Romulox

Perhaps you are entirely right and I am not quite understanding. Let's start with something that I am very familiar with; nuclear fission. As I understand it, the energy from splitting a uranium atom comes from the breaking the bonds between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus and releasing the stored energy that bound the individual particles together. If you add up the mass of the fission products, you get slightly less than the total mass of the original atom. Multiply the mass difference by c2 and you get the energy that was released. This is empirically verified in the fact that we can accurately control and predict the power output of a nuclear reactor and predict the rate at which it consumes fuel. To me, this seems to be a reasonable explanation that does not involve another dimension. Assuming you are 100% correct, I have a huge interest in knowing why that explanation I learned was wrong. Pretend I'm 5 years old and explain to me how nuclear fission works from the beginning. You don't even have to do it; I'll be satisfied with just a link to someone else who can explain it.

People thought Einstein was a crackpot when he proposed a theory that time slows down when you move fast and later supported another theory that electrons cheat when you aren't looking, but people had to accept it when these theories were verified through repeatable experimentation. So you could be entirely right. Some of the mainstream theories require 11 or 26 special dimensions, so 4 dimensions seems reasonable in comparison. Can you provide a link to a more in depth explanation of this 4th dimension theory? Is there any evidence that shows this theory is correct and Einstein's are incorrect? Can you point to any independently verified, repeatable experiments? Einstein's theories seem to accurately describe the universe we live in, so I would need some extraordinary evidence to be convinced otherwise, or at least something more than the fact that he was a Mama's boy.

As I understand it, in order for an action to be considered moral or immoral, one needs to make a choice; that is, one has the option of either pursuing that action, pursuing a different action, or doing nothing. In what way can you choose to pursue any action that impacts other conscious beings without using your body? Without use of your body, you are left only with the "do nothing" option, at which point all choice, and therefore moral responsibility, is removed. If you agree, then the existence of morality requires that people own their own bodies, since this is the only means by which they can carry out actions that affect other conscious beings.

Assuming you are correct and this is actually the case in the private sector, at least the highway is still a choice. The choices given to me by the state are "My way or a bullet to the head". Can you please elaborate on what is unrealistic about preferring unemployment to death or imprisonment? Don't forget that the worker also has the option of proposing "my way or the highway" to the employer to bargain for better working conditions or increased pay. In my experience, people seem to discount their value to their employer, and don't seem to consider the fact that it could take the employer years to replace the on the job experience, and accumulated knowledge that would be lost upon firing them.

I am exactly the same way; I have to be doing something while listening to podcasts, otherwise I get that little annoying voice saying "you should be doing something productive" in the back of my head. Cycling is definitely one of my favorite "productive" activities as well. Perhaps once in a while, when you get the urge to turn on the video games, try going out for a bike ride instead (while listening to FDR, of course), and see how you feel afterwards. It might give you some insight as to whether or not you are craving the video games themselves or if you just have a positive association with them since that is when you are processing your emotions via FDR podcasts. If you start logging more miles on the bike every week, you could use that to prove to yourself that you are making progress towards one of your goals (reducing your time playing video games). Plus, the extra exercise will make you feel great!

So far all you have done is tell us that scientists are wrong without providing any evidence or even an alternative theory. Please elaborate, how are Einstein's theories irrational? The sooner you can tell me the better, as I'm currently sitting a few hundred yards from an operating nuclear reactor right now. If Einstein is wrong, I'd like to know ASAP so I can start running. We take E=mc2 kinda seriously around here. After I've retreated to a nearby fallout shelter, perhaps you can elaborate on how you are managing to use a computer to post all these messages if Einstein's theories on quantum mechanics are a fraud.

I'm not so sure that he should be turning them off at this point; were he to do something else, would he be listening to FDR, or would he be as receptive to the message as he is while playing video games? If he needs the video game environment in order to continue processing his anger at this point in time (and the fact that he is becoming less angry now may be evidence of this), perhaps he shouldn't fight it right now. Maybe the addiction is actually to FDR, but is consciously manifested as a craving to play video games, since this is where he hears the majority if not all of the podcasts. If this is the case, I absolutely agree that he should try to move away from the videogames at some point; and listening to podcasts while exercising works great for me as well. In particular, just taking a walk in the woods and spending some time out in nature free from distractions really helps you get lost in the conversation.

I don't think I qualify as an "expert" but everything I read seems to agree that artificial sweeteners provoke an insulin response that will in turn prevent fat burning and promote fat storage. From what I understand, the second part of the story is that since you are now loaded up on insulin and but don't follow up with any calories, you'll just start craving sugar and likely end up consuming at least as many calories as would have been in the soda anyway.

If you are listening to FDR podcasts and thinking about your life while playing videogames for hours on end, then perhaps consider that you are living the most productive life you possibly can be right now. Processing the past is the first step to making rational decisions about the future, and the fact that your anger has subsided may be a good indication that this is happening exactly as it should be as you continue plowing through the FDR podcasts. When people ask you what you've been up to, would you feel inferior if you said, "Oh, you know, just spent 100 hours studying psychology and self improvement strategies from a teacher who has saved a countless number of lives, what about you?"

