Torero

In this topic we have seen so far: the list of FDR podcasts, videos and topics on the subject of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", rebranded as "Climate Change [yet still human-induced]" the involvement of the oil companies themselves in this political scam the huge financial incentives and government power play using "carbon credits" Let's now take a look at the "predictions" made in the past and how they turned out in the real world. And let's see if the well-paid alarmists actually learned from their mistakes and misjudgements... For the years 1969-2009 I use this link as source. Quotes are in dark red. =============================== 1969: It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.- - Presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan 1969 1971: By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people 1978: Climate experts [??] believe [?] the next Ice Age is on its way. 1988: In New York City by 2008 The West Side Highway will be under water. ...you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only. 1989: New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now[; 2004] 1989: entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000 1990: Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996 The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers. 2000: David Viner,[...] told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” [...] The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow. 2004: Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. By 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. or, more "correct": the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years. 2005: The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010 some 50 million “climate refugees in ”the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. 2007, 2008 & 2009: Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Gore said during some of the summer months, Arctic ice could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Conclusions: not only did none of those predictions come true, the opposite effect was observed in many cases the alarmist fearmongering apocalyptic Armageddonists did not learn at all from their earlier false "predictions"; they did not throw away their crystal ball at all. They just continue with their scare tactics like nothing happened What about 2010-2016? 1 - The Guardian, 2010 publishes: The author of this "article" is Suzanne Rosier, at the bottom of her article we read: So far for "indepedent media"; the project coordinator of a website is quoting the project leader and technical coordinator of the same project and the "research" "scientist" of one of the "highest regarded" universities in the world is referring to her own colleague. 2 - the same "newspaper" published in 2015 an article which says at the end: So, if the models "are not compatible with reality" we "just change the definition of the word compatible". Not surprising for the sharp contributors of this forum; it happens with so many things in the media; just change the definition and then it fits. 3 - the predictions of the "mega-" and "micro-droughts" in California are done in The Washington Post by author Darryl Fears [what's in the name?]: A - So assuming a (political) hypothesis, the likelihood of an event as the result of that hypothesis is "considerably increased"? That is not science, "assistant professor", that is circular reasoning. B - "Evidence" set 35 years in the future? I thought evidence is only available in the present and past...? C - "Global change biology", is that a new study? What the heck does that mean? 4 - quite a nice article, January 2016 showing with illustrated graphs how wrong Al Gore's "predictions" were, done on January 25th, 2006 for the next ten years: We passed the 25th of January 2016 without "a true planetary emergency"... Gore's crystal ball seems to have been made of ice crystals... 5 - more predictions for 2016, the "key year" with presidential elections and "the now really urgent climate problem" come from climatetrust.org: "Integrate climate change adaptation"... hmm... "a mass based approach to compliance"... what "mass" is the basis for this? "Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation" helps 'us' all to "mitigate the projected catastrophe of 'runaway' climate change"... On IMDB we read that Leo in his latest movie -excellent, by the way!- The Revenant not only traveled -by kerosine-slurping planes- from Canada to Argentina with the rest of the film crew to film the winter scenes at the end of the movie, but also: Final conclusions the world has not come to an end, an apocalyps or "a true emergency" the scam spreads from "respected" "scientific" institutions (Oxford #6, Princeton #11, Cornell #17) to governments to all kind of "private initiatives" to Hollywood the staggering numbers are in the trillions, not only in 2020 (the government "carbon credit" market linked in the previous post), but already now (2.6 trillion dollar assets)

Lykourgos - the Spartan "lawmaker" and military man 68 posts Apparently you do. I recall you were the one wanting to debate "a nobody", "a hero of a bunch of fanboys" and "someone hardly a soul [except for me and my 68 troll posts] gives a shit about":

If you do not agree with (or even hold contempt of) an ethical theory, you: A) need to point out the incoherences and subjective parts, not handwaving B) need to come up with a better theory, where "better" means; less incoherences and more objective parts It was not me who started to bring in "(lack of) respect" in the discussion; the word contempt means that. You chose to use the word "contempt", not me. Your use of wording like "supporters" or "fanboys" already shows your position. And again; if something is "flawed" and "incoherent" in your opinion, you'd have to point out those flaws and incoherencies. See for instance how I've treated the flawed and incoherent political hypothesis of Antropogenic Global Warming on this forum. No, it's proof you're just trolling. You don't have a better theory, you don't have any material to present yourself, you just say "I disrespect your book [but do no effort to present something else]". Or, much more to-the-point is how Will Torbald described it:

Cf.: "I hold contempt for the theories of evolution and gravity" "Did you write a thesis on those topics yourself? "No, I just disrespect what other people write"

Great questions RoseCodex. I asked that too in Thomasio's own topic but he decided not to address that "because it would get too long". Where he found this Aladdin lamp still remains a secret...

