Search the Community

[This is an open work-in-progress theory regarding Capital and relevant definitions]: -- Preface -- In the same way the color wheel and circle of fifths help to convey relationships and serve as mnemonic diagrams, I seek to simplify and clarify capital theory for ease of teaching and incorporation into our daily lives. This is also an attempt to make measurable those aspects of capital other than physical/financial forms (many of them already are measured to some degree). If this sounds like something that interests you as well, I welcome your contributions, critiques, and clarifications. -- Definitions -- Capital: The source for, and result of, exchange/interaction (...too vague?) Capital: A vehicle for will Capital: A means to an end Capital Archetypes: Subcategories (the "hues") of capital that share certain properties (convenient as a label but not mutually exclusive to another archetype) Inter-Capital: Exchanges/interactions between different capital archetypes (a change in "hue" on the color wheel, or for example, cash for cookies) Intra-Capital: Exchanges/interactions within the same capital archetype (a change in "intensity" of a hue on the color wheel, or for example, cookies for milk) Currency: Valuations: The unit of measurement used for a specific capital archetype -- Capital Archetypes -- [][/Red] Natural Capital: Capital that sustains life. This can include land/ecosystems, food, water, animals, and even the body (time too?). The implication here is that self-ownership is not only a foundation of responsibility for one's actions, but also a generator of other capital (what we make with our time and energy for example). Possible currencies valuations include calories, joules (?), weight, numerical count (head of cattle for example), ppm/pH (water purity), and carbon/nitrogen/etc. (?). [][/Orange] Financial Capital: Capital that facilitates trade. This can include physical and/or digital forms of money, credit, insurances, securities, stocks/bonds, and any other form of fiduciary contract. The implication here is that this capital acts as a middleman capital to ease economic exchange between other capitals with physical limitations (or otherwise), and account for wealth in an abstract manner. Possible currencies valuations include price, probability percentages, shares, and... (maybe an economist can elaborate further?) [][/Yellow] Material Capital: Capital that fuels/supplies industry. This can include all matter of resources, tools, and infrastructure. The implication here is that this capital maintains the means of production. Possible currencies valuations include weight/load capacity, grade (quality), production rate, tensile strength, and efficiency (energy, material, or otherwise). [][/Green] Social Capital: Capital that denotes diplomatic capacity. This can include your social network, recommendations/reputation/trustworthiness/influence, and legitimacy. The implication here is that who you know and who knows you can become a valuable asset (strength of connections within a network). Possible currencies valuations include the number of connections, friends, and followers you have (both in your local and digital/distant neighborhood), your credit score, public opinion poll percentages, etc. [][/blue] Cultural Aesthetic Capital: Capital that projects perception. This can include art (manifested appeals to the senses), rituals, prestige, luxury, etc. The implication here is that people and things (ephemeral or enduring) have intrinsic value beyond the material, medium, or action. Possible currencies valuations include... I dunno... provenance? (moving on...) [][/indigo] Human Intellectual Gnostic Capital: Capital that documents and imparts information. This can include diplomas, reference materials, an individual's collection of experience (knowledge/wisdom etc.), personality, and language/discussion/debate. The implication here is that (applied) knowledge is power (whether esoteric or exoteric) and can inform our decisions throughout various capital transactions. Possible currencies valuations include literacy, age (?), bytes/RAM/processing power, and informational accuracy/intelligence (error probability). [][/Violet] Spiritual (φ) Capital: Capital that encourages self-actualization. This can include empathy, morale/self-esteem, honor, mastery, and internal resonance (as opposed to cognitive dissonance). The implication here is that our emotions are valuable in ways like sensing a connection to others as well as an internal guidance system (for future thoughts and behaviors). Possible currencies valuations include the emotional scale, etc. (another hard one...) -- Discussion/Revisions -- [i look forward to hearing your thoughts.] StylesGrant: Humanity in Capital vs. Rationality AustinJames: Subjective vs. Objective capital, & Social/Cultural Capital overlap GRosado: Redefine Capital, Inter- Intra- Confusion, Currency/Measurement Confusion, & Hayekian Triangle Inclusion Josh F: Human Capital distinctions possibly unnecessary, & possible Coercive Capital/Political Capital inclusion. I made a model to illustrate the idea.

