ResidingOnEarth

You seem to be overlooking the obvious here: The Swedish government is paying to train immigrants how to shoot guns effectively. Shooting guns is a popular method of initiating force against people to kill them; perhaps the most popular. There is evidence to suggest that at least some of these immigrants want to replace western culture with Islamic culture using violence. There is evidence to suggest that some of these immigrants will likely be immigrating to western countries to seek revenge and to retaliate against the violent actions performed by government organisations from the west. If 50 people wanted to build a nuclear power plant together, but you thought it likely that 1 of those 50 was planning to build a nuclear bomb and use it against you and others around you... don't you think it would be a bad idea to sell those 50 the radioactive material they asked for? Assuming they are only training a "few" and not a large percentage of them, I still think this should be of grave concern to any thinking Sweed. My reasoning is this: What percentage of these immigrants from these warzones are in Sweden to use violence as revenge or as a means to replace Scandinavian culture with Islamic culture? What percentage of these immigrants from these warzones are not in Sweden to use violence as revenge or as a means to replace Scandinavian culture with Islamic culture, but are amenable to influence from those that are? I think it is safe to assume that percentage is above zero for both groups and it is below 100%. It is clear to me that if someone intends to use violence as revenge against you or to further a religious and political goal, it is a very bad idea to train them how to be a better shooter. In the absence of accurate answers to questions 1 and 2 (listed above), training immigrants from warzones is like playing Russian Roulette with a gun of an unknown chamber capacity. To explain the metaphor: You know you are taking a risk that could result in death, but you don't know how big that risk is. Why not just not take the risk at all? Perhaps it would be wise to pick a fun, hobby activity for these immigrants which doesn't increase the risk of death for Swedish people.

Not so long ago (maybe 6 years) I was among that majority and I'd probably have latched onto BIG like a mosquito to a neck (I thought a parasitical metaphor was fitting). My economic, truth-awakening started when I stumbled across some documentaries about the true nature of money creation and the federal reserve. It's been a long and slow journey since then that has sent me down roads sign-posted "Austria this way!", "Free Market Square", "Number 21, Bitcoin Street" and "Keynesian, Unlit Back Alley... Of Doom". Also: you're right about the false dilemma fallacy. I deliberately didn't want to think too hard about what a BIG supporter might say. I figured thinking isn't likely to produce the kind of statement a BIG supporter might produce. The people that support BIG probably all have these 2 things in common: A lack of understanding of even the most basic rational, economic principles. They must only have superficially examined the BIG solution. This may be because they don't know how to examine a proposed solution to a given problem.

QE Infinity: thanks for posting up that video and info. It's the first witness account I've seen. It's interesting that the witness said he would have previously dismissed similar reports to his on account of seeing so much right-wing propaganda in the past. I feel similarly: not about the right-wing aspect, but propaganda in general. I feel like there is so~ much current-events, propaganda out there that my initial stance to new stories is to not believe either the official or unofficial narratives. I often question whether the events themselves even happened. I consider eye-witness accounts like this to be credible and I will accept them at face value until the time the eye-witness is exposed to be a liar or quality, contradictory information comes to light. I feel slightly saddened that there is so much insincerity, corruption and irrationality in the world now, that I cannot readily trust the words of others. I am, however, very gratefully that I have stumbled across teachers of critical thinking (like Stefan and other people on this forum) which empower me to analyse my environment and the world for myself without having to place so much trust on the honesty of others. That made me crack up laughing. Thanks. You didn't spoil it for me: no way was I going to waste time reading an article titled "its-time-to-consider-a-curfew-for-men" on a site named feministcurrent.com

I think the BIG supporters would say that cutting taxes is inferior to their BIG scheme because simply cutting taxes doesn't guarantee that people with no income (or very little) can afford the basics, eg shelter, food and water. If I have no income, the BIG scheme operators will give me money to buy food. If I have no income, a tax cut will leave me with no money to buy food. <Hypothetical BIG Supporter> If you support implementing a tax cut instead of a tax increase to support BIG, then you are ensuring that poor people will go hungry and thirsty! What kind of evil person are you?</Hypothetical BIG Supporter> (it felt painful typing that ^) The above point is one reason I don't like arguments for effects. You can cherry pick the likely-positive outcomes of a given action and use that in a sophistic argument to justify your actions. If BIG was implemented today, in England, it would have the immediate positive effect of providing every person in England with enough money for food, shelter and water. Obviously though the effects of stealing vast amounts of money from the economically productive and borrowing money to supplement it will have many more effects than just the positive one I stated. I made an argument in a post further up that all BIG schemes are ultimately unsustainable. When a BIG scheme inevitably collapses it will likely leave large numbers of dependent people in its wake without immediate recourse. Even my argument in my post further up (about BIG causing a collapse) is an argument for effect though. That argument for effect is not the reason why I don't support BIG schemes. The reason I don't support BIG is because I adhere to moral principles: the most important of all of them being the NAP. BIG is a violation of the NAP. To all BIG supporters, I have one simple question to ask them: are you comfortable threatening people with violence in order to coerce them into parting with their property? If not, you should not support BIG. If so, then do you think it's OK for other charitable organisations (like Oxfam) to use violence to coerce people into giving up their things, so that they can fund their causes?

