Matthew Ed Moran

Economics in One Lesson ​​​ by Henry Hazlitt is really good about explaining the principles of economics, I think it contains some really broad lessons that no intelligent person should ignore. It's well written and around 100 pages, too.​

Yes, I came across this maybe a week ago. I am excited to read the articles from the contirbutors, because they are all people I respect and admire in terms of pursuing self knowledge and communicating the concepts they've discovered. I will let you know more about what I think after I read some more! But so far I really liked the presentation of the site and the topics of the articles are really interesting to me.

Rose, I appreciate it, haha. But I surely wouldn't have been able to write my post as clearly without reading yours first, which I upvoted

what? I know the definitions of those words. Looking them up did nothing to clarify Like you said, either your argument is purely theoretical, meaning it does not necessarily have anything to do with reality, or it is the result of some logical sequence. If it is the result of some logical sequence, then you can show us. Right now all you've offered is a tautology. I found this first sentence annoying. Which I'm not saying necessarily means you're incorrect, but I felt completely fogged after reading it, as if I was being purposefully mislead. By definition, the world would be a different place is people practiced peaceful parenting, given that they are not practicing it now. Now I have no idea how you could have thought the phrase "different place" would be appropriate there, but if you meant less violent, well also, by definition it would be less violent. Now if you also want to say people would have higher IQs, that is not true by definition, but there is evidence to suggest there would be that, too. In the beginning you said if a hypothesis is not certain because of some causal link, then it is purely hypothetical, so it is a bit confusing for you to change your tune at the end and act as if correlations are a certain relationship.

How credible can it be for your friend who confesses thoughts about suicide frequently to you, to ask you to think about yourself? It is like a man with an arm dangling off in front of me saying "you should really be focusing on yourself man, you are really neglecting yourself" It would be ludicrous. But if he's in the same situation as you, i.e. trapped in prison at school, and trapped in prison at home, then I suppose that's why he is this damaged in the first place. I certianly do not think it is healthy for a young person to have to be in friendships like that. It is scarring, and will harden you if it does not already haunt you. This is just my opinion, but I wanted to bring it to bear and let you decide what you think of it. I don't mean to paint such a grim picture, I just was really concerned to hear that you're in a relationship like that. I'm curious, why do you have to be at school at all? Is there a way you can not be at school? Here in America we have a GED, a high school equivalent which would help you get a job of some sort; at least then you wouldn't be in a prison environment and could be making some money. Just a thought

I would caution to think people who can understand what other people are feeling are incapable of empathy. Sure, it's possible they can't feel empathy, but what about the environment they are in? The problem is not just childhood, because there is a whole world outside of people who will punish you for feeling empathy, and who will feed off and manipulate your capacity to feel guilty. I would suggest the case study of RAD (Radical Attachment Disorder) children to gain an understanding of how a childhood empanthy is crushed into sand and stepped on, if a child is on the reciving end of repeated abuse. The child will keep his or her heart open only to be continually broken for so long: then, it steps in and becomes its opposite. A RAD child who will never be vulnerable again, and who will avoid empathy at all costs, and respond to vulnerability with violent rage. In some sense I think all victims of abuse are RAD children. Whether our response to abuse is extreme or not (primarily depending on if the abuse is extreme or not), we lose the capacity to empathize whenever our caregivers act to tell us our empathy is not appreciated, or is to be viciously scorned. It is the parents who decide for the child whether empathy is seen as good or bad, and if the child is left in daycare 40 hours a week, or is physically and verbally abused, he will learn quickly that empathy is a terrible, terrifying thing, because empathy is admonished, punished, abused, and manipulated. The thing is, even RAD children have successful (I hear, at least) cases of opening their hearts once again, if they feel sufficiently safe to assume it will be positively percieved by their caregivers. However, they will go back towards rogue if they are not confident in their safety. So the question this brings to mind for me, to what extent are grown adults who want to empathetic, but feel incapable, in situations which would be dangerous for them to feel empathy. Empathy is not always desired, and there are times when empathy should be avoided at all costs. If someone has been a victim of child abuse, besides processing the abuse, they will need to be in a safe enough environment and perhaps have professional guidance to express their empathy. Stefan has duly noted a healthy empathy comes from a self empathy of your own childhood, a mending of wounds, and then an extension of empathy to others we feel trustful in to validate and be curious of. Look up "A Letter by Adam Lanza's Therapist," read by Stefan Molyneux on his Youtube channel, to hear about RAD children. Also, "The Toxicity of Childhood Loneliness" is an interview with the therapist.

