Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'government'.
-
I found some intriguing videos about 9/11 a while back and wanted you to watch them and make a video on them. I know you're not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but I think after seeing these videos you might change your mind. WATCH IN ORDER FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!
-
Google is the world's largest breeding ground for sociopaths who see morals as obstacles to overcome, rather than paths to follow. Their utter indifference to the ethical repercussions and potential consequences of their actions is beyond all comprehension. Stefan, if you see this, I need to tell you that I strongly disagree with you about artificial intelligence. It is far more capable than you seem to think. Please watch the videos listed below and make a video on it at your earliest convenience. Thank you. -
I have posted a thread asking the question a while ago "which country is best?" It was meant to be a completely open question, and I received a lot of replies. Most emphasised the importance of NO GVERNMENT as a prerequisite for a moral society. So I have been doing some research and reading Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy to broaden my horizons. Here are the countries I have narrowed down my search to, and would like to get a few opinions on which is truly the closest candidate. Here are the largely undisputed data. Please add a few criteria if there are any. There seems to be 5 main requirements for an ancap paradise: (I deliberately used data only from wikipedia, as they have the lowest possibility of being controversial) 0. No government. Everyone fails this one, so I won't include it. 1. Freedom of education. This is pretty hard to quantify so I only gave them general rankings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_education 2. Economic freedom. This is probably the most important one. Sadly, there is only quite unreliable data out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom 3. Absolutist ideology. Sorry, so far any form of atheism is not one. Only contemporary powerful ideologies count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country 4. Moral population. Respect for the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index 5. Strong Population. Not gross strength, but strength per capita in the given geopolitical predicament . What good is a society if they can't defend themselves, amaright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index
- 20 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- government
- countries
- (and 3 more)
-
The only thing protecting us from the corporations is government. If left to the 'free market' you would have a few mega-corporations controlling the global economy, key economic sectors dominated by a handful of virtual monopolies masquerading as duopolies, highly serviced enclaves for the rich while the rest of us would have to do with low-standard housing, high prices, low wages, hugely expensive health care and mediocre services etc. Oh, wait doesn't that resemble the current economic climate. Given the good sense in the rest of your broadcasts it does give me to wonder if you are being paid to spout this kind of nonsense, comes straight out of the plot of Atlas Shrugged. ref
- 2 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- capitalism
- corporations
- (and 1 more)
-
The threat isn't coming from big government but vast extranational corporations that control governments and in certain cases have started wars to protect their interests, which are not yours or mine. For instance the second gulf war and the Afghanistan war, instigated by big oil as they couldn't get an agreement from the Taliban to put an oil pipeline through Northern Afghanistan. This to provide the US with an independent oil supply and a reliable supply route. For a historical example see The East India Company -
For a while, I've been exploring the subject of freedom and lately I have immersed myself in the topic of liberty and the libertarian philosophy. I work as a pharmacy technician to pay for my university. At work, as in every waking hour, I am a guy that keeps talking and analyzing questions and situations. Sometimes I feel like I talk more in a day then Stephane =P. For the past few months I have decided to analyse everything through a libertarian lens and I have found that everything (politic, economy, right/wrong, family, education...) becomes so clear and easy to understand and the solutions are simple to find. There is no more relativism. Like the universal preferable behavior tells us, an action can not be good and bad at the same time. So I have started to observe the reaction of people around me. - I would say that 90% of people dont give a shit about freedom and about living in a moral fashion. All they care about is earning $$$, having a house and a car, and to have fun. - A small minority, mostly women, want everything and everyone to be regulated and control by some dictator. - And then there are people who do not have a backbone. Who do not mind if freedoms are taken away from them, they dont care if small injustices are done to them. As long as they are taken care of, they are fine. I can count on my fingers, the number of people who truly care about their natural rights, who cannot stand coercion in any form and who are intelligent