You may experience chronic regret - Surgery always involves risk and recovery - Someone with a knife messes with your fun bits

Vote! How else can we decide how to pillage your resources and exploit your labor?

May I suggest a Utah/Arizona meetup? Maybe we can include California/Nevada/Colorado. The west U.S. needs to represent!

If your main goal is to prove that taxation=theft, much of what you have written is superfluous. Property rights and ownership is a diversion from the main idea of taxation=theft. Property rights and ownership do not require the initiation or threat of force, while taxation does. Instead of trying to pin down these abstract arguments, just drive the point home: taxation is theft because theft is the seizure of property by use or threat of force. Anyone who says that taxation is not theft has the challenge of defining theft in such a way that taxation does not qualify. I have never known anyone to succeed in furnishing this definition, so I must accept the rational consistency of taxation=theft, based upon the definition of theft, and of taxation. If your goal is to make the argument "taxation is theft" legally enforceable, I would say that's pretty silly. That's akin to asking, "how do I PROVE to the mafia that murder is not an ethical business practice? There must be a way to really stick it to them!" Or, "how do I PROVE to Obama that it's murder to bomb innocent civilians?" Taxation is theft because that's what it's called when no contract is signed, and somebody demands a portion of your property with the ultimate threat of force. The argument is a lot more simple than you're making it.

I would tell the child the truth about the scouts (to an age-appropriate degree) and allow them to make their own decision about joining such an organization. I would NOT encourage my child to join any scouting organization, but rather try to provide them with whatever outdoors experience they desired without the aid of the BSA. There is also the history of sexual abuse within the BSA to be considered. I would require the constant watchful eyes of someone I trust dearly in order to let my child participate in lengthy camps, or even 'over-nighters' with other boys and men whose histories and abilities I have no way of knowing. In Boy Scouts, he will be expected to memorize and recite the pledge, sing propaganda songs, and generally glorify war and the state. If there is an organization that he can join that would take him hiking and teach him fun skills, without the massive mind-fuck of propaganda, that would be preferable-- and the family is a great organization for that. I would discourage children from joining an organization like the Boy Scouts of America, and tell them exactly my reservations. If my child wanted desperately to join the BSA, I would be very curious as to why they wanted to join, and try to meet their needs in a way we could both agree on. Does he want to camp? We can go camping. Does he want to make friends? We'll come up with a strategy for making friends with similar interests. Does he want to learn skills to feel accomplished? We can do a project together or attend a class. If he is absolutely adamant that he wants to join the scouts, and presents compelling reasons, I don't know that I would blatantly deny him. That is, I still may not allow it, but I would at least go to a few meetings, probe for creepiness; talk about what to expect, and what my stipulations may be in order to ensure his safety. I would prepare my child with many explanations of what to expect, how to make friends and, of course, how to identify predators; both the human and non-human kind. I am an Eagle Scout (highest rank in the BSA), but my feelings for scouting are not strong. It was a way to do some fun things, but if I had that time and those resources to myself, I would have found a way to make use of them in another (probably more constructive) way.

Yeah, at that point I don't worry about the precise clinical diagnosis; I just take a giant dose of GTFO ASAP! Sociopath, sadist, or android, it doesn't really matter. Get away from the ticking time bomb of abuse! Dear god man, what are you doing in this woman's proximity?

This assertion is highly problematic, in that it is contradictory. If morality was indeed "consensuality," then there would be no morals that directly opposed social norms. "Consensuality" being defined by what is agreed upon a priori in society, morality is often directly opposed. Morality is more often than not incriminating to broad "consensuality." Morality has an objective measure. Have you read UPB?

Atheism cannot be a religion any more than "not believing in leprechauns" can be a religion. If "not believing in unicorns" is a religion, I suppose you could argue that atheism is a religion. The only true and consistent definition of "atheist" is a person who acknowledges and admits the self-contradictory nature of the concept of god. Just like a person does not believe in leprechauns because there is no evidence of leprechauns existing, an atheist employs a consistent logic to not believe in god. A leprechaun is actually much more believable, logically, because while it is against evidence, against physics, and against logic, at least the concept of a leprechaun does not contradict itself. It is very difficult (and definitely non-traditional) to define god in a way that is not self-contradictory as a square circle. To answer your question, as to what I do when religious people in my life assert that my atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as their religiosity? I laugh.

You guys don't seem to realize how hard it is to pay for all those estates, travel, private school, and bribery. I'm sure they meant it when they said they were struggling financially... They were just struggling to live extremely well. After all, it's hard to get off your ass and do a speech every once in a while, when you've gotten used to napping in afternoons with a free salary and private security for the rest of your life.

If she does things like sadistically manipulate people close to her, she is probably a sociopath. If she does things like tear her own hair out, cuss out random strangers, or compulsively repeat things, she is probably a psychopath. Just from the very small bit you said, she sounds like a potential sociopath, as opposed to a psychopath. Not like I know anything, of course.

