aviet

Some Libertarians like Trump because he appears to be for some sort of strength as the US spirals into a decaying, come-one-come-all welfare state run by insiders. Trump has run as an anti-establishment candidate. He's killed the media, the bush dynasty, the wars, dewesternisation, shipping jobs abroad and more. If you want to be a purist and have everything your own way, your facing a huge uphill battle. Myself, if I see something that is 10% than what I have, I'm not going to turn my nose up at it because I'm still not so keen on the other 90%. But most of all a lot of people are pleased with how Trump has smashed up political correctness. He's been hammered from all angles by the media, actors and so on, but has not backed down once. In fact whenever he is attacked he has the unique ability to absorb the attack and come out stronger. He's opened up a new era - the culture wars, a war that has for many years only had one side. If I had the choice between picking Ron Paul and Donald Trump for president, I would choose Trump. Ron Paul doesn't have the incredible personal strength it is going to need to act as a giant pivot against the establishment, lobbyists and cornucopia of other leaches that have attached themselves to the government.

These liberation-narrative-communist-types make a lot of noise, but they are relatively small in number. It's obviously a bit more prevalent in the US, partly due to funding from Soros, but there are similar groups in the UK. One group that makes a lot of noise in the UK is called United Against Fascism, a specialist in fascist techniques such as assaulting speakers and trying to shut down speaking events. They get far more media coverage than they deserve, including mainstream interviews. However, if you check out their Alex rank: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uaf.org.uk They probably don't get more than about 30-40 visits/day. Recently I saw an article covering some insanity of the UK Green Party youth brigade. A look at their Alexa shows they probaly struggle to get more than 10 visits/day: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.younggreens.org.uk Similar groups in the US are worse and have more attention, but even BLM get no more than about 1,000 visits/day: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blacklivesmatter.com They've had far more coverage than they deserve because of their antics and insanity. Also. The people who are members of these groups are generally under thirty. University students. And they have little voice and many will be recanting in a few years. In the UK, probably the most stoic old-fashioned conservative writer, Peter Hitches (brother of Christopher), was a committed Marxist as a youngster. I think we're currently whitensing the insane death throws of the regressive left. Their policies are an utter failure. People are waking up and realising there is no need to pay for these insane failure. And the insanity is the last gasp as they try and keep hold. See the epic decline of the left in Europe: https://i.imgsafe.org/292d718.png They've been hammering nails into their own coffin for years.

This is the sort of deep explanation I was hoping for, but I fail to see the full train of thought.

I find the position of the article's author frustrating. Their argument consists of a collection of non-arguments and opinions given as universals. If our ancestors refused to modify what they held as universal we would still be living in caves. The author believes in the state and has a a number of rules that go along with the state. I would find it more credible if they argued 'taxation is not a perfect system, but I think its the best system there is'.

I have been hyper-sensitive to logical issues and emotional conflicts that infest people's speech and postings since a child. It is a skill that become more attuned since listening to FDR. Unless the discussion could be characterised as some sort of debate, I don't always point out inconsistencies. In speech-debate however, I have found that when an individual fails to rebut your points (usually consisting of a personal attack), it tends to lead to you winning the argument. When you point out that they have failed to rebut you, this seems to so flummox them that they both waver and at best typically fail to rebut the point a second time. Due to facial expressions and tone, you can tell you have won. When it comes to online debate, you don't have that and that individual will typically scurry off. My question is: how do you think it is possible for people to have no argument for or against a position, while maintaining their position. If anything it seems to strengthen their resolve.

A further thought. If you look at other unions in which people were forced together: Yugoslavia The Soviet Union The Roman Empire The Ottoman Empire The Persian Empire The British Empire All of them failed. It took some of the more ancient ones considerably more time to fail due to the education-level and manner in which they were enforced. However, national identities were able to survive even after over 1,000 years of occupation. If anything, occupation seems to make national identity all the stronger, for obvious reasons.

