Freedomain Radio

Who are the UK users?

LovePrevails — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:28:09 GMT

hey I was listening to the Sunday Show from yesterday and hearing the 2nd caller plug www.libertyontherocks.org

and I was what are the chances of meets in the UK?

I live in Scotland and would love to meet people there but I'm willing to move around as well, it's always interesting going on trips

Government witchhunt against Toyota

Alan Chapman — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:33:45 GMT

I'm sure everyone has heard about this in the news.

The government has been hassling Toyota over floormats, break pedals, accelerators, and now steering.

Recalls and class-action lawsuits are expected to cost Toyota over $3 billion.

More people have been killed in government drug raids and helicopter crashes in Iraq and Afghanistan than as a result of alleged mechanical problems in Toyotas.

This is nothing but a politically motivated witchhunt intended to benefit General Motors and labor unions.

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic/Any Philosophical Bronies?

Morse Code Stutters — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:23:56 GMT

Yeah you read that correctly. For those who don't know, there's this huge phenomenon where teenage to middle aged men (and of course some adult females) are becoming die hard fans of the kids cartoon My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Although aimed towards little girls, there's a huge appreciation coming from such an unintended audience who are now creating remixes of the show's music and are also generating original animation in its style, art, and fan fiction. Anything you can think of, there is original content created based on the show. These people call themselves "Bronies" or "Pegasisters" and are pushing some comfort boundaries in society mainly because...for crap's sake the show is intended for little girls!

So you wonder, why is there such a huge following in the adult demographic? The easiest way I can put it is by comparing it to Disney Pixar movies like Toy Story. They are intended for little kids, but there's something meaningful to the script writing that is also mature, honest and intelligent on a level that even adults can connect with. Sometimes it's the adults who are the only ones who can pick up on the more personal themes presented, at least on a conscious level.

Basically, My Little Pony in its exterior looks just like any other kids cartoon, but if you watch it with an open mind--even if it doesn't turn out to be your cup of tea--you could still at least appreciate its unique art style, and the production value of the animation despite it being Flash. For those who decide to dig deeper, they can even appreciate the sense of humour and philosophical lessons taught within the context of friendship being "magic." And the best thing about is that it's not even as girly as you would expect where all the ponies just sit around and have tea all day while talking about the boys they like. They actually tackle some social issues, get into some serious conflicts as well as delve into self knowledge. I shit you not, FDR, this is one of the rare few cartoons where you could even find character development, which is also one of the bigger reasons why people are so drawn to it.

Of course such a group is under scrutiny by the likes of Fox News and other judgemental media that assume it's part of some hidden pedophile agenda or vast conversion to homosexuality, or just plain lack of maturity in the adult audience of the show. I think Bronies and Pegasisters are pretty brave people to remain comfortable with their interest in the show (the toylines is pushing it, but thats just my own personal bias), and are changing social norms without even taking action! They just BE who they are without much of a care what other people think.

I wanted to know if anyone else on this board enjoys this show, or has seen it and disliked it, or if anyone had any idea about it at all. I'm also interested if people could debunk the psychology and rationality behind it to be some sort of mental dysfunction, or hell if it's even a positive thing that this things going on and it is absolutely okay to enjoy something so simple, yet so profound.

We are all One

Mishelle — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:28:07 GMT

Dear Stephan and all,

I'd love to hear your views and have a discussion on the ever-present "New Age" ideal of "we are all One" that is closely related to "love your enemies". While I understand the motivation behind this is peaceful and well-intentioned it seems to me it further feeds a tyrannical system. I can feel empathy for those perpetrating abuse, knowing of their suffering, but why must I identify with them as if they are me? Or as if somehow by loving them they will change from that love? I hope you'll help me see what I am missing here!

The Contrarian Principle

Indefiance — Fri, 17 May 2013 05:26:13 GMT

Hey all, Just wrote something down and thought I would share it. I haven't ever heard these particular ideas articulated before, but if you have then I would be interested to know. I suppose you could call this an intuition which I explored in-depth and tried to dig out all the axioms and logical conclusions, and then present it in a way that the logic becomes inescapable. I see a number of ways it could be wrong or over generalized, but I thought I would ask for feedback anyway. Without further ado:

The Contrarian Principle

1. Individuals in a society nearly universally agree that society itself is not optimal in some fashion. The specifics of their disagreement with 'society' at large are irrelevant .

