M.2

0. Would it be reasonable to say that tax in a monarchy is legitimate? (I know we already had this conversation) 1. To be frank, I think the entire history of ww1 stinks a bit of fabrication and ditrortion. But it's clear that it is hard to decide who violated the NAP, correct? 2. To be devil's advocate, Hitler was only responding to Entente aggression, which was constantly directed towards Germany during the Weimar era. The Ruhr was occupied by the French, and West Prussia by the Polish. 3. To my knowledge, the Jews bought the land from the locals peacefully. Forced resettlement only began after 1948, when the arabs attacked. 6. So provocation is violation of the NAP? But who decides what is provocation? 8. What do you mean "mutually determined"? 9. So the parent of the child decides? 11. If you cannot be objectively certain what good and bad is, then UPB is pretty redundant, wouldn't you agree? It's like following a compass in space. In my understanding, UPB is a good methodology for determining what good is, based on what flawed humans find good. Since UPB (of the Molyneux kind) only works with humans, it cannot be completely objective. 6. So until we do that, it is safest to go with physical force? In other words, the NAP can only be violated when there is some sort of physical result? 8. I would have to disagree with you. If someone kills my dog with a car, even if it was an accident, you bet I'm going to treat it as aggression. I don't think courts or DROs can deal with "accidents" or "extreme carelessness". 910. But a contract is only enforcable as far as the reach of the court or the DRO goes. If the aggressor is foreign, is there no way to deal with him? Or does his consent no longer matter? 1. The Molyneux UPB assumes that physicists and scientists don't disagree, or that when they debate, the scientist with the best evidence will win the debate, but both of these scenarios are in dream land. Even on the forums, the hardcore ancaps are coming up with varying assessments of the same moral question, as you can see. 2. You scenario assumes that we CAN cooperate. But in real life there are often disagreements, especially those over values, that cannot be resolved with dialogue, and that is where wars start. If the other guy you crashed on the island with was of a weird Papuan religion, and believed that burning trees can cause fish to swim ashore for food, and then began burning some trees, you would have to intervene, and aggressively at that. If you don't, there is a good chance that everything on the island will be burned, and then you will surely die. This may sound like an off-world example, but disagreements like this one caused some big wars in the past. 3. I would dare you to quote Thomas Aquinas fully. You may find he is saying something entirely different there. It would seem that you think people choose violence lightly. In my understanding, violence is the tool of one who can see no other way. So again, who decides what is UPB? If we rely on human intellect, that is nowhere near objective. It is weird to me that one would want to live in such an uncertainty.

0. Aren't you violating someone else's property by occupying it and not paying rent? 1. By "who" I was actuall looking for a name. Somebody threw the first punch, 2. I think you mean to say "Hitler". 3. So the father of Zionism? (Happens to be another Hungarian Jew. What's wrong with these guys anyway?) 4. Right. That makes sense. But I believe a policeman is authorised to use preemtive force based on a reasonable assumption. Does that violate the NAP? 6. If you call someone's mother a whore in Asia, that is considered a threat, but not in the West, as far as I know. Does this disprove any part of the UPB? 8. Why is it immoral to escalate? What "appropriate" and who decides? 9. That's the question, isn't it now? 10. What is beyond reason and who decides? You hove no reason to doubt my respect for you. But I can't feel respect from you if I can't understand anything you are writing. As you see, I am more than willing to communicate with anyone whom I can understand, and I'm sorry I am unable with you. Finland lost the war? No way. You just completely blew my mind. Makes sense. Can you prove objectively that abiding by a UPB is "good"? Whatever that is. I think the main thing not addressed in UPB is that "preferable" implies that there is a spectrum of things from bad to good. But one has to define what "good" is first, right? I'll give you an en example that is closer to the topic, if you don't mind. How do would you convince an outright Darwinist who says the UPB should serve the elimination of the weak, that we all should prefer the survival of the fittest, and therefore life is a free-for-all? 123. Apology accepted. Nothing here is rhetorical for further reference. 3. I get that. How would you answer 7 and 9? As you see from the responses though, there is hardly any agreement, even among the hardcore Ancaps of FDR. This is what worries me. If the UPB can be derived from "reason and evidence", why do people here come up with varying answers, even concerning such cut-and-dry pillars like the NAP?

