I’ve never seen such awesome slow-motion video of jumping, and these are insanely difficult cross-country fences. Alas, more than a few of these jumps are damn scary due to mistakes by the rider.

To see great cross-country ride, check out Andrew Nicholson on Quimbo, the winner of this year’s Rolex:

As you can see, that’s a long and demanding course — and it’s just one of three phases of the competition. His jumping phase is here, and his dressage phase is here.

On Sunday’s Radio Show, I’ll take the plunge, in that I’ll be answering a question on “open relationships.” Yikes!

If you’d like to read a bit more on the topic, I’d suggest that you start with Jason Stotts’ revised essay “On Polysexuality.” Here’s his summary:

Our language related to sex must be expanded to capture all of the variations that we see in real life. And we need to understand this because sex is good and a valuable part of a human life. The way we structure our relationships and sex lives has a lot of optionality that depends on the people in the relationship and can include multiple loving relationships or multiple sexual relationships, the right way for any particular couple may not be monosexual monoamory, and this would be fine because polysexuality and polyamory are natural and can be perfectly moral choices. As long as we observe some simple guidelines, leaving societally structured relationships and constructing our own can help us to live the best kind of lives possible.

I’m not sure that I’ll agree with Jason’s views, but I think the essay is worth a good look.

I’ve been highly sensitive to stress lately, so I’ve been working to identify and better manage various sources of stress in my life. I’ve noticed some obvious culprits, like inadequate sleep and travel. I was surprised, however, to discover that doing any new activity is a major source of stress for me.

For example, I recently took my first lesson on my horse Lila with a three-day-eventing trainer. Lila had to be in the horse trailer for longer than she’d ever been, stay calm without her stable buddy, and then work in a strange new location. I wasn’t sure that she’d do it. I had to drive the truck and trailer on the freeway, which I’d never done before, then find the stable. Once we arrived, I’d have to introduce myself to this new trainer and prepare Lila mentally and physically for the lesson. Also, it was my first jumping lesson in about 20 years, and I was nervous about whether I’d perform well or not and about whether I’d like the trainer.

In the week leading up to the lesson, I was anxious about pretty much everything about the lesson — about arriving at the right place on time, about Lila’s temper on arrival, about my performance during the lesson, and more. I was excited and hopeful about all that too. I’m easily bored, and I knew that Lila and I needed to stretch ourselves in new directions. Much to my delight, everything went fabulously well. Lila was surprisingly calm, the trainer was excellent, and I learned a ton.

Still — and this seems downright silly of me in retrospect — I didn’t realize just how stressful the whole experience was. I underestimated it — first, because it wasn’t work-related and second, because it went so well. As a result, I didn’t give myself the downtime that I really needed afterwards: I just pushed myself into more work and more stress without a break. That was a big mistake! As usual, good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.

So here’s my advice du jour: Pay attention to the myriad stressors in your life — particularly the stress of new challenges and new activities, whether at work or at play. Don’t pile up one stressor after another, or you won’t be able to keep doing your best!

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Should concealed carry permits be required to carry firearms concealed?

In the United States today, most states have “shall-issue” concealed carry laws, whereby the sheriff of a county must issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets the requirements. Those requirements usually include no history of criminal activity, no history of mental illness, and some training. However, two states permit “constitutional carry,” meaning that any law-abiding citizen has a right to carry a concealed firearm, without the need for a permit. Is requiring a “concealed carry” permit a violation of the right to self-defense? Or is “constitutional carry” a dangerous form of anarchy?

Is person responsible for his incapable sibling?

Imagine that your brother (or sister) is not capable of taking care of himself: he makes poor choices, he has poor work habits, and he is emotionally immature. Are you thereby responsible for him? Should you try to help as much as possible, so long as you don’t drag yourself down? Or should you refuse to help on the principle of “tough love,” even though that won’t help him take care of himself? If you take the latter approach, doesn’t that mean that you’re foisting the care for your sibling on society? Wouldn’t that be shirking your responsibilities as a sibling? Also, does your responsibility depend on whether your brother is incapable due to his own choices, as opposed to merely bad luck?

What’s wrong with the “marginal humans” argument against meat-eating?

Ayn Rand (in agreement with Aristotle) defined man as the rational animal – meaning that man’s essential quality is that he possesses the faculty of reason, while other animals do not. In debates about vegetarianism and animal rights, many advocates of eating meat try to use this distinction to justify raising animals to be killed and eaten. They say that animals have no rights because they are not rational, and hence, we can do whatever we please with them. Advocates of animals rights, however, reject this claim via the “marginal humans” argument. They observe that human infants lack the faculty of reason, and hence, we should not use that as the relevant moral criterion. What is wrong with this argument? Does the meat-eating viewpoint conflate potential with actual rationality, in that the infant seems potentially but not actually capable of reason? Is eating animals the same as eating human infants?