I asked a question. I have never stated "I think you..." Why do you "hold contempt" for UPB? What is the reason for disrespecting someone else's theory? See the comparison with "gravity" or "evolution". And my question; did you write a book on secular ethics yourself?

contempt a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval a lack of respect for or fear of something that is usually respected or feared As far as I understand UPB is a "moral theory" or "a system of secular ethics". Do you "hold contempt" for evolution or gravity too? In science you'd have to come up with a more reliable/better fit theory in order to refute the former. Did you write a "system of moral issues" book yourself? As you "decided to register" because of that reason?

Cool! My birthday is Freethinkers Day. Thanks for the link polyb1123.

You're moving the goal posts. Your initial question was: "at what point can parents reverse the care [resources] for their children and ask them to care [providing value back] for them". Now you're talking about mistreatment and abuse. Asking your children to bring value to the parents is nor mistreatment, nor abuse. When the initiation of the use of force is involved, it becomes a different matter and that would indeed mean mistreatment or abuse. If you are concerned with the way other parent-child relations are happening, why don't you apply for a role as "child's psychiatrist/caretaker" and in a free society that would be under contract based on peaceful negotiation? You may need some credentials for that role. To handle abuse a Dispute Resolution Organisation (DRO) would be the place to go. You yourself did step on the chair of "Moral Judge" by doubting the "correctness" of the judgement of parents you don't know.

Hi Stan, in the "View History" tab you can look for changes between versions. It's rather messy due to so many edits done, but I think you refer to this edit done by user Graham11, who seems Canadian. He removed all the sidebars and See Also section. You may write him on his talk page to ask for clarification? I used to be an editor a long time ago but fed up with the propaganda they are putting on it. Especially with respect to the Antropogenic Global Warming Hoax.

No, initiation of the use of force without mutual consent is immoral. A boxing match, or an SM session is the initiation of the use of force which is consential; so force: yes, immoral: no.

Hey Sabras, I would say that "when it's clear beforehand that force can be initiated and both parties give consent to that" would be the exception. Otherwise boxing matches or tackles in football wouldn't be allowed anymore...

It's none of your business. What are you, the Final Judge For Correctness, breaking into people's homes to check if their reasoning is "correct" according to Ferssitar's Handbook of Correctness?

Why do you keep phishing for some "general rule"? Every parent can judge that for himself. None of your business.

Who do you refer to with "we"? If you're the parent, then you should know when. Anyone else is irrelevant.

Sharp. Panodrama is another I was thinking of. Maybe heymanslow could outline his Unique Selling Point a bit more and we can advise him a bit better?

