Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2015, 08:09 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 07:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  terrorist attacks [in Switzerland] were "an increasing possibility."

Sure, there is always the possibility and the Swiss should be vigilant. They do after all border countries that are targets of terrorism for having previously attacked muslim countries and terrorist cells planning attacks in, say, France may do their planning next door in Switzerland, and so the Swiss should be on guard. But that doesn't change the fact that every country in the world which first invaded a muslim country and killed muslims is now under attack by said muslims, whereas radical muslims have never attacked a single country that was peaceful and didn't first attack them.

But that's just a distraction from the question: Would Americans be better off if instead of being on the list of countries that attacked muslims and is under attack by them, they were on the list of peaceful countries that didn't attack anybody. It would save Americans trillions of dollars. Look at how much is deducted from the paycheck for Federal Income taxes? The lion's share goes to military and only a tiny sliver goes to things like education and infrastructure. Wouldn't you get more bang for the buck the other way around? Wouldn't it be nice not to have big brother reading your emails and weakening encryption standards so they can listen in on your private conversations? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about having millions of muslims ready to do anything, including suicide, to get revenge?

Lay out the opposing side. How is America better off by spending it's money on war? How have all these wars made the average American's life better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Chomsky's reasoning would equate to claiming that the mafia has a legitimate right to kill cops because they seek to put an end to their operations.

Can you clarify? I don't get it. Libertarians simply assert that we should be moral and apply the golden rule. Since nobody wants to be forced to do things against their will, we shouldn't do that to others. So, rather than deciding if something is right or wrong based on how it benefits us personally like non-libertarians, we apply a formula blindly that we must follow whether it benefits us or not, and that is that we reject actions that simultaneously:

1) Force people to do things against their will
-and-
2) Use force without a valid social contract where people willingly choose to subject themselves to it in exchange for benefits (ie passing laws at the national level so you are subjected to this force everywhere that you can legally live and work and are thus unable to choose a state/community whose laws you can live with).

It's really that simple, and I've never found a single example where I, as a libertarian, have ever opposed a policy that does not meet both #1 and #2. Chomsky and I may disagree on what property can be privately owned, but that's a difference without a distinction since we'd both agree it's up to the state/local community to decide.

Since the very foundation of every libertarian's belief is the rejection of the use of force, how on earth do you conclude that mafia has the right to kill cops? That makes no sense. Every libertarian believes each individual has a right to his life and liberty and thus can defend himself when another initiates it, and everyone has the right to delegate this right of self-defense to a third party, like a police officer or private security. So the only time force is advocated against law enforcement is when to defend oneself when they are violating those rules #1 and #2 by initiating force (rather than using force defensively) outside a social contract. Such as drug laws. I, as an individual, do not have a right to tell you what plants you can have in your home, I do not have the right to haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell because you've got some oregano in your home and I'm opposed to it. And since government is nothing but a group of individuals providing a service and whatever rights government has come from individual citizens, so a private citizen cannot transfer to the government a right which the citizen himself does not have (such as drug laws). Unless you are given a choice and willingly consent to live in a community that has drug laws, meaning everyone in the community is actually subjecting themselves to such force voluntarily.

Please clarify your position.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Muslims should accept democracy and abide by the same rules.

Huh, did you read my post on page #1 about Iran? The US has a history of overthrowing legitimate, peaceful, modern, progressive democracies to put in place dictators who will let American companies steal the country's resources. How can you chastise muslim countries for not being democratic when, left to their own, they were democratic and peaceful and the current disastrous state of affairs is one the US and its allies have forced upon them?

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Equal rights for men and women

Iran has women's suffrage and equal rights even before many European countries did. It was the US that overthrew that eliminated them in 1952.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  religious and sex groups

Not only was Iran's parliament made up of religious minorities, including Jews, Iran even televised a gay commitment ceremony decades before it was socially acceptable in the West.

I've traveled all over the middle east, and they're a warm, hospital people who want the same thing that westerners want. And left to their own, most of them formed civilized peaceful societies. Only Saudi Arabia with it's barbaric practice of wahhabism has always been a backwards place. But the US never condemns them, even though they still hang people in public squares for things like sex before marriage, because Saudia Arabia is an obedient lapdog that, per an agreement with Nixon in 1972, has made sure all opec oil is sold only in dollars and that their oil surpluses are invested in US treasuries.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  a large part of the middle east mess is tribal with sunni's against shites and this sectarian violence will continue independent of what the west may or may not do.

But in most middle eastern countries, like Iran, sunni's and shiites peacefully lived together for centuries and the violence only began when western countries started toppling them to take their oil. Look, when a society is overrun and looted and the people are left destitute and uneducated, sure, they become violent and intolerant. But Western countries are no different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 09:57 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Chomsky's reasoning would equate to claiming that the mafia has a legitimate right to kill cops because they seek to put an end to their operations.

Can you clarify? I don't get it. Libertarians simply assert that we should be moral and apply the golden rule. Since nobody wants to be forced to do things against their will, we shouldn't do that to others. So, rather than deciding if something is right or wrong based on how it benefits us personally like non-libertarians, we apply a formula blindly that we must follow whether it benefits us or not, and that is that we reject actions that simultaneously:

1) Force people to do things against their will
-and-
2) Use force without a valid social contract where people willingly choose to subject themselves to it in exchange for benefits (ie passing laws at the national level so you are subjected to this force everywhere that you can legally live and work and are thus unable to choose a state/community whose laws you can live with).

