Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters. He'll get his due in another 12 years or so. Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone. It's possible you could be safe though. It might not happen this generation. Maybe. Don't worry -- he'll get lots of uncomfortable Thanksgivings with the kids he abused. I know what he won't get: a meaningful and deep relationship with the victims of his abuse. |
|
|
|
I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article. I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.
Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself. In short, Bring it. You're an inexperienced fool. I can't believe this thread is still happening. There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of. Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy. Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass. Crypt_Current attacks other people because he hates the ideas they introduce. He has no arguments and nothing constructive to say -- only insults. I think we know what kind of parenting produces a damaged individual like that. I bet his parents or other authority figures dealt with his "troublesome thoughts" by shaming and insulting him. |
|
|
|
Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.
I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic. Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea. I was not arguing, I was calling him pathetic. He did not made any argument. I am not interested to guess what is his argument. Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject? Because hate. He hates you and me and everyone else who presents ideas that scare him. He has issues and he chooses to soothe his emotions by attacking and insulting others rather than by actually choosing to heal. That's why. |
|
|
|
Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.
I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic. Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea. Augustocrappo's is the standard childish conversation sabotage tactic. He needs to learn how to get get the peanut butter out of his ears before he can sit at the big boys' table and interact with them. |
|
|
|
Hitler was a sociopath, but most of the people who followed him were normal folk (volk?).
Anyone can be a fascist, but it takes a special sort of sociopath to become their leader.
This is a fairly interesting statement. The author Robert Altemeyer from the university of Manitoba wrote a book called The Authoritarians (IMHO a MUST READ) about precisely this dynamic: - Authoritarians are the petty scum that follow and worship authorities blindly - Social Dominants (what Stef calls "sociopaths") are the authorities that authoritarians worship To establish fascism, one group needs the other, and vice versa. It should come as no surprise that Altemeyer has discovered what traits make a person a member of any of those groups, and how terrifyingly high the modern time's incidence of Social Dominance and Authoritarianism is. The asshats in this forum that collude to try and sabotage voluntaryist conversations (augustocrappo, blatherblatherblather, firstascent, I'd give you the whole list but I'm lazy) are almost assuredly Authoritarians by Altemeyer's definition in his research. I personally talked to Stef about this book and the research in it when I interviewed him for the Decline to State episode posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA the intro is hilarious. |
|
|
|
You made this thread. I could care less for the video content. The description you made in the original post imply that sociopaths are fascists (or fascists are sociopaths). I am challenging you to explain what relates a political regime with a psychological disorder.
 Who the fuck are you to make demands? Hey! Don't challenge the great AugustoCroppo, lest you be scheduled for re-education.  Or worse, he might make a thread about you in the Meta section! Holy shit, that's right. I remember him doing that to me, trying to defame me there. He also wrote stalkerish PMs to me. He's a creeper. Ignore crappo. |
|
|
|
|
I watched part 2 (sociopaths) today as I drove to work in my T/A. It was a FANTASTIC video. As usual, Stef hits it out of the ballpark.
|
|
|
|
|
People,
Have you not noticed already that blahblahblah is an agitator whose activity in the forum almost solely consists of provoking voluntaryists?
Ignore him. Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
|
Subsidies are a form of regulation
Not legally. Yeah, I was talking about concepts derived from reality, not about what holy pieces of paper say. |
|
|
|
Nobodys freedom of movement is being restricted inside gaza... nobodys human rights are being violated or restricted by anyone inside gaza (except of course for muslim oppression of women).
That's part of the definition of "open-air prison" - throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. Just as long as they don't try to leave. I like how firefop invents this magical exclusionary criterion "if you can wander inside the area, the area is not a prison" that is entirely nonsensical. I guess only solitary confinement in chains qualifies as "prison" to him. Behehehe. |
|
|
|
It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.  Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason? LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan. That makes some sense when there is a lot of money to be had and the conditions are at least livable (I have known several Brits who spent a couple of uncomfortable years in Dubai and came back with their pockets stuffed with money). If you're living as a prisoner for a pittance and hanging off the outsides of a skyscraper cleaning windows with a rag and a spray-bottle, there's more to it. Myanmar currently has 90,000 internally displaced people and a large ethnic group that the government refuses to recognize as citizens (not illegal immigrants by my reading either). Plus a lot else besides.
There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.
Personally, I'd describe aspects of what you're telling me as downright evil. The people doing business as "government" in Singapore are fairly fucking evil, from what I've read that they do. |
|
|
|
Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.
Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises. I find it extremely amusing that cunicula thinks philosophy is so bad or useless, that it warrants being prefixed with the word "fucking". He obviously has no idea what philosophy is -- but he sure as hell hates it. Normal, as people who hate the truth can't do anything but hate philosophy. |
|
|
|
Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.
