M.2

Quite frankly you need to leave this planet if you want to be free from violence and coercion. History is the sum of those incidences when people wanted to impose their will on other people, be it peacefully or violently. So you define freedom as a state free FROM something rather than free TO something. Correct? I have wasted time measuring that. In fact I posted a poll to ask members how they see things. Here it is: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/?tab=comments#comment-454254 Holds us back from what? Why do you want to free the world? How are you doing it exactly? The owner of Luxembourg (used to be much bigger) received his land and title from the Holy Roman Emperor in exchange for his loyalty. If that is not voluntary trade, I don't know what is. I would agree that not all social contracts are voluntary nor just, but I assume you live in the west, where you did sign a contract voluntarily when you received your identity card. Personally, I find democracy and all forms of majority rule completely unjust and stupid, and I think they have zero legitimate authority. But I still did sign a piece of paper. And it is very hard to make the case that I was coerced, since nobody forced me to stay in that country. And I assume nobody forced you either.

This is what shirgall said: "The cost of moving is huge and also under duress. And, there's no place to move to where your consent is respected. Thus, you make the best of a bad situation, but that does not mean you consent." Your definition of freedom is very unclear to me and seems quite relativistic. If what you say is so, then you imply that first, nobody is truly free (I agree), and second, that there are degrees of freedom (I also agree). But then can you tell me exactly which country or place in the world allows for most freedom? And if you can, why aren't you there? I have brought up the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg as a case to study. You can look it up a bit further back. If property is never justly acquired, then are we all robbers? If tax is something that was included in the civic contract, then you are ound to pay taxes. I don't see why this is so complicated. You hold citizenship, you abide by the rules, and they have the moral right o force you if you don't. Free will is very important to me, but free will cannot be the ultimate standard. Free will of prior times annuls free will of later times. If you entered a contract of your free will, and then stay in it on your own free will, then you don't get to claim assault when you suddenly change your mind. In Mongolia, people apply for citizenship when they are 16, and everyone has the option not to. You can choose not to pick up your card, but then you have to abide by different rules, or leave the country. I had the means to leave the country (I did), but I still picked up my card because I found that the rules were fair (I may have been wrong). By picking up my card, I subscribed to compulsory military service (exceptions allowed), and to be taxed if I start working there. I didn't feel any particular duress, even though I knew they can punish me. Do I think the laws of the country suck and should be reformed? Yes, of course. But I don't get to claim I didn't consent. My scenario is very close to real life. As always, Switzerland has a very low chance of getting overrun in a war, yet they have enough nuclear bunkers to house 120% of their citizenry. Which means they can accept refugees. The Swiss govenment built those bunkers, and the swiss govenment owns them, therefore, the swiss govenment gets to decide who gets in. Since there would clearly be more applicants than they can house, they will take the most productive individuals, and the ones who promise to work their souls out for the Swiss people. I think this is common sense.

You are right. I have no solution, because I am having a very difficult time understanding your problem. Mainly, the statement "taxation is theft". We have been talking about consent a bunch, and I have yet to see a convincing argument, we have addressed whether or not a monarch is a morally justified taxer (one argument we did not finish), and we have been talking about alternatives, which for some reason everybody denies exist. I actually am pretty sure socialists understand consent. They just don't care about it. They are lost in their ideal paradise, just as many anarchists are. Ok. Last one: If there is a nuclear war outside, and the only bunker on the planet belongs to the government of Switzerland, are they morally justified to ask you to work on demand and without freedom just like a slave, if they were to accept you? Suppose you accept the conditions, under obvious duress. Did you or did you not consent?

You really think the police go hunting for you in the Gobi Desert? Mongolia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Trust me. Nobody gives a damn. "Every option sucked" is a very vague assessment. I am not sure what your assets are either, so I guess I can't help you. Yet I try... There are unclaimed territories in Antarctica, if you like the cold. There is an unclaimed territory between Serbia and Croatia, but I don't suppose you would be willing to potentially pick a fight with two balkan nations. There is also a piece of land between Egypt and Sudan. Australia has a history of recognising micronations, where you could found your own country. ...But I am sure you mean to say these places "suck", and that you prefer comfort over freedom. I get it, but please don't claim there aren't unclaimed or tax-free territories on the planet.

