Cornetto97

I see so it's like a duty of care, the child can't take care if itself, and so in having a child you naturally accept the care that the baby can't provide itself. And so if one can assume the child would want to be cared for, then by accepting stewardship over the baby's property rights, one should take care of that baby.

1. Yeah, in Australia we still have multiculturalism, it has been drilled through my head for basically all my school years. Difference is we make it just a little harder for illegal immigrants and those who can't afford it to come and drain the public purse. Granted we still have problems with crime hot spot areas, which tend to mostly have ethnic people living there, but it's not nearly as bad as Canada, UK and indeed nothing in comparison to Europe. I can definitely see the correlation that can happen when you have a mixed bag of incompatible cultures all clamored into the country sucking off the welfare state - a massive back log and overuse of the public health system - even still in Australia we have long waiting times for our public system, and we are much more homogeneous. 2. oh yes, basically socialist policies are all culminating to a disastrous collapse, this broken window fallacy of inability to defer gratification, and draining the public purse to have the state subsidise everything for you, is going to grind to a halt and become like japan with a perpetually fading middle class, and a literally dying population (they aren't that crazy on kids it seems). They can maintain and reinvest into that broken window that creates no capital, and actually appropriates it, but the demographic curb in so many developed countries is going to be disastrous for the socialist welfare states, the public sector and the middle class. there will simply be way too many dependent on government unemployment benefits or pension in particular, and now with Europe's introduction of "peaceful" (regressive cultured) "refugees" (welfare vacuums) they have just accelerated this impending collapse, and made the collapse that much more dangerous. 3. well the child is your property and you retain property rights to it in so far as you are its carer, and its guardian, however the babay still retains self ownership in some form and the use of force is not allowed to be initiated against them by anyone. so it can bea sort of unilateral contract that is implied, but really can't be enforced to certain extents. no one can force care of the babies upon the parents and the parent can't force the baby, so it is different to the unilateral contract you have by virtue of being born in a country with the state, i think it may be more a sort of you had the baby so by virtue of having the baby, you would want to take care of it. And if it was an accident, then abortion would be used.

So it sort of plays to the fact that seen as all genes wish to survive, and all humans therefore have a sort of instinctive desire to pass their genes on so that they can continue to live, not many people who have children would actually neglect them. And given the idea that ancap society would not have a welfare state or taxes, people who can afford, and can take care of a baby will have babies, and stupid people or the dependent class won't be having as many children.

Oh nice, i was hoping to possibly get a weigh in from a fellow melbournian, and i not only got a melbournian, i got someone who has a husband who works in a public hospital, thanks for the insight. So yeah it's as i was thinking, for the very serious ICU situation and such, public hospitals are used, because medicare takes care of the bill. Meaning it creates a sort of artificial vacuum, that makes it a bad investment for private hospitals to have such equipment. So does America have only private hospitals? Or are there public hospitals but enough demand for privaye hospitals to warrant state of the art r&d?

Yeah so, basically in evolutionary terms, you wouldn't do that as you'd wish for your gene set to survive in your child. And also i guess if this principle occurs in an anarcho society, people wouln only have a baby when they're withing their means, and actually can care for it, because the welfare state is non existent, and neither are taxes, meaning it won't subsidise the stupid people, and the dependent class to have babies when they can't properly care for it.

