M.2

Well, believe it or not, the US constitution agrees with you. So does the swiss constitution as a fun fact. However as you say, we humans have free will, and can give away our freedoms anytime. And of course, give away we do. As I listed above, de facto free speech only exists in very few places in the world, with America being one, where they are fighting the culture war at the moment. Let's hope the americans don't surrender their freedom of speech as easily as most of the west did.

What do you think? Who usually gives authority to humans?

There is the ideal, and then there is real life.

2. If the bible is any indication, marriage and government are very different relationships. Monarchy/government was institutionalised by the people, who demanded they have a secular ruler beside the priestly classes. IE: Seperation of powers. Marriage on the other hand was institutionalised by God himself. Am I on topic? What do you think? 3. Monarchy is probably the most secure form of government in ways that it is safe from being toppled by human willpower. Monarchy emphasises the Will of God, and not the will of man. Does this make sense? 4. Would you be so kind to tell me more about it? Where does this model fit as a form of government? 5. With reference to point number 2, will of man is strongly disregarded in an ideal monarchy. Of course, one can choose whom they have allegiance to. However, once you swear an oath to a monarch, it is not nice to go back on it. Theoretically yes, the Habsburgs are probably the best example of royal ambition. They went from a small noble family to ruling over 1/5 of the world's surface area. Nevertheless, they had to go through the System legitimately, not relying solely on their willpower, but also deferring to the Holy See, the Holy Roman Empire, and the nations they ruled over.

I knew that, but thanks for clarifying. Either way, it is still absurd and coercive.

Ok, I understand the issue of the Americans. But how separate is religion from the government really? I mean... has anyone seen the presidential inauguration speeches, or the way that americans still say their oaths with a hand on the bible? What about the executive order that the president signed allowing tax-exempt churches to politicise? Did the Thirty years war not end with simply allowing the principalities to choose their own state religions? Prussia was the first country in the World to take over the traditional duties of the church, like Education, population documentation, healthcare. Is that separation of church and state? Modern day Germany is the only country in the World to enforce a church tax, meaning they force people to support their state-recognised churches. How is that separation of church and state?

"Separation of Church and State" I have heard this phrase many many times now, but I still do not know what it means exactly. Actually, apart from the Germanic World, I have never heard it anywhere else. But Americans seem to have a particular care for such matters. - What does separation of church and state mean? What is "church", what is "state"? -What does Mr.Molyneux mean when he says that it is one of the great achievements of western civilisation? - When was the idea invented, and what was before the invention? - Why does the Germanic World, and within that the USA have a special obsession with it? - Why is separation of church and state better than not being so?

Wow, this just might be one of the deepest conversations on the forums. Thanks for sharing, neeeel. I too think that individualism has a lot to do with your problem. But if its any consolation, you are not the only one suffering from the drawbacks of an individualistic society. Although we despise collectivism as much as any intelligent person does, I think it is time to realise that collectivist cultures are going to dominate in the very near future. Individualistic countries have low birth rates, high suicide rates, and high social fragmentation. https://www.geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html The reason for social fragmentation is simply that we do not really need each other in the west anymore. There are no wars, no famine, no catastrophies. In order to solve this problem, some join a cult, a religion, a club, or the military, where there is a sense of unity and codependence. I know this may not be a popular notion in the community of FDR, but in the end, we are not on this planet for ourselves, but for others. We must all find the people worth living for, and dying for.

