u/Xotngoos335

I know Georgia is a traditional country, but how common or rare are cases where young people call older people by their names? Like... say you're 25 and call one of the grandpas in your neighborhood Lasha, or calling the 60 year old woman who runs the corner store Tamar. Or your friends' parents, the librarian, a restaurant owner you're friendly with? No batono, kalbatono, bidza, deida, etc.

Or how common is it for an older person to introduce themselves to you and tell you to simply call them by their name?

Thank you!

I remember taking U.S. history in 11th grade. My teacher tought 5 periods of it, which means she would get up and repeat the same thing 5 times a day, every day.

Doesn't that get old? I obviously understand that each class of students will be different and there will always be interesting comments, questions, memorable incidents and whatnot, but still. How does it feel repeating yourself 5 times a day, every day, year after year to a group of students who largely don't care?

I'm sorry if this is not a question about the principles of anarcho-capitalism specifically, but I take it that if you're an ancap, you've probably felt frustrated before that pretty much everyone in this world, even many libertarians, believe in statism, authority, and social hierarchy. And you... happen to belong to the 0.05 percent who don't...

You see the thing is, if most of humanity has some absurd belief, like the idea that there are leprechauns living in the woods, that doesn't really cause problems. I might find it silly, but I can ignore that. With authority though, other people's belief in it affects you beyond what words can describe. At the most diabolical end you have the state, which actively controls every aspect of your existence and will make your life a living hell if you disobey it. But even on the softer end, if people can start arguments with you and give you the cold shoulder just because you didn't address them with a title they think they deserve, that also creates annoyances and inconveniences. The idea that we all ought to be treated equally is so hard to comprehend for some people, and I hate to say that it'll take at LEAST 100 years for people to abandon these ideas and behaviors, and maybe another hundred for them to completely vanish.

So how do you deal with it? How do you find peace in a world built upon illogical rules enforced by threats of harm?

Pretty much every human society, past and present, is built upon the following ideas in some shape or form: obey authority, defer to elders, don't break from group norms, and don't ask "why" questions. There's an evolutionary explanation for where such social rules came from and why they might have served a role in the past. But when you look at things closely, you'll see that all of the rules I mentioned have one common denominator: logical inconsistency.

Take for example the rule that you ought to defer to your elders. That can mean a lot of things, but one example might be that they have every right to yell at you, but you can't yell at them. This does not hold up to logic, but it's a rule that's been enforced for thousands of years for the purpose of maintaining control over people. Another example would be the idea that using physical force to take things from others is wrong. But this action becomes morally justifiable when done by people who wear special clothes and call themselves the state. Logically it's not consistent, but it's believed and maintained so that some people can control others. As a last example, let's say an authority figure tells you you're not allowed to do something. If you ask why, they say "Because I said so." This is circular reasoning. It is an invalid argument, but again it's been used over and over again to get people to shut up and not disturb the established social order. On top of that, if you can get punished for questioning the rules too much, it can make it even easier for those in control to maintain a grip on their subjects. Taking everything into account, it becomes rather apparent that human societies are built on mountains of logical inconsistencies.

Humans have lived and survived like this for thousands of years, and those who have noticed the logical inconsistencies and pushed back against them have often been severely criticized and punished. Ironically, they are also the people who have created progress in the world. Slavery would've never ended and women would never have been treated as equal to men if it weren't for some people noticing logical inconsistencies and deciding to address them. I think going forward in time, we'll see that human social progress will coincide with the uncovering of logical inconsistencies and, subsequently, arising intentions to amend them.

I'm not a doom and gloom person and I don't want anyone to pity me, but it's no secret that, economically speaking, it's a terrible time to be a young person. The job market is a nightmare, inflation is through the roof, and the dream of home ownership and financial independence is far out of reach for a lot of people. But I like to be optimistic and here's what I'm doing to take advantage of the shitty set of cards I've been dealt.

I'm 23 and work 65-70 hours a week between two jobs; and considering I live at home and have a very low cost of living, it means I can save and invest most of my money. On top of that, my current IT job has potential to go remote, and in general IT is a good field for remote opportunities. My parents are immigrants and we have a house over in the homeland, so once my job goes remote or I get a new remote job, I'll be able to hop across the pond and enjoy a very low cost of living. And after only one year, I'll have enough to buy a house there in cash if I so choose to. End result? Financial independence in my 20s despite being given a horrendous economy.

Leaving the country is not the only or the best way to do it. There's a lot of other paths you can go down and it ultimately depends on what you want and what your circumstances are. So I'm curious to know... what is everyone else doing to improve their situation?

I've read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose and it definitely makes a good point highlighting how belief in statism is religious belief, but I want to go deeper. Does anyone have good recommendations? Thanks!

It's very frequently said that humans evolved to live in groups and adhere to group behavior as a mechanism of survival. But there are some people whose tribalism is rather weak. I don't wish to say it's completely nonexistent, but some people don't really seek group belonging; they have little or no desire to find their identity in a group. Their psychology on the whole might be more individualistic. Instead of "us and them," they think in terms of "me and other individuals." And they might value things like objective truth over group cohesion.

From an evolutionary point of view, what explains the people who aren't very group-oriented? What would their niche have been in a time when being part of a group was often a matter of life or death? Obviously I realize there's always variation in populations and such diversity can increase overall survival odds, but I'm still curious about the details.

Side note: I'd like to clarify that not wanting to be in a group doesn't mean someone is antisocial or introverted. They could be very social, but still be very individualistic.