Torero

OK, I agree with that. Among "science" there's quite some "I know it all" religious thinking. Some call it "scientism", I just call it "intrinsically anti-scientific". The very basis of science is philosophy. And that philosophy in essence says "we don't know it, but let's find out". Once a scientist claims "the truth", it becomes anti-scientific. Science is an eternal search for furniture, not the claim to have found the perfect comfortable chair. I didn't describe it as "no laws of physics", yet as "no [external] forces present". But I see how you reached that wording. And no, the second room is towards less entropy ("chaos"), so towards organisation (so "negentropy"); the properties of the objects define the organisation. If we assume a room where there's no organisation (room 1), then entropy (or "chaos") is "preferred". Still the same objects, yet the external forces (or in thermodynamics; a closed "entropy-maximisation" system) are different. So to put it in even simpler words: Room 1 tends to show no crystal lineation; (ice) crystals are entropy-driven; so not showing patterns. Room 2 tends to be organised (the forces define which organisation will be present) so (ice) crystals are showing patterns. Room 1 is exemplary for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Room 2 is exemplary for the observed patterns in evolution, crystallography, microscopic physics and megamacroscopic astrophysics. No contradiction (as both rooms have the same box with objects), yet two different and uncomparable systems. This is, in my own words and understanding, what that wiki page says about the lack of contradiction you came up with between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the observations we do on microscopic and astrophysic scales.

It ties back to the discussion about "why be moral". Some say "history is written by the victors". I'd say "history is written by those who have the most interest". Imagine a "Gandalf", "Yoda" or a similar kind of wise person. It may even be your grandfather or -mother. Their ideas, their moral behaviour/actions still stand. Aristotle, as basis for Ayn Rand and (as a result) for Stefan's philosophy is probably the best example. If philosophy so old and thus timeless is saved and passed on, he has come immortal. His ideas are the basis of everything we discuss right now. René Decartes and Roger Bacon may be added for the scientific part. An idea of "who cares, we die anyway" I find a bit empty, fatalistic. I am sure that we, consumers of Stefan's philosophical shows (too much of an entertaining word for the wisdom he shows -hihi-) will keep spreading the message on to our offspring. Only in case of a world-destroying-meteorite wiping off 99% of life on this planet (like has happened in the past -K/T boundary or Permo-Triassic-) it may be our ideas are lost forever, but in all other cases people in the future will build upon ideas spread by their ancestors. There's no "wishful thinking" in that; good philosophy is like good science; it speaks for itself.

Thank you, Max Stirner (your avatar). True and good point. While Stefan may not be a utilitarian philsosopher, I must say I have taken some of my reasoning from that (John Stuart Mill and especially Epicurus I like quite a lot). Still it's not a case of utilitarianism = not true philosophical reasoning. We are pragmatic in our nature, opportunistic even. A cold non-emotional philosophy does not make sense (although it may be rationally right); we are emotional beings and will always be (I hope, if not we turn into robots and robots do not need philosophy). Yes, on a large-scale where lies are covered by enough deceit (like is the case today) that's true. And hence my call for small-scale thinking and avoiding the utopian trap. Statists tend to think "for all mankind", which is ridiculous; there's not enough common philosophical ground for all humanity to apply thinking on that scale. And every utopian "we can change 'the world' thinking" has failed (see communism). Or in very simple un-nuanced words: "we will never agree, all of us". Still that doesn't mean there are no universal values. I think the core values of morality (some call it 'the ten commandments') are quite universal. If not, they wouldn't have been embraced by so many cultures independently from each other.

