Daniel Unplugged

Thanks tasmlab, just the info I was looking for.

Well, her and her parents. Her parents only apply pressure to her. I'm not even sure pressure is the right word. I think it is more disapproval. They don't speak much english, so we don't talk much. They do seem to like me though. Nobody knows about the pregnancy yet. We just found out. I hear what you say, but I won't be getting a paternity test. I trust her enough for that. There are no indications that she ia playing around.

Only 2 'arguments' that I can recall: It would get her parents off her back, and also we would also share the same name. Should the kids go to school it would be somewhat simpler, and it may also benefit them by the percieved social status of being an 'official' family. She has said other things as well, but I don't consider them arguements.

She is already a citizen, she was only 2 when she came over. She is not a blood sucking parasite either. Yes, some women are, but you are overgeneralizing there. She works full time, always has, and is successful in her own right. Yes, she is now going to be dependent on my income alone, but that was always the plan. One of the things I always looked for in a woman is financial independence, if a woman doesn't need my money, then she won't view me as a cash register. It also ensures that her motivation for being with me is sound. I just finished reading the rest of your post. You are being very racist. Nothing more to say to you. I know it seems backwards, but i am not concerned about it. I have thought about it before. Like a said I don't consider marriage particularly important one way or the other. If we were to get married, now would seem to be the appropriote time, which I also knew beforehand. Hence, it is decision time and why I am now seeking advice. I have wanted kids for a while. I have never 'wanted' marriage, it is of secondary importance to me.

Peaceful parenting is already locked in. She is open to home schooling, but insists I let the child choose, which was always going to be the case anyway.

Yes

I am less opposed to it than I used to be. My main concern is along the lines of what's the point of it? We have a big party (which I like), where I am (second to her) the centre of attention (which I don't like), say some really sweet things to each other, sign some paperwork and then get the governments green stamp of approval on our relationship (which (not really) makes me want to vomit), then go on with our lives exactly the same way we would have if we had never done any of that. I can't think of a significant practical reason to do it, other than to satisfy other people's cultural (irrational) preferences. Yes it will make her and her parents happy. Maybe that's enough of a reason. I'm not sure. I'm mostly wondering if I missed something about marriage. Perhaps some happily married people can tell me how marriage has made their lives better and what I am overlooking.

I don't know if this will be helpful for designing your logo, but this seems like a good place for me to post my analysis of the FDR logo. It features 3 people holding hands. Presumably the holding-hands-chain encircles the world. I'm not a big fan 2 things there. Firstly, encircling the world makes me think of a one world government, and the holding hands reminds me of communistic kum-bye-ah singing. I prefer a handshake, indicating negotiations/contracts/not reaching for your gun (hence my logo), or the high-five type handshake indicating strength/competition. The people in the FDR logo are the letter i's, indicating me/i/individualism, also, the front i is the largest, indicating that the individual need not submit to the will of the collective, and may serve himself/supremacy of the individual/not all people are equal, nice work there. Finally in the logo that used to proceed the podcasts, the sun is behind the Earth, indicating that the world is in darkness. It also looks like the sun is about to rise, indicating the age or reason/enlightenment may arrive soon or that the goal of FDR is to usher it in. Maybe I'm looking into it too much, anyway, hope this helps you make a better logo. One more quick note.The three people holding hands looks like a b52 bomber, but I'm sure that was unintentional.

I second all of that. Stefan's plan is great, but I think 'guaranteed to work' is perhaps a bit strong. Still, until I come up with a better plan (I assure you I've been trying) I'm going along with pushing peaceful parenting. Ending the State is not my only motivation of course, peaceful parenting is an end unto itself. Actually, I suspect the State in it's current form will collapse in on itself before peaceful parenting can lead to a smooth transition to freedom. I'm doubtful that such a collapse would even be a step towards freedom. History tends to suggest that something worse will rise in it's place. Hopefully, by the time the State collapses, we will have had enough influence that the people will be willing to give freedom a try. I think we are well behind where we need to be. One thing that gives me some hope is how many (remember just one effective leader can change everything, think Hitler) inteĺligent, principled and persuasive anarchists seem to be around, especially young ones. Each of these people will, in the event of a power vacuum, attempt to steer the sheep towards freedom instead of tyranny. Not to mention that their self confidence and public credibility will be greatly increased in such an event. Perhaps a lot of responsibility lies with a few enlightened people.

