luxfelix

(This might not fit, but here we go): Similar to how a surgeon may need to amputate a limb to save the patient, a tease could help a depressed individual get angry. (Anger may not be happiness, but it is arguably a step up from depressed.) This requires empathy to communicate in a way that the listener will best receive the message (at a low emotional state, it may be difficult to hear a positive message without it coming across as anempathetic). The spark example Waleed used also points to the need to "know your audience" so that a tease benefits rather than harms (is the amputation necessary?). This seems to be a method Stefan Molyneux uses to encourage listeners to move away from self-attack.

This is synonymous with Adam Smith's description of the invisible hand of the market, if I recall correctly; parties acting based on self-interest in a free market will inevitably(?) lead to an overall benefit for all participants (since voluntary trades lead to net positives within the system).

I didn't find the TED talk, but I found this:

Ah yes, I agree. I'm guessing andrew21594 was referring more to company-scale pollution, but I found the individual-scale example helpful for context (if it is still valid regardless of scale). So instead of a cigar lounge, it could be real estate in an industrial district where there is a general understanding that air quality will not be as high as say real estate in the undeveloped countryside (provided air quality is an important factor in the decision of where to live). In addition, Stefan Molyneux provided a possible example of interested parties pooling their resources to ensure no companies etc. move next door and pollute the air around their residences (I think it was an earlier video about DROs and Insurance... if anyone else knows?).

I'd like to think a free market could come up with an innovative solution. Though this might not be it unfortunately... The first video is an internet advertisement that generated more than 18 million views (as of this posting). The second video goes into detail about why the solar roadways are currently impractical.

When I read the original post, what first came to my mind was smoking. In a cigar lounge, for example, there is probably a general understanding that cigar smoking will take place; at a hospital, however, a surgeon with a scalpel and a stogie will likely raise a few eyebrows... If smoking is acceptable in the cigar lounge but not in the operating room, then maybe the act itself is not a matter of morality but rather the consent of present parties? So smoking while walking down the street (or in any public place where consent is not certain) would violate NAP, right? (This is probably why so many villains are portrayed as smokers... at least in cartoons)

Hey Bryan! It sounds like you've still got a fire burning within you; what was it about Zen Buddhism that doused your passion?

Any links in particular you find useful?

This and the other vegetarian thread leave me a little puzzled. The speaker in the original post seems healthy as a vegan, while the speaker in the video posted by prolix changed from a vegan diet due to health concerns (I've come across tales of the opposite as well) and is healthier now for it, no? Provided they're both accurate despite differing diets: Is there another variable at play here that supersedes whether or not the nutrients, minerals, etc. coming from plant or animal sources will promote health or not? (the concept of "life force" was mentioned but I don't know how that can be communicated empirically or measured at the moment... does it have something to do with electricity?) Between moral, immoral, and amoral, this topic is in the amoral category since dietary decisions on their own count as personal preferences, right? Also, is the omnivore diet akin to the golden mean fallacy? (My gut says no...but then again my gut likely has confirmation bias. )

Well, Chess does teach us that the game ends with the defeat of the monarch...

Good point about business through bitcoin not being a business itself (and doesn't automatically make a business better). Is this in reference to Coreforcruxes topic on Lexcoin or the modifier idea I presented (which may qualify as a BTB transaction)? (Also, I think this is still related enough to the original intent of this topic, but if not, it might be polite to move to the Lexcoin topic or start a new one.)

I dunno. What are the pros & cons of 1:1?

Fair enough. We are addressing separate issues here (agribusiness models and the body's nutrient needs): To be clear, you actually do agree with my point that "contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods", but you disagree that meat is even necessary (except for the nutrients found in meat which are needed) and so the means by which the meat is produced doesn't affect it (skirtilator's point about stress and cortisol ruining the quality of the meat contradicts this point...), right? When you say that none of it really matters, you're referring to receiving nutrients from meat, not that the state subsidized agribusiness doesn't matter, no? When you say that the only thing that matters in your diet is how much nutrition you get, you also take into account that nutrients, vitamins, and minerals etc. (as well as internal cultures) work in concert to promote health (as in the vitamin A, D, K triangle from Nathan H. Hoffner's link to Sally Fallon), no? When you say it is impossible to get all your nutrition from your food, you are referring to the way the body synthesizes vitamin D from direct noon-time sunlight, no? I found the information you provided about MDs helpful, and I agree that the body has an amazing capacity to heal itself.

You might want to check out Coreforcruxes topic about his idea on Lexcoin: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41964-lexcoin/ What about, instead of creating another altcurrency, it was designed as an applied modifier?

