alexakarpov

TWIMC: https://www.coursera.org/learn/ageofjefferson

Define "certain", I suppose.Epistemologically, faith in God has very little in common with certainty, or knowledge, of things like "the Earth is kind of round", or "when launched at angle A with initial velocity V, a ball of mass M will land L meters away from the starting point".It is somewhat closer - though also deeply different - to a statement like "this roulette will stop with the ball on 24 red". The difference, of course, is that you have the mathematics of probability, to quantify exactly what is the probability of you being correct; no such thing with God. But picking that number is a choice; an act of will. You don't hold your prediction as a certain truth, but you act as if it was (you bet money on it).Faith in God is similar. Normally, you have no way to establish whether you faith is true - though, of course, sometimes things happen in your life, which, to you personally, suggest that it is true. Therefore, in a normal case, there is no certainty about truth - but if you live as if it were true, then you are personally true to the faith; same as a gambler can not claim to be a winner, unless they did bet on 24 red, and lived through that commitment.Sorry for sidetracking. No, I didn't chose to believe because it can't be proven - but, most certainly, I found the lack of even a possibility of proving God logically to be appealing. This God, offered to me, was a mystery entirely beyond human intellect and human power. That idea seemed to me - still seems - very attractive and important. And, well, all the other nice things. Especially this meaning of life stuff - just wanted it so badly, and human achievement and human interactions, or drugs, didn't sound attractive enough.

I agree, there's no evidence of God. More than that - there cannot be; more than that - there shouldn't be. I don't want it; it would be stupid and pointless and wrong, to have a God which can be deduced, discovered, observed. That entity would have to be of the same... level with the observer, discoverer, deducer. Who'd want to worship or have faith in that joke? Not me. If there is God - as I freely chose to believe, at the age of 28, being a complete atheist - then He better be a mystery. Well I'm in luck - that's what real Christianity* had in store for me all along. --- * - most of people who call themselves Christians are kind of like those keynesians, who call themselves "economists".

Hi freedomaniacs, This video by Stef had completely blew my mind I want to translate it to Russian (God knows there's a huge drug problem), and I am sure that will help. Thank you

How is that? If the approach to the use of defensive force advocated by Chris Cantwell or Larken Rose is immoral, or counter-productive, or inconsistent with NAP, then defeating that in open would be good for the liberty movement; it would set those who are wrong on a right track. It's not for the sake of vanity or something like that; it's an important question in the quest for truth.

I agree with this part completely - but not sure about the rest of the comment. I see a lot of people using the public transit; I prefer using it myself, because it is more convenient for me than driving a car. That said, I do agree that the way cities are built, housing is sprawling - heck, even the very size of the population and it's occupations - is all completely distorted by state intervention. But given this reality - the cities that we have, the population that we have - I do think that public transit makes sense. Like, imagine tomorrow a hardcore libertarian president/prime minister is elected. I can see them cutting off funding for military, public education, welfare, but I don't think abolishing public transit, given the geography and types of occupation and housing areas, is feasible. I hope you see my point..

Thanks for the link sir, a great conversation. A strong point is made there: ============================ Mike Salvi: Let's talk about this for a bit. Where is the line?... Jim: I think first we need to acknowledge some of the history. I mean, look, we've got, in the past century, a conservative estimate, 250 million people didn't know where that line was - and were killed by their government, ok? So let's be realistic - we're not talking about hypotheticals here, we're talking about 250 million souls, gone. Just dead, 'cause they didn't know where that line was. They said - "well, I guess we'll just try to work it out", ok? So, you know, looking forward, we must remember that enormous pile of bodies, and say - look, I don't want to be one of those guys... it's insane that this is even a question! Yes, you're gonna have to, there's a very good chance you may end up defending yourself against somebody with a government job. It's just a fact of history, even in modern times. So, we can't even talk about it? You know, like, really? Larken: can I say the same thing Jim did, but a way more rude.. Mike Salvi: Your name is Larken Rose, please. It's your job... Larken: what humanity and justice most needed, in Red China, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, was a hell of a lot of cop killers. Chris: Yep. A fair statement. =======================================

Amen for lowering taxes )I get the argument about 49/52, but because of the nature of the allowance (as an employee, you're not forced to elect any), I don't see a problem. The business must offer the option to pay for transit with pre-tax dollars, but you're not forced to either take it, or to pay for someone else who does.The business, of course, has to integrate with a system that offers the allowance. That is a bad thing; offering them, too, a tax break for doing so would be much better that "you must do this, or be fined". I suppose, this was done to generate extra revenue and bureaucratic, government jobs.All that said, it looks like the whole thing may actually achieve the declared goal (rather than making it worse, as it normally happens with government programs)?

