NocPat

https://buythebook.highgroundseries.com/shop/drug-lord-high-ground-book-2-pre-release-softcover-edition-pre-order I've read the pre-release, and I highly recommend it if you like Speculator. To everyone who listens to FDR: read the High Ground series. You will not be disappointed.

https://mises.org/library/law The Law is a ~2-hour audiobook I'd recommend to someone curious about freedom in relation to a state. It defines what the Law is in a simple understandable way. A good starting point to get people skeptical about the government.

I'm recently wrapping my head around the fact that we are living the history that future generations will live from, just as those that lived before us directly effected our lives now. Being aware of the importance and impact of events such as this vote, it's awesome, in the awe sense.

Being skeptical towards people who claim self defense in the act of killing someone is important to weed out the lying murderers from the true victims. This however, is completely disgraceful. How can a society function if people get punished for preferring to live instead of risk death? Sweden looks like it went to hell.

Greetings from SW Florida!

~3 days, ~40 sources, ~1 hour long video, essentially a mini Biography and analysis. Stefan (and his team?) is a role model reporter and researcher. Well done.

What are your definitions of "property", "property rights", and "perfect world"? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The cycle of violence ends when everyone involved in the violence decides to stop being violent. Nothing prevents a person or a militarized insurance company from engaging in violence. Optimally, in a no-government society, the option of violence will be so unprofitable and stupid compared to peaceful cooperation, that no one would resort to violence. I have the same fear, but I think I only have the fear of a DRO becoming a new government because current society rewards violence more than it rewards peace.

The morality of an action is objective. The reaction to a moral action is subjective. If you commit murder, it is always an objective immoral action. The fact that is immoral is meaningless by itself. The way you and others react to someone who has committed an immoral action is subjective and useful. Whether an action is good/neutral/evil is objective and also meaningless by itself. Reacting to a good/neutral/evil action is subjective, and gives the action meaning. This is my take on morality as far as I know at the moment. Does it sound correct?

I don't think overpopulation issues based on area will ever be an issue. There is plenty of room in the world for people to live, and technology might advance to accommodate living in the oceans/sky/underground. I think since most writers and students of population live in large cities, they have a bias to assume that the whole world is as densely populated as their environment. I think world population will continue to rise at the current fast rate for thousands of years. There 3 possibilities I see that could reverse or slow the population growth would be: Natural disaster wiping out a massive amount of the population (meteor/plague/earth), state based violence causing genocide (war/nukes/extermination), or lack of resources to sustain the massive population.

I have 2 types of reactions to people with tattoos. In general, whenever I think of tattoo, I judge the person as traumatized, damaged, misguided, or trying to prove something. I look down on them in a way I don't know how to put into words. I feel it shows a sign of masochism and destruction of the true self. However, when I see a very large, intricate, beautiful tattoo, I get a feeling of wonder and respect. It transforms in my mind into an artistic expression and indicator of strength. I now look up to them for having much more tattoo. I'm curious to know why I have different reactions to something I consider awful, suddenly becoming wonderful when there is a lot of it. I feel there's a deep meaning behind the reactions, something to do with messages, labels, conformity, half-assing, full-assing, will to fight through self-inflicted pain, etc.

I don't understand why it would be a negative to tell a child the direct truth when they bring a question up. "Where do babies come from" is the prime example that comes to mind. Why should we deny children the truth, or lie to them? I'm curious to know.

My sister in middle school repeatedly said that they did not teach how to do the homework in class. Multiple times she had no idea how to complete math homework because some/all of the problems weren't taught prior, yet she was expected to learn the subject and complete the homework by herself in her personal time. I would check the print out sheet notes, and the method to solve the problem was not in the notes. It caused stress on her since she struggled with math to begin with, and the teacher would not actually teach before forcing her to do the task.