2.Since nearly all members of society agree to this imperfection in some or many aspects, and readily agree that there is at least some level of sub-par activity, they also implicitly must agree that to the precise degree that society is imperfect or sub-par that at least some portion of societies members must also be contributing to society in an imperfect or sub-par fashion. The more that is wrong, the more societies individual members must be wrong.

3. There are nearly infinite methods of being wrong or incorrect, and a limited and finite number of ways to be correct. For simplicity sake, we may call these correct philosophies, or incorrect philosophies. Reality is the final arbiter however, and the level of incorrectness passed down will never supersede the person's ability to survive because such a philosophy will be self-destructive and will not be passed on to the next generation.

4. Since the number of correct philosophies is finite, and the number of incorrect philosophies for all intents and purposes infinite, the number of correct philosophies is vanishingly small compared to the number of incorrect. Because of this, if given by pure chance, almost all random philosophies will be nearly completely incorrect.

5. Because Most all humans are given their personal philosophies based on pure chance from their accident of birth locations and culture (far far more common than we would like to admit), we can virtually guarantee that all members of society have incorrect in part or whole philosophies by which they act upon. The chances that any one individual has a completely correct personal philosophy is also virtually zero. The chances are far greater for the majority of societies individuals to have a completely incorrect personal philosophy where said philosophy doesn't impair their ability to survive completely.

6. Since nearly all members of society agree that society is sub-par, and because we can see that the likelihood of being right even in part is vanishingly small, then all members of society implicitly must agree that the majority of all societies members are wrong in whole or in part which is what leads to the sub-par un-optimal behavior they take issue with. They must further admit that the likelihood of their own world-view being somehow 1 in 10 trillion and somehow completely correct is next to impossible, and furthermore that is far more likely that they are completely wrong on the vast majority of their beliefs along with everyone else.

Conclusion: Because of these deductions, I think it is fair to conclude a few things.

- This line of reasoning invalidates nearly all religions, political parties, and cultures.

-At any given point in time, the majority opinions of society on any given subject are far more likely to be wrong then correct.

- Our own world-view must be the first suspect and receive the most scrutiny since we are not somehow magically special or exempt from logic, reason and evidence no matter how much we may wish it.

- Those who take a pro-active approach using rigorous logic and appeal to reality through empirical evidence will greatly improve their ability to discern the correct methods of conduct and by extension their world-view and if consistent over time they will be more in-line with correct philosophy i.e., truth.

-In the past, only small minorities have done this, The vast majority of people will never take this approach. (this is a different subject however).

- This means, the likelihood of finding 'Truth' in majority viewpoints is unlikely and close to impossible as it concerns any field of endeavor that doesn't adhere to rigorous standards of logic and empirical evidence.

- Since political maneuvering as a general rule is anti-logic and anti-evidence and more about human power structure's, the more political an organization becomes, the less likely that it will be able to recognize or implement truth. This includes all organizations, including ones originally based on the principles of science.

-Lastly, This is the contrarian viewpoint justified since it implies and supports the intuitive notion that majority opinion is nearly always wrong, especially when logic and evidence are not strictly adhered to and political maneuvering gets in the way. It also clearly suggests that the best place to look for truth is with the minority opinions, but always with a critical eye even then.

Bitcoin Miners from ButterflyLabs

fzu — Sat, 18 May 2013 23:09:37 GMT

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone had experience with the BTC miners by ButterFlyLabs. Has anyone purchased one of their rigs and/or recieved one?

I am considering the 5GH/s or the 25GH/s model. The "products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final." concerns me though.

Regards,

Questions about your interview with stormcloudsgathering and property rights

saltyd — Sun, 19 May 2013 01:01:10 GMT

First of all, I wanted to clear up what I think is an error in your explanation of how Blackwater (or I guess we're supposed to call it Xe now) functions. I don't remember the exact words that were used, but you characterized Blackwater as a monstrosity that only exists because of state support. That isn't true. They also work in the private sector, most notably on targetting anti-Monsanto activists for surveillance. In the absence of a state Blackwater would continue to function as they do now, with even less scrutiny because the contracts with them would be private information.