It may get "lengthy" but I just think that's because it's new to you (15 posts) and it's important. Good to discuss anyway. Hm... should regulation apply or enforcement, and am I statist for saying so? Well, to each their own, I won't tell someone how to live their lives, but what if someone's gross amount of garbage, noise, vehicle, and other pollution - as a result of having a crammed up house - happens to be my neighbor. I believe this is where the state might actually seem a savior. Again, not really supporting the idea, just noting a consideration. Really? Think about it actually in your everyday life: if you have a problem like this with your neighbour; do you call the state (the police as enforcing unit) or do you talk to your neighbour (at least first!)? That's what I am saying; we people know how to live together (or not) best. OK, let me say this one thing here. Your instances of eliminating the state to get to the core of the problem, I agree on all cases! Because I am not really making a state vs no-state argument and I tend to agree with that philosophy. Please, try to step away from large-scale "eliminating the state" ideas. We will not "eliminate" or "abolish" the state. What we can do however is to live life differently; set a good example for others. And philosophy via the womb; Stefans philosophy. That's like saying; "we live in a slavery situation, maybe I can convince the slave owner to become reasonable". It's a useless path. Still a reasonable thief is a thief. Still a reasonable rapist is a rapist. Still a reasonable slave owner supports slavery. Why not step away (not: trying to "abolish" something, just step away) and do the things between humans? No force or violence, yet peaceful win-win negotiations? But if we can put that to the side, as I tend to agree anyway, and let's say we are living in anarchy or small government "now". So... Sorry to be nitpicking, but not "anarchy", yet "anarchism". Anarchy is statist labeling. Anarchy is a state of chaos. Anarchism is not chaos; it's dealing with your fellow humans in a peaceful, non-violent, way. Like most of our interactions are anyway. So the step is much smaller than many think... Population... It still happens, no? Maybe times are good, people are sending their big families' children to private schools, and the population can still have a boom for whatever unforeseen reason. There will still be big cities which many people like in this new non-state world we live in. And thus population issues are likely to rise up here too, albeit, perhaps coming and going more naturally like tides, but still to be taken seriously when it builds up, I suggest! In a situation where states are somehow disappearing, yes. I cannot speak for others, but I think leading by example is the way forward; organising small-scale non-statist communities. So there there won't be problems like "overpopulation". You still seem to adhere to what I call the "utopian trap"; an idea that "EVERYONE should" or other "world-wide plans". It's a useless track to go world-wide when it's not proven on a small-scale. See the utopian trap where I've discussed exactly this difference in view in more detail. Basically, I feel as though we are still in hypothesis or "near theory" about whether a non-state society will "guarantee" a healthy population, or if not guarantee at least give us better chances. And doesn't a non-state system require a bit more education and self-regulation? Thus even in a non-state society, still, it would probably be good to educate ourselves on the dangers of overpopulation. Being that we agree at this point that overpopulation is bad. But that's the whole thing; you and your fellow citizens would never ever go for overpopulation. Imagine you live in a community in Pennsylvania, you don't have the state to back-up your decisions; your decisions are yours and shared between you and your neighbours. Would overpopulation even be a theme? No, of course not; there are limited resources, you and your neighbours wouldn't want 40 stories high skycrapers blocking your view and nobody would be wanting to overpopulate (i.e. have more people than resources). It's a natural thing among reasonable (so based on rational philosophy) thing. Regarding George Washington, hahaha I'm sorry, I should not have said that. Please understand this was not my meaning, but it is clear why you interpreted it like this. Remember I lived in China for 12 years? In fact, many Chinese have referred to Mao like this, and I guess I just forgot my audience here. Of course the two leaders are very different... but... do remember that "for the Chinese" this might actually be the viewpoint... and if you can accept that, then you'll see my original point was harmless. I'm just saying that he is given credit for the population boom, by many! And I think we can call that a historical fact... but I have learned not to argue history at the international level and will leave it to you. Ok, clear. It indeed sounded quite strange and I am not even USAmerican, while you are. George Washington may well have his flaws, but the scale of mass murder and other domination that Mao showed is really uncomparable. Glad we agree on that, while brainwashed Chinese may not... OK, I concede to all points that statism causes population booms, and/or overpopulation in general. "However", again, can we prove that "non-state" will "guarantee" a healthy population. No. Never. Step away from the idea that ANY society (coercive - so statist, or non-coercive - so free) can "guarantee" things. Poverty is widespread, no matter how many years of tax farming went into "solving" the "problem of the poor" under the richest states (Europe, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). I am not making a point, just asking. I guess all of the models and hypothesis might lead towards a 'Yes'... but, do we really have any non-state demographics to judge from? I just did a search, the results I am getting are not consistent, and what results I get are not really appetizing to support the non-state argument so I will just drop that search. Then, what about going back in history for some no-state, small gov evidence... I have a problem with this, mostly because today's world is so much different. Remember that modern medicine increases population dramatically, and technology makes life much easier. I guess you could also counter that people have condoms and birth control as a result of the modern technology too... but I'm still not sold 100%. Maybe 90% but still not there. I am preparing a topic on a society which actually came close to what a peaceful, non-violent society was. Hold on to your horses. I don't promise it will be this week though... Your view on living in space is refreshing. Agreed on the state controlling land too. I actually have a standing issue with this. Sure, I am a sucker for the city life and state run comforts like most... but I should at least "have the choice" to go live off the land if I want, and with some research that seems to be virtually out of the question in the US today. And with so much open land! Exactly. So the same force "forcing" us to live in big cities ("providing" more choice) is the force that keeps us from organizing ourselves freely... And as for the rest, all valid points and somewhat enlightening for me! Remember I am new to the boards here, and relatively new to philosophy and these ethical issues as well. So thanks for being patient. The topic is probably taboo because of the types of reactions we saw just in this thread. I seriously had no idea this would turn into a statist argument! I think people also inherently reject anything population control via sci-fi scenarios of government control, and an exaggerated fear of extinction. But if we are to avoid extinction, should we not brave the tough issues?!? The thing is; in a true peaceful society those problems would not arise. Think about the r versus K series by Stefan (if you haven't seen them, I really recommend watching it!). If the rabbits are spreading too much, there is no ecosystem anymore. Or in other words; statism forms the "safeguard" to "destroy" our planet. If the Earth were to be your garden; would you really allow for species to get extinct? Or would you care to protect them? If the Amazone rainforest would be owned by people instead of headless states, do you think people would allow others to chop away so much valuable nature? I for one would not allow that if it were mine and I am sure I am not the only person who actually is "environmentally concerned".

Ok, clear. The "destiny" of the Universe is pretty unsure. Just like everything about the Universe. We are so extremely tiny in that huge system of unimaginable forces... And how can you claim "the Universe" as a "closed system"? Its boundaries are impossible to know. If you consider the Universe as negentropic then it is by definition an open system so the two statements become contradictory. Not rearranging "things in a box", it's a thought experiment.

