Agreed. Licensing is a total undermining of liberty.
Look no further than Raw Milk. View quoted note →
Josephus
Josephus@NostrAddress.com
npub1te6e...eqew
American Nationalist, rational empiricist, closed borders conservative. Beatboxer, amateur philosopher, aspiring novelist, and outdoor worker.
That’s the inflation effect View quoted note →
#fitness #family #health #exercise #workout #outdoors
@Micha
Agreed. Nostr can help circumvent cbdc by facilitating BTC trade… and it can SOMEWHAT evade digital ID…
If you never travel, never need employment from someone else, and never get raided by your governments.
Unless some Nostriches I’m unaware of are publishing CNC machine files to make firearms, I don’t think Nostr is going to do much when the cops come to your door and say “register or else”. View quoted note →
For America it is porn and kids, for Europe ut is immigration. Both are used to push social credit systems that are NOT needed to solve the these problems. And BOTH of these problems are pushed BY these governments to manufacture the justifications for these systems.
Americans traveling to most of Europe will have fingerprints scanned under new regulations set to take effect
Authorities in Europe will phase in new security measures for Americans and other international travelers over a roughly six-month period starting ...
I can personally attest to this. View quoted note →
Here’s a connection I hadn’t considered but, after having seen it… it sounds SHOCKINGLY plausible. Certainly explains how the supposedly “broke” Uvalde shooter got his hands on a Daniel defense rifle worth the cost of a cheap house.
@Neigsndoig IQ 120 @npub1k06c...zyu9 @OceanSlim
I figured you guys would enjoy this.
Wavlake
Saving the Ghost Baby and the Unicorn Castle
Play, boost, and more on Wavlake ⚡️🎵
This is why I wrote my “sunset amendment”. Income tax was supposed to be temporary. The ATF outlived the prohibition it was intended to enforce. The DIA was created to REPLACE the CIA… now we have BOTH. The list goes on and on. View quoted note →
So I have now just dropped episodes 9-14 of my #podcast #thestorygame . It's on @Wavlake for anyone who wants to listen.
Wavlake
Troll Baby
Play, boost, and more on Wavlake ⚡️🎵
Life requires balance. A philosophically pure man that is physically unwell will be unhappy. A physically fit man with a poor philosophy will be unhappy. The mind/body dichotomy is a lie. Your spirit is as tied to your physical body as everything else about you. They are separate elements of the same whole and cannot exist without the other.
In the words of rand: “a soul without a body is a ghost and a body without a soul is a zombie: both are symbols of death”.
A PROPER philosophy understands this point and would compel that businessman to find time for some exercise.
But most post-modernist philosophy is NOT proper. View quoted note →
Always was the goal. But they are getting particularly ambitious about it now. View quoted note →
To elaborate, the issues with the three major schools (Sophism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism) that permit the transitions are as follows
Sophism: unknowable universe = no higher concepts = no rules for reality = no moral rules for humans. Inevitably this devolves into Platonist authoritarianism along the lines of “it doesn’t matter WHAT we agree on, but we have to agree on SOMETHING in order to get along”.
Platonism: Plato was the original dualist, despite that being so often credited to descarte. But the ultimate issue that pulls any dualist system apart is the “interaction problem”. The interaction problem is problem of correlating the “physical world” with the forms/numena/brahman/etc “other world” of the dualist system, eg: “how does the higher spirit influence my life?” Sub components of this include the argument from contradiction of consciousness, the problem of evil, and the conflicts of laywisdom vs “the experts”.
Aristotelianism: The main issues are the problem of free will (ie: free will vs determinism) and the “attributes vs essences” problem (eg: “where is the humanity in ‘man’?”).
The cycle goes as follows:
1) Sophists ask good questions, but engage in Sophistry while providing no useful answers.
2) Platonists propose real answers, but couched in an “other” that partially concedes the sophist argument, but at least offers any solution to sophist hedonism. Plus, they solve issues aristotelianism (at least historical versions) doesn’t such as free will (eg: your spirit is in the “other”, unlike your body). However, the interaction problem causes the gap between the esoteric thinkers and those who deal with concrete reality to widen until the disconnect it causes trust in Platonist systems to collapse due to lack of trust.
3) Aristotelian essences or related systems restores that trust by bridging the gap: the “other” is actually WITHIN the physical thing it pertains to. However, inconsistencies in HOW this works causes trust in this system to collapse. This combined with “the problem of free will” (ie: if everything follows laws and is causal, then how can objectivity be possible? Wouldn’t the contents of my mind, thereby, just be what circumstance MAKES me think, true or untrue?).
4) Trust in the reliability of the higher orders of concepts set up by Platonists and refined by aristotelians get “critical theoried” apart until they are treated as “constructs” or “optional” or “subjective”. From there, the cycle returns to sophistry.
It is no coincidence that this follows Spengler and the common “4th turning” meme… the “great men make good times. Good time make weak men. Weak men make hard times. Hard times make great men” meme. In fact, this cycle is concurrent with it and serves as a foundation explanation of it. View quoted note →
Seriously. The more I see “Kant and Hegel via pinker, and Plato via Marx, but not the OGs” the more annoyed I get at the state of modern academia.
ALL philosophy students should start with the sophists (Heraclitus and Parmenides), then Plato and Aristotle, THEN work towards the present from there. It is only by following philosophy chronologically and tracing its history can one see the patterns and the triggers for the cycles we see in history. Only through THIS insight can one see the flaws in each philosophical system that permits these cyclical transitions, the pros/cons of each system and, therefore, where the major problems of philosophy that allow these shifts lie. View quoted note →