Secondly, I was hoping you could comment on your show about what I think is one of the major flaws of market "anarchism," which is the failure to discuss how private property was obtained in the first place. Forgive me if you've already done this, because I haven't listened to every episode.

I understand that "anarcho-capitalists" (which I'm putting in quotes to avoid the unproductive discussion about whether or not the term "anarchist" applies) regard property as sacred. But this view doesn't take into account the fact that the distribution of property around the world is a result of centuries of state intervention. The state (along with its private armies of landowners) has used every kind of violence imaginable to concentrate property in the hands of a wealthy elite. To simply say, "Hey, you have to respect property rights," ignores all of this history.

The Homestead Act of 1862 gave U.S. citizens 162 acres of free land to farm as they saw fit, irregardless of the fact that they had no right to it. Today a lot of their descendents in places like South Dakota still own this land that has been passed down and expanded on for generations. Do their property rights take precedence over the Lakotas?

And, of course, after World War 2 the GI bill gave returning veterans low-interest loans for buying homes in the suburbs. But because of restrictive covenants black veterans couldn't use these loans in the same way that their white counterparts had. This was one of the major factors that shaped housing patterns that continue to this day.

Today you have the same thing going on even more blatantly in Colombia where paramilitaries hired by U.S. corporations are pushing people off their land to make way for palm oil plantations or Chiquita. While these groups of thugs work with the state, the state is hardly neccessary for them to survive. The state is just the middleman, and if the entire Colombian government were to disappear overnight the situation would continue.

Anarchism takes a stance against capitalist private property for exactly these reasons. To call a society "free" without abolishing both hierarchy and private property is an exercise in wishful thinking. While anarchism seeks to eliminate all forms of opression, "anarcho-capitalism" just seeks to privatize them.

A show with John F. Hunt - physician and author

bones — Sun, 19 May 2013 02:22:47 GMT

I think Stephan could do a great show with John F. Hunt. He is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia who recently gave up his clinical duties out of dissatisfaction with the current state of government regulation. He has recently published a novel called, "Assume the Physician," that should interest anyone who is concerned about the increasing government involvement in health care. His publisher is Laissez-Faire. I think in particular his views would be of interest to FDR listeners as follows:

1. The increasing government involvement in medicine is not only in the form of how care is delivered, but what research is funded and who gets to do it. Hunt is a tenured professor and researcher who also happens to be unique in being a libertarian. The fact that he's a very rare bird to be a medical school professor is of interest in and of itself...

2. There is a prescribed ethic within the medical community as to how people should be treated that stands in many ways in stark contrast to how libertarians, anarchists, voluntaryist (you get the drift) would wish to be treated. I think these are very compelling questions that are often addressed on the show, on which Hunt can shed a different light. Specifically, the treatment of children (vaccines come to mind), which is a common argument I hear against voluntarist philosophies.

Lee

"To Judge or Not to Judge?" A conversation on Moralistic thinking, The lonliness of some FDR members, and learning new tools for rehabilitating poor relationships

LovePrevails — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:44:45 GMT

Hello, I think the conversation I link to in this post is very worthy of the attention of FDR board members
Please spare the time to listen to it it gets progressively more into the nitty gritty as it goes on
I did not just ask soft-ball questions

Further to this discussion:

Marc Moini:
LovePrevails:

On Moralistic thinking:

"Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compared to sounds, colours, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind"

- David Hume

in light of what Hume says there is every reason to say "When you ...commit such and such an action.... I feel..... such and such a feeling..... because I need..... such and such a condition to thive..... therefor I'd like you to..... comply with such and such a request..... so that each of us can better thrive",

and it is cetrainly an effective approach when it comes to people who are interested in pleasing you,

however,

when someone does make a judgement that something is "evil" say, or any moralistic judgement,
they are doing it according to certain criteria which perhaps they have not defined or outlined

So when I say someone is kind, it means I have seen them give of themselves for others and I have enjoyed the feeling I have felt when I have

that leads me to conclude they are kind

if I say someone is evil

I am saying that too often have I seen them putting their own self interest before that of others
and when called upon to examine their behaviour they refuse to do so, and I find the experience very unpleasant

If we are agreed that these are ways of saying the same thing, are we better then to discuss which of these ways promotes greater hapiness

Hi LovePrevails, thank you for the David Hume quote, yes, morality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Except one brings pleasure while the other only brings sorrow.

