thebeardslastcall

Are you suggesting people here have been unable to and have not successfully criticized Stefan on the forums and on his show? Or if not could you clarify your implication and make your statement less obscurely to make the implied point of alleged irony.

Misrepresenting yourself is kind of like being a ruler. You're deciding you know better than the other person and trying to make the decision to hire you for them when they need to make it for themselves. Maybe they'll make a mistake, maybe they won't, but if you misrepresent yourself you're giving them a raw deal because you're denying them a fair assessment of the risks of hiring you. You may want to get a job, but free trade is about mutual benefit and that means you need to be actually better than the other people they could hire, which may mean being less likely to stay around because of being "over qualified" is a relevant factor, just as someone who's likely to get pregnant is a risk for an employer over a person who will be more present and a better fit for the needs of the employer. Do you really want to enter in a relationship where you are being dishonest and taking advantage of the other person? If we are to promote a free trade society we would do well to promote honest and responsible trade towards mutual benefit. If you think you are a good fit despite appearances, add in a cover letter and make the case and maybe they'll hire you and appreciate the honesty and feel the risk reduced with a better idea of what they're trading for by hiring you. Good luck.

I haven't, no link to provide. To the youngest goes the blame from the mother who offloads her failures onto the child she deems responsible for tipping the family into unhappiness. Her own unhappiness and the hate, abuse, and unhappiness of the father that divides her relationship with the father and that breaks apart the family. "You were a mistake, I wish you were never born", if not said with words, a mentality shown through actions and poor treatment. No child deserves that.

I was wondering if you'd looked into and considered alternatives to Paypal, which seems to charge 2.9% on all transactions, versus others like Google Wallet, which still charges 2.9% for credit card payments, but seems like it may have no fee for debit card payments (except perhaps maybe a flat 30 cent fee)? I was looking into ways to accept payments, and not liking the idea of losing 2.9% on every payment and wondered if you'd looked into alternative options with lower fees. If you chose against Google Wallet I was wondering why you did so and decided to stick with Paypal or any other alternatives you considered, but chose against. Haven't setup an account with either yet, but when I finally release my book I will want to have ready a means of accepting donations outside of money from sales, if not sooner, so beginning to explore my options. Actually couldn't setup a Paypal account for myself prior as I couldn't meet the minimum requirements for creating an account, but if Google Wallet or some other service is a superior choice and gets around my personal limitation, figured it may be a good option if I'm not missing a relevant weakness. Thanks,

I witnessed some child abuse yesterday. A parent was strong arming her child and being verbally harsh because they weren't acting how she wanted in public (at a library). I didn't have the courage to step up and say anything, but did send an unpleasant gaze at the parent as I considered action and wished to convey my disapproval of the parent, even if only in a much lesser fashion, which child and parent were both blind to likely, but others may have seen. Afterwards I was left thinking of what I might have done and could have done if I were well prepared for such a situation. One thought I had was having some sort of card or pamphlet to give parents in a non-confrontational way that would introduce them to the principles of peaceful parenting and/or direct them to such resources. This would also mean having a good place online setup to have these resources and to direct people to videos, books, and the like to help them learn about how to be a better parent. De-normalizing the abuse I agree would be helpful, but particularly for younger children, if you can get the parent to change their ways that's many years of abuse spared instead of having to suffer for another 10+ years before they can escape. With stepping in to say something, I was thinking saying something simple like "Your child isn't evil and you can do better" and handing the pamphlet may be effective, or simply handing them the pamphlet and saying nothing or saying something non-confrontational like "please read and look into this". Has any such resource been made that would make stepping in easier and more effective while minimizing the danger for those less willing to be more confrontational? With such a resource people interested in helping could order or printout some pamphlets and have them on hand to hand out when child abuse occurs or simply to hand out to parents whenever they feel like spreading the message even if no child abuse has occurred as a more preventative measure or to handle the more hidden abuse. Edit: Also why doesn't FDR website have on the front page or easily accessible from the front page a link to resources for peaceful parenting? Could have a link to an introduction to peaceful parenting and links to related podcasts, videos, and books. That would show that FDR considers peaceful parenting to be a top issue.