How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive? [Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.] Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard!  Exactly. In fact, it can be argued that imprisonment would be forcing children to go to a government indoctrination center. |
|
|
|
We won't run out of it any time soon. The earth's crust is estimated to contain over a trillion tons of thorium, where each ton is capable of producing a gigawatt-year of energy when burned in a LFTR. Compare this to the number of tons of coal a 1 GW power plant needs to consume in a year.
In fact, if you collected the ashes from a 1 GW coal power plant produced in the course of a year you'd find 13 tons of thorium.
In other words the usable energy content of coal is 93% nuclear and 7% chemical and right now we're completely ignoring the nuclear energy.
WAAAAAT. GIIIGAAA-WAAAAAT MEGA GYGA TERA WAAT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDVORKo8rYs |
|
|
|
The state still enforced criminal law and tax payment. They just did not think commercial law was the state's business. The standard interpretation is that lack of state intervention in Chinese commerce helps explain why Western countries got rich first.
So then, I guess (by extension) explaining why Western countries are now the first to get poor, while China is gets rich, merely involves pointing out that Western countries no longer regulate commerce, like $600 trillion in fraudulent derivatives for instance, and instead subsidize it. Subsidies are a form of regulation, if we are to understand that regulation means third-party intervention in other people's affairs. They're just a form of UP-regulation (incentive) rather than DOWN-regulation (threat of punishment). Just because the activity in question is regulated to generate MORE fraud, doesn't mean that the activity isn't being regulated. Meddling in other people's affairs ALWAYS brings unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
We won't run out of it any time soon. The earth's crust is estimated to contain over a trillion tons of thorium, where each ton is capable of producing a gigawatt-year of energy when burned in a LFTR. Compare this to the number of tons of coal a 1 GW power plant needs to consume in a year.
In fact, if you collected the ashes from a 1 GW coal power plant produced in the course of a year you'd find 13 tons of thorium.
In other words the usable energy content of coal is 93% nuclear and 7% chemical and right now we're completely ignoring the nuclear energy.
WAAAAAT. |
|
|
|
Thorium is almost three times more abundant than uranium, approximately as common as lead.
That's actually a lot of thorium. |
|
|
|
I guess what it comes down to is that corrupt liberal journalists like this woman... I see your point. It's not that Abby Martin's reporting lacks facts, you dislike her because she presents a political view you dislike. Exactly. Truths are bad if they contradict one's belief system. That is his mode of mental operation. You're missing the point as usual. What you're calling facts are an opinion. I dislike her because she presents opinions as though they were facts. Nono, on the contrary, what I call facts are facts (true statements about observable reality). What you say are opinions. And, of course, your dislike for her is logically irrelevant to whether she's right. But don't let my intervention here get in the way of the good defamation you're absort and engaged in. |
|
|
|
True unemployment in the US is around 50% (153 million working people out of 306 million people in the US). A large part of that is children and stay-at-home moms, sure, but I'm also certain a significant number of those people would like to work if they could. Instead, they're stuck in a never-ending loop of collecting welfare to survive instead of working a low-paying job and gaining experience to better themselves. All at the taxpayer's expense. Yay. You're seriously saying a significant number of children (including young children) want to work? Is this, like, so hard to believe? Are people in your country so thoroughly brainwashed that kids wanting to work appears baffling or incomprehensible to you? I worked when I was 14 because I wanted. I was doing software for an uncle already. I got paid, too. I worked at a factory. I walked around the factory whenever I wanted, and I learned the whole process. I even got to use the machines myself -- bandsaws, punch presses, a bunch of other machines that would be considered "dangerous" for a child. Was I a "child slave"? No offense, but to me, your question is like asking a rape victim "so why is it that you don't want to have sex?", because the answer is exceedingly obvious. Kids don't work today, by and large, because the State punishes and marginalizes people who allow kids to work in all but the most menial and poorly paid occupations. This is not a mystery -- you can go and look up the laws that prohibit and / or sabotage children and adolescents from being gainfully employed. If you're a kid looking for paid work but nobody wants to give you a job, it isn't because "people are evil" or "work is not for children" -- it's simply because anyone giving you a paid job gets threatened with jail. Only certain kinds of jobs are legal for adolescents (but not children!), and even then, there's mountains of paperwork, without which the employer gets put in a cage. By the way, you can thank union lobbyists for that -- they didn't want the cheap competition, so they had the competition outlawed. To me it's funny when people appeal to the State to "protect children from labor" -- the State was the very same criminal group of people who ruined work for adolescents who wanted or needed to work, and they did so exclusively to benefit a political class at the expense of everyone else. |
|
|
|
We are in the age of Statism. Like all other "ages", it seems it is the only way. This too shall pass.
Well said. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
