Koroviev

I understand and you make some good points, but the question is if, and when, there is no good and or solid evidence how/what will you decide? We know children don't need stuff (see la leche league, attachment parenting, peaceful parenting, etc.), we know children do need their parents (source source), we know that children in daycare and public school tend to gravitate to the "least common denominator," and that children left in childcare for long periods of time show similar signs to those who have been abandoned (the source escapes me at the moment but it's on here somewhere). So if you do not find solid research showing that part time daycare has clear negative effects on your children are you going to ignore all of that, all of the other research, as well as your parental instincts so that you can, theoretically, have a little more money and hope that you are not wrong?

The newest target in the SJW sphere. Ironically also the problem that is making Idiocracy seem like a documentary! http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/idiocracy-is-a-cruel-movie-and-you-should-be-ashamed-fo-1553344189

There is a lot with the previous two statements that I have issues with but I don't really think it's beneficial or necessary to go into them and drag this out. The reality is that the only real evidence we have is the past failures of socialism and communism, outside of that we are talking about opinions and hopes and dreams. You yourself said that the U.S. was doomed to fail from the very beginning because of the "seed of ever-expanding communism." If what you say is true that because the U.S. had even the slightest hint of communism from the very beginning and thus was doomed to failure then it logically follows that any system with as much as or more communism in it is doomed to failure as well. What you are proposing is a modified form of socialism no matter how you look at it, thus by your own admission is doomed for failure. This does not mean I or anyone else would, or could, ban you from trying it out in a free society, but I think we have better things to dwell on, such as how to get from where we are to the free society where you are free to try out any system you want, or at least any system you can sell.

So, let me make sure I understand. You would be a rational person in a free society of only rational people who pays a private entity to force you to sell all of your assets every year so that you can pay that private entity to give you and all of the rational people in that free society a smaller amount of that money back each year so that you can add it to the money you already make from your regular job?

Sorry, I assumed a couple things from your post, first that you were looking for information on the effects of full time daycare so you both could have full time jobs, and second that we were talking in generalities. I don't know how things will turn out for you and your girlfriend specifically because I can't see the future and don't even know you, so if you want to talk your specific situations I'll have to respectfully bow out of this conversation. The reality is that most likely we're not going to change you, or your girlfriend's, minds no matter what evidence we present. Most likely you'll have children and send them to daycare, and most likely they'll turn out just fine. However, the point isn't to aim for raising OK children. The point is to put yourself and your children in the best situation possible to grow into the best people they can be. There isn't any research on the negative effects of part time daycare with peaceful parents who both have a high IQ and are highly invested in there children, and there won't be at least until we get more peaceful parents. So you're not going to find the rock solid evidence that will convince you that daycare is evil. Lastly, yes you can want to make money and do what's best for your children at the same time, that would be a false dichotomy. However, both cannot be your top priority. One is always going to suffer. Unfortunately, all to often it's the children that do. Again it's just fine to make making money your top priority but saying you need to do it for your children is a lie. You want a nice house, you want to live in a nice neighborhood, you want the nice car, you want the nice clothes, and you want whatever it is you're trying to use to justify you both "needing" to work. All your baby wants is you. My personal opinion is that raising a child is way more important than filling out TPS reports all day so you can pay more in taxes and someone else can dictate how your child grows up, but I'm just some guy on the internet, you're the one that will have to live with whatever choice you make.

