ZetaMan

Yeah, you're right, it's not someplace I want to be having seen other more tender people go down there. It's a fact of life, though. These people do exist out there. I don't particularly care to endanger a business relationship over something that probably wont be understood, or even worse, may be understood just enough to be insulting (lol) However... chances are likely that I will be spending time with someone I enjoy and have faith in, and they might come out with this nonsensical propaganda. Not necessarily because they're stupid, but perhaps stupid people told them this. It wouldn't surprise me considering how little knowledge of economics people generally have (even here in this uber Libertarian forum) that someone who is intelligent and lovable in other ways might just believe it because it sounds good. And when I referred to "the situation" I was referring to this conversation between us. It kinda creeped me out until just now.

Yeah. It's a perfectly valid principal. Except if you want to go that route then you have to go all the way. Perhaps the situation backfires and then Libertarianism gets a bad rap in public consciousness for another 50 years. A Libertarian model inside a Statist model is destined to fail. I'm strangely reminded of Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" where the protagonist from the past in a future populated solely by idiots with a pro-wrestler as U.S. President was given the authority to solve all their problems. When he suggested homes and crop fields should be supplied with water and not the world's famous energy drink, the Corporation making the energy drink that currently employed 90% of America went bankrupt. The populace reacted violently, not leaving enough time for the crops to start growing again and the economy to recover before deciding the guy with all the answers was wrong. That's what we're dealing with: people who can't see beyond the next 5 minutes and want change without their precious lives being disturbed. Worth keeping in mind.

To be honest I've only been looking to his work in the past week. My job gives me the liberty to listen to a lot of audio as I work, so I'm a few steps away from getting a book. That title interests me, though, as I wonder how you can rationalize ethics. I was always under the impression you're moved to do good or you're not. A small learning curve involved and that's it. What I liked best from Stefan so far is when he painted the picture for us that we're still farm animals living in tax farms. Thank you, Nathan. I've thoroughly enjoyed my experience here so far. I get a small scent of pretense in the air, but hey, "fake it till ya make it", right? Cheers! It's pretty f*cking weak if you ask me. And it's nothing new, so take heart. I spent many years, some of those years in management roles, on Internet forums. Some of them had these "Karma Systems" and the like, and they only bring out the worst in people. I haven't the first clue why FDR needs a Karma system. Are bad or disagreeable posters that reprehensible that we need a ranking system to help us avoid reading what they say? It was an itch I was going to have to scratch at some point as Militant Atheism doesn't fly past my window without me pontificating on it. I thought I'd just get that out of the way, and make sure people knew where they stand with me. It was also an attempt at a list of reasons why I'm not just like you. It seems a few around these parts not only respect Molyneux, but want to be their own special version of him. I honestly think I'd throw myself off a cliff in a world populated with people like that. Glad to see it's not as Twilight Zone as I feared it may be.

Yeah. Generally. But under this economy it wouldn't. In a system where everyone is owing more of an increasingly scarce and inflating currency no amount of jobs will do anything to bring more money into that closed system. If we minted our own coins, then maybe. But for now it's like throwing seed onto malnourished soil in the hopes it will rejuvenate all by itself and grow those seeds.... if ya get me. Thank you. At the very least cringe-worthy. It misses the moral argument and every other Human concern in the same way that when arguing for fathers to be part of the home again we're liable to pull out the statistic that says the children derail and become criminal. F*ck that. I just want my daddy/son/daughter and a nice huge bowl to make that interaction all the more entertaining. Oh come on, man. What is the point? 1) Never tried debating them, never did, never saw the point in "debating" someone. They said something incredibly fucking stupid worthy of having their brains scooped out and given to needy children and I had a perfectly normal and Human response - what else do you want out of this situation? Is there some great Holy Grail truth we're being led to here? 2) I'm not spending time with them. They were at my home that time for a "business meeting". I do not go searching for their company. However, once a year or so one person I do respect brings them into my social sphere. Shall I reach for the ol' DSM IV?

Of course, but without more wealth in the hands of the "middle class" more jobs simply means less money changing hands more often. Right? What's going on outside our windows right now in most places. World economy is looking pretty bummy right now. This argument sprung into existence only a few years ago when people started feeling the crunch, and it's always been used as "This is our answer to the economic downturn". It even made it's way into a press release by the politician who proposed a revised bill on marijuana here in Ireland. I'm honestly not surprised it wasn't taken at all seriously.

