Brentb

A U.S. ban on bitcoin would make the value of dollar drop because it would elevate bitcoin as viable threat to the dollar - making the dollar look weak. Even if the U.S. government could succeed at preventing bitcoin exchange among U.S. citizens - it can't prevent it abroad. All those who are not forced to use U.S. dollars will not see the U.S. dollar as strong or stable if the U.S. government has to force people to use it. Good luck selling Treasury bonds in that environment. Bitcoin would have a lot of volatility in the case of a ban, and it would be more difficult to know it's value, but in the long term it would retain it's value better than any government currency alternative.

If there are people interested in syllogisms, but Stefan is presumably not one of them - then why ask and wait for him to do it?

I think that I and most of the other posters appreciate and sympathize with your enthusiasm in wanting to grow FDR. I know I've thought a lot about how this could be brought to more people. I hope I didn't dampen that enthusiasm. I'm glad you understood how the comment could be annoying to someone, even if I did explain it clumsily.

Michael can speak for himself but I'll take a stab at it, and maybe save him some time. Judging from the output alone, the level of productivity that's achieved out of few staff members at FDR is already insanely high. The comment is a fanboy comment - meaning that you're assigning someone else responsibility for what you want to happen as if you're entitled to it. Granted, they want to grow the show too, but it's annoying to have people think that making very general comments that indicate disappointment is in any way helpful. It's like being in the stands at a baseball game, yelling out at the batter who just hit a double "Up your game! Let's see a home run".

You may have heard the aphorism: "A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets it's boots on." Comfortable lies will spread like viruses to everyone who does not have reasoning abilities to act as an immune system. FDR won't ever go viral like these groups, because it demands too much of the carriers in terms of thinking, evaluating, and self knowledge.

I used to talk to people almost like a code compiler; "Error. Does not compile. Reform your statement so that it's logical." That was not an effective method of communication. Most of the people are not talking to you because they want a better understanding of the world or some concept. They're typically talking to you because they want to connect with you. Maybe at some point they want to really understand something and want your help with it, but it's usually just to connect with you. To connect with people, you have to engage them in the conversation and get them involved. That means: 1) Listen 2) Ask questions 3) Answer questions 4) Don't respond to a statement with a statement This requires that you be curious as to what the person that you're talking to really thinks and how they think, and all that. If you're not curious about them, but are just trying to force your point of view, then they will avoid your arguments. Force doesn't work in communication either.

Food and water get cheaper over time with respect to the price of gold because they can be replenished over and over again. Other goods - maybe not so much. Oil, Coal, Natural gas, and other energy consumables are also limited like gold, and those will increase in price in the long run since the supply, while vast, is decreasing by the day. As I'm sure you're aware, oil and energy prices can drive the prices up on a lot of other unrelated goods due to costs of production and transportation. In general and in the long run, I would expect land prices to increase and decrease with respect to population size regardless of the currency used to purchase it. Inflation and deflation may just be concepts to describe a centralized currency. I don't think these concepts make any sense in terms of a free market with competing currencies. If some country or banking system were to return to gold standard currency, then you likely would end up with an open market of competing currencies. Since the incentive to force citizens to use a specific currency is removed once the option to pay people in toilet paper is no longer valid.

Is it possible to vote a democracy out of power? Anarchist or minarchist voting is like shopping at a business that you fundamentally disapprove of with the intention of taking advantage of the really good sales that you think that the business will lose money on.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were a man. Initiation of affection is a little simpler for hetero relationships, at least as I understand it. One thing that you can do is talk about what kind of partnership you want. Just keep exploring the idea in conversation - without trying to attach the idea to any particular person or hook anyone. Ask questions about what others want in a relationship and what they think works. This lets everyone know where you stand and what you're looking for. It can also give people a sample of how you think and communicate - which are important samples for other people looking for deeper relationships.

There are plenty of atheists out there who don't use reason or evidence as the basis for their knowledge, but simply use groupthink and believe whatever is most comfortable. For those people, atheism is a religion. Truth is in the process, not the conclusions.

Don't chase men. The easiest way to assure that only those who value something highly have access to it, is to raise the cost of accessing it - in this case the cost is paid in time and attention, and also to market it well - make your appearance as attractive as possible. If the men don't put in the time or don't initiate affection, then they're not interested enough. The FDR business model of making all your goods freely available is a terrible model for personal relationships. Right now it looks like you're experiencing the "Free Rider" problem .

A conspiracy of this magnitude would require a level of competence that is well beyond those in the government sector. It's also completely unnecessary. All that blood thirsty government officials would have to do to get a successful attack on the US and get a war going is to let down their guard and look the other direction for a while.

Building off of the above, I understand it as: If one party is using force, or is in a position that is supported by force (such as a parent, or a government agent), that party is not only responsible for their actions but the effects of their actions. Force is automatic for parents & governments since the children and citizens don't have the power to make their own choices about the relationship. So when Stefan is saying that certain people are morally responsible for the effects of their actions, then it's probably in the context of some forced relationship.

