dsayers

Welcome! Thanks for sharing. That's interesting to read about. Here in the US, if a teacher tried teaching children to think, they'd be fired and otherwise ostracized.

I don't follow. Confront him about what? Pathetic how? Negative how? Why would somebody else's negativity drive you insane? Vacation how?

If it was a voluntary sacrifice, terminology such as "have to" is to conceal that. If you have to sacrifice, it was coerced, but by whom? Either way, you don't have the authority to inflict unchosen positive obligations onto others, so this statement is pure fantasy. When I go to the grocery store, the gas station, a restaurant, the hardware store, my friends' houses, I sign no contracts. They're all mutually beneficial, voluntary interactions. As such, the lack of contracts is infinitely more efficient by contrast. Not that efficiency is even up for consideration until the moral component is satisfied. Enforcement of what? Property rights isn't an edict, it's how we're able to interpret interactions as moral, immoral, or amoral. Monopolistic organization is vague. Is it coercive or not is the important question. To answer the question I believe you were trying to ask, government violates property rights and therefore could never accurately be described as protecting property rights.

That's one interpretation. The ability to unabashedly take down a victim a million times your size is pretty impressive. How does it survive/recur if it kills off its victims? I've heard of it before, so I'm assuming it's not new. How then is it still around?

In what ways? How does that make you feel?

I don't know much about 3D printers. Are the raw materials they use capable of the tensile strength needed as building materials?

I was sad to read this. Like what could be more important than making sure she's not abusive to her child? I noticed you didn't answer my first question. Which is unfortunate because if you did these things, it might contrast for them their mother not doing these things. I cannot think of a stronger motivator for her (save the moral consideration of course). How much have the two of you talked about her history? It might help you to identify why she needs for her current understanding to be true.

I feel you, Ivan. I think I may be able to put a smile on your face though. For starters, I think it's important to realize that the reason why these people bother you so much is because you are aware of their lack of self-knowledge. Which only serves as a fantastic sign of how far you've come with your own. This is why it's important to keep pushing the moral arguments. To keep pointing out how this all stems from childhood. A video Stef put out recently was one of the mailbag episodes. There was one question he took that seemingly had nothing to do with childhood and he went straight to pointing out that it stems from childhood. This is what we need to do. It's a lot easier to yell "end the Fed" than it is to confront abusive parents and/or go against the societal stigma of relatives being inescapable. Be patient with them; they were abused too. Just don't break yourself upon them. If you're trying to help them, and they refuse to accept the moral argument, move along. It really is triage.

I love all the ways--all the increasingly mainstream ways--that the ideas we accept and stand for in the FDR community are spreading throughout the world. It's like that scene in Hackers where the system is getting overloaded and the bad guys can't stop them. Thanks for sharing this.

Why? A group of food providers claim to band together to gouge their customers under threat of starvation, one crosses the line and sells food to people at what is a higher price than the market would set, but lower than the people conspiring. So the other conspirators take the guy to court, saying he violated their contract. Who would convict?

It appears to have been edited out, but your opening post originally contained you feigning contracting the disease in mid-post. I realize that with just text, it's hard to get things like nuance and intonation. However, I will say that you talking about feeling something in your stomach came across as joking about it, which makes this quote a contradiction. The fact that it was edited out suggests that you agree with my interpretation of at least that part of it.

Even before I had philosophy eyes, I was always disgusted the amount of wasted wealth goes into protecting "royalty." A 900 person detail? Here's an idea: Don't spy on people, say it's okay to torture and murder people, and don't drone children and people you THINK are bad guys (and the innocents standing next to them), and then you won't have to have 900 people protecting you. *I* don't need that many people employed to protect me. Maybe he could learn from me.

I say good. The more segments of the population that realize the destructive power of coercion, the more likely it will be that when the empire falls, people will not be scrambling, looking for the next demagogue that claims to know what's best for them to rule over us.

I wouldn't say likely. I would say it's a certainty. The US Constitution claims to give people powers that people don't have to give. It's like me telling you that you can fly and then imagining that I could limit how, where, and when you can fly. The fact that it's all made up preempts us from being able to limit that fantasy in others.

I'm assuming we can't view his post history due to a ban. If you look at his participation in this thread, you will see he wasn't interested in philosophical analysis. alex, I'm sorry you got downvoted for that. My thoughts on the subject is that advocating violence is immoral. Could even be considered criminal, which is why any forum would be quick to mitigate such activity, if only to avoid legal backlash. I don't view preempting immoral, and righteously illegal behavior as stifling the exchange of ideas. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things coercion can do better than voluntary interaction. So even if the opening post were sound, it still wouldn't be optimal.

The women's lingerie section of our local department store. There's also one on a sacrificial altar in Peter Joseph's basement.

There are a couple problems with questions phrased as "who will... without the government." First of all, it suggests that the moral argument (government is immoral) is secondary at best. Secondly, it suggests that if people want something, they will just sit around and wait for others to provide it. Both are the opposite of the truth. The internet and cellphones are modern day examples of networked goods provided by rival companies working together for the benefit of the sum of their customers. The real question is: Who WON'T provide these things without a government to get in their way?

is another good one that focuses on government schooling in the US. I've been checking out her stuff and most of it is really good and philosophically accurate. And bite sized!

Last I read, the population of Earth is about 7 billion humans. I am not a something. I am an instance of something. The cup you're drinking out of is an instance of "cup." The idea that only one cup (or deity) could exist is ludicrous.

Welcome! Just out of curiosity, have you come to these conclusions on your own, or did you grow up in a rational, caring household? I share your aversion to labels and also those labels in particular for stating one thing a person does NOT accept. I find them particularly damaging because their negative denotation suggests that statism and theism are the origin/norm and anarchy and atheism is the deviation.

I am really happy to read this! And a bit jealous. I really hope she's sincere and you're able to have a relationship with her. If after some skeptical conversation, she turns out to be the real deal, please thank her from me

This is the only part of your post that was rational. I agree that the idea that only one of something exists is statistically impossible. Egyptian gods can kick Greek and Roman gods' butts. Go Set!

It is definitely a big deal that she takes responsibility for bringing him into your life. However, I'd be careful to consider the possibility of it being just words. Somebody who truly felt that way wouldn't be able to say what she said. At the very least, I'd ask her how it came to pass that she even could say such a thing. I accept my father's generosity. I view it as a sort of restitution. Not one he's chosen, but sort of like a consolation prize. The important things is to be aware of the decision you've made and why.

If it's voluntary, it's not government. The only straw man here is saying it's a joke when it is refuted, but resuming "serious discussion" when claiming it's a joke doesn't get you off the hook.

@Otie: Could it be that he has feelings for his offspring, not YOU? My father is abusive too. Despite that, he holds the antiquated belief that proximity equals virtue. So there are a number of things he does that seem generous on the surface. But he's doing them for his son, not for me. Does that make sense? Do you think this might describe your situation to some degree as well? I don't agree with this interpretation. I think that sophisticated abusers can instill a dependence on their victims in order to make them self-attack as a reaction to questioning the necessity or the virtue of their abusers. Even if this doesn't describe his parents specifically, society in general tries to accomplish the exact same thing to avoid having to face the truth of their own abuse. I'm not saying your interpretation isn't possible. I think the one I've offered is more probable and by no small margin.