I don't have any specific research but just wanted to add my 2 cents: First, no one is ever going to be as invested in raising your children correctly as you and your spouse are. Second, most daycare workers are minimum wage employees who are only there for the paycheck and daycare has a huge turnover rate so there is very little consistency. Third, is the "extra" money you'll make worth the extra money you'll spend for both of you to have a job (cost of daycare, car, gas, insurance, clothes, additional medical expenses from being introduced to all of the other kids' bacteria, etc.). Fourth, daycare (as well as public school, etc.) means that the only time you get to spend with your kids is extremely stressful. in the mornings you're tied to a schedule and rushing out the door so no one's late, and in the evenings you're rushing home so you can hurry up and get dinner, bath, and into bed. All of which puts a lot of stress on both the kids and the parents. Fifth, people (should!) have children because they want to spend time with them and help them grow into the best people they can, why even have children if you have to have someone else to raise them. Lastly, and I'm not meaning this as a personal attack, but if your priorities are to make more money then make more money but don't mask it under the guise of "it's what's best for the children." Children don't need money or things they need their parents. Also, watch for bias when you're researching the feeling I've gotten so far is that you want to not find research that supports one of you staying home with your children so that the excuse of "there's no research proving one way or the other" will seem valid. Make sure you're putting as much effort into the benefits of staying home and the negatives of daycare as you are the benefits of daycare and the negatives of staying home. You can just as easily be a stay at home parent as your girlfriend can.

Ok, so who controls the community savings account? who hires the people to force you out of your house if you don't follow the rules? who forces or hires the people to force you to auction all of your stuff? Is the whole community run by one corporation who makes all of these decisions? If so how do they make money, taking a piece off the top?

also if there are multiple items in the microwave they both aren't going to get all of the microwaves all of the time one is going to absorb most of the waves at one point then as it rotates the other will get most of the waves. Also, front side vs back side needs to be taken into account. think about shining a light on what you are heating whatever is facing the light absorbs the most light waves

The point was that there is much more incentive for your neighbor to build a skyscraper in the society you are proposing than in a free society. I'm not seeing an argument against that, unless it's that people in that society would also agree to not build buildings higher than one story which is moving the goal posts, so I am going to assume that I made that case and move on to my next point. If I missed something please let me know. We are almost on the same page I think the difference is that I am saying all governments are ever-expanding it is the very nature of government to expand. A government's (I know some people see government as including self-government but I am using government in the traditional sense here as a synonym for state) entire purpose is to enforce the moral rules either set by the people (democracy, republic) or set by the rulers (monarchy, communism). Thus even the smallest government, such as the early US, is destined to continuously grow larger, i.e. US today, or fail. If nothing else this is simply because the government does not produce anything it always consumes. A government cannot survive without a constant influx of money (taxes) thus it must grow larger to collect that money (IRS), and then needs more money to support the larger size, and so on and so forth. Thus it would not be much of a leap to assume the same would happen in your proposed society, especially from your viewpoint that it's the "seed of communism" that causes governments to grow. The "community" has to somehow collect and distribute the money the citizens give them. I'm assuming part of that income would go to other "community improvements," but if not someone has to pay and train the auctioneer, enforce the contracts when people decide they don't want to sell all of their possessions, and forcefully remove people when they no longer want to participate. The more things like this the "community" needs the bigger it will grow and the more it will need. Again for the sake of everyone else on the board I'm going to stop here and wait for your response as to not have a wall of text no one will read.

The Australian government just cut 110 of it's 140 climate research positions. Their reasoning? The science is settled! Why do they need to keep researching if climate change is real when the science clearly states that climate change is real? It seems, unfortunately for the Australian government when you pay people to say something is uncontroversial and 100% settled (97% settled?) there's no real reason to keep paying those people to continue saying the same thing. Do you think this will become a trend and other countries will follow suite? Will the scientists come up with some new reason for the government to keep paying them? Will we finally get some unbiased research? Or will someone else jump in and keep these guys "researching"? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australia-cuts-110-climate-scientist-jobs/

