Torero

Of course free will exists. If not, all your choices would be determined by someone or something, for which there's no rational basis. And although the statism and coercion of course are far too prevalent in the world, still we have free will at nearly any moment in life. But it may be a question of definition. I'd define Free Will as the option to select a path based on rational and emotional choices based on your own life experience, advice by your surroundings and a determination (so by yourself) of possible outcomes of those choices. I really don't see the point where free will becomes an "illusion". What is illusionary about making choices at any moment you can? You're the master of your machinery, not the slave. By the way: no man has ever stepped on the surface of the Moon. It's simply impossible to go there. Don't let these people fool you; there's so much content on the topic online.

Welkom Dragomira, nice to see more Dutch people signing on. Just a suggestion; try to leave anger behind and focus on optimism, engaging your fellow students of the oldest university of Holland in challenging their world views like you so bravely did. The optimism and positive attitude both of Stefan and of libertarianism/anarchism in general work so much better to convince people than anger or negativism. I feel sorry for you (still) having to live under the superstatism of the Brussels Bastards. But seeing the studies you picked in university, I have also high hopes that you are able to leave it (if you want of course) behind and look for more profitable societies, which are not stealing 59% of your money.... I can only recommend a path into the wide world. All the best en nogmaals welkom, Torero PS: Thanks Laforge, I didn't know that site. I've added myself to the map, see flag for location. Only 3 (including me) anarchists/libertarians in a city of 9+ million people... that needs to grow a bit....

Dear DFPercush, Thanks to you I’ve started watching the series. I remember I’ve seen parts of it before. It’s quite nice as both sides of the medal are debunked. There are some observations. In part 11 potholer54, who appears to be a much more serious person than his YT nickname suggests, he is explaining why and how the atolls of e.g. the Maldives are not inundated because of geological reasons. Here he is going too fast. Atolls are formed indeed by the process he describes. But he says; the islands will not disappear because the coral keeps growing. I will not go into coral carbonate geology, instead the process of the islands is different. Atoll islands indeed are formed by the keep up of fringing coral reefs. But, the underlying land (the volcano) is sinking. The islands are thus experiencing relative sea level rise; the land is sinking relative to the sea (which is rising a bit). He continues right with describing other process that affect the islands, but he misses this point which is quite crucial. In short; looking at the vulnerability of low topography islands cannot be done with looking at sea level only, you have to look at the movement of the Earth itself as well. The relative sea level movements are the result of both, definitely not caused by one of the two factors solely. AH great! In part 13 he’s correcting it and explaining it better, in Panama and Scotland. He just didn’t in the example of the atolls. In his introduction (the first parts of the series) he is describing the greenhouse effect in a cartoon. In general this is right, but there are so many factors more that play a role here and many factors are counteracting others. This explains the complexity of the climate in general and one of the reasons the simplified models and conclusions by the political (not scientific) IPCC are unjust, as I explained in my previous post; models can be tweaked towards an outcome you want to achieve beforehand. An outcome which is dictated by politicians, and that in itself is not proper science (although most of the publications used are very serious science). So in short; it’s not the climatology that is corrupt, but the abuse of that science by a political institute which is corrupt. In his parts 15-19 potholer is trying to debunk Lord Monckton. He is right in his research on the person. But, listen closely to what he says in Part 1 of that series, around 8 minutes. He says “corrections for anomalies like El Niño and Solar activity”. That is one of the basic flaws in the IPCC way of looking at things. Natural variations and causes are “anomalies”? No, they are not; they are inherently part of the system. They are only “anomalies” which need to be “corrected” for, if you start from a partial perspective, namely taking humans as focus. That is not a fair and balanced –haha- approach. That is reducing Nature to “disturb” the data. In fact, it’s –even in the eyes of the IPCC’ers- the opposite. They claim (and there can hardly be anything against it) the humans are the anomaly. And yes, our CO2 increase “disturbs” the natural CO2 cycle. The question is if that is bad (enough). In Part 2 of this miniseries he points @ 4:00 where he says that “geologists have established cloud cover as positive feedback”. He does not quote any publication here, but I am extremely curious how that could have been analyzed? How can you analyze cloud cover in a past where nobody was there to observe this cloud cover? The only ways that could have been done are by indirect measurements and models, simulations. It is this indirect measurement of the past which is crucial. This I will elaborate more in a separate post as it is a very important point in the debate in climate change. In Part 3 potholer54 shows a publication @ 5:00 with a name which is major problem in the understanding, especially by the bigger audience, I suspect most climatologists are not so simplistic. The title is “CO2 as a climate knob”. And that’s how the IPCC sees it in their “solutions” to the “problem”. If we just stop or reduce CO2 emissions, we change the climate. There is a big problem with this, I will come back to that in a next reaction. Dear DFPercush, Thanks to you I’ve started watching the series. I remember I’ve seen parts of it before. It’s quite nice as both sides of the medal are debunked. There are some observations. In part 11 potholer54, who appears to be a much more serious person than his YT nickname suggests, he is explaining why and how the atolls of e.g. the Maldives are not inundated because of geological reasons. Here he is going too fast. Atolls are formed indeed by the process he describes. But he says; the islands will not disappear because the coral keeps growing. I will not go into coral carbonate geology, instead the process of the islands is different. Atoll islands indeed are formed by the keep up of fringing coral reefs. But, the underlying land (the volcano) is sinking. The islands are thus experiencing relative sea level rise; the land is sinking relative to the sea (which is rising a bit). He continues right with describing other process that affect the islands, but he misses this point which is quite crucial. In short; looking at the vulnerability of low topography islands cannot be done with looking at sea level only, you have to look at the movement of the Earth itself as well. The relative sea level movements are the result of both, definitely not caused by one of the two factors solely. AH great! In part 13 he’s correcting it and explaining it better, in Panama and Scotland. He just didn’t in the example of the atolls. In his introduction (the first parts of the series) he is describing the greenhouse effect in a cartoon. In general this is right, but there are so many factors more that play a role here and many factors are counteracting others. This explains the complexity of the climate in general and one of the reasons the simplified models and conclusions by the political (not scientific) IPCC are unjust, as I explained in my previous post; models can be tweaked towards an outcome you want to achieve beforehand. An outcome which is dictated by politicians, and that in itself is not proper science (although most of the publications used are very serious science). So in short; it’s not the climatology that is corrupt, but the abuse of that science by a political institute which is corrupt. In his parts 15-19 potholer is trying to debunk Lord Monckton. He is right in his research on the person. But, listen closely to what he says in Part 1 of that series, around 8 minutes. He says “corrections for anomalies like El Niño and Solar activity”. That is one of the basic flaws in the IPCC way of looking at things. Natural variations and causes are “anomalies”? No, they are not; they are inherently part of the system. They are only “anomalies” which need to be “corrected” for, if you start from a partial perspective, namely taking humans as focus. That is not a fair and balanced –haha- approach. That is reducing Nature to “disturb” the data. In fact, it’s –even in the eyes of the IPCC’ers- the opposite. They claim (and there can hardly be anything against it) the humans are the anomaly. And yes, our CO2 increase “disturbs” the natural CO2 cycle. The question is if that is bad (enough). In Part 2 of this miniseries he points @ 4:00 where he says that “geologists have established cloud cover as positive feedback”. He does not quote any publication here, but I am extremely curious how that could have been analyzed? How can you analyze cloud cover in a past where nobody was there to observe this cloud cover? The only ways that could have been done are by indirect measurements and models, simulations. It is this indirect measurement of the past which is crucial. This I will elaborate more in a separate post as it is a very important point in the debate in climate change. In Part 3 potholer54 shows a publication @ 5:00 with a name which is major problem in the understanding, especially by the bigger audience, I suspect most climatologists are not so simplistic. The title is “CO2 as a climate knob”. And that’s how the IPCC sees it in their “solutions” to the “problem”. If we just stop or reduce CO2 emissions, we change the climate. There is a big problem with this, I will come back to that in a next reaction.