Stefan, Responding to the excellent show Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - 14-02-2015 (Gold members, really recommended to listen to this!) I just heard and linked in the OP, you asked (sorry to paraphrase a bit): "Listeners, please, please, if you have any information on where this climate change 'debate' has actually favored a decrease in government power, please let me know" I have no information on that per sé, but what I wanted to point out is the idea that oil companies are against CO2 taxation and thus sponsor uniquely "climate change deniers" is outdated and has become an argument only for the lazy leftists. In this post I want to outline what is happening in the background and why this "argument" is redundant and should be avoided. =================================== 1 - the words of CEO of Exxon himself, from the ExxonPerspectives webpage: As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009: A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement. 2 - the same company, the largest oil company in the world, is actually profiting directly from this CO2 sequestration ponzi scheme: As outlined in this press release by Exxon itself, December 2010: ExxonMobil Expands World's Largest Carbon Capture Plant in Wyoming ExxonMobil has invested more than $2.6 billion in the state of Wyoming. ExxonMobil’s facilities provide jobs, tax revenue and economic growth in the area. Since 2005, the company has paid over $237 million to the state in severance and property taxes.But this very successful company wouldn't do that if it wouldn't be profitable for them, from the same press release: The captured carbon dioxide is sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, helping to extend the productive lives of mature oil fields and producing more energy supplies for America. The $86 million expansion includes the installation of compressors to capture 50 percent more carbon dioxide for potential use in enhanced oil recovery and other industrial uses. 3 - an article in The New York Times, December 2013 states: Mainstream economists have long agreed [?] that putting a price on carbon """pollution""" is the most effective way to fight global warming. The idea is fairly simple: if industry must pay to spew the carbon pollution that scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, the costs will be passed on to consumers in higher prices for gasoline and electricity. Those high prices are expected to drive the market away from fossil fuels like oil and coal, and toward low-carbon renewable sources of energy. In 1994, dozens of Democratic [!] lawmakers lost their jobs after Al Gore, who was vice president at the time, urged them to vote for a climate change bill that would have effectively taxed carbon """pollution""". [Alan] Jeffers [Exxon Mobil spokesman] said Exxon Mobil would support a carbon tax if it was paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that Mr. Gore has endorsed. “Exxon Mobil and many other large companies understand that climate change poses a direct economic threat to their businesses,” said Dan Weiss, director for climate policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group with close ties to the Obama administration. “They need to convince their political allies to act before it’s too late.” 4 - a more recent, December 2015, article in the Houston Chronicle informs: Exxon Mobil, which recently said it supported the Paris climate talks, said curbing greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by the United Nations' climate scientists group would be vastly expensive, if it isn't done efficiently. [T]rimming carbon emissions to the point that average temperatures would rise roughly 1.6 degrees Celsius - enabling the planet to avoid dangerous symptoms of carbon pollution - would bring costs up to $2,000 a ton of CO2. That translates to a $20 a gallon boost to pump prices by the end of this century, Trelenberg said. "We ought to have a broad-based price on carbon across the economy that then lets the market sort out what are the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." [some crooky crony-crapitalist talk here...] 5 - a research paper published in August 2015 shows: Implicit Climate Subsidy Exceeds Profits at 20 Top Fossil Fuel CompaniesFor 20 leading fossil fuel producing firms, we measured the economic cost to society of the climate change impacts caused by the use of their products, and compared this with their profits in each year from 2008 to 2012. Because the companies presently don’t have to pay [!!!] for these climate impacts, we view this as an implicit subsidy to the companies. All the companies lie above the line, which means that the economic cost to society of the CO2 emissions from the products they sell was greater than their after‐tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008 6 - earnings/net income of Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, total number for fiscal year 2015 should be available early February: 2014 - full year - $ 32.5 billion 2015 - 2nd quarter - $ 4.2 billion - 1st half - $ 9.1 billion 2015 - 3rd quarter - $ 4.2 billion - 1st nine months - $ 13.4 billion 2001-2014 - net income maxima $ 45.2 billion (2008) & $ 44.9 billion (2012) 7 - revenue Exxon Mobil: 2001-2014 - max $ 467 billion (2011), min $ 201 billion (2002), recent $ 394 billion (2014)---------------------------------- Conclusions: the oil companies, with Exxon as leader, are involved in the CO2 tax scheme they, Exxon is not the only one, build and expand CO2 "sequestration/capture" plants with high investment and make profits from that Exxon has paid, according to their own website, between 2005 and 2010 $ 237 million in property taxes and severance, while investing 11x that amount; $ 2.6 billion, in the state of Wyoming alone although the company may have resisted CO2 taxation in the past, it is now in favor, desiring "subsidies" or "returns" from the government to have "revenue-neutral taxes" which should be globally implemented, according to the 1994 plans of Al Gore (!) ==================== Now let's take a look at the "other side of the fence", the carbon emission "market" bubble scam by the government. This 2008 article shows some staggering figures... The United States will be home to a $1 trillion carbon emission market by 2020 if federal and state policymakers continue on their current path towards a comprehensive "cap-and-trade" program that is confined to domestic trading only. In an analysis of bills today before the U.S. Congress, New Carbon Finance research economists based in New York, Washington D.C. and London, U.K. predict that in 12 years a carbon-constrained U.S. economy that includes a cap-and-trade system allowing only domestic trades will produce: A $1 trillion carbon trading market -- more than twice the size of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme;A carbon price of $40 per tonne as soon as 2015, which will result in a rise in consumer energy prices in real terms of roughly 20% for electricity, 12% for gasoline and 10% for natural gas -- as well as impacts on other prices as higher energy and transportation costs filter through the economy; andMajor U.S. investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas mitigation projects and technologies."America's Climate Security Act," co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (Independent Democrat, Connecticut) and John Warner (Republican, Virgina) [sic], is a product of bi-partisan compromise that has given it extra traction in Congress, according to New Carbon Finance. However, the Lieberman-Warner bill rules out international trading of credits. Allowing carbon-constrained U.S. firms to trade credits with firms in China or India, for example, where emission reduction measures are relatively inexpensive, would yield an estimated U.S. carbon price as low as $15 per tonne, thereby saving the American economy about $145 billion per year, says Guy Turner, London-based Director of New Carbon Finance. The company forecasts that any bill passed by the Congress is likely to include trade sanctions on imports from countries unwilling to participate in mandatory carbon emission caps, an idea also raised in the European Union. ------------------------------------- Final conclusions: the CO2 "credit" market vastly outgrows the revenue of the biggest player in the US oil industry ($ 1000 billion vs ~ $ 467 billion (2011)) the oil companies at present do not pay carbon taxes even when they are obliged to do so, they settle for "revenue-neutral" taxes, making sure their revenue is not affected they will pass on the costs of taxes to the customers the oil companies actually profit from this CO2 scame by "capturing" and storing it and selling it again to enhance oil production Whoever was still in doubt about the craziness of this "trading a natural gas for money and using it in international politics to form trade barriers and trade deals" should have awoken now, I hope....