It would go wildly offtopic here and there's a separate topic on it. I do realise it's not a mainstream idea that they are fake(d), to tie back to the topic title.

I would say: reciprocity; if you and the people around you are moral, it makes life better. Better in the sense of less lies, less threats, less deceit, less unpleasant situations. Then on to "what is unpleasant, lies, deceiving, threatening" and "why would that be good": "because of the efforts needed to protect yourself or others from those negative points can be saved and that time and money can be invested in other things". In other words: "if you don't lie, you don't need time and effort to cover your lies" or "if you don't steal, you don't need to spend time and effort to protect yourself from people stealing back". The classical "attack" by "anti-libertarians" (whatever they mean by that) is that this is all "selfish". It is not; as social animals it is not selfish to advocate moral behaviour as the interaction between us by definition makes it social/unselfish/not only pointed at ourselves. And why reciprocity? I'd say morality is always with respect to others. Dropped on an island as the only person there: - it doesn't make sense to lie, because there's nobody to lie to and nobody to check if you lied - it doesn't make sense to steal, because there's nobody to steal from - it doesn't make sense to rape, because there's no victim etc. If you are then on this island with 2 people where you have to survive: - it is negative to lie/steal/rape/murder/deceive, because the time and effort spent to solve your lies and protect you from the reciprocal effects of your immorality are not spent on survival or improvement of life

First: the label "extremism" is a bit awkward. Compared to what? The status quo? The "general" (collectivised individual) idea? I've been called "extremist" in discussions with statists for advocating a free society and I am sure many more people on this forum are in similar discussions. A female muslim in a sharia law village advocating women's rights for education, non-circumcision and the right to drink alcohol would be considered "extremist". A muslim advocating sharia law in Shanksville would be considered "extremist", that same muslim with the same ideas in Riyad would not be considered "extremist". I stopped watching the video halfway, so I don't know which values he takes for extremism. And that was not my point. The point is you wouldn't present a video of a stalinist as "proof" that nazism is bad. Or inverse the point: if I would post a video of an "Orthodox muslim" (even if he had 2 PhD's at Harvard and skipped two years in school) as a response to "judaism has unfavorable/'extremist' values" I hope (!) that poisonous well would be questioned the same way as I did to Shapiro. Yes, those are media stories. And they are presented indeed. But to take your comparison; it would be "nine times" more likely that a tourist is robbed in Indonesia, than suffer a "terrorist attack". Which would make stealing (so based on financial gain rather than ideological warfare) more likely than anti-Western/Freedom club attacks without financial incentives. Outside of media hyping craziness there surely is anti-Western frustration among muslims. Last summer I was in southern France where a group of typical low-life Moroccan youth was targeting non-muslims (physically, insults, etc.). They were really behaving like monkeys/hyenas. If you know the movie La Haine, it was exactly like that. That is not an incident; in France the situation in many cities is really bad. And some of that behaviour stems from the indoctrination with islamic values (lack of respect for non-muslims). Also parts of it are due to the failing education of absent or abusive parents, etc. The police (!) was literally standing next to it and not doing anything. Those apes (really, watch La Haine, intro below, and you know what I am talking about) were showing completely unacceptable and stupid behaviour (throwing bottles, hitting people, shouting insults in their horrible type of French, etc.). And were not corrected for that behaviour. AT ALL. So that there are multiculturalist problems and increasingly so due to the import of more of those "people" into formerly peaceful societies in Europe is definitely true. Outside of the media stories which should be looked upon with great skepticism. That's why I used the wording "Forced Multiculturalism". I've lived in multicultural neighbourhoods in Holland myself and fair to say without many problems. But that does not make the problems that are there go away, that's leftist looking away speech.

Ok, fine, new topics to discuss. Reading some introductory wikis however it's said the contradiction of negentropy with entropy or the increase of it by the 2nd law of thermodynamics you propose is not there. And I am still surprised how you tie your thoughts together. As I remember (e.g. here), you advocate creationism over evolution as the mechanism creating the biodiversity we see around us, am I right? Then the following page Entropy and life becomes a bit difficult to understand, as its basic principle is evolution. On this page, sourced by Kenneth Denbigh, in his 1955 book The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium, it is said: It makes sense if you take the following thought experiment where I use force instead of heat (thermodynamics): Imagine you have a box full of objects. All these objects have characteristics; mass, electromagnetic properties, density. You are in an imaginary room without forces; no gravity, no pressure, no electromagnetics. You empty the box full of objects into the room and the objects are chaotically ("entropy") 'positioned' (I cannot find a better word for it; position already involves organisation, so that's not right, but ok) in that room. In a second room, where the forces gravity, pressure and electromagnetics are present you empty the same box. Here the objects will fall (gravity), be attracted (electromagnetics) and pushed (pressure) in a certain configuration ("negentropy") according to their respective properties: mass (gravity), electromagnetics (em) and density (pressure). The difference in outcome between the rooms is based on the forces, while the objects are the same. The 1st room in "adiabatic" condition will show chaos/entropy/lack of organisation and the 2nd room in "non-closed condition" will show patterns/negentropy/organisation. There's no contradiction here? What is contradictory still is mixing religion (creationism, your other ideas on religion expressed in the various topics) with natural science: Where does 1 stop and the other begin? And on what basis do you make those divisions? "Until here religion is valid and there science begins"?