1. Very interesting question, and not as easy to answer as one might assume. - In western tradition, the monarch was the lord of the lords of the land, and everyone and everything on it. Such monarchs of today are: The Duke of Luxembourg, The King of Spain, The King Saudi Arabia, The Prince of Monaco... - In other cases, the monarch is not only the owner of the land, but also the arch religious figure. Examples: The Queen of England, The King of Sweden, The Great Sultan (no longer really exists). - Another duality can be that the monarch is the head of the land and the people. Most "pagan" monarchies are so: The king of Thailand, the Emir of Brunei, The King of Bhutan, Emperor of Japan - In the extreme cases, the monarch the head of the land, the religion and the people: The Roman Pontiff is the only one I can think of at the moment - An odd outlier is the King of the Belgians (no, not Belgium), who is only the monarch to the people of Belgium. 2. Yes, both relationships are that of authority and subordinity. But most of us know that power and authority has to come from somewhere. Now we all know that hierarchy does not come from pleasure but from necessity. And if we are going to have hierarchy, be it in marriage or in a state, then it had better come from God/constitution/people. I suppose one can spot the commonalities between such ceremonies, but I wouldn't say the relationships are the same. Idk... I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more. 3. Willpower is the essence of our humanity, or at least that is how we are taught in Sunday school: the only thing that parts us from animals is that we can "will". This is going a bit deep into theology a bit, but there is a difference between how animals want stuff, how humans want stuff, and how God wants stuff. Anyways, every human has a will, but some have it more than others. Such strong-willed people are the ones who end up leading others, and not because they are handsome, strong, smart, popular, or of any other trait. You may have experienced this in a free market circumstance, for example when your middle-school class chose a class president. Supposing the teacher didn't interfere to choose her pet, you may recall that the one who got chosen was the one who really badly "wanted" it. People with much willpower usually end up being entrepeneurs, lead politicians, or daring scientists. 4. Thoughty. However, don't you think that we have already had that blank slate chance 7000 years ago? I think the contest has already begun, and ancap was either already eliminated or not yet accomplished. I really like Iceland, but I would not say that it is a convincing example. They are too small, too isolated, too young, and too powerless. I just might do research myself on which country is the most ancap, because now I got curious. Have you perhaps read Mr.Molneux's book on ancap? I haven't gotten there yet, but I wonder what he says.

Hi, Jem! Ah, the ladies make total wusses of us all, don't they? As you describe your predicament, it is as if I were writing it. Please let us know how it goes when you finally take action! My question for you is: What can you proudly claim to have accomplished so far in life? Maybe that has something to do with male confidence.

A bit of clarification: It is not the person of the monarch that is approved by the deities, but the office of the monarch, the crown. How the systems in a given government fills the office, that is another story. As a matter of fact, they can simply choose not to fill it and have a Crowned Republic instead, which is still technically a monarchy. - There are monarchies that are not hereditary, but elective, wherein they have a system for choosing the next monarch. There have not been many non-hereditary elective monarchies because passing on legitimacy through heirs is the most practical and safest way of transfering power within the branch. As for elective monarchs, the successor is approved by some form of council, the clergy, and if there is one, the constitution or a charter. - I think I see what you are getting at. I remeber you mentioned this point way back. See if this makes sense: What makes a family, and what makes the man the head of the family? In the olden days and traditional cultures, a marriage/family is only valid when they get their status "approved" by the community and by God. Sure you can have a family without the approval of anyone, (which is pretty much what atheists do), but then they have absolutely no authority to legitimize the family as a united entity. This is when the phrase "its just a piece of paper" truly applies. As for the "man of the house", he only has authority over his children because he has been authorised by the community and by God. I could get into how the lack of such traditions broke the modern family, but I think you get my point. - About anarchy. Full disclosure: I am not well versed on this topic, but I am learning, so please be patient with me and correct me where I am wrong. We are all governed by Willpower. Ones who have stronger wills, they will lead the weaker. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years, so I doubt any change to this dynamic anytime soon. That said, I don't want to be under the will of you, nor the people, nor the nobles, nor even myself for that matter. Which is why we people need (at least as an illusion) to be governed by something greater than ourselves: an idea, a god, a constitution... and we would very much like to think that whoever our human authority is, is carrying out the will of that certain greater thing. About the free market that would supposedly lead our anarchist society, I do not trust it. If you have examples to present, where a free market driven anarchist society has thrived, I would be more than happy to change my views. Until then, anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a pretty good idea to me.

I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom Apparently some Middle-Eastern countries such as UAE, Bahrain, Quatar, Israel and Oman have freer economies than most western countries. Seems pretty legit as far as I can tell. Also, these countries happen to be monarchies with the exception of Israel. Most monarchies solved this problem by having the nearest relative of the heir fill in for a while, or by having the chancellor take the wheel. The office of the king is not necessarily a person, but a branch of government. I don't know how the system should deal with this issue ideally.

Good Point. That may have been the case in Poland, where you were always catholic by default just to piss off the commies. But that is not the case elsewhere. As anecdotal evidence, I haven't had christian ancestors for 4 generations, and my parents were also raised atheist, they found christianity when they were 20-25. My hungarian grandmother was in the communist party and my grandfather was pretty sour towards the church. And this was not rare in Europe nor Asia. I know hundreds of converts from North Korea and Mongolia where christianity was absent for 700 years.

You mean they weren't real atheists?