What would suicide be rational?

What conditions make suicide a proper choice? Are there situations other than a terminal illness or living in a dictatorship – such as the inability to achieve sufficient values to lead a happy life – that justify the act of suicide?

When is a relationship broken beyond repair?

Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that’s not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why?

Is philosophy deduced from axioms?

Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don’t see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from “existence exists”? But if that’s right, then what’s the purpose of the axioms?

Are spouses entitled to privacy with each other?

My wife thinks that she should have access to all my online accounts, including my email. I don’t have any secrets from her, and my email doesn’t contain anything scandalous. Still, I don’t want her prying into my conversations, and I don’t see that she has any reason to do so. I’ve never given her any reason to distrust me. Aren’t I entitled to some privacy online?

How would the poor obtain medical care in a free society?

In your May 12th, 2013 show, you discussed how EMTALA – the law that obliges emergency rooms and doctors to treat patients, regardless of ability to pay – violates the rights of doctors and results in worse care for the poor. But what is the alternative? How would the poor and indigent get medical care – if at all – in a society without government welfare programs? What if charity wasn’t sufficient?

What is the individualist response to claims about “white privilege”?

You recently published a blog entry entitled, “Personal Motives for Benevolence” where you introduced the idea that prejudice is often formed by favoritism and not overt bigotry. Clearly, favoritism can extend to race too, in the same way it extended to your example of “professor” vs “quilter.” So what is the proper response to advocates of “white privilege awareness” such as David Wise and David Sirota? David Sirota recently wrote a Salon.com article entitled “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” where he argued that culturally,”white terrorists” are treated as lone wolves, whereas Islamists are treated as existential threats. Semi-noted Objectivist hater David Wise wrote an article called “Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness” where he claims “White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.” What is the individualist answer to this collectivist viewpoint?

How should a young adult manage persistent differences with his family?

As I grew up, I turned out radically different from my family expected. They think college is necessary for success in life. I didn’t, and I dropped out. They eat the Standard American Diet and hate fat. I eat Paleo, and I glorify fat. And so on. Basically, we diverge on many points. I’ve never committed the mistake of attempting to preach to my family in order to persuade them, but many of them grew unduly concerned with these differences between us. They would argue with me on the subject for months, if not years, no matter what good results I had to show them. Assuming that the relationship is otherwise worth maintaining, how should an older child or young adult handle such contentious differences with his family? How can he best communicate his point of view to them — for example, on the question of college, after they’ve saved for two decades for his college education?

What is the proper relationship between ownership and control over property?

Today, politicians seem to want to reduce a person’s control over his property, such that it’s ever-closer to ownership in name only – such as by limiting the capacity of landowners to develop property. Also, selling plots of land on Mars would seem to be silly, given that no one controls that land. So what is the proper connection between a person’s ownership over his property and his control over that property? How does that principle affect proper principles for dealing with temporarily or permanently abandoned property?

Should individuals try to avoid online surveillance by the government?

In a recent comment thread on NoodleFood, there was a debate over the extent to which a person’s use of Internet tools such as cloud storage, password managers, wifi, smartphones, etc. exposes him to surveillance by the federal government. It seems to me that any serious effort to avoid using these tools would require forgoing many of the conveniences that make the Internet such a value – and there is still no guarantee that such avoidance would stop the government from spying on you. Since our government does have many improper powers, but it is nowhere close to being a dictatorship, is there any value in curtailing one’s everyday Internet activities to avoid surveillance?

Should DDoS attacks be illegal?

Should distributed denial of service computer attacks be illegal, like they are in the United Kingdom? Are they analogous to convincing people to send many letters to an organization or to calling on the phone repeatedly, thereby crippling its infrastructure? Or are they more like trespassing on property?

Should marital infidelity be illegal?

Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to “take a moral stand” even if the law isn’t enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

The video description says:

Incredible colour footage of 1920s London shot by an early British pioneer of film named Claude Frisse-Greene, who made a series of travelogues using the colour process his father William – a noted cinematographer – was experimenting with. It’s like a beautifully dusty old postcard you’d find in a junk store, but moving.

Music by Jonquil and Yann Tiersen.

I love early color photographs and videos. The past seems so much more real in color.

If you’re sad, you can commiserate with Lila in her Fat Girl Muzzle. She’s very sad that she can’t eat all that yummy grass as fast as usual in it:

Paul said that she looks like Hannibal Lecter… and he has a point!