This is just some general ponderamces i have had about libertarianist thought, and private provision of all services, and also one about the nature of the state, and the public sector. So first of all, i was having a debate with my dad yesterday about the idea that public provision of health should be abolished and be privatised. He was very taken back in hearing this from me, and a good back and forth debate ensued. So i made the point that, privatisation of health care would be a much better alternative, as it would create a competitive health market, with a strong profit motive. His main basis was that if you privatise health care, it would be too expensive, and people may not be able to afford it. He used the strawman of retired people, and unemployed, or just the poor. So he said what if a child was denied service and was left sick because his parents couldn't afford the visit to the doctors. Standard argument, but a very relevant one at that. Of course i recovered with a persistent line of reasoning that private healthcare now is expensive only because of the existance of public health, and a medicare system will subsidise private hospital and GP visits, thus creating artificial demand, and the ability for the private hospitals to raise prices with minimal impact. He still persisted that poor people will not be able to afford it, so i said, it would be in the best interests of a private hospital to accomodate people that can't afford treatment, in order to be seen as compassionate and generous. He never really countered this adequately, and went on insisting that it wouldn't be profitable, and that you can't compare the market forces of consumer goods and services in the private sector to the forces that would apply to health services. I also countered this. This lead him to a rebuttal i couldn't counter. He mentioned that in Australia, in particular Melbourne we have multiple hospitals with some of the leading country, and even world facilities, and innovation - all of which are public hospitals. So it took me back a little in the thought that the public sector is much less efficient and effective, and with this private hospitals should have better facilities. So why would this be? Why do many public hospitals have some state of the art technology, and facilities in many fields of treatment. Can anyone help me understand why this could be a reality? Is it because the state has a monopoly on force and tax, and a monopoly on currency printing? Is it because the existance of seemingly free health care in public hospitals attracts the type of customers who may need the very intricate and complicated procedures and treatments that advanced technology and facilities are used for, thus taking away the need for private hospitals to have such facilities in the status quo? Second thing is, with regard to the operation of the state, and the fallacy that public sector employment drives economic expansion. The fallacy of the broken window pertains to a situation analogous to a whole town breaking their windows so as to help the local glaziers. But this is wrong because it diverts wealth that could possibly be used in the purchasing of new goods, to the maintenance of an already purchased good (the window). Thus in pursuit of supporting the glaziers, you have left producers with less wealth. So could it be said that, the operation of the state is essentially this fallacy. And if you substitute the glazier with the state then it can be said that, any line of reasoning that attempts to support a conclusion that public sector provision of goods and services, leads to employment, which leads to economic expansion is simply fallicious. Because the state in its tax diverts wealth that can be used in the consumption and or investment of a new good, and uses it for maintenance. Maintenance of public services which tend not to generate much re-investent or capital in itself and actually appropriates wealth. Also because majority of tax revenue is used to maintain payments to the national debt, it is still not being used in the production of a good. Furthermore, the state prints money for the provision of public services, thus diverting the purchasing power of individuals, intergenerationally, and subtracting from the amount one can purchase of new goods and services, in the interest of maintenance. It can be said that the state provision of services helps produce, as they can contract their projects out to private sector businesses. However this is still wealth diverted from the private sector, and used generally for a fixed asset that needs maintenance. This stops the wealth being diverted by the state to the business taking the contract from being invested by individuals in consumer goods, or an asset that can produce capital and generate more wealth for the individual. Thus it is still effectively diverting potential wealth from being transferred to other producers, and is therefore not prosperous for the economy, much like perpetual window breaking is not good for the town. So if the fallacy of the broken window is generally supported in the field of economics, the public sector can't be supported, and thus points to a cognitive dissonance in so far as they both believe in and support the fallacy of the broken window. Does this have any validity, and strength as an argument, and counter consideration? Is my reasoning sound, or have I missed something? The next is just a question about Rothbard's theory of natural rights. I have not read much of rothbard's actual writings, but have read a little into his theory around natural rights, again not very much. In the theory of natural rights, (at least from what i have read of it) it is said that a parent can't be forced to feed, clothe, bathe, or take care of his child at all, because to force them to do so would be a violation of an individual's private property. The baby still however has some self-ownership, and can't have the use of force initiated on him, and therefore can't be murdered, can't be forced out of eating or clothing. So is the addressed by Rothbard at all? Like if basically you own your child in so far as people can't initiate force to take it off you, or do something with it, but you can't initiate force against it and murder it however, can neglect it completely, how would this be addressed? Or is it addressed by Rothbard, or ancap theory as a whole? This is not in any way me discrediting or rebutting against ancap theory, it's just that i have seen this used on 2 occasions now to discredit his natural rights theory and would like it if someone can give me some clarity on it.

