KiriKaeshi

I work in the healthcare field, and I see a geater proportion of doctors from middle eastern countires than from any other ethinic group. Feel free to correct me if what Im seeing is an aberration, especially since Im not going to go to the trouble of digging up statistics to support my question, but why are doctors disproportionally middle eastern? Im currently listening to Stef's narration of Lloyd Demause's "The Origins of War in Child Abuse", and while it has led me to make some inferences on the matter, it may only serve as another layer of bias. Any ideas?

Keep in mind that the DOT is not the only non-free market element at play here. If the car CORPORATIONS were allowed to sort this out free of DOT intervention, the result would still have nothing to do with a 'free' market. The car companies themselves are creatures of the state, with little exposure to any free market principles (remember the auto bailouts?).I would say to Kurt's wife, 'yes, it is a bad thing in principle that the state had to step in and not allow this thing to play itself out in a free market.' Having said that, I would also add: 'For this thing to play itself out in a free market, the car companies would have to be privately held, and publicly exposed (ie, they have to NOT be corporations). Furthermore, insurance, which is heavily regulated by the state, would ideally play a big role in any free market dynamics. So the insurance companies would have to be free of government interference as well.' This complexity is one of the reasons why the project of a stateless society can only be multigenerational, and psychological in nature. 'The state can only end in an eye-roll'. Anything else leads to a boot on the face, and a retrenchment of violance in society.

Utopian, I must disagree. Do you remember the wicked laugh she busted out about Qadaffi? (We came, we saw, he died). I do not think this is a woman who cries when the going gets tough. As a young woman, she got herself on the watergate committee (rumor has it she had the job of protecting CIA operatives involved in the affair), and was fired for lying. I think she is much more formidable than someone who simply cries when the going gets tough, unless it is with crocodile tears calculated, as Shirgall put it, for the greatest political advantage. I think that at this level of power, the dynamics go waaaay beyond the personal feelings of the candidate. I have read several accounts of Hillary and Bill having an open marriage (Larry Nichols, and the state trooper who guarded the Clintons when Bill was governor), and I just don't think that kind of woman gets riled up by women her husband had an affair with (what even constitutes as an affair in an open marriage anyhow?). As far as anyone having the 'ammo to take her down', I would say that given all the scandals that Hillary has been involved in over the years (whitewater, Benghazi, Saudi money in the Clinton Foundation, etc), the fact that she is running with such widespread media support shows that no amalgamation of facts can take her down. Powerful people seem to have ordained that she's destined for the white house. If there was anything about Hillary's political career that adhered to facts and reason, we probably wouldn't even know her name.

"Stated differently, there are not enough woman that will not destroy men using the state." I would say that you can't blame women for being willing to use the giant sledgehammer that is granted to them. Sure, someone presented with the facts of the nature of the state can be held to account for using it, but the majority of women consider divorce laws etc to be an empowerment of women, not just an automatic penis squisher. The problem here, is that the state has this penis-squashing ability at all, not that women (or any other group) are willing to utilise it, especially given the obfuscation that occurs regarding the nature of state power. Blaming women for destroying men using the state, is akin to blaming GE for taking advantages of tax loopholes to pay no corporate income tax. Take away that power. Dont just condemn the poor souls who find themselves on what they think is the 'safe' end of it. Stef talks about this issue alot when explaining why church and state were eventually separated.

A few thoughts; First of all, the guy who wrote this article, Mr. Foster, sounds like he's swimming in the statist koolaid pool. Particularly near the end of the article, he places himself firmly on the left side of the road, describing the bill as a loophole allowing people to kill cops and claim self-defense, and also with his retarded parallel to the Martin shooting. From an ancap perspective, the whole idea of passing a LAW to make it okay to defend yourself against the LAWMEN is pretty silly. The fact that this is a different governor than the pizzagate affair, illustrates to me that there is a very strong vein of liberty in the minds of Indiana voters, and that the state is trying to tap into that (without jeoparadizing their own racket of course). Disclaimer - I am trapped in the Ontario farm, and know very little about Indiana. I wonder if the pizzagate reporter would consider testing this little law out for him/herself - has there been a test case for it yet? Perhaps there has, and the particulars did not fit a media narrative, thereby explaining why I havent seen it on the national news scene (minority or single mom homeowner shoots white cop while breaking into the home perhaps).

