J. D. Stembal

What does good health have to do with luck? It's a conscious path toward success. Obviously, morbidly obese people have strayed from the path at some point in the distant past. It doesn't happen overnight. Obese people don't wake up one morning stricken with a debilitating condition. Health is a choice, not an accident.

Is it acceptable to kill someone over the pollution they are causing? Can I tackle you and rip the keys out of your hand if you get into your car? If you resist, can I kill you? Nobody, including Da Vinci, to whom it was originally posed in January, has attempted to answer this question, or offer a logical explanation or argument to prove this. If pollution is a violation of the NAP (or UPB), then it would be justifiable to use the necessary level of ethical self-defense in order to prevent it, up to and including the killing of polluters. (Just like rape, theft, murder, and assault.) Any takers? Please take a swing at it.

How do you know? According to your previous math, a single cow requires 2-4 acres of land to itself. Why is it so inefficient? Are there other animals that are more efficient? What if you combine the ranching of different animals on the same land, making it more efficient than it would be with only one type of animal? I brought up the example of Joel Salatin and Michael Pollan's Ominvore's Dilemma for a reason. Search for "books on meat eating and feminism" or "feminist vegan books" and you will get a sense of how well read this book is in feminist and vegan circles. Either the feminist movement co-opted the ethical vegan propaganda, or the two evolved together, but the difference is not that important. There is a strong correlation between feminism and vegans for the reasons I noted previously. There is also a cookbook from 1981, which has its origins in political lesbianism - http://www.amazon.com/Political-Palate-Feminist-Vegetarian-Cookbook/dp/0960521003 There are also a number of prolific vegan-feminist bloggers, Marla comes to mind foremost - http://www.amazon.com/Political-Palate-Feminist-Vegetarian-Cookbook/dp/0960521003 Notice that I said "we evolved" and not "apes evolved" to eat meat. There are a number of significant biological differences between the different species of apes and humans not the least of which is our ability to adapt to different habits in order to pursue wild game herds. The other apes don't fare well when removed from their natural habitats. That's why they stick to plants. Plants don't move at all. We are erect while motile, and this separates us from all of the surviving species of primates. The other apes walk on all fours. This provides part of the explanation for our extreme adaptability. Walking upright is a more efficient use of energy. We also have larger brains than the other apes, which adds to our unique ability to track game, and remember which berries are yucky. Pollan goes into some detail about this. The title of the book, Omnivore's Dilemma, is a direct reference to our ability to be curious and rational about our environment and the other plant and animal life around us. While easily the weakest, humans have the finest manual dexterity of all the apes, which, along with our brain mass, allows us to make tools, for hunting, and gathering. The "NutritionFacts" video you linked overlooks the fact there were countless proto-human species between chimps, bonobos, gorillas and us, so the argument that they mostly eat plants, therefore we should, too, doesn't hold water, empirically speaking. It's clear that humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. What vegans decide to do in their kitchens is irrelevant to the reality of our history of multiple modes of nutrition.

Perhaps Reddit is not doing enough to spread the cause of freedom. Why do you continue posting topical FDR videos in the subforums if you aren't getting any traction? Is it possible that your choice of videos is the source of the failure?

If society does not actually exist, who are you putting in danger? What if the criminal was framed for the murders? You cannot punish people for probability of risk. A crime can only be said to have happened if the non-aggression principle was violated, but how could violating it again through capitol punishment be a solution to the first incidence of the violation?