No problem, it can be quite difficult, especially when posting on social media where you are prone to the mob style, verbal gang attacks people use these days.

Why do you think you may be wrong in giving him sympathy? When you weigh it all up you are well within reason to suggest giving him sympathy. On one hand you have stepped back and looked at the guys situation, seen a hell hole that no one should be subjected to, and said, no prison clearly won't fix him. His upbringing and life in general has been filled with turmoil, multiple arrests and prison sentences. And you have suggested to give him some sympathy, and instead of throwing the iron fist of criminal justice in his face, you have suggested it's best to get to the cause of his behavioural tendancies, (most likely rooted in childhood), and to understand and sympathise with the fact that his life never got to a good start. The plane by the sounds of it crashed on the runway, and never really had a good chance to take off. They on the other hand are vehemently crying for the harshest of prison sentences, in a medieval style burn the witch at the stake, shoot first don't even ask questiins later (let alone before) fashion. They're attacking the pilot without the slightest thought about the actual plane itself. So yeah you're justified in your response. But it is they, the one's who are just denying any examination of causality, the one's who felt so threatened by such a reasoned proposition, that they would commit to vertical attacks in an act to supress you; It is they who should question their response. You gave them your response, and a reasoned peaceful argument, and they responded in a childish manner. So i mean given the manner of their responses, it shouldn't give you pause to question whether your call for sympathy and better understanding is the right response. With regards to the possible help he should get, well sympathy amd empathy would be a start. The guy has clearly rarely been given it especially by those who should be giving understanding and compassion. Intensive therapy, and introspection would also be a good place to start. He really should be intensely helped along in etablishing, and grounding some of the very traumatic experiences of his childhood in particular, and the degree to which he has felt that resonate with him as an adult And whether he feels that has provoked his criminal behaviour in some way, and fostered it even. I mean i guess it shouldn't just be all sympathy, you chose nothing, and it's everyone else's fault type thing, that would be incorrect, and would focus too much energy and possible anger towards external factors out of his control which wouldn't bring about any of the deep introspection needed to begin to help such broken development. Has that helped you out a little?

He clearly has never had anyone in his life to look up to for guidance as a youth, no one there to foster growth in his formative years. From the sound of it his mum neglected him, as many drug ridden mothers tend to do with children. The only other people it seems in his life who could impart on him anything of worth left his life on tragic circumstances. So yeah, if prison was the right way to go then he would not have served 2 prior sentences. So clearly isolating him from society, mixing him in with some much harder offenders, in an environment where corruption and illegal activities run rampant, is not working. So your deffinently right in saying this man will not in any way gain from 15 years in prison, be it any prison for that matter. So he clearly needs some intensive therapy, someone there to help him find a job, give him some accountability by earning his own money. But deffinently intensive therapy. I mean ideally he would be punished by paying damages on the person he attacked, and that's it.

Well i mean you could start with this: http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx#statistics Recidivism, the most clear sign that the criminal justice system is fundamentally a complete misdirection of resources. Resources - as in tax dollars - one thing that tends to get people is when the state is not using tax dollaes efficiently. So you could couple that with the one two punch of USA spending a total of between 60-70 billion dollars a year, in 2008 alone it was at $75 billion()and the fact that it costs on average $23,876 a year to house one inmate, and 30,000 a year for inmate drug rehabilitation. But here's what'll stump them to rehabilitate that same prisoner outside prison... $8,000*. Something like that could be used, and i mean if they are still hysterical after these stats that speak for themselves and refuse to give any empirical data supporting the claim that longer jail sentences go hand in hand with "rehabilitation" and "corrections", then i mean they're clearly not going to listen to anything else but their obnoxious self righteousness. This is American stats by the way, (i assumed since majority of fdr members appear to be from USA or europe i'd just go with USA) it took me about 10 minutes to dig this up, so if you want to get some data from another country if you're not from America then it shouldn't take that long, and odds are the stats will show the same perpetual multi billion dollar production line of yo-yos that constantly come back. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States ()https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cepr.net/documents/publications/incarceration-2010-06.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiiuvyhloTMAhXCxqYKHeg8BJ4QFggkMAM&usg=AFQjCNGmnzoE23ROGOJMe7F5fdsyjKximA&sig2=mkPtZkTGLltWY_L484g5kw