We cant ever really escape fear without processing it, unless we do it by escaping reality. I'm pretty sure we don't have conscious control over the fight/flight mechanism of the brain, except by conquering or escaping the threat. The only other option is that you consciously, continually mis-interpret your subcoscious fear, by which you will need to escape into an imaginary world as a last vicissitude to posses some sort of control over your fears, without ever having to address them. So at least in that sense, it will never be possible to escape your fears or anger without consciously processing them, and deciding what they are telling you about yourself and the environment you are in. Fear is never irrational, people are irrational in response to their fear. The fear will escalate until it is all encompassing if the person does not get the picture sooner or later that they will have to make a choice between reality and imaginary. I think people who attempt to escape their fear and anger only ever end up becoming the eternal source of their fear and anger, because instead of cutting the line to their trauma, they would rather reinforce it and continually manage it their whole lives. Instead of addressing its source and curing it, they would rather take "pain pills" and comatose themselves out of existence.

"Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain." I am the logic police (non-violent DRO), you must stop here. Is your statement purely theoretical, or can you show the causal links that make it certain?

You are being unempathetic to make claims about what Stefan said without providing quotes or context. "Stefan makes it seem" and "can we stop sounding so utopian?" are not arguments. Stefan has been doing this show for nearly a decade, is an expert of philosophy, and has 300k subscribers. If he made some obvious error about self defense, it really would be necessary for you to provide context or a quote to be taken seriously. This, combined with comments such as "I was pulling my hair out because he said "x" instead of "y" to Joe Rogan" really are unempathetic, considering you are approaching an expert who is, as far as I can tell, infinitely more successful than you at what you are giving him advice on (I see you have 14 subs on Youtube). It is past the edge of troll-ery, but if this was not your intention, then there are simple ways you can make up for it (by making actual arguments and providing context and quotes), and then I'm sure this can be a more productive affair as to whether you are correct or incorrect about Stefan's supposed errors.

Did you say this was the first incident of child abuse which you were in a position to intervene? It's not usual that people are amazing at handling new situations, or even with any efficiency at all. I think if you are self attacking and having a hard time making the most of this situation (as in learning from it), it could be that you are holding premises that are false or in contradiction with one another (like the idea that intervening is always ideal, or that you had the possibility of successfully intervening given your experience). I know when I sometimes see child abuse I feel very helpless to intervene. And other times I have intervened. The time when I felt the least hesitation to say something had the best results! I give credit to my feelings if they make it difficult for me to intervene. It could cause a worse situation (you get a verbal lashing, or the kid does), and your feelings may be adeptly aware of this when they make it difficult for you to act. And also, the one time when I was hesitant to intervene, but pushed forward despite having significant anxiety, it did not have the best outcome (hard to say if it was worth it overall). I'm really sorry for your experience I see a lot of good advice here, and the general consensus seems to be that you don't deserve to beat yourself up. So I hope you take that to heart

I just browsed some insurance for the first time, maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't seem confusing to me. Estimate your medical costs for the year (including any risks you may have), and then browse for the best insurance that will minimize your out-of pocket expense. In general, higher deductibles will coincide with lower co-payments and monthly premiums. However, there seems to be variation with this, and besides going with the general idea that better coverage in some areas will come at the cost of coverage in other areas. If you are at low risk medically and can raise cash for unforeseen medical events from friends and/or family, then maybe you can sacrifice coverage in those areas (such as surgery, x-rays, specialist visits). I was on ehealthinsurance.com and they had a lot of options in a smooth interface that were well detailed once you clicked on a particular plan. does that make sense or was any help?

That's an interesting consideration. It looks like that to me. I think in general, it is careless to execute this technique if there is not an awareness of why the baby stops crying in response to it. I think any maneuver that is performed simply to make a baby silent is a bit sociopathic, since the baby is crying out of genuine empathetic need. It really annoys me that this disclaimer comes at the end of the video, and that it is presented as if it is ever ok to silence a baby simply because you do not want the baby to cry. Is that fair of me, or am I missing something? I'm sure you're familiar with Alison Gopnik and her research and arguments about how babies are actually more aware (I want to say of their needs and environment) than adult humans are, because their frontal cortex is not yet developed. This makes sense to me empirically, because it is very rare for adults to admit or acknowledge their feelings, in general. Then again, since his hands are so big, it could replicate the baby being on the chest of the mother or father, like someone said, right?

Woah. Can you please quote where this has been said? I have never seen or heard anything like this on the boards, certainly not by well-established members, and certainly not by Stefan. But maybe I missed something, so can you provide an example where this has been said?