Exactly; "would we drink the water?", no; the well is poisonous, I merely pointed out the poison. If Ben Shapiro according to his own wiki is an Orthodox Jew (Judaist, not the child of a jewish mother), then his own religious views are: - based on the Torah and Talmud, which are not less horrible (especially the Talmud in its talk about goyim) than the Koran and Hadith is in the texts - promoting circumcision, religious/racial narcissicm Such a person to bring into the discussion when we're talking about the not less bad principles in Islam is indeed poisonous and nonsense. In the discussion about muslims it's hard as we have the media which are dominated by "terror". You take those "terror attack stories" seriously (the grand master event of all 9/11 is promoted by you in your own words). I do not. I have quite some first-hand experience in muslim countries (2 of which have sharia law) and with muslims in Europe. So I have ample anecdotal evidence. These experiences include only a few where I can extract an "anti-freedom club view" from. If you would not take my anecdotal evidence seriously, then look at the amounts of muslims, normal hardworking people (or trapped by the welfare system provided to them). Do they show large amounts of anti-Western aggression? Are freedoms in the West destroyed by muslims? Most of the islamisation in Europe is self-islamisation. Schools taking away "christmas trees as that would be somehow "offending" muslims". Muslims are not asking for that; it's like pre-crime; leftist oikophobes are thinking for muslims and destroy western/christian values. I am nowhere defending islam, the Koran or the enormously violent history of conquering terrain that muslim Elites have shown (Stefans "The History of the Crusades", the spread by the sword from Marrakech to Makassar and Kazakhstan to Kenia, etc.). The ideas about non-muslims, jews, women, gays, etc. in the Koran are horrible. But if it would be that the vast majority of the muslims truly (and outside of the statist propaganda we dislike so much!) "hate the West" (and more than because of Western imperialist warfare), then tourists in those countries and westerners in their own by visiting muslims would be slaughtered by the millions. If really 143 million Indonesians are anti-Western, why is there still tourism in that country? That would not be possible as 50% of them would kill off the tourists. No alcohol allowed in the Bali resorts, tourists en masse left for dead on Sumatran trails, etc. Do we see that happening? In our everyday lives? Not the televised "reality" of "terror", no in our everyday lives? I have not but maybe you have numerous examples of everyday situations where muslims have acted anti-Western/anti-Freedom (club)?

Donna, I see you love to derail your own topic, but claims like "the Universe is..." are ridiculous. We don't know what and how the Universe is. Science is searching and trying, not claiming and carving in stone. We have models of the Universe, and models are by definition never 100% correct. The Einstein theoretical physics "religion" is not empirical science but it's also not your own religion. Your magical mix of cherrypicking some science but on other terrains pushing your own religious thoughts is completely incoherent.