Thanks for sharing. I may write more later, but wanted to share a bit on my relationship with my mother, as I stopped responding to her emails over a year ago. You titled the post as rejecting your family of origin, but I think for me part of stopping talking to my mother had to do with a recognition that she had been rejecting me. Thus the end of communication back wasn't just me rejecting her, but realizing she was and had been rejecting me. She always insists she loves me, but she's never been willing to acknowledge her past abuses and her responsibility in abusing and breaking apart my family. They insist family is important and they love you, but they're the ones who are responsible for driving you away by a distinct absence of love as displayed by their destructive and abusive behaviors towards you. I felt my mother was too deluded and was simply incapable of hearing me and that my relationship with her was not a positive thing and I didn't want to keep up a false relationship where we couldn't be honest with each other. She would say she valued honesty, but then would contradict herself with her lack of openness and honesty about anything we could potentially discuss. I realized this was not a healthy relationship for me or her and didn't wish to keep enabling the delusions. I wonder what it would take for me to want to talk to her again or respond to a message from her and was thinking some indication she has changed and is willing to have a real relationship and has taken steps to confront her past and acknowledge what she did in an honest fashion and not in a false apology manner, as she gave in previous messages with the standard "I did my best". I saw having her in my life as a contradiction of values and if I were to have kids and we were to continue on as we were, I would see her as a threat to having a family of my own raised honestly and peacefully and with integrity. I don't enjoy being cut off from my family, but while I may have been the one who moved away, the relationship was broken long before I took steps to "reject" them. Take care,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree a person should be able to able to take care of themselves before having a child. As a relationship that can turn intimate is the precursor to having a child, I was trying to find the point at which a relationship turns from unproductive, leeching, or one-sided, where the homeless person could drag down the life of the other person, into a relationship that can be mutually beneficial and potentially help lift the person out of poverty towards having a good, healthy, and productive life that can lead to the ability to support a happy relationship and eventually a child. This is the difference between a harmful relationship which enables failure and may create an broken family, and one that has the minimum requirements to lead upwards. Where instead of one person inhibiting the other from happiness or providing only shallow satisfaction, the person can be said to have sufficiently solved their past issues to be able to kindly enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I guess this partially has to do with judging for yourself when you may have crossed this threshold versus just tossing yourself at people to let them decide without pre-screening yourself, as that may be overly judgemental on oneself or as suggested, giving up on life in part, by not trying for a partner and happiness, aside from not working hard enough for self-sufficiency on one's own.

Philosophy isn't invalidated by someone not following the philosophy, it merely means they haven't embraced the philosophy they preach. That's a contradiction of self, not of the substance of what they preach, but generally means they don't believe in or understand what they preach if they don't see the value in following the philosophy themselves. Generally this means they are lying about and not willing to acknowledge the benefits of deviating from what they profess. The philosophy is only invalidated if the philosophy is flawed and can't work. A philosophy is not dependent on anyone successfully currently employing the philosophy. If that were the case, philosophical and rational progression would never occur, because all untested philosophies would be incorrectly invalidated. I can come up with the philosophy of not eating junk food as being a way to better health, and be correct, but this doesn't mean I personally want to trade away junk food for better health, as that's a different philosophy not about what is healthier for the body, but preferred by the mind. As with the diet book example, you can write an accurate diet book for better health, but you're not going to get as many followers if you don't believe such a dietary change leads to a more satisfactory life as evidenced by your remaining fat and unhealthy and not following the diet yourself. Such action means the person embodies the philosophy that dietary pleasure is more important than health gains by dietary change.

If a person is poor, homeless, unemployed, 30+, and their odds of becoming successful enough to be a stable provider are tenuous at best, is it wrong or mean for them to engage with or hit-on women? What do you think the minimum bar of success is before someone can morally involve themselves with another person when a child is a possible outcome of the potential relationship? What does it take to earn a child, versus merely having one regardless of any potential burden on society? I was pondering the fate of men and women these days and how some reserve themselves or failed to have any children leading to genetic death and others carelessly pursue relationships regardless of their intent or ability to support the children they create and how the lives of the woman and potential children should be considered. Stefan has argued for the lives of the unborn, but how far does that logic of life promotion go? Curious to hear other people's thoughts and how they judge people who've failed to be successful or not yet found success and their decision to pursue or not pursue relationships with the opposite sex. Should a woman respect a man who doesn't pursue her due to his current deficiencies or just view him as a loser for not even trying and letting her decide, for better or worse?

