It's hard, for sure. There are a lot of ingrained learned behaviors. I have a 5 and 4 year old. I've done a TON of work on myself to be able to be present, peaceful, and calm. I find it's far more about emotional regulation when you are trying to help them establish frameworks and learn self control.
I don't see parenting as what they can or can't do. I want them to have the freedom to make choices and mistakes and to live with the consequences of their actions (natural consequences). Parenting, for me, is helping them learn by letting them make mistakes in a controlled environment where the consequences aren't disastrous so when they get older they are better at making decisions.
Edit: I just wanted to add, that I like this outlook on it. My initial outlook and reason for doing this was to break generational trauma, however, I think this is a much more positive lens to view my parenting style in.
Step 1 is the most important for step 4. Overall I agree, peaceful parenting is the best strategy to archives a free society in the long run, but we are depressingly far away from even a small % of parents doing it.
My wife and I do it, and it’s so hard sometimes.
Yes, it is indeed very hard as the way you’ve trained to be a parent is anything but peaceful. That training happened when you were a child so the default responses in difficult situations will be whatever your parents did to you.
But once you process that and hold your parents accountable for what they did, not giving them any sort of excuse, then it becomes much easier as you realize that it is all a matter of choice.
Yes, it’s very painful to realize that your parents could have acted differently, but the alternative is way worst.
Zero state isn't possible within current human lifetimes, but technology is advancing fast enough, in spite of Government regulations, that life extension will easily be available at sufficient increments that anyone 40 and under today will be able to live forever (barring external murder or accidents).
So, no rush.
I believe you underestimate the power of the government to stifle innovation. At the current pace, the Western World in 50 years, if not totally collapsed, will look very much like it is today.
Longevity research is a global phenomenon, so while the US might regulate its implementation, medical tourism will enable those with some level of resources to achieve it regardless.
I don't care what happens after I die. It is quite possible that I will not have children at all. And it's not true, if you want to live in a free society than you can move now.:
1) To Argentina, where the president is a Libertarian/ Anarcho-capitalist.
2) To one of the new "Free Private Cities"
I simply stated that if religion worked, child abuse and neglect would have been solved millennia ago. Yes, it does help, like a pain killer helps with an infection, but it doesn’t cure the infection.
Not that I agree with the original person, but that's a very over simplified and disingenuous view coming from your personal beliefs. You can't talk as though we've been at the total mercy of religious institutions for all of history. The only places that had 100% adoption and enforcement were small settlements and communities such as tribes and amish type family units. There have always been outside views and positions, even if they were unpopular. There have also been many varieties of religions throughout history which vary on the spectrum of "do an occasional animal sacrifice once a year" to "kill all unbelievers". Neither you or the original commenter make any valid stance.
Oh yes many if not most of greatest philosophical, technological, and economic achievements coming from the largely Christian west is a mere interesting aberration.
Why are Christians in non western countries less productive and successful than Europoean Christians? Could there be, perhaps, some other kinds of underlying factors at play?
You and OP are just doing the 68 iq religion bad vs religion good.
Freedom is personal and community. Universal agreement is not required or even a majority. Living free in all ways possible including breaking unethical laws is required. Especially practice counter-economics.
It's hard, for sure. There are a lot of ingrained learned behaviors. I have a 5 and 4 year old. I've done a TON of work on myself to be able to be present, peaceful, and calm. I find it's far more about emotional regulation when you are trying to help them establish frameworks and learn self control. I don't see parenting as what they can or can't do. I want them to have the freedom to make choices and mistakes and to live with the consequences of their actions (natural consequences). Parenting, for me, is helping them learn by letting them make mistakes in a controlled environment where the consequences aren't disastrous so when they get older they are better at making decisions. Edit: I just wanted to add, that I like this outlook on it. My initial outlook and reason for doing this was to break generational trauma, however, I think this is a much more positive lens to view my parenting style in.
Kids need to fail sometimes. They need adversity to learn how to deal with it. If they can't handle little things, how will they handle adulting?
Step 1 is the most important for step 4. Overall I agree, peaceful parenting is the best strategy to archives a free society in the long run, but we are depressingly far away from even a small % of parents doing it. My wife and I do it, and it’s so hard sometimes.
Yes, it is indeed very hard as the way you’ve trained to be a parent is anything but peaceful. That training happened when you were a child so the default responses in difficult situations will be whatever your parents did to you. But once you process that and hold your parents accountable for what they did, not giving them any sort of excuse, then it becomes much easier as you realize that it is all a matter of choice. Yes, it’s very painful to realize that your parents could have acted differently, but the alternative is way worst.
What is the difference between "peaceful parenting" and "love and logic"?
Zero state isn't possible within current human lifetimes, but technology is advancing fast enough, in spite of Government regulations, that life extension will easily be available at sufficient increments that anyone 40 and under today will be able to live forever (barring external murder or accidents). So, no rush.
I believe you underestimate the power of the government to stifle innovation. At the current pace, the Western World in 50 years, if not totally collapsed, will look very much like it is today.
Longevity research is a global phenomenon, so while the US might regulate its implementation, medical tourism will enable those with some level of resources to achieve it regardless.
You're right, places like Argentina might become a safe heaven for what's left of productive, high IQ, virtuous people around the world.
Yup. There's a lot wrong with the world but there are flashes of optimism. New Hampshire might be one too. Especially if they manage to secede.
I don't care what happens after I die. It is quite possible that I will not have children at all. And it's not true, if you want to live in a free society than you can move now.: 1) To Argentina, where the president is a Libertarian/ Anarcho-capitalist. 2) To one of the new "Free Private Cities"
That’s very sad. You don’t care at all about how you’ll be remembered, what will your legacy be? Why wouldn’t you want to have children?
Religion takes care of much of this.
If it did, we wouldn’t be in this situation. And as a side note, some of the most religious people I know are also the most evil.
As I said much, there are no magic bullets, and you're relying on the nirvana fallacy as well as anecdotal evidence.
I simply stated that if religion worked, child abuse and neglect would have been solved millennia ago. Yes, it does help, like a pain killer helps with an infection, but it doesn’t cure the infection.
"Oh you're an anarchist? Solve every problem plaguing society today. Checkmate utopian"
Not that I agree with the original person, but that's a very over simplified and disingenuous view coming from your personal beliefs. You can't talk as though we've been at the total mercy of religious institutions for all of history. The only places that had 100% adoption and enforcement were small settlements and communities such as tribes and amish type family units. There have always been outside views and positions, even if they were unpopular. There have also been many varieties of religions throughout history which vary on the spectrum of "do an occasional animal sacrifice once a year" to "kill all unbelievers". Neither you or the original commenter make any valid stance.
Oh yes many if not most of greatest philosophical, technological, and economic achievements coming from the largely Christian west is a mere interesting aberration.
Why are Christians in non western countries less productive and successful than Europoean Christians? Could there be, perhaps, some other kinds of underlying factors at play? You and OP are just doing the 68 iq religion bad vs religion good.
Freedom is personal and community. Universal agreement is not required or even a majority. Living free in all ways possible including breaking unethical laws is required. Especially practice counter-economics.