Children are not punished or disciplined because they are bad, parents punish because they are bad parents. Religious parents must punish their children because they are bad parents, seeking to reinforce the belief in the irrational. Theists are selective atheists (they only believe in one god among the thousands that are purported to exist), while atheists are rational empiricists. They know that no gods can exist empirically, and therefore, are not ever tempted to believe that they exist. Believing in the irrational to fit into a community is basic herd mentality Children are born as rational empiricists, and therefore, are atheists by definition. They have to be punished or disciplined in order for their parents to make them believe in the irrational. This is why peaceful parenting will never catch on in religious families or communities. If you were a peaceful parent, in a peaceful community, your child would not grow up believing in a deity in the first place. Religion is antithetical to raising children peacefully. Children aren't going to voluntarily accept nihilism, relativism or leftism if you don't train them to fake a belief in God. They are likely to become infected with these if you send them to public school or teach them through example. Home-schooling as an atheist parent is the preferred approach to raising children peacefully for this reason. How do we ultimately prevent parents from raising children irrationally? Economically shame them for it. Less people will want to commit the sin of child abuse if you attack their economic prospects in response. Refuse to do business with people who raise their children religiously. Thanks for the video, Matt. It got very interesting towards the end after you warmed up your thoughts.

Which state executes drunk drivers? (Apparently, El Salvador does as well as Bulgaria, but it sounds like bullshit.) http://www.orangecountyduilawyersblog.com/2013/09/worst-drunk-driving-penalties/ Also, drunk driving is reckless endangerment and pre-meditated. I have frequently operated a vehicle while intoxicated, and it is obviously a conscious decision to put yourself and others at risk. Otherwise, I'm not sure what drunk driving has to do with the ethics of self-defense or execution. I am not really concerned with the probability of crime in this discussion, but the morality behind capitol punishment.

Since it is impossible to die and then spontaneously come back to life, why do you have so much interest in the afterlife? That is the province of the dead, and not the living. If you are posting in the thread, you are not dead.

At least illicit drug use is voluntary, whereas being beaten as a child is not avoidable without self-erasing. Both have a measurable effect on IQ and child development, and one generally leads to the other. (Kids are spanked long before they are offered joints at parties.) ADHD medications are forced onto children by the state, through public school officials, and can be just as damaging or more damaging than illicit drugs. Dr. Bonafice is an apologist of the pharmaceutical industry, which dovetails nicely with her anti-marijuana stance. I'm not pro-marijuana by any means, but I'm for the voluntary right to consume it. My stance on the drug war is end it at the earliest possible convenience. Once the dollar collapses, DEA, FBI and ATF enforcement will become nearly impossible at any level. It's not very effective now, and these three agencies operate on a combined annual budget of over $11 billion. Agents aren't going to be enforcing the laws for free. We will be offered a smorgasbord of formerly illicit substances at cut-rate prices to tame the unruly population into submission. People who are high generally don't take to the streets in protest.

This would happen to violate the definition of self-defense. If there is no threat of immediate harm, you cannot kill in self-defense. Killing by self-defense is also not pre-meditated, yet execution is. Therefore, execution is immoral and a violation of the NAP, whereas self-defense is not.

Stefan should be getting negative reactions to the larger audiences of people on the internet. That means the medicine is working. I had a very negative reaction to Stefan at first. My thought was, "Who is this nut-job?" Let me guess. Your Facebook friends are skeptical of this thing called the non-aggression principle because that means they can't worship the state (their parents) any more.

This thread brings me back to middle school. I had a crush on a transfer student. Her and I were the two tallest people in our grade that played basketball competitively, so we often guarded the other as centers in the intramural leagues. We were both centers on our respective school team. This was after I had called her a few times earlier in the year to ask her out and her father had to tell me not to call the house again. Needless to say, we were incredibly physical with each other in the paint, throwing elbows, and fouling hard. She got me in the face really hard one time, and I thought I was going to have a bloody nose. The referees had to warn us and threaten ejection on at least one occasion. Of course, I was a bit bitter about being rejected for being so forward about wanting to go on a date with her, so that explains my aggressiveness, but I wasn't quite sure what motivated her. Perhaps it was her father telling her to pulverize the creep that dared to call the house several times, or she was insulted that a boy two inches shorter than her would dare to ask her out. It's hard to know at age twelve what the hell is going on socially and sexually. Regarding the video, it would be instructive to have learned why the boy liked the girl in the first place, and why the girl has no desire to reciprocate, or even handle the situation herself. The video is tacky. Get over yourselves, boys! Persistence isn't attractive! I have a feeling this is all about the mother and the daughter being offended that a male of lesser perceived status has the gall to make a play for the honeypot, so to speak.

