Torero

Imagine the electricity runs out. Like big time. For weeks. You would stress a little. I would too. They just live on their happy lives. That even a thought experiment failed to show it (no, you don't have to jump in Alice's hole for real), says enough. Pity.

What stops you from putting on a skirt of leaves, hopping through the jungle and hunting animals with frog poison, otherwise you starve to death? You think they're idiots? How long do you survive without electricity? They did it for some... 10.000 years? And counting...

Come on, a downvote for my previous sarcastic comment hinting at the freshly freed of wasting his time forum member?? Obviously sarcastic, or am I surrounded by purely humourless autistic people, no, right?? What is more important is the topic itself as it deserves full attention. Zaccheus, I've translated your pamphlet into Spanish* as the Hispanic families suffer more from this than any other ones. I hope it serves you. * mind you: I am non-native English (2nd/3rd) and non-native Spanish (3rd/2nd) so you might have it checked by a native speaker, but I've tried to capture the essence of your speech: And added Stefan, how could you forget it on the flyer?! Cheers.

So in the past hundred years we have some reserves where people can live but still pay taxes, still by passport "stand behind" bombing innocent civilians far far away, still are part of the "United" States of America? That's the argument for "Yeah, statism is the best possible solution"? Then I fear we have a long Route 66 to walk, my friend... If there's any good in the world, it's inside individual innovative minds. Those are hindered, not helped by statism. Indigenous peoples may well be protected in their lifestyle in a free society. I certainly would donate to that. Not now, knowing it falls in the hands of people who have nothing to do with preserving the original beauties of this marvellous planet.

Sorry to be picky, but I don't enter a discussion based on throws and remedies. It's about arguments, reason and with the non-belief part of Christianity that would still be the same thing, right? To me, the Bible is a book. Just read a bit more than Atlas Shrugged, but Alissa Rosenbaum is catching up... But that's my point! These books are written so many freaking years after things allegedly happened. The Old Testament is even crazier. Knowing the world of today and the spread of word, the distortions, the propaganda, the hands, minds and ideologies it goes through, exactly how do you imagine that from let's say 33 to 333 after Christ?? How many Christians are there in the world, some 2.5 billion or so?? Then there are 2,500,000,000 different interpretations of "The Bible", "Christianity" or whatever branch they're brought up with and (still) believe in. Every human is different. You have a different interpretation of "The Bible" from your neighbour, who might have gone to the same (Christian) school, went to the same (Christian) church, you may even work together and your kids play all along. Still, you are 2 different personalities, so 2 different interpretations of "The Bible". Not 2, even more. Because the jnabors of 1999 had a different interpretation of the Bible than the jnabors of Summer 2015 (in Winter He Shall See The Light, I reckon...), right? So if that book is written "for everyone to understand" (sorry, my Classical Greek is there but very rusty and ancient Hebrew and other texts I cannot read), then how come we have 2.5+ billion interpretations (also atheists study the Bible...)?? And now you're backing up but I guess most people who call themselves "Christian" know very little of what the Bible really says in some parts. The overall structure is known to most people. Still, in the Bible some horribly unethical texts are plainly there. The Quran is more of a law book and unreadable, uninteresting and clearly written by a delusional epileptic desert warrior, but also in the Bible horrible things are written while in other books the virtues of Jesus are described. Personally I wouldn't take an author very seriously when he writes so conflictingly and thus inflicting on innocent "non-believers" (if the Bible really would be "THE ULTIMATE WISDOM TEXT NOBODY CAN ESCAPE, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, NO CAPITALS NEEDED" then by definition, there wouldn't be any non-believers, right?) the pains of (imaginary) hells, purgatories and what-have-yous. Oh right, that's ok. The Bible is a tool, indeed. Not all texts are horrible and bad and some good ethical upbringing in past ages has brought forward a pretty ok kind of society. I live in a religious country myself. Yet your idea of me (I cannot or wouldn't speak for others) is not right. I was brought up anti-theistically but I have become much more understanding to religion when traveling and while living in Latin America. There's more virtue and decency among religious communities than in cold-hearted State-religious NW Europe where I grew up. I am not criticizing religion or beliefs as a tool in life. But you've come to a platform of reason, so that is what counts. Arguments, rationality. If you want to learn, feel free. Cheers.