I had a debate with 2 leftists the other day that basically didn't understand what universe they were living on. But, during this debate, I had the opportunity to debate some ideas with myself. I believe that the problem with Charlottesville is that we are not calling the problems by what they really are. Please, let me explain: The first term that is misleading in this issue was to call the alt right a bunch of neo nazi. Conservatives and libertarians spent so much time debating that #notall the alt right present at the event were nazi. I will try to explain that not a single person at Charlottesville was a nazi. Lets start with the definition of nazi. It is the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In short, it is the German Marxist party. The trick is in the words ''socialist worker's party''. I do not believe that any person of the alt right were citizens of Germany (there might be one who did have the citizenship, I could be proven wrong). Therefore, they could not be part of the GERMAN Marxist party. It would make as much sense to say that some dude in Mongolia is that of the British Labor Party. To identify the problem would be to call the alt right a bunch of American Socialists. There were other American Socialists present at this event. The members of Antifa were American Socialists. The members of BLM are American Socialists. The black block are American socialists. The liberals and democrats present at this event were American socialists. Basically, this event was nothing more then a bunch of American Socialists attacking each other. I believe there was a pole recently that showed that most socialists live in their mom's basements and are unemployed. If these idiots had any pressure from the free market, they wouldn't have time to waste doing stupid shit like this. They would be too busy trying to find a job. Once again, the free market is the solution to these stupid problems we have to face in the western world. To be honest, I dont care if they all decide to break each other's skulls with bricks. The result would be less people on welfare =P. But to be serious, the solution is still the same. We need to promote the free market, dispel the blur of identity prolitic and promote libertarian values. =)

Good Sunday Afternoon, Fellow FDR Comrades for Anarcho-Capitalism, Peaceful Parenting, Rationality, and Stefan Molyneux Please Notice Me Senpai! Since I've noticed a few other listeners/forum-ers have posted similar topics about how helpful FDR and Stefan-senpai has been, I decided it was high time I shared my experience (from after graduating high school) and how Stefpai was instrumental in my success. During the Summer and Autumn of 2016, I had greatly pondered whether or not to go to college. You see, I want to be a novelist. That means writing books and convincing someone I'm worth his time and my product is worth selling. What does college have to do with that? "Maybe the piece of paper would magically grant me opportunities"... Or so I thought, until I watched what Stefpai had to say to similar ex-kids my age. I decided I'd be wasting time and money (and I mean lots of time and money!) if I decided to get a "Liberal" Arts Degree and risking my sanity if I purposely put myself in an environment where everyone (or at least the majority) think in ways I am diametrically opposed and probably even want me dead for the crime of being a heterosexual White male with Rightist politics. And so from late December to mid January, I followed Stefpai's wisdom of actually entering the Free(ish) Market I claimed to uphold and defend and also beat the temptation of living my youth as a welfare parasite. In six weeks, along a schedule like this: Mondays; Talk to employers/manager's on the phone I've met or yet to meet; Wednesdays; Spend from noon to 6:00 pm knocking on every store from mom-and-pop's to smoking dens (cough cough) and Target to find a job (or at least seduce the employer into expediting my hiring). Thursdays; Review with my therapist (which I got on the advice of the Stefpai) what I was doing and how I'm doing it; Saturdays; Plan out what I'd be doing the following week. Eventually, after being to literally 90-something shops (with some repeats where I felt a little more time and persistence could get me a job) my resume was finally reciprocated by a young and wise Pakistani business owner who wanted someone to train and teach as a protege so he could expand his already successful enterprise. What was this enterprise? I had no idea. I forgot I even I submitted my resume to him. However, the morning after the call I followed Stefpai's business mindset of remembering it was the customer whose weight sustains the business, and respecting the role of my future (and now current) employer whose own energies had turned a dusty and empty space into a workshop full of technical gadgets I couldn't even begin to name. I knew nothing of technology (beyond vidya games) or how to repair them (I never break them), let alone how to do web designing, security, or finances. And yet, the man hired me. I knew he would too. When asked the loaded questions of "what would you do in X scenario" I gave answers that both my employer and his financial partner liked, which seemed to greatly compensate for my non-existent work history or experience in tech. And by God was this an opportunity; I went, nearly overnight, from parasite to workingman. However, this was just the beginning. I spent the last few weeks in training (unpaid but free, 30 hours a week) and now with only one week left I'm confidant in saying I now know what an LCD is and how to unscrew the multitude of tiny screws on iPhone 6S + Gorilla Voodoo Machine and finally secure not just my first job but something that could lead to a pretty stable and financially secure groove from which I can devote myself to my true career as a novelist. And so, with the security of employment and the persistence that promises Victory, this young bachelor's story begins. Now I just have to put in the work and learn what I can, seeing how far I can go while doing what I love (writing) so that once that's done I can start again the process of persistence and tenacity (redundant emphasis, I know) to actually sell what I've spent 6 years working on since I was 12. That was my FDR helping IRL for business and careers story, what about YOU?

