Replies (111)
Not to be a nag about it, but how the protestors think that the government has to repair all their damages in schools and increase the budget for education.
I think this has to be learn in school that when you add more expenses to the budget does not help to solve a problem.
It’s a shame that revolutionary violence is usually carried out, for the most part, by uneducated people who don’t know how to identify the real targets to attack.
They continue to believe in the false democracy that has been imposed on them and will vote for the next corrupt political party, even as their taxes rise and their purchasing power declines.
In my country, people have taken to the streets over the years to protest for healthcare and education, and NOTHING has changed; in my opinion, these protests end up being smokescreens—sometimes I’d even bet they’re organized by the government itself.
I hope I’m wrong and that they’ll make a difference.
Jihad is not revolutionary violence. It's invasive violence.
What's happening in France is a collaboration between communist repressive force,, a (self-imposed) Jihadist invasion and a divide and conquer psyop of authoritarian globalist supranational stare actors.
It's a multifaceted culmination of of a rotten system that has been attacking classic family norms and peaceful liberal coordination.
It’s actually the exact opposite of Islam—stealing and vandalism are forbidden. It’s simply years and years of Americanization, rap music, and laxity that have shaped this generation.
But it’s light-years away from Islam—don’t confuse the two.
First of all the government needs to fix what is broken. They do not have enough teachers, the schoolbuildings are falling apart.
Those kids simply ask for their most basic rights to be given. Their right to education. When you have no other hobby than mocking the kids for being angry for decades of being left behind, then I think you chose your side. I hope you will not expect help from anyone, when you are getting discriminated.
Stand against freedom now and you invite tyranny. What is your goal?
I think you just watch to much negative news. Read a good book. That calms the nerves and helps to think more realistic.
I say justice shpuld depend on the human rights. And they are explicitly demonstrating for their right to education. Mostly non-violent.
But it is clear, that newspapers have more clicks for an article about the violent minority. It is true even if you decide to ignore it.
All governments are religions and all religions are governments. Perpetuated by increasingly consuming it's host, your agency. Civilization emerges from high agency individuals interacting..... government/religion inevitably destroys civilization.
They spread virally and fill parasitic hopefully passing niche that will fade and to history.
You do not need coercion, threat of violence or even a moral instruction manual to do good, you know what is right from childhood. The optimal state individual human prosperity is cooperation.
"But this is the price we pay"... Civilization emerges from the use of money despite the parasitic nature of governance structures.
We can not respect our ancestors by their mistakes but building on their success.
Psst. That’s the cover story
Then it's a shame the violence committed in name of Islam in the west is never condemned by religious nor state Islam leaders.
If you keep tolerating these vile attacks against a peaceful and liberal society (not to be confused with the authoritarian leftist the state), then you need to tolerate the barbarian perception of that religion by the people who are attacked.
There's no excuse and it has the hallmark of a clash of incompatible cultures.
Should Christian leaders condemn the U.S. bombings? In short, this discussion is ridiculous…
Yes, they should
That's difficult when your business is getting ransacked.
Governments are only good at breaking things, not fixing.
I would say Governments are as every institution as good as the people working for it. But the monopoly is definitly a systematic problem. We can change this and it starts with our imagination.
There has never been a generation with better opportunities to create this free society! 🤗
What is your busines?
I am happy you do not take it personally. It is may an exageration from my side. But ypu are also projecting a lot into this note. And especially in a negative way.
Please follow your great words. Even when you do care little for me. Care for yourself 😘
You are worth it. And practicing gratfulness is a practice to care for oneself.
Jajajajajajaa
I hate hypocrisy, its only that 👍
Explain yourself. I am not aware to act hypocritical.
When moral hazard is involved, the only solution is reintroducing accountability.
Accountability is important all the time.
Yet, banks nor government are ever held accountable.
Something like this:
Not only this. There is already priviledged rules. Banks can lend more money than what they posess. I really do not get how this is still accepted by our societies. So happy we have Bitcoin today to flee this stupidity.