And I will forever fight for your right to have the freedom to sign up for whatever community you want, even once it becomes involuntary and coerced. As for your neighbor building a skyscraper in a free society that neighbor would have way more costs (insurance, not BIG, etc.) and way more risks (if it fails it's almost 100% your neighbor's fault) not to mention if that's something you are worried about I would get that put into the contract language when buying the house, and take other steps to ensure it doesn't happen. As opposed to the benefits your neighbor would receive in your proposed society. The neighbor receives a stipend each month that, assuming the neighbor is working, could go directly toward costs, if it goes well win for your neighbor they get to sell it at the end of the year and make huge profits because of how much they've increased their land value and the rent they've surely accumulated, all-in-all a huge win. If the skyscraper fails, well they are required to sell it at the end of the year so they'll receive at least part of their expenses (could be a large part if bidding is required to start at +20% of costs) and even if this completely bankrupts your neighbor he still gets the comfortable life YOU as his neighbor are paying for. To recap in the free society your neighbor would take all of the costs and risks on himself, would have to go through contracts and insurance companies (i.e. you would get insurance claims) and/or would have to directly pay you for having to put up with the skyscraper and/or relocating. Whereas in the "communo-auction" community the neighbor takes reduced costs (your money goes to pay for the skyscraper you don't want), reduced risks (if he fails you will pay for him to live and he get's to sell it at the end of the year), and huge incentive (if he succeeds major payoffs). So that this doesn't become to long I'll stop here and wait for your response before moving on to my other issues with the previous comment. Great discussion btw really enjoying it!

I highly doubt anyone (especially in a free society) would sign a contract allowing people to forcefully remove them from their house and take all of their belongings (especially without a clause for them to change their mind), but yes if they did it would no longer be the initiation of the use of force since they gave their permission which still makes the two mutually exclusive. Giving my permission for someone to do something means they are not forcing me to do it. yes I understand that you are trying to make communism work by adding a "free market" element but the reality is communism, no matter how you spin it, will not work. It will benefit a very small minority of individuals and everyone else will suffer. People don't like moving, people buy things they specifically want and need, if I buy a new car I'm not going to want to turn around and sell it for someone else's jolapy. Not to mention people would buy less new items because they have to save their money to buy other's used items they were forced to sell so there would be less manufacturing of new goods. Finally, no one would ever actually start businesses or even be able to start businesses since most startups fail within the first year and the ones that don't take way more than a year to become successful. So if I were to invest all of my money into something I am passionate about and somehow make it successful before I have to sell it at the end of the year so that I can earn back the money I spent to start it (and the money lost because I wasn't doing other things) I would then have to watch it crumble since the likelihood of someone with even remotely similar passion and skills buying that company are slim to none. Again, you'd be free to try whatever you want I just can't see how anyone would think giving up all of their assets every single year would ever be a good idea.

It doesn't seem to me like you actually read my response. We were talking about if living in a free society and being forced to do something were mutually exclusive. If you sign a contract, assuming no coercion, then you are not being forced to do something. If you are being forced to "auction" your goods then you are not in a free society. Everything outside of that was me being surprised at what you were proposing and making a case, sure maybe not the best case, but making a case against it. The arguments were: - it seems unlikely someone would save money for something simply to be required to sell it in a couple of months. Especially since it's lost a lot of value being used as opposed to when they bought it new. -The proposed system would make loans a nightmare. Lets say I take out a $20,000 loan to buy a new car (the loaner owns the car) the car immediately loses value (unless I never drive it, or sit in it, or look at it) I still owe $20,000 to the loaner and have to hope to sell it at the end of the year for $24,000 (20% ROA unless I'm misunderstanding). Now, if the loan stays with me I send the $20,000 (assuming no interest for simplicity) to the loaner and have gained $4,000 but once again do not have a car and the person I sold my car to has overpaid (i.e. lost) $7,800 buying a used car (cars lose about 19% of their value after the first year). This is assuming there's no interest on the loan AND I'm able to sell a used car (which has lost about 20% of it's value) for 20% more than I had paid for it. If the loan stays with the car then I have made $4,000 and the loaner is still down $20,000 for at least another year while the car the loaner owns continues to depreciate in value (cars lose about 31% after the second year, and so on) so the new loanee now owes the $20,000 (again still assuming no interest for simplicity) while the car is now only worth $13,800 which he originally paid $24,000. Obviously the new loanee isn't going to pay that back either but instead pass the loan to the next guy, and I think you can see where this goes from here. -No one would buy anything but the bare minimum and especially nothing extravagant. I save up for years to buy a new Ferrari. Next year I have to try to sell a used Ferrari for more than what I paid and someone else has to buy my new Ferrari for less that what they've sold. Those were my arguments, but wait, there's more! -Are people required to buy everything that's being auctioned? -where do you draw the line on what has to be auctioned? would I have to auction my child's teddy bear? what about my wife's wedding ring? -does everyone start out with assets or do they have to sell all their assets to join? -does everyone sell all of their assets at exactly the same time or does the person who had to work on auction day get screwed out of selling everything? -what happens if you don't sell all your assets? -what happens if you don't have things others want? -what about the person who has the things everyone wants? -what if my house burns down the day before auction day? Now I can't sell it AND I still have to somehow get a 20% ROA. -Is the auctioneer exempt? how are they supposed to sell/buy their items when they're auctioning everyone else's -what about the last person to sell their assets, do they get a bunch of cash and no house? -do people have to sell their clothes? toothbrushes? tl;dr 1. being forced to do something and living in a free society are mutually exclusive. 2. In a free society you are more than welcome to organize anyway you want, but the "auction everything" society doesn't seem viable, to me at least.