Hi Stefan, Let me start by saying that I love your podcasts and that I find them absolutely necessary to cure this world from madness and to bring back reason and evidence. These past few years I have tried to turn back the tide that is threatening the west by debating and having discussions with people online and in my everyday life. I have observed that when I argue with them, even the strongest leftist or the most stuck up conservative can accept their share of truth until you reach a wall of what they are no longer able to accept. I am still convinced that we can heal this world in a none violent way with the weight of good ideas. Like they say, the truth will set us free. At the same time, I have unsubscribed to some channels that fear monger everyday about urgent news that we are under attack from the deep state that we need to pray and be ready to fight for our freedom. It might be true, but it is not in my power to go stand next to Trump with a shotgun to protect him and he is able to hire more qualified people to protect him. This fear baiting that Alex Jones does paints a very negative view of the world and I believe that it is only draining the energy of the conservatives. We also have to understand that if we live in a constant state of fear, like we have known during the cold war, that this creates more r selection type individuals. No, I believe that change is done in the way we live our lives every day. It could be argued that by being an example that seeking truth, to coexist peacefully with your neighbours, to be fair and just, and basically to be a pillar of your society, by doing that you become the evidence that libertarianism and conservatism is a successful way of life and you have a greater impact on the future of your civilisation that some nut that runs to the enemy with his rifle in hands screaming ‘’GOD WILLS IT’’. Through my debates and discussions I came to the conclusion that, even if you debunk the idiotic ideas of the left, you are only holding back the tide and not pushing it back. I came to the conclusion that we are either missing something in our argumentation or we are doing something wrong. So this summer I have focused on the topic of freedom. I have read the ‘’treaty of the second government’’ by John Locke, ‘’The Law’’ by Frederic Bastiat, I’m currently going through ‘’the liberal mind’’ by David Boaz, and through ‘’the universal preferable behaviour’’. I have notice a reoccurring libertarian concept that is not regularly touched on that might be more essential then we think. This concept is that in a free market economy, the market auto regulates itself. This concept is often called spontaneous order. This idea that the consumer and the producer have a constant exchange in which one adjust its prices to what the other consider a reasonable price for the item and the service and adjust their prices to the cost of production and to generate a profit. This spontaneous order can also be applied to ethics. If a company produces cheap good, but have a terrible work ethic, abuses children, or destroys the environment, then the consumer might decide to pay more for the same good provided by a company with more ethics. I believe that the concept of spontaneous order is essential to debunking the left, because the argument they regularly hide behind is that ‘’the right doesn’t care for the poor; the right doesn’t care about the environment; if there was a free market, you wouldn’t have welfare for the poor’’. All these assumptions are false. In a free market economy, the market more quickly to the needs of the consumers and, with fewer regulations, it generates more wealth, thus less poor people. As a scientist (I’m a student in biochemistry) I understand that, for the left, spontaneous order seems as magical as the concept of spontaneous generation. I believe that historical facts about the free market need to be brought back to the light of day as evidence of the existence of the spontaneous order. I have watched your presentations called ‘’the genes war’’ and ‘’the fall of Rome’’. They were both brilliantly presented. And the message is clear. The welfare state produces a false sense of abundance that triggers an epigenetic mechanism that favours the r selection type organism. These organisms are unable to identify threats and have no in-group preferences necessary to combat these threats. So before we become the next Rome, we must increase the number of K selection types in our population. With enough K types in our population we will be able to vote sensible laws that will fix our borders and return to a free market economy. Then the hostile migrants will have no choice but to return to the 3rd world being unable to earn a living in a competitive economy. I believe that libertarian ideas are the only way we can affect the r/K balance in our society.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ I wish for people to look and discuss this mandatory dispute resolutions being injected into labour contracts, just because those contracts have their own rules that permit all sorts of violations of labor rights and working conditions that favor the business rather than people. The court disallows class action law suits around this allowance of mandatory arbitration much like how it would be in a free market society since the private businesses decide what is a fair labour/consumer contract and there is no universal federal or national system of laws that say how a contract that two people voluntarily entered into is somehow "wrong", even if its mostly one-sided. In a freemarket society there may be different sets of private regulations that can be resolved in other private courts & arbitration (somekind of universal right to a 2nd or 3rd trial in a appellate court of ones own choosing or the human rights enforcement agency representing the citizen that was transgressed), if the mandatory arbitration was extremely biased and unfair ruling BUT those private regulations are designed to favor the business that made it, hence the rulings would tend to favor the businesses. Since the Supreme court ruling in the 80's and subsequent rulings since then having allowed it, it has given rise to a mostly private market run anti-consumer & anti-worker culture revealing the self-interest motivated nature of business and the arbitrary meaningless nature of human, worker and consumer rights.