Dear dsayers, wouldn't you agree that here, in this free niche of the so-called free internet we are far beyond this propaganda-name-calling child-bullying nonsense? Your taste for reasoning and philosophy is inspiring, I aspire to play in the same field, please. Anyone who doesn't address Stefans questions and objections and those of anyone else formulating those (Nigel Farage is a politician, but still an amazing guy doing a great job, how in vain it may be) before, and starting name-calling has lost a discussion based on facts, evidence, experience, reason and strength, right? Statistics are like magic. You can do what you want with them. And you can draw any conclusion you want. Most of what Stefan talks about (like 95+ %) is sound, reasonable and a good way of using statistics. It's like a beautiful painting with some minor funny parts. High quality tends to attract high attention for the lesser points. I am not afraid to speak my mind when I see space. And here I think it deserves that and Stefans enthusiasm and inspiring presentations do deserve that even more. The problem arises when statistics are used as a kind of bat to play individuals. Individual people are made members of a group they do not choose to be in. To me that is thus anti-libertarian. We all are individuals and we vary enormously on many things and share important things. The latter is quite well covered by UPB, but Stefans own comment in one of his recent videos shocked me. "I do not care about individuals, I am a philosopher". To me individualism (hence my kudos for your tattoo post) is central in libertarianism/anarchism/whatever kind of free-thinking-ishyism you want to call it. Once that gets lost, and that happened three times (single moms, immigrants and "I don't care about individuals [when I talk statistics, yes I know you do Stefan!]") I see room for improvement and assistance. Grouping "immigrants" when you talk about abusing welfare is just as silly as grouping "food" when you talk about rotting fruit. The point about the welfare state is true enough to not be pointed at the ones trapped in that deliberately set (poverty traps) system, yet at the constructors of it. The people who are building and extending this huge statist monster web where everyday more people are caught by....! Do you want to fight the bug that entered the web and doesn't succeed to exit from this hell hole of superficial statist "social" sociopathic inhumanism? Or rather fight the spider who built it and get the trapped bugs to fight that spider too? I heard nobody saying that this data cannot be discussed?? Certainly in my posts you couldn't have found it...? Apart from being an inspiring philosopher, Stefan is great in showing numbers, otherwise I wouldn't be here, trust me. But I agree, there needs to be a more entry level talk to the kids out there who still fail to see the message of morality based on eternal ethics.

Cool. Outstanding comparison.

Completely agreed. In Holland that "discussion" already happened some 14 years ago with the upcoming Pim Fortuyn* (closest ever to a reasonable person for the job) who was about to become prime minister but got murdered 9 days before the elections... Apart from the yearly Sinterklaas cry babies, the culture is open for these things. The red racist-xenophobe card has been played too much to make an impact anymore... I understand in the US and Canada this race/xenophobe framing is much more relevant and active. But in general I think the US, Canada and especially example Australia have much better and more sane immigration laws (gaining points and only when fit enough one may enter) than self-destructive "we should pick the refugees from Alanya beach" ** Europe... * Watch this interview. It's already from 1997 (!!), still actual and on screen the two most important opinion makers and the only murdered famous Ducth people of the last 15 years. Theo van Gogh (yes, related) is one of my all time heroes. The way he spoke and wrote would be very welcome now... Don't start laughing... but this is the idiocracy our fellow European freedom lovers and unfortunate tax payers are confronted with... That is, if this is not a media hoax (you never know), but knowing the EU a bit it's dead serious. PS: Ano is fellow forum member Graham, he changed his name and avatar but I saw the post under his name.

"We" (does that include me, or who are you with?) may be better able to pressure states to abandon laws...? Which other state law in the last hundred years has been abandoned (so not rewritten!) due to pressure from people? On far more important issues?

Oh, I agree. This "you" is directed at me or just like "one" in general? I don't eat poisoned apples; I am not depending on any government for my financial situation.