And I completely agree with your reasoning and your conclusion.

Best wishes,

Marc

In the following conversation I quiz Marc on why he thinks that FDR could benefit from trying out some new tools before turning their back on certain relationships:

http://marcmoini.com/fdr/Antony_Marc_1mar13.mp3

I was very satisfied with the conversation, please feedback.

Hello from California

TommyK — Sun, 19 May 2013 00:01:40 GMT

Hello, all.

I am not particularly good at talking about myself, but I'll share a little bit of my journey to this board.

I identified as a libertarian because of the talk radio host Brian Wilson in my early college years. I was a member of the Cal (Berkeley) Libertarians in college. I interned at the Cato Institute when I was in college for a semester. Subscribed to Reason magazine, etc.

Then I read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard in grad school. While I remember thinking it didn't answer all my questions, it was the closest I had ever come to accepting the possibility of a society without a State.

After that I was pretty much on board with market-anarchism. I toyed with voting for a little while after that, especially in the 2008 Republican primary so I could vote for Ron Paul, and then against Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage), and then for Prop 19 (pot legalization). I didn't vote in the 2012 election and will not ever vote again. I've woken up fully.

I discovered FDR about six months ago, I think because of an interview Stephan did with ReasonTV. I really appreciate how well-put his arguments are. I think I've been struggling for most of my adult life for a consistent philosophy to apply to my world-view. The way Stephan reasons and is able to bring everything back to non-agression wins every time for me.

I have yet to read his books, but I am eager to find the time for UPB from what I've heard about it on the podcasts. I probably would benefit from reading Real-Time Relationships as well.

My childhood was as normal (in a good way) as it could have been. My parents are good people, as are my sisters and grandparents. I was raised Catholic (but never really threatened with damnation), and I always had a healthy dose of skepticism. My family seemed to go to church simply because that was what they always had done and known. I finally concluded I was an atheist in college while getting a degree in medieval history.

One thing I've been thinking about in the last few weeks is whether or not I should proactively engage my family (who I don't see very often, as they all live six hours away) in discussions of my anarchism and moreso my atheism. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be surprised by my anarchism, but I think my mom especially would be disturbed by me openly telling her of my atheism. I think it would only upset her and why would I want to that? Our relationship is fine and I don't think the religion in my childhood was abusive in any way to me. I'm happy to go on ignoring the subject.

I'm excited to join this community and to meet and communicate with like-minded people!

(I guess I did have a lot to write after all.)

Tommy

are anarchists the only legitimate opponents of rape?

SimonF — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:33:47 GMT

If rape is simply 1 example of a power-over relationship, and statism another, then are we anarchists the only critics of rape who are not hypocrits?

I don't like arsenic in my medicine

anarchistjoe — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:43:06 GMT

So, I get this argument repeatedly when I discuss anarchism with people that don't seem to really have a good grasp on how the market works. It goes something like 'if there was no government all food would be poisoned, all medicine would be poisoned, airplanes would fall out of the sky, etc..." I am sure many of you have heard this before. How do you usually respond? what free market mechanisms could control this? I would like to focus on ensuring the safety of food and medicine in a free market way.

Selecting a therapist

BaylorPRSer — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:44:42 GMT

I am a 24-year-old male living in Houston, TX and have come to the conclusion that I could benefit greatly from therapy. I do not know what to look for in a therapist or what kind of therapist I need. Does anyone have any advice? Would it help if I outlined what some of my personal issues are?

The "you can always leave" argument

BrentMcCulloch — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:12:34 GMT

Hi All,

I was just wondering if anyone knows where i can find Stefan's response to the common "you can always leave" statist argument? I imagine he's gone over it a few times, but i'm having trouble finding it. Having a discussion with a friend about it, and i'd like to review Stefan's perspective.

Thanks kindly!

Determinism

arcturus — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:30:17 GMT

I know this is a forbidden topic on here, but I'm going to say what I have to say and if I get shut down, so be it.

I support Stefan's work. I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on. Except determinism.

Now imo, Stef has based his entire philosophy (or at least thinks he has) on the idea that Free Will is true. ie. if everything is determined then what are choices? And how can there be a right or wrong?