Governments are in Catch 22. This is civil work and the best people to work in civil areas are the left leaning people, but unfortunately they will be the biggest spenders of public finances.
If you elect the right leaning - business oriented person he will steal from the public finances.
But if you can choose left leaning pragmatist, then you will hit the jackpot.
And fairy tales are real! 🤣
Call me naive but I really thought that bitcoiners in general had a descent understanding of basic economics.
I think it's time to
reconsider my assumptions.
Do you see, that it is you who do not understand. You invented socialist. Leftleaning people do not have to be socialist.
I'm not saying left socialists or right capitalists.
I'm never been fan of extreams, because you see the collapse of communist nations in 1989, now we are watching the collapse of capitalism, where transform the capitalism to oligarchy - and the is a normal outcome.
I'm suggesting capitalism that respects human rights, civil liberties, free/open market and rule of law.
Do you believe capitalist USA is free and open markets where it wants Tesla to be sold everywhere without any duties, but tariff BYD, BMW etc. in USA?
Is that capitalism?
Oh no?
Then define leftist policy in an economic sense.
Printing money is capitalism to you?
Are we trying to have a meaningful discussion?
Try reading Marx' manifesto on the state's monopoly on money.
Short answer is - government owns the means of production.
For longer answer I have to direct you to real Das Kapital.
Is capitalism extreem to you?
LoL ... so you are saying the USA is not capitalist country?
Then you are aware that the monopoly on money creation is socialist property?
If you have to go into capitalism vs socialism you do not thing this discussion can happen with messages in NOSTR right?
These are very complex systems that need time to explain and can't be discussed with one liner messages.
Well this is what the most capitalistic country in the world is doing, no ?
With a central bank exerting a monopoly on money creation it is impossible to develop free markets.
Cantillion effect creates a huge wealth gap in the US which leftist wrongly blame on capitalism.
When you control the money supply, you choose the winners and losers and thus creating an unfair system.
So no free market means no real capitalism is possi .
I think you are trolling now, and if not lack a total understanding of history and basic economics or monetary understanding.
Are you even into Bitcoin or just another Marxist spouting nonsense?
No, I'm genuinely trying to understand your point on the subject, because according the Marx state can print money but it does not increase the purchasing power simply by printing it.
Do you believe printing money is good for the people of the state?
It is.
Socialism needs top down authoritarian control to redistribute wealth from the productive to non productive hence zero sum game for society.
Capitalism is entirely besed on individuals accountability in taking voluntary risk with their own capital in order to fulfill consumers wishes and hence a win-win game for society.
Their, just one little nostr note.
Now back to reading Das Kapital.
Lol ... this is good you have read it, BUT did you understand it?
What makes the capitalism different from the jungle?
And is that the peak of the human evolution?
Rest my case!
I'm on Bitcoin, but I have a question for you.
If tomorrow China, Russia and India spins up 2 ZH crypto farms of Bitcoin miners - who will control the Bitcoin supply?
In an economic sense it is to use parts of the extra friuts I have worked for as an investment in other peoples basic needs that are in a temporary or constant state of dependence (be it for a catastroph, an accident, being a child or being elderly without the energy to look for themself).
And when enough people learn to invest their energy and time into others when they can, there is also better chances to have someone, when one gets dependent on others.
This is the social part of social marketcapitalism. Sine everyone needs to build up some basic capital (knowledge, social connections and somewhere to live) before there is room to get selfsustaining.
No one gets born self sustaining. And no one holds the control to ensure one can not fall back into dependence. To help eachother without direct return is the social part of society, which is the basis of everyones ability to get to be more than selfsustaining at some point.
I think it is not trolling. But I think big concepts as Capitalism have many interpretations, so it is hart to define capitalism in a way that two people understand the same thing.
And as every country, there is never perfection of a system clearly. So USA can be mostly capitalist, while failing in some parts. And this is the same with every country. Because these are only constructions of faulty humans.