Alright i'll just use the same number format. 1. Yeah, i thought of this, and in a guerilla situation, committe would simply be too inefficient. There'll be slow decision making, because of disagreements, which is not very good in a situation where you need a quick response, hit then hide tactic, so i agree woth you in this point, i guess it would deffinently need a hierarchial structure, not need but it would be much more effective as an armed resistance. The question as to whether this leader will initiate force - i guess that's the issue, if you have a leader in a guerrilla style resistance there isn't really ant checks on him at all. I'm not quite sure about your "brains are more important" point. I can't understamd the explanation you have given for it. 2. Well i mean amassing a nuclear arsenal wouldn't be helping the propsganda that the statist countries would very likely be throwing at an ancap region, and may evoke an invasion. I meant that certain regions can establish a defense DRO that can mobilise in the face of invasion, and yes once all regions are ancap, then it's not needed, and would likely fade away once demand diminishes. One problem with this is, it is a matter of whether there would be demand enough to warrant this business model, and i'd say from the looks of it iceland don't really have much military background, so the people don't pay for a standing army in tax, don't see why a lot of them would pay for it from a DRO. But again maybe the threat of invasion is known, in which case demand would be there to warrant the defense DRO business model. But the next problem is armaments imports. Iceland have very strict gun laws and no standing army. Couple this with the likely embargos they would have from statist nations, and it would be very difficult for the defense DROs to actually get armaments, thus the price would be quite high as well. 3. Yes i agree propaganda would be all over it, but the opportunity for states to be looked at with some form of humanity and just a little respect for human life may not be easily passed up by some. But again it all depends, and I would say that either way it would definently get very clear opposition from all the statist countries, and turbulence would be provoked by stringent economic restrictions. So honestly, you have swayed me, it would appear that iceland is not the best place to have the first ancap society. Perhaps the effort should just continue to be focused towards a general population approach, as oppose to one specific place.

your point about top down organisation, is an intriguing one, but it would be good if you could expand on that thought more, past the historical reason. Why do you think that guerrilla forces are not as effective without strict top down organisation? surely if whole societies can be organised along the exact opposite principles, and be more efficient than a forceful state, then guerrilla forces can? there is no historical context for an ancap society, but you can understand that it would be better than having a state. yes, ancap philosophy and preference to trade go hand in hand, and this tendency towards peaceful trade would also impact on the readiness of the resistance. I guess it would very likely depend on how long Iceland has been Ancap. seen as they have no standing army, quite strict gun laws, so this is a good point. Also you have to take into account the existing culture there, and seen as they have almost non existent defense it would appear they have a culture of peace and comfort. so it could very much depend on how long they have been ancap for. if it has been long enough then surely some form of private defense will have been established in certain regions and on certain properties, as there would be a need for protection from the possibility of invasion, and in a purely free market situation it would be advantageous for this service to be provided somehow. The situation you describe about an occupation purely for the taking of resources, with shoot on sight orders of the locals, this is basically genocidal and would likely be highly denounced by the west, possibly even incur political repercussions for Russia. This is given the west's narrative against anything Russia does. It could also be seen as Russia attempting to make inroads into the EU. Also a good tool to get some voters, add some humanity into governments that are being seen with increasing skepticism in the west, in particular USA.

Oh yes the privelage card, see if cultural marxism didn't rely on vertical attacks of white privelage, or in this case, role playing another culture, it would crumble so spectacularly. Like it would just get trumped from day one (pun very intentional).

No cultural marxists love the idea of proclaiming your culture. Just as long as you're not white. White male to be exact. Especially if your white male and upper class. That shit will get you thrown into the cultural gulags. Can you feel the equality yet?

