Norbert Lennartz

More generally, authentic humor arises from the collapse of disorder.

My postings are all meant to be integrative. Not demanding for or against something like "good government", which from my point of view is a utopia, a faith of level "blue" that was taken over to level "yellow". That's why no one argues about it in the matter. You think, "Don't destroy my faith in my good government. I need it. I can't live without it. You have to accept that. The state is right to integrate you, because it knows better than you what is good for you". And yet you know very well that this is anything but love. You know it! You nail Jesus to the cross. Again and again.

It's so soft that it requires a monopoly on the use of force.

I feel as a human being, not as a citizen. Citizens are subjects.

A common problem is that the job market is crappy, which has been pushed aside for too long.

@Shadowraix What does that imply at this point?

Do you think the state will build the roads for us and we can't do this without him? Everything you enumerate (police, military, legal system, monetary system, educational system, fire department, important regulations, food controls, vaccinations, environmental protection, trade contracts, taxes, nuclear weapons, telecommunications, immigration, airports, etc.) existed, as far as technically possible and reasonable, even before the state. And there is no objective reason why a state could solve this better. Especially not for 7 billion people. Because the state can only be run by the same people who are there anyway. The difference is only the monopoly of violence. So the question is not what the state is good for, but what coercion is good for. You see, again the answer lies in the question.

There can't be such a thing as good government. This is the case for anatomical reasons. This knowledge is extremely important to be able to grasp political events. See: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state A government is always more or less more a cause of problems, a troublemaker. Investors, for example, call this "political risk" because an investment in a country can fail simply because of unpredictable nonsense in the country's regulations.

@Bestyle2209 When the trash can's full, you'll carry it out. Right? Do the same with your brain. Take out the garbage.

Don't forget the first step that makes it easier. Make stupid again.

No, sorry, it is just another way of saying, "I'm allowed to rob you globally." I love it.

I agree that bureaucracy in itself is not the problem. Every company, every service provider has its own office, which I use when I use its services. Then I also trust the office. Or at least I accept it because of the benefit, even with corruption, if necessary. But the question is: What is serious management? The answer is in the question. If I don't like the product or the service, I leave their office because the exchange is not in my favour. I then go where the exchange is mutually beneficial. What Leo has in mind is just another way of saying, "I'm allowed to rob you."

Yes, life is like a fractal. You are a present state of an autopoietic, i.e. a self-preserving energetic structure that identifies itself as a "human being".

Some more thoughts: 1) Anyone who considers the difference between the biologically embodied knowledge and its consciousness can see that the totally conscious can not be found anywhere. 2) What biology also reveals is that all individuals can only exist in structural coupling and operational congruence with the components of their living and inanimate niche, and thus indeed the entire cosmos is a web of monstrously animated and inanimate subsystems without which there would be no cosmos again. 3) Indeed, splitting (injury, causing infirmity, untimely death) so is who disregards system boundaries - even if the system is a being of not so high consciousness (greater blindness, lesser ability to maintain its operational congruence in the course of evolutionary drift) and rather disintegrate ("destroys itself"). 4) Something happens to us from which its potential can unfold. The central question is: are we this potential, through consciousness?

Yeah, I don't like healing you from your prejudices one by one. I already know these fruitless discussions. You have to open yourself up to a whole different view. That can only be done with crystal clear basics. As in pdf. Look also

maybe look for this musican. https://bit.tube/BabylonDecoded

Politics is the result of our tragic dualism.

@Shiva I don't know where to start with you. That would be a long journey. Please just follow my contributions and read this as an essence for now. Sections 1 and 2. https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Anatomy of the State_3.pdf

@Shiva I'm sorry. But your remarks are so narrow-minded that not even your single argument can stand up in itself. If you believe in progress through decisiveness, then your democratic collectivism is the greatest economic obstacle to progress. I decide every day and every minute alone or with exchange partners freely about my affairs by exchange and interchange. One state by the other. Democracy is one of the anti-spiritual institutions we have talked about.

With this sociological naivety you can make things even worse than they already are.

We could also wrongly combine the quality of patriotism with nationalism. It should be clear what is meant.

Why is everything (that is not especially reflected) not unconsciousness interacting with itself? Why is a rock not happening in my plus its unconsciousness?

The same thing applies to etatism and government: Government is problematic because it is divisive. It fails to recongize and honor the fundamental unity of all human beings by pitting one party of humans against another. It inevitably leads to hatred, violence, and war. Etatism is the prime example of collective ego in action. So etatism suffers from all the same problems at excessive ego suffers from. And ultimately it ends up destroying itself. Being passionate about ego, judgment, hatred, division, and violence is very problematic. Passion alone isn't enough, it must be channeled towards love rather than fear and hate. All etatist movements are fundamentally fear-based. They come from a position of scarcity and falsehood. They are anti-spiritual. A high consciousness being will have a loving, inclusive, global, anarchic perspective. Not a narrow, divisive, tribal, ruling, dominating, domineering, commanding, ordering one. If you were totally conscious you would have absolutely nothing to defend or fear, and you would not judge or hate anyone or anything. I love such unprompted (quasi) anarchist statements.

What does "existence" mean when we talk about it? This is a tricky thing. Let me draw the following picture. There is a level of existence that we usually consider "physical" or "materialistic". You can argue about the terms, that's not the point now. I now call it the physical level (Ep) for simplicity's sake. As living beings we experience many things "physically". But we exist mentally. I.e., mentally we exist on a new level (Em), which lies on the physical level (Ep). At the same time we often speak of a "divine" level (Eg), which we suspect to be behind the "physical" level and about which we cannot say anything else because it is not accessible from our mental level. It would have to happen from the divine level that something shows itself to us that we usually consider "supernatural". Now let's assume that someone has written a new computer game, a program, in which one of our characters receives an intelligence virtually, so to speak, so that it actually becomes aware that it exists as a character in a computer program. This character would just not call that "game character" and "computer program", but her "person" and her "world". The programmer or administrator of the program would now be "God" for the character. The running program would be the physical level and the character's own dynamics the mental level. That is now only a picture. But with this I want to show that the concept of existence can be relative, depending on which level you look up or down from. I.e. not that it has to be like this, but we know for ourselves nevertheless that we know the physical and the mental level, and that we don't necessarily exclude that there can be further levels above and below and that life can feel similar no matter from which level. So the concept of the respective level of existence, whether physical or not, may be relative. But to speak of existence, no matter what level, is absolute, because there is logically no opposite to existence, no non-existence, because that would imply existence. Moreover, we know from this observation that the physical level for the mental level is always primordinal.

It's parenting that requires you to learn a lot of stuff. Society wants efficient citizens. In the end, it takes revenge for you.