Search the Community

Hi all I've become a big fan of Stefan's podcasts over the past 6-12 months. He, along with other prominent thinkers, has opened my eyes to powerful ways of viewing the world. I've attempting to start contributing some ideas of my own. I feel like I am merely pulling ideas of intellectual 'giants', but it has been fun nonetheless. I've been doing this primarily on the blockchain blogging site steemit.com. It's a great concept and I recommend supporting the platform. My latest piece on there is titled 'The Case for Freedom - Welfare Edition' Feel free to check it out Cheers Ryan

Libertarians often argue against taxes saying that according to historical data when taxes go down charitable donations usually go up. Logically it makes sense as people of course love naming Universities after themselves, or becoming respected patrons of charities, or giving to research on cancer etc. With Trump reducing funding for scientific research but also reducing burdens of regulations and taxes, having such data which proves benefit for society in form of private charitable donations is urgently needed!! Help to find it, please!!. Because basic scientific research cannot be profitable, for profit businesses will not be able to contribute. So there is growing worry among scientific community... If anybody here knows good sources with data and charts proving pattern of inverse correlation between taxes and charitable donations, i would greatly appreciate it, because to have such data freshly available on the net right now would be helpful in trying to separate govt and science in the minds of most brilliant scientists on the planet (good!), and show how it is possible even with reduction in govt power to have functional civilization and make the case for human Liberty (great!). Thank you in advance!

Another fine altruistic action from the state, proving yet again, if there was no state who would feed the homeless? [90 Year old minister receives a visit from the Crips (aka the boys in blue) for dealing food to the homeless, which everyone knows is turf long been claimed by the gang] http://youtu.be/gRF6Sc71jYY

This idea occurred to me today, thought I'd run it past you all. Currently the state compensates parents who foster children, and perhaps those who adopt, I'm not sure. A lot of these people are wonderful, educated, peaceful parents, but I know many aren't. So, what if there was a charitable org. that vetted, trained, monitored, etc. these people. "Professional" parents, if you will. They would be on the cutting edge of scientific research into best, most peaceful, (and hopefully secular) parenting styles. I figure there are plenty of educated rich folks who don't want children of their own, but also know how important proper parenting is to our collective future. Is this an untapped market? Spent 15 minutes googling, and there are a few churches who donate to some of these people. But I'm thinking of something a lot more professional and accountable. What are your thoughts?

Hi my FDR brothers and sisters, I am starting a charity to provide heavily discounted therapy to substance addicts. The idea is to facilitate in-person and Skype therapy for substance addicts most likely with low to no income. The therapy will be aligned with the ACE study, and a lot of the information contained in Stef's videos with Gabor Mate, Vincent Felitti, and Stuart Shankar. Also, another major contributor to my idea is Dr. Mate's book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts. I'm posting a link to an outline of the charity's functions. Please feel free to message me on here or at my email address with any comments, suggestions, questions, etc. My email: [email protected] Thanks so much, Richard Godwin www.acesconnection.com/forum/topics/terra-firma-network

A common objection against anarchy is: Who will take care of the poor? The response might be: The free market will provide much more wealth, and for that reason, help the poor. But even then, there will always be people that are unable to earn a living because of sickness or other disabilities. These people will depend on voluntary donations from others. But many people would like more assurance that indeed other people will help them in time of need. It is possible in a free society to provide this assurance as well. And we do not have to wait for anarchy to arrive, to show this is true. This brings me to the idea of a libertarian trust fund for the poor. It could function as follows: - People transfer money to the trust fund voluntarily. - When anarchy arrives, it is contractually required that the money is transferred to the poor, in some predefined way. - As long as the state persists, the money in the trust fund is invested, and after a predefined number of years, released back to the original owners with interest. People could voluntarily replace it with new money. - There could be multiple competing trust funds with different pay-out rules, different investment strategies, etc. Possible benefits: - It could be referred to in debates to show that anarchists are willing to give to the poor when not forced to. - It could provide some level of assurance for the case we or others would be poor in a situation of anarchy. - It could show people that there are viable ethical alternatives for state welfare programs, providing the same level of assurance, demonstrating the state is redundant. - It could be made sure the money is not directly invested in NAP-violating state projects. I would be interested in hearing your opinion about this.

Hi philosophers, I was thinking about the question if it is possible to logically deduce positive responsibilities from reality. I came up with the following reasoning: All humans are biologically similar Each human being has similar importance Each human being has similar needs in order to live It is of similar importance that the needs of each person is fulfilled, because the importance of each person is similar Human beings should have beliefs that correspond to reality, and act accordingly The vast majority of people regard it as very important that their basic needs are met Those people should regard it as important that the basic needs of others are met, and they should act accordingly Compared to UPB, the argumentation above is based on shared preferences, while UPB is based on universal preferences. The argumentation could applied to a specific case of giving to the poor: Suppose there is a poor man that has lack of food. He knocks on the door of a rich man and asks for a gift of food. Suppose the rich man does not give it. Is this morally valid, invalid, or neutral? The rich man has eaten food regularly to keep himself alive. By doing so, he has affirmed the importance for humans to have access to sufficient food. The rich and poor man are biologically similar, so they have similar needs with regard to food. When refusing to give food to the poor man, the rich man is implicitly making the statement that it is not important that the poor man has enough food to eat. This is a contradictory attitude towards the necessity of food, inconsistent with reality, and therefore morally invalid. So it is his responsibility to give something to the poor man. Do you see an error in the argumentation, or do you think it is valid? Could it be that the lack of emphasis on responsibility to help others as a moral non-enforced rule, is one of the main reasons people are reluctant to accept a free society? Looking forward to your comments.