Quotes of your text are in red; maximum number of quote boxes. Please don't mind me asking, but do you then agree with "states making laws for maximum bedroom occupation [and the privacy-damaging checks of that law]" while you say "statism is not to be seen as 'ideal'"? I find that contradictory. Recommendations are of course not force, so ok. But I think in a free society those recommendations are redundant; the lack of back-up by forcing states would make people more conscious about their family size decisions. See Stefans "The Truth About Single Moms" for strong arguments; the State stepping in to provide money, food (stamps) and housing for mothers who can just breed on without consciously thinking if they can support such large families... The "same" problems I don't think so. You describe cultural and statist propagandist "values" or behaviours; people hitting their children and extreme "Streber" mentality. Streber is also a word in English? It means people excessively driven to perform, but to an unhealthy level. That overcrowded societies cause social problems, yes, definitely. Ehhhhh.... Describing "Chairman" Mao as "the George Washington" of China to me is outlandish. Come on, this born peasant has murdered millions and millions of people, either direct (as a psychopath leader killing his own even trusted people) or indirect (by his policies, land reforms, having intellectuals killed, destroying literacy rates, demolishing education, confucianist religion, etc., etc., etc.). You wouldn't call Josif Stalin the "George Washington" of (modern) Russia, nor Pol Pot the "George Washington" of Cambodia or Idi Amin the "George Washington" of Uganda.... The principles of the United States of America, the Constitution, etc. are FAR FAR off the extremely brutal slaughter of communist China, come on! wrote to the country's people that they should multiply and to do so rapidly because there is great wealth on the way and they have no reason to fear. Many equate China's current condition with this state message. But previously, the Chinese have always regarded "big family" as the way to go. More hands to tend the farm, and this is embedded in the culture now. I'd say that the "state message" of freaking Mao was going a slight small microscopically minute bit further than this... It must have been horrible to live under that system. Stalin, Castro, Chavez and Hitler were little boy scouts compared to what Mao has done to his "own" peoples (the various cultures that now make up China). Enough about China The point here is to look at the results of big population. It is the state's fault? Apparently yes, in cases. But I think we can not give proof that only statism can cause this effect with this one example. Not one example?! Like crapitalism (crony-capitalism; credits Stefan) is unnecessarily draining Earth's resources, statism is unnecessarily providing the back-up for overpopulation: - welfare - children's support even for families not on welfare (so in essence it's welfare as well) - statist-controlled importation of millions of people (the "immigration" crisis in Europe as dramatic example) It's the essential root of the whole system; tax farming. So have as many people as possible to steal wealth from. You say Netherlands is densely populated, I just looked it up, Apparently they are the 64th most populated country in the world, not to shabby! I forgot to include "serious". Monaco, Singapore, island states are not "serious countries". Only Bangladesh (not an example of a "perfect world", I'd say...), South Korea (not too bad I reckon) and Taiwan (island state, but sufficient in size) are denser populated than the Netherlands. And the history of the country also makes it a serious country; no matter the small size, the Dutch empire and trade companies were all over the world (just like Portugal, a small country with a huge empire spanning over all continents). Brooklyn and Harlem are named after two Dutch towns; Breukelen & Haarlem. There are many more examples in the Eastern US. South Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tasmania (after Tasman), the Dutch West Indies & Guyanas, etc. etc. And correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard Netherlands to be communist? But I guess someone could argue that they are statist. I don't know. I just argue that dense population can happen anywhere. A chart of "statist level" to "population" ratio might be interesting! Not communist, but very socialist. That goes deeper than just the size of the government and taxation (both are huge in Holland), but is more cultural/social as well. Here I've outlined that before. You seem to have little faith for Living in Space, which I have always been optimistic about. Albeit my level of scientific understanding might be in the upper sci-fi level! But that is an interesting viewpoint and I'm curious if you have any reading on that? I think even Hawkins is given credit for saying that we should be pursuing living in space with more enthusiasm. Faith has no place in a natural-scientific debate, but this topic is not about space. It's not optimism/pessimism; I am very optimistic. Just not falling for lies. And indeed; it makes the whole world view a different one; "this Earth is all we will ever have" versus "we can just drain the Earth, breed like r-type rabbits and then move on to a different planet". It's a dangerous superstition (and Hawkins is just a puppet for the perpetrators) that we could do that... And with this being the case, what about spreading out more? I used to always wonder why these insanely dense cities in China didn't just sprawl out! If I am not mistaken we can serve water and power to just about anywhere now, it just gets more expensive. There are some advantages to bigger cities, otherwise people wouldn't move there. In terms of job opportunities, freedom of choice in stores, educational facilities, hospitals, etc. it is advantageous to live in a bigger city. But to answer your question: spreading out is restricted by the same statist "laws" that are the problem in the first place. We are not allowed to just start building a community somewhere (and less in the West where more rules are enforced). The state prohibits just making your own nicely spread out city somewhere where you like it (and your friends/fellow New Spread Out Citizens too). And speaking of resources, how about that? WATER. It is of high value today in many places globally and it is a major factor in population, of course. Water is not so much of a problem. It's natural and formed every day. The distribution of water is a different thing, and so is the over-use of it. In Dubai there's a shopping mall with a freaking ice skating track in it. With 50 degrees (Celsius) outside, it's possible to ice-skate inside in a nicely cooled (air conditioning) environment. Decadence. Water is a virtually endless resource (not only on the surface; also the Earth's crust is filled with water) and desalination is a proven technology. Water in essence is not the problem. But you cannot build technology from water. You need ores (metals, semi-metals, etc.) and in our petroleum-based society oil and those are not infinite. Not that tomorrow it's not there anymore (alarmism is not the point), but by definition it's finite. Real supply-and-demand pricing (which would result from a non-fiat currency free society) naturally would solve that. The current system is rigged in terms of prices of resources. For oil, see here. You see, this is why I brought this topic up, it is not so simple as to say "People good, so free the babies!", there are many things to be considered in order for those babies to live happy and productive lives. And dare we think of the consequences that arise when not adequately provided for?! "Provided for" is statist speech. I think we people, evolved from apes, are very well capable of providing things ourselves. It's the violent apes (statists) who want to "arrange" that into laws and rules and "divide [and conquer]", "provide", etc. that has no moral basis. But of course, I like you bringing this topic up, as it's very interesting and a bit of a taboo as well.

Just a short (mobile) reaction now: You're talking about "shitting on a canvas" (horrible and nonsense/non-art) and putting Van Gogh, Dalì and Escher in the same category; "non-classical art". If you really think that way, you're downgrading those hardworking artists with innovative, original and to many people interesting styles, themes and combinations and give those empty canvas shitters FAR too much credit. But feel free to live according to guidelines established by some (Schiller) institute; your life and choice. Just don't confuse those guidelines with principles/philosophy.