So all men are child rapists and are dangerous to have around kids and all white people are racist and a danger to people of color.... uh... If this was a real school they'd flunk the kids not for being racist, but for being completely retarded. Seems there is no intellectual bar to many colleges these days. If that link isn't some joke then the ill effects of the anti-free market are revealing themselves quite strongly. Has any white person tried making any of these arguments? "I want a white only household, it isn't racist, because only colored people can be racist and it's basic self-protection". Basically they're acknowledging they understand and agree with and wish to emulate the behaviors of white supremacists or white-only groups, while totally deluding themselves as to this being the case. These people really need someone to tell them how retarded they are because they're clearly not getting any good feedback as they continue on with their lives unobstructed by their stupidity through the college process. We're seeing the effects of mass producing low intelligence and low integrity people. Were white slavers willing to eat the crops farmed by their slaves? Of course they'll accept a building and whatever other resources from white people while they denounce them. Leftists have no hesitation in biting the hand that feeds them and if this ongoing tragedy isn't abated they'll destroy us all.

Maybe Stefan could do a video splicing together a video of Obama's lies with actual numbers to show how his "inconvenient truths" are more lies and deceptions as to the actual state of affairs of the nation. Little fair use of the lies combined with some econ education could be usefully educational and entertaining for the masses. Stefan's team is also good with having sources, so they can back up their numbers versus a mere off the cuff remark denouncing the lies without the backing power of accurate numbers people can use to give extra credibility to his statements versus standard commentary videos. They've done various videos with stats, but not sure I've ever seen them do one with clips of politicians spliced in as well to create a blend between their standard of just the stats with the common TV commentator of pure commentary to find a nice balance between the two forms.

You want someone to explain how the government cooks their books to make themselves look good? Also don't forget you constantly have younger people entering the workforce and older people exiting the workforce and thus with an increasing population size you need some job creation just to maintain a certain percentage of workforce participation. Also of note is "jobs" is often an intentionally binary measure and generally fails to properly take into account quality, hours, and pay of the jobs. Two crappy part-time jobs is not better than one good full-time job, but they'll pretend that is the case. Government unemployment numbers are also pretty deceptive. Best not to waste your time using government stats as any good indicators of what is actually happening in the market as they're not likely to give a honest accounting. With all that said, whether or not more or less jobs happen to be created is somewhat irrelevant to the fact the market is being corrupted and whatever the numbers are, we could be doing better were they not unjustly interfering with the market and "good job growth" does nothing to change the corruption of the market and would only serve to hide we could be having "great job growth" without their violent meddling. Let's not focus on the absolute value, when the relative value is far more important. And to marginally address your question, certain industries hire and fire people for seasonal employment, like a retailer hiring more sales associates for their store during the Christmas season and then firing them in the first quarter of the year. They take this standard cyclic behavior of certain employers as an opportunity to mess with the numbers some more.

Why do you think a plant based diet wouldn't provide enough protein? Do you have any idea how much protein you need or how much a plant based diet provides? Who planted the seed of doubt into your mind that a plant based diet is deficient in protein? I've been on a plant based diet for 6-7 years and protein is not on my list of concerns. People feel quite comfortable asking plant based dieters how they get their protein, but rarely if ever feel the need to ask the average person how they get enough nutrition (vitamins/minerals) eating heavily refined diets.

Now you see it isn't so little. Just a tip since you missed that one, if their profile has just one little word such as "murderer" or "rapist" or "terrorist" or "stalker", you should probably pass on the date. Nice of you to walk out on the date, however given how the event went down, I fear her mind will just translate the situation as "He walked out because he wanted to do heroine and I told him it wasn't okay". Not exactly the issue I'd want to go out on. I'd probably go for taxes, since you can pre-translate that for them as "So if I want to live alone on my land peacefully and not pay for things I consider immoral you think I should go to prison and lose my land?"

Without violating the NAP? The problem exists because of violations of the NAP. You solve the problem by stopping the violations of the NAP. Stopping someone from murdering you is self defense, even if you have to kill them to do it. If someone is trying to kill you, they've rejected property rights and right to life as a standard and thus defending yourself by hurting them is no violation of their standards and is perfectly justified. Denying someone the right to self defense is an NAP violation. People need to stop giving property rights to thieves and calling that libertarian or an adherence to the NAP.

Heavy fear mongering = stop thinking and do what I tell you. With Hillary and Trump as the nominees for the party revealing the system as a farce, it makes riling people up pretty easy.