sweathog1: I didn't answer your many questions because I felt like you were asking them as a means to dodge my statements and evidence backed claims as opposed to asking questions as part of a philosophical enquiry. The quoted portions of our interaction below are revealing to me: So at this point above you have admitted that you were originally using the term "we" in the context of a nation state. So why did you say you were not using it in this context and why did you not then explicitly correct yourself? Instead you immediately went on to say this in your next sentence: I am not sure why you are asking this. Are you attempting to build a case that because I am from a country which is colloquially referred to as being part of the west, that I am part of some kind of "western" hive mind and I am now responsible for the actions of some murderers working for government armies that also come from the west? Perhaps in my original post to you I came on too strongly by referring to your use of the term "we" as "insane". I wasn't in a great mood and looking back I recognise that I felt some anger. The destructiveness of statism and those that support it wears on me and I think that I -- perhaps unfairly -- hold people here at FDR to a higher standard than people I meet AFK. To restate one of my original points more politely... Nations cannot make decisions or perform actions. "Nation" is a concept. Concepts can't decide on things or act. As such it is not possible for a nation to "do it [do physical harm] to their [iSIS] innocent families" as you put it. I certainly do not share any moral culpability for the actions of some of the other people that inhabit this same land mass as me. I do not and did not endorse their actions abroad and I did not willingly assist them.

In context, it is clear to me what your intended usage of it was. Shirgall's use of "we" was in reference Trump's reasoning process. Trump is clearly referring to "we", as a nation.

When I see people talking about "we" in reference to a nation and a state it looks just as insane to me as people talking about "my" in reference to their god. There is no collective mind. Their is no social-collective agreement. There is no nation just as there is no god. These people that run these violent, hierarchical organisations referred to as states are doing exactly what they want to serve the interests of themselves and their cronies. After they've decided what they want they will then ex post facto justify their decision to their slave population and convince them that "we" all decided on this together. Here are a couple examples of this from very recent history: See the "Downing Street Memo". This contains evidence Tony Blair had already decided to organise a death and destruction rampage in Iraq with Bush. After deciding this he went through a pretend process of considering his options and having a "public discourse". See a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This was written pre-911 and signed by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In this document they declare the following countries a threat: Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria and they state their goal of "maintain[ing] American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership."

Bruce Schneier has written about this here. Bruce is a well known cryptographer and computer security consultant. He usually only writes about topics he has a high degree of expertise in and he also researches them well. I think he does a good job of explaining the problem and the likely effects if unmitigated. Where he goes a bit awry sometimes is on his proposed solutions. That is because some of his proposed solutions invariably involve initiating force against individuals (via the state). I do not throw the baby out with the bath water though. I think he offers valuable information and insights. Here are some excerpts from the article that I thought were valuable: As I said earlier. I don't think these credit systems are necessarily, inherently evil. I think -- as usual -- the NAP is what defines the morality of these systems in any given use-case. Do I have to use Facebook? No. I choose not to and I'm ok with that. Do I have to use a government sesame-like credit scheme? Yes. I choose not to, but it is imposed on me and others in the society I live using threat of extreme violence. I'm not ok with this. Having read this I immediately thought of Obama's recent speech where he advocated using violence to prohibit people from accessing guns if they are on the "terrorist watch list". Obama is many things, but he clearly is not stupid. He knows that the "terrorist watch list" is not appended to using any kind of legal, due-process. He knows that he and his cronies could use this list to arbitrarily, prohibit any individual or group of individuals in society from having access to a gun. In terms of credit ratings... I'd say getting on the terrorist watch list gives you a pretty low score. All the smart control-freaks know about the chilling effect. They will not openly advocate for a position because they want the chilling effect. They know that people would not support their position if they did that. They will make up some other excuse with popular appeal. ^ this. This is how it is being and will continue to be done. Encrypt all the things!