What's wrong with peaceful negotiation? Why assume force just from the start on? A homeless starving person is in need of food and has abilities (cleaning, making music, handcraft, translating Swahili, guarding children, whatever) that he can use to swap food for? Win-win, peaceful and the best outcome for both parties.

Haha, the euphoria My personal motivation is spreading information. Make people aware. And the forum has many readers who may pick up on topics and shed their light on them. Impact? Well no. Like I explained to German Thomasio yesterday, I am a realist; take the world as it is. But while living in this statist system where unlimited immigration is impossible due to the Santa Claus State, it's an important theme; statists may see a critical view on this kind of immigration as hypocritical (anarchism should support free movement of people), but it's not. Stefan has explained why -that same Santa Claus State- in many videos and podcasts, that I try to organise in the central topic. (the OP is under review by Mike; I added this very topic to the list)

Welcome B0b. How do we practically handle problems such as trash cans on the streets? Since everyone can use them, who pays for collecting the trash?How do we practically handle 'problems' (?) in the present? We make arrangements between each other, right? If you live in an apartment building, or a compound, or whatever, you negotiate with your neighbours and come up with a plan for handling trash, don't we? The recycling industry at present is a valuable industry, so no reason to assume suddenly without a state the trash would not be collected anymore. How do I prevent migrants from a poor (statist) country from begging and camping in the opulent (private) streets ? This assumes a utopian situation where there are no borders between a free society and the statist countries and that a free society cannot protect itself. Why would that be the case? How can we build a new highway or train railroad, crossing so many private lands if 10% of the people do not want to hear about a highway or railroad? Peaceful negotiation. And it opens up new markets for more silent trains, highways, etc. No more ugly fences, yet filled with trees and plants who actually absorb quite some sound as well. People want to see green, market for flora-rich fences would appear and we would not be forced by the State to accept an ugly fence around highways or train tracks. How do you get people not to copy and resell books they did not right if there are no intellectual property laws? If there are no laws, it means it is legal, right? Why wouldn't there be any "laws"? A law is now enforced by the State. But a "free society law", i.e. a contract between people, can still exist in a free society. Also here new markets will pop up; people developing software to protect files from getting copied. Books are just the printed digital texts then. Look at FDR itself; audio books are given out for free, if you want the hard-copy, you pay a small fee. It works! Did you read an "instruction manual" before registering here? Look around you. Most things are already handled between humans, by humans and for humans in a peaceful way. You wouldn't point a gun at someone to pick up your trash. You wouldn't steal from others to feed your dog. Concrete, workable solutions are part of mankind. Always been. The concrete workable solution for "being cold" was to hunt furry animals, process their skins into clothing and be warm. If your idea is that without a forcing power (i.e. the State) there wouldn't be concrete, workable solutions possible and you take that as the basis for that State, yes, then you would be a Statist. But also it would make you not seeing the millions of human interactions that we have everyday that are not based on force/violence.