Ok, and I'm guessing by the name "Lexcoin", you're looking to tie this into economic consequences for the recipient? If incorporated from the vendor's side of a transaction (if the vendor agrees to use Lexcoin), will the database then calculate a negative modifier for the convicted party as a penalty for their crimes so that the value of their bitcoins is reduced (while retaining value for the vendor?)? For example, say: 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin for anyone with a 100% Lexcoin modifier (the default with no effect on purchasing power) 1 bitcoin = 0.5 bitcoins for anyone with a 50% Lexcoin modifier (half the standard purchasing power) 1 bitcoin = 0 bitcoins for anyone with a 0% Lexcoin modifier (effectively excluded from any currencies using Lexcoin) (or maybe each vendor can choose from different modifier curves and/or ones without economic exclusions if they choose to be more or less lenient?) Aside from options that exclude convicted parties entirely, vendors will have an increased economic incentive to serve convicted parties because these parties will spend more than innocent parties for the same goods/services. A percentage of that purchasing power differential, say 2-5%, will then be collected by the Lexcoin architecture for database upkeep (and some to be further apportioned to a reparation escrow account?). In the short term, it appears to be business as usual with the wealthy convicted parties receiving the preferential treatment they're accustomed to; however, as time progresses (and if digital currencies become more essential in daily commerce) the convicted parties will need to acquire more and more bitcoins which can only be done through bitcoin mining or free market exchanges (where the parties will be under increased scrutiny). In effect, convicted parties will be on the receiving end of localized inflation, whereas today they currently benefit from inflation as those with initial access to the money printers. In this way, the consequences of crime upon conviction have direct economic effects which, in turn, will incentivise convicted parties to appeal and/or make amends for their crimes while dissuading further violations. Also, in the same vein as the DRO concept, the vendors can choose the courts with the laws they agree with and the accompanying Lexcoin modifier scale. DRO courts will have an incentive to use Lexcoin as a way to collect a percentage (like the 2-5% mentioned earlier) to pay for their upkeep and relieving their customers of some of the cost, thus making them more competitive among other DRO courts. (A similar arrangement can be made for any charities or donations the vendor wants to include as part of the purchasing power differential profit pie.)

How about this: Provided "love" and "intimacy" are interchangeable, "intimacy" can be converted to "in-to-me-see", suggesting that one needs to get to know an individual's heart (a condition), and resonate with the virtues/values found therein (another condition). Perhaps there's a misunderstanding between "empathy" and "love" (traditionally called "love" and "true love")? In this way, empathy does not have the conditions of love (with intimacy). and so could be what people are actually talking about when they refer to "unconditional love" (another form of connection)?

That's an option. Good point about torture ruining the meat quality, it reminds me of this pattern whereby general preferences also have added benefits when followed; for example, not only is courteousness generally preferable, but acting in such a way also accrues social capital for future dealings. If number 1 is irrelevant and number 2 does not apply to animals, then the two biggest questions which divide us are solved, right? (The rest is just differences in personal taste?)

Thank you for the hard facts: (I'm not the very model of a modern Major-General; I've not information vegetable, animal, and mineral. ​ ) I appreciate the empirical support (as that is not my strong suit), yet I am trying my best to emphasize that we share a disgust for the current food production model and the hidden costs/exploitation, as well as to suggest that it doesn't have to be that way. I am neither suggesting that one diet is superior to another (as I've read much evidence to support both sides... and am admittedly confused by how they can conflict so), nor am I advocating the continuance of contemporary agribusiness and coercive corporate/state collusion (is anyone here advocating that?). I mention it, but I don't agree with "The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming" (if that was the source of misunderstanding?). If data on food waste is any indication, it's not even clear that the current model's efficiency is even necessary (or at least finding its market efficiently enough...). Where does the controversy from this topic come from if, (1) we agree that government/agribusiness is harmful, (2) humans are biologically suited to digest many things nature has to offer (be it animal, vegetable, or mineral), and (3) dietary decisions are a matter of individual preference and do not violate the NAP? Also, I get a sense that we all want each other to be healthy while doing the least amount of harm to animals, vegetables, and minerals, so we have shared information in this topic (though maybe one size does not fit all because some of us are herbivores or carnivores/omnivores etc.?). Perhaps we could be more productive if we get to the heart of the matter here? (How does one prepare a dinner party for FDR folks!? )

True, I can relate to the feeling Mags described in the original post about wanting a deeper look at the ideas Zaheer presents, but it ended up as the violent "propaganda of the deed" variety that is historically accurate (as far as the show's reference material goes) but ultimately unsatisfying on an intellectual level. From the series 4 trailer, it looks like we'll see more of the Metal Clan city, Zaofu, and perhaps the results of the Earth Queen's assassination; and maybe (just maybe...) the series will delve deeper than the surface good vs. bad. It feels like that's a direction the writers want to go in, and since it's not being broadcast (as far as I know), theoretically they'll have more flexibility in what they present in the series.