And since there is no existing perfect implementation, it is hard to see, what would be perfect capitalist policy.
True, Marx transformed the term capitalism into a pejorative many takeforgranted. Few take the effort to research what it actually means.
Austrians have done a wonderful job explaining capitalism and money. But it seems that Marx and Keynes have won the public debate.
It's just sad.
I would argue, that free markets are very good in fullfilling many needs. Since requests can be expressed with a price someone is willing to pay.
But there are market failures in particular cases. How much does someone have to pay for an action that reduces the freedoms of everyone? To whom should they pay it? And how do they pay it?
Examples are: Littering, emitting carbon dioxide, emitting dirt water, poisoning water sinks, poisoning the sea.
In places, where nobody is the rightful owner of a place or street, who takes other accountable for insustainable behavior?
I think we can find good regulations for such externalities. But they are not naturally selfregulating. Since most people do not actively request good airquality with money. Every individual is dependent on collective decisions to keep polution to a level, that is not harming our health. And for such solutions burocrats are needed in my perspective.
And I would also respect that every human grows as a dependent creature. So we should accept, that there is no opportunity for human life, without people that gift to others without getting an instant return. Nor a contractual counter deal.
Therefore the idea of "egoist behavior is good for economy" is simply a lie. I can see, that free trade offers win-win situations. But egoistic tendencies do not add additional value to that.
No one. I think the supply is really created beautiful. Whoever invests a lot into miners and gains a lot of coins, will eventually conclude, that a thriving Bitcoin is in their intrest.
But we will only be able to see the contrary, if it happens.
Rothbard answers those questions:
View article →And about that C02 thingy, that's just a blessing for life on earth, not the apocalyptic scientific hoax many believe it is.
I agree with you in the first part. And hope to motivate you to rephrase the second part.
There is no definitive winner or looser. There is only information and time. And you decide which information you share with others. And every individual does the same at best will and knowledge.
So when people like you have genuine conversations about it, we ensure that more people can hear and read about it. The popularities can shift. And I think?they will.
I really think with the internet we are in the best moment in time since there are human on earth to get those ideas into the world. Mises and the thinkers of austrian economics are inpopular, since they do not allow elites to hold their priviledges.
So many priviledged people do dismiss them. But in todays world more than only the most priviledged can organize and connect around the world. We will change this world for the better.
Well I could argue that there will always be a market for everything and you will always find someone to sell if you are buying ( at the price the seller is comfortable to sell ).
You can buy politicians, drugs, guns - everything as long as you offer a price someone is willing to sell and vice versa.
Not to get too political, but Netanyahu was trying to buy the US army with several presidents and finally he found Trump, just like Big Oil companies did with the Maduro problem.
Both capitalism and socialism encourage greed. With capitalism it is in the people with money, in socialism is the people with power.
That's why I think these are the two sides of one coin and the solution is to manage a system in between that encourage innovations with greed guard rails.
Great you quote Max. I really appreciate his work. This guy does a lot good work, to renew and popularize austrian economics.
But to the carbon dioxide. It is quiet simple. It is not hard to proof, that CO2 molecules create a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.
Means that a little more energy of the sun will be circled within the atmosphere of earth. This makes temperatures rise all over the world. And since life is only possible within a very small window of temperatures, a general rise of temperatures will push our world out of todays balance.
Already today we have deserts around the ecuator. There is almost no opportunity for life. When temperature rises, these deserts will grow. This means there will be less available space on earth, where life is possible.
Where within my description there is a false claim?
By ruff sentiments in order to break the Bitcoin blockchain and starting creating blocks with whatever content they please will cost the Chinese state 7-8 M Ant Miners and 20 GW Nuclear Power Plant.
If some of the big governments wants to break Bitcoin, don't you believe it is possible?
I told you it is a complex topic and can't be resolved in NOSTR comments.
As I said capitalism and socialism are two sides of one coin. Both encourage greed.
