Goldenages

So what you actually say, is, you need an empire to enforce and protect anarcho-capitalist principles, and at the same time you blame the empire because it abuses its power to exploit poor countries. (The exploitation of poor countries through some western (and chinese) companies is exactly this - corrupt, close to the state companies make deals with corrupt governments in poor countries.) One of these statements is necessarily wrong, and thats the problem with all that stuff: How can we prevent the organisation (state, empire, police, military..) that should protect free trade, to become the very thing it should fight? Obviously it does not work when this organisation - state, empire, military, lets call it state for simplicity - is allowed to take taxes. Tried for thousands of years, it always was a fail, because it led to more and more state power, more and more corruption. And obviously it does not work, but only make things even worse, when the state has complete control about money, i.e. a central bank. Tried since 1913, failures even became more disastrous, with the biggest desaster yet to come. So the logical conclusion is to get rid of all "rights" the state has occupied. A good trial were the several constitutions, many of them intended to prevent growth of state power. But just a short glance onto reality shows that those in power always find ways to circumnavigate them, in Europe most laws are made from people nobody elected, or even could elect. So yes, military or security forces are necessary, paid voluntarily by those who need them. If they do not serve properly, you change to the competitor. And yes, those forces will always be weaker than state funded forces, thus not able for attack, and what is needed in your defence portfolio are some nuclear weapons. Every country on earth that owns such weapons is very unlikely to be challenged (ask Kim why he wants that stuff). Or you go the way that Switzerland went, you house the central bank of central banks in Basel. Even Nazi Germany never challengend Switzerland, because also - and especially - Nazi Germany needed money from the printing press. However, without central bank only the nuclear option ist left. regards Andi

Well, define "advanced" We see history from a certain point of view, we remember the dates of battles and the size and duration of empires. But that is a coarse pattern, and actually we are admiring, or at least remembering, those with the strongest military, the greatest propaganda, or the strongest stimulus to down their neighbours, or simply the most brutal. Those do not necessarily represent the most advanced. I do not think so, because he never said anything like this. Now think who destroyed Persian democracy: State power, some western tribes. A great Empire, the military-industrial complex of the US, with all attributes so utterly admired - as long as it is an ancient, "advanced" empire. I have visited Teheran, Isfahan and Shiraz (Persepolis, wow!). My impression ist that people are genuinly friendly, very interested in foreigners, many speak english, french or german - and are suppressed by their religious government. Religion, the best stimulus to build empires and down neighbours. regards Andi

Yes. And Empires are just bigger tribes. It makes no difference wether you are sacrificed by your chief or your emperor, in either way you end up dead. There is no doubt that, e.g., the Roman Empire spread culture, law, knowledge, etc. etc. But all that also would have spread without battles and uncounted victims, just by trade - the wars were fought to install military, political structures and taxation, when the war was over the exchange of goods and the assimilation of culture took place. So we can cancel the war, thus politics and taxation, out of the equation and still stay with exchange of goods and culture. regards Andi

If God were - literally - timeless and would not change, he would not be able to act or even think. His impact on reality could only be exactly zero. Acting or thinking is change and is time. regards Andi

Well ist very unlikely that anyone changes his mind that fast. But at least you provided the notion that nowadays governments "care" about things which they should not care at all. I take every chance to make myself unpopular and have many discussions. It is scary, but the idea that there are problems which are best solved without government (in fact, all , but I make it step by step) is completely out of mind of too many people. It takes time, many examples and many repetitions, and progress is slow. However, actually there is plenty of evidence of incompetence of politicians. Elections are soon in Germany and Austria, and even the most benevolent sheep wonder why migrants do not play any role in the so called discussions in state TV. So do not give up, but do not exhaust yourself, all you owe your environmet is honesty and rational arguments. If somebody is too stupid, well, how could he be Atlas who carries the world? regards Andi

PS: To answer this concrete question - the tragedy lies in the term "public property". And of course, those in power "know" which feelings are correct and appropriate, right? What we see here is nothing less than spreading politics through a moral "argument": - If you still reject electric cars, you obviously do not care about the environment - you are a bad person. -If you still do not like the religion of peace, although it is allegedly your fault (if you are white) that middle east is a mess - you are a bad person. -If you think taxes are too high, and you do not want to give half your income to the state, you are greedy (you, not the state) and do not care about the poor - you are a bad person. - If you do not care about feelings of others (and, as said, which feelings are correct is decided by the power of the state) and you want to keep that statue - you are a bad person. The problem with the statue would easily be solved if there were no such thing as "public property". Public property basically means property of the ruling gang, used to expand their power. If the statue was privately owned, it could be removed only with agreement of its owner, and could not be used to make politics. regards Andi