Taken alone, capitalism needs to have regard for private property to exist. For me, capitalism is equal to property rights. And property rights are one of the staples required for a 'free' society. Though, like yourself, I think more than capitalism is required for a free society. I think you will find that supporters of capitalism, in their various forms, also believe in other principles that offset those that cannot compete. I've yet to come across someone who thinks nothing else should exist. I agree that at the moment, there is a requirement for socialism, but how much of that is due to the entrenchment of socialism is questionable. However, ultimately I believe that socialism could be replaced by high IQs and an educational revolution. Under these circumstances, the pool of unskilled labour would shrink to the degree that the unskilled people could demand higher wages. If you look at how much money goes to charity in Western societies, it is not hard to see how the genuinely incapable who have no one to care for them could be provided for. If you look at Hong Kong, one of the richest countries in the world with one the highest standards of living, their overall tax burden is about one third of the average in Western Europe. In most categories the top three countries in the world are Lichenstein, Hong Kong and Singapore. They're also arguably the most capitalist countries in the world. And they don't have huge underclasses. I think its more important to look at why these countries have done so well (in such a short period of time) rather than just looking at the quickest route to sate the poor somewhat. If you believe this, there is a question about how you want to achieve it. Hong Kong et. al. have had better results in these areas and they have not chosen a vast welfare state to do so. Their systems are more sustainable. Finally, using 'U' does not lend to your arguments. ---- In the above posts there are some great and through-provoking comments. Enough to write a long essay. As for the ultra-competitive nature of some areas of business. In 19th century Europe, vast numbers of people were involved in agriculture (I think 80%). There were many occupations like coppers, wheelwrights, carriage makers, blacksmiths and so on. Those occupations have now all but gone and the percentage of people involved in agriculture has dropped to about 2% in Western Europe. One result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions was mass unemployment, growing populations and urban destitution. Living in 2016, would you now go back in time and undo the industrial and agricultural revolutions just to keep more people in work? In doing so you'd put a stop to all the progress that means people have a much higher standard of living today. From the sound of it, the OP was involved in retail, or supplying retail. Just as there were agricultural and industrial revolutions, there is today a retail revolution. This means that lots of people are going to loose their jobs. But just as people had to adapt to the agricultural and industrial revolutions, people will have to adapt to the retail revolution. And the best way to do that would be a new educational revolution. I'm sure if you go back to the 19th century, you will find political cartoons and sentiment that mechanical machines will take over the world and there will be little space left for people. It's people job to adapt. If there was a central diktat that everyone must have X degree of job security, innovation will drop through the floor and that will steal as much from the present as the future. When talking about topics like this. You need to think about the big picture and not just tomorrow and yourself. As the OP describes, the capitalist system can be tough, but as SM has commented, 'resistance builds strength'. Look at the level of competition in government school and know why they are a dead-end for innovation. There is no strength in a system that has little to respond to. Utopian has good comments regarding skills. To this I would add that if you don't like competition (as I don't) then you should think about entering a niche where you are unlikely to face much if any due to the bar to entry. I have chosen a niche in which I am unlikely to face any real competition as the array of skills I posses are so unique and of such an unusual tapestry that it would require a team of people that would cost more than the possible profits as to make entry to the market a bad idea. I have decimated everyone else in the niche and there is nothing they can do about it, as it would cost too much for them to bring people in to help. --- As for negative attitudes for the future, there were times in the past when people thought they were living in the end times, as they do today. We obviously have a cornucopia of civilization-level challenges for the future. These have existed in the past: world war, famine, plague, sectarianism and so on. Come on, chin up. Are you a bunch of independent libertarians or a contingent of communist wobblies?