So they've got this new law in the Bay Area, where this Canadian is working now... http://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/s.f.-bay-area-employers-must-provide-commuter-benefits-by-september-30 At first, seeing an ad on the bus, saying "Your employer has to provide you with 40% savings for commuting....", I got angry - any time a government is passing a new law, that's my natural reaction. However, after getting to the source and reading up on the law details, I'm not so angry anymore: - it allows you to pay the pre-tax dollars for you commuting needs - it does not apply to companies below 50 employees, so doesn't hurt the small businesses since government, unfortunately, owns the roads, this is their way of dealing with traffic and air pollution *caused* by their own road-building subsidies. But it doesn't seem to be such a bad-thought-of law. Any comments on it? Am I missing something, and should be angry, or is it one of a rare cases where the government is doing an ok job of cleaning up their own mess?

I do agree with everything you're saying. And you are correct about the poor choice of the word. Stefan has repeatedly made that important point in his videos - that a violent and suicidal rampage (especially carried out in the name of God, as is, unfortunately, a case here) is not heroism, but a form of escapism; it doesn't solve problems, doesn't help people. It's more properly an act of despair - and, as such, it is not far from what Elliot Rogers did. Though, I think, not nearly as sick and depraved.At this point in my life, I certainly don't think he was a hero. Two years ago, before I discovered Stefan's videos, I *did* consider Marvin a hero of resistance to injustice an state oppression; now, I consider him a victim of both, and, as I became more aware of parenting issues, of those too (most likely).However, what I am wondering now is still this: if, in a situation like this one, but assuming no motivation like "mission given by God" is present (as it is present here); assuming no mental instability and deep childhood issues (which are likely present here) - so, under these assumptions of purity, would you consider it just and moral to go on a suicidal mission like this one? Assuming it's predominantly a statist society, and a person is acting alone.

Oh, it's absolutely tragic. They guy was, obviously, disturbed, traumatized (likely, from childhood), and most likely mentally unhealthy. His use of force against the state, however misguided and short-sighted it might have been (I mean, he didn't leave any means of exit, sealing himself in the machine) - that's the interesting bit. Is he a heroic rebel against the tyranny, or is he an aggressor? Are acts of aggression against the state, such as this, to be admired/condoned/accepted, or are they an impermissible initiation of force? That's why I referenced the libertarian debate of brutalist vs humanitarian (which, as I understand it, is mostly around that point).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer Today marks 10 years since the day of Killdozer rampage. So, esteened freedomaniacs, what are your opinions on this man's crusade? On events that led to it? I would expect a somewhat different response from more 'brutalist' and more 'humanitarian' camps.

This song, and this video, are very inspiring, I think -- I'm sure there's a message of liberty, and the video is strongly suggesting it, though it's not easy to translate directly. But hey, that's normal with poetry ) Enjoy:

How is that? You seem to have pointed at Serpent's presence as a proof that God was immoral and evil - was He moral and good, he would've removed the Serpent. But that's baseless - Serpent didn't cause any violence against Adam and Eve - no doubt, because God would not, and did not, allow for it. You didn't use the word "demand", but you have underlined Serpent's presence in the Garden as a sign that God didn't "protect" His children and therefore was evil. That's the same thing as demanding that He removed the Serpent in order to qualify as "good". This is not "misrepresenting", this is exactly your argument. Sorry, I didn't realise this was a question for me, or I didn't notice it. Of course they were not given the dominion over the earth. If they were, humans would be obliterated at once. In the book of Job, Satan has to receive a permission from God to torment Job - he can't do it on his own. Demons are almost completely powerless against humans; incident of demons possessing humans are very rare in Christian tradition, and almost always happen because humans willingly invite them in, looking for power or other benefits. As I have previously explained, the point was to confirm human maturity and power of human will - before they could join God, they needed to trust Him; they trusted Serpent instead. OK, this is much better. "It is coercion" - I'm glad you've made the statement, which wasn't made here before. But I don't see coercion here, can you point at it? Was creating humans a coercion? Was giving them free will coercion? Was warning them of consequences coercion? Was not shielding them from the consequences - i.e. nullifying their freedom, by taking away responsibility - coercion?I ask that you defend your statement.

Thank you; let's keep it going ) Another one by Kipling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_the_Copybook_Headings (He does use the term "market" in there, but it's pretty obvious that it's not the same market as what we extoll.) The Gods of the Copybook Headings AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all. We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn: But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind. We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place, But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome. With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch, They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch; They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife) Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death." In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!