So Stef did a video not to long ago about Gord Downie, lead singer of the Tragically Hip and his diagnosis with terminal brain cancer. If your a fan of the Hip or live in Canada, you've probably heard of the controversy surrounding the ticket scalping of the shows of the band's final tour. If you haven't heard, basically because of the popularity of the band and the huge rush to see their last shows, it is a perfect opportunity for ticket scalpers to buy up tickets and sell them for enormous profits. Some tickets are going around ten times their original price. This has caused a lot of anger from the fans towards scalpers, who couldn't get tickets for the show because they sold out in minute. Now they have to pay out the ear to scalpers if they want to go. I myself tried this morning to get tickets and they sold out within the first 20 minutes of the sale. The uproar of fans has cause headlines in Canada. http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/tragically-hip-fans-disappointed-as-concerts-sell-out-in-minutes-1.2929847 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tragically-hip-presale-tickets-sold-out-1.3607493 http://www.moneysense.ca/news/the-tragically-hip-tickets-scalped-heres-how-its-done/ A lot of people now are calling for the state to step in and "fix" the problem. This scares me. In Ontario ticket scalping was recently made legal. Now some people are talking about making it illegal again or bringing in price controls. In my frustration over the situation, even I have been a hard time trying to think of a solution to the controversy. Is there a free market solution to this issue? Is there even a problem to begin with? Is scalping tickets wrong? I'd love to hear anyones thoughts.

I am curious if there is an explanation for why historically more free markets almost always produces less freedom in the long run. If a free market were to emerge today, how can we know it will not eventually produce less freedom in the long run?

A CEO in Seattle has raised his labor costs significantly above market rates, making himself unable to compete while creating unrealistic future expectations for his employers (don't buy that house!!)... Predictions? Sorry, trick question. Math will sink this battleship.

Critics of the Free Market bring up the point that sounds true, in theory. A staff member of a general store will not refer the client to another store which may have the described or better product in question, as doing so does not make a profit for the store, worst it makes competitor's store stronger. A brand store is a different story. But I have had encounters where time and time again staff members do it. I'm unsure if it is against store's policy. How often have any of you also encountered situations where shop staff refer to third party shops in cases of my preferred product not being available in their store? Sometimes they do say "I'll be nice" before referring to a another store that may have the product I prefer/describe. Implying that it is bad for business to do so. It seems the incentive to do so is that you would still go to adviser's store first in the future. Therefore having a loyal customer, which would lead to future profits, even with the contradiction of the action itself. But such a point is a claim that requires a research study.

Here is an article by Robert Kuttner. Have at it. http://prospect.org/article/libertarian-delusion

I regularly watch a very funny, informative podcast posted by some industry leaders in the mortgage and real estate industry and I just had to share today's 5 minute video! The topic is unfortunate (govt regulation always is), but presented in a hilariously funny way in a very short 5 minute video. (Link below) Basically, the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) was created 4 years ago and is outside Congressional oversight because it is officially under the Federal Reserve. (..a whole different topic there.. but I'll keep this post more focused) So... an official report issued by the very same Federal Reserve actually states that their very own CFPB (the extra burden of complying with all the new regulation) has been responsible for holding down loan origination (driving down lending) and being the 'stick in the spokes of the industry!' WOW, thanks for the honesty FED (for once!) The new burden of compliance is estimated to have increased real estate closing costs by about 6% overall.. so the real cost to the average Joe buying a piece of real estate with a mortgage is actually 6% more (not due to inflation, just actual increase in costs) Thank you government regulation!!! (rolling eyes while shaking head) Here's the video.. highly suggest watching it for the comedy alone! http://thenationalrealestatepost.com/the-cfpb-is-the-new-herpes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNationalRealEstatePost+%28The+National+Real+Estate+Post%29