It is possible that the EU has run its course. In response to the British referendum on continued membership, several other countries have come forward to say they want to renegotiate their membership deal, i.e. repatriate powers. It is also looking increasingly likely that other nations will have a membership referendum in the next few years. Particularly if Britain leaves. For the last two decades in particular, the EU has worked, by forcing out agendas created by unelected bureaucrats. Many people felt that resistance to the EU was largely hopeless during that time. But now its like the curtain has come down and the is a growing realisation that business as in usual in Brussels is not possible. As a result of the EU's widely unpopular and failed policies, there is a growing rise of nationalism and epic collapse of the left that have cheerleaded these failed policies in the nation states. See: https://i.imgsafe.org/292d718.png In response to the backlash against its diktats, the EU has sought to do what it has always done: use uncertainty to increase its power. It now wants to add over 100 new citizens from countries with huge reported crime rates and low development and says it will fine Eastern European member states 250,000 EUR for each 'refugee' they refuse to take. The level to which the bureaucrats have pushed Eastern Europe away in one year is astounding. My take on one of the issues: Those who like to virtue signal by giving the thumbs up to unlimited immigration are woefully uninformed. Come to Eastern Europe and you will find that freedom of movement is held in as much disdain as it is in Britain. People wonder why they should fork out so much money to educate their children and teach them English, only for them to make a bee line for Western Europe, the US etc. at the earliest opportunity. The population of Bulgaria is decreasing at about 0.75% a year. Its approaching a 25% decline from its peak little more than 25 years ago. All throughout Southern and Eastern Europe, people talk of the brain drain as much as Brits talk about the ridiculous levels of uncontrolled immigration, which the government has now admitted they have no idea how much it is and was probably over 800,000 incomers last year. And those that want to complain on limiting immigration as an assault on the connected world, try visiting the many ghost villages and practically uninhabited villages in Bulgaria. In 2014 5% of people left Kosovo for Western Europe. When everyone in the region is allowed into the EU, expect double-digit percentage drops in nation's populations within a few years. This is not a connected world, but a disconnecting world, in which, soon, Western Europe will have to bail out the pension schemes of many countries because they have taken those who would have paid for them. And the idea that importing people from these countries into Western Europe to help pay for pensions is pure insanity. Other than having to bail out Eastern Europe's failed pensions. What is it going to be like in 2100, when the population of Britain is 100 million and still the pension schemes need more people to prop them up? The EU is a thoroughly irresponsible organisation that cares more for its completely undemocratic march to the United States of Europe than it does in building up its member states. Bulgaria is literally run by mafia. The country is completely rigged at the expense of its development, but the EU does not care so long its mafia is compliant with EU expansionism. And that is just the argument from an eastern perspective. If you look at a recent large study of the IQs of British students, it found that the average IQ of native Brits is 102. If you take native Brits out of the equation, the average IQ drops 9 points to 93 - on par with Bulgaria. If you also take out Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese (who also have an average IQ of 102), the average IQ drops a full 10 points to 92. IQ studies have shown again and again that lower than average IQs in a society have much higher incidences of things that are bad, like crime, unemployment, divorce etc. Continuing on IQ, the IQ of young Eastern Europeans is generally much higher than their parents as a result of better education, but if they (particularly the brightest) are continually siphoned off, the development of Eastern Europe will be crippled.

Some interesting points from the OP and others. The Hungarian situation as raised by Cruiser is an interesting one. The deputy of Communist opposition leader in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, has said in the future it will be impossible to control immigration. However, the Hungarian situation is a major contradiction. Though a small number are still getting into Hungary, those that are caught are not given the easy ride they will get in the UK, Germany and the US etc. But in all, the fence and patrols must have stopped 100,000s of people entering illegally. Enforcing borders is all a question of will. The points raised by the OP are all valid and its a question of whether Trump will be willing and able to use his strong will to reverse the establishment position of a very weak immigration policy.

