zippert

Thank you for answering my questions. "poetic" :http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poeticpoetic is a term refering to an artistic way of writing. So it is about text quality, which is not objective. If there are objective criterias for "poetic", roll them out. The Quran is not the shortest text that claims it is by god. There only the sentence "this is from god" needed. So if someone gets to be a good poet (in your sense) and writes a shorter, poetic text with an opposing religion, are you going to convert? Where does "formal poetic education" come from? There has to be someone who was considered a poet first time, who first gives out this education. How do you know that the prophet was not one of them? And how do you know that he had no education, since he was a merchant and therefore had to have speeking skills? If it is true that everybody who has heard of Muhammad and the Quran is going to hell if he doesn't believe his message, and they would not go to hell if they haven't heard of him but lived a good life anyway, then you are sending people to hell by telling them about Islam, aren't you? I mean: What would happen to you, if you openly declare yourself a kafir(convert). Is it possible that you are threatened with violence if you not believe and therefore your perseption of truth is corrupted?See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I aggree. FDP lost 4 million voters mainly because of the corruption of its leaders.By the way, I didn't vote and advocated for not voting the FDP in exact these libertarian circles. So this is at no point a critism of nonvoting.Topic election fraud:I have also heard rumors. There is no proof, but it is plausible that parties that are unwanted like AFD + FDP (are actually hated by the left) and especially "dangerous" nationalist parties (NPD, REP) were mildly miscounted. German election is easily cheatable, because the ballots are only counted by one man per ballot.

Again, I never claimed it was bad, that this happened. The main reason I lied this out is to show the impacts overseas and to get an answer about the whole Ghandi incompetence claim in the call in show, which I don't understand, because the label "incompetent" applies to everyone, if it is defined by not knowing about a specific consequence. If my first post is written in hostile language, then I will edit parts. But I don't know what parts. It is downvoted two times, so I guess it cuased bad reactions.

It is not. So I can't explain it to you. If I have made such a statement, please show it to me. Do you refer to my post? If yes, my post is not an argument for pragmatism. it is a comparison between Ghandi and Stefan.

Coercision = your actions influenced by a threat of violating the NAP/property rightsTherfore you leaving a country is coerced, e.g. by taxes. In most disputes both parties think they are right. But with a written codex like NAP you can find out, who is. It is not "suspecting". If I use the scientific method and I detect an action against my property (=an unwanted change of it) and use violence to protect it, it is called self defense, otherwise not. The government has not homesteaded his land nor bought it with own money. Therefore by libertarian property rights theory it is not their land. Therefore they are violating NAP by their actions.

I don't know, what you mean by fault. Fault implies a wrongdoing of someone, which i didn't accuse him of. Maybe you want to know how exactly Stef caused the FDP being kicked out. I made the case in my first post. If you want specific details ask for them. Well, again here is a missunderstandig. Please read my first post carefully. Stef made the argument that Ghandi is incompetent by not knowing, that his action will cause a violation of NAP by others (here: the indians) Stef himself caused a process, which resulted in a violation of NAP (minimum wage = enforced ban of some contracts). I doubt, that he knew this, so i am asking if he then calls himself incompetent, by holding the same standarts for himself.

In the last call in show Stefan said, that Gandhi could called incompetent, if he didn't know his actions would cause the partition of india. By the same standart, would Stefan call himself incompetent for not knowing the consequences of his actions in Germany? Here it is: On September 22th 2013 there was election day in Germany. The FDP, thed most libertarian party in the parliament got kicked out of the parliament, because you need 5% to get in. It only got 4.8 %. 100 000 votes more would have them brought in. Stefan Molyneux has impact on libertarian circles in germany. For example the leader of PDV, a libertarian party, went to beeing an anarchist by freedomainradio and its german counterpart "freiwilligfrei". Non voting became a trend in libertarian circles. Libertarian circles have about 30 000 members in germany, many of them members of FDP and PDV. These circles were very passive in the election rally, when they easily could organise 100 000 votes extra by campagning for FDP. So Stefan has played a good part in that result. FDP was a member of german government 2009 - 2013 in coalition with the CDU, an opportunististic party, with no own real agenda. Now the government coalition is CDU and Social-democrats, resulting in the first time in german history introduction of minimum wage and a female quota for executive boards of DAX (german DOW). Not quite libertarian. I dont say it is bad longterm. FDP was statist and blocked the anarchists from doing their own thing. But there is a short term impact. So my question is: Stefan, do you call yourself incompetent and if not: do you see the violation of principle by calling one incompetent for not seeing impacts and others not?