Hello, the duty of the government is to provide legal certainty, e.g. property rights. It is not the duty of the government to take care about feelings, and there is a reason why: Who decides which feelings are the right ones? Nowadays the governments in the West mostly deal with areas which explicitly are not government dutys, even more, which explicitly should be independent from government, such as business, climate, marriage and so on. And here is the same question: Who decides which business is the right one, which climate is the best, and who is allowed to marry whom? If any government consider feelings (or more generally, areas who must not be influencend by the government) the government becomes a tool of gangs, because groups battle for more and more political influence, more and more tax money, and their view is not shared through arguments but by force. State power is increasing, freedom gets lost. For example: Its fine with me if some muslims demonstrate with posters such as "Freedom go to hell" or "Sharia for everyone". Yes that hurts the feelings of any reasonable mind, but the right to demonstrate is for everybody regardless of the feelings of others. But: Its not fine with me if those demonstrators live on welfare, because the government decided - for whatever foolish reason - that it is a good idea to pamper third world immigrants with tax money. All those above areas (and many more) are best ruled out by the free market. If "Freedom go to hell" and "Sharia for everyone" are valid arguments, resulting e.g. in prosperity for those who live accordingly, those arguments will make its way and more and more would join voluntarily to benefit. Obviously this is not the case. To the contrary, as a result of the state influencing the free market (in this case, the free market of ideas) with tax money, we see the rise of toxic and dangerous ideas. Which is typical for everything influenced by the state. regards Andi

so victims of sex abuse should shut their mouth for the good of diversity. regards Andi

Well, if they are so magnificent - why did they make extra laws to protect them? regards Andi

Well, I can´t tell you wether this is true in that particular case. But I can tell you that in Brussels they have several offices installed for lobbying, i.e. corruption. Years ago there was a discussion about environmental friendly illuminants - the bureaucrats wanted to get rid of the bulbs. Several big companies invested in research for a replacement and offered so called energy saving lamps, way more expensive, spreading scary light, and containing mercury(!). From the instructions: "In case your new, environmental friendly lamp brakes, open the window, close the door and wait for at least 30 minutes til the mercury is vaporized". (No, I never used them. I importet a whole bunch of normal bulbs from Romania.) So normally, these so called environmental friendly bulbs would never have a chance on the market. And here is where lobbying and the unholy alliance of politics and economy kicks in: New laws were created, and the sell of lightbulbs was forbidden. Some clever companies, however, still sold them for several years - they declared their lightbulbs as small ovens, a nice additional heat, and as a side effect, they advertised, they even produce some light Thats just one of many, many, examples. Every few months they come with another crazy idea, recently in gastronomy. Many small entrepenuers can not fullfill the new regulations and have to give up, taken over by some big players - thats the way overregulated states go. Situation in the US seems to be similar, in one of his last videos Stefan mentioned the sum that is paid for bribery, its huge. Centuries ago the civilized world managed to separate state and church. The next step is to separate state and economy, and this is done best by getting rid of the state at all. regards Andi

I would say it is not the duty of the state to run business, as less as it is the duty of business to pass laws. regards Andi

Yes. But with what right does the state have a monopoly for this? There was an enormous rise in wages and wealth. And yes, industrialization does not start with turbine blades and nuclear power plants. I just know the history in Europe - it started with cloth and clothes. Before the first factorys were built all clothes were handmade, and poor people wore them till they decayed on the body, cause they were expensive. So the first shirts, trousers etc. had to be produced cheap, simply because in the beginning there was nobody who could afford a high price. But within years and a few decades both wages and wealth grew, and in Paris opened the first big store, Le Bon Marche , still existing today In this first decades the middle class came into existence. Growth and competiton between corporations was so intense that the wages rose because there was a shortage, thus a high demand, for workers. Thats the normal way when the state does not enforce low skilled migration, just to claim thereafter that we all are responsible for so many poor people and of course have to pay. Child labour was the norm throughout the whole history. Before the industrial revolution a child could work in agriculture, cadge, starve, or steal. Then they could work in factorys, as soon as wages were high enough for the parents to take care of their childs, child labour came to an end and better education could start. It was - and is - capitalism who freed the poor. And it was - and is - capitalism who produces wealth, and as soon as there is wealth the Socialists come and claim it is their merit. Why weren´t there any Socialists in the middle ages? I mean, circumstances were really terrible back then. Today, with so much low skilled migration in a more and more demanding work environment, of course there is low demand for this kind of work and of course wages cannot rise. But thats an effect of a state policy and not an effect of the free market. Before 1914 in Europe, you did not need any passport to travel from one country to another. You did not need any documents to get hired abroad, if a company needed you they hired you. Despite lunatic Kings and Emperors economical freedom was unrivaled high in pre war Europe, and til the moment the government started propaganda there was no hate between countries. regards Andi