Thomasio, respect for taking the time and effort to make such an elaborated OP of your ideas and expectations. The first "fact" however I do not agree with. It is based on the theoretical idea that (consumer) prices are purely defined on the basis of "supply and demand". The one price our whole worldwide economy is based on does not behave like this. That is the oil price. Oil (crude, non-refined petroleum liquids) has a price of 30 dollars for a barrel (159 liters) now. Two years ago that price was at 100 (it even reached higher, but let's take 100) dollars a barrel. Excluding the value of the dollar itself (compared to other currencies), because that would complicate things even more, in your theoretical explanation that would mean that either the demand for oil is just 30 % of what it was 2 years ago or that the supply of oil is 3.3 times bigger, or a combination thereof. I don't know much about economy but I do know quite a bit about oil. Both extremes (and the combination) are ridiculous; it's NOT the case that the world is just using 30% of what it did in 2014 nor is there suddenly 3.3 times more oil. New exploration does not find huge fields and daily consumption of oil is increasing over time (with more production, more people, more growth per capita, etc.). If the basis of the whole economy, oil, is not behaving according to the first "fact" you state in your OP, it becomes quite hard to go into the next points. I've read your whole introduction and based on purely theoretical principles you may be right, but the world does not work like that (evidently). There's far much more power play and politics involved than to have "the system" crash in the next 2 years. Many people have done these kind of alarmist predictions (Martin Armstrong is one of them) and they didn't come out as such. If it would be all a crystal clear and logical system that you can calculate in a single OP, the world would look very differently. Unfortunately the Elites (political and financial) have all the tools in their hands to play this game for much longer. But even if we ignore all the objections and would take your whole OP as "the truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth" it still does not refute at all the call for philosophy, morality, peaceful parenting, non-violence and win-win negotiations, as you summarise in the words "a gradual transition from the current corrupt system to a free society".

Is it dubious because you don't like narcotics or is it dubious because you doubt the confessions of the artists themselves (Van Gogh as an example)? The former would be cognitive dissonance, the latter a case of skepticism (which I can always applaud). And yes, I realise I've done a claim so should back it up, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that drugs and art are related. And how do you know how "classical art" is "intended"? Have you spoken to Mozart, Rembrandt, Shakespeare? And what about non-classical artists who actually said they intended to "better humanity"? Are they lying? Rationality stems from principles, philosophy. It is not rooted in art. Well, a lot or art can be even considered "irrational". Actually two or my favourite artists do show a lot of irrational shapes and sculptures; Salvador Dalì and Maurits C. Escher. But the topic is "why take children away", and we digressed quite a bit here. To somehow connect the dots; children making a "non-classical" or "irrational" drawing or sculpture, they should be punished or re-educated for that?

Well, that was over soon... In the "Scientific" American... It actually is about science; defending real, philosophy-based, empirical, predictive capable science against fraudulent pseudo-science which forms the basis for political scams. The root "science" of AGW is flawed. It's not just the politics around it; the whole hypothesis is pseudo-science, sorry. I've listed quite some arguments for this in the various climate topics already. A summary of the most important points for new readers: the premise of Antropogenic "Global" "Warming" (AGW) is: "humans do have the capacity to change global climate, [the question is just by how much]", where it does not review the natural causes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (like CH4) or lumps them together like they are some "static natural noise" -> I've even come across articles where they call nature "noise". No, humans are "noise", nature is the basic dynamic melody. the predictability of all the climate models so far is zero. The models all predicted ongoing warming, while that didn't happen. So the models (Stefan: "models are not science", Torero: "scientific models are scientific representations of reality and by definition never 100% exact") are all flawed. any claim on "97% consensus" on natural-scientific terrains is bogus. The natural sciences (geophysics, geology, hydrology, meteorology, climatology) are not consensus-based. There are many different views on observations as they are so difficult to pinpoint; too many factors that are dynamic (change over time). Examples? Put 100 geologists into the field and as a result you'll have 101 different geological maps. Or ask 100 weather(wo)men to predict the weather in 1 month time and all the predictions differ from each other. Imagine a game of chess; after a mere 4 turns the amount of possible outcomes is more than 288 billion! And that's with a board with just 32 pieces, 2 players and 64 squares. Imagine that when the number of factors and possible outcomes becomes amazingly higher and the factors are inter-dependent (or not), dynamic over time and even unidentified (science is never finished) parameters come into play...

You keep saying "what is best", "people must/should", "right things", "wrong reasons"... I am still puzzled how you can connect those moral or ethical words to something which is very much a matter of taste. There's no logic in that. For instance; I don't like (actually 'hate' it): jazz. And whisk(e)y. Funnily enough those things combine very well. Yet at the same time I can and do recognize that both those things are actually high quality (or probably in your world falling under "classical art"). But according to your statement, I must be "damaged" in some way for not liking it? Same for Shakespeare, some classical music (I like quite some pieces), etc. Someones taste is not related to the quality of something. It may be, but not necessarily. And you bring "narcotics" into the discussion; a lot of art (if not the majority) has been produced under the influence of various types of drugs (alcohol; e.g. absinth, LSD, marihuana, mushrooms, etc.). So if you consider narcotics "wrong", it still helped to produce "right" art and other things.