enough to see that we dont need a big government, we are even better off without the presence of the government. Very few believe in the free market and most believe that capitalism is a F word. This has become so bad, that I believe that I am turning into a libertarian snob. I'm my mind, I just cannot accept that someone who doesnt give a shit about his rights and freedoms can be my equal. What kind of birth defect or mental retardation has led them to be such agreeable slaves. This is when I take 2 steps back and realize that I am going into a bad zone. I realize that it is disgusting to look down on people. That I am wrong. But at the same time, I realize that they are contributing to the problem. They are grown this cancer call the government. They are the ones who are going to deprive my future kids of their freedoms. Sorry to leave you guys hanging on this question, but I have not found the answer to this dilemma yet. =(
-
I found this in a book by Michio Kaku called ‘The Future of the Mind’. Fun read. Lots of cool facts. But he goes a little overboard with his predictions on the future of AI, etc. Anyway, the following is from page 220. ‘Where did we go wrong? For the past fifty years, scientists working in AI have tried to model the brain by following the analogy with digital computers. But perhaps this was too simplistic. As Joseph Campbell once said, “Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.” If you remove a single transistor form a Pentium chip, the computer will crash immediately. But the human brain can perform quite well even if half of it is missing. This is because the brain is not a digital computer at all, but a highly sophisticated neural network of some sort. Unlike a digital computer, which has a fixed architecture (input, output, and processor), neural networks are collections of neurons that constantly rewire and reinforce themselves after learning a new task. The brain has no programming, no operating system, no Windows, no central processor. Instead, its neural networks are massively parallel, with one hundred billion neurons firing at the same time in order to accomplish a single goal: to learn.’ Now read it again and replace ‘neurons’ with ‘individuals.’ Replace ‘network’ and ‘brain’ with ‘society’ and you’ve got yourself a pretty solid argument for removing governments (or as Michio words it, ‘central processor’) and letting individuals find their own ‘neural paths’ through trial and error. Perhaps the most important word in the above is the term ‘parallel’. The goal he notes (to learn) could be replaced with 'achieve', though both are virtuous enough. If this system of networking is good enough for the human brain, the most intelligent entity on the face of the earth to date, then why not try to emulate it? -
I was looking at the riots in Venezuela. There was a police truck that rammed a group of protesters and when it backed off, there were people stuck under the truck. I was talking about these events with my family and my father said something that made no sense whatsoever. To make a short summery of the conversation, I was telling him that people are oppressed and starving and that they are trying to leave the country to find shelter in Colombia, but that the Venezuela government is not allowing them. My father said that the government doesn't have a choice. My answer was that these people have nothing to loose. They are desperate. The Venezuela government is tyrannical because he is denying them their natural rights (in this case, the right to seek refuge in order to preserve their life) and that this government is doing it through coercion using the police and army to oppress the people. This brings me back to the words of John Locke. That every men possesses natural rights. These rights are to have freedom, to own property and the ability to pursuit happiness. If a government uses coercion to deny an individual these rights, then the government must be altered or replaced. There are some parallels to be made with the presidency of Ab Lincoln. Lincoln took control of the state for his own self interest. He had all the senators that opposed him arrested. He arrested the journalists that denounced his tyranny. And through Lincoln's madness 800 000 Americans died. It can also be debated that he was going to restart the war in order to stay into office. One man took the principals of John Locke to the letter and blew the brains out of this tyrant, thus saving what was left of the country. John Wilkes Booth took it upon himself to replace a government that used the coercion of the army on it's own people. BTW, nice shot John =) So, to the people of Venezuela. If I was to give you an advice concerning your situation, I would quote the words: ''Sic Semper Tyrannis''
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR4jawnS8Ss#t=169 http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
-