Baylor, what do you mean your parents have accepted responsibility for a lot? What does that look like? Why aren't they already in therapy if they've acknowledged their responsibility for abusing you? If they are seriously committed to change, they'd already be pursuing therapy, whether you joined them or not, because they would want to become less abusive people. I don't think there is just a switch where abusive people turn into self knowledgeable and empathetic people; it takes a lot of work, especially if they have been abusive people for years. At some point, after inflicting so much abuse, their conscience would probably be unrecoverable. You said you don't expect anymore abuse, not to nitpick, but what you expect is not the same as what is realistic. I would be more convinced this was true (not that I'm claiming it's not true, I just think the words you've chosen say something important) if you said you could be sure you would not be abused by them anymore. That they have committed to never abusing you again, and that you could be very confident in them not to. But anyway, you said your mom is still avoiding responsibility, and if your mom is still has a relationship with your father, then he is also guilty of enabling this abuse. This is a continuation of abuse. It is horrible and damaging to you for them not to take responsibility for abuse that was inflicted upon you; it is erasing you, like a passive murderous rage to suppress the real you, and it is definitely not healthy to endure this. I recommend Death By Neglect, podcast 728 (I think, should be within that range) to learn more about how damaging it is for abusers to neglect your need to be heard, if you have not already heard it. Even if you have, maybe it is time for a re-listen to reconnect to what you may be enraged and terrified of dealing with around your parents. Wish you the best whatever you chose, please keep us updated on how you are handling your situation with your parents

The marriage would be deemed legitimate by the insurance agency, who would be enforcing the contract. If you don't or are not planning to have children, then I think by definition, no marriage exists. The insurance agency could have a requirement that the families of the couple put money in escrow, or any number of stipulations that would provide incentive for the marriage to continue. Marriage, philosophically, absolutely is for the purposes of raising children. You can pair bond with whomever you like, but sexual exclusivity and a consistent relationship, that is specifically for the raising of offspring. If two people break a pair bond after years, but they have no children, then there is no moral concern. But if they do have children, then they are responsible for taking care of their offspring and a voluntary society will recognize this.

"Sociopaths, for what ever reason, have a very limited sense of identity. They either don’t have a sense of identity that includes ethical behaviors or they lack an ability to think about their personal identity. The result is they are very seldom in down-time and perpetually in up-time and find it impossible to personally feel a sense of self." I imagine the sociopath does whatever is necessary to maintain his perpetual up-time, because his sense of self is littered with bodies. I don't think sociopaths are born. I think it is the childhood environment that the sociopath is born into that makes down-time unlivable. Maybe it is the rampant sexual abuse they are trying to avoid thinking about, or maybe it is the horror of unpredictable violent beatings. Whatever the case, I think that is why the sociopath will literally kill someone else before he introspects, and why he might claim to feel no anger, or hurt, because he is only living in the moment and doing whatever he must not to feel. I imagine him as a slave to his past, he must do whatever his past commands of him, because he does not want to live for more than 5 minutes in the horror that is his past, so he is perpetually bargaining with it, "making deals with the devil" so to speak. That's my guess at least, just from observation of sociopathic people (in my own opinion) I've been near or heard of. I think in some sense very many people are on the sociopathic scale, and their choices define whether they become more or less empathetic over time. Of course, I also would acknowledge that for some people, it would seem like there is no choice but to remain in perpetual up-time. It's an interesting topic, thanks for the link.

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.. So true, man. So true. Just the other night I like, couldn't sleep because there were sirens all along. I just like, channeled my wholeness to get some peace and quiet, just to put an end to the infinite phenomena. You like, know what I mean, Bro? Bro.. are you even listening? Ah, channeling your wholeness, well played, Bro."

I think of marriage in a free society as a contract that is ensured by one, or separate companies, which ensures the stability of the marriage. The two or more parties in the marriage would be bound by this contract, and would be penalized to the extent they violated the contract. The only way I imagine people qualifying for this insurance is if they were planning to have a child. If they go into marriage without a contract, then they are probably low IQ, R selected, and they will run themselves into the ground financially over the long run unless they accept the incentives to become reasonably good at maintaining a relationship with another human being. Honestly, I would not say marriage exists anymore. It has nothing to do with what is best for the child. Do I really even need to make the case for this? 70% illegitimacy among blacks, extremely loose alimony for women, high divorce rate among low IQs. I mean, am I correct that a woman can marry a man, not have kids with him, and still receive a portion of the man's assets he accumulated while he was with her? That would be just.. holy shit. Not to mention if she has kids, what she will get... I think the entrepreneurial models that would develop in a free market would be unimaginably optimized to increase the standards of relationships and the morality of raising children. I think even the worst and most abusive parents could be ostracized via this mechanism, by forcing them via ostracism into a marriage if they have children, and intervening as necessary, with steps to make them better parents. If the abuse was just so extreme for the child that it would be less traumatic to take them from their parents and raise them with peaceful adopters, then the insurance company could do this as a last resort; if they could not manage to put enough pressure on the couple to change via other methods, or if they are defiant. I imagine the road to peaceful parenting as so rapid via this model of the market. I tell you if I were on a true free market, I know what my life's occupation would be: to work in one of these companies! If we could just somehow manage to get there... What do you guys think? I came up with this just now, and find the topic fascinating!