Be sure to check out any episodes that you’ve missed in the archives, sorted by date and topic.

The first minute and twenty seconds is just a person scooping out the powder into a line, which is rather boring, so you might wish to skip that. You want to watch from the moment that heat is added.

Now that some scandals are bearing down on Obama’s Administration, I’m seeing that in spades from my progressive friends. Next time the GOP wins the White House, I’ll see lots of the same from my conservative friends.

Objectivity in politics can be difficult, but too many people don’t even try.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Individualism, Disabled Children, Arranged Marriages, and More

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:02:20
• Download: Enhanced M4A File (22.4 MB)
• Download: Standard MP3 File (21.5 MB)

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been preparing the index for my soon-forthcoming book, Responsibility and Luck (a.k.a. my dissertation). I’ve also been preparing my talk on moral amplifiers for ATLOSCon next weekend!

Question 1: Individualism Versus Anti-Social Atomism (2:55)

In this segment, I answered a question on individualism versus anti-social atomism.

Does individualism imply social isolation and atomism? Many critics of Ayn Rand argue that her individualism is hostile to love, concern, and respect for other people. They claim that her “atomistic individualism” doesn’t permit, let alone support, groups or community. Are these criticisms true? What is the right view of human society and sociability?

My Answer, In Brief: Individualism does not mean eschewing society or groups. It means respecting the rights, lives, and minds of individuals in society and groups. It’s the basic moral foundation of healthy social relations.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 13:42
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Collectivism, Collectivism, Epistemology, Ethics, Individualism, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Politics, Relationships, Rights, Sacrifice, Society

Links:

• Ayn Rand Lexicon: Individualism and Collectivism

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Poor Communication from the Boss (16:37)

In this segment, I answered a question on poor communication from the boss.

How can I make my boss more communicative? My boss hardly ever tells me company news affecting my projects, even when critical. As a result, I’ve wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I’ve gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I’m always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to make my boss to be more communicative with me?

My Answer, In Brief: You cannot manage your boss, but you can request more channels of communication, protect yourself from blame for his screw-ups, and if necessary, find a new boss.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 6:48
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Business, Career, Communication, Job, Personality

Links:

• NoodleFood: Introduction to DiSC
• Philosophy in Action: Interview with Santiago Valenzuela on “DiSC Personality Profiles”

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Visibility of Disabled Children (23:26)

In this segment, I answered a question on visibility of disabled children.

Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye? Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down’s Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter’s actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter’s response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view?

My Answer, In Brief: Disabled people have every right to be out in the world, pursuing their values – so long as they respect rights and act decently – just as do normal people. To suggest that disabled people should be locked away, as the people at this table did, is morally monstrous.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 16:43
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Ayn Rand, Benevolence, Children, Disability, Egoism, Ethics, Individualism, Parenting, Respect, Rights

Links:

• Whine and Dine, Extra Edition: Laurenzo’s Waiter Refuses Service – For a Good Reason
• Waiter who refused to serve rude customer becomes Internet hero
• NoodleFood: Disabled People in the Public Eye
• Wikipedia: Actor Chris Burke

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 4: Arranged Marriages (40:09)

In this segment, I answered a question on arranged marriages.

Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn’t want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical?

My Answer, In Brief: Arranged marriages are legally and socially valid marriages. However, the institution of arranged marriages is a deeply immoral one: the choice of a spouse is too important to leave to others, and if a person isn’t competent or interested to decide for himself, then he shouldn’t marry.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 15:50
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Adult Children, Children, Ethics, Family, Independence, Independence, Marriage, Parenting, Relationships

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (55:59)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

• Given that socialists call profits greed, why don’t they call reported losses generosity?
• How do you pick the questions that you’ll answer each week? Are you worried about running out of topics?

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 5:00
• Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:00:59)

Be sure to check out my blog NoodleFood and to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

• 16 May: More IRS-Health Record Problems? by Paul Hsieh
• 15 May: Hsieh at PJM: Did the White House Try to Get a Conservative Columnist Canned? by Paul Hsieh
• 15 May: Quick Links: York, Samuelson by Paul Hsieh
• 14 May: Catron on Grand Old Poseurs by Paul Hsieh
• 13 May: Diana Hsieh Podcast on EMTALA by Paul Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

• 13 May: Infanticide After Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh

This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:

• 17 May: Government has No Business in Broadband Business by Michael A. LaFerrara
• 16 May: Teach Rational Morality, Not Religious Dogma by Natalie Ogle
• 15 May: IRS Violates Americans’ Rights Every Day by Ari Armstrong
• 14 May: Gosnell Justly Convicted for Grisly Murders by Ari Armstrong
• 13 May: Benghazi Assault Was a Moral Atrocity, Not a “Sideshow” by Ari Armstrong

This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:

• 18 May: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh
• 17 May: The Paleo Rodeo #162 by Diana Hsieh

Second, from my 22 January 2013 lesson: Two Fences with a Tight Turn. These tight turns are difficult for Lila and me. If I don’t have her very collected yet still powerful in her stride, they’re a disaster. Here, we did okay.