How is "Stefan is mean-spirited, Tom Woods is never a total dick" an argument backed by empirical evidence? Truth be told, I've stopped listening to the call-in shows regularly, but it has more to do with me getting sick of listening to the determinism/RBE proponents. You have to remember that the call-in show is mainly there to serve the interest of the callers, and most of the time we are waiting for them to stop bullshitting to get to the meat of the call. There were some really powerful calls from last year that stick out in my mind where Stefan dug deep into the callers' childhood experiences. That's where the real connection is. Define "value for the cause of freedom."

One of the arguments put forward in the article is that death by firing squad is a quicker, more painless death, but the marksmen need to hit your heart. It seems like the chemicals used in lethal injection are difficult to procure and expensive to prepare. I would like to focus more on a discussion of the ethics of the death penalty. Why do some states have it while some have repealed it? Is this a legitimate use of the "state right" of self-determination? Is there any place for execution in a peaceful society? If the NAP is the real arbiter of ethics and justice, the only acceptable killing is one made in self-defense, or judged to be accidental without being reckless. I mentioned economic sanctions in the first post, and by that, I mean that a murder or criminal worthy of capitol punishment would be expected to pay back the family or community devastated by the wrongful death. If not, then economic exile would be the final remedy. How does killing the killer possibly help? I suspect that it is designed to serve as vengeance for the family of the victim more than anything.

I've avoided IV drugs due to my immense dislike of doctors, hospitals and the needles, but everything Zosha said about feeling free, especially in social situations, is spot on. My greatest and most debilitating addiction is with alcohol and sex. Throw cocaine into the mix and it's porno on nitro. Many times, the morning after the congress, I could not recall much of it. I've also experienced much shame at whom I found lying in bed next to me. From Hell's Heart I stab at Thee. I've been to one NA meeting and I will never go back. Any program that encourages you to give up your autonomy to a deity cannot be helpful in the long run. Plus, all the members were chain smokers, and I've been trying to quit smoking for decades. The bottom line is that I have been drug and sex free for nine months and it feels wonderful. I also went cold turkey. I've had one beer and one glass of champagne since then. Why does the doctor say you can't quit the morphine? Could it be he wants to keep seeing you as a patient? I would be highly skeptical of what most health professionals tell you. Most of them are bought by pharmaceutical companies. Morphine was invented by an apothecary, which is another word for pharmacist.

*My sensors are picking up a fit-shamer in the thread.* (Not you, Magnum.) I've been doing a raw egg shake, essentially egg nog without the dairy, by blending it with coconut oil, flax seed oil and cod liver oil. It's a pretty tasty way to start the day, and my body feels great.

Religious zealots will murder you given the chance. Remember, we are talking about a religion that says right in its book of wisdom that we are to burn homosexuals and witches at the stake, basically any faggot God doesn't like. See also usurers. Have you ever wondered why Right Libertarians are so anti-Fed? It's right there in their book of laws. Statists simply want you thrown in prison. Choose the better of two evils? No, thanks. I'll go my own way.

Do you think there was a calculated cost-benefit reasoning behind praising the very religion that organized the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I wonder what the motivation could be.

Thank you for your sympathy. Stefan was spot on to tell the caller about the third way because if he turns his back on LDS, he will likely lose his family permanently. Clearly, that's a no win situation for him or his family. Since the caller is already embedded in the Church, he might as well build a bridge toward virtue in his community. From the caller's description, it sounds like there was already a lot of virtue in his family and community, but I do not have the same experience of the devoutly religious. (My aunt, uncle and their daughter are all working on their second marriages, and they love to sit in the pew and sing to Jesus.) However, for the rest of the atheists, we owe it to our children to not indoctrinate them into theocracy, or the state. The state is just another form of theocracy. In fact, the modern state evolved directly out of theocracy. One nation under God. I see no significant difference between the morality of the state wielding the gun, and the same gun being wielded by priests and parents on behalf of an angry deity. We have just as much to fear from religion as we do the state because it is a mutation from shared DNA. Advocates of religion contrive to dress it up in virtues and values, but it is largely a front for the public, God and their congregation, and rarely an expression of wisdom, honesty or compassion.