Hi bschu, a very interesting problem you describe here and one of the greatest challenges of mankind (especially if the Subsaharan African population keeps rising). Some background: I was born and raised in one of the most densely populated countries in the world (yet with only small and for Chinese standards tiny cities); the Netherlands. Now I am happily living in one of the biggest cities in the world; the capital of Colombia with 8-14 (met area) million people. Visited other huge cities like Tehran, Mexico DF, Lima, Istanbul, Moscow and more. I don't know China yet and the country and food appeal for a tourist visit but indeed those mass cities with the enormous pollution are not very attractive, to put it mildly. ---- Your question; "has the one-child policy of China been right?" is an interesting one. From a statist perspective, where you "have to organize" a country, I fear the answer is "yes". We couldn't imagine how China would have been now without it (some Nigeria++ probably). From a human, social and moral perspective it's of course not right. People shouldn't be forced by others on the most essential part of our lives; the creation and raising of offspring. The social problems created in the Chinese society (and please correct me here; I only get some news articles on the country while you know it well first-hand) on the huge disparity between males and females, the exceptions the powerful people organized for themselves and even murdering girls deemed "less worthy" for the parents is a humanitarian disaster. A drastic change in world view for me is the knowledge mankind will always be kept to Earth as space travel is impossible. That makes a huge difference in how we look at the world and I switched off the video on the "Overpopulation Myth" when the -obviously smart; a PhD in nuclear engineering is not for the unintelligent- guest was introduced on the "Mars society". We cannot get there, so we only have 1 Earth and that's it. In theory the Earth can hold many many many more people than the 7+ billion we have today or the 10+ billion projected at the end of this century. But that also means the resources we have, have to be shared (not "divided", leftist statists!) by many many many more people. People talking about a "post-scarce society" (like the Zeitgeist commies) are not getting it; you cannot just mine some 1000 tons of a precious rare Earth mineral because you need it for all the free stuff you give away... Resources are finite and interests infinite, so we have to cope with that. The crapitalist system we live in now actually is harmful to that; statism (by government debt; state slavery for the next generations) is draining the Earth much faster than the resources itself value. One of the best examples is oil, now almost given away for free with a mere 30 dollars for 159 liters of crude. That is 10 times cheaper than something simple as beer (or bottled water). Crazy; the stuff is worth much more, not only in intrinsic value (caloric and the wide range of use for it), but also in terms of costs (drilling an exploration well -and then you don't even know you will produce- is extremely expensive, up to 250 million dollars in extreme cases). Also statism due to its tax farming needs is actually promoting having more children (especially for the lower classes of society) using child benefits/welfare paid for by others' stolen money. The more people the Earth has to host, feed and provide with luxury, the harder it becomes. Mankind is inventive, so we will cope with it somehow, but that doesn't mean it's a bright future, especially if we want to keep our living standards and not give up our (Western) lifestyles because there's billions of more people to feed, clothe, shelter and provide more. A dramatic example of this social disaster is the remote island of Rapa Nui where overpopulation (and no possibility for regeneration or moving to other islands; 3000 kms away!) has produced conflicts in society there. How it exactly has happened is quite a mystery due to the lack of written history, but the consensus is that overpopulation has produced food and especially water shortages, leading to collapses in society, extinction of precious flora and fauna, cannibalism and literal collapses of the huge moais on the island. Just some thoughts, tell me what you think.

OK, clear. Huh? What "contract"? You think a women, dressed 'provocatively' expects from other men to protect her when she is by herself and bad men are attacking her? That's not my experience with women and less with women of the self-confident "German" kind... I am protecting my friends and girlfriend very much. I even had a case where some drunk f*ck touched my girlfriend in the most intimate places. Other than many other Dutch or German guys I am not a sissy who just stands there and does nothing. I went to that guy, on a packed dance floor, and shouted in his ear (he was very short). In a reflex and against my nature (also I had some drinks) I bit him in his ear... Then I walked away from the dance floor and nobody came after me. Also that guy not. This happened in Prague where men are a bit more male than in Holland and Germany, in my experience. Now what "contract" is there for a girl who goes out alone? The girl is responsible for her own dress code and behaviour, isn't she? If she's attacked/molested/raped etc. and she cries for help, of course as a good male you try to protect her, don't you? But is that a "contract"? No, it's just trying to protect someone who is harrassed. Just like you would do to a male victim who gets attacked (and you know the story behind it; it may be a fight between criminals or so, and I wouldn't step in between that...), right?

This really is Chinese to me. Which "contract"? And an "unspoken contract"? How can you have a contract when you don't speak about it? Embedded in the "whole structure"? Which structure? Enslave you? If you agree to a contract by free will, how is that enslaving? Women, and especially German women (I've lived 3 years in the country) are very well able to defend themselves. I really don't get what you want to bring across...

From Donna I can "understand" knowing his other posts, but AccuTron, really? Women shouldn't be able to wear whatever they want, else it is somehow "understandable" that men are grabbing them? Whut? This "blaming the victim" narrative is exactly what those abusing (so not all) muslims want; if she's not wrapped up in burqas, hijabs or other "protective clothing", you may consider her some whore and molest her or worse... Come on, it's 2016 and women should be able to dress the way they like without running these risks. I've been to quite some festivals and parties myself and indeed many women dress provocatively. But that's their choice, there's no reason why they should be abused because of that choice. Not the provocation party is the one misbehaving, yet the party taking advantage of that and let himself go like some primitive ape. In essence you agree with the mayor who said "keep them at 1 arms length" then; blaming the European women for attacks (if they're real and I think quite some of them definitely are, no matter the invented stories and possible hoaxes played out) on their sexual integrity. I find it rather shocking to see that those thoughts are present here on the philosophy forum where morality, non-violence and freedom of choice (without being molested for that choice) are the core values... Edit: same holds for men of course; they have the same rights to dress the way they like without being harrassed by crazy women or gays.

