ParaSait

It's useful to understand why it's rational for a free society to use money, though. 1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical Why do we use money? It's pretty simple. I see money as kind of like oil that eases trade. You see, when we barter, we both want something from each other that's of greater value. If I grow apples and you grow bananas, I feel like eating bananas and you feel like eating some apples. Well that's great, that's likely to result in a successful exchange. But this is unlikely to occur. If I feel like eating some bananas but you feel like eating some melons, we got a problem. Now I could go out and HOPE to find someone growing melons who happens to be interested in my apples, which is as unlikely as any successful barter, and THEN I can trade some melons with you, the problem would be solved. Wouldn't it be great, though, if we all agreed to accept some universal good in trade? I buy your bananas with gold and you buy your melons with that gold. It makes trade super efficient. The second great thing about (sound) money besides being a medium of exchange is that it's a store of value. With money, I can choose to buy my bananas later. The bananas rot and decay, the money doesn't. That's the most important part of this post. 3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing This is why we have insurance The best thing about accidents, is that they're the exception and not the norm. Also, what is your definition of money? An economic good (it's a kind of tool that eases trade), a medium of exchange and a store of value. Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days. Is that true? Yes, this is why you don't want the state to control it...! Money can be traded for anything, so control over money means control over pretty much everything. The rest of the points are either explained in that big chunk of text under 1), or just don't make sense. EDIT: heh, funny that me & wuzzums both used an apples & bananas analogy.

I think it's quite clear that there is a relation between the music we listen to and the mood(/attitude/lifestyle) we have. The question that I want to discuss, is where is the causality at? Is it the music we choose to listen to that affects our mood/attitude/lifestyle, or is it our mood/attitude/lifestyle that affects which music we prefer? Or maybe both things reinforce each other? Any thoughts about this? (and maybe other interesting things to discuss about the relation between music and mood?)

The strong deprive others of their freedom, so let's allow a certain group of people to be really strong so they can deprive everyone of their freedom... hmm... yeah.

I see two fundamental differences between left and right anarchism. The left is absolutely against property rights, whereas the right is absolutely pro property rights. The left, as a principle, is against hierarchy and the right, as a principle, is against force. They're two extremely important differences, and the left-a's views are so easy to refute. But no property and no hierarchy (and generally being against anything that smells like capitalism) is one of those things they religiously hang on to.

Sorry to be nitpicking, but bitcoins aren't infinitely divisible. They're divisible up to a satoshi, which is an atomic 1/100000000 of a bitcoin.

My mom, in another wave of manipulative confrontation, told me today that FDR is a subdivision of Scientology to recruit new members. Yeah... something tells me she's running out of tactics. What ridiculous things have manipulative people said to you?

Oh..... please.

Ah.For some reason I remember that site as being a language flash card tool. So it seemed kinda weird.

Wait, I don't get it -- are you suggesting spaced repetition for learning Stef's ideas? Sounds more like a great tool for brainwashing lol.

Don't worry, that's how everyone feels about left-"anarchist" protests.