Yeah, I do believe that we would be much better off universally if people were civil instead of hostile. 1. I am not going to report you, because you are a donator, and I want FDR to get all the help they can get without disruptions and trivialities such as this. 2. Why do you keep telling me what to do? 3. See how annoying it is when people assume stuff about you? 4. I don't understand english that well. English is only my third language. But I'll take that as a no then. Why did you quote me again up there? I still think you have been very rude and condescending. I guess this conversation is over then. The community guidelines say not to engage in emotional debates, especially when one party starts hurting themselves by banging their heads against the wall.

I tried reporting you for being borderline divine with your arguments, but apparently that's not a thing. I could however report you for being passive-aggressive. I have written in twice already to Mike, but did not get a chance. Once in December, and once this week. I was intening to bring up UBP too, however that was not my main focus. There seems to be a good reason for you to be so hostile, and I would guess it has something to do with your parents (usually the case). I hereby offer you again the opportunity to conduct a civil discussion with me. Will you behave in a universally preferable manner, or will you not?

Very well. I do as christians do, and you do whatever you are good at. Yes, I have actually read UPB. I do not listen to Mr.Molyneux for the truth, rather for his arguments. Which are granted very compelling, but nothing I haven't heard before. In fact all his arguments have been destroyed in the Summa Theologiae 800 years ago. Nevertheless, I am a curious individual, and I like to know how others think. Technically, he is Christian, because (unless I remember incorrectly), Mr.Molyneux has been baptised, and raised in a christian culture all his life. Frankly, I don't think UPB in essence negates the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it just happens to be a bit of a raw method of discernment. I think you misunderstood my use of the word "journey". We christians (especially converts) have been there, where Mr.Molyneux is right now, and we see that he is on the right track to christianity. The "God said so" thing... it is a brief testament to your profound research into Theology. But all this is just my opinion. What do you thinK?

Hi, LiveFree! Has the condescending atheist finally arrived? Would you like to lay out your arguments, or would you rather keep insulting my intelligence? I have lived in both atheist and christian countries, so I'm well used to both treatments.

Well, it is on you to tell me if the middle-east has a freer market than the West or not. As long as a monarch is under the will of God/gods he is a legitimate monarch.

Although I share your sentiment, Richard, statistically speaking, Western Europe is not yet lost. Here is my reasoning. In 2006, Hungary had its own little civil war, because the leftist government messed up soooo bad. We literally had tanks on our streets. It was pretty awesome, I encourage you to look it up. Here are 3 maps to illustrate my point (before and after leftism): In order: 2006, 2010, 2014. Your counter argument may be that Hungary is a high-IQ homogeneous country, but that is not true. Over 10% of the population are ethnic Gypsies, who we have been trying to assimilate for decades. Yes, they steal, they are violent, and they vote left. Germany is 91% ethnic German. To this you may argue that Germany has the guilt culture. But I remind you that Hungary was the only country in the world to fall beside Germany in WW2. We have had our fair share of guilt culture. Within Germany, Saxony, Bavaria, and Burgenland are on their ways to being redpilled. As you see, Hungary is nothiing special, just a bit ahead of the curve. Europe may follow yet, but first the left has to f up real big. And that is what is happening now.

Am I correct in detecting some level of scepticism from you regarding the efficacy of the fence? If so, could you explain your grounds for that?

The map I posted earlier is a bit outdated. Slovenia has a fence as well. Also, it is much harder to traverse the Slovenian mountainoius woodland terrain compared to the Hungarian lowlands that stretch into Serbia. That said, a few dozen migrants are apprehended each week, who somehow manage to get past the fence. Police stats here: http://www.police.hu/hirek-es-informaciok/hatarinfo/elfogott-migransok-szama

So, apparently I was right. About a 1000 illegals stormed the border crossing at Röszke-Horgos at 21:00 on May 1. They broke through, the police pulled back at first, but eventually stopped the assault. Police reports are not out yet, but I will post updates as soon as they are. http://utcaemberek.blogspot.hu/2017/05/felfegyverzett-migransok-rohamoztak-meg.html?spref=fb Note: There are currently 50-100 thousand migrants stuck in the Balkans because of the border policies of Hungary, Austria and Slovenia.

You should have mentioned that this man is a true troll soldier of Kek, now having exposed the corruption of the European asylum system. I have worked in the Refugee Service for almost a year. Not in Germany, but I imagine they only have it worse. In the EU, there is absolutely no reliable system to vet anyone who registers as a refugee. The one I have seen actually being effective is the Swiss system.

Most eloquently put... ...truly a disarming argument indeed