There's a topic I'd like to discuss and evaluate, which in my non-philosophical terms I am calling "weakism". First I'd like to outline the term, then what's the effect and then what we, as human beings, for 99% non-violent, symbiotic and not in need of coercion, power or statism, can do to actually (help to) prevent this "philosophy" gaining ground. As I explained in the "Introduce Yourself" section, I am a Dutch guy living in Colombia. Seen much of and traveled around the world which helps in understanding different cultures, ways of living and -although not named, but executed or hinted to- philosophy in practice. Back to the topic: Weakism. Weakism is my neologism for a "philosophy" which is the root of many socio-political and kind of philosophical ideologies. It is a state of mind, a comfortable hammock if you will. Weakism is the root of the political correct way of thinking in many Western countries. Weakism is the root of two opposing yet similar philosophies, namely feminism and masculinism (a horrible word, but the male counterpart of feminism). Weakism is the philosophy (not really as it is not based on philosophical principles or context) that states that men are weak. Groups are weak, cultures or countries are weak and weak people are a shame and thus need to be helped by others (effectively in the current way of thinking; our "friend", the State). The root of weakism is one of the main pillars for statism. Weak people need a state to live, is the conviction of many statists. Weak people need a higher power (being it God or State) to represent them, to help them and mainly to protect them. Many anti-statists, however not weak themselves, use this same argument; we need a state to protect the handicapped sheep from the wolves. Weakism relates to another subforum here, called Self-Knowledge. If you know yourself well enough you can pinpoint both your strengths and your weaknesses well enough. Yet, there appears a need for someone, or -more abstract- an organization (like the State) to protect you from others. Where weakism boils down to, is the conception, the idea (it is not the reality) that you are weak. Of course you are not. First you were the only survivor of billions of sperm cells to be able to fertilize an egg, then you survived 9 months in the womb and after that you were able to fight against the sometimes horrors and hopefully peaceful moments of childhood. Weakism has the effect that it calls upon people. People in general are downgraded. In school, in your familes and after that in work. You are either regarded as or treated as a slave of others. Weakism on groups has the effect that it calls upon a certain aspect of you. Anti-racism movements call upon your race, feminist/masculinist movements try to use your gender and statist movements try to use every part of you that will excuse the presence of the state, the presence of a power to guard you, take your personality and (somehow) represent you. Within conservative thinkers weakism is present in the way how you treat others. "No, I'm not weak, but person A or B, yes, that person needs to be subjected to change "immorality" (drugs, choice of marriage, religion, whatever)". The root of this, as mentioned, is based in lack of self knowledge on the most basic level and lack of pride (even with self knowledge) on a more advanced position. The effect of it on larger societies is both downgrading the "weak person" and forcing "stronger" people to support this "weaker" person to become stronger. That in itself is a fallacy as altruism is a fallacy. Downgrading yourself has nothing to do with supporting weaker people. Giving a dollar to a needy person, does not make you weaker. What does, is the dependence. A big problem in developed North America (Canada + US) and Europe. Luckily -I must say and that's why I think libertarianism has a lot of ground to gain here- not so much in the "2nd world" or "the countries on the move". Living in Colombia, a perfect example of a highly entrepreneurial society where weakism is (still?) a very distant subject. The platform for it ("developed" state organizations) are simply missing. They are there but not as widely "accepted" as in the western world. Weakism in combination with lack of knowledge or experience with other countries is also a root in foreign policy. Every country with pride regards itself in foreign policy as the greatest. Humbleness is far away. I do not have to explain this to USAmericans as they -according to the poisonous mix of politics and media- find themselves standing on the shoulders of the gods. Unfortunately also amongst the libertarians there is weakism. There's even a separate subforum for it, called "Gender Issues". The masculinism, the male counterpart of feminism, but equally weakist rooted, is unnecessary. It stems from a position of lack of strength, which may be there in effect (paying alimentation money to your ex wide) but not based by philosophy. It is even going against libertarian/anarchist philosophical principles as egoism and self love (I just watched Stefans great show on Ayn Rand ;-) ). I like philosophy, and I like we have a platform to discuss philosophy. Above all, I like the idea of Stefan of "philosophy via the womb". Not forcing (as it would be hypocritical counterphilosophical) others to become free of coercion and rejecting agression, but educating new generations (in particular your own children) with these beautiful and so ordinary human principles. Thus, to practice (my main issue with philosophy and philosphers is