I ultimately go with evidence. All evidence points to the world being deterministic. Apparently if I think this I have some kind of mental problem, or childhood problem according to Stef? Could he or someone please elaborate on this? I will say that I have been psychologically abused and bullied by my mother my entire life so I'm obviously a damaged person. But if I pretty much agree with Stef on everything else, I'm not sure how it is affecting me negatively when I only really disagree with him on determinism. Almost seems to be an ad hominem. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing...

I think if Stef can't incorporate determinism into his philosophy then ultimately someone else will come along who can. Shouting people down works for awhile, but it will fail in the end.

What does determinism mean for libertarianism/anarchism? I really don't know. I don't have the intellectual capability to figure it out. But I can't pretend that the magical free will exists either. I wish I could figure it out. I feel like there must be a way to fit it but I'm stumped atm. I know it can't just mean saying obviously any bad thing was going to happen and we should just accept bad things as well as good things. That's obviously not true. That just gives an excuse for bad people to do whatever they want. But beyond that, I'm stumped.

And I wonder if Stef is as stumped but doesn't want to admit it. Only thing is man, you'll get caught out by the truth in the end. Best to face it head on.

Immortality and anarchism

Pacal_II — Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:02 GMT

Stef and many people on this forum claim that peacefull parenting is the best way to achieve a stateless society, and that this would be a multi-generational process. So what effect would biological immortality have on this. I won't be going in to all the reasons why biological immortality is possible because that's not the point. Just write in michio kaku, ray kurzweil or aubrey de grey + immortality in google and youtube. So according to some of these predictions we might achieve biological immortality available to most people in 30 years. What does would mean is that we're stuck theoretically forever with people who were beaten, abused and propagandised by the state. Even though new children would be born the old generations would not pass, and also we see a tendency in developed countries of less children being born. Which would mean that the older generation could possible stay the majority for a pretty long time. So I ask, what effect would this have on our society? Would it mean that our progression towards anarchy would be slowed down.

In my opinion it won't, but that's because peacefull parenting and improving relations isn't in my opinion the main way to achieve anarchy. Or rather it is, but rather as an effect of something else which is more in our control, which is technology. In my opinion it's thanks technology, which leads and has lead us towards improvements in our societies. Basically it as a means which effeciently helps us fulfill our needs and thanks to that people don't feel the nead to use agression in your lives. So in a society with cheap food, medicine, housing and a society where most labour is automatic parents will be less stressed out and will have more time and patience for their children and in effect it will help them raise them peacefully and philosophically. On the other hand brain augmentation might help grown up people with reflection and self-knowledge practically avoiding the pain and huge amounts of time consumed involved with therapy and self-reflection. In the end the passing of generations won't be required for the progress of society because we'll find ways to improve our lives here and now, rendering governement and possibly violence and psychopathy absolete.

Hello world!

Skreimey — Fri, 10 May 2013 00:50:15 GMT

Hello everyone.

My name is Sam Kreimeyer, and I was first introduced to Stefan Molyneux and his online publications back around 2008 through a close friend I had while studying mining engineering at CSM in Golden, Colorado. I have been a proponent of small government and considered myself a Libertarian since my high school years, and I made the transition to being an anarchist after meeting the friend I mentioned previously and educating myself on his (a)political viewpoint. Honestly, I had never previously known that such a thing as an anarcho-capitalist even existed (I espoused the common stereotype of anarchists as molotov throwing communists with a penchant for punk rock and a vaguely defined resentment of corporations). Reading more the works of Rothbard, Mises and Bastiat was what really gave me the impetus to evaluate my ethical views and distill them to the conclusion that an anarchistic society, or at least a voluntaristic government, are the only possible moral means of social organization.

Full disclosure: I am a medic in the US Army stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC. Essentially, I am one of the bad guys, but I hope you all won't see any of my comments or contributions as poisoned with insincerity. The story of how I came to be here is a long one, but the gist is that, despite being familiar with the legend of Faust, I made my own pact with the devil to predictable consequences.

I greatly admire the work being done at FDR, and I am very excited after a long absence from the listening community to see how much Stefan's work and ideas have progressed (especially when it comes to framing people's worldview in the context of childhood experience [I couldn't agree more on the importance!]). I hope I can contribute some useful thoughts here in the community, and I look forward to seeing what other like minded individuals have to say about their own experiences and ideas.

