dsayers

Could you look past the word serve and actually answer the question please? You talked about a philosophical streak since puberty, practical application to life, libertarian, and everybody's free to do what they want as long as they don't encroach upon the freedom of others. How are any of those four items not in direct contradiction to being in the military? Additionally, your defense of the word serve in the context of military participation also contradicts these items.

"legal requirements" have no place in a normative discussion. So if you don't know the person, or you think that what you ran over was just a big dog, you're off the hook? By all means make the case. The premise is flawed the moment it uses the word "self."

What is rational economics? Doesn't economics encompass the sum of human trade decisions, including ones others might find to be irrational?

I can't say for sure since it was before my time, but I think that's what the forum donator badges are for. We already know that people are more likely to do something if they see others doing it. Personally, I don't like the idea myself. Either the show has value for person X or it does not. If it does, that person should be reciprocating value for the sake of justice. This could mean discussing these topics with others at the dinner table, sharing videos, or actually contributing money. Since it is a philosophy show, it makes more sense I think to make the case for returning value than it would be to set up a convoluted conditional pledge system. In fact, while I'm not much of an economics guy, the case being made for returning value has actually altered the way I see a lot of things. In other words, I've received tremendous value from the act of the case for returning value being made.

Congratulations on being able to take such a crucial step. The more honest we all can be about the relationships we had with our parents, the sooner parents will have to up their game to meet the needs of the customers. It is tragic how many people can not take this step if only out of fear of how their peers will receive them for crossing the narrative that the titles of "mom" and "dad" equate to necessary and infallible.

You cannot express your emotions or they need for you not to? I may be way out of line, but it sounds like you're owning something that was inflicted upon you.

It's known as using X (in this case, facebook) as an ideological weapon. It is literally a confession: "I cannot convince you through logic, reason, and evidence, so I am going to use a tool to force you to conform to my preferences."

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39560-banning-the-word-bossy/

I am happy with truthist.

If I'm reading this correctly, I have to disagree about the potential for non-forceful government. It's like saying non-forceful rape; The moment that violence is out of the picture, it's no longer called rape/government. Also, I'm skeptical of the potential non-forceful Christianity. The book they believe in is full of commands to kill various people. They perpetuate threatening eternal hellfire to prevent theft (or the eating of meat on certain days) when universalizing self-ownership is more effective, empowering, and peaceful. If nothing else, it passes off the unsubstantiated as fact and claims anti-rationality to be a virtue. The list goes on.

Let us suppose that there are 100 units of currency in existence and you have one. Now let us suppose that whomever controls the currency (this should never be allowed to happen!) creates another 10 units out of thin air. They've effectively stolen 9% of your wealth without having to even touch your wallet/bank account! It wouldn't matter if the theft occurred evenly (it actually doesn't) across all people; it's still theft!

Those willing to initiate the use of force and those who will not is a meaningful divide though. In fact, I think it's the only way to divide people in a meaningful way. @James: Thank you for feedback. I just wanted to clarify that being intolerant isn't the same thing as initiating the use of force against another person. Though it can certainly manifest in that manner.

First of all, when I mentioned external threat, I was talking about coercion. You know, pay taxes or we'll put you in a cage? That sort of thing. Secondly, we trade out of a desire for efficiency. Otherwise known as division of labor. Using the pencil example mentioned above, you COULD make a pencil all on your own. The amount of time and effort it would take you to craft the tools, fell the wood, smelt the metal... You'd spend a good portion of your life for something that would allow you to write a few letters (after making your own paper too). VERY inefficient. Much better is for one guy to specialize in lumber, another in metals, another in automotive to help them get to work, another in food preparation to keep them fed, and so on. We ALL benefit from trading with one another and this is why trade is as old as time itself, even in the face of coercion against it. No, I was not nitpicking. In fact, I'm downright terrified of somebody who is offended by being asked to define the terms they are using. How are we to communicate in a meaningful way without a frame of reference? I disagree with your definitions. Let us start with capitalism. Do you accept self-ownership? If not, please explain who it is that does own you. As a heads up, I shall mention that I of course will be looking for an answer that is universal and sustainable.

Problem is that their well-meaning does NOT include live and let live. It includes killing and threatening the defenseless for conformity's sake. Not worth tolerating and in fact worth obstructing.

Well there's a lot of people out there that use phrases like "wage slavery" as if it's not a contradiction in terms. So if you're talking about buying power, it's probably best to say that instead of "real wage" as if there's wages that aren't real. Anyways, my post spoke as if you meant buying power. Was it all useful to you?