Capitalism encourage greed in people with money and socialism encourage greed in people with power.
I would even argue, that not one or the other system is the source of the problem. I would argue that the source of the problem is much more simple.
Living beings (and we human are part of that) have a natural tendency to prefer the choice, where one has the smallest amount of effort to put in to fulfill a need.
This is why people with a lot of power tend to abuse parts of their power for personal gains.
And humans also naturally thrive for an increase of power, since this increases opportunities.
And the increase of power can also be gained in a sustainable way. By learning and enlarge competences. The unsustainable and faster way is by extorting people to gidt their competences in your name. To coert others by giving false hope and false promises and fear if they request equal opportunities and rights.
So I think freedom is so difficult, because very free individuals get a lot of legitimate power. But the more power and affirmation there is, as bigger the threat to change good principles for free luxuries.
Well I'm not sure how much do you know about the rear earth minerals processing plants, but I'm still not convinced that the CO2 emissions are worse than the toxic waste of these plants.
So if the waste of nuclear energy is harmful, the waste of internal combustion engine is harmful and the waste of production for the solar panels and wind turbines are toxic.
Which one is better for energy generation?
When did i say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?
That's the thing about it. Earth would be unhabitable without it. Its the core biological molecule for photosynthesis so suns energy can be captured.
Earth is actually in a CO2 famine and the added CO2 seems to have more measured benefits like more crops, more water, more greening of deserts.
While no icecaps are melting, barrier reef coral is at all time high and the polar bear population is thriving.
By using fossil fuels billions of people are living more wealthy then ever before anf deforestation and whale hunting was brought to a halt.
The apocalyptic nonsense about global warming is just another psyop many fall for.
No scientific proof is ever given except output from flawed models. Heck, even the IPCC doesn't dare to clame the apocalyptic nonsense about so called climate change.
Even when they have this power. Invalid blocks will still be invalid blocks. they could repeat transactions maby.
But I need to say, it will be that some threats I do not know. But I do know that they could still not seize my coins. Even when they got 90% of the hash rate.
But I think double spending could be a thing. But I have no clue, what that would result into.
So ... bottom line is greed for more and more ... just like I said.
Freedom is very expensive - best cheaper thing close to it is sovereignty.
Now the mining rate is 1 ZH, of there is a 2 ZH mining farms shows up and start spamming double spending and increase their wallets balance they can create a fork of the network that is larger from the 1 ZH and that's why they will take over the network.
Very clearly wind tourbines and solar power. They are renewable. You can reuse their compounds again and again. The mining problems are locally. So it can may have influence on a couple of thousands or some million people.
Global warming has influence on all ecosystems. So in one or the other way on all human beings, animals and plants of this earth. It will inevitably cause mass migration the world did not have encountered yet.
And the world will offer less opportunities for life in total.
So I have no doubt, that the emission of carbon dioxide is the biggest cause of future wealth destruction. And the reduction of its emission can lower the most harm in the world.
The total productivity of our world has its roots in the opportunities for life. When less life is possible, less wealth is possible. And no speach in the world and no oppinion will change a damn thing in this reality.
Class-action lawsuits were made for this.
All the big early wins for the environmental movement in the US were class actions against polluters using the (literally medieval) Tort of Nuisance.
Richard Nixon didn't create the EPA in 1972 because he cared about the Spotted Owl. He created the EPA so his Big Polluter buddies could now shield themselves with "I was compliant with regulations at the time" while simultaneously raising paperwork barriers to entry against competitors.
Torts exist to punish the guilty. Regulations exist to shield them (and construct cozy monopolies on the side).
Couple of millions? Are they on a different planet?
If China limit the exports of refined REM you understand that at least each continent ( if now each country ) has to create refineries for these minerals and once the soil and waters are poisoned you can't contain it into regions.
Back in the days they believed that the ozone hole was created from CO2, today we have more CO2 in the air and the hole is shrinking.