It depends on where you live I guess. Europe is invaded by invited immigrants (see Angela Merkels public comments). There are quite some people in Europe who are directly (jobs, attacks) or indirectly (state power) affected by that. The hysteria is imho a combination of scaring media tactics but also real problems. That media twist or even invent stories is clear. That that is used by politicians too. But that doesn't mean nothing is going on; the immigration wave of "asylum seekers" is a tangible problem in the continent. If you live somewhere else and/or have no ties (family, friends, history) in Europe it may interest you less. But that doesn't make the problems disappear magically. Nor make it less interesting to others. The big danger working in the background of all of this is the EU. The biggest super state under construction in the world. As anti-statists everyone should be aware of that. Some people see it as a blueprint for a New World Order Government, so eventually in the long run it may affect other continents. Suppose you were Vietnamese, Cambodian or Cuban in 1919 and viewed the upcoming Bolshevik state in Russia. Not knowing the country you're from would experience similar horrors decades later...

You keep talking about "the world" like you have just bought a magical lamp from Aladdin and have a ghost who can fulfill your wishes?! I do not "want" something about/for "the world"! The world is. I cannot change that, so it's useless to "want" something. "Do you want people to listen to Justin Bieber and buy his crappy records?" is exactly the same question. Senseless. Utopian, Machbarkeit, dreaming, unrealistic. I am a realist. The only things I can want are the things I have control over to get or change them: - my environment (the country/place I live) - my social environment (my friends) - my choice of partner - the way I want to raise my children - the job I want to do - the money I want to spend on X, Y and Z - the hobbies I take on - the life experiences I want to achieve ALL the other matters are far, far beyond my reach and the whole point is: the same holds for you!? You are talking "we could change this, lower taxes here, we can abolish the state, we can maintain the system... etc. etc.". Where did you find that magical wand or Aladdin lamp that you can just desire something and then "just change" it to your desires?? Ok, finally we reach the core of your thoughts. I guess I speak for others too, because it cannot possibly be that I was the only one waiting to hear concrete answers. So thanks. Exactly how do you expect the current Elites (or rulers) to change a system that they directly profit from in the first place (otherwise the system wouldn't be there, right?)? The enforcers would obviously be the same ones that enforce todays laws. Well, that "obviously" is not so clear to me. You say you want to "change the whole wide world system" but "obviously" rely on the same people that keep the system alive. To me, that would mean that "obviously" nothing is gonna happen... Why would they?? The criteria are results of elections. Really? You believe in elections? In voting? And how exactly is that different from now? And what about the huge propaganda campaigns that will be in place? Or do you want to restrict the voting population or so? I fail to see what is different about this than what we have now. Wasn't it Einstein who said "Keep doing the same things again and again and expecting a different outcome is a sign of stupidity" (I paraphrase)? And I don't understand; you picture the downfall of "the world economical system" in 2 years, so "we have to act fast". And then as a "solution" you present, sorry, but elections?? What if your party just gets a small percentage of the votes (like the sympathetic yet not less naive anti-EU party Alternative für Deutschland). Then the next election in 4 years and you're too late. Bummer. There is no need to take away the control "again", they already have that control and without revolution they won't lose it, In other words: "I, Thomasio, defend statism and do not want to end it, as it is there, so it's ok, no need to change it". It's circular reasoning taking the status quo as a false argument and it's immoral. so all we have to do is,... Your naivity seems infinite... once changes have reached a point where some parts of government aren't needed anymore, we take that part out, "we" (who is "we"?) "take that part out" (how???)? or better, the initial laws enforced to make a change should already include the abolishion of that force as soon as the change has been achieved. Yes, that would be awesome. Just how realistic do you think that is? Do you have any experience in politics? First-hand, knowing how those people "work"? You don't have to force big corporations to pay taxes, you can achieve the same goal by lowering taxes for small businesses or finding an average of taxes somewhere in the middle. The latter is thus forcing big corporations to pay more and reach a kind of "average". The former is enforced how exactly? By politicians? You were concerned about the state budgets. How are those states getting their budgets right if millions of small business pay less taxes? You only have to make sure competition is equal for all businesses, whether big or small. Really, Thomasio, I don't know if you've ever run a business (watch more Stefan's videos for advice) or worked even in a company, but this speech is some communist non-sense. If an American producer with a factory in the US has to pay a given amount of taxes, while an American corporation that has moved production to China and their official address to the Cayman Islands doesn't have to pay those taxes, either you charge those taxes upon import of the goods into the US in form of import duty, or you abolish those taxes for American producers. Once that's equal, producers will discover, the cost of shipping all that stuff over 15,000 miles is higher than the saved cost of American labor and well paid manufacturing jobs will return to the US. Magic, just like that. Wow. "You just...". Thomas, I guess you really need to stop dreaming and wake up from this utopian non-sense. You, me, any other forum participant here is just a TINY indvidual in a HUGE world who has "nothing to want" about it. We have no control, we have no say and no choice about "the big bad wide world" you seem so eager of "changing" using your Aladdin lamp. You, me, every other person here, has however power, choice and control. Over ourselves, our choices, our morality and our offspring. And that's about it. Coming back to Justin Bieber: We cannot make 'the world' not buying Justin Bieber records anymore. The only thing we can do is not buying them ourselves. And that's the message. Wake up, Thomas. Really, this utopian trap will make you very unhappy in the long run....

