dsayers

Thank you for sharing your dilemma and especially for seeing through the bullshit. My biggest question is: How does paying into a system for more schooling follow learning that the schooling system is broken? Also, in order to not perpetuate the hiding of the coercion, I stick with calling them government schools.

On what basis? I work armed private security. My job is to act on behalf of the owner when the owner isn't around. Since they own the property in question, they can morally delegate rights to that property as they see fit. In regards to your first point, you didn't finish the sentence. "I don't know what it will look like in a stateless society, but I know theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." The full sentence actually pre-empts minarchism. One point made in the video is that it's inconsistent to say violence is wrong AND we need a little bit of it. ESPECIALLY when you consider that your average minarchist says we need a little bit of violence out of consideration for violence.

I wish the definition of the two were clearer. I remember Stef once describing the psycho as somebody who would rape and the socio as somebody that would coercively seduce. Or maybe it was the other way around. I forget. I remember looking into the differentiation only to find that some sources say they're the same thing and others were polar opposites in the distinction. So my interest, particularly in light of the legions of made up mental illnesses, is in the physiological differentiation between the two.

Answering yourself--more accurately: sharing your answer with others to a question you asked--can actually make text communication more efficient. Also, I think point 4 is a good one on your average forums. However here, you have very in depth analysis and difficult personal sharings. Both can be lengthy and the latter can actually lead to less coherent communication. Given the circumstances, I'm okay with both. In fact, there was once a thread that I didn't much feel like bothering with in the moment, but it's monstrous length told me it was important to the person, so I made the time. The other thing to consider is that not everybody is on a PC with a keyboard. Some people might be using their phones or even dictation. I've seen a few posts that are rife with phonetic flaws that tell me the person was likely speaking it. That's not to say that encouraging being better at this sort of thing isn't beneficial to us all. If it were me, I would certainly take the few seconds to add a few carriage returns. Then again, I subscribe to the line of thinking that my (one person) few seconds leads to saving a few seconds for many other people. It's a good thread and I hope to see some beneficial dialogue arise from it.

Rafiki, I commend your courage in considering such things in a world that would punish you for considering such things. I could say a lot on the subject, but there's one facet that I think would be the most helpful to you. Since you're talking the temptation of taking the blue pill, let us stick with the Matrix analogy. Have you ever seen the Matrix? There is one scene in particular that crystallizes our struggle well. Often called the woman in the red dress scene or the agent training scene. In it, Morpheus is explaining to Neo that everybody he sees in the Matrix represents the very minds they are trying to free. However, until such a time that they do, those people are still a part of that system. It then demonstrates that "agents" can take over those people at any time to fight against those trying to free them. This is comparable to parental, social, and cultural norms lashing out from within them to protect that which is familiar to them. Simply put, people do not arrive at religion and statism (another religion) by way of logic, reason, and evidence. It is simply momentum. It's a decision made for them by others that they choose to abide in order to fit in. What makes OUR efforts so important is that it ups the pressure. The day will come when it's simply no longer comfortable or socially acceptable to support things like theft (taxation), assault (spanking), and murder (war). On that day, the revolution is over and without violence. After that, the only thing I'll mention is that it's not enough to have good ideas. You have to also be able to communicate them well. If you cannot, you might want to consider developing that skill or teaming up with somebody that you could do a channel together with.

Just wanted to point out that this is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism comes from self-ownership. You enter this world with your body, mind, time, and effort as your capital. Any society that willfully and consistently violates property rights cannot be accurately described as capitalist.

Nature designed us so that if we do not think, we do not survive. Our use of technology and tolerance of socialist views has led to a world where people do not have to think to survive. Where not all people have to endure the consequences of their decisions and therefor do not have to apply consideration to their decisions. Like any activity we could engage in, I think that yes, there would be people who are better at it than others and that deference is an important part of the division of labor.But just as if there was an article about a rash of mechanics that were rigging cars to fail would lead to heightened scrutiny of mechanics, people claiming to think and leading people astray should lead to a heightened scrutiny of "solution providers." Unfortunately, most people (as a result of their underdeveloped ability to think) do no even realize that who they defer to is taking advantage of them and getting away with disastrous erroneous thinking.