I get what anarchy means. It is a word people load with their own meaning, which is not the same as others. I know someone who lived in an anarchist community in the 1980s and their definition of anarchy was different from what yours seems to be. They had no property rights and the whole thing ended up spiralling out of control and none of the participants talk to each other any more. And I've come across people who call themselves anarchists and have a number of different things they add into the blend that you would probably disagree with. And if I take your brand of anarchy to any of these people I will undoubtedly get the same thing: "please don't create unnecessary confusion just becaue YOU don't get what anarchy means." Yet it is people who have called themselves "anarchist" but given the word different meanings who have created the confusion. I prefer to stick with literal meanings of words, for anarchy: absence of government and complete individual freedom. Yet I think all people who call themselves anarchists, add a number of other things into the mix, such as ethics and anarchist law, the latter of which is a literal oxymoron. Essentially anarchists have, for lack of a better word, manifestos. You can't sum up your ideology in one word and by doing so you will end up with conflicts with people who claim the same word, but have a different "manifesto." Do you have any links to hand? I've listened to Stefan Molyenux and he has provided a pure anarchic explanation, but it was a bit brief and he ended up conceding with something along the lines of, "This isn't something I expect to happen any time soon. This will take generations." And I hope that statement is true. But personally I am not convinced, in the here and now, by this assertion that there could be laws that are not enforced, but they are somehow "enforced." i.e. I have an implied right to property, but if someone infringes that right a dispute resolution organisation can somehow remedy the situation without using force against the infringer. When I am speaking to statists, I will bring up possible solutions for human issues; and because these solutions lack or limit government, I will get a statement something along the lines of what you will all have heard: There will be anarchy in the streets. The world will fall apart. And so on. To these people I say, "Go back to Celtic Britain, when people were so violent they had to built giant mounds to hide a few families behind wooden barricades. And try telling them that they need to stop carrying out vigilante justice and practical tribal dictatorship and replace them with a common law legal system and a representative democracy." My point is that they are refusing any progress, being under the impression that a pinnacle has been reached, this as good as it gets and afraid to try anything new; and that is the same mentality of the tribal Celt. If there wasn't an impetus to try new ways of interacting, we would still be living in hill forts, dying in our 30s and 40s etc. However, I fully recognise that you couldn't just go back to that period and drop in a system that would lead to increased standards of living and more freedom. And I doubt you could drop in your idealised anarchy into that situation in a few generations. Humanity has been moving in great cycles. The paradigm doesn't shift in one day. In Europe we had brutal tribalism. It was brutally replaced by the Roman Empire, which allowed some level of enlightenment, freedom and standard of living. Then we had Christian monarchies, which brought about the basic ethics we take for granted like thou shall not kill. Then there was the enlightenment and so on. None of this was perfect or even consistent, but to some extent it was the best that could be done at the time. Just as you cannot expect the people of DR Congo to have a world-class healthcare provision the time next year, you can't expect for idealised anarchy anywhere in the world next year or probably any time in our lifetimes. This is something we will have to work towards and I think Molyneux has identified the quickest mechanism to get there with peaceful parenting.