A bit of background first. We have been together for 3 years and are very happy together. I am planning to breed lots of little anarchists with her (she is a little bit old (35), so 1 or 2 might be the maximum. 2 miscarriages preceded this scan that showed a heartbeat). She is Asian (a genuine Vietnamese boat person who came to Australia when she was 2). She doesn't have any accent at all but is still a bit FOBby at times. Lol. She definitely wants a ring. A few reasons why I don't like marriage: I thing the idea of a relationship contract is very odd indeed. I do not have contracts with any of my friends. We are friends only so long as we both wish it to be. Obviously with regards to my girlfriend, since children will be involved, things are not so simple. It is necessary that I, as per the arrangement with her, will provide resources to her and the children so that she may focus her efforts on caring for them, but this will happen regardless of contract. She would however, appreciate the perceived security that comes with marriage, which brings me to my next point; is my word not good enough? If she wants the arrangement in writing, that is somewhat concerning. Finally, a marriage contract is in large part, a bullshit contract. With the possible exception of money matters, either I or her, may cancel the contract as we see fit. Neither the government, nor my family or friends will enforce that contract, not to mention that promising to exhibit love for her for the entirety of my life is disingenuous. I cannot sincerely promise to experience a particular emotion 30 years in the future, however much I would like it to be true. In Asian culture marriage is very important, her parents give her a hard time just for living with me, let alone if we have children. In my culture (white Australian) things are less strict, not that given the way I am these days, either of my parents would even have the balls to tell me how to live my life (my relationship with my parents is very strained due to their total lack of empathy for me with regards to the punishment they routinely inflicted on me when I was small and could not defend myself. They have zero power to influence my behavior now). So, I ask the FDR community, should I marry her? And yes, it is very difficult being my partner. Her tolerance towards me and my rants is impressive. Maybe I should just give her whatever she wants

I don't have this problem in Australia. If I am withdrawing over $5000 or so, it is not a bad idea to call ahead, because they don't keep a huge amount of cash in the til, and the safe is on a time delay. Only once (out of many times) has either of my banks ran out of money to fulfill a large withdrawl. They had to order some more cash in from their main vault. I'm not in the least bit concerned about it, they must have had a lot of withdrawls that day. I own a lot of silver, but i am not a silver coin 'collector'. By that i mean that I don't buy numismatics, anything high premium or many different varieties. I have enough 1 oz and 1/2 oz generics to get me through a currency collapse and everything else is 1kg bars for my retirement. I see no need to keep anything else. I don't particularly think i'll have to use the coins anytime soon. It would take a Weimar style hyperinflation for your average merchant to be willing to accept them. Currencies 'collapse' all the time. Rarely do those collapses result in merchants accepting silver as payment, they just go on accepting the local currency at the devalued rate. 99% of the population love the idea of kidnapping enforced, totally unbacked, government printed toilet paper for money. I don't see that changing anytime soon. I wish it would, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'll keep this one short. Nothing wrong with it. It's only a game.

Nice work I don't know how to do a multi quote so I'll the points in the order I posted them. 1. The costs per homeowner will of course change if not everyone pays, which is near certain. There will be a freeloader problem. 2. If this is true, then he was being hippocritical/violating his own principles when he was accepting his wage. 3. As a (very, very, very) ancap, the idea of flying a government flag is not at all appealing to me. I suppose though, that what you are talking about is not really a government, since it is voluntary, but I still can't shake it. 4. I don't like the idea of naming and shaming non payers. It's not a violation of NAP, but I still think it's a bit wrong. Also, without violating privacy, how would he know the names of the residents? 5. I assume that consent refers to the elimination of taxation and in no way obliges someone to pay. A unanamous decision in a vote of many voters is incredibly unlikely. Does a mayor even need any consent at all once he has been elected?

Below is a fairly standard question found in IQ tests: All wicks are bicks and all bicks are ticks. The statement 'All wicks are ticks.' is: A) True B) Not true About 2/3 of people give the correct answer (roughly accurate), and half of them accidently guessed right. Therefore 2/3 of people are not even capable of the most basic logic/reasoning, let alone able to understand anything of substance. A few reasons why government schools prefer conclusions over reasoning are: It is largely pointless to teach reason, given that most people have reasoning capability of a toaster. Many of the conclusions they wish teach, cannot be reached by reasoning. A public that is taught how to reason, will reason their way to conclusions that do not suit the governments agenda. (Most) public school teachers don't even know what reason is to begin with, so are incapable of teaching it to begin with (I suspect most would have answered the above question incorrectly).