My mistake i misinterpreted your comment about iran and vietnam before. You were talking about the US toppling monarchies, and i rushed into it without properly reading it, and absorbing it. Sorry about that one

Why can't they organise into guerilla force? I mean yes ancaps much prefer the prospect of peaceful trade, but to say organising a guerilla style defense against invading forces is against ancap philosophy and therefore can't occur doesn't hold ground. Ancaps are pacifists mostly, prefer peace of course, but to form a guerilla style defense is not breaking any rules about initiation of force. Defense is not the initiation of force, the force was initiated by the invaders and therefore the use of force to defend against them in a guerilla style organisation is far from violating the NAP and ancap philosophy. If someone has a gun to your head, you are very much within reason to use force against them. They would have to care about the people who live there, because who is going to work the resources when a republic is proclaimed? Again occupation and invasion is always so much more expensive than defense. The USA military training the mujahideen told them about economics of war, this 10,000 dollar shoulder mounted launcher will take out that million dollar jet. Just look at USA now who have exploded the national debt and crippled their economy slowly yet surely in their invasions of multiple countries at a time. If invasion was that easy iraq would never have been as expensive as it was. They toppled saddam, so why couldn't they just proclaim a republic and be done with it? How come it took them so long to establish a new governmnet there? Would not the same happen in Iceland? Would Russian troops not be constantly bombarded with homemade devices, and scattered guerilla groups using short strike and hide tactics? This would surely grind down the morale of the occupying soldiers. So this brings me to the same point, is it worth it? You say that it is a mistake to assume warfare is constant and the same, and i understand that. It never used to involve civilians amd now it does. But one thing about warfar is objectively pretty constant, the economics of warfare.

Ok i think there is some confusion here are you saying America places a military base in an anarcho capitalist iceland for strategic defense reasons? Because i thought you were saying for offensive reasons. Are you talking about an ancap region allowing the USA and or other countries to establish military bases as defense until more societies become ancap and they are no longer needed?

Interesting point because both cases are to do with largely state profiteering. So in vietnam, communism is a huge blow to the established interconnected system of big banks and central banking. Naturally being against petty bourgeios capitalism, they don't tend to conduct trade, and won't be very inclined to accept the dollar reserve standard. Iran also got rid od the dollar reserve standard, and began establishing their own trade agreements with Russia, which also is a sure way to have america invade you. So it's more the fact that these ideologies represented challenge to the financial interests of the weatern governments, mainly USA. So question now is, will anarcho capitalism evoke a similar reaction? It's still capitalist, it still conducts trade, but does going against the established world banking system and ridding itself of national currency and the dollar standard warrant enough benefits for an invasion of an ancap region? Could you clarify this, because if america were to forcefully place a military base in iceland then that would be taken as an invasion, therefore an attack will surely happen. Also, seen as there is no state owned anything in an ancap state, where would they set up the military base without the need of initiating force on the land owners? This force may even lead to the arrest, or killing of the landowners, which would surely gain massive amounts of backlash, from multiple places. What if the American public were to hear of such an act against peaceful people who posed no threat? what would the army do? Would the soldiers not question why they are killing or detaining these people to set up a military base in a region that poses zero threat to national security?