I don't know exactly what sort of reply you are wishing to solicit. In my opinion anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. For me, anarchy is the absence of government and complete individual freedom. Anybody can do whatever they want to anyone. Whereas I see capitalism as the right to bear property; enforced by a legal mechanism. Capitalism is thus not compatible with anarchy. When people say 'anarcho-capitalism' they actually mean 'capitalism' and maybe a few other things thrown in that are not specifically stated. In an anarchist context, you can just take property and displace or kill previous occupier(s). In a pure capitalist context, in my opinion, there is a requirement for a universal code for property rights. I don't see competing resolution organisations with possibly conflicting interpretations of property rights as viable - this would be anarchy, i.e. anyone can come up with their own interpretation of property rights and start enforcing it. So in a pure capitalist context with a universal code for property rights, the process for assuming land is whatever has been laid out. Here in the UK there is a common-law code for property rights, which has been bogged down in statute, but in essence I only see one thing wrong with it. All land in the UK is owned by the monarch, Elizabeth II. They grant freehold tenure of land, which is essentially absolute ownership of the land, with the courts for recourse. There is also leasehold land, where land is possessed for a given period of time. On the death of the freeholder, the land passes to their named legates or nearest relatives if they have not left a will. Its illegal to occupy residential property owned by someone else without agreement. All other property can be occupied, though the owner can take legal action to remove you. If you occupy a property for ten years and can document that, you can apply for leasehold of the property; and after 20 years you can apply for freehold of the land. This is done by applying for registration at the Land Registry, which costs a relatively small fee. Even though it is illegal to occupy residential property under statute law, you can still do so, but the owner has rights of recourse against you. Once you have occupied the land for the before stipulated period and you successfully register the land, their right to the land is void. The process of claiming the land is called adverse possession: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adverse-possession-of-registered-land/practice-guide-4-adverse-possession-of-registered-land This provides a simpler overview for Britain: http://www.johnantell.co.uk/adverse-possession-of-land It depends what is meant by anarcho-capitalist. If there is a universal rule that can effectively be enforced that says to stake a claim to previously owned land or land that there is no record of ownership you have to improve it; then that is the reality; though it is not anarchy.This notion is not compatible with anarchy. As there is nothing stopping someone coming along and saying something different in an anarchist setting. Personally I do not think it is a good idea to start using idealogical labels, such as anarcho-capitalism, as people have varying definitions of what that actually is. As I outline in my previous post, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. To have what the OP describes and what DaVinci comes up with a loose universal for you need: law that has a provision for property rights and method of enforcing those provisions when they are broken. So a better literal title for this is legally enforceable universal property rights, rather than anarcho-capitalism.

My initial thought is that it is good to have people who exercise different levels in anger in different ways. This way you can gauge what levels of anger you think are best for yourself. When I was younger I would often hide my anger, even from myself. If you want to dissipate your anger, you first need to recognise it. But keeping it in focus for the rest of your life does not seem a good idea. Several years ago, while in my late-teens-early-twenties I was manipulated badly in business. I knew it subconsciously, but would barely confront the manipulator and suppressed my anger until it boiled out and I removed myself from the situation, losing a lot of work, which I got nothing for. If I had confronted the source of my anger earlier it would not have got so bad. Although in hind sight I left the scenario at the best possible point from various POVs. However, after leaving I was angry for a long time about the situation and all I lost/wasted. Because of that I was unable to do much for a few years. And although that in itself was a negative experience and I could have used the time better. It was necessary for my process of learning. Time would have quelled the anger I felt towards the individual who grossly manipulated me and others, but what has really dulled the anger was moving on from the whole situation and putting myself in a better one; which coincidently I would never have ended up in if it was not for 2 years of manipulation followed by 3 years productive stagnation and defeatism. I still feel anger towards the above mentioned manipulator, even though he gave me what I needed in so many ways, the way he behaved is not acceptable. However, the anger is now very dim and I rarely think about it. It has also ended up as an asset rather than a liability. If I encountered the individual now I would speak to them and tell them about my experience at their hands in a non-pithy, non-ivory-tower way. If you recognise your anger you are at step one. If you know the specific source of the anger, you are at step two. You could probably try moving to a Buddhist monastery and meditating your anger into the ether. I'd imagine that would work, but by doing so I think you are not really confronting the source and certainly not learning anything. In a way it's like ignoring your anger. As eluded to in the recant of my experience, the effective and beneficial way of dealing with your anger is to confront it and surmount it. And that does not involve pushing down the person(s) who are the source of your anger. As an adult, if you end up in protracted situations where you are angry it is probably because you are operating in a way that needs to be recognised and changed. At least I think that is a good way to view protracted situations, such as personal relationships. Small events like being mugged and social realities, like government is a different kettle of fish. I am angry about government, because it is currently an imposition on me. I doubt this will be completely surmounted, but I'm doing what I can to remove myself from it. The anger of this situation is not particularly in focus though, probably as I am confidently working towards a life of almost complete removal from the state. If you are working against the source of your anger, you have hope and aspiration and they are more powerful than the slothish pull of hopelessness and apathy.

