Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Goldenages

Member
  • Content count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Goldenages last won the day on September 17

Goldenages had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

36 Good

About Goldenages

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vienna
  • Interests
    Everything
  • Occupation
    Pilot

Recent Profile Visitors

417 profile views
  1. Yes. But the money came from the FED, a central bank, with the monopoly for (this so called) money. This is not capitalism, its the opposite. regards Andi
  2. Interesting question. I say it would help, no doubt. To house the world´s central would even help more. But I am afraid to house and protect a central bank is not compatible with the effort to create a free society. regards Andi
  3. The Bank for International Settlement was a tool to keep in touch even during wartime. For example, this bank had the gold reserves of Tschechoslowakia. After Tschechoslowakia was conquered by the germans, the gold was handed over to them. There were also connections between Standard Oil (Rockefeller) and Germany, Standard Oil played a major role in restoring the chemical industries in Germany. So it made no sense to conquer Switzerland, at least til the time when the war was still no world war. And what other reasons could there be, given the third Reich attacked everybody else? regards Andi
  4. Bankruptcy protection is not capitalism, it is state intervention, it is awarding privileges to certain groups with political influence. Just imagine the handaxe makers back then had the power to protect their profession - still no metal tools today. And what about the crisis 2008, when taxpayer money was used to prevent the banksters from going bankrupt? Not really innovative, rather theft. Shure. My car, my house. Don´t you exclude others from the use of yours? Ah, no. All I do is control who uses my car and enters my house. However you are not forced to make it that way. Its perfectly fine if you let anybody who stops by live in your house, or lend your car to whoever needs one. But remember, banruptcy protection is not capitalism. Interesting question. I would say, let reality decide: One anarcho group can set up laws that legally allow to own ideas, patents and so on. Another group does not. So everybody is free to join whatever he prefers. Then we will see what works better. I would assume, that in the long run the group who protects ideas will make the better movies. First, anarchy does in no way imply do depart from laws and a legal system. It only departs from state power. Second, in the west there is plenty of experience regarding what force is proportional, and what fine is appropriate. I think compensation is a good idea - if one pees in my forest, well, I would say thats for free. If one pees in my house, he would have to pay for a new carpet or work for it. regards Andi
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    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
  9. Well, I certainly do not want to become God. Because then I would have to be irrational, cruel, sacrifize my own son, drown mankind, all that stuff. No thank you regards Andi
  10. I do not think so, because it refers to the statement that stopping the believe in Gods is the start of believe in the state. While this statement is correct it is not an argument against atheism, because it misses the most important point: The believe in anything is the problem. To change the believe from Christianity to Islam is a minor change (just look at all those professional Christians who embrace the religion of peace), as is the believe from Christianity to a good and wise state. The point is to stop believe and use reason to find convictions. Emperor Theodosius rose through violence, as it was common those days, and ruled with violence. There was no contract. regards Andi
  11. Well, as said, arguments are one sided. Of course one can claim that believing in something greater than yourself leads to humbleness. But also the state is greater than yourself, so believing in the state should lead to humbleness, right? And if not, why not? Why not mention the crimes of monotheism, especially while the crimes of the state are correctly shown? Non- christians were first bullied and then slaughtered. An no, no ruler has the right to do that. Atheism simply is not believing in Gods, thats all. There are no more instructions derivable from that. So you do not need to give atheism a chance, as less as you do not need to give any non-dog holders or non-car holders a chance. Yes, situation in the rural areas is better than in cities. But this was also the case in the Sowjetunion and was certainly not a merit of communism, as less as some more intelligent reverends in the countryside are not a merit of Christianity. regards Andu
  12. What I heard for 1 hour was a one-sided view about Christianity and its alleged merits Theodosius made Christianity a state religion at the end of the 4th century. In his speech he called everybody who rejected Christianity insane and mad, and soon thereafter the prosecution of non-christians began. Its was totalitarian right from the beginning, and it doomed Europa til enlightenment began. Monarchy lost its credibility after the WW I desaster. Also the "winners" were bankrupt. Between wars, especially in Germany, they tried a state controlled economy, controlled by Socialist and Christian partys. The result is well known. We know already, if we look at China or the Sowjetunion. Now just look how the professional Christians act today. The pope calls for more refugees, the Bishops over here as well, they are eager to welcome as much new citizens as possible. regards Andi
  13. Interesting argument: Even if God does not exist, faith helps to stay humble and not play God. And WW I was a result of enlightenment? Those with faith did not play God, they acted on behalf of God. War, torture, witch-hunt were actually seen as morally good, because it allegedly wiped out the evil. And, gentlemen, those maniac leaders in 1914 were all Christians, sacrificing their citizens for God and fatherland. Whoever died fighting the enemy instantly rose to heaven. Sounds familiar to happenings nowaday, does it? Monotheistic religions have a totalitarian structure - the reason why they were invented was to gain power. It does not make any difference wether one believes in the illusion of God or in the illusion of an almighty state. The outcome is the same. regards Andi
  14. 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
  15. 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
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.