kavih

Ugh! I'm so fucking pissed off at hearing the support for this mom. I wish I could move to a different planet after reading the internet today.

Humans are a social species. The better the relationships we have with others, the better our chances are for survival. This is why pervasive ostracism is so threatening, because it burns so many bridges that one ends up with drastically less people to depend on and feeling that alone can cause depression, etc. So now, with that said, when we tell people about spanking and it's negative effects, we are directly threatening their social networks (especially with their family). In other words, we are explaining an idea to them that could cause them to become pervasively ostracized with people closest to them (their strongest social relationships). And if they end up agreeing with us and also spreading the message of peaceful parenting, they are further challenging their social networks. I believe this is why peaceful parenting is the hardest message to spread, as opposed to other ideas like ending wars, challenging religions, challenging monetary policy, etc. There is a threat of minor ostracism for trying to spread these latter ideas, but bringing them up doesn't immediately challenge someone's relationship between themselves and their mother and father (arguably the closest relationship people have with their family). What do you think?

This video is going viral, and unfortunately so many people are approving of the mother. So sad.

I'm not sure the Dad was trying to pit them against each other intentionally, but I completely agree that what you explained seems to have definitely been going on. It's similar to cops (the government) interrogating suspects harsh enough until one of them tells the truth or "narks" on the other. Ultimately, I think the Dad just wanted someone to blame, so that his inner-child (trying to come out through his laughter) continues to be suppressed.

You pointed out all the ones I noticed too. The opening line, with his raised, accusing voice, "Who's idea was this?!" makes me cringe, because that same very line that was used by my mother many times as I was a kid, usually following with some kind of physical or verbal punishment. The dad causes them to not even want to have verbal communication with their own father for the first 35 seconds! And looking at all of the comments on youtube and with that much of an approval rating, it's so sad to see how many people are oblivious to what's really going on with the father-child relationship.

How many bad parenting points can you spot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVDNNoEk4PI

So then a deduction from what Stef said and with what RoseCodex brought up would be that women who grow up without fathers or who have become dependent on welfare will tend to expect (and enjoy?) rough sex. Further, this is because their primal brain either thinks they are in a time of war (no father) or they are poverty stricken, and in both cases, spray and pray (R reproductive strategy) is assumed. Does this sound right?

But the target demographic of that movie were not likely to analyze the lyrics of the song. As long as the song mentions "hero" during appropriate scenes and is upbeat, impressionable kids and ignorant adults won't take notice, which is surely what happened to me when I watched this movie as a kid.

I would be just as interested.

I just listened to Tom Woods's last podcast, where he talks to Joe Quirk of the Seasteading Institute: https://youtu.be/9Gqf_0FDyAY And the website: http://www.seasteading.org/ And the promo video:

I just had my first experience with an ancom yesterday on facebook. As soon as I presented a question that was conflicting to his/her stance, this person said, "We'll have to agree to disagree." Given that we only conversed back and forth a couple times, it was easily a cop-out. I said I do not agree to disagree and am hoping for more dialogue, but I left it up to the OP as to whether she wanted us to continue (I didn't want to upset the OP since she has potential for waking up). The OP was about this: http://www.auroville.org/

I haven't really used the word "meetup" (as opposed to "meet up") without it referring to meetup.com. So, I thought that is what you meant (a group on meetup.com), even though you posted a facebook link. My mistake.

Oh yes, I completely agree. And that is why so many people that know the next collapse is inevitable should prepare to try and grasp the attention of so many unfortunate souls when it happens.

Thanks for sharing. I've re-shared it on facebook, since the more "mainstream" audience there will hopefully watch a more "mainstream" news source.

This made me think about any celebration, not just an individual's birthday. What justifies something being so important that an annual celebration for it is desired? Like annually celebrating the day two people are married.

Do you have any contacts in Northern/Central Cali doing something similar (not necessarily meetups)?

I don't have any trouble with your idea, as long as it isn't actually floating. In other words, I would only live "on the ocean" if it was a manufactured island; something stable enough to cope with massive hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. As for where, I think living in the tropical zone would be most preferable, so that we can grow our own food practically year round. Those are my initial thoughts.