I don't disagree that there is a UPB. Only relativists and nihilists don't think there is a UPB. The problem is that we don't agree on what the UPB is. Even though the Mr.Molyenux method claims to use science, reason and evidence to determine the UPB, so do many other methods, including some sects of Islam. To play devil's advocate on the Darwinist side, it is possible that aggression could be the UPB, thereby eliminating all the weak genes from the pool. How do you answer that? 1. I wasn't talking about rights, but about universal morality. 2. I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but for your information, Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians all fought on the side of Germany to the end. Hungarians shot bunch of Fascists as well, when they rebelled against the Germans in 1944 and were subsequently occupied. 123. Sounds an awful lot like sophistry. 4. So police are all immoral by default. 6. Where is the line between violence and words? 7. I don't understand what you wrote here. 8. Because it is my land, and he is on my land without my consent. What's so complicated? 910. What if there is no contract? In most cases in life, there are no contracts. 1. That is so far the most intelligent response given, in my opinion. 2. What does "morality" serve in your view, if not to help humans stay alive? What does the UPB and the NAP serve specifically? What good does it do to respect free will? 3. Fair enough. 1. If it is purposeful, there is no dilemma. I would argue that it is a concern of the NAP. If I shoot him, did I initiate the use of force, or did I only retaliate? 2. Clearly not so apparent, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread. I am still genuinely unsure. 3. Everyone has a wildly different moral compass. Because of all the shit I have seen, I will forever deny that there is such a thing as a universal moral compass, even though the Church claims there is one. I get the state and parenting thing, which is why I asked question 7 and 9. 4. "Why bombing hiroshima was unjustified" is the title. I quote "An embargo is an act of war, we understand that..." 5th minute mark. I think he mistook embargo for blockade. Doesn't make sense otherwise. You have to write more clearly, man. I'm tired of trying to guess what you mean.

I thought I had a good understanding of the NAP when I first heard about it: Simply "Don't throw the first punch". But when I tried to apply this principle to my life retroactively, I realised I may not have been alive by now. And then I became even more uncertain of my understanding when I heard Mr.Molyneux claim that the US embargo against Japan was an initiation of force. 0. I have read the long-form argument for that in Everyday Anarchy. 123. Who knows who it was? Hangs on the definition of aggression, does it not? 4. Police, as far as I know, are called "the force", and are trained to initiate deadly force at the perception of a threat. 5. I take your answer is yes. 6. I know some people who disagree and claim that only actual physical force counts. How would you convince them? 7. If your spouse is abusive, and you stay with them even though you have all the means to leave, are they still abusive, or are you masochistic? 8. I wouldn't say that I would shoot them, but do I have the MORAL right to? What is your reasoning? 9. How would the DROs in our anarchic utopia set it? 10. What is your reasoning? How would a DRO solve it? 11. As I mentioned to Barn above, I cannot reconcile my understanding of NAP with my own past. And the further I look into it, the more confused I am. I find that NAP is pretty cut and dry as a concept, just like "Thou shalt not murder" is, but then there is a whole litany of small text under it. 12. Exactly what I am doing myself. 123. Your reasoning? 4. Have we done so in our societies? 5. I take your answer is yes, supposing there is contract. Why is it illegal today though? Can't we write an enforcable contract? 6. In Asia, it is common understanding that if you insult someone's mother, you can expect to get your arse kicked, and if you call the police, they will kick your arse as well. Does this count as community contract? 7. So you claim you consent to the state's use of force (taxation etc) if you remain, therefore it is no longer immoral of them, correct? 8. Suppose he is not from your community. 9. Very catholic of you. I like your answer. But what is your reasoning? 10. Again, what if he is not from your community? Do you have the MORAL right though? Solve this for me, please. We know for sure that Finns, Hungarians, Estonians are not Indo-European. Therefore, they had to have come into Europe some time ago, killed a bunch of people and took their land. They don't even deny it actually, but are proud of it. Would the Indo-Europeans have the moral right to expell them? Children of the criminal don't get to keep the goods, correct?