I've recently read a lot about these things called tulpas. A tulpa is basically a second consciousness that you create inside your own head. This consciousness has an own personality and other sorts of traits, and optionally also an imagined form but that's secondary. The way you do this is by beginning to talk to yourself as if some second person is actually listening. It's fuelled by attention. Eventually, as your tulpa develops itself more, you will begin to hear its voice inside your head and it works like a separate consciousness that has access to your thoughts, feelings and memories, but nevertheless is uncontrolled by the consciousness that is you. You can talk to it, it can help you with thinking, memorization, self-knowledge, accessing your subconscious, etc... eventually in an advanced stage you can even let it "switch" and control your body, that sort of thing. It sounds pretty mad and mystical, but I think it's plausible, because first off, the brain is elastic. If you do a lot of math, you'll develop circuits in your brain that make you really good at math. There's no reason (as far I know at least; I'm not a neurologist) why the same can't apply to consciousness. There are also detailed guides on how to create and treat a tulpa so you can empirically prove it to yourself. There is also a whole community discussing their tulpas, etc... Anyway, now, as for my point: doesn't the first paragraph sound a bit familiar? Is God a tulpa that religious authority figures make children create in their heads for the purpose of giving them an authority figure in their own head, effectively making them control themselves? They form his personality, make children pray as if he is listening, and then follow the claims of God being omnipresent and omniscient (and indeed; a tulpa is everywhere in your head and knows everything about you). This could also explain why theists are so unreasonable when presented with arguments against God. To them, God IS real, it's a tulpa (and they're unaware of that). Why would you agree with all these abstract philosophical arguments, if the empirical evidence, to you, is right here with you? Surely the philosopher must be making some mistake...! He just doesn't believe in God because he doesn't let him into his heart... Just a little thought I had. Perhaps some more research into tulpas could bring us closer to an understanding of theism? Anyway, I don't know to what degree you guys are aware of the whole tulpa thing, but I'm interested to know what you all think of this.

If I'm simply breathing, how am I initiating the use of force?

Wow, hold on a minute there. You're implying a lot of things that I didn't say. Breathing isn't a violation of the NAP. If that friend prefers I don't breathe in his face and I keep doing it without leaving him any option of moving away, it's my violation of the NAP. If I take the initiative of moving away but that friend forces me to keep breathing in his face and "retaliates" by making me stop breathing, it's his violation of the NAP.

This is completely absurd, but okay... 1) The friend has the option of moving a bit. If he doesn't want to move a bit, you can move a bit. If you move but your friend keeps chasing you and says that you have to stop breathing, then he's initiating force because he's taking that option away from you. (plus of course, that would be a contradictory preference on his side) 2) There are so many other options available. A case where the only option is stealing, without some other moral actor forcing you, is so unlikely that it's infinitesimal.

There's no moral responsibility to be found here, because you have no choice. You have to breathe. If he doesn't want to inhale your carbon dioxide, he can always move away from you.

It doesn't for me. EDIT: and there's nothing in the page source that would suggest a timestamp

It's still rational to have NAP around. I just wouldn't assume that people are peaceful by default, I'd invest much more heavily in self-defense and watch my back more closely. Sure, it's fun to think about these things... it may be useful in creating fiction. Not much point in it otherwise, indeed.

Be aware that Stefan's belief is nonrevolutionary. It's a multi-generational, peaceful removal of the state that starts with parenting. Now, onto the minarchism... Why would private justice/security be more prone corruption than public justice/police? Because surely that's an exception that needs to be explained. Are you aware of the idea of DROs? (dispute resolution organizations) Add: also, there's no need to be afraid or really careful to criticize ideas and beliefs around here... only the irrational react negatively to criticisms.

If money isn't property to him, I'm sure he won't mind that you take his wallet and move the money in it to your own pocket.

Uh oh... this is a pretty explosive topic. Determinism vs Free Will has been furiously debated in call-in shows and on this forum. Personally though, I am a compatibilist and I find the whole discussion a bit silly. * Puts on helmet and prepares for incoming bullets But yeah, this debate became pretty saturated I think. You're better off reading existing discussions instead of starting a new one.

Well, stick around for a while, you'll certainly learn a lot of new and interesting ideas around here. At FDR we have a profoundly different view on the nature of the state, and how to get rid of it...

Banning the word "bossy" actually gives 2 reasons to start saying "tyrannical" instead.

17, that's pretty young! I'm 4 years older and I think I'm among the younger ones around here. When and how did you get into libertarian philosophy?

Since the Objectivists are "Randroids", I suppose we could call ourselves "Stefbots"?

I wonder why this has never been thought of before? Already since I was a young child, I have been wondering why exactly we really need food, and not just a package of the stuff in it that we need, without all the trash and aesthetic aspects. Most of the answers I always received to that were just appeals to normality. Thanks for linking this article