Search the Community

This government loves inside trading, imprisoning and fining businessmen and women. Try to help me understand why our government is wrong. Firstly, I should be free to say what I like to who I want. Secondly, the government has no right to tell me what I can and can’t buy or sell. Thirdly, I get that by buying or selling the CEO is actually delivering a price signal to the market. Additionally, it isn’t the government’s job to protect the investor. However, all that said, it seems incredibly in poor taste to me that the CEO can be (somewhat) insulated by his error (or not) at the expense of the investor. (Perhaps this is some sort of emotional little guy vs big guy thing and has no basis in reality, but I also can’t expect any shareholder (even the CEO) not to sell if they believe it is in their self interest.)

I know that there is no context to my questions, I just want to hear your thoughts on these questions at face value. Question 1. If you listen to Jordan Peterson or know the Bible, you know about Cain vs Abel story. My fundamental question is, what system do you have in place to not become Cain? (Cain = becoming angry/bitter at God/being) Question 2. Carl Jung's concept of The Shadow is very interesting to me. How would one differentiate The Shadow versus just rage/anger. Now Jordan Peterson once said that you have to respect the shadow, what are the practical ways to do that?

Introduction/rant: I'm going to start off by assuming that everyone who is a member of this forum would like to see the ideas portrayed here by the community propagate.. Probably naively, but I digress. My question is, why if our ideology of freedom is logically superior in all ways to a state, (provided you are moral) then it seems as if the only solution to this question, is that either the vast majority of people on earth are evil, or we as a worldwide distributed net of freedom minded peoples, all of them, have failed to purvey the argument to such a degree that it is not understandable by the public? Stefan for example talks a lot about how your parents growing up with an abusive parent doesn't give them an excuse to abuse as well.. Would this simple principle not expand to people using rational philosophy? It seems the dichotomy above must be true.. If we accept that the majority of people are evil, then we are a subject of deep nihilism for the future of humanity, neglecting some polar random shift in morality. This bleak future for our children is especially magnified if K reproduction strategists are really thriving. Since nihilism is no fun, (yes, that's my entire argument against it, deal with it) I'm going to suppose that the majority of people are NOT evil, and we simply do not lack the motivation, knowledge, or technology to reach the masses effectively. Therefore, we surely must fundamentally transform the way we do things if we ever want any kind of future. If you're losing against an enemy, the first thing you should do is analyze their tactics. (Thanks, Crysis) We usually refer to statists as using the initiation of force to control their subjects. While this is true at it's root level, like a fractal geometric equation, the result at the end user level after thousands of years/iterations of honing of said tactics is that to the average "citizen" the initiation of force does not even exist in the equation. If you debate a statist, they will not even know they are being stolen from on a daily basis! How can this be so effective? They use FREEDOM as the cover for their arguments! How can we let them use our own argument to discredit itself when the real deal is infinitely better and more moral? My actual Idea: People mostly talk about political action in the sense of protests, voting, or austricism. This community also includes child raising as a great way to forward the cause of freedom and philosophy. Those are great, especially the latter; but there's a problem: We are trying to get out of a master-slave relationship from the state, by acting as a slave. This will never, ever work. Genocide is just waiting in the mist of the future, for all of us anarchists slowly protesting an ever growing state, and this is not my opinion, this is historical fact. To end this quickly and righteously, I propose that we put ourselves on level playing fields with the masters, instead of attempting to pull the masters down to us. I mean EVERYONE. There is VERY LITTLE capitol left floating around in the free market, and people are getting less and less spending power by the day. The individual has less money than ever to devote to the cause of freedom, as I'm sure the owners of this site know too well. Can you stop for a second and imagine the amount of raw capitol currently being misallocated by states? Evil people at high levels of government will tolerate this huge reduction in economic output, in exchange for psychopathic power over military conquest and their own peoples.. However, greedy capitalists will not. Greedy capitalists just want another yacht, another ferrari, etc, even if we follow the main stream narrative here for a second.. You usually think about anarchic politics as bad for business.. BUT If people like Donald Trump can profit from stock going DOWN or businesses FAILING, WHY are no greedy capitalists tapping into this wealth the public sector is destroying? Why are there not lobbying groups to END public roads, funded by the largest construction companies ready to do the job? Why are there not armed protection agencies lobbying for reduced policing costs in order for communities to be able to pay for improved security and response time with private DROs? I'll tell you why: The majority of us are still partially in a slave mindset. We don't want to take responsibility for actually doing anything about freedom today.. How many of you actually own or operate within a business with freedom as an incentive? Even just scrap the above questions, why do we not fund a for profit joint stock company which exclusively lobbies to end government intervention in industries in order to privatize them and reap royalties from companies who take over? (The companies chosen freely by road consumers, not the lobby agency of course) This kind of freedom creates incentive for growth in sectors previously halted by state regulation from progression for centuries.. IE the road/car paradigm. It would put us on par with the slave owners of society finally, and start a self sustaining industry of profit from deregulation. Surely with guys like peter shiff, stefan molyneux, etc, around, there are people with the know how to do this, and we the people have the capitol. In addition, it's a sure business model because once the public sector is no longer in charge of the task, IE buildings roads, there will be huge vacuum in that sector of the economy for new road construction companies, since the state paid monopolies rarely do the job in a satisfactory way, and I think every american knows that. Lobbyists are a minimal cost for return on investment, as the private sector shows today.. Imagine the economic boom from ANARCHY LLC! Why are we not funding this?