To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will never lose its value. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. You have let people like Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other conspiracy theorists trick you into wasting large amounts of money on gold as "protection" from "confiscation" of wealth. I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize. Whenever these fear mongers and snake oil salesmen are proven wrong they merely revise their timelines outwards to scare people into doing even more irrational things like dropping everything and going to buy property and be socially isolated. Nothing against people who choose to not live in a city, but these fears of economic collapse are unfounded and you are intentionally misleading young and impressionable minds. Why is it exactly the economy has not completely collapsed though these people are absolutely convinced it will? Well I would say it hasn't happened because millions of people have a vested interest in not living in a complete Mad Max style war zone where tribal chieftains and warriors are the ruling class. People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does toady? Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far, but that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms and customs and systems we have developed over the millennia. Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results has it? Unless you use gold for every transaction, this is irresponsible Libertarian scare mongering and propaganda. Gold is an archaic and regressive standard to try and return to. Just because it was valued by humans in the past does not mean it will be valued today. Values are subjective and are always changing apart from the most fundamental. There is no fixed state of mankind, no ideal that we can look at and replicate at any point in time nor should we try to. My advice would be to stop attempting to scare people about debt based fiat currency so that they will use your services. This is a dishonest and unethical business model and you will defraud misinformed individuals. For example, the mortgage that people sign to their house is a debt that you voluntarily agree to as a condition for owning a home. Each month you pay interest on a maturing principal until you eventually have it payed off. Libertarians need to calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS. If anything we may experience a depression or recession because, ironically, businessmen on Wall Street and in the financial sector are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders. I get the feeling that all of the people calling for public schools to be dismantled have never once taken a basic Civics class from the "indoctrination" camps. It's no wonder America is last in education around the world, people hate public schools, are tragically ill informed, and favor private Christian schools where they are never taught our country's founding. I wonder if there is any connection between a misanthropic attitude towards public schools and ignorance on the history of our country? In conclusion, I would urge any Libertarians out there to seriously critically analyze the ramifications and reasoning behind the positions that you take. I can already see the response to this essay so I imagine most of you will not listen, but for those who do read authors like Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc. and think about what all of these men have in common. Thank you for reading.- 69 replies
-
- 8
-
-
-
- Self-Knowledge
- Government
- (and 1 more)
-
For anyone who's interested, Reason.tv did a small series about anarchy in Detroit. One of the focuses was Threat Management Centers, a successful private defense company operating in the city. You'll just have to watch for youself because the main guy gives some really good info on why their operation is superior/more effective than police operations.
-
I took the title from the front page of the Globe & Mail today. I was once an illegal immigrant who was deported over the southern border, refiled and came back legally. I now hold permanent residence for where I was once deported. I hate to begin an argument with the phrase; "as a ______." Fortunately I didn't get around to forming an argument.. so here is my life story- raw facts as unemotional as I can present it Introduction This situation is going to sound complicated due to my parents avoiding the proper system, then even further complicated by immigration red tape. My parents moved to Canada before I was born, they are both Americans. They ran a family business, got a home and created family there. Ironically while living in Canada my mother went through the trouble of making sure my brother and I would be born in Michigan like the rest of the family... so we could be presidents... This would of required a considerable amount of planning, so it is understandable why when having her final child as mother to two kids already, one seven and in school she stayed at the home in Canada. We made fun of my sister a lot growing up as being the sole Canadian in the family... then like karma when I was 17 I got deported for not being Canadian and she got to stay.... Since moving to Canada for temporary work they had settled down and decided they wanted to make home there now. This is where chaos ensues. Up until that point everything was fine, my classmates would always insist I was just like them but I would contend we were very different. I would like to explore these feelings of kinship later, but lets get back to the plot. My parents decided that moving forward the best step would be to hire a family immigration attorney. The lawyer then determined the best option was to apply for status from within Canada... apparently this set off a red flag that notified Canadian authorities that we were in the country illegally. Other attorneys