that they stay too much in their philosophical realm) non-weakism (I would not call it "strongism"), is to show others (apart from yourself) that we individuals are not and will not be intrinsically weak. Weakness, weakism, those are external fallacies projected onto individuals. What can you do to counteract (attack would be too harsh of a word) this weakism? First of all, one of the basic principles of philosophy in my amateur mind, is leading by example. Second is helping others around you to decrease weakism. Point to the uselessness of it, highlight the flaws of weakism. The destructive nature of self pitying. All in all what we have is our capacity to convince others. Non-agressive, non-forceful and utilizing the unique strengths every individual has. As I am not a philosopher (apart from taking Nature as one of my bases for ideas, I'm a geologist), I wonder the following: - is there any already defined "official" term for what I try to outline? - how are you, fellow members, seeing this? - how can we reduce the power of the state, which is rooted in many aspects in this weakism, in discussion with others, i.e. how can we make this effective when discussing with other people? I am curious to know your opinions and views. Best regards, Torero

Together with Scandinavian countries (I saw some Swedes are active here as well, who might tell you more about their experiences), the Netherlands is one of the most socialist societies in the world. Almost all schools are public, all universities (except 1 or 2) are public and that means in the educational system Dutch people are drilled to become State supporters. The video Stefan made about the State as Religion is a very good one. It's a comparison I use for a long time on other forums so I was happy to see he had the same view. It really is a belief. The State should solve all problems, even if people, grown up, healthy, educated and all (not the poor, not the needy, no, regular people) put themselves or others in problems, the answer to the problem is the State. A main point in especially the Netherlands is the drive towards equality. Although Holland may seem to have a very liberal and tolerant character, when you live in the society, it's different. There are two sayings in Dutch which describe this very "well": "don't stick your head above the field, or it will be chopped off" and "act normal, that's crazy enough". Apart from smaller scale subcultures and even in those it is like that. That has to do with this equality fetish and with the huge population density of the country. Only South Korea, Bangladesh (not really an example) and Taiwan are more densely populated than the Netherlands of all countries of a serious size (not counting Monaco or Singapore). This has several effects but a main effect is social. People watch each other and what they're (not) doing all the time, and open and direct as we are; criticize each other for every tiny difference. Then equality. I discussed a lot on different forums in Holland, my first forum I even debated the current leader of the Social Democrat Party, back then an employee of Greenpeace. You get an idea. People are obsessed with equality. Everyone is equal according to that culture. I tried to explain to them that the opposite is true; everyone is different. And it's the differences between people you should respect, the equalities are obvious and do not need to be focused on; people with equal beliefs, culture, ideas, ethics, etc. will find themselves easily, there's no need to coerce that from a State perspective. Also economically the country is very leftist. Taxes are enormous and now (I live 6 years abroad now; 3 in Germany and 3 in Colombia) with my decent but not super rich salary the tax level is an astonishing 59% income tax!!! Not counting aaaaall the other taxes. Gasoline is only more expensive in Norway dus to the enormous taxes the government puts on it. Taxation is well supported by the Dutch because they think that taxation caused it to become such a well organized and arranged country. Then there's the biggest problem of all in Europe and that is the European Union. It is a superstate which is horrific. Anti-EU feelings were strong in Holland when we rejected the European Constitution in 2005 by 66%, the highest of all European countries which were "allowed" (Statists don't like the voice of the people) to vote in a referendum. As the European Union Elites did not like that they simply pushed a slightly adapted version of it, without the possibility to vote against it anymore. The way Statists work; increasing power and coercion and reducing freedoms. I have been quite a rebel for all my life, questioned authority from the age I could speak and always was looking to excel in freedom and avoid the power seeking individuals that are around us. Growing up in a family of very statists, anti-religion and pretty sociopathic (I won't go into detail) and a mother who was a feminist (I always say Feminism in Holland is like building an artificial ice skate track on Antarctica), I have been drilled with Statism. Due to the education system I experienced only afterwards how much religious push there was from that as well. That's by the way a factor in many secular to antireligious countries; where religion disappears, the state takes over, like Communicating Vessels. Although Holland has a very tolerant image on drugs, the actual situation is quite different. Even the most liberal (in the sense of liberalism; liberal in Europe is "right wing", not left wing like in the States) party