Take your time jnabors, no hurries. And learning reason (argumentation, fallacies, etc.) takes time. But in the "So I was talking to my mom" topic you have a fellow statement about the Bible which you considered "[such a credible source as] it is so understandable to all people": Apparently Darknecrosforte doesn't think Revelations makes no sense. That would be a misconception. So you are misunderstanding a document you consider as (one of the) most important book(s) in human history? Now we have two statements which are in conflict which each other. And two statements (your first part and Darknecrosforte's one) that are aligned. In the world we have millions of different interpretations of the Bible leading to so many different Christian religions. So it must be possible to interpret the Bible in a multiple sense, right? So what is the result of it all? The Bible is the most credible source or are there some objections to make against that...?

This is what the media portray, yes. The question is how representative are the types broadcast by the media shown in the faces of Europeans for all immigrants? You're of course right; if purely fleeing from war zones is the incentive, it makes no sense that you wouldn't stay in a safe haven before entering the seas far away in NW Europe. But the problem is: we don't know. We haven't spoken to those immigrants, asked for their motives and will to work. Using only propagandised media stories is too tricky. The media lie too much and this topic is too sensitive to extract a reasonable truthful message from it. Also in Europe the dictating commission is the "European" one; the group of psychopaths who move between Brussels and Strasbourg. They place far more refugees/immigrants in the NW European countries than in the closer, safe and perfect for a new start Eastern European Countries: http://static0.persgroep.net/volkskrant/image/589c2d2e-afef-4bfc-a306-657c5631663b?width=300 Translations: New distribution chart for extra immigrants from Italy, Greece and Hungary. For the UK, Ireland and Denmark have an exception, as stated in the European Treaty Names of countries are in Dutch but pretty clear I guess. If you do not understand or want more translation, let me know. So the question arises: how much of that migration is indeed chosen by the immigrants "who want to nest in the hammocks of state socialism" and how much is divided by the powers themselves? To me those powers are the problem, not the immigrants. See also the earlier comments on having a fair, equal play field and not pampering immigrants while at the same time hindering your own population. It can be both fact and generalisation. The problem is that if the group one is observing is too diverse, too broad and too difficult to assess without having to rely on media networks, the statements about the whole group miss their effect. It's far beyond the Chinese basketball player metaphor... The left is propagandising that only skilled brain surgeons are entering Europe. The right is propagandising that all immigrants are only coming to live off welfare or stealing or terrorising. The truth would be somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the right (the percentage of highly skilled workers among immigrants wouldn't be higher than that of the original population in well-educated countries like Germany, Holland, etc.). And again agreed; it makes no sense to call someone opposing mass migration into your country a priori a racist, xenophobic or other insult, only to hide that you don't want to talk about the root problem of this. So that message of Stefan is great. The arrows should however be pointed at the powers, not at the immigrants. Illegal immigration (that you talk about) is another topic. Illegals wouldn't get welfare from the start on. Only when they are legalised that would happen. But again here the pain inflicted on society is caused by the powers.

What a strange question? Empowering other people? Why not letting them empower themselves?

Interesting question. There's about 3.4% indigenous population here in the country, some of them still hunting with curare and pipes... It's hard to imagine "a[n utopian] anarchistic world" as it doesn't exist, but if negotiation and voluntarism are the ethic pillars of that "world" what stops the indigenous peoples from doing so? Someone taking their land by force would be a violation of the NAP and the dispute resolution organisations that would be in place in that "world" can solve that matter.