Again, I will point you to the above call it show, but in a nutshell it no one knows but I agree with Stef in that it would likely would be a combination between education and insurance. People thinking about having a vaby would be encouraged to get insurance. That insurance company doesn't want to pay a claim so they have a vested interest in making sure that baby is raised well. The insurance company would likely end up doing reseaech in to parenting hiring experts etc and come up with an incentive program for new parents. If those parents opt out or do the opposite there may be consequences in higher rates but no problem. Unless, the child starts to become a nuisance or show signs of abuse. These signs are a LOT more obvious than what you alluded to above just ask any teacher not to mention with all of the research that we already spoke about there would be increasingly more ways to tell. It's not like there are rules set in stone enforced by some secret society but simple reason and evidence that some people would follow and some would not. Also, notice how the christians are all for banishment and torture for all eternity simply for not believing in something that is illogical and has no evidence, but ostracism for abusing your children is the worst thing ever.

this is all explained in the last call from FDR3162 https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46046-podcast-fdr3162-space-alien-from-planet-happiness-call-in-show-december-23rd-2015/

The great thing about a free society is no one is forced to do things they do not agree with. Anyone can choose to, or not to, sell whatever they want to whoever they want, and if you disagree with the entire society on something you are not forced to. Although, I find it highly unlikely that any society would essentially murder and entire family because they disagree with the parenting style, I suppose theoretically can happen (as can a lot of things). If a free society where the majority of people were raised peacefully (the only path to a free society) for some reason did attempt this they would first have to convince pretty much everyone in the community, and all the businesses, and all the utilities, and all the DROs, that what these parents was doing was egregious to be on par with murder, rape, etc. A pretty big hurdle to jump. Next ostracism is not just suddenly not liking someone or something someone does and suddenly forcing them into the wilderness. The whole point is to "enforce" social rules without the use of force. You have to assume that in a free society those social norms are centered around freedom and peaceful parenting and the ostracism, more often than not, will simply entail people viewing the things you are doing negatively (Note: this happens every single day everywhere all the time in the society we live in just ask any stay at home mom or dad, breastfeeding mom, or homeschool family). They may get criticized but most people don't want to be responsible for much more than that. If the social norms are centered around freedom then you have to assume (barring extreme circumstances) that the desire to not infringe on those freedoms would weigh pretty heavily against banishing an entire family to the wilderness. Back to your question about selling to people you don't agree with, my question is why wouldn't you want people to discriminate who they sell things to? It opens up a market for you to sell to and if they discriminate to much they won't be around to discriminate anyone. It's their property and they can sell to whoever they want. If you don't want to sell me a candy bar because I smell bad, I'd better find another way to get my candy bar or go take a shower.

