tz1

Something I don't get The analysis of Frozen and other uses of Magic in the arts as mental illness is a very interesting and plausible take. But there are others which seem to take the side that mental illness or madness is itself a false construct. Did I miss something? (I haven't been through every last video so please point me).

Stephen quoted the marshmallow experiment to see if children would wait in order to get two marshmallows. It needs an update for the current reality: You show the child one marshmallow and tell him if he waits an hour, he will get two marshmallows. The child either eats the marshmallow and it ends there or waits an hour. You come back and say there are no marshmallows for him - one was given to a child in China that only waited 10 minutes for his second marshmallow, and the other was given to a child with 10 marshmallows but lost them and needed a bail-out.

How can a society be both free and incentivize the actual having of kids. I can see incentivising the raising of children properly (you don't want members who lack reason or self control either via coming of age or immigration). More specifically, you have to incentivize the Woman to become a wife and mother which is not an easy job. The choice is the pedestal or the rat race. Some choose the rat race. There's also the problem of sterility (especially coming out of the current culture - even the "mild" Chlamydia has a 1 in 4 chance of causing a woman sterility per infection, and there are incurable viral infections). The propaganda is working to overcome reason. The problem with social pressures is they tend to work both ways - a Gun can be used to rob or to defend yourself from robbery. If ostracism is sufficient. Economically, this is the Public Goods, or Externality problem depending on how you look at it. It benefits everyone to have proper parenting, but because it is hard work to do that, individuals will seek alternatives or slack off. A child is a decade or more burden. It wasn't sufficient when the "burn in hell" myth was used. I'm not sure how far you can go without violating the NAP to force people to act reasonably. If you don't include the Motherhood, women are generally still dependent on Men for protection - you want someone bigger and stronger and capable of keeping you from being raped by the immigrant hordes. While it is true that I agree 100% with the parenting ideas presented here, what about Women who aren't daughters raised in that model. I'm speaking more toward Stephan's "islam is the cure for feminism". Women currently have the state to protect them. I think I overloaded the post, since in this I was talking about the protection aspect alone. They need protection, not necessarily a Husband. In an Anarchist society, there are two sources of protection - self-protection (have a gun and know how to and be willing to use it) - and buying protection on a market. It seems that having lots of women raped and stabbed to death in Europe is still not sufficient to convince them even of the failure of the State. I'm not quite sure what ostracism has to offer which would be more convincing that they not merely need to stop depending on the false idol of the State to protect them, but more than that, need to be protected by a Man within a traditional family.

Our host often notes that women depend on the state, and only upon its collapse would they again depend on men. Yet I've read many articles on how anarchocapitalism would provide the same protections the state does. A woman with an Insurance, Security, and Arbitration company needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle? (Why doesn't anyone ever say a man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish?) Since this should apply equally to the things a woman historically required a man to provide, why would women in an anarchy not choose to simply buy arm's length security, and even if they wanted children simply pay for daycare and such? There wouldn't be any welfare single moms, but the turning point where the stigma was destroyed was Murphy Brown around 1990 - a career woman. My deeper point is if you convince women to be traditional wives and mothers, especially having many children, then they must be dependent on men as they aren't earning income and children need Fathers too. But if you don't convince them of this, wouldn't the free market provide a path to continuing to do what they are doing now, at least the wealthier women? Having formula instead of breastmilk in a day-care might be less than optimal for the child, but that is going on now, and I don't see something changing it, even for couples that might prefer two incomes especially when there are no tax disadvantages.

I won't get into the Abortion debate, but would say that both parents are the guardian of the child - assuming they are married and the Father is the provider and protector. That said, I have a BIG problem with doctors. They tend to be ill informed if not stupid, following medical fads. It is rarely a case "We can prove the baby's head is bigger than your birth canal", 100% risk of something very bad happening. Usually it is some heightened risk, but one Cesarian usually requires subsequent children to be delivered that way, so it isn't as if there isn't a lasting mark from doing a Cesarian. It is up to the parents to make a properly informed choice, and it is up to the doctors to properly inform them of what the risks are and why, not say "I know better than you". And there often are mitigations or other things they can do to reduce whatever risk of natural child birth. Medicine is far from perfectly scientific - there is a bit, but there are more unknowns than knowns. Even risk estimates are often way off. The other problem is the bias that if she has a Cesarian, and they notice it really wasn't necessary, they are unlikely to tell her or to fix the system. You can't do the experiment (identical twins having babies of equal gestation from the same fathers). I would also bias toward the Mother's opinion rather than the Fathers in that the Mother is more likely to know her own body, has more at stake, and is more likely to act in the interests of the child. Natural Childbirth is hardly a selfish option. What happened before we had all this technology? Women gave birth naturally and most of the time it worked out. A hospital is the last place a newborn should be - lots of diseases, they will try to give him a dozen vaccines, the birth will be as unnatural as possible.

We - our bodies, not genetically - physically die if we don't have sex? Or do I have the wrong idea of your definition of need? Those in wheel-chairs that are paralyzed so can't seem to be able to live for several decades and don't die related to complications of this lack. The more common statement is a case of double effect - it could be an unexpected blizzard and you need to shelter in a cabin in a remote area where you can't ask permission. I would say you can break in, and when you can return, find the owner and make restitution - because the owner isn't there to give you permission or set a rental fee or whatever, you may proceed as if settled only because it is a threat to life. The second case is both harder and stranger. Rarely are you going to be on an island where only two people exist, one has a huge abundance and surplus of food, the other is starving without any access. Normally there will be multiple people to ask for food or even wild game or plants available. Another case missed is if the starving person has plenty to exchange with, but the person with the food just doesn't want to part with it. A better example might be if you will die without a transplant which would be trivially invasive to the donor, but only one person is a tissue match.