So personally I think it is like a choice between getting shot, hang or poisoned ... none of the choices are good for humanity - until we find a better solution for refining REM.
Do you know how easy it is to measure global warming? There is more then enough proof. When you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you also understand, that the balence, which allows poles to be frozen and glaciers with Ice will all melt.
And when the earth is warmer, clearly deserts will grow faster than with the temperatures we have now. Greenefication of deserts is not aided by higher temperatures.
Put a plant with no water into a greenhouse where it is 30°C and a familiar plant into a greenhouse where it is 35°C. Add no water to both of them and see which one survives longer. This is exactly what is then the reality for all plants on our earth. They will be in a hotter place.
And I think you know that trees grow over houndreds of years and can not run naturally, because they have roots. So when our climates change, many trees will be unfit to live in the new circumstances. And they can not simply adapt to the new climate.
But it is evident, that you simply are not informed in this field and ignorant to evidence based discussions. So I will end my part of the climate discussion with this note.
No one can be forced to use their fork. You and me can simply decide to go for a fork, that plays by fair rules. Even when it as smaller hashing rate then this superpool.
Good, now you have 2 forks of the Bitcoin chain - if the people were skeptical for 1 Bitcoin chain, do you believe that Bitcoin will be adopted from more people if there were 2 forks?
Bottom line - they win because they will destroy the credibility of Bitcoin.
Thank you. I was not familiar with torts. I do not even know this word in english.
But yes I think there are good examples in the US, where a crowd of individuals can request a reparation for a tort.
I think in Switzerland this is not possible the same way.
Not really. One can build protection against poisoning. But when you have a burning process there is no protecting against CO2.
So poison is possible to control. CO2 you can only reduce.
I don't think Steve Irwin will agree with you.
I think you forget, that your case is hypothetical and very inprobable in reality.
I can also say that I hypothetically will buy Elon musk, when maby win the 100 biggest jackpots of the big lotteries with a very small amount of participation tickets.
https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/collective-redress-class-actions-2025/switzerland
Your government considered adopting Class Actions in 2006, but the bill was defeated :(
Leaving opaque bureaucratic regulators as your only recourse for dispersed harms.
Switzerland, you can get away with this in a low-density all-rural world, but this ain't that world...
Not sure what you want to say with your example, but I was describing the "corporate raiding", not as hypothetical, but as action which is done in the world each day.
This is a hostile takeover of organization where when you get control, you cash out with the assets of the company and leave the expenses and debts to the other shareholders.
But you understand that destroying Bitcoin is not really a business model. It is just investing and never cash out, when you goal is to crush it into the ground.
You were describing that very unrelated big countries would out of the blue cooperate on a big coup. This is highly unprobable. This is why I made my exagarated example.
Maby we get back to this idea in the future 😉
The great thing is that switherland is voter ruled. Very directly.
In 2017 China passed a law that says Chinese people can't send more than 50k USD out of China.
Do you think that China have interest Bitcoin to be available for the Chinese people.
The investment would be 1 Nuclear power plant and 7-8 M Ant Miners and the Chinese will not have this option for transferring value overseas.
For now the Chinese are using "flying money" and Bitcoin is not in the eye of the Chinese, but no one know what the futue holds and that this is really easy to be done with the governments of USA, China, India, EU.
I think you know. I do not understand at all, what your intention is. My intention is not losing my time with random hypothesis and no actionable solution.
Love that thinking ... just like USSR with Chernobyl - "Why worry for something that is not going to happen?".
No. I just do not like to argue with people that act as if their perspective is the truth and all critique is a personal attack.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no truth.
Everything is perception of the sources that brings you the facts.
For a Trump supporters they are the most patriotic people, but when rioters kill guards of the temple of the government it was good to be pardoned.
Someone will ask is that a patriotism?
There is definitly truth. And Truth is independent from humans understanding. It just is and needs no approval of noone.
So in the current example are these killers patriots or criminals?
