Tyler H

Well said.

I think there are certainly versions of yelling that are fine, but in the context of "losing it" I can only infer that this is yelling in order to intimidate. Ultimately this falls into the category of manipulation. I think if there is honesty and respect in our relationships, we won't need to yell and won't ever "lose it". An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, right? In regards to children, I think a yelling parent will appear unpredictable and terrifying to a child while at the same time modeling behavior that will hinder positive communication in the relationship going forward. I would avoid yelling at all costs and apologize profusely if I ever "lose it", as well as conduct a serious analysis of how and why it happened. P.S. Nice comment Kevin!

Sounds good dude, thanks for being open enough to share!

1) To add to what Shirgall said - you are not authorizing a ruler because you are purchasing defense services (self defense and self defense via third party are not the initiation of force) that you would be able to stop purchasing at any time. 2) Saying that you are giving authority to people over a region doesn't make sense to me in the context of a free society. You would only be able to give someone control over a region that you owned (since you cannot sign over someone else's property or sign contracts for other people without their consent) and if you maintain ownership of that region then you still are the one ultimately in control (with the ability to remove any authority given at any time). The salient difference between a statist and free society is the presence or absence of force to secure funding. Force allows an organization to procure resources irrespective of quality and competition; this is how we are ruled. However, in the absence of force an organization must rely on the value of their product and the satisfaction of their customers to remain viable. If they are not able to provide a product or service that is of value then they cease to exist. Does this help?

Was what done for tax reasons? Accepting the 25k?

For reference, this New York Times article is something I would consider racist.

I've never heard this definition before this conversation. Also, if it "may or may not", is it necessary to include in the definition?

Nah man, it's those libtard hippie douches' fault for redistributing the gravity to the moon since we had so much more.

Just in case you haven't seen this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emTLFcNK6-c

Lol, I'm dying.

Assertion.

Are you guys implying we don't talk about this? Or are you making a general statement on the decadence of our society?

I inferred that you were saying that was the alternative solution in the statement I quoted. I definitely agree here, they should be aware that their appearance and circumstance may be nestling to someone with a small child and have empathy. If they do not, then they don't deserve anyone else's. Like f***ing bicyclists man, share the road? I'm all for sharing the road but that's not what they want, they want to take over the road and ride down the middle of the street going ten miles an hour, disobeying all the traffic laws.... Can you tell I drive into the city everyday? Lol.

I think the market would go as far as society would want them. I think society would make accommodations for handicapped people without state enforcement, I don't see why transgender people would not get the same accommodations.

Why not abolish the laws? Leave it up to the owner of the bathroom to decide who is allowed to use it on what grounds. Probably not, but either the child can hold it and wait for the man to leave or you can go in with her, or wait at the entrance. Would your child not yell out if someone came near her in such a private place?

I agree with the other comments for the most part. I'll only add that if someone who didn't know them couldn't tell they were in the "wrong" bathroom without investigating their genitalia then what difference does it make? Some of those guys look more man than I do lol.

They're fairly short and provide a good introduction to the basic arguments. They are available for free in many formats. From what I understand the major difference between a free society and a minarchist society is that the former rejects the initiation of the use of force as a legitimate and moral avenue to fund the organizations providing services. If the citizenry is smart enough to resolve complex social problems without coercion then they are smart enough to know whether or not they should voluntarily fund a form of police/military for defense of their property/homeland. We don't know that a military won't exist in a free society, but we do know we won't be taxed to pay for it. If a military has value to people, they will pay for it; if it does not, they won't.

Have you read Stef's books Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy?

Fixed that for ya . Lol. I can't stand those guys .

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy are great for those issues, and both are available in audiobook. Basically Everyday Anarchy lays out the arguments on how most of how we interact with each other is anarchical anyways and Practical Anarchy offers some possible solutions to problems that because they are currently done by the government people assume they can only be done by the government. I'm sorry, I would have suggested those in my first post, but I thought you said you had read them; I think I confused your post with another similar one in the middle of my response.

Yeah, I was actually surprised that this type of character could be portrayed as the sympathetic protagonist in such a main stream flick. I think I've been so immersed in philosophy that I haven't been able to keep up with decadence.

1) Do you mean something like a Better Business Bureau or Angie's list? Yeah, I don't see why not. I think the insurance companies would have a vested interest in making sure companies are complying with best practices. Also, business leaders won't be shielded by the fictional entity "corporation" and would be held personally liable for any lawsuits - that will significantly effect the adherence to suggested regulations set by the free market. 2) Well you won't be forced to purchase, so what worries would you want alleviated by the nuke company before buying? An entrepreneur wishing to satisfy the desire of protection for a couple hundred million people will need to assuage the fears of a couple hundred million people. 3) I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I think I understand it enough to comment. Keep in mind a free society cannot come about until there is a philosophical revolution. What exactly do you mean by underclass and how did they come about in the society of the future? The underclass we have now has been bred by the government's use of force to invert incentives and misallocate resources, the free market does not allow for this sort of gross inflation of bad decisions because it punishes those decisions economically. Was this helpful? As far as podcasts to listen to, there's a lot and they're all good (in my opinion lol). If you can endure the lack of audio quality from the first few podcasts I would highly recommend them. The quality of content is amazing and they really focus on the arguments and ideas. I really enjoy the debate podcasts as well for this kind of information.

As I said in posts that for some reason haven't been posted yet, the dictionary definition of racist could be interpreted to include anyone who thinks that there are differences in the races that would lend a subjective but widely accepted form of "superiority" to one or another. I argue that, colloquially, racist has another meaning and we should be identifying this colloquial definition and working with that.

But Singaporeans and Equatorial Guineans aren't races. There are only 3, Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. What I was saying in my earlier post is that it is arbitrary how you divide people up when your focus is intelligence.

Saying things aren't equal doesn't require that they be hierarchical. One race may be "superior" to another in certain areas of human abilities but who's to say what areas are the most important? It's all very subjective. Even if we hold intelligence to be the most important human ability, why do we then decide to divide by race first and then intelligence? Why not divide people by height first and then say the 5'8" people are superior to all because we happen to have the most intelligent people on average!! Also, when brought down to the individual level the argument breaks down. One person of one race can't say he is objectively superior to one person of another race based solely on their skin color, ethnic background, or the achievements of other individuals he has no connection to other than the fact that he has placed himself in a category with them by separating the categories by race. Facts can't be racist, saying Asians are smarter on average than Caucasians is not racist. Saying William Hung is smarter than Ben Carson is racist. I'm not calling our favorite Ricky Martin cover singer stupid, actually I think he's pretty smart (Berkley) - I'm just saying assuming he's smarter than Ben Carson based on their races would be racist. In summation if you say this individual person is [this attribute] (not one scientifically linked to race or a definitional descriptor - i.e. skin color, hair type, genes, etc.) because they are [race] - that's racist. Im not sure I articulated correctly exactly what I meant to say, but let me know if this is helpful.