who is in power together with the social democrats (like a coalition of Obama and Bush) is very anti-free use of substances. I myself have experienced very nice things and drug parties in Holland are the best in the world; great atmosphere and very nice people, better than alcohol parties. My resistance against the State has arisen from a young age but became stronger in recent years like with many of us here, I suppose. The idea of taxation, the equality fetish, the strong influence in schools and media, it all boils down to keeping and distributing power. Power over a people which is -at least in theory- very self sufficient, very moral, educated and normal. The State has lost its meaning like the Church lost it when people became more educated. Not counting belief in a deity as I do not share and even oppose the ridiculous antireligious feelings in Holland; everyone should believe in whatever he/she wants, as long as you do not disturb others with it. I have been active in the second liberal party when I still thought politics could do any good. Being very different from my fellow members, the discussions were fierce and my views were regarded as strange. I learnt there this minipoliticians are as bad as any other party and left quite quickly. I have discussed my libertarian views with some friends (not so much as I left the country quite some time ago) and many share at least part of the resistance against state power. But still believe in the good, ethical and moral standards of the State, even when we start invading other countries (we helped the USAmericans in Iraq and Afghanistan). On fora I felt ridiculisation. "Go live in Somalia", you know the standard replies who just show the other does not have enough arguments against yours. That's why I am happy to be a member here and able to talk freely without these useless remarks. Right now I am living in one of the best countries of the world. Colombia is a country with a booming economy, the nicest people you can imagine and a great future. The image people have is still from the 90s, a time when it was indeed horrible I would imagine. But those times are over. With an economic growth of 6.4% 1st quarter this year (!), an inflation below 2% (!) and the safety improving, it's a great country to live and -if you want- to invest in. Not to mention the overwhelming beauty of the women here... ;-) So yes, I am happy and feel I've left Europe in the right moment as nowadays things got worse and worse in terms of economy, (un)employment and taxes. And due to the everyday growing power of the superstate EU it is even worse. I have even more anarchist plans for the future which I will elaborate more on when the time comes... interesting as it really became my plan in life. Feel free to ask more, Cheers, Torero Thank you!

Dear DFPercush & tastemaker, I am new here on FDR and want to add my cents (and hopefully sense) to the discussion about CO2 and “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. First of all the first post by tastemaker where he talks about manipulation. Not knowing you, but reading (between the lines) I see similarities with y own background in manipulation. My father, who recently passed away, was a very good manipulator. I also recognize quite some things in manipulation by others because of that. I am a very different person, as I don’t like to manipulate, too naïve probably. When we’re talking about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “Climate Change caused by humans” we find ourselves in a very difficult “game”. Mainly because most of the people are not natural scientists and believe what politicians make of/how they destroy serious science. The comment by tastemaker “models are not science” I’d call a bit too black & white. Models are simplified representations of reality and should be treated that way. Models are to natural scientists what laboratories are to physicists and chemists, prototypes to engineers and draft versions to computer scientists. Models can be based on very serious science and models can be tweaked or manipulated towards an outcome. I myself am a modeler in the natural sciences; geology. The models I build are sometimes even more complex than climate models as the uncertainties towards the past of the Earth exponentially increase. Try to imagine a world 90 million years ago and how the Earth has changed since then up until present day. You get an idea of the complexity of it. Models can be as (un)scientific as you want them to be, but as long as you realize you’re looking at a model, and the uncertainties in the outcomes are well described, the input parameters scientifically based, you’re ok. A model will never be a complete representation of reality, we simply lack the time, computing power and scale to approach reality that close. Then to AGW; what the IPCC has presented to the world are predictions. These predictions according to many sources are “right”. Viewed by other sources they are not. The IPCC has “predicted” apocalyptic increases in temperature, sea level, etc. since their first report in 1990. This political (not scientific!) institute says it bases their models on climate science. Climatology is like geology one of the natural sciences studying a part of “System Earth”. This system exists of various parts; the geosphere (or rocky Earth), the hydrosphere (surface waters), the biosphere (all living organisms) and the atmosphere (climate & weather). Additional to that we have astronomy which studies the external effects on System Earth, with as