Prairie

I laughed a lot right at this point. Brilliant.

I didn't claim that they did. I'm failing to come to a conclusion other than that you aren't reading what I write carefully, or think that this discussion is about the legitimacy of non-propertists.A non-propertist will either be angry with you but respect that you believe in property, or use force to prevent you from using those things the way you want to that they deem unjustified. Once someone uses force against voluntarists who have not aggressed on them, it's aggression and dealt with like any aggression. Right, and the voluntarist response, if they act on these expectations and use force, is to treat them like any aggressor and use force in self-defense to subdue the attacker.I don't see any compatibility with one set of people who view physical property as no different than one's own body being their property, and people who view physical things as being their temporary property whenever they feel that they have the most legitimate use of it at the moment and will use force to gain use of it if the other person doesn't want them to use it. That is, no compatibility between a propertist and a non-peaceful non-propertist.

I hear you to be saying that you did not get clarity when reading my post and that you would like me to take more time to help you get clarity, and that you consider the cause to be some shortcoming in my actions, and none in your own.I'll review the context, then explain the paragraph in question. My first response was essentially that there are two possibilities: non-propertist (i.e. a person who doesn't believe in private property) is peaceful or non-peaceful. If peaceful, there's nothing to deal with. If non-peaceful, then they are contradicting their view by using aggression to get control of something.You replied in a way that suggested either misunderstanding or not reading carefully: I made allowance for both possibilities: they do, or they don't, i.e. that a non-propertist may be peaceful.You further wrote that which seems irrelevant, unless you were implying something that you didn't elaborate, hence I reviewed the context of the discussion to be about how to deal with a non-propertist: The context of this sub-discussion is the question you asked, which I quoted before offering my response. A summary of the peaceful non-propertist. A summary of the non-peaceful non-propertist, and how they contradict non-propertism if they force someone else to give them something.

I think I covered this with the opening sentence: I understood the context to be dealing with someone who doesn't believe in property. If they don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them from using your own property. As I opened with, it's only a problem if they initiate force, in which case they've shown themselves to not be a believer in no property or private property.

Coming from a perspective of an outsider to this, I think that the drive to be sexual with other people and the belief that it will eventually be deeply satisfying drives most of this. Especially for people who want to be sexual with those classified as the other sex than themselves, frustrations with meeting one's sexual goals turn into stereotypes around the sex a person is classified as, and anger towards the entire grouping of people. The ability of people classified as the other sex than oneself to grant or not grant one's sexual wishes and fantasies can be very frustrating.Couple this with being trained to deal with one's emotions by projecting on to others, explaining them as externally-caused, stereotypes are the obvious conclusion. Self-knowledge and taking ownership of emotions is foreign and seen as letting these awful other-sexed people get away with things.Further, from even childhood people are taught that their very being is one sex or another, and that behavior must fall within limits or they are risking being non-sexed and thus being nothing as a person. I think this probably ties in with sexuality of adults and maintaining the system (someone pointed out that perhaps there is a sense that without this system people wouldn't procreate and humans wouldn't continue to inhabit Earth). So this identity-based notion works with the sexuality-fulfillment-based one.I see it as all smoke and mirrors, endless imaginary walls and paths that people must not run into and must stay on, and imaginary injuries to justify using force to keep people following them.

Do you mean where the people voting all give their control to some central decision-maker and vote how they want them to?

X=person who doesn't believe in privary society, they=people of voluntary societyIf X didn't try to take their property, then there would be nothing to deal with. If X tried to take their property, they would defend with force. Which would be entirely compatible with X who doesn't believe in private property, as X would be using force to gain access to things, and they would in X's view simply be using the same kind of force to keep access to them.In other words, it seems an inherently contradictory view: you don't own this, and because I believe so I'm going to take it from you because I want to use it, because we all own it.

I see a society with rules as like any other grouping of people: every person is an individual and operating with the same freedom as in any other situation. People in a society with rules individually use social pressure and physical force to make others do what they consider necessary to bring them in line with the rules. The confines one works in aren't rules, but the aggression of other members trying to get their way. In other words, the rules are something in the minds of the members and are not a physical constraint, and systems of rules can be evaporated without working within them.Stepping back inside the box, if people don't agree, they might not agree on whether rules are necessary.I see rules as a strategy (among others) for resolving conflict. They have qualities that make them less-likely to encounter opposition than other strategies: equal enforcement, unambiguous wording so that the same rules are used, visibility so others can know about them.I think that one motivation for having conflict with others is possible personal gain. Rules can provide a framework for getting more personal gain, by enlisting the force of the rule system for one's own benefit. I see rules as like any sort of rigid tool-like physical object, in that they provide leverage that isn't possible without them. If there are no rules, people have to resolve conflict entirely out of regard for each other. All other ways do not resolve it, only make it worse.

