dsayers

Those in the union. Their friends and family. Everybody who was raised peacefully and/or accepts property rights, the decision made by those in the union, the benefit of stability in the raising of a peaceful child to groom them to NOT be a danger to society. If I was entering into such a union, why would I care if you thought it was illegitimate? As long as you're not initiation the use of force against us for doing so, you can hold whatever opinion you like for whatever reason you like.

Welcome, Dave Great question. I like this definition. And you know what? It supports my position which is: We are all capitalists. We all have the capacity for reason, which means we are responsible for the effects of our actions, which means we own ourselves. Thus, our body, time, life, labor are our property. I make a point to state it like this because I think it reveals that a LOT of what people try to present as complex is really quite simple. Take the person you're referring to for example. You said that he was repeatedly referring to group X as capitalists in a derogatory manner. In other words, he was investing his capital for the purpose of persuading others because he'd rather have more people agree with him than whatever else he could be using that same time for. Thus he was maligning others for what he himself was engaging in by the very act of the maligning. This is how you know his position is an unprincipled one and can be disregarded as an attempt to inflict a conclusion onto others without providing sound methodology or the rigor of making the case for that conclusion. What do you think of this assessment?

I don't think divorce rates of irrational societies have any bearing on the potentiality of marriage in a free society. If two people have self-knowledge, think rationally, get to know one another, and have agreed upon methods for conflict resolution, there's literally no reason to suspect their union could falter. Certainly not based on the track record of people who lack those components. It's like looking at cars that don't have transmissions to determine the performance of those that do; They're not comparable.

This distinction is why it's so important to understand that things like religion and government schools aren't irrational, they're anti-rational. They displace rational thought. When somebody thinks they have the answer, they stop looking for the right answer. Which is why open-mindedness and curiosity, questions like "how do you know (even of yourself)?" are such a commodity.

I once dated a girl who went to university in a college town. She didn't own a car at the time and was able to walk everywhere. Ever since I heard that story, I wished I could live without a car. They're SO expensive in a statist society. The State steals from me when I buy the car, says I have to license it, I have to be licensed, the car has to be insured, taxes every step of maintenance, steals from me at the pump, etc.

Do you not agree with that conclusion? The moment the white immigrants displayed hostility, they were no longer immigrants, but rather invaders. At that point, the Natives should've repelled them if possible.

I knew that much. I think that's precisely why I'm having a hard time figuring out what it means. Thanks to those who have explained it.

These box services are seeming to become more and more commonplace. Generally, I think they're fiscally irresponsible. I don't have so much wealth that I can part with some of it for something I'm not even sure what it's going to be. Full disclosure: My mother was a material girl and one of the first things I did once I was off on my own was build up this shrine to a music group. When I went to move, I sat down and actually looked at what I had invested in. It was mostly garbage, totaling about $2,000. All I really had to show for any of it was one concert I had attended. It was a costly lesson in terms of branding alone. This particular service seems worse than most of the ones I've seen because all it has to offer you is random stuff that somebody else likes. Personally, I get a little sick every time I hear about a celebrity who has started a clothing line or a new fragrance. I've listened to a LOT of Stef's work. I remember earlier on, he cautioned people not to praise him, but rather to focus on the ideas that he talked about. As I understand it, the motivation behind his Truth About (person X) series was to reveal the danger in regarding people as heroes. I regard Stef pretty highly because he's rational, consistent, has honest conversations despite mob pushback, etc. As such, when he recommends materials, I hold it in higher regard in terms of what I think I'd want to spend my time/money on. All that said, I cannot imagine parting with my cash for random stuff just because he likes it. And while I can't speak for him, his track record suggests that he wouldn't want people to either. Use that money to escape your abusers, get to therapy, or if you've done these things, donate to the show to propel THE MESSAGE forward rather than just his name.

Last couple times I found myself in traffic court, I'd say about 90% of the cases were no license or no insurance. If you could provide either on the spot, they just fined you and moved along. If you couldn't, they rescheduled to give you time to provide it so that they could fin you and move along. It's about revenue, not safety. And some of that revenue goes to perpetuating this racket while some of it goes towards coming up with new ways to steal from people.

I had a dream earlier where I was able to fly. My first try, it didn't work. I had to toggle something on a watch I was wearing or something like that. Then I was able to fly. I had a hard time steering as it was my first time ever flying (not in dreams, but within this dream). What kind of surprises me in hindsight is that in the moment, I was aware of the fact that I had never flown before. Yet my ability to fly didn't strike me as the least bit odd. Given how skeptical I am when awake, I'm a bit surprised by this lack of skepticism in my dream. Was it just because I had accepted is a function of the construct which was my dream--in that moment, my reality? Near as I can tell, this is pretty normal within my own dreams; Things which would be fantastical to the point of incredible in the real world, I just somehow accept while I'm dreaming. Was wondering if anybody's done any studying in this are could perhaps shed some light on this curiosity.