have since said we should of applied for status from outside of Canada and would of been fine. The immigration racket is very corrupt and dirty, it is an open secret by everyone in it that you must abuse the options- and that only a fool would do everything properly.... well my parents hired a fool. This triggered a long series of delaying judgement while filing for whatever was viable, humanitarian compassion and aid, family reunification, anything that works is on the table. These forms costs thousands, sometimes in the tens of thousands to get done. As the parent is must be frustrating doing all of this... and then coming up with an answer to the kids when they ask what is up with our status, am I going to be able to get a job finally? I had a coop at a bank for school I couldn't proceed with cause it was going to "just a couple more weeks till our papers came in," little more than a year later I was being deported. The judgement took many years. By the time we finally did all get status my brother was over the age to be included as a dependent for the family migration... he was maybe in middle school, at least still in high school when it began... a few months later I would be in the same boat and like him still without status today. The judgement was that we were illegal immigrants or something, I'm not sure... I always thought of myself as a foreign national. The process went down like this... our immigration was rejected, at this point we were given a removal order. Two months into my last year of high school I had to go with my parents to the immigration office in Niagara Falls, they were waiting to receive, and process us. We were escorted over the bridge and handed off to the American border patrol. The removal order was placed on my two parents and me forcing us to leave the country by the date given, an additional exclusion order was put on my parents barring them from entry for 1 year. My brother was not included as he had been dropped from the family migration at this point, and was living in Michigan. my sister- the Canadian didn't have to go with us, there was no immigration hassle for her... I mean other than losing her family and having to move around from house to house to family friends like the kids from 'the series of unfortunate events' Now ask me anything so we can make a thread outta this.
-
I could use a good argument against the above. The only thing that comes to my mind is the argument against "social contract" which we never signed. I'd love to hear your take on this. -
This is a fascinating article on the prospects: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/04/in-defense-of-defensive-violence-against-government-agents/ I just stumbled upon this website today and I love it!
-
I just got a letter from the company that insure my car. They have given me a quote for another year of insurance. Their quote included the following sentence: Oh really?! There's a thing called "insurance premium tax" which I have apparently already been paying for via artificially increased insurance rates... and also... it has just been arbitrarily increased! * shakes head in disbelief * Amazing. So this is how it works: people in government decide they want more money to spend on things that they want. Those people in government then increase the amount of protection money they charge me (and the rest of us) so rather than me spend my money on what I want... they get to spend my money on what they want. This is how people want their society to be run? I will obviously being paying up because... it's not a request... it's a demand, backed by threat of extreme violence. Also: they target all companies that provide car insurance so there likely isn't even an option which doesn't involve... [looks back down at the quote]... "insurance premium tax". I've tried to explain to the sheeple that support this stuff that they are supporting and advocating theft on a grand scale. The sheeple invariably tell me (in an apparent attempt to rebut my claim) that "we need to be stolen from by the government because otherwise there would be chaos... and bad people would steal from us!" They actually, usually say "we need to be taxed", but I've got used to silently converting "taxed" to "stolen from" in my head because I'm not aware of any functional difference between the two words and propaganda makes my head hurt. They actually, also usually say "because there would be anarchy", but I've got used to silently converting "anarchy" to "chaos" in my head because it makes their insane statements just slightly less insane. It provides me a slightly less painful cranial experience. I guess this is just a rant. Hope you don't mind. I have literally no one in my life that understands and accepts this stuff.
-
Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?
-
So it begins, favouring migrants over their own citizens. I have heard somebody mentioning this already on the call-in show.. I took it with a grain of salt. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/01/second-german-woman-evicted-from-home-to-make-way-for-migrants/
-
Just a quick question: I often hear Stef talking about "the collapse". Try as I might, I haven't figured out what he means. I've watched countless of his videos and listened to a number of broadcasts, but I'm still a little lost. Is he referring to a governmental collapse? economic? social? Thanks in advance!