Can you tell me more about what might come in this box that is not already far surpassed in value from the shows, podcasts, and call-ins? It would be a big drop in value to go from world and life-changing philosophies, to Queen CDs and memorabilia. If you give a book with annotations or an MP3, how is this comparable to the content in the way it is delivered (comprehensive, rehearsed, communicated entertainingly) already? The MP3 could already be delivered online, and I don't care much for annotations when I am getting far more comprehensive intellectual content already from the show. I want to hear more, but my critical brain is skeptical of the idea that curated content boxes would be interesting, since I feel like I would be buying into Stefan and his personal interests, rather than Philosophy, which to me is use of money which is antithetical to the idea that philosophy is not about a personality, or memorabilia, or personal tastes in music, but about changing the moral structure of the world. But if the boxes could provide specialized intellectual value somehow... That would prick my interest

I don't know. If I was working in a place full of people whose actions resembled that of my most primary abusers from my childhood, and furthermore they escalated their abuse to the extent that I felt completely helpless, then I would disassociate and feel constant stress, too. I don't think there is a solution to that but to remove yourself from abusive and insane people. That is my opinion at least, I am not anywhere near the most informed person on this subject. Why were you attracted to taking this job? What does it say about your history that you think it is a good use of your time to manage crazy people?

Maybe it would be less creepy if, instead of Stefan himself giving a speech at the convention, we had a hologram of him giving a speech... Hmm... Yea, that would definitely be less creepy!

nvm

It's true you can devise a game in which cheating is the optimal strategy. However, this has nothing to do with anything. An argument must be made if this is more than just some bullshit defensiveness. Government would not exist if plunder were less costly than trade. There would be no profit from trade to confiscate. This would truly be the world of all against all, and I'm not sure it has ever existed outside some scarce situations in history. Maybe if you're stranded on an island with 8 people. game theory can tell you that cheating the others is optimal. But it's just a bit too comical for this to be taken as an argument against anarchy. But he's not making an argument. If you devise a game that has a result where government will always exist, that is not an argument. You have to actually make a case that government won't ever exist in reality, using evidence. I appreciate your concern, and maybe it is a valid thing to point out, but I don't think one necessarily needs an understanding of game theory to spot a fallacy. No, this cannot be true. If people are equally aggressive and uncooperative, then there are only 2 possibilities: 1) They will kill each other until they are all dead 2) Some will enslave the others If they are equally aggressive and uncooperative, a government will not make the society more peaceful, because aggression becomes unprofitable it interferes with your ability to farm your tax livestock. If I have a blood lust, I can chop some guy up (I'm in the North Africa mind-space here). But that means I lose out on his labor that I could use to wash my feet. However Government will necessarily increase the amount of initiations of force in society, all things equal. We can deduct this praxeologically by making the case that government subsidizes the initiation of force. To the extent government makes initiating force more profitable, there will be an increased amount of it. "Peace" and "order" are only for the government, not for the victims of its prey. Just going to point out I called this argument from ignorance in the first post, and am now going to casually walk away...

A lot. Are you curious about something in particular?

Hey .. Is not an argument Is also not an argument. You can do this for about every live of what she said, and you will notice she does not make a single argument. If you think she makes a single argument, please point me to it in case I missed it. Otherwise, she is just saying things. This is what propaganda does, so I'm not sure I'd hold this against her or feel the need to rebut what she is saying. I think I would try to help her understand that she is not making arguments. For instance, "free education" is a contradiction in terms. If education is a good, then it cannot be free, because goods by definition are scarce. This is basic economics, so she is clearly not thinking well. She does not explicate what the importance of "realizing" about "unicorns" is. She says they are important, but so what? Is she just sharing her preference with you? Is she claiming this preference should be universal? Is she threatening you? I wouldn't accuse her of this, but to me it sounds a little to much like Tony from down the block telling me how "necessary" and "important" it is that I realize he's going to going to give me the best protection that's around. Okay, so once again we witness some severe propaganda and nationalism being spewed here here. Societies and countries don't exist. Maybe she is personally insecure about how she can make money in a free market. Maybe she personally "won't stand a chance" if people are not being stolen from on her behalf. It would not be the first time a women used the state for her personal benefit. Just point out that she is not making arguments and help her make arguments. If she is resistant, then you will at least know she is a dangerous and/or dumb propaganda bot, and I believe at that point you will decide this person cannot really be a friend, since they are holding a gun to you. I'd be interested to know how it goes