No, I am genuinely taken aback by the thought that one would willingly expose their wife and children to theft while there is an option not to. Under the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, millions of people moved to places where the enforcers could not reach, just to escape the tax they imposed on christians, which some inhabitants found to be robbery. That is either to the Habsburg Empire or to the mountans. To me it sounds like you care more about fixing a broken system than you do about your family. You have the choice to give your children a place where they could grow up and work without being stolen from, yet you deny them that just as you have been denied. There are still such places in the world where government does not reach, yet you have made a statement to the contrary. When I tried to correct you, you completely disregarded it, and called my assessment shallow. Which by the way not an argument.

So getting born is basically human trafficking since nobody asked me if I wanted to be in this world in the first place. And now I could just killed myself and go back to whatever else there is, but doing that may be more painful that being alive. So I might just remain here. Right? About "no place"... Come on. Do you want me to buy you a one-way ticket to the Gobi desert? Literally nobody cares whether or not you live or die there. You can dig for gold or even uranium if you wish, since the govenment doesn't have the means to monitor you anyway. I personally know people who live that lifestyle, and yes, that is why I love Mongolia... freedom. The fact that no libertarian or anarchist cares to research where freedom actually is, tells me how much you actually care. I am not either of those, but I have written multiple threads researching where the smallest government is, including countries that most people here don't even know exist. You are all just playing your mental hobbies as far as I know. (I am only a 20 year old with an attitude, so please read my words as of such)

Why did you choose to make this your very first post? Is it something important to you, or to your milieu? Just curious where you are coming from so that we can understand your language better. As you say, much of this topic is rooted in language and culture.

1. I agree it is not moral. But with the fallen nature of humanity, it is what is. And I don't see it going differently anytime soon. Human nature simply doesn't allow for it. 2. I was never talking about existing or not existing. In the case of a country, a renegotiation is absolutely the case. You have to prove that the new human is yours, or was born in a specific location at a specific time in order to expand the contract. Sometimes, only only person's signature is enough, like that of the head of a family (I have seen such lease contracts). Which of course makes him liable. Actually I don't think we disagree on this fundamentally, but for some reason you insist on it. 3. Age of consent is beyond my expertise. But it is very hard to make the case that you do not consent to living in America, since you can very well afford to move out anytime you please. Its not like you are in North Korea or Cuba. 4. Ok, getting back to my favourite example: Is the tax that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, being a private land owner and a government, "impose" on his citizens theft or not?

1. There is always a force that is necessary for the assertion of ownership. It can either be the force of 2000 nuclear warheads in the case of Tsar Putin, or the military might of Switzerland in the case of the Prince of Liechtenstein, or a shotgun and a sidearm in the case of the average american citizen. It is the first rule of geopolitics that if you can't defend your land, you don't deserve it. But of course this is not too philosophical. I hope I am not strawmanning, but to me it sounds like you claim that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is a delusional megalomaniac asshole for having received a spit of land from the Emperor 800 years ago. Luxembourg hardly even has a platoon, much less an army by the way. 2. If in the contract, you only allowed for 2 people to reside (most contracts tend to specify the number of people allowed), then having 3 entails either a renegotiation or termination. Where am I wrong? 3. Consent can be given by the guardian, and it is indeed given. But I don't see how this is relevant. Riddle me this though: How exactly the land that you are standing on your land for sure? I am pretty sure some time ago it was fought over and killed over. So the one who won it was definitely not a rightful owner. And then who becomes the rightful owner along the line?

I carried over our conversation from the other thread, because I thought it fit here more appropriately. You went on to talk about rebublic, which was not what I was making an argument for. I would actually agree with you that in a republic, democracy, rule of the people country, that taxation is indeed theft, because your land is supposedly yours, and you have every right to be there, and you are supposedly a free citizen. But in the case of a monarchy, your land is not yours, and therefore you must abide by the owner's rules, and pay taxes for using his land. Is this common sense or not? If one of your tenanants gives birth to a child in your apartmennt, the baby only gets to stay if you allow it. And if you give permission, the baby also has to follow your rules.