What is the Initiation of Force? And what is wrong with it? Philosophy is like theoretical physics, and so whatever works in philosophy, may not work in real life. I have a few honest questions about the NAP. 1. Who started WW1? 2. Who started WW2? 3. Who started the Arab-Israeli conflict? 4. Can a policeman live according to NAP? 5. Is a civil duel ok? 6. Is it possible to initiate force verbally? Is so, where is the line between threat and taunt? 7. Supposedly the state initiates force daily on you. Is it still true if you remain under that state even though you could escape to Siberia? 8. If someone accidentally steps on your land, do you have the moral right to shoot them? 9. At what age does a child become able to violate the NAP? 10. How much can you escalate if someone initiates the use of force against you? Ex: If someone cuts your finger off, can you take his house in retaliation?

If you like evidence more, I will direct you to the miracles of Fatima, the most well documented series of miracles in history. If you like reason more, I like the Cosmological Argument of St Thomas Aquinas (Five arguments for the existence of God, Summa Theologiae). There are many ways down this rabbit hole. With respect to the topic of this thread, I would't want to discuss this with you here, but if you open a new thread, I would be happy to.

Sure. Everything I have said on this thread is the result of apologetics. Apologetics is reactive argumentation that aims to explain the doctrine to a specific objection (that of bishop in this case). It has to be reason and evidence based though, because the scientific method applies all the same. Since I thought bishop was a christian, I thought we had common ground on the bible, so I started from there. Apparently I was wrong. With you, I don't know where to start from. We have to find common ground first. Otherwise I would be doing what Jehova's Witnesses do.

Apologetics. What am I saying? I don't mean to be a pain, I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to. 1. By saying "murder", you have already evaluated his actions. One can kill another for a bunch of reasons. For a start, it can be an accident, or self defence, or defence of another... 2. I'm asking you. You bring up an argument, you are expected to justify it in this community.

1. How do you know? 2. What did the inquisitors do exactly? Just curious, I don't mean to intrude.

I am asking you what exactly you are inquiring about. Is it apologetics, if so what in particular?

It is just boring. What is causing him to kill?

Apologetics? We've been doing it for 2 millenia. I understand that this a side of christianity that is difficult to accept, but this is basic stuff,

Oh wait. Are you a troll? Damn it...

False dichotomy. God does not kill because he is too busy watching the game to fix a person. What would he want to cure anyway? Would you please stop evaluating about my moral thinking? I got your point. I am probably a better person than you are even by your standards.

I quoted you the Bible. If that is not enough for you, then you are in no way talking about the same religion that I am, and this conversation is pointless. You are about as christian as a mormon.

No arguments then?

1. You know how we abort babies by the millions to provide pensions to dying boomers. Mr.Molyneux talks about it almost weekly. You should check him out. 2. Abortion is not done by God, but by us, which is why it is immoral. A baby has done nothing wrong to us, however definitely has against God. A baby can fall into despair for example, which is an offence against God. But I'll give it to you, even this, for argument's sake. God still has every right to take a life, since he owns life. 3. Only if you assume that it is immoral for God to kill. 4. I like to number everything because I respect the person I'm interacting with. Saves a lot of time and confusion.