Being in real estate, I'm always reading industry news and I came across an article that really stood out to me and after researching more.. it turns out this isn't a novel idea. Apparently this is a growing trend in big cities like London and NYC. With prices in large cities climbing higher and higher, new housing developments are being required to include a certain percentage of 'affordable housing' options in order to get final 'planning permission.' So these upscale developers are addressing this 'problem' by adding 'alternative' side entrances for the building's lower-income residents. Often, it's not just a side alley entrance for 'poor people' but entirely separate common elements like mailboxes, garbage disposal facilities, and staircases. So this literally creates a separation of the 'affordable' housing condos from the rest of the luxury development.. so the rich people never have to accidentally run into the 'lower class' condo owners while living in the same building. My initial reaction was that this is pretty crazy and I couldn't believe these 'poor doors' were being approved by the housing authorities in these cities, but then those same authorities were the ones mandating these 'affordable' units before approving the whole project in the first place! I get that they want a diverse mix of residents in very expensive cities but this is just an example of how screwed up the Fed's inflation policies are... the rich spend their money like it's water because otherwise that money looses value through inflation, so they don't care about paying more and more for the condo units, but how do we, as a general society deal with this new 'class segregation?' Here's the article about the new condo building in NYC: http://www.newsweek.com/new-york-city-approves-poor-door-luxury-apartment-building-260218

Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla Motors Inc., said Thursday that he was opening up the electric car company’s patents to all comers. “Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor,” Musk said, “but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers.” The dramatic move — automakers and other businesses usually guard patents jealously — is intended to help speed the adoption of electric cars. Many of the patents relate to electric powertrains and how to integrate them into vehicles, Musk said. The patents should provide modest help to other automakers without hurting Tesla, he said. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-elon-musk-opens-tesla-patents-20140612-story.html#page=1 It looks like they realized that they couldn't build the electric car infrastructure by themselves.

I've been fielding a lot of questions on my channel about "the free market" and a common retort I get is an example of Big Corporations running wild -- that is, until you consider that the only reason they have all this power is because they made a bee line for the very government institution which is supposed to protect us from such excesses... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVVObVO59Y&list=UUmkSQppUOY6r7qd-sbcftBQ

Hi, I just came across this report on Uber, an app that allows you to treat any registered user as a paid taxi: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/uber-protests-spread-across-europe-as-taxi-app-backlash-grows.html No prizes for guessing who doesn't like it... As one person put it: "A few lines of python code toppling an entire industry"

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it: 1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever. 2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so. 3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights. I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered: "No. It's because money is only numbers, not property." After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them! Markus FIN

We've all been asked this question before, and usualy our response is akin to, "I don't know, but the free market will come up with a solution." But I realized that we do have a real world example of how it might work. The Japanese railway systems are the fastest, most efficient and low cost method of transportation for the consumers in the world. Having been to Japan and used their train systems frequently, I cannot praise it enough. The trains are always on time, never more than 20 seconds off the estimated arrival time. The seat are heated in winter and the air conditioning is always comfortable in summer. The trains travel impecibly fast (Their bullet trains now go 350 mph) and there's always a train station around. Over crowding was not much of a problem once you get out of the Tokyo area, even the Yokohama area was very accomidating and spacious. And best of all? It was cheap! The taxi fee's and highway toll costs were ridiculously high and very unaffordable, the train systems were only a fraction of the cost and they went everywhere. The best part about all of this? The Japanese Train systems are all privately owned and runned by various companies. From Wikipedia: While it is true that a portion of their railways were created, owned and operated by the Japanese governement for until the 1900's, the Japanese governemnt failed on almost every fundamental level to keep the public transportation cost effective and working well for their citizens (sound familar?). By the 1964 the railways were bought out by various companies and by the 1980's it was completely privitized giving birth to the rapid increase of transportation technology that Japan is famous for today. These companies, working together in a joint effort, solved many of the common plagues of train systems, such as the loud 'booming' noise that would occur when a train would enter a station (solved by a redesign of the nose). They also increased safety standards. Since the privitization of the train systems in 1964, they have never had a derailment or a single death due to a train crash (suicides are a different story). It's very interesting how this is never mentioned.

http://www.mars-one.com Also check out their YouTube channel. Does this get anyone else as excited as I am?