I have never-before, heard such a clear, powerful and succinct explanation for the existence of psychotherapy.

vizier42629: I also heard about this through James Corbett. I'm a fan of his show; especially his New World Next Week show he does with James Evan Pilato. One thing that makes these state-run, citizen-credit schemes immoral is the fact that you are forced to pay for them and forced to use government services that are hooked into them. So they are involuntary. I find that many ideas which are seemingly insidious (eg this credit scheme, eugenics and child labour) transform into something palpable and sometimes even positive when voluntarism is introduced. What's intrinsically wrong with a credit scheme that you choose to be a part of? Insurance companies rate you in various ways. What's intrinsically wrong with eugenics if you and others in your tribe are voluntarily choosing who breeds and who does not as per rules you voluntarily agree to? What's intrinsically wrong with child labour if your child wants to work and learn your trade? As Stefan often points out: voluntarism is the vital difference between rape and love making. Voluntarism is a truly beautiful concept! I'm from the UK by the way and I'm also new here. So hello and I've also watched Alan Watt and Alan Watts videos. I have taken some value from both Alans. More from that latter than the former.

I saw this interview a while ago and also found it inspiring.

This paragraph contains so much irrationality that I feel it would take me days to explain to you all the problems with it. I personally don't have the time to do that. I'm not even sure if you would be receptive to a critical analysis of your erroneous beliefs. The first sentence of this paragraph contains manipulation and sophistry. It feels like you are attacking me. I am not upset by it, but I will not humour it with a response. The paragraph as a whole contains numerous false and irrational statements. Perhaps someone else here has the time to help you. I do not.

The "western world" is a concept that refers to a collection of nations (another concept). As such it cannot make a decision. Concepts can't make decisions. We are not at war so we don't need to pull back. There are a small percentage of western-people that are statists of the violent-fanatic kind (eg they have willingly joined the Army). They are the ones carrying out these campaigns of murder and destruction. The statists that support these violent-fanatics share some moral culpability, but not to the same degree as those they support: those that are actually pressing the buttons and pulling the triggers. It is important to note that these supporters are not at war and neither are those of us who are non-supporters. The word "war" itself is problematic if you want to have a philosophical discussion, as it refers to combat between nations. I prefer to avoid that term. I don't think it helps us solve moral or other practical problems. I for one, would never support these violent-fanatics. I am however, trying to keep an eye on what these western-origin, violent-fanatics are doing. I accept that many of the people they are attacking are under a similar spell as the one they are under. I think many of the victims and many of the aggressors falsely believe that there are nations and that I belong to one of those nations (the UK). I think many of the attackers believe they are acting on my behalf and many of the victims agree with them. I expect the recent attack on those people in the Paris concert hall was performed by attackers who believed those people in the concert hall belonged to an imaginary nation call France and as such they are in some way responsible for the attacks that had been made against people from the land they came from. When I hear people say the following terms it becomes quickly obvious to me that they are under some kind of spell or trying to cast one on another: "Bring our troops home". I don't have any troops. If I did I'd ask them to help me with some gardening. "We are at war". No we're not. "America attacked". No it didn't. People in the American government organisation attacked. There are no nations. "Nation" is a poorly defined, internally-inconsistent concept which children are tricked into believing before they have the capacity to reasonably conclude that it is false. Now here are some things we can do... Spread voluntarism to make the world a more peaceful, safe and prosperous place to live in. If you can't make a voluntaryist out of a statist, then you can still discourage them from becoming violent-fanatics (joining the Army / Air-force etc). It's pretty easy these days to make a case to people that these violent-statist campaigns in the middle east are not solving the problems that they claim to be solving. Raise your children peacefully and teach them to think for themselves at an early age. These children will be drawn to voluntarism like flies to light bulbs. Finally: if the time comes where retaliatory-attacks from middle-eastern people become a significant threat, then you need to think about how best to defend yourself. The people who perform these retaliatory-attacks probably wont understand that you are not personally responsible for any suffering done to them, their family or more generally: to the people of the land they came from. If you're from France, the UK or the USA you may be a target. I hope this time never comes as, I don't know how on earth I will defend myself. The attackers in Paris has fully automatic, rifles. The French government organisation uses threat of violence against people in France to stop them from obtaining similar weapons to defend themselves with. I hope what I've said helps you think more clearly about this situation.