-
Hi, I'm James and I'm in high school. I've been thinking about what I want to do as a job for quite a while now, and I felt really stupid for not thinking of posting this question sooner. I'm very interested in medicine as a whole but mostly psychology. I'm also interested in politics and making change. I really want to find a way to incorporate the majority of my interests in a career that I will enjoy (as well as profit from). I'm well aware of the impeding economic collapse based on the statistics that I've looked into. I would really appreciate any feedback regarding this. Thanks. (Also, if this is the wrong place for this topic then please let me know.)
-
I was listening to an old podcast about “how would we deal with … in the free society”, and then, this piece of news pops up (i.e. “we deal with theft so well now”)… http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/crown-suggests-four-year-prison-sentence-for-ex-quebec-vice-regal-thibault/article24567724/ Basically, this person pleaded guilty to defrauding government of $430K. But… she is a former Quebec lieutenant-governor (sort of like an appointed state governor). So, her punishment will likely be 12 mons of community service and have to repay $372K (no word on the $58K difference) with $272K coming from her foundation for disabled. Basically, they are going to force a bunch of handicapped people to pay for her theft. Figures.
-
Hello! Last night, my wife was reading about the Takata recall and she asked me a question that stumped me a bit. She said "since the recall was 'issued at the insistence of the Department of Transportation,' do conservatives think it's a bad thing, since that stopped it from being resolved through the free market?" My initial response was that there are many stripes of people who would be self-described "conservative," and even more that would be labeled "conservative" by others, so it's very hard to generalize. I gave her vague answers of what a libertarian might think, an anarchist, a republican, etc. As I was thinking about it on the ride to work, this morning, the issue became more and more complex to me. On the one hand, if one believes in government in the least, they tend to agree that it should stick solely to protecting the citizens and nothing else (armed forces, FDA, police, etc.). However, these organizations are inherently driven by application of force (both directly and indirectly through taxation). And on and on down the paradox rabbit hole. Is the only logical answer anarchy? And, if that's the case, what are the (realistic) alternatives? Thanks for your thoughts! Kurt -
Hi everyone! This is my first thread on FDR. Firstly, I hope this is the right place to address the topic of art in a free society. Art is, after all, educational. Many enter a gallery or museum without considering how everything got there. See, I find it difficult to enjoy art if it's acquired through force (or, with tax-payer funds, if you like). Logically, anything within the gallery's walls, or state-funded in its creation anywhere, becomes affiliated with the state: its implication changes and it becomes a political tool. This isn't obvious until the whole state concept is unpacked. It should be remembered that art directors are bought, like teachers. And a fantastic way to silence an artist is to own their work. For example, I find it hideously ironic that a Leon Golub should exist in a government's pocket. Now, some artists today play with these themes, but here I'm addressing the general practice. It seems to me that people criticizing the private galleries and "vanity spaces" forget or simply ignore the hypocrisy in their claims. A state collection, really, is hardly cleaner than a private one. Many artists would kill to have their work purchased by a state gallery. The consensus is that you're not historical or "permanent" otherwise. But think on it: would you want your work, with all of its concepts, to be attached to the oldest platform of evil, however glamorous? I've read literally no essays or crits on these issues (save for this). Any links or books definitely would be welcome! If I've made any mistakes on this subject, please excuse my naivete and do correct me.
-
Someone asked David Friedman this question and i was wondering if other libertarians agree or disagree with his answer. Skip to 1:40:10- 8 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Government
- Politics
- (and 1 more)
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nsa-data-sweep-intercepted-conversations-of-ordinary-internet-users-1.2698074 I think keywords like "Anarchism" and many other words have put us all on their list. (Puts on tinfoil hat) Maybe someone is reading this now... -
Hey everybody I recently came across a poster that was posted on the side of the road near my home. It says, "Elect patrick ****** for sheriff". I see it every time I come home from work and its annoying to see. I want to put an equal sized poster (which I have) next to it with something funny on it. I am not too creative so I can't think of anything great. I feel it should involve something about declaring the uselessness of voting. You girls and guys are smarter than me so could you help me out?