So answering to my objection of your world view (Machbarkeit), you reply with even more Machbarkeit? Apart from the straw man argument "You want to maintain the current broken system" (nope; that's why we anarchists/libertarians/voluntaryists participate in this forum), I read several "you could", "you have to", "it might make sense to enforce...". That's why I asked you specific, simple questions: Who can or should do this change to the system? Who are the enforcers? What are your criteria to give that control to those people? What are your criteria to take away that control again? How are you going to force big corporations to pay taxes? So far, what I've read is: "No honey, no time to teach our children to behave morally and stop hitting them. No son, no time to stop stealing from others. No, sister, there's no time to stop raping your husband. In two years time we won't have running water, decent food and our house isn't worth a rat's ass, so no time for morality and ethics now. Stop it!" "But, my love, what do you propose then?" "Yeah, ehh, well, I don't know, I am just waving my hands, but what you are doing is not gonna work!" Don't you find that a bit lame?

That is the whole idea of a thought experiment, Donna... If it would be a testable environment, we wouldn't need a thought experiment. Just like: "adiabatic conditions" and "ideal gases" are thought experiments; theoretical/conceptual in nature. Do you agree? On what basis do you call "death" and "decay" "entropic"? The decay process is creating new life (so in your world "negentropic") for the decay bacteria, insects, etc. From the ashes of a cremated person new plants can grow. Star dust from dying stars is forming new stellar systems, planets and moons, etc. etc. The circle of life. Would you disagree with that? Donna, if you just jump back to a previous statement which is impossible to make (unless you're some kind of "god"), I'd say the discussion is over. If you really think that you know "what the Universe is...", I suggest you call some astrophysicists and quantum mechanics scientists to tell them that they can stop their scientific search, because you know "what the Universe is...". And please post you're publication here, it would be awesome if FDR would have the first "I know what the Universe is..." scientific publication in the world. I am sure Stefan and Mike will invite you to the show and talk about it. The same comment for you throwing around words like "primarily" and "secondarily". You make statements, do not back them up with proof or thought experiments, do no effort in quantifiying your statements on "primarily" or "A is more common than B", you keep mixing up religion with science and you do not address the arguments I put forward. I await the "Truth about the Universe" with Donna Dogsoth.

Ok, Thomasio, the discussion about the economics aside, I would like to ask what do you want to do then? And how? I think it's debatable that "communism was the result of a struggle between ideas", but ok. You say "THAT I don't want to happen". In Dutch we have a word for such way of thinking; 'maakbaarheid', which would translate like "Machbarkeit" or "shapability". It is utopian. You want the world to become like X. It is opposite to the classical-liberal/libertarian laissez-faire; let things follow the natural order without external forces stepping in. So my question is; if you do not want "Y to happen", how do you make sure Y will not happen? Who is in control and what are your criteria to give that control to those people? And what are the criteria to take back that control and how do you want to achieve that? Who are the organizers and enforcers in your idea of this "controlled abolition"? Who appoints them? I think the FDR approach is quite realistic (small-scale multi-generational thinking) and the "preset goal" is the free society itself. The basis (or plan) is philosophy; ethics, morality. Glad you nuance your words more than before ("almost nobody"). But this statement above and your conclusion statement from the OP... ...I read -and don't mind my formulation- as: "Guys, guys, the system is going to collapse [in the next 2 years]. All nice bla-bla about philosophy, being moral, behaving ethically, raising children peacefully and advocating freedom and alternative currencies (e.g. Bitcoin), but there's no time for that! Quick, we have to come with a world-wide plan, enforce it, and then we'll be happy hippie hippos hopping in honey-rich Eden!"