Now you are redefining "welfare" to a reduced part of it only; foodstamps. Just like paying taxes is involuntary, receiving benefits from the same corrupt system is that. There's a difference between the two in the sense that tax evasion is harder to accomplish than returning all your state benefits because you are a moral citizen not wanting to live off a system that forces others to pay. Then the effect: So if a moral citizen (migrant or not) says "I do not accept these benefits, I return them to the state that paid me first" then that person at the same time should have the right to not pay taxes (or less), right? Or is it: "don't take benefits but pay your taxes"? Then I fear I've come to the wrong place; this would support the statist system even more. And the effect is not "less state power" if let's say 50% of all people would return their state-paid "benefits". It's not that the statist system will shrink then. So the only outcome would be that the state has even more money and spends less on their for many countries biggest part; welfare. So more money for other hobbies... I agree on your final paragraph, that's not the point. Migrant choices based on incentive? The only incentive we can conclude from migrants is that their life would improve in their new country (where they immigrate into) compared to their old country (where they emigrated from). And you exactly point to the problem I have with these generalisations and grouping of these diverse individuals: Now Carlos the crooky Costa Rican coming as a creeping cockroach to Colorado is put in the same category as Manolo the motivated Mexican metallurgist who may have even migrated to take care of his family in Montana so to reduce the state influence on his family life. Immigrants are too different to just generalise them all (just like single mothers are not all terrible). That's the stereotype. But there are so many other different immigrants, anywhere in the world. On the migrant crisis in Europe: In the Netherlands (and I assume in many other European countries) immigrants who seek asylum are: - not allowed to work - not allowed to attend education - provided with a house (in overpopulated Holland that means many others have to wait much longer for housing) - provided with benefits Things that other citizens do not have, so creating a disparity between people. The enforcer of these disparities is the state, not the immigrants themselves. Like I said; in most countries the socialist system is much smaller than in the US but even more than in Europe. People in general are used to work, to keep themselves and their families alive. They are not used to the Santa Claus socialism of the West. Of course part of the immigrants are coming for the benefits only and will lay in the hammock of state socialist "support" comfortably. But: 1 - that is not all immigration; there are many more types of immigrants 2 - that is initiated by the state system that provides these things 3 - that system is rigged, corrupt and filthy, I think we all agree on this. But why then say "migrants are taking away your child's future/pension"? It's the state that takes that away (by force) and dumps it somewhere else (migrants and original population) without those people asking for it.

I liked the show, it was good, but the general message of portraying immigrants (or single moms, or anyone else 'feeding on the government fake tits') as the parasites, as the evil doers, as the people choosing to take state benefits (and thus initiating force on innocent families) is not right. Mostly immigrants (see the small European part) come from countries where this huge state "support" system is not present. That makes that it's not in the culture, habits, thinking of immigrants to start leeching on others by actively asking for a place in the hammock of Santa Claus Socialism. That that is provided to them, and that they are held as bait for more state debt in the chains of poverty traps and housing benefits, is the problem. Stefan has pointed to that in other videos, but the main problem behind any mass immigrant crisis is the state provider. Not the unwilling consumer. The numbers (especially on Hispanics) show that once captured by the state system (with or without a job and many immigrants work as the numbers prove), they keep there and even growing with age. That is not because they stay there, but because they are held there. This is not an excuse or meant to take away everyone's individual responsibilities for their own (financial) status, but poverty traps and the chains of the state system especially on the low end of societies is very real and a huge enemy which needs to be fought. That enemy can be fought if we don't push away people who are now suffering from that "free money" and not asking questions. The message of moral is universal enough to try to include and embrace the millions in this situation of which some are interested in the voice of reason, philosophy and especially evidence. The evidence shows it and was well presented. Stefans general moral message to not profit on state spendings is right. But the main message that the state is the enemy and not the immigrants who got these food stamps involuntarily (while having to pay taxes involuntarily as well) I missed a bit.

Anyone means every individual, not one excluded. Always means all the time, not one nanosecond missed. People born with silver spoons are probably wealthy people? Or what? Speaking with a forked tongue is lying, manipulating, snake-like behaviour? So if 1 individual "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" for 1 second doesn't "speak with a forked tongue", you lose your bold claim.

"Please don't, but if you want to give my kids 'a smack', feel free and go ahead..."

"The bible was written in a way that is understandable by everyone (except perhaps Revelations, that book makes no sense to me)." jnabors, do you see the irrationality in your first (!) argument on the Bible as a credible source of moral? Your argument is: "[the Bible is so important and credible as a source as] the bible [sic] was written in a way that is understandable by everyone" You first make a claim about everyone, billions of individuals that may not have read the Bible or even find it incomprehensible, inconsistent and horrible. So you lose your claim with 1 person that did not understand (the message of) the Bible, stepping on very thin ice... But we don't even need that other person in Farawayistan, because in the same sentence you kill your own argument?! - Revelations is part of the Bible, right? - You claim that "everyone" can understand the Bible [and that is your first argument for the validity of the document*], right? - But you, yourself who claims this, does not understand a main part of it, saying "that book makes no sense to me" You see how irrational that is? I look forward to your response. Take your time, no hurries. Camping trips with family and hard work (me) need their well-deserved attention too. * afaik the Bible was written (by Elites, because they were the only ones who could write Greek and Hebrew) some 300 years (!) after Jesus Christ died... Imagine how information is spread now instantaneously via the internet and gets tweetily twisted. Put that in those times. Even if Jesus from Nazareth did really exist Even if he was the son of "God" Even if he was a prophet All the writings about him and his actions, opinions and words are written a whopping 300 years afterwards... How credible is the Bible then as being "the word from God"?