I'm open to chatting with anyone, and I often do. You have a revulsion to death and killing that is pretty common in today's world, where we sacrifice the unborn to save the dying. Also, you use the word "crime", by which you imply that there are laws in place that apply to God. Let's assume the laws for men apply to God just for argument's sake. We define murder as killing of the innocent. What makes you think everyone God kills is innocent? (According to catholic doctrine, not even babies are innocent in the eyes of God, in case you were going there.)

I mean, if you visit Transylvania, where supposedly the Hungarian minority and the Romanian majority are constantly at each other's throats, it is not uncommon to see a romanian couple greeting another couple in hungarian. People generally tend to sort things out by themselves as long as the government stays out. I'm not sure to what extent you would expect a people to be redpilled. If your standard is Poland, then no, Hungary is not redpilled. If I had to give you solid numbers, I would say that around 30% of hungarians are pretty solid, working class, christian, family oriented citizens; pretty redpilled if you ask me. There are 2 large demographics among whom it is very hard to find allies, namely the boomers and the millenials. I don't know what your expereince is. What do you mean non-gdp based metrics? We always measure debt in relation to gdp. Do you mean gross debt? You will find everything here: https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/government-debt-to-gdp Why is scarcity of labour a problem, supposing there is? If they need my labour so much, shouldn't they just offer me more? It's economics 101. And come on.... Index... really? I never assumed anything of you, rather I was merely talking about my experiences. No need to take offence. I may have used the general "you" a bit vaguely; I was not referring to you specifically.

1. I wouldn't worry about the language issue as long as the government doesn't interfere, Switzerland are getting along perfectly fine, with 4 national languages, and with 1 lingua franca. I suspect polish won't be the lingua franca of the v4, and we can safely assume it won't be hungarian. For now, it is english, but it may become german, since pretty much everyone in slovenia and czechia is comfortable with german. My guess is that it will remain to be english. 2. As I said, the anglophone and francophone media have been silent on eastern europe for nearly 2 years. It may be extremely hard to get information. But he still doesn't seem curious, if you ask me. 1. Ok... There are a lot of misconceptions you have mentioned, probably hearing them from the leftist media that actually holds most of the power even in Hungary. Firstly, only 2 television networks are controlled by the government. The rest are pretty much bought and sold for by other interests of varying politics. Needless to say, I don't watch TV. 2. To your first point, the FIDESZ has been elected twice even before the migrant crisis, once with a majority, the second time with a supermajority. They may not have liked Orban, but they sure preferred him to everyone else. 3. The national debt is not increasing. It peaked in 2011 with 79.9%, in 2016 it was 73.4%. That is 1% decrease per year, better than most of the world. 4. I know many people who lest the country, and I wouldn't exactly say they are the most "skilled" or talented. This is just another leftist trope. In my view, the ones who love Hungary and are willing to work for results, they stay, while the leftist mob is leaving. 5. I'm going to have to see a lot of evidence for your claims written in bold, because I don't see it as the case. 6. I often hear lftist hungarians say that Orban just got lucky, or stole the memo from the Jobbik, or whatever. To be honest, it is getting annoying. The FIDESZ are criminals, sure, but they are still much better than everyone else in the EU. Unless you have an alternative, please spare your criticism of FIDESZ. I have an alternative, the return of the Habsburg Empire, but it is not too realistic for now. I still can't figure out why the V4 is not opting for secession. But maybe they know more than I do. It may be geopolitically dangerous to leave, either being threatened by Germany or Russia. Pretty sure there won't be a war over migrants, but the EU is definitely escalating.