I had just watched the documentary, Meat the Truth, where bovine-derived methane is argued to be the most environmentally devastating green house gas that is causing global warming. I directed my angst at you, but it could have been more respectfully dissipated at the film. That is where the cow fart comment originated. I do eat coconut oil as a source of saturated fat. Nearly every day, I drink a shake made from coconut oil, raw eggs, cod liver oil, and flax seed oil. I have had a juvenile fixation with dairy, probably because I was not breast fed extensively, and breast milk is the most readily available source of saturated fat available. It's too bad lactating women don't sell it on the open market. I used human milk in my tea, and it was an amazing experience for the senses. I am striving to eliminate bovine dairy from my diet. There is a very clear correlation, at least in my physiology, between bovine hormone consumption and acne. I don't see the same effect when I eat grass-fed beef. I usually get the grass-fed liver steaks. That is power food! Cow heart is simply incredible. It's too bad you can't find it in stores, and have to order direct from a farm to get it. In general, I prefer pork over beef due to higher fat content and subjectively better flavor. Back to the pastures... back to the range. My purpose of asking how you knew that there aren't enough pastures is to demonstrate that no one can know the answer. If we could calculate it precisely right now, what does that number ultimately matter in the long run? The free market would adapt to scarcity by creating more pasture land, or develop more efficient modes of grazing (see my later reference to Polyface Farms and Joel Salatin). Your assertion that there isn't enough pasture is an argument from consequence, and it paints pro-meat eaters into a corner. On one hand, it is certainly valid that the CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) is inefficient, destructive, and cruel. Yet, when I suggest that consumers vote with dollars to get more cattle into pastures, I am told that there is not enough land to facilitate this. How can this be, considering that more capital investment could be allocated to it, and secondly, what does it matter? Ranchers will make do with the land available to them. Consumers will make do with the product that is available. Price will fluctuate accordingly. Furthermore, if we could answer the pasture question, it would be a damaging argument against the validity of the free market, and free will. A priori, we can have no definitive knowledge of the ranching practices in the future without the burden of the yoke of the state. Disappear the USDA, and the generous government subsidies for corn production, and the environmental and economic distortions will go with them. Note that the federal government started regulating agriculture during the Great Depression, and has continued to interfere to this day. In an earlier post, I suggested that there would be more land available for ranching if there was no federal government holding it for ransom. We don't need to burn down the rainforests so that customers can buy beef. We need to burn down the government instead. Once Americans realize that consuming grain and soy is detrimental to human health, as well as the health of feedlot animals, all the wasted agricultural capital, including the land, can be put toward ranching. Farmers, such as Joel Salatin (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/), have improved on farming and ranching techniques, providing tremendous value for their customers, and are pioneering sustainable forms of animal agriculture. When you get government out of the way, amazing things can happen. Don't fall back on the trope that the free market does not exist and never will. It is another argument from consequence. There will never be a free market in reality, so this disproves the efficiency of the free market. It's also entirely untrue. Free markets are omnipresent, as long as there is trade and barter, and they will remain even under a repressive fascist government. Please note that beef consumption is declining, not rising. Since the mid-1970s, it has dropped about 30% in the United States. The graph is spoilered for size. I suggest anyone interested in sustainable animal agriculture to read Michael Pollan's Ominvore's Dilemma, as he goes into great detail describing how CAFOs operate, and how they are influenced by over-production of government-subsidized corn. OD is one of the most well written books I have read in the last five years. Here is an excerpt: Finally, here is my reasoning behind the statement, "Ethical veganism is derived from cultural Marxism." Please let me know how sensible it sounds. I'm still honing it. Marxist ideology relies on the premise that there are historically oppressed groups of people, and only government intervention can reverse their plight. The oppressed cannot advocate for themselves, like children and animals. The feminist and civil rights movements both jumped on the Marxist bandwagon, claiming that minorities and women have historically been oppressed, like the proletariat worker. This was so that they could abandon self-ownership, and beg the state to intervene on their behalf. There is documented evidence that the civil rights movement was directly