Well thats nice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derHRFGZ4NU

A must read for everybody who wants to understand modern money world and some turnoffs of history: The Creature from Jekill Island What is the FED, who founded it, what does a central bank, how wars are financed and why state power today is as great as never before. regards Andi

Well, years ago one could read about different opinions concerning global warming. I remember an article in the "SPIEGEL" (big german magazin) where a biologist gave lecture on the benefits of a warmer climate. There were discussions e.g. about the Sahara and wether this desert would become more green or more dry. Gradually the tone changed from a discussion to alarmism. We all had to change behaviour, drive less, heat less, eat less, but pay more to save the world. The west supposedly is responsible for drought in other countries, causing people to starve and to flee, for rising sea levels and so on. Peak of hysteria was a professor (for music) in the Austrian city Graz who demanded death penalty for everbody who denied a global warming. Todesstrafe für Leugner des Klimawandels (german). Most opposite views vanished from the mainstream media and moved to blogs, many of them pretty scientific and backed up by data. Sahara is becoming greener, the number of polar bears is greater than some years ago, and the global climate does not match in any way the predictions made by the state scientists, it´s cooler. The rise of the sea level(s) is slowly but steadily the same til the end of the last ice age. The only source who comes to a different conclusion is NASA with satelitet data. NASA claims a higher rise, but its one source against many monitoring stations around the globe. And as we know, EU want the rising sea level to grant asylum for refugees. The PIK, the "Potsdamer Institut für Klimaforschung" (institute for climate research) is completely state ownend. Everbyody can read their work in the net, they provide two variations: The first is pretty scientific, they admit that reality does not match predictions. The second is a much shorter dossier distributed among politics and media. And in this dossier one can read that every measure has to be taken to prevent the climate becoming hell. Furthermore, the AGW fabrication is utilized e.g. by Angel Merkel to increase state power. 500 billions Euro are the costs of the so called "Energiewende" so far. Meanwhile even some mainstream media question this waste of money, however a small number of journalists (the best, of course) left the state media and make their own blogs. Politicians talk about banning the gas driven cars within the next 13 years or so. I personally hope they make it earlier. Still too many people are not aware how fascism sneaks in, and what of manness is left in Europe might fortuntately end in an uprise when they come and take away your car regards Andi

Just finished The Big Lie from Dinesh D´Souza. Highly recommended. About the roots of fascism. Many interesting facts, most of them completely new to me, about the history of Democrats and their ties to slavery, rassism and their movements towards a centralized state, i.e. fascism. Gives sound information and ammunition for the dicussion of Trump and his presidency. As suspected - the fascists are on the left. regards Andi

Actually, the group of scientists who spread the climate catastrophe is very small. But as usual, they get their money from the state and are backed up by the media. The rest keep their mouths shut - if you do not sing with the chorus, you are a climate-denier, you are evil and do not care about the future, if you still argue you are a nazi. Most facts against the so called CO2 catastrophe come from retired scientists. Same with the so called "Energiewende" in Germany, those ridiculous windmills: I know many engineers in Germany, but not a single one who is convinced this "technology" could work. I mean its easy - everbody with just basic physical knowledge knows that it won´t work, wind energy (or solar panels) is not sufficient to deliver power for an industrialized country. But meanwhile there is whole industry depending on state money, e.g. many people make money letting a parcel of land for rent for windmills. They will never vote for any party who would want to stop this madness. regards Andi

Here is just one of many sites with facts: Lord Mockton Foundation The temperatures do not match with the models. Temperatures are lower. Redistributing wealth from the West to third world countries, as it happens now in the course of climate summits, does not change the climate. The personal adviser of Angela Merkel, Joachim Schellnhuber, chief of the PIK and master mind behind the climate politics, openly advertises for a global CO2 bank that should issue CO2 certificates for every country on earth. Production is only allowed within this certificates. Food should be produced near the equator, while some industry would be allowed in colder regions. According to Schellnhuber global power should be held by 100 to 200 climate experts, watching the situation, and if danger is imminent, they "Quickly must invent a new world society". Not even Karl Marx dreamed of such possibilities. Maybe the climate will be warmer in 100 years. However if the ideas of these maniacs would ever be implemented, there will be no mankind any more that could care. Air pollution is a different topic. Many interesting facts can be found here: The moral case for fossil fuels Energy consumption and wealth are correlated since mankind found out how to use fire. The wealthier a society, the cleaner is air and water, because only wealth allows the investments into technology for keeping the environment clean. Thanks to President Trump, the climate train is a bit off the rails now regards Andi