Sounds like you got over the hardest hurdle, thanks! Now you start talking and building a peaceful relationship with your kids. Also, please take up Michael on his offer to call in! Every resource you can get will help and the talk can help others as well! Good luck!

The United States has the largest military, the highest per capita incarceration rates, and also has substantial police and federal forces that are armed with weapons. Just because you're not getting shot at right now doesn't mean you're not at war and aren't being herded and moved against your will under constant threat of violence or that others aren't. You may ignore them, but they don't agree to ignore you and they're willing to use force against you on their whim, under the shady guise of law and order. Would you deny there is a notable presence of contention and violent tension in the United States? If you don't acknowledge the war until the threat of violence is made overt by being surrounded by armed officers then you've lost the war.

I don't know much about Plato as I've never studied him or read any of his works, but from what little I've heard he seems to just be a horrible state supporter, and I prefer to avoid filling my head with morally subversive junk. Like that quote in particular, it assumes the person voting isn't the inferior or that such a hierarchical view isn't a flawed perspective on the situation and proposes as a universal guideline that all should vote, when clearly that means many 'inferior' people are going to inevitably override the 'superior' people. How do you know he meant that quote for the person reading and following it? Seems his "philosophy" is just to undermine morality and moral perspective on the situation. You're going to be unjustly governed whether you vote or not, but if you work to reduce the violence by denying support whoever that violent governor is may have a bit less power, regardless of how they intend to use it. I mean it says "The Libertarian Republic" on the bottom there, telling you he's just going to peddle contradictory and non-philosophical ideas.

I haven't listened to this podcast or the ones lambasting Ron Paul, but saw he had this podcast, which you may consider worth listening to: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2066 If it changes your view on how he treated Ron Paul let me know. Podcast notes for video " A gift to those who believe that political action will set us free."

Could have to do with the fact that Ron Paul had no real chance of being elected and thus there was nothing to lose by shifting away his supporters, whereas Trump could actually win. Additionally Ron Paul supporters were more likely principled people open to such arguments and closer to a true libertarian anarchist view. Tends to be easier to tip an agnostic into atheism than a devout Christian who isn't even open to the arguments, as I imagine many Trump supporters aren't open to the case against voting at this time, particularly with Clinton on the other side to rile them.

If someone is going to cut off one of my arms and I express a preference for having my left arm cut off and tell you what's worse about cutting off my wrong arm than left arm I wouldn't consider this to be support of any kind. Lots of people are going to vote and give actual support for Trump and it's only natural to want to influence that decision based on personal preferences. He's Canadian so he won't be voting and isn't out campaigning for Trump or even telling anyone to vote for Trump, but can't resist the urge to influence which arm gets cut off. Name one immoral position of Trump's that Stefan supports and then you'll have a basis for bad support. I'm guessing he feels as a lot of us do that both options are pretty horrible, but one is more horrible than the other. Also as a philosopher I'm sure he enjoys setting the record straight on media lies and using the opportunity of attracting political junkies to expose them to a bit of philosophy and alternative viewpoints to possibly steer a few onto a better path of more honest recognition of what is going on. What would you rather he be doing or saying? Telling people not to vote doesn't work and won't make them suddenly understand why they shouldn't. With over 3000 podcasts he's already made that case against voting more than once. Many of the podcasts have nothing to do with current events, but are on teaching understanding and principles around morality and voting. That does give me one suggestive idea, perhaps for every political video or podcast a link to previous podcasts on voting and such can be added to the description giving Youtubers and others the ability to go back and listen to why they might want to consider not voting. The goal after all is to make doing the right thing easier.

Coming along, resumed working on it a couple months ago and have been making steady progress. Made some significant changes to some of the earlier chapters and restructured their order a little bit. Still lots of work to do. Want to get it to a more settled state so I can solicit some feedback, with the goal of getting to a solid manuscript to submit to publishers or release independently. Right now, after listening to a recent podcast, Castalia House is at the top of my list for places to submit my manuscript when it's ready, but not sure when that will be. Curious how Stefan decided when his books were 'finished enough' before deciding to release them and if he got any professional editing on them before releasing them (though with his oratory and writing skills that may have been unnecessary). And now I'll get back to it...

"The senses are imprecise and it's all just an illusion... wait, what are you doing!? Stop, don't do that!"

Everyone laughed at my joke. I was amused, but shame they never got to hear it.