funded by the Communist Party. Feminism continues to be a movement funded primarily by the state, which is inherently socialist. The notion of animal rights and vegetarianism also gained popularity during this time, because rights advocates could use animals as another oppressed class of living beings to further their political and social agendas, as the categorical "minority" and "women" had both been abducted by cultural Marxism. Animals cannot advocate for themselves, except for adult humans. This is important when discussing how UPB applies to animals. When an intelligent bovine can log in to the forum and explain to us he doesn't want to be penned or slaughtered and why, we will have to revamp UPB to include him. Seminal feminist-vegetarian works, such as Carol Adams' The Sexual Politics of Meat, insist that throughout history meat procuring and consumption was largely a male-dominated endeavor, and that grains, plants and fungi were deemed to be only acceptable fare for feminine constitutions. Meat consumption is described as a violent, unjust, and barbaric behavioral outgrowth of the patriarchy. I have only skimmed parts of her book, but Adams' goes on to conflate the butchering of animals with the rape of women, that dismembering a calf is psychologically the same as having sex with a young woman against her will. We don't require consent from an animal to eat it, because it cannot give consent. Adams contends that when consumption of animals is rejected by men, and society as a whole, women will no longer be oppressed. From the preface in the new edition of The Sexual Politics of Meat: Adams' thesis rests on the assertion that animal agriculture is the foundation and causation of female oppression. Compare this to Stefan's recent empathic proto-postulate on vegetariansim. If we treat our children with kindness and teach them empathy, they won't want to consume animal products. (If we treat our animals with empathy and kindness, men won't rape women.) However, this far from an ethical proof and cannot be universalized under his own system of secular ethics. At best, vegan theory falls under aesthetic preference, such as I like chocolate, you enjoy vanilla. The empathy theory also completely ignores that some animal consumption is required for optimal human health and development. We evolved to eat animals, not plants, and especially not grains. This is incontrovertible biological fact. Our endocrine system and metabolism are calibrated to hunt large wild animals because they are the densest forms of nutrition available in nature. We eat what we are for health. We are animals, so we need to eat animals to thrive. The optimal foraging strategy would also dictate that hunting large wild game was the most energy cost efficient mode of food procurement available pre-agriculture, assuming wild game was available. Animal husbandry and ranching makes meat-eating more efficient than our Paleolithic ancestors could imagine. If you were to attempt to universalize the ethical proof of consuming animal products is immoral (or not universally preferable behavior), mothers could not breast feed children without violating UPB. Indeed, we would not be able to metabolize ourselves for energy, as this would also violate the proof. Humans are, by definition, animals, but not all animals are human. Human is a sub-category of animal. I have killed two chickens, and it was an overwhelming experience. You must rip off the head, so that the bird dies instantly and painlessly. There is not a lot of blood spilled. The first time I did it, I wept afterwards. I did not hold any malice or ill-will toward the chicken. In both instances, it was a mercy killing, not a slaughter. One chicken was terminally ill, and the second had been mauled by a dog. The dog did not stand trial for a violation of ethics for mortally wounding a chicken. The mauled bird was safe to eat (you never eat sick animals), so her death was not meaningless, as her nutritional essence lives on in me. Kill an animal with your bare hands, and you will have an idea how much empathy required to do it. Overall, it was an emotionally cathartic experience for me. I regard the act of raising, slaughtering, butchering and eating animals to be very beautiful and life affirming. It allowed me to deal with some misplaced feelings about death. At least, that's my anecdotal experience and perspective. Please define humanism, and demonstrate how it is separate from the movement of cultural feminism. If ethical veganism is representative of humanism, why does it advocate for organisms that aren't human? If you consider Briffault's Law to be a valid observation of human social and sexual interactions, you might also consider that women are largely the arbiters of the family structure, and by logical extension, greater society. Is there any room for another ideological "-ism" movement besides feminism, if women are able to veto it down with their eggs? I suspect that humanism is actually feminism in disguise, pandering to egalitarians and utilitarians. It is a collectivist ideology, plainly and simply. In closing, I want to thank you for the engaging questions and discussion even though I took a jab at you earlier. I hope that most of this lengthy post is useful and constructive regarding animals and UPB. If not, feel free to neg me.