I saw this on Twitter and since listening to FDR my first thought was: "If This is How Your Parents Met How Would Your Turn Out?" Previously I probably would have just thought: 1 - He's probably lying 2 - The is ungraceful etc. My intention on posting here was just to start a thread for discussion and I think posters Wyatt & Starsky give a good indication of what environment the children of such a union would end up living in.

Evening, I posted this on FDR a while back and after I few days didn't get any replies and have only now just come back to it. Some very interesting replies, offering points for many different angles. Those of your with cases of problematic home lives would be interesting to hear on FDR. I've gained a lot of good insights from such call ins. @MrCapitalism, thanks for your interesting points, but I was not the recipient of this message. I found it posted on Twitter. I gather you think I posted this after receiving it, which is not the case. Also, if you are wondering, I did not give you the -1 for your post. I don't appear to be able to do so and very rarely thumb anything down. You may be right with your analysis. The photo was posted with the message: No messing about haha #desperate I agree with you that this is not the behaviour of a desirable woman and that his claim to millions is probably bogus. But if your purposing ultra-attractive, superficial woman online in such a way you can't complain too much. P.S. I am not a girl. Aviet is a boy's name.

This is a very interesting first post, with some through provoking comments. I called that France would be the first NW-European nation to fall into considerable decay and it seems that has come true, or at least is coming true. If I was you, my primary goal would be to leave France. I am in the UK, though leaving in 4 weeks. The UK is better than France. There are far more avenues for negotiating the government dragnet, buts its still tiring. Siwtzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong and Singapore seem the best bets for now if they are accessible to you. I like Better Future's comment. We often want to try and take on the problems of the world or a region, but it is far too much. Trying to change people's minds, especially in France, is far too much of an undertaking for one person. I'd rather move to where more more like-minded people can be found. I've heard all the arguments you have reprinted. It's just far too much for the average reactionary-statist to be able to consider - to have all they have taken "as is" and throw it out the window. I would suggest a much slower approach and crank it up over time. I was with two guys tonight, who as far as I know both just voted for Labour, the UK-version of the Democrats. However, neither of them are reactionary liberals. They are reactionary statists who think there needs to be yet more government to offset people who only care about the economy. They were talking about Conservative Party promises that they agreed with. I threw in, "How about getting rid of corporate tax?" You can imagine the reaction, but I went onto phrase it for them within the context of a statist paradigm, i.e. mentioning that if you tax corporations/businesses you are cutting off the point of production. If you leave the business with all its profits, it will likely produce more, hire more people, buy more stuff. You will end up with higher production and you can then tax the beneficiaries via wages and dividends to get more income. This took some explaining to these average Brits who have practically no economic grounding. They looked for the holes in my logic, thinking that business owners would just leave money rotting in their company rather than do anything with it. They didn't understand anything, such as that by investing in your business, you still own the net worth, which will go up more than the investment if the business is solid. I don't think either were sold on it, but it certainly made them think considerably outside their own boxes of boxes provided to them by MSM. Unfortunately, that is the best that can be done. I don't know anything better than spoon-feeding small drops of liberty to people. Giving them a full dose just doesn't work. I find statists have what I think of as disparate islands they asses various issues on. There is no continuity to their thinking and suggested use of force. An underlying principle is upheld in one area then ignored in another. There is no logic to their muddled lack of philosophy and this could be a major reason why it is so difficult to get through to statists. You may be able to communicate to them the benefits of more freedom in a small area. But that is irrelevant. It seems to be all about changing the parameters, which in their view, when enforced, will result in the best results; as if providing a narrow corridor for possible activity allows for what works best to even be discovered. Shaking the statist mindset very rarely happens. People generally fall back to saying, "Oh, we just need another government scheme."

Thanks both for your input.