Earlier this week, I had my first lesson since January 22nd… and it was so much fun! Alas, no video.

• The 30 Most Hilarious Autocorrect Struggles Ever: I guarantee, these will make you cry with laughter.
• A bald eagle, a fox, and 2 cats hanging out on an Alaskan front porch: The eagle was calling for attention, and the fox really wants to come inside to warm up!
• 22 geniously defaced textbooks & exam papers: I like #16 the best.
• How to Give Your Kids an Old-Fashioned Summer!: I’m a big advocate of “free range kids,” and here’s a great idea from LePort Schools’ VP Heike Larson on how you can help your kids enjoy a fabulous free range summer.
• CNN anchors pretend they’re having a “satellite interview” even though they’re in the same parking lot: Oh lordy. Did they think no one would notice the big bus?!?
• These 4 Sisters Were Photographed Every Year For 36 Years: The differences in their signs of visible aging over the years were really fascinating.
• 7-year-old boy steals a car and runs from the cops to avoid going to church: He’s a remarkably good driver… so much so that it’s a shock to see such a little kid pop out of the car.
• 40 bald eagles descend on a pickup while its owner is shopping: “In the town of Unalaska, Alaska a hapless pickup truck owner parked his vehicle in the Safeway parking lot and went in for some groceries. In his absence, more than three dozen bald eagles discovered the bags of fish product that were in the bed of the truck awaiting disposal.” Who knew that bald eagles were such welfare queens?!?
• Watch out, bullies: She’s got the band behind her: What a fabulous story of music helping an autistic girl cognitively and socially! Hooray for her parents!
• Infographic: Is Your State’s Highest-Paid Employee A Coach?: Very likely, but sometimes, it’s not the football coach: it’s the basketball coach instead.

Apparently, that view has some currency among Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand Answers includes the following Q&A:

OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me.

It’s simply a fact that some people in this world of ours suffer from mental and/or physical disabilities. Even otherwise normal people suffer from disabilities on occasion — not just injuries and illness, but the effects of aging too.

Disabled people are morally entitled to live their lives, pursuing their values to the best of their ability — just like everyone else. That means they’ll be out in the world, where children might see and/or interact with them. Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is.

The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science!

Well… I’d better stop there, before I dive into a full-blown rant. I have plenty more to say on this topic on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so I hope that you join us!

Update of 19 May 2013:

The podcast of Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, including the question on the visibility of disabled children is now available.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 16:43
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Ayn Rand, Benevolence, Children, Disability, Egoism, Ethics, Individualism, Parenting, Respect, Rights

Links:

• Whine and Dine, Extra Edition: Laurenzo’s Waiter Refuses Service – For a Good Reason
• Waiter who refused to serve rude customer becomes Internet hero
• NoodleFood: Disabled People in the Public Eye
• Wikipedia: Actor Chris Burke

This week’s questions are:

• Question 1: Individualism Versus Anti-Social Atomism: Does individualism imply social isolation and atomism? Many critics of Ayn Rand argue that her individualism is hostile to love, concern, and respect for other people. They claim that her “atomistic individualism” doesn’t permit, let alone support, groups or community. Are these criticisms true? What is the right view of human society and sociability?
• Question 2: Poor Communication from the Boss: How can I make my boss more communicative? My boss hardly ever tells me company news affecting my projects, even when critical. As a result, I’ve wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I’ve gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I’m always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to make my boss to be more communicative with me?
• Question 3: Visibility of Disabled Children: Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye? Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down’s Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter’s actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter’s response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view?
• Question 4: Arranged Marriages: Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn’t want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Individualism, Disabled Children, Arranged Marriages, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Sunday morning… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Every time this happens, I make repeated requests — through all available means of communication — to be removed from their call list. They’ve never responded, and they have obviously not removed my mobile number from their call list.

I don’t have any way to block them on my iPhone (as I would on my landline), and them calling my cellphone is particularly bothersome. Any suggestions for what to do to make it stop?

Even if that’s not possible, I’m happy to spread the word that the Tea Party Patriots seems to be run by a bunch of jerkwads without the slightest clue about basic manners.