I love your graphic. If you put that on the front of a shirt, then on the back you could add: "Laws won't protect you. Pieces of paper don't stop bullets."

Not all responsibilities are moral responsibilities. For example, I'm responsible for what I say to my friends because I value the relationship. Being responsible in that case is not required for morality, but for maintaining something that I value. Similarly, if someone really values the relationship with his neighbors, then he will take responsibility for the effects of his actions. He's not morally obligated to do so, but if he doesn't, then he may not like the ostracism he receives as a result.

The book on UPB isn't a guide to being moral - it's a secular proof of the morality that people universally already acknowledge to eliminate the apparent need for religion for morality. If you want a guide or something simpler & more clear: 1) Don't steal 2) Don't rape 3) Don't kill 4) Don't commit fraud 5) Don't tolerate any of the above from others. Admittedly, that's no more a guide than an ocean is a guide to land, but I think that morality is more of a barrier to destructive action than a guide to anything. Determine what you value, and let that be your guide as long as it doesn't lead you into the ocean.

If the poor of Brazil really are slaves to colonialism, then we should absolutely feed them, just as we must feed someone locked in our basement. What other choice is there?

I thought so. So the poverty in Brazil is primarily due to policy?

Economics doesn't differ from region to region any more that physics differs from region to region. What differs is policies and resources. What policies are preventing people from providing economic value to each other?

Why would it matter if there were a God that is indistinguishable from the universe?

I remember in one podcast, Stefan stated that if he had a button to end all governments in the world right now, he wouldn't push it - acknowledging that it's a big transition that takes a lot of time. Are you a minarchist because you think it's a more practical method for transitioning to a free society? Or do you think that a free society is not possible or practical and must devolve into force and therefor we need government? You stated that Anarchists and Minarchists have the same goal but we don't. We both want the power of governments to head in the same direction, so it appears that it's just a question of magnitude but there is a fundamental difference. In anarchism, government doesn't exist. Anarchists want freedom, while minarchists want the chains to be light enough that they can forget that the chains are there. Minarchists want the chains to be there for security, because there are bad people out there that need to have their chains jerked, but what if the bad people are controlling the chains?

I suppose if you only interview college kids you'll come to the conclusion that men and women cannot be just friends. If the interviews had been conducted in a nursing home, they may have come to the opposite conclusion - that men and women can ONLY be friends. The more hormones you have pumping through your system, then the harder it will be to have a true friendship..

I don't really see that list as a negative. Most of those jobs provide significant value to others. Though, I'm guessing that "office clerk" is code for useless beaurocrat. The most common jobs will typically be those that require the most common skills, and consequently not be high-paying positions. I'm somewhat baffled at how or why Registered Nurse could be one of the most common jobs. I get the sickly baby-boomers and all that, but still.

Smaller companies tend to hire people with experience because they can't afford to hire someone who turns out to be a dud, and they often don't have the time and resources necessary to properly train new hires. Many larger companies actually prefer to hire people with no experience because they're hiring a lot of people and so the risk of hiring someone is pooled. Thus they can lower their costs by hiring low experience people and training them, which comes with the advantage of training people in accordance with your companies values and quality standards which is much easier to do with someone who doesn't have experience. People with experience will bring in the values and quality standards of their previous jobs, and a lot more effort is needed to get them to unlearn those where necessary.

I'm new to this forum, and relatively new to anarchism. I just recently read Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. One of the other critical facets on my intellectual journey from minarchism to anarchism was a book that I read over a year ago called Antifragile: How to Live in a World We Don't Understand by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I did a search of the forum and found that this topic hasn't yet been discussed, but I've found it to be a powerful distinction or framework when thinking about complex systems. Antifragile is a description for systems that gain from disorder or volatility. This is distinct from other descriptors such as "strong" or "robust" which describe systems that are merely indifferent to disorder or volatility. For example a single restaurant is a very fragile system, their failure rate is very high, but the system of all restaurants in a given region is antifragile since the failure of each restaurant gives valuable information to the rest of the restaurants about what doesn't work. Another example is evolution where the failures individuals in a species often prevents those individuals from reproducing, and thus causing subsequent generations in the species to lack those qualities that caused failure. So how does this relate to Anarchy? Governments appear to be antifragile since any time there is disorder or volatility in society they pass more laws or dictates which allow them grow and take "control" over a larger portion of human interaction. However, they cannot control human interaction, they can only set up barriers. Each barrier is supposed to be to prevent some failure from occurring. If it succeeds in preventing a specific type of failure from occurring, then that whole system becomes more fragile. If it fails (typically the case) to prevent that failure from occurring, then it still makes the overall system more fragile because barriers have two sides and consequently prevent others from entering or succeeding. For example "Too Big to Fail" policies give an unfair advantage to large banks over small ones, and a high minimum wage prevents lower skilled workers from entering the labor force. This is only meant to be an introduction to the topic. There are many fascinating applications of this concept discussed in the book. I'll post a video that goes through some of that. I found the first 3 minutes of this video incomprehensible, so you may want to skip ahead. http://youtu.be/iEnmjMgP_Jo?t=3m