Glad we can help! The "would I have found FDR if my history were different?" question is one I can't seem to shake. Part of me thinks that having a rational mind and desire to find the truth will eventually lead you to the same place, while another part thinks that if the exact sequence of events didn't happen just the right way, I would be completely oblivious to this conversation. I'm sure its a combination of the two, though I may be biased towards the latter; it allows me to be more grateful that the events in my life happened the way they did, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant they may have been. Silver linings/gratitude have been a huge focus for me recently. It's really allowed me to bounce back and learn from the big mistakes and life events, while making me realize how much the small problems in life really don't matter in the long run. If I have learned anything from Stef's psychology lessons, almost everyone in this situation would do the exact opposite, and end up projecting those horrible experiences onto the rest of the world. Again I ask, who was the more socially developed person in those schoolyard interactions?

As a Pittsburgh native, I feel obligated to bring up the Homestead Steelworkers Strike of 1892 as an example. Mercenaries were called in to reclaim the steel plant, but only after the strikers were preventing any non-union labor from entering the plant via threats of violence, thereby violating the property rights of the plant owners and non-union workers. A day long battle ensued with the mercenaries eventually surrendering, at which point the state militia was called in to reclaim the plant. Three mercenaries and nine strikers were killed by the end of the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.html Just make sure you don't learn about the Homestead Strike through the History Channel special like I did. It included a cartoonish scene of the mercenaries rolling in to the plant and massacring the helpless union workers; they conveniently left out the strikers use of dynamite, a 20 pound cannon, a flaming barge, as well as their attempts to set the river on fire.

Wow, I am so sorry to hear you had to go through such hell as a child, especially with parents like that. My initial thought about your interaction with your parents in your fifties was that their guilt about how they treated you during your childhood might have finally caught up with them as they realized the end of their lives were approaching, but each time I read it over I lean more towards thinking they are just that damn sadistic. I can't imagine there are any words you could have got out that could have made that situation any better. As for silver linings, do you think the FDR conversation would have resonated with you had you not gone through everything that you did? Would you be part of the group conversation that may one day save future generations from living through similar experiences? If things weren't as bad as they were, would you have sought out therapy and gained the self-awareness that you have now?

With college degrees becoming more worthless each day while the cost of attending a 4-year school is significantly outpacing inflation, perhaps the real question should be "Why are females still going to college?"

I'm sorry to hear that; as someone who was bullied in their own grade, I can only imagine what that must be like if you are a year behind the bullies. I certainly agree that it is a devastating move by the parents if the child is not motivated to skip ahead and willing to accept the difficulties that may result. Have you considered the idea that you may have been ahead of the class socially? Is it a sign of a lack of social development that you weren't accepted by a group of bullies? Do socially healthy people thrive when forced to associate with people whom they would otherwise avoid? How was your social life once you escaped public school and were able to voluntarily choose your interactions?

I believe the self contradiction that dsayers was referring to is the justification of the state itself; that is, you must sacrifice your property rights in order to protect your property rights. Another great example of a generally accepted self-contradiction is the Freedom vs. Safety dichotomy that you pointed out in your last post. Let's define our terms to make sure we are on the same page, feel free to correct if you disagree: Freedom = the power to make decisions free from the influence of violence Safety = a condition free from violence or threats of violence Substituting the definitions for the words: "I recognize quite often in life, that the power to make decisions free from the influence of violence and a condition free from violence or threats of violence have an inverse relationship." If the history of humanity is any indicator, this will likely happen when the system created to provide resources for rapid breeding (the state) collapses. At this point, the limited-resource environment will cause the rapid breeding genes to turn off and the quality breeding genes to turn on, resulting in a few generations of resourceful (more intelligent) offspring that may start the next great civilization. Hopefully at some point in the continual rise and fall of civilizations, enough people will adopt non-aggression and peaceful parenting strategies such that the violence required to provide resources to the rapid breeders will never take hold.

I can't imagine why people aren't anxious to cash in on that 0.1% APY being offered for saving accounts today. Personally, I'll stick to the account in my mattress. Its open 24/7 and has much less exposure to criminals.

In my previous post, you were presented with SIX reasons why violence and war are not necessary in your water polluting scenario. You have refuted precisely ZERO of them. If you would like to discuss why it might be against the interest of private company with limited resources to go to war with a small community, any number of people on this board would be happy to elaborate. Hint: Start by replacing "company that pollutes a town" to "company that murders a town" in the reasons I already gave. To see how effective a piece of paper full of empty promises is at preventing violence and war, just read the US Constitution and then open a history book.