I have to disagree there. On country roads, many a speeder gets nailed when there's literally nobody else around. Also, police presence on the expressway caused people to slam on their breaks, which is very dangerous. Same thing could be said about those traffic cameras. Finally, when a cop pulls somebody over, they and the person they pulled over are in a very dangerous position since flashing lights doesn't actually make 3,000 lb cars traveling at 60 MPH move over.

I talked about this already: You posted again in the thread after this without addressing this, hence my observation that you were ignoring it. Further evidenced by you again making the comparison and even going so far as to say that science is bureaucratic and difficult to change direction. There is no bureaucracy. If you disprove something that was previously accepted as true, it will no longer be accepted as true, assuming your disproof is objective, consistent, and repeatable. Compared to religion that has no null hypothesis, IS bureaucratic, and never changes. Two things. First being that mythology is not based on reality. Darwinism is based on reality and even has a very simple null hypothesis. Secondly, the fact that scientists call it a theory rather than the truth is because it's not proven, it just hasn't been disproven. Were you to call it a theory, you'd still be adhering to your assertion that it's not proven. Instead, you call it a myth to manipulate the subject matter.

Sorry for the bump, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.

Rings a bell. To help narrow your search, I'm certain it was on the subject of voting. Also, I seem to remember it being around the time he was reclining on a couch, which would be about 2 years ago.

Sorry, but you'd be wrong. If you are honest with somebody who has never been exposed to honesty, then it is their caregivers that were brutal, not the person being honest. If you did not create an explosion that could end lives and destroy rooms or buildings, you did not drop a bomb. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started this thread to seek assistance in gauging the circumstances you are in. Here, you are basically saying that while measuring something, you insist that your tools be uncalibrated. This is to ask: How can you be certain if what you're describing is accurate or how could others be certain if what you describe is accurate if you describe and defend the description of the act of being objectively truthful as if it were aggressive and destructive?

This sounds like philosophy. And honesty. Bombs are very destructive. Brutality is raw aggression. Phrases such as "philosophy bomb" and "brutal honesty" are designed to discourage people from being philosophical and honest to aide in their own subjugation. We should take care not to perpetuate these bad habits. I don't know. I think there's such a thing as age-appropriate. If the relationship is just getting started, she might not be thinking about a physical aspect at all. Or if she is, then perhaps it wouldn't be something to pursue anyways. So if the relationship isn't established enough, to bring up that subject in a personal context might be off-putting. Then again, if she's into honesty, maybe she'll appreciate the honesty. I'm sure she was aware as a young teen that men were attracted to developed females and/or that they have physical desires. I don't think you have to tell her that you would enjoy having a go for her to know it. Maybe you could talk about it in a way that isn't personal to her. Let her know that as a result of the things you've learned, your values have changed. That in the past, you took things physically way too fast and now you view that as a mistake that you don't wish to make again.

Is it healthy to be honest? Absolutely. The only downside here would be if she (like some people) think "anxiety attack" when they think anxiety. Society in general is so dishonest even with itself about emotions and honesty that they mistake anxiety as some form of mental problem. If the girl understands that anxiety is normal and you are just being honest with her, it's something you might be able to explore together. Is she honest with you about her anxieties?

The question is kind of loaded. Not only is the state not solving such issues but actually provides the foundation for and in some cases even protects the issues.

Awesome point, ribuck. I had never thought of that before, but you're right.

While not flawless, I thought the dialogue was a fairly balanced look at these common stereotypes. Mr. Harris is right though that there's no examination into the creation of the stereotypes. @Mint Berry Crunch: Chances are, the way you worded it was mistaken for blaming the victim. This could be unresolved trauma by the recipient. I for one totally understand what you mean and agree that it is a valuable insight into self-knowledge.

For clarity's sake, empathy is not the same as accepting somebody's viewpoint. If people were standing around a tree as you outlined and one of them describes a purple puppy, you don't actually have to walk around to where they're standing to know that either they're not describing the tree or the path they took to arrive at purple puppy is flawed. To accept their translation of the tree would not be virtuous nor beneficial. I'll be honest, I wasn't sure exactly what your point was. At first it sounded like you were talking about an exchange you had with your father. Then I got the impression that you were trying to caution against the use of summary labels. Finally, it seemed more of a plea to be accepting of others. Could you clarify this please?

Find a scapegoat and parade him in front of everybody to maintain the appearance of monopoly of force being just and necessary. To be clear, money laundering is more akin to "protecting stuff we do not approve of" than it is to "harming other people." Unless the money laundering was for things that violate the self-ownership of others, then it's really no different than driving a route alternate to one you believe is ripe with carjackers. It would be like the carjackers bringing you in for vehicle laundering.