From the Peak Prosperity Podcast: Published on Sep 28, 2015 Recently, author and "de-growth activist" Charles Eisenstein stopped by the Martenson homestead while traveling on business. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Chris sat him down to record an impromptu discussion on the nature of wealth. As should come as little surprise to Peak Prosperity readers, financial wealth ("money") is just one component -- and given society's current over-fixation with it, its pursuit oftentimes limits our ability to be truly wealthy.

The world we live in was designed by sociopaths, and your value as an ethicist is essential. The Fascists That Surround You series was put out back in late 2012 about the prevalence of clinical sociopathy and the situational sociopathy of the general population, that is to say people you know. Part 1 Part 2: Sociopaths Part 3: Statists Part 4: Society Part 5: Nature vs Nurture vs Ethics Part 6: Ethics for Psychopaths

My newest video. Topics discussed here: dysfunction in society, school / educational system, problems in one's childhood and adolescence, and more.

Hey guys, I'm curious to get your feedback on this hypothetical: Say a healthy number of humans were transported to a brand new habitable world similar to Earth. Then remove the past memories of these humans by inducing amnesia somehow. These humans, besides the amnesia, have healthy brains and were not abused as children. My curiosity here is as to the likelihood these humans would fall into statist community organization or would they resemble a community similar to an anarcho-capitalist society? I.E. Would simply the presence of healthy, intelligent brains influence the formation of statist or free societies if there was no reference to any past history? I understand this is a hypothetical that doesn't have a feasible premise. In other words, I'm not proposing this hypothetical to show a way we can solve our problems in today's world. It's merely a mental exercise to explore the evidence that supports one outcome or the other for curiosity's sake. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions!

Howdy, everyone! Just wanted to introduce myself and two of my major philosophical interests, hoping to get some feedback and discussion going. I'm on the west coast of Canada, have formally studied philosophy in university as an undergraduate (Minor in Philosophy - diverse coursework in the philosophy of: ancient Greeks, Medievals, ethics, politics, religion/metaphysics, art/literature), and am a Roman Catholic. Two of my major interests, at present are explored in these posts by me on my writings blog: "The Gay Identity Today" - basically, that most people get the concept of "gay" wrong, classifying it in the same character trait categories as gender or race... it is different, there are psycho-sexual issues, cultural identity-issues, and political issues at play, and that changes the discussion in a big way. "Exploring the Legitimacy of Society, Alternate Societies, Religions, Cults, and Antagonistic Subcultures –draft–" -- my brain-storming page, a post-in-progress, but basically I am trying to explore the difference between primary society (i.e. - the state) and alternative societies (e.g. - the mafia, religions, cult communities, etc.) and the compared moral legitimacy of them. Philosophically, I am also interested in and trying to explore the topics of: morality's role in state legislation (e.g. - should all vices be criminalized?), the myth of the secular and religion vs. ideology, Canadian politics, global politics, business, culture (the non-formal public sphere), and society (the formal/political/legal public sphere). One major issue that I think affects modern morality discourses today is the use of the Rights framework, and I think it is a horrible language for talking about morality, because it is a haphazard and incomplete moral theory... I explored this topic here: "The Errors of 'Rights' and Political Religions" Anyway, that's a good start for what I am interested to engage with here... feel free to message me, or suggest threads that I should check-out... if you're on the west-coast, let's grab a coffee and pick a topic! Cheers!

