luxfelix

I respectfully disagree. Your actions will influence society; through peaceful parenting, your inventions, and what you "vote" for with your wealth, time, and attention will help to chisel David from Michelangelo's marble. I don't know if this is what EndTheUsurpation specifically had in mind, but if there is a privatized army that must conform to the clients' demands in order to stay in business/make a profit, then in that way the army is receiving orders from the people (even if the soldiers follow the specific orders from their commander). It may help to conceptualize it as a business selling a product/service (in this case it's security from aforementioned foreign governments). I hope that helps.

Here's a comparison that might be helpful: In film (and other media), a professional soundtrack improves the value (subjective argument?) of the experience (hence why theaters charge more for Dolby Atmos mixes, 3D, etc.). The soundtrack is a complementary good and a result of collaboration between the studio producers of the film and the audio post house. (The composer can also sell the score again as a separate product.) The collaboration is extended further to the marketing/distribution firms and venues that bring the film to the audience. This industry is notorious for its use of copyright law, but there's also an option to forgo royalties (in part or in whole) in exchange for a profit percentage; this reduces some of the upfront costs of business and encourages the audio post house to take more of an interest in the overall success of the film. Sure there's a risk that the film will perform poorly at the box-office, but in this way one need not worry about enforcing intellectual property laws as they are commonly done today. You can also still be your own boss and seek investors/patrons to support you directly and/or sell your expertise as a consultant. (Again, David Ottinger provides some other good examples above.) There's also the possibility of signing on with a DRO that requires its clients to respect patents (and do so in ways that avoid breaking the NAP...).

I don't know per se, but it seems to me a hypothesis worth considering. Start with yourself and work out into your family and friends (choose good allies!) and continue to parent peacefully; like the time and effort necessary to sift specks of gold from the sand, the eventual profit greatly outweighs the cost. EndTheUsurpation suggested privatizing the military; to add to this, I would point to the historical precedent of Napoleon Bonaparte. He was able to raise armies with greater flexibility than his monarchical opponents, in part because the aristocracy could not trust to arm the peasantry and then return home without risk of armed rebellion, whereas Napoleon could rely on the mutual motivations of his countrymen to join him and skirmish with initiative lacking in the enemy ranks. In a free society, what would foreign governments hope to take but each estate, one-by-one, until they've been exhausted and overwhelmed?

I know this doesn't answer all of your questions, but if you don't want to learn new skills then you could partner with other people with those skills; it's what you do currently anyways, right? Alternatively, if you still want patents (regardless of any new method that could possibly be developed), then you could sign a mutual contract with a DRO (or other such court) that agrees to use a patent system with their clients and enforceable (through exclusionary penalties should one break the agreed upon terms) among all signed parties. If someone outside of the contract uses an idea of one of the contract members, than those members could refuse to do business with that outsider as well to deter such actions without violating the NAP and remain within their circle of patent businesses.

What if Pope Francis lost a bet early in his life and, as a result, had to become pope and make this declaration... (It was either that or join the KKK and turn it into the NAACP... )

First, congratulations! Second, I don't know if you ask your questions because you have some misgivings about using a state institution such as patents, or are likewise concerned that you will be shown disdain here for your decision, but if this helps you provide value to others and profit yourself (so long as no violation of the NAP occurs of course), then I don't see why you should worry. As someone who works in creative fields, the concept of intellectual property was important for me to learn about, as well as the way it currently applies to law and my industry; however, in a free society (and currently too... albeit less common), there are ways to profit from intellectual (and other) capital without the need to conform them to methods that work better with more physical forms of capital. (David Ottinger provides some good examples.)

Without empirical evidence, the following may fall into the same "god of the gap" problem that was touched on in the recent Determinism vs. Free Will video ( ): That there is no separate deity except what one discovers of the sublime and claims to be distinct from nature; the supernatural has always been natural, and receives such designation when insight meets experience. That, though mirage in concept, claims of superior divinity distract from the genuine source of soothsayer magic... will (be it, even in the beginning, betwixt binary options). That, as through the sundering of Science, the logos; through the gestalt of Art, the pathos; and through the synergy of Philosophy, the ethos; we find truth in the trinity: the father, the mother, and the child (to be parented peacefully). That this resulting triquetra reveals, at its center, what is known to be known; within the three mandorla is found the insular knowledge of the respective fields; at its edges and cusps is where we reach twilight of unanswered questions (whether they be between adjacent Vesica Pisces or amidst the contemporary contour); beyond lies the realm of unknown unknowns. That one, through will, engages in the economy of various capital archetypes; the resulting mutual responsibilities, specialized proficiencies, and wealth serves each individual and, in turn, develops the invisible hand of the market; when powers attributed to god are atomized, amalgamated, and transmuted anew into each individual; then we have a living god (now misnomer) that gazes back upon us from each mirror, from the fruits of works and experiences, and likewise from the eyes of those we love.

This portion stuck out to me most. Anger (and emotions in general) seems to be portrayed as a nuisance to be anesthetized with the aid of contemporary pharmacology or misdirected with sophistry in ways that best serve the sovereigns in the shadows. Thank you for posting.