Shirgall, we've met in the NASA thread and I don't think we will (ever?) find a common ground in here. Once "science" gets to levels incomprehensible to common well-educated men and is intermixed with (statist; don't forget that!) propaganda*, it's very difficult to separate truth from falsification (so not: falsifiability). Then we have two choices: 1 - rely on people who have lied to us before and will keep doing so as that is what psychopaths tend to do* 2 - stick to reason, evidence*, empirical science, knowledge about how the world works (so not how the media portray the theatre of the absurd) and common, peasant sense You choose option 1, I stay in the second half of the field. And I am confident with that, you with yours. No problems whatsoever. * Stephen Hawking says we should be more frightened of capitalism than robots

Of course, I am not defending any creationist point whatsoever. The only point I wanted to make is that evolution is rather a stress-induced fast process than a slow moving process. It is both, but the former gains. The violent history of the Earth, despite the amazing peace we live in (geologically), is too dynamic to have many slow evolutions. Looking at the biodiversity in (ice age!) cold or hot (green house; didn't happen for the last 35 million years!) climates, it's too much to be fit in an almost religious "natural selection is everything" scheme. If current diseases or nutrition can alter our genes, in the past that was possible too. It's a dynamic system and every model or theory we build of it is insufficient. By definition.

Hi Nigel, not acquainted with construction business or the management part (I deal with managing oil rig construction (à 250+ million dollars in total) in a way though ) of it (thanks for spelling it out!), some general advice: - make sure you're unique, find a niche, get the attention and build on that - learn from others - learn from yourself (and especially your own mistakes; analyse them like the signature of fellow forum member Koroviev says very well) - don't come in as the guy who knows it all, especially in consultancy (some personal experience... ) - know your clients - have trust between you and your clients - don't be a utopist yet a realist and pragmatist - know your strengths and drive on them - know your weaknesses and be honest about them - I guess it's hard to find a place where you have more support for a free market business idea, but be aware of the risks built in by the statist priests - be flexible, at all times - and honour the NAP In short, like my own motto: "Be the boss. Always." PS: if being the boss for some reader means requiring the initiation of force, the definition of 'the boss' is instantaneously misinterpreted making the stance invalid...

I'd call any science relying on others' authority (that includes special particle discoveries or 'discoveries' unavailable to you and me to verify) problematic. Science is in its essence empirical, falsifiable and free of authoritive powers influencing it. Theoretical physics and the NASA-influenced Hawkingian-Einsteinian nearly religious speech is quite far from that...

At a friend's I played and really liked Europa Universalis IV. It's a complex and extensive game, ideal for multiplayer gaming and I actually want to play a game anarchistically and win (so not attacking other countries, trading like crazy and developing). Let's see if the game engineers prepared for that (in most strategy games the peaceful defensive player loses)... Interestingly enough (also for Stefan considering his education in the Late Cretaceous...) historical events are included in the game. It teaches a lot about other people (some I never heard of before).

Hi Will, not to discredit your post, well explained, but I (think I) see where jnabors is coming from (albeit from a completely different angle). The "Darwinian" idea that natural selection alone is enough I do not support. Environmental factors are just as important in evolution as in everything Stefan talks about (going against determinism). So not only "waiting for a recessive/unnecessary evolved feature to die out" (natural selection solely) but more importantly the effect the environment has on the species. I am a geologist, so centered around evolution. But in my opinion forced evolution, or evolution based on stress situations has a lot more value to me than "slow steady evolution". Although the one doesn't discard the other, I think that evolution speeds up because of the environment and especially the changes therein. Just like with humans; in a war situation we develop our necessary strengths much faster than in quiet peaceful times. That is really the driver for evolution; our changing planet.