I am not the first to raise this question, without a doubt. Still, I find it more curious than ever, to wonder maybe human society - naturally - is supposed to propagate only few serious Thinkers in each group / tribe. Could it be that nature designed us, as animals, to have a very limited amount of people capable of deep strategic and logical thinking? Maybe replace that with 'people who see it as their duty and profession to think deeply, strategically and logically.' And if so, does that mean that - in order to not be fascists, it is the role of the Thinkers, to convince the general population of possible future strategies, for the entire society? And, yet, if so, could it possibly mean that a big chunk of what the Thinkers should focus on, is their skill in convincing the general population? Maybe even excluding the other Thinkers from that part of the process? And, finally, if so, could the "human problem" originate in the fact that in modern society, most people don't have a specific Thinker, or group of Thinkers, that they personally know and trust? Just like people have their trusted doctor, or cook, or even plumber. What do you think?

Is there a society ( country ) which is not conservative in political, economical, educational, religious aspects?

Hello Everyone Culain here, Recently I was invited to see this Japanese Animated film by a few new friends, apparently it's a really popular series. I watched a few episodes of it in the past but never really thought to much about it, but this movie was very deep. Even though i labeled this as a review, it's probably more akin to an examination of society from a libertarian teenager's perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u8RbWSp_XU The basic plot or idea of the story is of a group of 5 teenage girls whom transform into magical girls to fight "Nitemare's", Nitemare's are created from emotionally unstable individuals in society whom seek to harm others. The movie begins with the cast of 5 girls healing the emotional ails of a highschool girl whom here parents had neglected. As the movie progresses, Homura recognizes that her friends have this amnesia which is causing them to forget the past. Madoka is seen as the youngest and most innocent girl, she has a very loving family and her father is a stay-at-home dad. Homura shares the consistent logical qualities of an Anarcho Athiest which makes her very attuned to Madoka's innocence. However, accompanying Madoka is this small white fox entity called "Kyuubi". Kyuubi plays the part of obligation in Madoka's life, manipulating how she acts, almost like Kyuubi is personified as Government. Homura wanting to protect Madoka finds Kyuubi to be dangerous and struggles to remove Kyuubi from Madoka. As the five friends hang together Homura notices this creature called "Bebe" which accompanies Tomoe (one of the friends). Bebe however seems to be a catalyst to causing amnesia between the friends, making them forget/ ignore the danger in society. Homura sees Bebe for what it truly is, "culture". In order to protect Madoka from Tomoe's culture she ferociously battles against it, reality changes into a Nitemare as they begin their arguments. Two people who were once friends ferociously attack eachother. Tomoe becomes increasingly more emotional as Homura attacks her culture and Homura's final argument seems to catch Tomoe off guard causing her a brief moment of self-reflection. Sayaki witnesses this argument and question's Homura's approach, blaming Homura for insensitive about the truth. Sayaki reveals her position as a Minarchist when she offers to Homura a simple life of fighting Wraiths (symptoms) rather than the Witches (Root of problems). Sayaki threatens to end their relationship if Homura continues to push. The next day Homura is deeply troubled, she can't help but ponder over the fate of Madoka as she see's all these zombies in society lifelessly falling prey to Witches. Homura discovers that the Kyuubi has been propagating the cycle of these witches. As Kyuubi surrounds Madoka Homura begins to surrender seeing her actions as futile. Homura begins to doubt her abilities and start hating the fact that she can see through the delusion, she regrets taking the red pill. Faced with an extreme level of doubt and hopelessness, Homura wants to return to a life of delusion like the others, but her pride can not allow her. After one last heartfelt apology and goodbye, Homura attempts a sort of suicide. Homura becomes a Witch, she falls into complete despair and lashes out with all her emotions. As Homura is on the brink of death she pictures Madoka one last time, but Kyuubi invades her mind. Give up, give up, give up, he taunts her. That's when Homura remembers her friends, sure they might have different views but they all truly mean the best of intentions for each-other. Homura recognizes the futility of in-fighting and re-focuses her attention to Madoka; she will not abandon her friend. Homura discards the blue pill and awakens to a new level of maturity. She calls herself a demon (Anarchist) because that's how others will view her, but she's content with her image. Homura remembers her intention towards Madoka and informs that she loves her and that she will not force Madoka to accept her views but believes through reason and evidence Madoka will one day discover the same truths as her. The movie closes out with Homura resting on a Hillside. Kyuubi is there on the ground, torn, ragged, beaten. Homura informs the Kyuubi that she will never let him taint the innocent Madoka. The End. --------------- Anyways, I highly recommend watching it. There was another friend of their's in the Movie, Sakura. Unfortunetly I had to step out of the theater to the washroom during her spotlight in the movie so i can`t make an comments on her role. Kyuubi= Government Bebe= Culture Witches= Problems Wraiths= Symptoms of problems Nitemares= Emotional arguments/ despair Demon- Anarchist Homura- Anarchist/athiest Sayaki- Minarchist Tomoe- Theist Madoka- Innocent Child I would also like to point how Homura`s Image. She is characterized as this shy bookworm in public. She wears glasses and remains both quiet and observant. But when Homura battles against her friends, she transforms into a very sharp, assertive, and aggressive character. She even ditches her glasses. A few other things to note, is that this event called the Walpurgis is mentioned in the film as a great coming and unstoppable calamity. It inferred the idea of an election to me.

