'@ThorsomeTarmukas' [And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict.]
No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. But as I said, there is no point in discussing this pseudo science with thee.
And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue. What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.
I hate, absolutely hate these Christian evangelist that talks about Hell and tries to use it to scare people into doing what they say. For people that don’t believe in Hell their arguments have no effect. Instead of taking the high road and use reason and evidence to prove that a virtues life is a better life, they just tries to use scare tactic, completely missing the core tenet of Christendom: Fear not!.
And thou art doing the same thing, I don’t believe in thy hellish fantasy. Thou obviously art completely convinced by its validity and are too emotionally invested in it to actually think critical about it, but for people that are not invested in it, thou art just another irrational doomsayer.
As I said, there are a few Absolute principles, first among them is the right to self determination. People can of course choose to completely isolate themselves and become hermits, but humans are inherently a social and political animal, so we have a need for society.
Foreign trade does not in itself diminish our independence. The problem is not free trade, only free trade organizations. True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.
A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members. The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation. So free trade organizations does the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for, they rob their members of their sovereignty and they promote protectionism.
As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire. Luckily the world trade organization is not as powerful as the EU, but it should still be abolished, as it only serves the interest of globalist and not the people.
[Sure, they can leave the WTO. And then WTO can leave them and all their products.]
Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?
It was a rare case in Britain of direct democracy, and I have heard nothing but whining from people on the left, that they made the wrong choice, and that this is proof that people should not be asked. The left often claim that they like democracy, but only when it goes there way.
To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.
On the left we have socialism (progressivism, totalitarianism), on the right we have liberalism (conservatism, minarchism), on the top we have globalism (elitism, imperialism) and on the bottom we have nationalism (populism).
I put () around the alternative words that people sometimes also use for the ideologies.
Any authoritarian position is on the left. The left is divided into two camps. Global-socialism (communism), and national-socialism (Nazism, fascism)
Nazism is often incorrectly called right wing, but it is always abridged to hide the fact that it is a form of socialism.
The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist. Liberals put the individual first, and as I said one can only put one first, no “buts” allowed.
I mentioned three rights that are sacrosanct: life, liberty and property. They do not serve any other purpose, just as an actions inherent goodness or wickedness does not depend on its consequences.
It is wrong to steel or lie, period. There are no circumstances that justify it, there are no consequences that validates it. It is evil in itself, malum in se.
It is not complicated, it is so simple that even a child understand it. In fact in most cases only a small child can, as most adults get confused from all the false dogma that are pumped into their minds from an early age. I was born differently, I am inherently critical to authority, that most others trust as a matter of course. It is not a unique skill, but it is rare enough to make me an oddity. But it have given me a sight that most loses, but that we are all born with.
As I said, I am a minarchist, I recognizes the danger of state power, but also the necessity for it. We cannot live in a stateless society, violence is a part of life, we need the state to minimize it.
A state is a special kind of institution, as it uses violence to enforce rules, called laws, and that it have a monopoly on violence within a fixed geographic territory.
Take a moment to understand the power there is in that, making rules that all must follow, and having the power to ultimately kill these who refuse.
Not all states are ideal, I don’t think any state are, but the principle of national sovereignty is to respect all states regardless of whether they follow ones own morals or not. Even if a foreign state is a brutal dictatorship, as long as it does not directly threaten our security, we should not try to overthrow it.
It is not any different from the punching a Nazi discussion. We don’t have the right to punch a Nazi in the face, just because he is a Nazi. We have the right to self-defense, but it doesn’t matter what the person attracting us belief.
It is the same thing with states, it doesn’t matter if a foreign state is a dictatorship, we don’t have the right to use violence against it, unless it threatens us first.
Thou want to impose rules that all must follow, and punish these that do not, and thou don’t care if they have popular support or not.
As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.
0
'@ThorsomeTarmukas' [And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict.]
No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. But as I said, there is no point in discussing this pseudo science with thee.
And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue. What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.
I hate, absolutely hate these Christian evangelist that talks about Hell and tries to use it to scare people into doing what they say. For people that don’t believe in Hell their arguments have no effect. Instead of taking the high road and use reason and evidence to prove that a virtues life is a better life, they just tries to use scare tactic, completely missing the core tenet of Christendom: Fear not!.
And thou art doing the same thing, I don’t believe in thy hellish fantasy. Thou obviously art completely convinced by its validity and are too emotionally invested in it to actually think critical about it, but for people that are not invested in it, thou art just another irrational doomsayer.
As I said, there are a few Absolute principles, first among them is the right to self determination. People can of course choose to completely isolate themselves and become hermits, but humans are inherently a social and political animal, so we have a need for society.
Foreign trade does not in itself diminish our independence. The problem is not free trade, only free trade organizations. True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.
A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members. The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation. So free trade organizations does the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for, they rob their members of their sovereignty and they promote protectionism.
As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire. Luckily the world trade organization is not as powerful as the EU, but it should still be abolished, as it only serves the interest of globalist and not the people.
[Sure, they can leave the WTO. And then WTO can leave them and all their products.]
Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?
It was a rare case in Britain of direct democracy, and I have heard nothing but whining from people on the left, that they made the wrong choice, and that this is proof that people should not be asked. The left often claim that they like democracy, but only when it goes there way.
To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.
On the left we have socialism (progressivism, totalitarianism), on the right we have liberalism (conservatism, minarchism), on the top we have globalism (elitism, imperialism) and on the bottom we have nationalism (populism).
I put () around the alternative words that people sometimes also use for the ideologies.
Any authoritarian position is on the left. The left is divided into two camps. Global-socialism (communism), and national-socialism (Nazism, fascism)
Nazism is often incorrectly called right wing, but it is always abridged to hide the fact that it is a form of socialism.
The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist. Liberals put the individual first, and as I said one can only put one first, no “buts” allowed.
I mentioned three rights that are sacrosanct: life, liberty and property. They do not serve any other purpose, just as an actions inherent goodness or wickedness does not depend on its consequences.
It is wrong to steel or lie, period. There are no circumstances that justify it, there are no consequences that validates it. It is evil in itself, malum in se.
It is not complicated, it is so simple that even a child understand it. In fact in most cases only a small child can, as most adults get confused from all the false dogma that are pumped into their minds from an early age. I was born differently, I am inherently critical to authority, that most others trust as a matter of course. It is not a unique skill, but it is rare enough to make me an oddity. But it have given me a sight that most loses, but that we are all born with.
As I said, I am a minarchist, I recognizes the danger of state power, but also the necessity for it. We cannot live in a stateless society, violence is a part of life, we need the state to minimize it.
A state is a special kind of institution, as it uses violence to enforce rules, called laws, and that it have a monopoly on violence within a fixed geographic territory.
Take a moment to understand the power there is in that, making rules that all must follow, and having the power to ultimately kill these who refuse.
Not all states are ideal, I don’t think any state are, but the principle of national sovereignty is to respect all states regardless of whether they follow ones own morals or not. Even if a foreign state is a brutal dictatorship, as long as it does not directly threaten our security, we should not try to overthrow it.
It is not any different from the punching a Nazi discussion. We don’t have the right to punch a Nazi in the face, just because he is a Nazi. We have the right to self-defense, but it doesn’t matter what the person attracting us belief.
It is the same thing with states, it doesn’t matter if a foreign state is a dictatorship, we don’t have the right to use violence against it, unless it threatens us first.
Thou want to impose rules that all must follow, and punish these that do not, and thou don’t care if they have popular support or not.
As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.