most relevant solar activity, impacts of macrometeorites and the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun. Back to the IPCC. Even they themselves acknowledge the “fact” (it’s an estimate) that merely 3% of all Carbon Dioxide in the carbon cycle is caused by human activity. That means 97% is natural. Examples of natural sources for production and uptake of CO2 are volcanoes, natural degassings, the oceans (both hydrosphere and biosphere), the biosphere and hydrosphere on land. The topic starting question (I have not yet seen the video on YT, thanks for that) if we can “force” the CO2 “balance” towards a “tipping point” is one of the roots of the CO2-question, I’d call it the CO2-hoax. Even if it were possible that we could reach a tipping point, we only are “responsible” for 3% of the CO2-production. Why focus so much on that small percentage, while the vast majority of the CO2 production is natural? Another point in the discussion is the short memory of modern men. And due to the technological advancements this memory is getting even shorter. Who still remembers how it was living without internet and mobile phone? And that’s just 20 years ago, not even a generation. We can think back to that time but really put ourselves in that position again is very hard because of our memory getting used to these –great- advancements. Apart from all the longer term natural variations in climate in historical times, let’s say the last 2000 years, we have two examples of short but very drastic natural causes of climate change. These examples seem to be forgotten by the IPCC and they are very relevant for the discussion if System Earth is a delicately balanced system which we massively disturb by producing CO2 or if it is a system that equilibrates itself to the changing circumstances. The latter is true. Nature always adapts itself to changes, that is the very nature of Nature. The great George Carlin has made this clear in his sketch linked below. The two examples of drastic global climate change in the recent past (not even 500 years ago) are (links below): The eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru (!) in 1600, causing a massive famine in Russia (!) from 1601-03 The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia (!) in 1815, causing “the Year without Summer” in Europe in 1816 Both these natural factors have changed the Earth’s climate for a short while and caused massive deaths and misery. But, after the effect was equilibrated these volcanoes did not even reach a “tipping point” and the apocalyptic “visions” of fearmongerer Al Gore did not come to reality. If you go back in time even further, more natural causes and effects of climate change happened. A series I can recommend to watch is “Miracle Planet”, also linked below. The politised “science” of AGW to me hurts me as a scientist. It plays with the minds of people who are not aware of the forces of Nature and think that we humans are able to control an amazingly complex system as the Earth. The way critics are ridiculed (compared to creationists), manipulated (use of the term “deniers” as if critics are talking about atrocities like the holocaust) and so on, also tells you something about the seriousness of the issue and the lack of a reasonable scientifically based debate. On a scientific level, these wordings are unnecessary and should be ignored. An intrinsically anti-scientific statement as “the science is settled” is another example. Science is by definition never settled nor democratic, as our friend, the biggest manipulator in the world, Barack Obama, has said. Not wanting to put a Godwin into the discussion, but the example is relevant; the current AGW “discussion” has similarities with the “racial science” propaganda of Joseph Mengele. If you’d think differently in the Nazi Germany of let’s say 1943, you would not get funding, ridiculed or even worse… Please do read and watch the following links and videos as they are great tools to put the discussion in a broader, more scientific and natural scientific context: Huaynaputina - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina#1600_eruption Russian famine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1601%E2%80%9303 Mount Tambora - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora Year without a Summer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer Miracle Planet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd3SAtoIgw&list=PLVf_PhNdaC9A27AMffgQ51YbVn6rR7Nvu George Carlin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk

Hi to all, Great to be part of an online community to talk about and hopefully advance in the necessary fight for freedom, the natural state of mankind. I'm Torero, a Dutch guy living in Colombia, and I hope to learn and contribute on various topics related to anarchism, libertarianism, voluntaryism or whatever you like to call it. Being raised in the Netherlands in a family of social democrats I have experienced all the "benefits" of statism. From an early age I've always questioned unnecessary and injust "authority", power and coercion. I must say I'm not such a reader of books, more visually oriented, so happy with the YouTube way of sharing information, thanks, Stefan! Main points of interest on the contribution side are: - War on Drugs & the decriminalisation of them - "Antropogenic Global Warming" & the flaws from a physical and historical perspective - Reducing statism and coercion in your own life Nice to be here and let's fight peacefully to (re)gain our freedoms. Cheers, Torero