What I learned from my parents is that there is a time to demonstrate your virtue, and there is a time not to. This may sound kinda pragmatistic, but hear me out... Whenever I had some sort of severe injury or some other urgent problem, like a broken bone for instance my parents would naturally bribe the doctor who could help, because that sped up the process. Other times, when we were under no serious pressure, they would stick to their principles. According to their value system, being honourable was much lower than the health of their children. So your friend should probably ask himself what the prices are for standing by his principles, and if he is willing to bear the costs of getting a dent in his honour. This is for him to judge only, as it his his value system.

1. At one point or another, I guarantee you, the very land you are standing on had been stolen by someone from another through force and murder. There is absolutely no way to rectify such things. If you however want to hold current owners responsible for things that the previous owners did, I think there is a rabbit hole you will never reappear from. Again, by lawful, I may have not used the word you were looking for. It was basically fully in line with the NAP, property rights, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ducal_Family_of_Luxembourg 2. What do you mean what responsibilities? Here are the details; knock yourself out: "...The Grand Duke is the head of state. He embodies the independence and continuity of a state that was strongly influenced by the ups and downs of history. Sovereign power resides in the nation. The exercise of sovereign powers is entrusted to the Grand Duke. He has only those powers that the Constitution and laws expressly confer upon him. The Grand Duke has a central and essential function: he is considered to be the cornerstone of the institutional system. However, his actions strictly follow the maxim that 'the Sovereign reigns but does not govern.'..." http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/monarchie/chef-etat/index.html The power of the monarch is kept in check by the other branches of government. 3. You don't really know how monarchies work, do you? Present me a fact that we can both analyze. I am not interested in opinions. (I actually am interested. I am just beinga dick.) 1. It helps to recognise that history is written to justify the present. Monarchy indeed has it very bad in certain cultures: American, French, German, Post-Soviet, Communist. That is because their status quo can only be explained if monarchy was bad. In many places however, monarchy is being sorely missed: Russia, Italy, Poland... One thing these propagandists do is underestimate the intellectual capabilities of their people, and with good reason. Most people have no idea that the best functioning countries in every region are monarchies, with a couple democracies mixed inbetween. For examples, liberals would bash monarchy all day, but they had no idea that their utopia, Sweden, is a monarchy. Even Mr.Molyneux has an unfavourable view of monarchy, but the best example he likes working with is Japan, a monarchy. 2. Playing the devil's advocate, democracies have proven to work, with the examples of Switzerland, San Marino, even USA. There is however very specific prerequisites for a functional democracy. Not as unattainable as the prerequisites for socialism, but still. Nevertheless, I think history has proven that it is indeed much harder to transition from democracy to freedom than it is from monarchy. 3. I understand this is a philosophy forum, but I also think the important standard to aim for is what CAN be rather than what SHOULD be. There will never be a completely free society, void of force and coercion. What I like about catholic teachings, is that although they point to the heavens, they do it from the ground. About contract and owership, I would recommend reading the "Rerum Novarum" - completely rational, and down-to-earth stuff. Nothing of the belikejesus sort. 4. One thing that all monarchies are good at is intellectual honesty. If you ask a democracy "who is your leader?" they will answer "the people", and you already know they are bsing. When you ask a dictatorship, they will say "the common good", and you know they are bsing. When you ask a theocracy, you get "the gods", and you know they are bsing. When you ask a monarchy, they will say "the monarch", and that is probably true. Monarchy is not something that can only be effective through executive action. The Emperor of Japan, for example is the cornerstone of japanese unity, and for them, although they know he is a man, he is barely distinguishable from a god. What I mean is that for the Japanese, the Emperor, is, was and will be. Japanese servicepeople speak their oath in the name of the Emperor, not of Japan, and you know they mean it. The Emperor had no power when he ordered Japan to stand down in WW2, yet the people wouldn't have listened to anyone else.