Guys, I need your help. This argument makes my head spin and thus incapable of processing any thought for an uncomfortable length of time. What I despise more than a good argument made by authority is a bad argument made by those who are supposed to be confronting authority - and the suggestion that making the growth and sale of marijuana legal will end the economic devastation by creating jobs is a really bad argument. And yet people, for some reason (probably excessive THC levels), accept this without question. I'm pretty sure someone on the FDR forum could language this one for me. How do you explain this to the well-meaning dimwit? I tried broaching this before in the company of 4 stoners after one of them had thrown it around. I asked where the money is coming from. "People will get jobs on the farms", the Alpha answered. Where will the farmers get that money? "From selling the weed", the Alpha answered once again. I thought to myself, "Yes! Just two more questions away from blowing some minds here", but by time I could finish asking where the people buying the weed would get this money from, one of them said something inanely stupid. It's pretty common for people who've bought into the State-controlled society as-is to hold ideas contrary to simple logic - is this one of those cases?

It's sad that we have to waste our time on what is essentially a difference on the level of epistemology against the backdrop of living in a free society. I'd suggest your eagerness to correct "the error of belief" springs from a subversive Marxist impulse. I believe I'm well within reason to fear roving Mad Max mobs burning down churches in a generation or two. [Yes, I'm aware I just employed at least 2 Fallacies there, but we all have the right to editorialize] I do not accept your dichotomy. It's built upon the untested (and in my opinion, unprovable) presumption that what can be received by the senses can also be received and translated into data by an instrument (which must be an instrument we have today). To me that's a grave oversight when your "Eternal Soul" may very well be on the line. You can tell me that since no paranormal phenomena (according to what you know) has been translated into data that none of these things could be said to exist as per the Scientific Method, but you cannot tell me that the lack of an instrument is itself sufficient proof that nothing outside our scope exists. Before botanical science my ancestors were healing themselves with plants, fruit, and vegetables in their surrounds. There were no instruments available to inspect each plant in Ireland, one-by-one, but it did not deprive the plants of their constituent parts. I do not suggest at all that you adopt a religion or have a vague belief that something, somewhere, out there, exists that has something to do with your genesis. You see life however you want, just don't be an asshole [Non-Aggression]. But acknowledge where the structure of Logic as-per the Human brain may have it's limitations and allow philosophy to carry the torch from there. Stuff I Can't Prove (A.K.A. Beliefs) I have reasons to believe what I believe. Those reasons and my reasoning of them is very personal. That's not to say I'm embarrassed or jealous over them, they are personal. These are absolutely unique moments in space-time that are more similar than unique to the experiences of any other mystic, but still unique in space-time. I did not record any data as I am too busy living the experience and not worrying whether someone will believe me. Nor do I have a cause-and-effect theory in order to manipulate "God" into showing itself in order to be measured. Generally sentient beings don't enjoy responding to manipulation or dispassionate regurgitation of "methods". (The entirety of the world's religious regimes are the archetypal example.) The scientific community has met the slippery boundaries of consciousness and found it to be totally unreliable for data in most instances. The studies done on Placebo effects for instance: a sugar pill, which would not cure the woes of the patient if he/she knew it was only sugar. Why wouldn't a free agent give you a different outcome than your data suggests if it has full knowledge you're trying to tickle it out of curiosity? If a sentient consciousness is the basis of our reality and has regard for it's offspring I would suggest it has no interest in feeding into childish desires by letting you poke it a couple 100 times for a consistent result (which is what a study requires). Maybe it's not really bothered whether we know it's a reality or not. Maybe it's more interested in building a relationship with a consciousness that is more like it's own. It would not be encouraging personal relationships by allowing you to think and prove to others that it is nothing more than a Newtonian process that fits very nicely into the prevailing utilitarian philosophy where everything but biomatter is dead - if even that.

So there is no introduction board, and I would very much like to avoid materializing out of thin air and not being known. I'd also like to know what community I'm coming to here. So hello! I'm not going to fit in here like a hand in a glove. I believe in God (although I'm not really sure exactly how or in what capacity it exists, and I'm certain I never will), I study the Occult and psychology more than economic or political history, and I'm somewhat of a passionate Men's Rights Advocate/Activist. But what brings me here is Libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principal and the 98% flawless reasoning of Stefan Molyneux - I feel I can learn, share, and teach some things here. So, who are you? How can we benefit from each other's existence on this donor-supported platform?