Yep. I actually came across it on Pandora, because it was redone by some country chick in 2011 (per shirgall's post, if that is the same occurrence).

I just thought of a cool way to tell the story of "monopolies and government" to the average ignorant person. It would be a short video that describes how, in nature, trees are freely competing for sunlight and they all race to the top of the forest canopy. The ones that get to the top first are more successful than the ones that don't. However, the ones at the top also become very large and top-heavy. If during a windy storm, their roots aren't deep and strong enough in the soil, those large trees will fall over and die. Immediately, other trees grow to fill in the new gap of sunlight created. Now, this is analogous to how companies succeed and fail in the free market. Replace "tree" with "company," "sunlight" with "money," "windy storm" with "unforeseen market changes or bad mistakes," "roots" with "reputation," and "soil" with "customers." Once the analogy is easily understood for the viewers, the video would introduce the government into the forest. Without over-complicating it with lobbying and whatnot, the video would simply depict the government building reinforcements around the biggest trees, not allowing them to fall from a "windy storm;" hence allowing for those trees to monopolize the sunlight in that area of the forest. The video would then ask the question: "Since a forest deals with monopolies naturally, allowing for new trees to grow in the place of old ones, shouldn't our economy also be run "naturally," allowing for huge companies to fail, so that new companies can grow up in their place?" And then the video would follow up with the examples of how the government bailing out the big banks keeps their oligopoly going, rather than allowing them to fail and for new banks (or different financial institutions) to grow in their place. I'm sure there are other, possibly more straight-forward analogies for government induced monopolies, but I was randomly thinking about this one and thought I would share it here. Thoughts? Do you think this would be received well?

Agreed!

But a monopoly isn't a bad thing in a free market, since it's monopolization probably won't last very long (competitors) or if it does, it's because it's a monopoly on something without much demand by the market. Will you please provide an example?

And to think I used to know a lot of these lyrics by heart from listening to them while watching Footloose as a kid. Just terrible! "Holding Out For A Hero" Where have all the good men gone And where are all the gods? Where's the street-wise Hercules To fight the rising odds? Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed? Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what I need [Chorus:] I need a hero I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night He's gotta be strong And he's gotta be fast And he's gotta be fresh from the fight I need a hero I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light He's gotta be sure And it's gotta be soon And he's gotta be larger than life Somewhere after midnight In my wildest fantasy Somewhere just beyond my reach There's someone reaching back for me Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet [Chorus] Up where the mountains meet the heavens above Out where the lightning splits the sea I would swear that there's someone somewhere Watching me Through the wind and the chill and the rain And the storm and the flood I can feel his approach Like the fire in my blood [Chorus]

Exactly and as soon as a competitor enters the market, it is no longer called a monopoly, since all definitions I've read have used the word "exclusive" when defining the relationship between a monopoly and the product, good or service they generate. However, a free market most likely would not manifest copyrights or patents, so since the State is involved to give companies a "brand," this is no longer a free market. The movie theater is a great example of a situational monopoly, which is making me think of many more. And after reading Alan Champman's post, I think you are correct that they may not be mutually exclusive in theory, but I doubt monopolies would last very long in a true free market, since they are no longer a monopoly as soon as a competitor enters their space. I also found that very interesting. Dictionary.com defines a monopoly in it's 2nd definition as "an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government." I found that very interesting, which is why I started thinking free markets wouldn't let monopolies last long enough to call them monopolies; hence the theory of my OP.

As the title states, I believe free markets and monopolies can not exist at the same time. To have exclusive control over a commodity, service, or good means that a monopoly has no competition; not even a startup or mom and pop shop (hence, "exclusive"). In other words, monopolies only exist because an authority figure (government) prohibits all competition or regulates the industry in such a way that the competition can not exist. So, I don't see how a monopoly could exist in a free market, since in a true free market, there exists no authority figure to regulate things. Do you see any holes in my logic?

I would like to hear Stefan talk about this on the show. I'll add it to the mailbag. Thanks for your insight and opinions, guys.