Any form of entrepreneurism (be your own boss)? (Though not completely state-free, you could also go where you're treated best.) I'm guessing it would be best to do what your best at/have a passion for and let the rest of the chips lie where they may. (That's probably not a very helpful or profound statement... but I hope it helps.) Another way of looking at it is the "box thinking" problem where trying to think outside the box is still thinking in relation to the box. If you really want to be a doctor, for example, but decide not to because of the nationalizing of medicine, then you are sacrificing your desired career due to political decisions. (Maybe you'll decide it actually wasn't what you wanted to do despite the difficulties, which would be a good thing in the long run; maybe you'll continue to practice medicine somewhere where doctors are treated better?) So then, what is it that you want to do? (regardless of state challenges... )

I'd like to connect two ideas from this thread: the idea that (1) horror films can be interpreted as subliminal metaphors for trauma, and the idea that (2) witnessing acts of violence may desensitize the viewer and potentially dehumanize the victim. I propose a key factor between the two is empathy; with self knowledge/empathy we will be more likely to recognize the otherwise subliminal similarities between the horror film and the trauma of our past, and with extended empathy towards others, witnessing such horrors and violence will be less likely to desensitize us and lead us to dehumanizing a victim.

I recognize that the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it's unclear whether that applies to consciousness.

That's a good point. I would add that, whereas evil can benefit from the esoteric (i.e. legalese... ), philosophical and etymological illiteracy regarding anarchy does disservice to the perception and receptivity of the meaning behind the word (what we look to communicate). I could be exaggerating the importance of perception (professional bias).

Another example could be how there are objective examples (artworks with the globus cruciger, writings, etc.) that indicate that it was widely known that the Earth is round before the voyages of Columbus, even if the paintings and writings come from subjective sources (bias). A short documentary on the globus cruciger:

Would you agree with the point made in the video that you find some strength in overcoming the horrors? If you are more likely to pay attention to messages from your sub-conscious presented via terror and the resulting feeling is good, then no harm done, right? (I mean, you're here on FDR so I get that you don't initiate violence or anything like that even if the media is. )

Another interesting take on the subject:

I can relate to this...

Is this something along the lines of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

I found Jordan Peterson's example of wider gender preference gaps in egalitarian countries a compelling support for his insistence at the end to let people decide for themselves (regardless of whether these decisions are influenced by biology, culture, etc.). Does anyone else get this feeling that this whole men vs. women thing (I could be exaggerating) is just another attempt to divide and conquer?

The portion about permissiveness in public, in particular, reminds me of the improv process: The basic challenge of improv is to perform, without pre-planned choreography or script, before an audience in real-time; this is not dissimilar to working in any creative field with respect to needing to be "creative on demand". I recognize the ease and relaxation prerequisite as expressed in improv terms as "yes, and..." where players in a scene need to be in agreement to foster trust; they've got to trust that they will survive the roller-coaster ride together. And stepping out onto the stage kinda feels like the initial ascent, climbing higher and higher... I've found that the audience wants to go on that ride with you, they want to experience the feelings of weightlessness and the exhilarating rush of speeding through the unknown, the new -- but can they trust that the ride won't give them whiplash? The familiar is easier to trust, but they came to experience something new. Luckily for us, everything familiar is new because we are new, and we will make connections that we did not recognize previously. If you've ever watched old cartoons and found pretty adult jokes in them, then you'll know what I'm talking about here, and I can connect this back to the portion of the essay about how Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were not the only ones with their common backgrounds, but they were the ones to come up with evolution/natural selection because they made new connections with old dots. -- Ride the same roller-coaster with your eyes closed this time and its a new experience! -- Related to public permissiveness is personal permissiveness; there was a recent Stefan Molyneux video about how we need to be in the moment to create (reflection comes later), and that applies with improv as well. Another concept in improv is called "the master mind" or "the beast" where the players in a scene, fully trusting and listening ("in tune") with one another, will gain a heightened kinetic awareness as well as developing an underlying theme in seemingly unrelated scenes/dramatic beats. (If one of the players tries to force a connection, it breaks the group cohesion and can lead to unsatisfying performances, etc.) It is a risk to enter into a scene and trust that it will work out (creative work in general deals with subjectivity for judgments of value/cultural capital), so the portion at the end suggesting payment for physical indexes (reports, time summaries, etc.) rather than the brainstorming sessions themselves makes sense as an attempt to remove the stress of payment from creative sessions.

There's this behavior of "insulting the meat" found in different tribes like the Bushmen: http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=ESCAW352&SID=2&DatabaseName=Ancient+and+Medieval+History+Online&InputText=%22insulting+the+meat+in+African+culture%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=%26%2334%3Binsulting+the+meat%26%2334%3B+in+African+culture&TabRecordType=Subject+Entry&BioCountPass=0&SubCountPass=1&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=&AncientData=Set&GovernmentData= Maybe there's a common thread here with the elements of social cohesion and humility through unspoken praise? (if that's not a contradiction?)

Maybe ignorance (by choice) is the motherload of bad ideas? I'm thinking specifically of that quote by Socrates(?): "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." I interpret the quote with knowledge as a dedication to consistency, accuracy, and discovery which will lead to such conclusions as the NAP, the free-market, and charity etc. (what could be called good). Are we discussing subjective opinions here? (I may have misunderstood the intent of the original post...)

I agree with the point dsayers made about voting for the hood ornament vs. choosing not to be run over; Does this include the nomad capitalist/flag theory concept of "going where you're treated best"? This is also related to "voting with your feet" (the term "voting" may be incorrectly used in this phrase?) so that the world's talent and wealth will leave more oppressive countries and settle where there is more freedom; when another country can provide even more freedom, then the wealth and talent of the world will likewise move again. This cycle is a theoretical (and possibly false/incomplete) way to bring about a stateless society since the progressive competition will lead to the freest country becoming the one that dissolves any remnant of violent rule and therefore the best place to attract the world's wealth and talent. All that said, peaceful parenting seems to be an even more direct root to a nonviolent country (maybe the two methods can be used concurrently?).

Thanks for the links.

Ah, I see.

Hence the second video.