Rough sex is about marking territory and establishing a pecking order. Its obvious from watching animals where, often sexualised, attacks are used to establish a submissive-dominant social hierarchy. For example, rabbits will hump each other to establish who is dominant. Assuming a dominant position by these ritualised attacks leads to privileges, such as first rights to food etc. These sort of rituals are not always male on female, though across species males no doubt assume more dominant positions. And they are not necessity fixed. As within human hierarchies, todays alpha can be de-throned and a beta arise to take its place. Thus if you have reciprocal sexual violence, i.e. he chokes her, she throws him over and slaps him about. I'm not 100% sure what can be read into that, but obviously both are seeking a sense of dominance over the other. My guess is that most rough sex is one way as that would mirror other areas where one partner will typically dominate. I don't think a desire for rough sex should be read as necessarily as childhood abuse, or that ball park. This is natural, base animal behaviour. I would argue, in line with Kavih's sentiments. that a desire to engage in rough sex is simply a manifestation of primeval, reactionary drives and a repulsion of such acts means that your higher through facilities have won out over these drives. I would put rough sex in a similar mental space to bullying, which achieves the same goal: submissive-dominant relationships, but without such an overtly sexual malaise. In school, acts of bullying I remember include: Physical assaults with: pointed compasses, padded baseball bats, snapped off ends of snooker cues Being pushed down into a corner and farted on Being rolled down a flight of stairs in a dustbin "Nipple cripples" Verbal jokes with the aim of humiliation Bullying is just sado-masochism with clothes on. As for the reason some people "like" being submissive, I believe this is also of primeval origin. If you are being dominated sexually by an alpha, this shows the recipient the strength of the alpha and that brings with it a certain amount of security in a world where other animals may come in the night and want to do much worse things to you. My view of this is the same as any other area of life where one partner may seek to dominate the other - it's unhealthy. If one partner seeks to stop their other from seeing their friends, I am sure everyone on the forum would agree this is selfish and unprincipled. But seemingly some think that the sexual manifestation of the same sort of drives is fun an exhilarating.

12StringSamurai has some good points. If you incorporate philosophy into art in an obtrusive manner it will likely fail to cast the sort of spell that great art is known for. It would be easy for any of us, for example, to write a literal song about the Fed, but it wouldn't be very inspiring and better suited to a work of non-fiction. The trick is to drape your philosophy in metaphor and stretch it out over a series of incidents. In my opinion, it shouldn't be obvious that the philosophy is actually incorporated into the book at all. For example, I have held views since I was a child that would be considered libertarian, but I had no concept of libertarianism in the modern sense (i.e. not Lew Rockwell.) If I read a book that was interwoven with a libertarian philosophy, I would not have been able to specifically identify what it was, but there would likely be points or traits I found attractive. That is the affect I would be looking to achieve; particularly as few people have an understanding of liberty. You convey your philosophy over a series of incidences and personal interactions. Example: Set in the City of New York, a special squad is tasked to investigate the mafia. At a point where the squad is near to closing on the mafia the record a conversation with a mafioso and an aide to the mayor of NYC, in which an arrangement is made for the aide to pick up $100,000. The aide is arrested, but upon pressure from mid-level police management he is let go with no further inquiry. With a bit of chicanery, the special squad is shut down and the charges brought down on the mafia by them are meek. However a fairly high level police re-groups the squad, some of whom have been 'sent to the north pole' for subordination, as he saw they were very effective, for his own ends, a personal vendetta. They begin investigating something completely different, but it turns out the mafia are involved Again the squad gets a whiff of financial connections between the mayor and the mafia and this time is able to subpoena some government officials for documents The mayor then starts using his official powers and lackeys in police management to make things very difficult for the investigation squad In the end the mayor gets one of his lap dogs to fall on their sword as the establishment circles around to protect its own with its official powers The mayor fails to get elected, but is replaced by someone featured in the story who was even worse than the mayor In the midst of this, it is gradually revealed that the police and mayor's office is just a bunch of cronies, scratching each other's back and using their official powers to cover up their own. Apply a liberal dose of weaselly government dupes to provide an extra factor of disgust. In no place is it necessary to convey the philosophy - an agency of force will result in unstoppable corruption and abuses. You don't even have to leave that specific through on their mind. But anyone who reads a well-written and engaging story as outline above is probably going to have their perception of government shifted in some way.