As simple as it seems, the answer is not as simple.
A patriot is someone that has an emotional binding with a nation.
This could be a emotional binding to the past of a ntaion, to the present of a nation or to a specific future ofe a nation. Or towards a mythos around a nation.
So maby they are patriots for the US of white supremacy. But probably they are not patriotic towards a libertarian US or an egalitarian state.
But they are definitly acting against state laws and human rights of the people they attacked. And most of those state laws are at least based on representants which are elected through popular vote. So I would say they are no patriots towards the contemporal USA of when the storm on the capitol happened. Since their action is a direct attack on popular voting systems. And on the idea, that everyones vote should count the same.
So basically what you are saying is patriotic to go and kill a patriot who does not came to you home to attack you, but he is serving a country you love?
Is that a truth or perspective of the facts?
Because I believe that everyone has the right to self defense and it is a crime to attack another person, especially if he/she is a patriot who is serving the country you love.
For me it is only a quection, why someone is patriotic. I do not see it as a good thing when someone is patriotic.
I rather like people which are happy with the opportunities they get. To be greatful I see as a positive attitude. Patriotism I look down on every time.
So obviously I am unhappy with the storm on the capitol. But still they can be patriots in their mind. Depends only on the fact if they love a nation or not.
Loving a nation is independent from the actions a person participates in. Patriotism is cheap. Patriotism is worthless.
Rest my case!
As you see there is no truth!
It is just a point of view and perspective of the values and information that is available for a person.
For you it is OK to kill people who are serving the nation you love. For me it is a murder.
First you accuse me of things I give no basis for. Second there are objective truth. Why in the world would you speak or write, when there is no truth?
What is the objective truth for Jan6?
How the Jan6 rioters are different from a foreign soldier who kills American soldier?
Do you have to pardon the enemy for killing the American serviceman?
What is the truth?
The truth is simply the facts. Fact is that people entered the Capitol without permission. Some were armed and did take the risk to kill someone in this raid.
True is also, that Trump pushed a narrative, that probably the elections will be rigged. There was never any evidence pointing in unusual amount of anomalies in this elections.
Those are facts one can verify or falsify. Therefore they are objective. Because different people can verify this event and what happened there independently and will find the same truth.
But evaluating these facts is not part of truth finding. This is then a second step, where one takes a stance. To say it is a good or a bad action is a position, one can choose, depending on your liking.
Fact is only what happened there. It is a fact, that members of the proud boys were there some of the leading figures. It is also a fact, that water freezes at 0°C and that it boils at 100°C, when the air pressure is around 1 bar. These are examples of truth. And anyone willing to do so can question such a fact and take it to the test. And when it is true, they will find the same result.
You write like a politician a lot of words without content.
Were the rioters criminals that have to be punished like USA would punish if someone kills American service man in a war?
And do they deserve pardons for attacking a service man?
"To say it is a good or a bad action is a position, one can choose, depending on your liking."
I do not talk about my liking, I'm talking about in the hands of law. Sure if you don't like the law - change it, but in order to escape the law of the jungle where the homo sapiens escape from, we have to live by rules called laws.
And you still don't say the truth that the rioters killed American service man that were serving the nation and if these were some terrorists they will be shot by a firing squad on national television.
Am I corrct, that you just have fun in attacking me. It is cute. But your attacks are very unprecise.
I really just answer your questions the best way I can. But as you never answer on my notes but just bring up whatever new questions or attacks, it is dificult.
In the End there is facts (what happens) and there is oppinions (evaluations of what the facts mean or evaluate if they are good or not).
Only the facts are objective true or false. But you mix opinion and facts and ask me to compile them in a way that is simply against reasonable thinking.
Better write, what is your stance. Make a point. Since now we are not even arguing about something. You simply are interviewing me, while acting as if I needed to defend something. But I am not. And I see no importance to defend something against no arguments from your side.