So I came across this and thought I'd post it here:

It sounds like inter-capital balancing based on a coded credit score algorithm; a way to calculate reparations (an I.O.U.?)? (Or maybe their money is worth less/inflated based on their Lexcoin percentage?) Particularly with children, a very public reminder of the sins of their ancestors, followed by isolation, will likely further reduce their contact with examples of virtuous individuals... (Or potentially motivate them to do better than their ancestors?) I'm on board with the premise, to have an account of the wrongdoers, but I don't agree with punishing the child (I know that is not your intent, but that would appear to be the result if the child is ostracized). If the children start in Lexcoin debt but financial wealth, what would incentive repayment since they'll still have their family history on public record (or will it be removed/obsolete?)? On the other hand, maybe those Lexcoin debts do not transfer over to the child if the parent wills the money to a reputable reparation agency or charity having a deathbed revelation or something (or if the child refuses the inheritance of the money?)? Maybe the child is viewed with greater respect for doing so (social/cultural capital), leading to greater opportunities in the long run? But then where does the money go after that? Does it go to the descendants of the victims (or wherever the reparation agency/charity decides?)? (Since this post is becoming a train of thought, it's probably not going to be very helpful as I end up asking a bunch of questions and what-ifs. Your idea does get me thinking, so that's good. )

Update: Coreforcruxes presents a kind of negative capital (debt) for statists in the post of the following link: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41964-lexcoin/#entry384229

I did, and your points seem to line up nicely with the evidence presented in Nathan H. Hoffner's previous post with links to Sally Fallon and traditional diets. I've heard of artificial/synthetic meat that can be grown in a lab. It may meet vegetarian's goal of protecting animals, but it's not clear whether or not the product is safe for consumption (as far as I know), or at least as efficient and/or compatible with the human body in terms of nutrient/mineral utilization. I posted the video about "How Wolves Change Rivers" to provide another example of how carnivores can promote life; this is similar to Nathan H. Hoffner's other post about how agriculture may cause more environmental damage and animal endangerment. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we're all in some sort of agreement that contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods, and that likewise methods of contemporary mono-culture/chemical methods of agriculture are not preferable to traditional soil-replenishing/crop rotational methods; the implication here is that the non-preferable options are likely the result of state subsidies and that our dietary choices are not meant to validate the current food production methods anymore than using roads indicates our support of the state. If both diets promote health, and it's not a moral question, than both diets are valid and we're free to choose from the menu as we like, right? (Maybe it's to our ultimate benefit to have different dietary cultures to fulfill different niches of their choosing?)

To add to your point yagami, it makes me think of the scenario where a hungry homeless child steals bread from a vendor. Sure the vendor can pursue and reclaim the stolen bread, but he doesn't have to (and his preference would not change the universal theory/NAP). I wonder if a possible solution to this dietary controversy might be settled with ownership: If a vegetarian does not want an animal to be eaten, they could purchase that animal and/or pool resources with other like-minded individuals to establish and maintain wildlife refuges/zoos etc. for peace of mind/sustainability and a means for visitor fees and/or donations to pay for their preferences. If carnivores and omnivores want to purchase from farms/markets, or hunt on privately owned hunting grounds to respect the integrity of the animals habitat/obtain nutrition as close to as nature as possible etc., then that is another valid option. If someone wants to purchase meat the way it is conventionally produced today that is also an option, though, I imagine as more people become aware of the inefficiencies and nutritional deficiencies of this current model, this option may become obsolete. Oh, and on the matter of not needing to eat meat for health: did different groups of humans evolve with different dietary needs? I ask because I've come across stories of healthy vegetarians and healthy carnivores/omnivores. Provided their all telling the truth, is their some specific biology that supports, say... this person being better suited to a vegetarian diet, while this other person has the body of a carnivore/omnivore? If someone does need meat, then it's not really a question of morals since we can't be born immoral, right? These are important questions just in case I throw a dinner party for Freedomain Radio folks... what should I put on the menu?

I find the point made in the youtube comments about allowing each system to be tested (to see which one is most efficient/popular) helpful. An analogy: Different games are played on the playground, often spontaneous and without conflicting with one another; when conflicts do arise, the parties involved want them resolved quickly (limited recess time) and amicably (don't want to ruin the spirit of fun for play). Also from the youtube comments: I don't know all that a post-scarcity economy would entail, but maybe it's a shift in emphasis from some capital archetypes to others?