It's psy-ops, propaganda. No doubt there are some muslims who are really not used to women dressing "attractively" so a dumb soul would take her for some "easy woman" you can just freely "grab" on the streets. But the propaganda is that somehow "all" or "the majority of" the immigrants are thinking like that. That's ridiculous, especially for Syria. Damascus used to be a pretty modern city, not like some Wahabist Saudi-Arabian village or so. It used to be French colonist territory, go figure. An example of the nasty narratives the social media (who seem to have taken over the role of media in many ways) are propagandising those things: Then it appeared that this whole story was a fabrication: It's an example of narratives they use to spark more conflict between the autochtonous population in Germany (German, Russian, Turkish, whatever race, religion, culture or background) and the "new" immigrants. I am not saying it's like the left-wing press narrative "no problems, all immigrants are brain surgeons and highly skilled engineers 'saving' Europe from a declining birth rate", not at all. That is just as well propaganda. But not recognizing the right-wing propaganda while the left-wing propaganda is recognized is being half-blind. It's propaganda everywhere. And both the poor autochtonous population (see my earlier post on the strategy they play out) and the innocent refugees (that are there) are suffering from the policies to let people fight against each other. Why do they do that? To keep the real forces safely working in the background; the politicians, the interest groups who directly profit from this ("social" worker organizations, immigration bureaus; it's a whole industry!). In the end it all boils down to one thing; getting more POWER to the -already for USAmericans and Canadians unimaginably huge- STATE.

And in that I see much more value in Stefans approach; the only thing we can do is raise the next generation based on moral values and not force and violence. Please do. Would be very interesting! To my current understanding nukes are not real. They are rather fearmongering fakes. But that aside, I also don't see we're heading towards worldwide wars and collapse. This system will be held by the powers until they see no interest in maintaining it anymore and it's very hard to predict when that would happen. Hence my interest in your topic, please elaborate on it tomorrow. Gute Nacht.

Sorry to step into your discussion, Donna, but how on Earth can you put those words in sequence?? "universal principles of classical art"? - what "principles"? philosophical principles or what kind of principles do you refer to? "universal"? - if they'd be universal all people would prefer "classical art" over "non-classical art" (what is that then?), which obviously isn't the case in the world "people who grasp principles about classical art are the 'best-educated'"? - how do you connect those things? There are many people with science degrees who prefer "non-classical art" to "classical art", so again where's the "universality" here? Then you introduce morality as well yet give no philosophical (or religious) principles to back that up. And you relate "best-educated" with "most moral", also there I don't see the connection; people who are very well educated can still spank and circumcise their children, not seldom are heavy proponents of the -immoral- statist system, even approve wars against innocent people, etc. etc. etc. So if I would be a person with not the best education, don't like "classical art" but am peaceful and try to be as moral as possible, in your opinion I am less of an "authority to judge abuse" than a person who does like classical art, has a good education but spanks, steals and abuses people in far-away countries??

Thomasio, three points to start with: 1 - I agree very much with mellomama's first post which I upvoted her for that 2 - RoseCodex as always has answered satisfactorily as well 3 - you still seem to hold on to utopian trap narrative like "we (should) abolish the state". It's a megalomane idea to think that we (here, or anywhere else) can "abolish" a huge system. And if you've listened well to Stefan, that's also not what his strategy is. He has expressed multiple times that the process is a multi-generational one; it's raising our children peacefully and from that by itself it follows that un-merited authority and taking things by force instead of peaceful negotiation is automatically disregarded by those new generations themselves. That approach is exactly why I am here as I think that is the only reasonable way forward Then on your questions in the OP: I am raised in a similar culture as you, in NW Europe. We were neighbours for 30 years; you in Germany, me in Holland. On the economic part I was not really "right-wing" or "classical liberal" as it's called there, but rather undecided. On the personal freedom (which is considered "left-wing") I was very much. The main point about libertarianism/anarchism for me is not having to submit to unmerited authority and in that sense that was already the case when I was a little boy. I've always spoken out against those. Merited authority comes from wisdom, experience, decent knowledge, real (not corrupted!) scientific thinking, etc. Unmerited authority comes from power, domination and in essence that is coming from insecure human beings, i.e. people lacking self-knowledge. As far as I've read in various topics your position seems to come from a "radical left Robin Hoody-style" we should steal back wealth from people who have stolen wealth in the first place. If you keep sticking to that idea (which is partly based on the same idea that all left-wing economic thinking has; envy, and force -see the contradiction?!-), I think you'll never understand the philosophical message of FDR/libertarianism/anarchism. Envy is not a good start morally but it's also practically completely useless as you'd need a world-wide army to "disarm" the Rockefellers, Kochs, Rothschilds and all the other "super-duper rich" you don't like. It's a useless fight. So in short; if I were you I should step away from the big picture and look at the small scale; how in our everyday lives we can do things differently from those who are (and will be!) unvirtuous, violent and stealing. You won't change those other people, yet in this life have the possibility to change/improve yourself, your offspring and your closest social surroundings. Focus on that rather than changing the complete whole wide world; a lost cause from the very start.