Time is our ultimate resource not money. Utilizing a system already in place to record our earnings we can tweak it to account for time rather than earnings. Currently, during your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings. Using time as a measure of one's earnings over money can be an easy transition. Hours are already being recorded by most employers. Who then report those hours to the Social Security Administration (The SSA). The SSA currently measures the amount of earnings in credits to determine eligibility for social security. Therefore, little needs to change to effect implementation of a record keeping program for validating hours accomplished. Example of the model: People work (or study, community service, etc) and have their hours posted to their Social Security record. You earn credits for time worked. For illustration, let's say 20 hours of work = 1 credit. There can be several levels of benefits for the credits accumulated such as: Level 1 Benefit (2 credits) = Food Level 2 Benefit (3 credits) = Clothing Level 3 Benefit (5 credits) = healthcare Level 4 Benefit (10 credits) = car Level 5 Benefit (15 credits) = home Level 6 benefit (20 credits) = 1 additional credit Level 7 benefit (30 credits) = vacation We can add that missing work would subtract 1 credit for every x hours missed. There can be many variables that can be tweaked to make it a fair system. Bean counters would have a field day working this out. This wouldn't be nearly as complicated as our current system is now with how we handle compensation packages, taxes, entitlement programs, etc.. The logistics aren't important right now so I don't need go into any further details on that. Once you reach a level, you have the choice to procure the goods or services that come with that benefit at no additional cost to you. We as consumers are free to choose where we take our business. This is no different than our current system. Only now we prove this with a social security card that tells the business what level benefit we have reached. For example, you go to a restaurant show them your card, they swipe it to verify and provide you with the service and food. If you don"t like the food or service, you don"t return to that business. If no one returns, they go out of business. The owners may or may not be allowed to start a new business. That will be up to either the Small Business Administration or the Fairness Review Board or both. Conversely, business failure will be reduced because of proper preparation for success and the ability to hire business managers and mentors will have increased. Nonetheless, there is still a risk of failure and a reward of success, although not as devastating when a loss in our current system is experienced. check out the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Abolishing-and-Eliminating-Currency-is-a-viable-proposal./1/ http://thenewsocialsecurity.org/blog.php #thenewssa

I've just discovered this website and Stefan's ideas about the state, which have much in common with my own, which I have derived from taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature and the situation (states and civilisation) it has over the centuries given rise and shape to. The state, it seems to me, conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original, natural and very tribal environment, in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation and the state, which now poses, deceitfully, as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment), while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment) to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients. I think this goes a long way towards explaining Stefan's observations relating to the state. It also explains the paradoxes and dilemmas that confront and confuse our brain, which evolution adapted to deal with a very different kind of environment from that of civilisation, which has been shaped over centuries to serve the interests of society's ruling elite and their favoured clients at the expense of society at large. What makes the democratic state so special, but inherently unsustainable, is the fact that we are now ALL its clients, albeit very unequally. In order to get our support, politicians have to try, or pretend to try, to satisfy us all, which, of course they cannot possibly do, certainly not on a finite, vulnerable and already overpopulated planet. We have a short window of opportunity, it seems to me, within which to use our hard-won freedoms to make truly radical changes to the state, which I don't believe we can do without completely (some authority has to enforce the rule of law and non-violence which otherwise tends to characterise all tribal societies), before it closes and these freedoms are lost. I elaborate on these ideas on my own blog, The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html