If you are interested in being involved with or attending a libertarian event featuring speakers, workshops, and seminars, in the fall of 2014, or spring 2015, in Salt Lake City, please comment on/like this thread, or send me a message. I am probing the level of interest for a sort of Liberty Festival in SLC. The state of Utah follows a long libertarian tradition, and for this and other reasons, I anticipate such a festival to be well-attended and well-received. I have access to venues and equipment for little or nothing, and I believe there is a substantial audience. This post is one of many ways I can verify that belief, and build a case for investment/donation from local businesses. There are already many local libertarian foundations that we can bring together for such an event. There is a massive audience in Utah, but it remains fragmented and divisive. There are libertarians that want to be left alone to raise their children and practice their religion, and there are libertarians who want to marry their same-sex partner. There are libertarians that want to own and carry guns, and those who want to home-school, and those who want to walk their dogs without being harassed. No largely cohesive and uniting libertarian ideology has been offered to these people, but that is why the audience is so primed to receive a true libertarian message. I already have people willing to provide venues, goods, and services; their commitment is only limited to the level of interest I can promote. So I thought this would be a good place, among others, to ask for help. If you would go to a Liberty Festival in Utah, or if you just like the idea, then let me know, and I'll see what I can do. If we get a big enough audience, maybe Stefan could even be coaxed into coming down. Thanks, -Austin Two local organizations that have already agreed to help: http://www.americanprep.org/home/ http://libertasutah.org/

Occasionally, it is an amusing logical experiment. To deduce the objective moral quality of each potential action and circumstance, in theory, can be satisfying. More recently in my personal conversations, however, I have countered such abstractions with simple questions of application. I ask each individual how their philosophy influences their actions, and what actions have progressed their life. I don't really see how placing myself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation, and then speculating on what behavior may be thenceforth ethically justifiable is a very effective means to produce meaningful change toward a libertarian goal. Rather than talking about "what if I was drugged and then raped and then my memory was erased and there were no witnesses," would it not be more meaningful to discuss the tangible oppressive forces in everyone's lives, and work to achieve the eradication of the root causes of societal violence? Intellectuals often fall prey to the game of rationalizing radical behavior, or engaging in endless, repetitive debates concerning the moral content of some action by some hypothetical individual. I ask DaVinci: what principle do you rely upon in your life to guide you in such situations, and how have you used it to your benefit? Or, what decision in the context of your own life were you hoping to gain insight upon in the relation of this imaginary scenario? In other words, what does this scenario have to do with anything in real life?

While reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a few details of the economy and regulation struck me as similar to Germany today. The more research I did, however, the less similarity I saw. This presentation is excellent. Any attempt to draw similarities between these two eras would be, to me, a distraction from the poignant effect of the information; not to mention an opportunity for critics to waste time reading various historical accounts in order to arbitrarily list the differences. I rescind my original suggestion, and would like to compliment all who were a part of this project. Fantastic work!

No. Gravity does not exist without matter. The corollary is that morality cannot exist without humans.

I think an interaction between Stef and Chris would be interesting, but that the material would be redundant. Stef has already made the case against Chris's arguments in previous podcasts and videos. Of course, those ideas are worth reiterating, rephrasing, or repeating; but if he does that I hope he finds someone with a larger audience with which to do it. Like I said, it would be interesting, but there are a lot of things I would rather Stef spend his time on. Do you disagree? Is this on the top of your list of potential FDR material?

Waste of time for Stefan. I hope he won't bother with it.

Waste of time. Stefan, don't bother.

Bingo

Thanks for spending the time, and thank you for the compliments! I was worried the Gödel reference was awkward, so I'm glad to hear it was effective. I think I'm about 90% finished developing the ideas. I would like the final draft to be much shorter, though. I think it would be effective to further develop the part on the a priori element of Holmes' arguments. Is there anything you thought could be more concise, or eliminated? I would be glad to set up a debate on this topic! That may help me find how my arguments can be improved. Thanks again!

Yes, that is the article. Thanks!

Similarities between today's German economy and the German economy preceding the Third Reich may be interesting. If you think this may be of interest, I can provide more details of my personal analysis.

This is a rough draft of an essay I've been working on, but I can't decide if there's enough interest in the topic to continue spending time on it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DOPrGeHppRTWR8RwiG9VRZ4mV9i6fMz_PycVLuI-lbQ/edit?usp=sharing Worth completing? Any feedback would be VASTLY appreciated... I'm somewhat lost in this.

I'm sorry, I see that I was not clear. I don't feel reluctant to defriend, or block, or unfollow. Rather, I feel reluctant to seek out new relationships on the internet that I haven't built elsewhere. I used to think that Facebook was only for people that I already knew. I would look down on people who would look around Facebook for new friends. I'm not sure why. Haha! Indeed. My theories have definitely been substantiated. I haven't been to a reunion, and I don't see how I could be convinced to attend one in the future. I suppose I should appreciate Facebook, if only for this lesson.