Here’s my latest email to them… not that I expect it to do any good:

You left me yet another robo-call message on my iPhone on Monday… and I see that you called again this evening. Every time this happens, I’ve contacted you through multiple channels with clear requests to be removed from your call list. You have never responded, and you have obviously not removed my mobile number from your call list.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

So, for the upteeth time, I ask that you remove my cell number — [redacted] — from your call list! I am sick and tired of these intrusive and unwelcome calls from you: it’s harassment.

Until you respond, and confirm that you’ve removed my phone number, I will continue to publicly shame you for being such rude jerkwads. I’ve already posted something to Facebook, and I’m writing a blog post now.

Oh, and you owe me — and probably a whole lot of other people — a BIG FAT APOLOGY.

I’d be nicer about it… except that I’ve already written about ten such emails, all of which have been ignored. *sigh*

Kudos to Audi for making such an awesome commercial!

A few days ago, I was riding my horse in our neighborhood arena while a father was attempting to teach his son to ride a bike in the grass. The father would push the son forward on the bike, and the son was supposed to pedal. However, even from a distance, I could tell that the son was getting scared and freezing. Instead of pedaling, he’d put his feet down into the grass and come to stop. The father had an excellent opportunity to talk to his son about overcoming fears.

Alas, that’s not what happened. Even from a distance, I could hear the father yell to his son in frustration, “If you’d only pedaled when I told you!” and “Why aren’t you listening to me?” Obviously, that didn’t help the boy pedal any better!

The father was making a very serious mistake in taking his son’s failure personally. He was seeing it as a failure to obey, rather than focusing on the son’s actual problem — namely, the difficulty of overcoming fears. As a result, the son was not only deprived of useful help about managing those fears, but also burdened with feelings of guilt too. Even worse, the father was telling the son that the son’s own judgment (including his fears) were not nearly as important as obeying the father’s commands. Oy.

Happily though, the father seemed to muster some better control over himself after that burst of anger. He stopped yelling, and the tension seemed to ease. Hopefully, he realized his error. Hopefully, he’ll stop himself sooner next time.

I’m not immune from the error of atttemping to dictate others — whether children, animals, co-workers, friends, or husband. I suspect that I’m not alone in that! So here are a few suggestions, which you can take or leave:

When you find yourself growing frustrated by the fact that other people aren’t doing what you’ve told them to do, remind yourself that they’re not likely attempting to spite you. Perhaps you didn’t give clear instructions. Perhaps you’ve asked too much of them. Perhaps they saw problems with your plan that you missed. Perhaps their goals don’t mesh well with yours.

Instead of stewing over their failure to obey, consider how you might be genuinely helpful. You might want to ask them if they want help. You might want to clarify your instructions. You might want to just keep your mouth shut.

Whatever the circumstances, acting like a petty tyrant is always the wrong answer. Nothing alienates rational thinkers — young and old — more quickly.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Paul McKeever about “Winning Elections with the Freedom Party of Ontario”

Can a political party based on principles of individual rights win elections? Perhaps so – and Paul McKeever has a strategy for doing so with the Freedom Party of Ontario.

Paul McKeever is the Leader of Freedom Party of Ontario. Paul joined Freedom Party in 1992. He first ran as a candidate for Freedom Party in Ontario’s 1999 election. He became a Freedom Party spokesperson that year in 1999, and the party leader in 2002.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:13:40
• Download: Standard MP3 File (25.3 MB)

Topics:

• Parliamentary government in Canada
• Paul’s political philosophy
• About the Freedom Party of Ontario
• Why focus on electoral politics
• Paul’s role in the Freedom Party of Ontario
• The platform of the Freedom Party of Ontario
• Taking steps toward freedom
• The benefits of focusing on small issues
• Liquor regulations
• Getting media attention
• The role of a political party
• How political power is won in Canada
• Destroying the “progressive conservatives”
• Not voting for the lesser of two evils
• What’s wrong with the strategy of “buying time”
• Electoral strategy
• The problems with libertarians
• Optimism about the future
• Political parties in the US

Links:

• Freedom Party of Ontario
• Paul McKeever’s Blog

Tags:

• Alcohol/Drugs, Canada, Elections, Epistemology, Ethics, Libertarianism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Politics, Voting, Voting

Episode Sponsor

This episode is sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.

I’ve subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my “Platinum Annual Membership,” I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.

If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You’ll get a great deal, and you’ll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It’s a win-win – and I love that!

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That’s because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Best line: “In their defense, there is a good reason why people using the IRS to crack down on political enemies would not want Americans educated about the constitution.”

Now that they’ve been targeted, let’s just hope that the media stops sucking up to the Obama Administration.