If light or something else carrying information was faster than c, we would be in big trouble concerning causality. As said, different observers moving with different speeds at different positions in spacetime do not agree about wether events are simultaneous or not. Alien 65 million lightyears away from us see an asteroid falling onto earth in their "now", while our now here is in the 21. century. But, and thats important, every observer, regardless of his position and speed, will agree to a causal chain of events. First an asteroid falls. Thereafter the dinosaurs go extinct. If information could move faster than light, there would be observers who would watch that it was the other way round. To understand this, have a look at the Minkowski diagramm linked in a previous post. It is math drawn in a picture, and yes it is nothing that is normally understood by just reading it once. What I do: Just start reading. Make a pause. Then I try to remember what I have understood. It will be little, thats perfectly normal. Read again. Remember once more, wait til the next day, read again. I make some sports, run for an hour. Then comes the point where I get angry to be so stupid not to reenact what somebody else discovered Thats normally the push to go through it again, til it makes "click" and things are clear. regards Andi

Two brief videos: Why the speed of light is not about speed, but about causality: Speed of light And what is Spacetime? About Spacetime regards Andi

What I did to get an idea of this, is to approach in steps. The faster an object moves (relativ to c), the slower is time for this object. Lets say my son stays here and I make a trip with a fancy spaceship, able to reach a high percentage of c. According to the clock in my spaceship my journey lasts 2 years, so I spent 2 years at a speed close to the speed of light. Back on earth the pace of time of course did not change, relativ to me time moved faster on earth. So my son waited, e.g., 8 years til I am back again. So in this example I travel with very high speed, my journey lasts 2 years of my time and a certain distance, nevertheless I am subject of 8 years waiting time for my son til I am back. Now lets put this to the extreme. For a photon moving with c, time and distance are gone, nevertheless, for those on earth the pace of time is still the same. We still see light moving with 300000km/s and have to wait til it reaches us from outer space. regards Andi

At 17:10, "What we traditionally call selfish tendencies.......is only a narrow interpretation of what self- serving behaviour entails, wherein human characteristics are perceived through the flawed paradigm of identity". .... and "The psychological consequences of this as an objective believe system allow self awareness without attachment to an imagined self, causing dramatic increases in mental clarity, social conscience,...." The video states that consciousness and the self (identity) is, so to speak, the result of calculations done by the brain. As far as I know this is correct. But why is the "paradigm of identity" flawed? What is an "objective believe system"? If something is objective, there is no need to believe it. And if somebody could explain to me how one can be self aware "without attachment to an imagined self", I would really appreciate this. But I do admit that all this meditation stuff, like e.g. Buddhism teaches, to solve all contradictions explicitly with non-thinking, always was beyond my capabilites. There are many theories who want to explain consciusness with quantum theory, which is "explaining" the unknown with the weird. And many of these theories claim a kind of collective consciousness to which everybody can connect when he just follow some rules. I would say its more esoteric than science. regards Andi

For a photon there is no time, thus there is no distance. So seen from a photon´s point of view - literally - everything just is. The whole universe, from the Big Bang til the end, just one picture. And also this is, of course, only an analogy, because even for looking at a pic one would need time. But I guess thats the best analogy we can find, because we cannot imagine anything without time. Seen from our point view, light travels with 300000km/s. And even thats slow given the distances in the universe. If a planet is 10 lightyears away from us, and we look through a telescope onto his surface, we see the surface as it was 10 years ago. If some aliens were 65 million lightyears away, and they had a fancy telescope watching our earth, they would see the end of the dinosaurs. Simultaneity depends on where you are. regards Andi

I agree regards Andi

If one understands the Minkowski Diagramm than it´s obvious that the speed limit of c ist not only about speed. Quote from Wiki: Of course one can assume that every single scientist since 1905, who dealt with Einstein´s relativistic theory and its experiments, is part of a big cover up and only Mr. Xinhang Shen is correct. Every single physicist working for CERN, member of the brotherhood of liars, carefully choking the power in the accelerator. However this is what I call a conspiration theory. As for spaceships to "boldly go where no man has gone before" have a look at the Alcubierre drive. As I mentioned earlier, spacetime itself can (and does) expand faster than light. rergards Andi