1. Ok, got it. So basically not being a parasite, but a giver. 2. Right... 3. I think that is a brilliant idea. Getting to know the world is extremely useful and interesting too. But I would advise you not to do it superficially, and to stay at a place as long as possible. I don't know where you stand lingually, but you should definitely do months of studying beforehand. Download duolingo, keep at it religiously for a month, and you are set for a basic conversation. A shame is that Mr.Molyneux does not know any foreign language. I wanted to ask him to address the debate between Merkel and Schulz, but I couldn't even find a German transcription of it, let alone an English dub. I may translate it myself just to have him talk about it, because it was one of the most important events on the continent, and there was so much in there so interestingly discussed. He is missing out on a ton of information by not knowing languages.

1. Yes, the Grand-Duke acquired the Land legally, bestowed upon him by the Holy Roman Emperor. I agree that most contemporary governments don't have the moral right to own everything in the country. Quite simply because a government does not exist. There is no such thing as a "people", nor a "nation", because there is no personhood there. In a monarchy however, there is a very well-defined actual legal person who is the owner of a given country. And as I have argued before, Monarchies are the best argument for private property. The best maintained countries in the world are those under a monarch. 2. I am not well enough equiped to enter into a discussion over such legal matters. I would think that as long as the parties sign the contract of their own free will, they are bound. And unfortunately, a contract can and does affect one's children. Your parents sign on your behalf, and you can only opt out when you reach legal age. 3. In Luxembourg, for example, there is no birthright citizenship. Which means the govenment does not put the shackles on you at birth. I would challenge the 99% thing. If you concede that a monarhch, as the private owner of the land, has the right to collect rent from residents, then about 40 of the 200 countries in the world don't steal. This gets a bit complicated because not all monarchs are owners of the Land, but conservatively, they usually are.

In Russian it says: God is not in power, but in truth. Good one, but why is it in Russian?

Whether Monaco has tax or not is a bit beside the point. What I meant was that they could always move to country where there is less harrassment. But your point is fair as you say they may be tolerant of the tax because they find it the best deal. So I understand you say they accept the tax under duress... Which makes it theft. Got it. I personall would call it rent though. Here is the crux of the issue isn't it? Who owns what, where, when, why, etc. 1. Well, the line of dukes were granted the land and their title over a thousand years ago by the Holy Roman Emperor. I won't bore you with wikipedia history, but basically it was a completely lawful acquisition. So...yes? As for whether or not the Emperor acquired the land fairly, I think not. The Empire grew out of the Frankish Empire, which gained all of the land through violent conquest. 2. The Luxembourgish crown-govenment is responsible for everything that happens on the land, so my answer would be yes. But I may be wrong. I think this question is irrelevant though, as property can be leased under various conditions.

People seem to have really strong opinions on tax around here. Whenever I hear an absolutist statement, I always look to poke holes in it, as most do. Is the tax that the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg take of its residents theft? The Grand-Duke owns all of the land of Luxembourg, and so I would think one has every right to demand payment from those who use his property. Also, there is every reason to believe that the people of the country are in full consent to the tax, because were they not, they could very easily move to Monaco a few miles away, where there is absolutely no tax. Where am I going astray here? (Same goes for most other monarchies by the way. I just picked Luxembourg because it is close to my heart.) Somebody please explain...

Here is my list: 1. Values: Our values are our most valuable values. 2. Truth and Wisdom: I think one is useless without the other 3. Will of God: Aymeen 4. Free Will: The free will of man is something that not only God, but even the devil respects. 5. Humility: "All I know is that I know nothing" 6. Honour: There is a special place in hell for those who don't stand by anything 7. Life: Human life first, of course. 8. Beauty or Aesthetics: If you have no god, beauty is most probably your god, and for good reason. 9. Power: This has zero moral content, but I still find it very important in life, especially with regards to willpower. 10. Purity or Simplicity: I am a sucker for simplicity. "If something cannot be simplified, you are probably doing it wrong." - Forgive me if I am mistaken, RichardY , but I find that your values (except for wisom and responsibility) have no moral content. For instance, sustainability is not a good thing, if the thing in question is not a good thing; it is still not scientifically settled whether or not it is a good thing that humans exist. So just curious why that might be... - How can a negative be a value? "No bureaucracy" - How is your fluency going? Need some help?