Want proof ostracism works? Whites have been one of the classes of people it's okay to harangue and discriminate against for at least a couple decades now. Just one generation and we seen dysgenic consequences. That's some fast work! If only we could use the power of ostracism to further the cause of rationality and peaceful, win-win interactions with other people.

Yeah, I acknowledged this when I pointed out that this is why it's a political topic at all, just as immigration is only a political topic because there's State handouts to be had there also. As for your first post, I'm not sure why it's important to undermine a stateless, godless union. I'm not the one getting married or getting fake married, so what my opinion is doesn't matter. If you're in that process, then whatever suits you and yours is nobody else's business. Really though, I can't think of a better way to celebrate freedom than by celebrating pair-bonding and procreation despite all the archaic State and religion barriers of our ancestors. If that sort of commitment improves a child's life, then I would hardly look down my nose at it just because it's mechanically identical to a vestige of the State.

Quoted for emphasis. You don't need to tolerate the intolerant. Or be kind to the cruel. And so on. One of the biggest problems "we" face from "within" is that we've come to believe our abusers on things such as truth and kindness are virtues, meaning ANY deviation from them implicates you. It's simply not the case.

This is one of the many reasons why State-required auto insurance is extremely problematic even though every motorist being insured sounds great on paper. They do this all over the place. In the US, once Obama-phones became a thing, working folks' cell phone bills had a new charge to pay for them. All of this extreme racketeering just grows and grows. It's what makes me sick about people who point to it all and claim this is the product of a FREE market. Thankfully, it's becoming so large that even most State apologists are having a hard time standing behind it.

Sadly, addressing the symptoms doesn't lead to this end. The problem is that people were abused as children and groomed for servitude and external validation. So traditionally, those who find the State or other religions to be problematic will just seek out another form of being controlled or externally validated. It's only when the problem is addressed (abuse, irrationality, etc) that a person is able to see that BOTH (and everything like it) are a waste of time.

The question itself comes from a statist and collectivist mind set. People who operate in the name of the State are dwarfed in numbers of those who are ruled over. So it's hard for those in that mindset to imagine the majority actually standing up to the one person or gang or company trying to rule the world. As for the collectivist aspect, all you have to do is ask them what prevents people from taking their wallet. Why, THEY DO. And that's a 1 vs 7 billion proposition, yet they manage to pull it off every day. Except where the State is concerned. And that's because the State operates behind a perceived legitimacy. Presumably, you won't have a free society without rational thinkers who are emotionally dependent on the State. At which point, anybody trying to forcibly subjugate others will be recognized as somebody who needs stopping, and then it's 7 billion vs 1. Or 7 billion - X vs 1+X, where X will always be far less than half the world's population. Rationality isn't just a cure, it's an inoculation.

I wasn't conflating the two. There appears to be a communications breakdown, so I'll try to recap and you can let me know where I've gone astray. I referenced the possibility that people could have a ceremonial commitment in front of friends and family. You said you didn't define that as marriage. I pointed out that others might not define a union without God as marriage. Thus, we established that "marriage" is subjective both in terms of definition and motivation. If this is true, then having a godless, stateless union for reason X can be considered a marriage even if you don't consider it to be. In other words, I reject your claim that "marriage" implies State involvement. However, knowing that that is how you define it, then I understand what you meant by there would be no marriage in a stateless society.

And if you asked a religious person, they'd say it's in the eyes of God. Thus, we establish that it is both a subjective interpretation, and something people do for different reasons. Which would include for the sake of their friends, family, and children.

I don't get into labels. As a form of shorthand, they're an imprecise method of communicating ideas. That said, I keep hearing this word (neoconservative) and have no idea what it means or where the word came from. Can anybody that follows politics or perhaps did in a previous life explain what this is about please?

Well, what's to stop YOU from taking over. Everybody else. What's to stop you and your best from taking over. Everybody else minus that one extra person. And so on. Until a group literally has 51% of the world's population behind it, it has to push against greater counter force. The only reason the US for example is able to dominate to the degree that it does is due to its perceived legitimacy. Which leads to your titular question... To understand the answer to this, you first have to understand how that scenario could come to be. It's going to take rational thought, acceptance of property rights, and a nurturing upbringing where win-win negotiation is modeled. All of this not only shatters the veil of legitimacy that institutionalized coercion (government) operates behind, but empowers the individual with the desire to not accept that subjugation. See, those things aren't just a cure, they're an inoculation. On a personal side note, you had created a couple threads recently asking questions. You didn't really contribute to them any further, accept to acknowledge the responses to one. Instead of using us for sanctuary, why not come in and take your hat off? Stay awhile? If we got to know you and your background, it might help us to communicate about these ideas better for you

There's a couple thoughts that come to my mind. The first being that there are probably TONS of jobs out there that could be traced back to involvement by the State in one form or another. If you have to commute to work, you're using government roads for example. So I personally would think of it in terms of "Would this position/product/service be present in a free society?" While we have no way of answering that with certainty, I think it's reasonable to assume (given the infrastructure is already there) that we would continue to have railroads in a free society. So unless you were working in an actual government office or like as a surveyor contracted by a government agency, I personally wouldn't worry about working for a company that takes government money at the top level. That's my thought process. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say.