I agree, that laws are important to have order in our society. I agree, that violence should be punished. agree, that rioters that intend to kill, should be put behind bars. I do not understand, where you find disagreement. Can you explain where I wrote something and how this is diferent from your position? I really did not find a disagreement. Only that your hobby is to attack me personally.
"Only the facts are objective true or false."
In my eyes and the eyes of the law, rioters attack and killed serviceman.
In the eyes of the rioters they were defending themselves from the servicemen when the rioters storm a government building.
Where is the truth in this fact?
Do the rioters deserve to be pardoned?
All I'm saying is there is no truth, but interpretation of facts based on person's values.
A given nation is given set of rules left from the previous generation that the new generation has to obey or if they don't like them to change them, everything else is getting back to the jungle and scrap thousands of years of evolution.
I would say it is false that someone killed a service man.
4 people died (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack) related to the riots. 1 rioter shot by police, 1 rioter died because of overdosing drugs, 2 rally participants died from natural causes,
Four police officers killed themself later and one police officer died of a stroke.
So the death are not easily linkable to the riots themself. The only one would be the rioter that got shot by police.
174 police officers were injured. 15 were hospitalized. Those most definitly were directly caused by the rioters.
Rioters went to the capitol freely to attack. Every single one of them could have just stayed at home. So rioters were definitly the active part of this conflict.
Police has the job to stop people from entering the capitol, when someone is not allowed to intrude.
And no they do not deserve to be pardoned. (opinion) They just were pardoned. (fact)
I agree on the second part.
What is the difference of facts and truth for you?
I would argue, that when I state a fact which is verifyably true, it is part of the truth. If I would state a fact and it is false, this would be false. (for example when I say, that the President Emmanuel Macron is 4 meters tall, this is verifyably false).
And evaluation (what is beautiful, what is good, what is bad) is subjective. And there are still points we agree so much, that we write the evaluation down in laws. For example how someone is punished, when stealing something or murder someone.
But it is then again a verifiable fact, that a law in a certain country defines X years of prison for murder.
That's where most people do not think like MAGA and this bites us in the behind.
You say Macron is 4 meters tall, but no one has measure him right?
Science says Earth and all other planets are round, but no one can prove it because no one can confirm it with photos.
This is the challenge the humanity is against how to prove to an idiot not to vote for a scammer, because we have no hard surface and we have to live with the voting rights of idiots.
So instead of debating about the future we are debating on core fundamentals of science with people who do not know even how to read, but our society path is dependent on them.
That's what I meant about there is no truth only perspective of facts.
But do you know the angle of the camera?
Not to be troll about it but go to Amsterdam and pay attentions the windows of the buildings ... they created it this way to make the illusion of house looks bigger than it is.
Yes but whatever public persov has footage, where someone can go to the place and measure the surrounding objects on the mm exactly.
No special knowledge needed for this.
"Four police officers killed themself later and one police officer died of a stroke. "
This claim is as absurd as the deaths of Litvinenko and Navalny, Skripal. They were killed by the Polinium 210 and Novichok and has nothing to do with the agents that met with them.
This is exactly what I meant there is no truth, because sometimes there are connections between facts that are leading to the consequences.
Let me put it this way.
If the camera who took picture 2 meter higher from the object it shoots will it represent the actual height of an object?
@npub1vahg...n5ru I agree the word capitalism gets used as an insult before anyone looks it up. I believe sound money gives the word its honest meaning back.
Capitalism and Communism are the two sides of a coin, because both of them encourage greed.
Communism encourage greed to have more and more power when a person becomes the state.
Capitalism encourage greed to have more and more money, then the person starts to buys the people that are running the state.
Both is not healthy.
We need a system that instead of 1 trillionaires we would have 1'000 billionaires or 1'000'000 millionaires. It is healthier that 1'000 or 1'000'000 people spend 1 trillion dolls, than 1 person to spend 1 trillion dolls.
Yes I agree. In the end it is unhealthy, when a small group of people concentrates all power or all wealth.