The thing I notice right off is that you operate on your own preferences as if they are an objective correct, and the other people you live with are in the objective incorrect. Here's my translation of your first post into what seems to be a more objective description: Yes I'm one of those parents. I used to yell at my kids for not cleaning up after themselves returning the house to the same level of order that I like it at. It's been a long time since I've yelled at them about it, and I've come to accept responsibility for them not pitching in to help out to bring things to an order that I prefer. I accept that they leave what I consider dirty disgusting dishes in the living room, and that if they don't clean it up to my liking voluntarily, that it is my fault for not instiling cooperative values in them the same preferences as I have. They seem to be oblivious not share the same preferences as me, and nothing I say will get them to "get it my preferences". It seems trivial, but we have a large family, and without cooperation compliance to maintain the order I prefer, things can get disastrous uncomfortable for me in a really short time. Anyone else have experience with this? If you're a teenager still living at home, I'd like your thoughts as well. I believe that if you can relate to the situation in a way that takes ownership of your own preferences and that they differ from the other people you live with, you can approach them in a way that they experience as more respectful and thus find them more interested in making changes in how they live in order to better accommodate how you would like to live.

Sometimes it's almost like there's a demon running the show, and the adults are just forcing the children to act out affection in order to avoid the demon making all the adults have compulsive negative feelings towards the kid and a desire to hurt the kid. "Make small sacrifices to me and I won't make you feel bad." Of course this demon can be banished by ignoring its commands and facing the discomfort that follows.

I just remembered Daniel Mackler's Three Differences Between Therapy & Friendship page which might be relevant.Also going to the therapist and reading what you wrote in your first post is similar to Stefan's approaches of confronting people so that they can either step up or show themselves clearly to be someone who just isn't going to give up their agenda. I see it as a valuable way to get certainty about people's motives and be able to make clear choices without regret. Leaving things hazy leaves choices second-guessed later. I see confidence as an extremely valuable thing to have and cultivate with "experiments" that give a clearer sense of reality (and of course trust in oneself). The first sentence seems to make clear that either can end it at any time. The second to me is just suggesting that it's usually more beneficial if they talk about termination before doing so, to avoid cases where the client is having something come up that the therapist can help them through. In terms of an agreement, it doesn't say that "therapist and client agree to talk about termination and come to a consensus before termination", just that it's "important". Agreeing that it's important doesn't mean that it's essential or required or one will always take this course of action.I wonder if you could ask the therapist this over the phone "I want to terminate our relationship now. Would that break the agreement/contract I signed?" If they are evasive then you'll have more weight in your decision.

I think this is a very important aspect of having a therapist: you don't owe them anything (other than payment). You don't have to explain yourself, you don't have to consider their feelings, when you stop buying their services they are out of your life and don't have any place to bother you. Have you delved into why you would care what they think or say of you now? My guess would be a sense that they will try to make your life difficult. This is how I saw it too. Going back, explaining this, and getting a shallow, avoiding response from the therapist would make it easy to end things right there. Having the therapist actually listen would show that the reluctance was due to your own baggage. A danger is that the therapist might not listen but still do things that defeat your assertiveness or trick you into staying and continuing with something you're not OK with. I think that people here tend to value a person's own sense of their situation, so if you decide to go again you can post here about how it felt and let others here help you be assertive in leaving if the therapist tried to keep you from leaving.

The linked puff piece links to a more formal article with some claims about health benefits of foreskin cutting. I don't have the stomach to read hard-core defenses of such barbarism so I can't comment. I wonder whether it would be like arguing for the health benefits of removing all a child's teeth in a land where dental hygiene is unknown and people with teeth are considered to look funny and everyone is perfectly fine with having no teeth since they probably wouldn't like teeth that much anyway really.

Yeah, the title sounds like she doesn't consider her needs and says yes to whatever they ask of her, which then models not listening to one's own needs. Thinking more, the idea of asking is like you say for permission, and if she reframes things in a non-hierarchical way, what might be seen as answering yes to everything really is just treating them like unique beings and merely speaking for one's (her) own self. At the very least, she's being able to capitalize on the wealth of feedback in all the words and actions of her kids if she takes it as just feedback about what's going on for them rather than something imposing on her.

In the scenario envisioned, instead of price being based on the bandwidth, without reference to the site using it (e.g. randomwebsite.com versus disney.com), it would be based on how much a provider could get the site to pay. Especially if the site offers services that compete with the provider (e.g. Time Warner cable versus Netflix streaming), there would be incentive to charge more. Obviously, though, the barrel of a gun is no way to make it any better, even if the above scenario played out in full effect.