I have been pondering over this exact same issue, and I am one of those people who haven't been convined yet. Even though I have read both of the Anarchy books and UPB, ans have been following FDR for a long time. Would you be interested in having a discussion over the topic either here or over messaging?

No... It is in your title. B is the most important thing in life.

Hi CaliforniaCoaster Your question is a very interesting one indeed, and had been already asked by most people who ever lived. with good reason. "Is Personal Happiness the Most Important Thing In Life?": This is a very simple mathematical equation, and can be translated as such "Is A equal to B? - We know that A is a positive number, but we don't know what it is exactly. Or it could also be 0, because by some arguent personal happiness may not even exist. Basically, its possible values are: A[0;+]. - B is a bit harder, but we know that it exists, since things can be ranked by value. It is also a real number because there are a limited number of "things" in the world (even if they are abstract), and they can be counted (theoretically). Therefore: B[R] The issue is this: There is not one single value for A, or personal happiness, because there are 7 billion people on the planet, and B definitely has only 1. A can have one value only if personal happiness equals 0, meaning it does not exist, or rather does not matter. In other words, no, A cannot be B.

I have attempted to outline the possible belligerent sides in the upcoming civil war, based on current political conflicts. Generally, the split sides can be labelled Left and Right. Note: Some countries will enter unified, but others will be internally fragmented along ideological lines. For past similar examples in history see Thirty Years War. LEFT -European Union (Brussels): as the de-facto leading government for most of Europe, they will be the standard bearers for the Left. -Wallonia (Namur): Unlike Flanders, the Walloons remain socialistic, as demonstrated in the 2014 elections, and will most likely join the Left. -German Federal Government (Berlin): The Bundestag will be the most zealous fighter on the side of European Unity, just as they have always been. -French Govenment (Paris): France, being already very divided and weak, will not be much of a force externally, but will be very active in putting down domestic insurrections. -Monaco: Will not be of any significance. -Netherlands (Amsterdam): Not a very active, but definite ally of Brussels, led by the VVD, who won the last elections comfortably. -Scotland (Edinburgh): Scotland, for some reason love their EU, and will be a thorn in the back of the UK. -Luxembourg: Piece of Scheissen -Catalonia (Barcelona): Under the leadership of the Republican Left, they will likely take a stand on the side of Brussels. -Andorra: Being under the rule of Spain and France, they have their choices made for them. -Sweden (Stockholm): Sweden will become a battlefield in the Civil War, but at least a virtuous one. Right -Visegrad4 (Warsaw): Under the leadership of Poland, the V4 will spearhead the defiance against Brussels, since they are as of now the only compact political union in Europe. -Russia (Moscow): Will support V4, but only cautiously, as not to provoke the US. -Flanders (Antwerpen): The surge of the New Flemish Alliance in the 2014 elections of Flanders is a clear indication that the Flemings are drawing closer to nationalism are Rightism. -Bavaria (München): The uncomformism of the Bavarians is nothing new if we look at history. Consistently voting for their Bavaria Party. Under the leadership of Seehofer, ally of V4 -Saxony (Dresden): Although they are still led by the Christian Democrats, I predict that because of their rightist population, and because of the AFD, they will defy Berlin. -Hauts-de-France (Lille): This is a bit of a wild card, but the last election has clearly shown a very peculiar divergence showing in northern France. -Corsica: A small, but very loud part of France, who have demonstrated nationalistic sentiments. I think they will defy Paris. -UK (London): The UK always manages to pick a side just before the storm. With the exception of dissident Scotland and some liberal areas, the country will be firmly right. -Finland (Helsinki): The Finns, though liberal, are a very geopolitically aware nation, and will surely join the V4, albeit weary of Russia. -Baltic States (Vilnius): Being one of the few true alliances in