@Walker: You still haven't defined capitalism. This is how it comes to pass that we're talking about different things entirely. Your last post now requires you to define economy as well since you've likened it to government. That you cannot differentiate the two shows a lack of integrity by being willing to talk about that which you do not understand. Which is ironic since the same post criticizes others for supposedly doing the same thing. Economy is just the sum of human decisions regarding trade with one another. That's it. Like the word capitalism, there is nothing formal about it. Nobody said capitalism was the end all be all. It just happens to be natural and the default. Until somebody threatens you into making decisions you wouldn't otherwise make, your every decision is a capitalistic one as it pertains to how you will use your body, time, and effort. In other words, your capital. I made this point already and you've skipped over it. This is why I've taken to not engaging you directly as much, since you continue to operate as if you're all output and no input. The human body has the capacity to repair and maintain itself. This doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit from external assistance. Saying a machine could be programmed to repair and maintain itself isn't the end of the conversation. I've noticed you make this error regularly. Likely the result of being no input allowed. Like you, a machine whose understanding of the real world is off by just a millimeter would not be productive. It would require external input of correction in order to be able to proceed in a meaningful way. Finally, I could never say for sure that a machine couldn't become self-aware. However, we have no reason to anticipate this occurrence. Unlike life, machines are the sum of their parts. The capabilities of their programming are that of the programmer. And since we do not have the capacity to create life or even consciousness, this seems unlikely. Do you have any reason to suspect otherwise besides the plot device of a few cool movies?

Hello and welcome. I was wondering if you see a contradiction in everything quoted here and "serving" in two armies?

Pause. Define "real wages" please. It's been my experience that when people put qualifiers in front of words, it's because they're not actually talking about that word. So are we talking about wages or not? If so, the reason why average spending power is constantly declining is a combination of debt of/theft by the previous generation as well as coercive control of the currency, including inflation which is also displaced theft. As with most problems in the world, it all comes back to the initiation of the use of force.

You serve the most delicious word salads, let me tell you. AI is not the end of labor. It takes labor to create it. It takes labor to maintain it. It takes labor to supersede it. Also, where electricity and 3D printer stock comes from is not unlimited. Saying electricity and 3D printers as if that's the end of the story is either naive or misleading. You were asked to define capitalism and you refused to do so. Which is ironic since your body is your capital, making capitalism inescapable. Your posting of this thread was a capitalistic decision.

This is voodoo pharmacology. A person who is not exposed to violence will not be violent.

Not so fast. Communications companies enjoy massive state protections. As a result, in most places, there is little to no competition in regards to internet access. Since they don't actually have to answer to their customers and there is no longer a bully to keep them in check, we may end up seeing the type of gouging that Statists attribute to the free market in the first place. It's a difficult situation because coercion isn't the answer, but in the current paradigm, there's no alternative.

Lactose intolerance is omnipresent in mammals. Humans have adapted lactose persistence to significantly reduce the effects of this. As a result, most adult humans are in fact lactose intolerant and simply do not realize it because the symptoms are so mild.

Thanks to propaganda, the very way we speak has been compromised so as to perpetuate myths. If you don't mind the correction, I think your use of the word "our" here is a perfect example. I'm constantly catching myself in these propaganda traps. It's an important distinction though because if we can get people to understand that what's being done isn't by "us" then they might consider making choices instead of just accepting it thoughtlessly. Does that make sense?

As I understand it, this is a gross misrepresentation. Again, as I understand it, the FCC had previously OBSTRUCTED efforts to give some websites "preferential treatment." What has changes is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction over such things. So what is described as the FCC planning something is in fact the FCC being removed from the equation. Very different things indeed.

Compared to what? Without context, I could make the comparison of suicide to not killing yourself. After all, both are on the same subject. Both are a decision. Both are engaged in by humans. Does this make suicide and not killing yourself IDENTICAL? Of course not. Just as comparing caffeine, tattoos, and suicide isn't saying they're identical. You find it useless because you're only thinking of it in terms of yield. Which is interesting because we've both made it clear that we're not talking about yield, we're talking about somebody making a decision regarding their property that others may not think is rational. Since we have been clear on this point, and you continue to speak as if you cannot see this, yes, I think there is an unidentified bias at play. Additionally, you keep asking for elaboration, but you're not providing any yourself. So could explain concisely your initial claim that somebody who commits suicide is not sane?