Thanks for the feedback everybody. Lots to think about. Rose you make excellent points. Both my wife and I are Canadian, with some hockey background in our upbringing. Hockey is one of the most violent sports out there today, to be sure, and the issue of exposing children to competitive violence is just the kind of pickle that led me to seek advice on the subject. I also agree with you that it seems to be more of an aesthetic question. I honestly hadnt thought about it like that. My wife and I do plan to expose our son to a wide variety of activities. Of course it is up to him to decide if he likes them, but I'm just beiong realistic in expecting that at some point he's going to be interested in what his Dad is doing. On the subject of whether combat is an unhealthy subject of study, I'd have to say that I agree with Yagami in that there is nothing necessarily wrong about combat or the study of combat. And I really don't think that there is anything wrong with competition. Please let me know if this sounds invalid, but to me, violence is not about the activities involved per se, but the fact that they represent violations. I have a feeling that Stef would slam me for suggesting that consensual violence is not violence, however. On a slightly different tack, I would ask, "can violence be harmonious? Or, "is violence synonymous with disharmony?" In Kendo (as in Aikido - Zelenn I'm sure you know!!), harmony between combatants is essential. Without this harmony, it's just two people whacking each other. I once saw a match at a tournament where one of the players got angry and swung in frustration. It didnt connect, but most of the spectators in the large gym gasped alltogether, and the fight was immediateley stopped and the aggressor disqualified. To me, that was an illustration that anger and disharmony stand out like sore thumbs in honest martial arts, and have absolutely no place in them. Am I wrong? Was it more of an illustration of some kind of unproductive groupthink behaviour? Someone please set me right on this if they disagree. I'd love an exploration of this, although it sounds to me like the time for the martial arts discussion may have passed... Lars, thats a very interesting idea of stef's that u mention. What podcast was it? I'd like to give it a listen. I won't deny that adversarial combat sounds like a problematic method for self-knowledge, and it is true that this is a common intention in martial arts in general, and Kendo in particular.

Hey there. I am a longtime practitioner of Kendo, a form of fencing from Japan. I have an 18 month old son, and he will no doubt be exposed to this martial art. Like European fencing, Kendo is largely a competitive and formative activity - ie there is very little self-defence focus or value. Having said that, any combat activity gives combat training (and we all do loove our combat, don't we?), and the discipline does place a stress on the conceptualization of "Killing" the opponent with relentless attacks, both physical and mental. Each match is treated as a life-and-death duel with real swords (we wear armour and use lightweight bamboo swords, so personal injury is not at all an expected or necessary part of Kendo). What do people think could be the parenting ramifications of exposing my child to this type of martial art? Is it compatible with peaceful parenting?

I was wondering what people think about Hunting, with regard to UPB, peaceful parenting, etc. I am just starting out as a hunter. It has been a nightmare of red tape and government BS, all so I can hunt on "the king's land". I dont see any necessary violation of UPB, but I'm a little on the fence regarding peaceful parenting. My son is only 18 months old now, but I expect to introduce him to hunting and fishing one day. I can see how exposing him to things like actually killing, and the processing of a carcass could be unpleasant or even traumatic if done too early, or in a thoughtless way. Any suggestions?

Hey there FDR community. I just got my posting privileges, and I am suuuper pumped to start asking questions and adding to the great experiment!! I have been a very avid listener for only about 3-4 months now, but wow!! My wife and I are raising our first child, an 18 month old son, and man, is he gonna be glad his Dad found FDR! My wife and I were always of a 'peaceful parenting mind', but I used to think that we were but lonely misfits in our philosophies. I have a great many and varied questions, which I will be throwing into the forums soon. I fell in love with philosophy when I was (finally!!) exposed to the socratic method in first year university, and have loved the subject ever since. I definitely consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, and I understand now that I have been such since before I could understand the term. Thank you to everyone in advance for your help and love, and I'll be seeing you all on the forums!