So when they invade then what? You said yourself, there isn't really a country in anarcho capitalism, there are just different regions. So say they do invade how would they go about getting 329,000 people to subdue to their state after only just overthrowing the state? See in a normal invasion the existing state surrenders to the invading state if they're successful. An example is when half of France was surrendered to the germans by the french government. It is so much easier to invade a country with an established authority that the population is already subjigated by, because it is merely like a change of ownership, the people surrender becasue the state did. But with all different regions, organising differently, all with no established authority, and a mutual interest of not allowing another state to develop, this would be extremely expensive. So Russia have nukes, a huge army, and Massive airforce. What good would that be? You see in war strikes against the civilians are used as a tool for evoking surrender, for example the nukes on japan. But let's say japan is anarcho capitalist, and america just want their resources, and tax livestock. Ok well then decimating two whole cities is the worst possible way to achieve this. This takes russian nukes and prolonged bombing campaigns out of the picture. It's like when the soviet union wanted to quell the revolution in hungary in the 50s, they failed at first, largely due to the urban environment of budapest, their tanks were surrounded by alleyways and buildings, and the use of unfettered force was out of the picture because the USSR did not want to incur the cost of restoring budapest. Ofcourse they did use massive force after the red army was driven out, but the success of the second attack is largely attributed to deceitful tactics by the USSR and a fake surrender, so the use of huge amounts of force were lessened, again, it was the state that were tricked, and with that the people were fooled into believing they had won, instead of actually seeing the red amries slow pincer movement towards Budapest as a call to arms, they layed down their arms and began focusing on the politics. So let's say Russia invade, and attempt to establish a republic, and a vassal state in Iceland. It would be extremely hard to walk the line of not decimating the land and the agrarian capabilities, and the buildings, and the ifrastructure, whilst at the same time, quelling a guerilla uprising in the already annexed regions, and trying to advance to other regions. Each with varying levels of organisation, and which Russia would most likely have no intelligence over, because epionage is quite difficult without a state apparatus to penetrate. So would the cost benefit of such a scenario be at all in the favour of invasion for a country that already has vast amounts of natural resources, as oppose to that of peaceful trade?

If you see basic income as the only way to stop it you have done exactly the opposite, you've made the problem worse by subsidising the companies not hiring human workers. So let's say yes 90% of jobs get taken over by AI/robotics, well then if you believe the unemployment will be an issue, then taking money from those companies and giving it to people is not going to give the companies any obligation to hire humans. So let us say then that there is no basic income, no state, free market, and 90% of jobs are taken by AI/robots. The reality is the cost of production will be so low, also perpetual inflation won't be an issue, but production costs will be so low that the cost of the product will be unimaginably low, and if any company raises their costs to capitalise more on the low production costs people will simply move to a product from a competitor. Yes there will inevitably be higher unemployment if 90% of jobs are taken by AI but, the general wealth and prosperity of such a world, will cover it. Costs are much lower, people keep their money, and it doesn't get taken by taxes, inflation is no problem so you retain buying power, and if it is such a problem then 2 things can cover it and these aren't mutually exclusive. 1. If you are worried about such a thing then you can voluntarily donate to charity add so will others, you don't have to, it's voluntary, but generally there will be quite a large amount of people who will donate to private charities, and because of it inhernetly not being a state, it won't need to be continuously be relied upon. See you can do whatever floats your boat with this private charity money, and you will not need nearly as much becasue the cost of living is not astronomically high. If you are completely irresponsible then depending on the discretion of the charity organisation they will either stop giving you the money, or possibly provide you with wealth management lessons, or money management lessons, or even attatch conditions on the money they give. 2. If you have unemployment, you naturally have a demand for employment, meaning that small businesses can fill this void quite easily, providing part time jobs that are easily enough to get by in such a situation. Customers may even like the idea of what would then be the old style way of being waitered by a human, so now you have yourself a little niche market, it won't make you ultra rich, but again you wouldn't need to be at all.

Yeah and it's almost existential in the way some react. I mean if you take a large chunk of someones self worth away and tell them they're wrong about something they have likely vested a lot of time thinking about, i mean provided you give strong premises and reasoning to your argument, it will invoke extremely outspoken feelings. Even i felt a set of strong feelings upon first seeing a video of stefan's that challenged my beliefs. It is quite remarkable, it's a feeling of momentarily being lost, without direction, a little bit of anger almost, it's difficult to explain in just one adjective but it was a strong set feelings nonetheless. It's goes far in explaining why we have this ever so strong SJW narrative today, that simply verbally lynch mobs anyone who dares counter the narrative that gives them soft cushiony feelings. I wonder whether this has to do with parenting and schooling. To a large degree schooling and parenting is done top down, especially the latter. So this really leaves no room for negotiating and questioning, and gives no chance for tbe truth to really come about, or for any rational thinking. Like in school if you were to question a seemingly pointless rule, which infuriated me, you were usually not given an explanation and told to follow it or be sent to the principal, or get a detention. So if you're treated like that in every aspect of your life growing up by the people whom you spend most of your formative years 'learning' from then your going to subjugate others yourself when you are questioned or scrutinised.