exactly

What? did you just come up with a community where everyone "auctions" off all of their assets every year hoping to get 20% ROA? that doesn't even make sense. Someone is going to work for 5 years to save up enough money to buy a car then the next year auction it off hopefully getting 20% ROA? what if they have to take out a loan does the loan go with the car or do they have to hope they eventually make enough to pay it off? what if they just bought the only Ferrari in the community, wait that wouldn't happen because everyone would be forced to by the worst items since they'll be forced to sell it anyway so they want to spend as little money on it as possible. Lastly, if they want to join this community then they are not being forced to participate (i.e. they live in a free society) if they are forced to join the community then they are no longer living in a free society. if they are not forced to join but are forced to participate then they are again not living in a free society. They may lose the "benefits" of being it that ridiculously backwards and unsustainable "community" but that is not force. As soon as force comes into play it is no longer a free society. Thus being forced to do something and living in a free society are still mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the info! If I can add another point, I dont want to leave the misconception that there has to be a choice between doula and bradley method. Both works great, and I think many doulas who have seen bradley births recommend it since it can be such an intimate time. The doula simply becomes a second more experienced set of hands to back up the husband and/or to take over if the husband gets overwhelmed. I heard one story about how the doula spent her time massaging the husband So he could continue massaging and supporting his wife.

1. it's highly unlikely that someone in a voluntary society sign themselves up for an involuntary situation. 2. in a free society you wouldn't be forced to auction your property. yes if you signed a contract there would be consequences, although I can't say I can imagine I'd sign a contract saying I would sell my house or face consequences that would remove me from my house...., but that is not force and in that situation you are not "required" to auction your land you are choosing to auction your land. 3. if someone did sign that contract well, I can't feel sorry for them they either didn't realize the consequences of their decisions (unlikely) or they didn't realize they needed a second opinion, and this is a great business opportunity for someone who wants to review contracts for people before they sign awful contracts.

I definitely know what you mean but.....definitely have to check out the Bradley method at least up to this point there's no other way my wife or I could imagine wanting to do this. Also, we looked into a doula and thought it would be a nice convenience but as an extra support. For the husband you get a 12 week course on everything to expect and how to handle everything that comes up. Before reading the books and starting the classes I would have been in 100% agreement with you and wouldn't really have wanted anything to do with it, but since then I wouldn't want to do it any other way.

I wonder if there are any correlations between breastfeeding and comfort objects somewhat related article from New Beginnings magazine: http://www.llli.org/nb/nbjanfeb03p8.html

for reference here's couple articles including the one I was referring to: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482695&resultclick=3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11988057 and a whole bunch of assorted long term benefits studies here: http://www.llli.org/cbi/bibbenefits.html

Not sure how many other people have looked into Dr. Bradley's birth method, but if you haven't and are planning on having children (ever) I definitely recommend looking into it. The idea is based around creating strong family bonds and emphasizes not using, and ways to prevent having to use any kind of intervention (any drugs, medicine, induction, etc., etc.). It is also known as The Husband Coached Childbirth and makes the husband an integral part of the entire process strengthening the mother-father bond and parents baby bond. If you have any inclination toward peaceful parenting I don't know of a better way to get off on the right foot. The one downside (if you can even call it that) is that Dr. Bradley was quite religious and most of the teachers we've seen are quite religious as well. However, at least from what we've seen so far the information we are getting is way worth the occasional religious references. Anyway, just wanted to get the word out there and am interested in your thoughts. For more info see: http://www.bradleybirth.com/ and definitely check out his book Husband-Coached Childbirth: The Bradley Method of Natural Childbirth by Robert A. Bradley

I think by now we've all heard the arguments that children who are not spanked and children who are breastfed have (significantly) higher IQ scores, and I was just thinking that this may be the wrong way to look at things. What this argument does is place the children who are formula fed and/or who are spanked as the "norm" and higher IQ is simply a benefit you get if you do something different. When in reality these children are not the "norm" and these things seem to cause a deficiency in one way or another. It's similar to looking at zoo animals who have been caged their entire life and then looking at those same species in the wild and saying the wild animals are acting abnormally. What I've realized is these arguments should be shifted to say that hitting your children and/or not breastfeeding results in children with (significantly) lower IQ scores. I think looking at these arguments in this light makes them much more accurate than what I seem to hear a lot of people (not necessarily here) saying at the moment.