What would you call the period from 1800 to 1970 in which wages increased 50 fold, if not one of the above?

Does the government have a monopoly on roads? Well, yes, but it's not quite that simple and there are few absolutes in this world. There are 'some' private roads, but there is no complete parallel network of private roads. Only occasionly is there 'competition', and it is hardly a free market; you need a whole bunch of permits to build a private road. Even where there are public and private roads side by side, it is not particularly accurate to say there is competition. Government roads are not businesses, and they do not compete. Government roads are free to use and you must pay for them whether or not you use them. Hope this helps.

Stefan has argued more than once that a stateless society with nuclear weapons for 'defence', will not get invaded. I think the argument is flawed, and it will not in fact be a deterrant. The stateless society in question presumably adheres to the non aggression principle. Therefore, dropping a nuke on a city, or any place containing innocent people will not occur. It is a bluff and any remotely competent leader of a statist invading force will call it.

You could be right there, however, hating the english language is very understandable. When flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing, something is definitely wrong. Also, what's with capital letters? I can't for the life of me, figure out why they are necessary.

Good stuff. That's how it should work. It's so simple and non-violent. We will keep spreading the message

He was never afraid of glass, or broken glass. He was afraid of his mother (or father). He has been denied the right to learn the correct lesson, that broken glass can cut you, so handle glass with care. I will not stop my (future) children from picking up a glass. I will allow them to learn their lesson (that doesn't mean I will leave a kitchen knife, or a gun (or anything that is significantly dangerous) within their reach. Some lessons they need to learn through my guidance, through reason. Learning through bitter experience only works for things that are non-lethal/do not cause serious injury. Does anyone think that allowing a child to learn that glass is dangerous in this way is bad parenting/cruel? I want to make sure I get this one right?

So yeah, the kid got hit everytime he tried to pickup a glass...he cried because he realised he was busted. He knows what comes next.

I have a theory as to why wages have stagnated for 40 or so years in the USA. In the 70's or about that time, someone invented the shipping container, greatly reducing the cost of international shipping. This, along with (to take the most obvious example) China opening up it's economy to the world, enabled a massive boom in world trade. Naturally, China, with it's vast amount of unskilled labor, began to export it's unskilled labor (via manufactured goods) to the USA. The USA with it's vast amount of capital and highly skilled workforce, began to export its technology, machines, capital goods and highly skilled services. Eco 101 tells us that if a something is exported, its price will rise in the country of origin, and its price will fall in the destination country. America has imported a great amount of labor, causing the price of labor in America to fall. This effect has also caused the price of capital and skills, (what America exports) to increase, thus ensuring higher profits and higher incomes for highly skilled workers, and an increase in inequality. Remember, the net effect of free trade is always positive, so the net benefits to businesses and highly skilled workers is greater than the loss to unskilled workers. Of course, in China, from where labor has been exported, the average worker is vastly better off now compared to 1970 (I'm going to guess that his wage is now 10x what it was in 1970). To be sure, there have also been other factors at play; the growth of the welfare state, employment regulations, the fed enabling trade deficits year after year, the enabling of credit for consumption instead of investment (the fed again), all of which have been very effective at wiping out the middle class in America, and none of which are likely to change until it all comes crashing down.

It wouldn't encourage me to give more. I do not donate in order to get special treatment from FDR; I can get pretty much all the content I want for free. But that is just me, I'm sure that some others would like a little extra incentive to donate. I do think that offering some sort of priority to donators, to help beat the quite extensive queue for the call-in show, would be a good idea. I don't know, maybe this already happens, but I haven't heard of it as yet.

This is all too common. A child, being a child, finds a way to knock a glass of water off the table. It shatters upon hitting the ground. He looks up at his mother, pauses for a second, then breaks out crying. So what just happened? A broken glass is hardly something to get upset about, its only worth a dollar. Nor is broken glass something to be afraid, just sweep up the big bits and vacuum up the rest. So why is the child acting as if he has just experienced a great trauma? The reality of the situation is unsettling. The child has been conditioned to associate a broken glass, or for that matter, any physical contact with a glass, with great trauma. No, not because he has previously cut himself on a piece of sharp glass, if only the world was so kind. The cries of a child have evolved for one purpose alone; to alert the child's mother that the child is in distress, so that the mother will come quickly to render aid....so sad.

Just swap 'useful' for 'not useless'. It becomes easier to make sense of then. The double negative he used seems to me to be pointless and confusing, as double negatives never cease to be. Lol