Thrive--The Movie

David L — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:27:00 GMT

I'd be interested in getting constructive commentary from the forum on this film, which is two hours in length. It is a movie dedicated to exploring a very large-scale paradigm shift that, in many regards does seem to be in the making, and is much larger than say the Zeitgeist movement. Please view the entire movie before commenting. Thanks!

Thrive --The Movie

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2LGmZ_EP4&feature=related

Addendum: Just found this version: http://vimeo.com/32154293

Italian State police propaganda video

Renza — Sat, 18 May 2013 09:16:12 GMT

The world would be dangerous and grey without the care of the State police!

http://youtu.be/3thEZ9HdPk4

(Please visit the site to view this media)

The Scientific Definition of Life

huttnedu — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:27:54 GMT

Here's a great article I found which provides an unambiguous, non-contradictory definition of life.

From the article:

Original Article:
What is life? What could this term possibly refer to?

a) An entity? If so, which one? Should we go on an expedition to compile a list?

b) A process? If so, what specific process distinguishes life from all other processes?

Even though Cosmologists are searching for life and Biologists are handling it, none of them can define this seemingly elusive term. They complain that it’s very challenging to define it, their brains hurt from thinking about it and it’s unfair to make such unreasonable demands of them. Why don’t we just give these poor fellas a break then? Nonetheless, Biologists have concluded that life is one of those terms that cannot be defined or understood. That’s why they can’t tell you whether DNA or viruses are alive; or whether DNA is the building block of life. When you can’t define, you have no clue.

This article will rationally define life in no ambiguous or contradictory terms so it can be used consistently in Science. The reader will understand that the term ‘life’ is a concept alluding to what is inherently dynamic. So whatever definition we can critically reason, it must necessarily describe the dynamic criterion that is common to all living entities in the Universe; whether we know about them or not.

I hope you'll check it out, it's a great paper.

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Scientific-Definition-of-LIFE

Dayna Martin and Family on Wife Swap

Nchambers42 — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:51:04 GMT

Dayna Martin and Family on Wife Swap

http://www.hulu.com/watch/477628

Yuck: a short documentary of school food

Brad Sherard — Sat, 18 May 2013 02:32:58 GMT

http://www.yuckmovie.com/

Here is one particular scene that exemplifies what the modern american public school children are given to eat: http://vimeo.com/64607150#at=0

What interests me about this is not so much the food; I'm already well aware how terrible it is(we joked as children about the FSA classification for cafeteria food being 'suitable for human consumption but not recommended'). I find the disparity of knowledge between people more fascinating. There is the younger generation and those who had grown up poor that take this knowledge for granted that even the worst fast food would be healthier and far tastier than the stuff they serve in schools. Then there is the older generations and the rich who are not aware of how bad things have become in the years since they were in school. The ossification of the 'service' of molding children by the hands of state protected monopolies on labor has become so complete now that quality is not even a consideration except in so far as it must be hidden from society. This is so obvious now that it takes an almost active will and participation with the liars to be mislead to not see how bad things are becoming.

It is rather disgusting to witness the self-reinforced ignorance of these sheltered people, hiding from knowledge much like stunted Epsilons accepting the sweet nothings whispered by frauds such as Oprah and these celebrity chefs selling snake oil stories. These con artists are so unashamed that they smear their logos, brands and faces across the very products that confess their crimes. Hardly anyone even blinks an eye at this wretched behavior. All the while, children are being cast into this meat grinder where they are poisoned with bad food and worse ideas.

Many I've shown this video to shrug and say 'tell me something I don't know' but others become almost hysterical, saying things like 'so and so should be fired' and 'we need such and such school investigated immediately'. I point out that is it systemic, not particular to a single school and certainly not at odds with the incentives of the system and then the response becomes 'we need a law'. I wonder if third party self defense includes truth-avoiding tools of the state who do everything they can to rationalize the sacrifice of kids at the alter of ignorant convenience.

Family Guy Doctrine: Love but not Like

Existing Alternatives — Mon, 06 May 2013 21:20:44 GMT

Ok, I do watch Family Guy on occasion, so what!?