What does ruthless Capitalism guy mean? As I understand it, ruthless means cruel and without compassion. Capitalism is an effect of self-ownership and allowing others to own themselves and therefore the effects of their actions. The words seem incompatible to me.

What does "philosophy bomb" and "brutally honest" mean? I'm not criticizing as I find myself speaking in old, nonsensical ways such as this at times too. I mention this because it could be that your need to label the relationship is also a vestige of your old propagandized life. Don't get me wrong: Labeling the relationship and knowing where you (plural) stand can be an important thing. Just not after a week. Not trying to use random, external timelines. Just in the time frame you're talking about, you're not even out of the realm of possibility of you seeing what you want to see or her just providing lip service. For example, you shared a level of yourself that needs to be earned right away. Have you talked about this with her and explored why this is and the damage it could possibly do to you both? Even if "damage" just means vulnerability that would aid to acceptance being interpreted as something more than it actually is. A lot of people do this and I was certainly no exception. Enough with the doom and gloom. I'm very happy for you! Even just having a friend you can discuss your feelings with in the moment can be a very powerful and edifying experience. Since it is new, try not to let the fact that you (plural) are genders the other is attracted to distract you. Being emotionally and mentally intimate with somebody can be a physical turn on. However, if you don't let the relationship show its staying power, you'll never know if it's real or just based on sex. If this were just somebody you were connecting with for a physical release, it might be different. But it sounds like you may have a keeper, so I wouldn't ruin it by accelerating it. This is just an outsider's view, so take it for what it is. I did want to add that as I read the first part, I was concerned that you were just talking about her, but then later you were talking about you too. My parting thought is that the story is told a lot from your perspective, but not much was said about how inquisitive she is or how much effort she makes (beyond the initial FB effort). This can be a useful guide for differentiating between her having a fascination with some guy that wears his heart on his sleeve in a world of reserved phonies and her actually seeking the company of somebody who is rational and virtuous. I hope this makes sense.

"Free roads" has a way of driving the market to make use of the presence of roads. Just as subsidizing meat has a way of making meat a larger presence in our diets/culture, and so on.

If I remember rightly off the top of my head, was the one most like what you're describing. There's a ton of links there. Is this what you're looking for?

Pardon my anecdote as I feel I've already made an unbiased argument against the concept of objective value. I'm laid up here at the moment, so I can't help but think of its relevance. Monday afternoon, I sustained a pinched nerve or muscle in my back while shoveling snow. I'm left as such that if I turn my body or even move my arms in a certain way, muscles tense up in my back that prevent me from breathing. This has happened to me several times in my life. The first was a work-sustained injury where I placed immense pressure on my spine from the front. Subsequent occurrences have been from being bloated or otherwise "stuffed." Today (I work 3rds, so this is the same day to me) was no exception. This left me in a state where eating would actually exacerbate my condition despite nourishment being necessary to survive. Right now, food is actually anti-valuable to me. I think you did a fantastic job of clarifying your position and even making an argument for "objective value." The fact remains that even within the same mind, the value of various things fluctuates constantly based on any number of factors. On a side note that might not even be relevant, there is a difference between preference and preferable.

Gosh, I'm hungry. Guess I'll just starve since nobody's pointing a gun at my head to make me eat. People who ask about roads are suggesting that people will not pursue their desires unless somebody forces them to. They will not be able to point out a single decision in their entire life that conforms with this belief. The second question is like asking how we're going to build a house out of wood without a gigantic fire. The state doesn't protect rights and violates self-ownership in its very establishment. You could also ask people who ask these questions what would THEY do. Or why it is that they're looking for answers from other people who are not fundamentally different from them. If they erase themselves in favor of somebody who promises to have all the answers, you've identified the problem. It's busy work for you while they cling to and in fact develop a deeper belief in whatever prejudice they have. Imagine they asked "how will cotton be picked if we do away with slavery?" "I don't care who's going to pick the cotton, slavery is immoral." If you told them that there would be huge machines that ran on crushed dinosaur juice that were so productive that only 3% of the population have to be involved in agriculture, they'd think you were mad. How could you possibly know how the answer would be provided in the future once coercion is out of the picture?