I too think that if the world were rid of the State and religion, people would still choose to get married. It promises and celebrates their commitment and provides a more ensured and stable environment for their children. In other words, people who would raise children peacefully would have an established support network and would want to make that commitment openly and ceremonially for the sake of their children. That said, there's no question that both State manipulations and religious dogma are the reason why gay marriage is a political topic at all. Sort of like how immigration is only a political topic when there's State theft that the immigrants could effortlessly become benefactors of.

Two things come to my mind. Hopefully they'll be of some use for you. First things first, the old nautical mantra: One hand for the boat and one for yourself. Meaning you have to preserve your ability to remain on the boat in order for ANY of your actions on that boat to be helpful to the journey. If I could not find a way to keep a hold of myself, I would get out of that situation. You come first. Secondly, it's important to understand where personhood comes from. I apologize if this bit doesn't apply to your situation since I don't know the specifics of what you deal with. Anyways, we're responsible for our actions because we have the capacity for reason and therefore understand the consequences of our actions. That's a way to generalize humans, but it's not true of everybody. Assuming the people you deal with are genuinely "psychiatrically disturbed," it's important to understand that at times when their brains aren't functioning normally, they may very well not qualify for personhood. Obviously I don't say this for the sake of advocating cruelty against them. But if a situation would arise where you sort of have to act in a manner that you wouldn't with a loved one, you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. I'll give you an example if I may. I work as a private investigator/private security. Been doing it for almost a decade now and have actually made one arrest. As a guy who understands that government/police is institutionalized coercion, this might surprise many people. However, this individual was somebody I had kicked out of the property in question once before. Earlier the day I busted him, I had a separate burglar alarm call, where I found an interior door's lock had been defeated by a bus schedule jammed into the door jamb. Once he was caught, he even admitted to having been in the building even more times than we were aware of. In other words, he was literally taking the option away from me to just let him go. Additionally, the time I did bust him, he was in the bathroom shaving. He had a duffle bag on the floor, so I told him to back away from the pack and keep his hands where I could see him. He was trespassing and I was given the property rights that this business legitimately possessed and therefore could legitimately transfer to me. He started to go for his pack, so I drew my gun on him. He started freaking out. I've had guns drawn on me before, so I COMPLETELY empathized with his reaction. I felt VERY bad for having to do that (and put it away as soon as I realized he wasn't engaging in a threatening behavior judging by his reaction). These were not easy things for me to do. In a vacuum, they would even appear to be contrary to my values. If I had my way, we could've had a conversation, I could've collected from him the damages he did (namely the expense of us having to answer alarms relating to him three times), passed that on to the business, and called it a day. But we live in a statist society and this is what I was hired to do. Not saying that justifies it, but again, this guy knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. So it was easy for me to process the cognitive dissonance I experienced in a philosophical and unbiased manner. Is any of this helpful at all for your situation?

I've seen a number of examples in pop culture in more recent times (last decade give or take) when the police/politicians/government are portrayed as unreliable, inefficient, and undependable. Stef talked about it once. In fact, I got turned on to the show Psych at his recommendation. It's about a guy who's very observant. He sees some news footage on TV and notices things police didn't. So he calls them up to offer them tips on who's responsible. After a string of such events, they assume he's the responsible party to be able to know so much so accurately. In order to attempt to avoid prosecution, he pretends he's psychic and THAT is how he's able to do what he does. Suddenly, they're willing to enlist his help to help solve cases they cannot on their own. The show's quite entertaining. It's just one example though. Ever since Stef pointed it out, I've kept my eyes peeled and there's no shortage of it. Or sometimes they're portrayed as behaving as if they have moral immunity and do it with such over the top-ness, that it's ridiculous and obvious.

All "laws" are rules based on generalities. I was once ticketed for not obeying a traffic control device. I was on my way to a life or death triple burglar alarm, I came to a complete stop, and saw that there was nobody within a mile other than a pair of headlights in the distance BEHIND ME (which happened to be a cop). The specifics didn't matter; I was on the road and the light was read. End of story. Talking about immigration "laws" or Muslims specifically is focusing on the minutia rather than the problem of whether humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories to institute/enforce any of those "laws" to begin with. Oh and for precision's sake, I just wanted to point out (as this was something I was thinking about recently), you can make rules with regards to your property that violates "the NAP" because being your property, it CAN'T violate "the NAP." Let's say I make a rule that if you enter my house, I can steal from you. Well if you know this before entering my house, then entering my house is consenting to me taking your stuff, and therefore I couldn't steal from you if I tried. Obviously nobody would create such a rule. And if they did, nobody would abide it. Just pointing it out to help others think about property rights more clearly.