When I was younger, I played quite a lot of computer games, not to the level of addiction, or even regularly. I also knew several people who were the same and one who was an addict. But now we are all in our late 20s, we barely play any games. When I play games now I will be bored of it within a few days, if not a few hours. So, I think it is something you will grow out of anyway. If not, you are in trouble. I think you've already figured your situation out: you are addicted to a high; you don't have anything to replace it with; you think you have potential, but cannot motivate yourself to do anything. By posting here, it seems to me, you are looking for an external solution to your internal problems you already seem to have fleshed out. As if someone else can give you the boost to change your ways, when the only person who can change your ways is you. I often hear with addiction, "I want to give up, but I can't." But if you actually do want to give something up, you will do it immediately. So currently, you do not want to give up playing video games. Again, with video games, you are looking for an external source for comfort, excitement, or whatever combinations of things it is fulfilling you. The way I see your situation, you have to take control of yourself and build internal self-worth. You wont get that by playing games, or asking people to help you with your internal issues on a forum. The only way you can do that is by doing things. And its not easy. Its easier to play video games all day than do something constructive. You need to delete all your games, change the passwords and email on any gaming accounts you have so you cannot get into them and do something, such as one of the things you have mentioned above. And you need to keep at it. I was in a similar position to you not so long ago. I was what I can only describe as burned out after a very bad experience setting up a business with two people who turned out to be compulsive liars and essentially criminals. A series of bad events followed, during which I was living at home with my parents, doing what others would consider - a waste of time. What self-belief I had accumulated had gone as well as any motivation. I didn't think I could do anything without other people. It was only when I was essentially faced with death that I decided I would give myself ago. Others didn't believe in me and it took some time to get off the ground, but now I know I can do things on my own and that I have value, I don't need to look to others or things to have that. So, I would say to you, just do it now. You won't get your rewards immediately, but if/when you do, they will be real rewards, not 1000XP, or a level up, which I hope you will be deleting from your computer and consciousness as you read.

I have a fair economic understanding, but one thing I have been unsure of for some time is: What it the benefit of the stock market? To me it seems the only considerable benefit of the stock market is that when a stock is trading high, shareholders have more wealth on paper. But it seems to me that it ends there. If a company is making CPUs, this provides huge value to the consumer who can do many things with the CPU he could not do without and it provides money (purchasing power) for the company. A win, win. But if a stock is trading high, it seems to me that there is little value to the company or consumer. I've heard Stef say that when his IT company went public that he lost a lot of time fretting about the stock price. It seems to me that the stock market saps real production and replaces it with the dead wood of the zombie, speculative economy. Can anyone with a better understanding shed more light on this?

I think you will have a hard time showing that an alternative 'education' or real-life skills are betters, because so much of the work environment is geared towards people who have degrees as a starting point. If you do, I think it would be worth at looking at 'corporate education.' I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but I did a course called CISCO Certified Networking Academy, which could easily be completed within one year, and one completed you can go straight into a £30,000 / year job. There is a further course ran by CISCO which can get you a £60,000 / year job, which is over $90,000 / year. It seems to me that degrees give people a smattering of information that in many cases are not even worth minimum wage and only good enough to get entry level jobs, which it would have been better to give interested people 3 years of on-job training with take-home study as opposed to breaking the bank for the said smattering. Anyway, some stats for the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/24/earnings-by-qualification-degree-level http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/careers/what-do-graduates-do/what-do-graduates-earn/ CISCO Cambodia students shattering the average national wage: http://csr.cisco.com/casestudy/networking-academy-cambodia https://targetjobs.co.uk/career-sectors/it-and-technology/286195-what-graduate-salary-can-i-expect-in-an-it-job