Thats wrong. The other persons own (/has) his body. Otherwise he could not engage in a wage contract.

For not starving, humans have to eat. The food is reaped with work. If you want food you either homestead it, someone gives it to you for free or you swap your workforce (Wage contract). If you want food another way, you have to force people to reap it. Forcing people means, that you will escalate violence, if they dont comply. This is in result similar to the gun-head example. The difference between a gun threat and starvation is that the first comes from an human beeing and the latter from nature. To eat is not a free decision. To aquire food is not a free decision. The wage contract is not by free desicion, since it's motivation is driven by nature, and this contract is just the best option. But if you want to free yourself from that dilemma, you yourself have to force others to reap food and therefore with this model it is impossible, that everybody is freed of it, worse, the force to work ist ampflified for all others by your action. Plus, the fact that you force, destroys your relationship with humanity, because you became an aggressor. So if you dont force it and i.e. devolp an automated farming tool, you can reduce the work that has to be done to feed the world. Capitalism has already reduced the price of food drastically. Where before the industrialization people had to work all day for just not to starve. Today, with a wage of 6.5 $ an hour, you can feed yourself easily by just working 10 hours/week. The other time you can provide extra work for housing, medicine and luxery items. The only countries in the world with mass starvation are countries, where people who think they should force the work on others suceed (dicatators).

You didn't answer my questions yet.

In todays show an article was cited: http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/ this article is misleading. It suggests, that Nelson Mandela had ordered the killing of innocent people, when in fact he has only ordered sabotage action, without human victims. He may have violated NAP. But not in a libertarian sense, since property rights back then in South Adrica were not established by the homesteading principle. The article states: "Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights -Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983 (...) -Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988" Nelson Mandela was head of MK until his arrest in 1962. He was then in jail, isolated from MK. Mk had new commanders. All deadly attacks were executed in the 80s by his sucessors not by him.

Why do you believe, that quran which states, that it is the word of god, is really the word of god, when there are other texts, which also state, they are the word od god, you don't believe it is the word of god? How do you "know" that Muhammad has really listened to an angel? If there are other prophets, - and there are countless-, who also say they have listened to god/angels, why do you believe Muhammad and not the other prophets? Do humans, who lived before Muhammad or never heard of him also go to hell? What would your life look like if you were are kafir? How would your family react? Your social enviroment? Thats it for the moment. Waiting for answers.

It is confusing how you use the word alpha. Alpha describes the rank in a social eniviroment of a person. This naturally goes hand in hand with sadism. But there are sadists who are not alphas and alphas who are not sadists, because it is not the exact same thing. It is just a correlation. If you want to describe sadism you can use the word 'sadist'.

In fact every mathematical operation can be deconstructed in addition: subrtraction = add a negative number multiplication, i.e. 2*4 = 2+2+2+2 etc.

Entertainment is not bad by default. I mean, all relationsships have in common, that they provide pleasure for both parties. Virtue is needed for the long term stability. Entertainment is never bad, except it is the only good thing.

An idea came into my mind: We already live in an Ancap society. The government owns everything. We all are violating their property by living in their houses, on their land, using their roads etc. . So the government kindly allows us to stay at their property if we pay a certain amount of taxes and obey their rules. If not, they put us in jail, but they aren't violating the NAP, they act only in self defense, since we were violating their property. They have to put us in jail because thats the only way to kick us out without violating the property rights of others, i.e. other states. Seems to me that NAP boils down to a matter of property rights. So who owns stuff? And how do we know that it isn't the government who owns it all? I already read Rothbards theory of property, so i am aware, that property in his theory comes from first getting the ressources out off the ground, but almost all goods in the world haven't come into possession this way.

Hi @ all, a thought came into my mind some weeks ago. the antique roman empire is in many ways like, what we percieve as (extreme) right wing today, and the antique Greece is like left wing Roman Empire: warfare state => foreign livestock, no taxes, except in emergencies, for roman citizens free market for citizens the strong position of the president (emperor); weak parliament; sucessful entrepreneurs get into politics (senators) right wingers have adapted roman culture, i.e. architecture, military organisation ( i.e.contractors) Greek States: domestic livestock => farmers have to pay taxes to the cities free market only very limited left wingers have adapted greek culture (i.e. concept of democratic socialism, fixed place for everyone etc.) What are you thinking on that? Do you agree?

Hello, i found FDR by freiwilligfrei.de a german website, that translates anarchist writers into german. They also translate Stefan Molyneux`s videos. I was reading libertarian writers before originally found libertarianism by watching alex jones. I hope, i will get interesting thoughts here. zippert