In one of the episodes Peter (main character) has a hear-to-heart conversation with Francis, his adoptive strict and distant father. To Peter’s relief it turns out that Francis LOVES him, just does NOT LIKE him. As serious as the format of the cartoon allows for, it is an interesting concept, which seems to gain some traction with many of my friends that I watched the episode with (no, there weren’t that many). According to my friends it is perfectly normal to have loving feelings towards your family, even though you don’t like them as individuals. What do you make of that?

Philosophical Questions, Basis of Humanity, Property Rights, Ownership

masonkiller — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:41:41 GMT

After a long discussion with some people about property rights, we ended up having quite an interesting discussion about the foundations of property rights, and, while a decent theory of property rights doesn't necessarily require a 100 percent fleshed out understanding of these things, I think it makes fun food for thought, and I'd love to see what your responses are to this. Before I made this post I rewatched Stef's videos on property rights to be reminded of the axioms he puts forth.

1. Why does exhibiting use mean ownership? Why does "use" of my body = "ownership" of my body? This is the one that I am most confused about. If I say to you "there is no such thing as self-ownership," I am using this body to say that, but that doesn't mean I am exhibiting ownership, only use. I don't understand how one could equate these.

2. Why does self-ownership imply ownership of the results of one’s labor?

3. If we assume you do own the results of your labor, do you not own at least part of a child, considering it was created by you, and contains half of your chromosomes? Do you lose ownership once it becomes conscious (the body comes under his control)? In that case, does somebody else's control of a thing switch the ownership of it to him?

4. If you own the results of your labor, how does homesteading really work? Like, do you only own the exact soil, rocks, and trees that you modified? How deep down into the ground do you own the land if you, say, farm it?

5. Does the land have to be "improved" for you to own it? If you "homestead" by running a bulldozer through the soil, tearing everything up, and continue to do this once every while, do you own this?

6. (This one I have heard before, but it is an interesting question). If I homestead a relatively small island, building a fence around it but doing nothing to the interior, do own all the land (my opinion is that you only own the land where the fence was built, so you own kind of a "band" around the island)

7. If I build a house on the island in question 6, but do nothing to the land between the house and the fence, can somebody build another house right next to mine, since I have done nothing with that land?

Also, if you have any good book suggestions which provide insights into this topic please suggest them, I can add them to my reading list

Latest Slice of my Life

alex.stan — Mon, 06 May 2013 21:57:26 GMT

A friend of mine sent me a video on YouTube about half a year ago. I can't say I did not have doubts, prior to watching the video, about very basic things like th e way I was raised and my interactions with other people and sometimes even the political system that was always talked about and reiterated by my father. I started out with the stuff not tangible to me like government and other problems that it causes. But there were so many podcast and videos on parenting and once I started going through them, and as well interpersonal relationships, I just could not stop despite the many contradictions that I would notice in my friendships and most of all my family relationship. It's been quite the emotional roller-coaster and recently just a stalemate between the idea of leaving my parents and staying to only gain the security that is not offered to me. I was listening some weeks ago to the podcast on how to leave your abusive family, and I could see that I was already trying to tell them the truth about even basic preferences that I had, and how violent my father reacted to them. I can see how my fear plays the biggest role in leaving this environment but there is just so many question of what could happen to my brother of 8 years, in the abusive environment that I would not be able to at least comfort him from.

I think I made the donation after listening to that podcast, it has been past overdue and to be honest, I just need to be truthful and stop defending my father and my mother, by not participating in their behaviour. I just never imagined how problamatic the way I was raised was in my seeking out of relationships; thus why I have kept trying to improve my relationships with my friends by reasearching ways that I could improve from my side. Or at least that was my approach back a few years ago; I was in the wrong and all my anxiety came from always thinking I was in the wrong with my interactions. But the more I listened to Stef's podcasts the more I would realize how mostly every body around me had their own problems and showed huge favoratism towards beliefs that would favor them more despite the truth-value of the arguments that we were having. I guess that is how my parents sabotaged my ability to create rational and moral friendships.

I'm 21 now with some skills, but with some very bad decisions such as a college degree that I have not yet finished and that I find no will or passion towards. I am looking for a job, so that I can depart from my parents. It's been quite a pain, to even do that and maybe I have not placed my whole effort into it. I don't even understand why, but I have an educated guess that there is quite a struggle between my true self and my false self, as from the argument presented by Stefan.

I'm here now and open to any arguments about the truth.