Check out Stef's Gene Wars series of podcasts. There are three podcasts about an hour each (numbers 3010, 3019, and 3070). The series is an introduction to the r/K selection theory, which seeks to explain politics from the perspective of genetics and epigenetics (the impact of environment on the activation of certain genes). I just finished up the series yesterday and it is truly fascinating stuff. Long story short, Shaniqua's environment (unlimited state welfare payments, fatherless childhood) triggers certain genes to be activated that will push her towards a reproductive strategy of having as many kids as possible (r-selected), as opposed to a strategy of having few children but investing lots of resources to ensure they are successful in life (K-selected). Give it a listen and let us know what you think!

This is incredibly cartoonish. It completely rejects the existance of society outside of the the factory owner and the community. - Would you purchase products from a company that was dumping raw sewage into a river? How many people do you know that would? - If you were a stockholder in this company, would you continue to invest in this company or would you consider selling your shares? If you didn't sell your shares, would you vote to keep the board and CEO in their positions? What will happen to the stock price once it is known that this company is wrecking the environment and poisoning a town? - Would you work for a company that would poison a nearby town. It is a reasonable assumption that some of the workers for this factory may actually live in this community and would have a problem with this? - Would you, as the CEO of a company that supplies raw materials for this company, continue to do so once this environmental corruption came to light? - Is your only option in the community to raise and angry mob, gather your pitchforks and torches, and storm the factory? Is there some mechanism in society where the misdeeds of this company can be shared with the enitre world in a matter of hours? Does the media exist in your scenario? Do you this company might have competitors that are looking for any reason to smear their competition in this way? - What percentage of non-anarchists do you think make the argument from environmental protection at some point? In my experience, its pretty much 100%. Is it then reasonable to assume that there is a market need for environmental protection, and that there is money to be made in exposing environmentally corrupt companies? Is there any violence involved in any of the options listed above?

You are absolutely correct, water is life; now let's all be thankful for the protection the EPA has bestowed upon our precious waterways. Especially those of you in Colorado. Dems seek compensation for victims of mine spill Compensating the downstream communities with money that was stolen at gunpoint from taxpayers? Ensuring that the agency responsible for the contamination is given more money to identify risks in other areas? Now that's ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

To clarify my position: - It is not ok to steal another phone of equivalent value from someone else, as that would be a blatant act of aggression against an innocent person. - Since each individual phone is generally different (unless its brand new), it is not ok to steal someone else's phone from a thief, unless you are returning it to the original owner, or unless the original owner consents to you keeping it. Only the original owner can rightfully determine the phone's value since it was not exchanged in a voluntary way. - It is ok to steal the specific phone back from the thief that was originally stolen from you in the first place, since you are the original owner. Your edit is right on with my point, but to take it from another angle: Since the tax money that is stolen from everyone is pretty much just converted to bits in a hard drive in the government treasury, it is impossible to trace the original owner, and pointless as all digital money has the same value anyway. As long as you are not taking more than you paid in, you are just taking back money that is identical to what was stolen.

If someone steals my phone, and I then later see the thief with my phone hanging out of his back pocket, is it immoral to pickpocket it back? Since money is a homogeneous good (that is, one dollar bill has the exact same value as any other), it is irrelevant whether or not I receive the same money back that I paid in. The only moral question should be "Am I a net tax-payer or a net tax-consumer?" If you are a tax payer, you are receiving property that was stolen from you; if you are a tax consumer, you are necessarily receiving money that is beyond what was taken from you, and are therefore guilty of theft. What you intend to do with the money seems irrelevant. Is taking welfare morally different than receiving a tax refund? In both cases you are receiving money from the thief that has already been stolen from you. The only difference is the consent of the thief, which should not be a factor in judging the morality of the situation.

The classic rebuttal is that if the mafia rolls into their neighborhood and demands "protection" money, they should have no problem, since they can just move if they don't want to pay. Instead of leaving your trash in your yard for the garbage man to pick up, just dump your trash in their front yard and see how they respond. When they demand that you clean it up, tell them that they can just move if they don't like it. I really like the schoolyard bully scenario though; first time I heard that one. I'll be using that one in the future as it has an emotional component that the other rebuttals are lacking.

I am against state-owned speed cameras, as I am against state-owned roads and state-owned anything. I would not be against speed cameras on a private road any more than I would be against security cameras in a private store. They aren't being used in a manner that makes me feel as if my privacy is at risk and generally reduce losses due to theft, resulting in lower prices for me. I imagine speed cameras would have a similar fate; monitor the roads just enough to reduce accidents and the associated costs while ensuring the privacy of the customer. If they in fact do not reduce accidents or drive customers away because they are too intrusive, then those road companies that use them will start to lose money and possibly go out of business if they continue to use them. Problem solved! Feel free to replace "speed cameras" with "speed limits" or "mandated car insurance" in the above argument; basically the things that everyone will assume you are completely against in any form when they learn you're a libertarian.

For those interested in hearing about Liberland straight from the horse's mouth, here is a podcast with Tom Woods interviewing the President of Liberland. http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-440-liberland-a-new-libertarian-country/ I'm certainly skeptical of many aspects of the setup of the micronation, but they had my full attention after mentioning that the next revision of the constitution will require that all state funds be raised through crowd-sourcing.