Hahahahaha wow sorry but, what? Fancy the head of a church with a frankly disgusting record with sexual assault, focusing their efforts on promoting multi-culturalism. See he gets down to wash asylum seekers feet but he won't take affirmative action about the vicious cycle of sexual assault going around his religion. He'll get down on his hands for illegal immigrants feet, but gets a little sleepy when it comes to sexual assaults by catholic priests, he Just sort of sweeps it under the 50ft high rug of things the church prays will go away.

It's very much a do as i say not as i do. On one hand they do as you said in your example, force me and my brother to be polite in social situations and show respect as oppose to say what we think. On the other hand they tell us to be assertive and genuine. On the one hand they tell me to stick to what i believe, and speak up, on the other it is not negotiable when i have a problem with something my parents have told me to do, or said. But generally what tends to happen with such important figures in your upbringing like your parents you end up doing more what they do, conform to social pressures and norms. On a side note i often find something very habitual and monotonous about the way parents in particular small talk with others. Like do they really find speaking about what they cooked, or how they have been cleaning the house. It just is all very shallow, and reflects one of two things a) life these days for the middle class is so grey, that the only things to speak about are the very things that they do not like doing, or, b) they are forced to speak with this person when deep down they don't want to, in which case the apparent 'friendship' is extremely fake. For example, my friend was convincing me to go to a party, and this was after school had finished, and people whom i really didn't care to see again after school were also there. I said no because i really didn't want to feel pressured into having mind numbing small talk with these people. To which my friend joked (with what i picked up to carry some seriousness) that i was becoming introverted. It made me think that to actually be an extrovert would be to easily have discourse with people and move past just small talk, as small talk is inherently reserved. So it just interests me why parents especially tend to go out of their way to continue what is most likely an extremely forced conversation, possibly in the interest of appearing socially active, and extroverted to an extent, when what they are doing is the opposite in many aspects.

Yeah I really couldn't think of what to describe it as but conversations on matters of importance is what i mean. i see what you mean, spreading the truth implies it to be unilateral, as oppose to discourse that's more bilateral, so yeah that's more what i meant. Hope that clears that part up Well firstly let me clear up that statement of me being new to spreading the truth. I have always quite enjoyed having discourse about worldly issues, like immigration, politics, psychology, the future. I have some friends that i discuss important issues with. what i mean is that after watching fdr now for about 4 months or so, my thinking on these issues has changed to a more controversial one, so i'm new to discussing such things with my new perspective, and i'm relatively new to this new outlook i have. Hope that clears that up. Hmm that's interesting because my parents always said it was important to not let peaople walk all over you, and stand up for yourself if you feel you were wronged or someone is in the wrong. So yes they said to me in social situations to stick up for what you believe. However in familial situations it is very much different respect your elders, don't question just do. So i would always question why when told not to do something, and the answer would be something along the lines of 'because i told you so'. So for example, i was discussing with my mum on the issue of foreign invesent, i told her in fact foreign investment is good, in a free market, and that the government and central banking is why prices are so high. She got frustrated and wouldn't listen and told me she doesn't want to talk about it any more. So it was very conflicting between what they told me to do and what they did, more so with my mother because she was raised in a very old school authoritarian family. Again hope that gives you a more expanded view and clears things up. Yeah the former more red button issues as you put it. However i do talk about the less triggering topics like lowering taxes and the ineffectiveness of the public sector, i just don't encounter much of a problem discussing such topics, of course because they are a lot less alarming to some. That's deffinently the tactic i have been trying, talking about the less meaty issues, and working up slowly to more red button topics. If that's what you mean by starting small and working your way up.

Iv'e heard about many other mainstream news sites doing this, it says something about how the masses are starting to question the mainstream narrative when they stop all comments on their articles