I've always been opposed to capitol punishment, and I find the idea that death by rifle to the chest being more humane is a bit of a ludicrous thought, as well as a clear violation of the NAP. Any form of death penalty would be a violation. Economic penalties, fines or sanctions make much more sense for violent criminals. The threat of capitol punishment is not an effective motivator to deter violent crime. It tends to make martyrs of criminals more than anything. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865623974/Utah-votes-to-retain-firing-squad-method-for-planned-execution.html

I recently finished reading Grain Brain by David Perlmutter. In the chapter called Brain Drain, he describes how WGA (wheat germ agglutinin, or gluten) lowers scholastic achievement in children and contributes to the so-called childhood behavioral disorders, and the prevalence of depression and autism. Also, through the various hormonal mechanisms of insulin, eating wheat causes spikes in blood sugar which negatively affect the availability of neurotransmitters in the brain. Ultimately, chronic grain consumption causes the centers of your brain responsible for memory and cognitive ability to degenerate, hence, why older people are so prone to senility in modern society. All other factors being equal, the society that eschews wheat exposure should have higher IQ scores. Granted, hunter-gathers don't have much need for text books or schools. Civilized man has progressed in spite of all the negative nutritional effects of wheat and grain consumption. There is also the fact that it was only very recently (since 1950) that agricultural scientists began mucking about with mutagenic chemicals to alter the natural properties of wheat, but to what effect? As with any nature versus nurture discussion, genetics is meaningless without considering the environment surrounding the organism. Different environments trigger different genes to manifest in the body, causing various processes, such as weight gain, brain degeneration or even the growth of new neurons. The real interesting - and controversial - discourse would be surrounding an experiment to find out whether the IQ disparity between blacks, whites and Asians is hardwired or caused by environment and parenting.

Number two bothers me. What is a dissenting ethnicity? How does one tolerate a race? How does this work in practice? Is this really a racial loophole for people to accuse others of being racist when they dare to claim that the Civil War had little to do with a public moral crusade to end slavery, and more do to with the Federal government forcing its will over the autonomy of the states?

I absolutely loathe the argument, "That's not how the real world works." I had this pounded into my head by my parents. That's just the way things are. This is how the world works. You can't change it. What markets were created by ACA? Millions of formerly insured were squeezed out due to across the board rate hikes. I am one of them. Now, I'm just laughing. The reason that the free market "under provides" for education and scientific research is because the public sector is cock-blocking the free market and keeping most of the capital investment for itself. Social contract... a figment of Uncle Sam's imagination. There would be no internet without government investment. The government has no money to invest. I suppose there would never have been a World War or a nuclear bomb detonated over Japan without the government either, following that logic. Ugh, I only made it 9 paragraphs. I skimmed. Later on, he calls for single payer health care because Democrats lacked the political will to pass a comprehensive government health care initiative, and caused the failure of Obamacare. From where does this idea of politicians "lacking political will" originate? Doesn't everyone know that they are bribed just to get into office at any level? There is no such thing as political will when your agenda has been swallowed up by the Leviathan!

http://free.boughtmovie.com/ You have to provide them at least throw-away email address to view the film for free, but the documentary contains a lot of insights about the financial and political motivations behind genetically modified crops, mandatory immunization of children and adults, and the expansion of pharmaceuticals in the health care industry. Edit: Bought is no longer offering a free full viewing of this movie, just the first 30 minutes.