Europe, formed through geopolitical necessity, the baltics will be the rearguard for the V4. -Austria (Vienna): With the exception of the bigger cities, all of Austria is firmly right leaning. If forced to pick a side, they will join the V4. -Slovenia (Ljubljana): Very likely to join the V4 as a member. -Croatia (Zagreb): Very likely to join V4 as a member. -Bulgaria (Sofia): Will be the bulwark against the migrant wave that Turkey will release onto the EU. -Macedonia (Skopje): Will continue to put up a fight against the migrant wave, but will be unable to affect the Civil War significantly. -Malta (Valletta): Will not be of any significance. Neutral -Switzerland (Bern): Fashionably neutral, but secretly will be a sympathiser to the rightist cause, with the exception of the french-speaking cantons. -Ireland (Dublin): The Irish will be very divided in the coming years, as they are going through a volatile political shift within. Mostly uncertain. -Portugal (Lisbon): Mostly eurosceptic, but sadly insignificant on the political arena. -Spanish government: Spain will have no political unity within the near future, and will be having their own Catalan problem to deal with. -Norway (Oslo): The political divide in Norway is very close, and will likely be so in the soming years, thusly remaining undecided. -Denmark (Coppenhagen): Much like Norway, Denmark is an eurosceptic country, but also very liberal. Even though their geopolitics will force them to pick a side, I doubt they will. -Iceland (Reykyavik): Will not be of any significance. -Belarus (Minsk): Under the boot of Russia, there is not much Minsk can do with regards to the Civil War. -Ukraine (Kiev): They have their own problems at the moment. -Italy (Rome): The internal instability of Italy, even that of the individual states, makes it impossible to predict where they will stand. Will have to wait for next election. -San Marino: Grabs popcorn. -Liechtenstein (Vaduz): Will not be of any significance. -Holy See: Deus Vult maybe, but unlikely. -Moldova (Cisinau): Will not be of any significance. -Romania (Bucharest): Internal instability will render them unable to affect the Civil War significantly. -Bosnia (Sarajevo): Internal instability will render them unable to affect the Civil War significantly. -Serbia (Belgrad): Internal instability will render them unable to affect the Civil War significantly. -Montenegro (Podgorica): Will not be of any significance. -Albania (Tirane): Will not be of any significance. -Greece (Athens): Internal instability will render them unable to affect the Civil War significantly. -Cyprus: Internal instability will render them unable to affect the Civil War significantly.

Hi, saspatz Considerable examples I have heard are the American Wild West, ancient Iceland Medieval Venice and Genoa, maybe Switzerland before their civil war. I have been doing my research regarding this as well. Please post if you have anything.

The Blitz lasted 8-9 months, killed less than 40 thousand people, and had hardly affected any place outside of London. Had the British govenment decided to hush the happenings of the Blitz, it would have been very easy. Quite simply because hardly anyone in Britain truly felt the Blitz. In fact, the Blitz had to be massively propagandised in order to get the British public to understand that they were at war. My point is that unless everyone in Europe actually admits to the state of war, and starts assuming responsibility for the terrorist attacks, there will be no illumination. I live in Belgium, which is one of the many countries that ships weapons to Syria. This makes this country a player in the proxy war that is Syria. This is what people have not understood yet. In philosphy, there is no such thing as collective guilt, but in practice, there is. The Belgians, or rather, the Belgian Government has been waging undeclared war in the Middle-East for at least half a century, and the Belgian people voted them in power. Maybe spreading such a perspective will help people understand what is going on, and why the attacks are occurring. Playing the victim and wondering what is going on is ridiculous.

I would agree that passive-aggression is a bit of an oxymoron, and a misnomer too. The Americans have a much more fitting term for it if I'm not mistaken: "Being a dick". Is it immoral? Maybe, idk. Sure, a passive-aggressive person is a waste of time, but I also agree that we should be having more important matters to worry about.