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on-college-football/24501646/college-athletes-players-association-wins-case-at-nlrb This is my first post on the FDR forum so here goes. 1) What do libertarian-minded free-market types think about this recent development in college athletics? Is this a step in the right direction towards the free market? 2) Many typical anti-union arguments are being thrown at this. Examples: Democrats like unions. Republicans hate unions. Unions are bad. Aren't students being compensated with an all expensed paid education? Why stop with the athletes? What about the marching band, cheerleaders, debate team, engineering team. Won't this destroy college athletics?

I just noticed this the other day, and I found it empowering. Ben Rice, a young powerlifter with a youtube channel began accepting donations with the message that with the money he receives he'll invest in a new camera for higher quality videos. Now, just two days later he's posted a response video saying that he's already raised more than enough. I'll link the videos below. It really just goes to show that with the right audience and an honest request donations is a viable model for getting financial assistance. This is not to say that Stefan's tight-rope walk away from his old comfy salary praying that views like us would catch him has been enough evidence to prove our points. I just wanted to share that with you all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Yb_7hL9a0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FSeqK6Mq8

I have an older brother who lives in England who loves socialism. Unlike him, I do not have a Doctorate in Philosophy I have an associates degree from a trade school in IT. He's returned to southern california and the inevitable debates have arisen when we meet: 1. You cannot rely on the market to solve your problems because it is 50/50 chance of a solution, where as a law will make people uncomfortable and force them to change. His example: Whether or not I have created a Dispute Resolution Agency, it is still fifty fifty that the girl abused by her father will get any immunity from such services, nor if they belong to a collective such as Christian Conservatives, abuse will be condoned and resources pulled will be aggregated towards a DRA that supports their views, where as a law will outlaw that. His secondary premise is that people are comfortable with things and nothing will get done if they are comfortable that's why there needs to be laws. 2. The reason why Compton sucks is evidence that the market has failed. Because they choose shitty services when they can choose better ones but don't. They cannot rely on fixing the neighborhoods the way England has. England uses social welfare to make sure that people get better and more humane treatment, because socialism helps people become liberated and individuals, and without that there would be no recovery. Even though these practices are corrupt he thinks you cant destroy something just because it is corrupt, because everything is corrupt. 3. You need a central authority because if you don't have it, people will hurt one another and some people may become exploited and not be able to market their skills and become solid individuals. He states something about how a free market company called Phil Jones Gas sucks and takes 24 hours to get a gas repairman which means icy cold death for people, when British gas does it right away, and that people can choose to use British Gas (socialized gas) but use Phil Jones because it is easier and it's already there, which means with no regulation people will get shittier service. 4. Redistribution is good because of John Lock's philosophy about property, which says it would inefficient to have people share everything and it would also be inefficient for people to have too much property. He also uses Plato and Aristotle to similarly make the claim the redistribution is good and necessary for the government to do. 5. Even though the government is corrupt, it must stay in place because no one will have any order without it. Regulations are good and what keep things fair. After hearing these revolting 5 points, I must say, it's much too difficult to argue, I know it's wrong, I can't allow it to go unchecked, and I hear now that my brother want's to get into politics in England. What kind of counters does everyone see in some of these points, I apologize already if it is hastily typed, I can try to clarify on any of the points. Thanks guys.

i have been looking into Paul Rosenburg's (he was at some speaking engagement where stef went once time) program suite for encryption called "cryptohippie". I saw a writeup he did on dailyanarchist.com. It's expensive to purchase, but gives you a solid vpn with exit nodes in panama and other countries with more privacy protections. Your phone and web connections will be gibberish to your isp. Since he is an entrepreneur who has personal leanings toward the libertarian/anarchist movement, it seems he could be trusted ethically for selling the real deal. I haven't committed to buying it yet, but i am leaning that way. What do you guys think? ..about this company and whether their is an even better option.

In this prog a take a look at the many problems of the UK housing market, tracing it back to the Norman conquest.