Right. I think I may have misunderstood because in my mind, there never was a question that there are more of them present than previously. Sure, there is some self deportation, but completely neglegible. I may be completely ill-equiped to answer this question, as most are. As a personal opinion, I think over half of ethnic white europeans should be expatriated to the very depths of the Mariana Trench. I think the only people allowed to live on dry land are those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. So if you reformulate your question to "have any of the newcomers become christian?", my answer is no. Because the countries that they are aiming for, jut happen to be some of the most godless. There is nothing to integrate into. Speaking of education... where did you get yours? I honestly can't tell if I am having a hard time understanding you either because I am stupid and you're smart, or because your writing is indeed a bit incomprehensible. Since it had become clear that Hungary was right about the migrants, the mainstream media has been dead silent about the V4. Thusly many underestimate the V4. The V4 have a combined population of nearly 70 million, which would make them the second largest political union in the EU right behind the German Federal Republic. Their combined economy makes them fifth behind Italy. Their land holdings have made it impossible for any "refugee" to enter the Schengen Zone unvetted, especially since Austria and Slovenia have unofficially joined them. This is a big reason I'm a bit disappointed in FDR; so much material there, yet we have only seen one show regarding Poland.

The Greek one is an excellent example, since although it ended with an athenian empire, they did well in the moment. I wouldn't count Switzerland, because they were always a confederation. The best examples I can think of are: Vatican against Italy, Andorra against France and Spain, Malta against the Ottomans, Venice and Genoa against the world, San Marino against everyone throughout history. Are they all merely exceptions to the rule? Maybe. But how many exceptions does it take to show a trend? The largest of the federations have become so large, that they have become a geopolitical ecosystem by themselves. I am specifically talking about Russia, EU, USA. Just like it happened in the Holy Roman Empire, we are seeing cities and communities going rogue. Just look at any election map of any sizeable country and you will see that large settlements are always differently coloured than their surrounding area. In the US there is already an extremely large divide between city folk and country folk, and in the EU, cities don't even speak the same language as the country anymore. Supposing the trend will continue, this can't go on forever.

I don't think we disagree. I have only been addressing the issue of the Dublin Agreement. Which is only a tiny aspect of the colossal monster that is the EU. But it's really hard to tell. There haven't been this many eurosceptic parties in power before. 1. It takes a while to be redpilled. Hungary voted left as recently as 2006. Poland's leftist government was changed only in 2015. 2. On the education system, I agree with you completely, and that is exactly my mission: either to change or destroy the education system in the entire world. This is something not many people even know is a problem. 3. My worry is that not many people actually have the time to think about such things. In many ways, the migrant crisis was a godsend for europe, because it was occuring in the face of the working middle class. They had no choice but to take notice. I think society is a very dynamic thing, and that trends can change. 4. I don't know where you live, maybe it's varying by region. I see a very strongforce that is only yet turning 18. My generation is the one that is sick of the millenials and sick of the boomers. I agree with Milo on this that ther is hope in this generation.

1. Seems to me like you are hardly interested in a counter argument, based on my earlier encounters with you, and that your question is insincere. But I'll bite, because I always fancy a good intellectual exercise. Please, if you can, try to ignore my snarky tone, and try to focus on my points. 2. Which immoral ways? 3. Why would you apply the same morals to God as you do to man? 4. What does Buddhism have to do with anything? They don't have the Abrahamic God. 5. Which crimes against humanity? Maybe what God does is in accordance with their ethics? It's difficult if you don't have any examples. 1. So you pray the Lord's prayer? Saying "Parfait", which is french for "Perfect" does not make you learned by the way. 2. Maybe you can't find arguments because there aren't any? The ones you presented so far have been pretty poor. I haven't had to open a link once. 3. Seems to me that you are just boasting how edgy you are. 4. When was this? 1. Have you seen any gnostics being killed by theists? In a world where people are being killed for their faith, anecdotal examples of verbal abuse by christians is the least of my worries. 2. Damn... Theists around you are terrible human beings. You should definitely move cities. I'm here. Open to arguments. 1. Please do demonstrate. 2. Isn't there only one God? What do you mean "a new"? 3. Satan has been doing a pretty poor job with his hold on Christians as far as I know. I mean, have you seen the Duomo di Milano? Satan wouldn't build something like that.

"When you fight with your neighbour over who has the more vases, why would you start lancing vases at him?"