It's really that simple, and I've never found a single example where I, as a libertarian, have ever opposed a policy that does not meet both #1 and #2. Chomsky and I may disagree on what property can be privately owned, but that's a difference without a distinction since we'd both agree it's up to the state/local community to decide.

Since the very foundation of every libertarian's belief is the rejection of the use of force, how on earth do you conclude that mafia has the right to kill cops? That makes no sense. Every libertarian believes each individual has a right to his life and liberty and thus can defend himself when another initiates it, and everyone has the right to delegate this right of self-defense to a third party, like a police officer or private security. So the only time force is advocated against law enforcement is when to defend oneself when they are violating those rules #1 and #2 by initiating force (rather than using force defensively) outside a social contract. Such as drug laws. I, as an individual, do not have a right to tell you what plants you can have in your home, I do not have the right to haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell because you've got some oregano in your home and I'm opposed to it. And since government is nothing but a group of individuals providing a service and whatever rights government has come from individual citizens, so a private citizen cannot transfer to the government a right which the citizen himself does not have (such as drug laws). Unless you are given a choice and willingly consent to live in a community that has drug laws, meaning everyone in the community is actually subjecting themselves to such force voluntarily.

Please clarify your position.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Muslims should accept democracy and abide by the same rules.

Huh, did you read my post on page #1 about Iran? The US has a history of overthrowing legitimate, peaceful, modern, progressive democracies to put in place dictators who will let American companies steal the country's resources. How can you chastise muslim countries for not being democratic when, left to their own, they were democratic and peaceful and the current disastrous state of affairs is one the US and its allies have forced upon them?

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  Equal rights for men and women

Iran has women's suffrage and equal rights even before many European countries did. It was the US that overthrew that eliminated them in 1952.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  religious and sex groups

Not only was Iran's parliament made up of religious minorities, including Jews, Iran even televised a gay commitment ceremony decades before it was socially acceptable in the West.

I've traveled all over the middle east, and they're a warm, hospital people who want the same thing that westerners want. And left to their own, most of them formed civilized peaceful societies. Only Saudi Arabia with it's barbaric practice of wahhabism has always been a backwards place. But the US never condemns them, even though they still hang people in public squares for things like sex before marriage, because Saudia Arabia is an obedient lapdog that, per an agreement with Nixon in 1972, has made sure all opec oil is sold only in dollars and that their oil surpluses are invested in US treasuries.

(22-12-2015 06:11 AM)Eva Wrote:  a large part of the middle east mess is tribal with sunni's against shites and this sectarian violence will continue independent of what the west may or may not do.

But in most middle eastern countries, like Iran, sunni's and shiites peacefully lived together for centuries and the violence only began when western countries started toppling them to take their oil. Look, when a society is overrun and looted and the people are left destitute and uneducated, sure, they become violent and intolerant. But Western countries are no different.

Eva, as I see, is raising some interesting points. You reply by saying that Americans have allegedly terrorized Muslims in the past? First off you are not addressing her points. Secondly, even if you were correct about American foreign policy, which you are not, two wrongs do not make a right. And, thirdly, throwing fallacies around does not make you right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
I'm
(22-12-2015 07:51 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 04:54 AM)BnW Wrote:  The US did not unilaterally push an embargo on Iraq. It was the UN. And, a lot of Arab, and muslim countries in general, signed off on it. That's a fact.

I disagree. The CIA gave acting lessons to the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to help her appear convincing when she gave blatantly false testimony before Congress, pretending to work in a hospital in Kuwait and claiming Iraqis soldiers were pulling baby's out of incubators and leaving them to die. Hill & Knowlton turned this into a gripping emotional advertising campaign to drum up support for the actions against Iraq. And the President used this propaganda to drum up support for actions against Iraq.

The US was itching for war and putting pressure on other countries to go along with it. And after pushing through UN SC resolution 661, it was the US who was enforcing the resolution militarily, intercepting ships going to Iraq. And remember when Bush 2 pushed for the invasion of Iraq again in 2003, he claimed he was enforcing the UN resolution, but even the UN was against it, and the US invaded anyway.

Yes, other countries signed off on it. But it's clear the US was the sponsor and using every tool at its disposal to pressure allies to go along with it. If the US had simply minded its own business and not got involved and not funded false propaganda to stir up emotions, then nobody else would have gotten involved. The US was the leader.

(22-12-2015 04:54 AM)BnW Wrote:  The Iraq embargo specifically did not include food, though.

From wikipedia:

Quote:Persons wishing to deliver items to Iraq, whether in trade or for charitable donation, were required to apply for export licenses to the authorities of one or more UN member state, who then sent the application to the Sanctions Committee. The Committee made its decision in secret; any Committee member could veto a permission without giving any reason.

First, tractors and other thing needed to grow food domestically were banned, so Iraq couldn't grow their own food. And they couldn't trade with other nations to pay for food. And if another country wanted to ship food anyway, the US military was patrolling the waters around Iraq and intercepting all ships and impounding them. So the bottom line is that even though the security resolution allowed for food, the sanctions still prevented Iraq from having food.

The bottom line is the same. The US was behind a blockade that prevented Iraqi parents from being able to feed their children and this led to widespread poverty and scores of deaths. Yes, I know most Americans agree with you in defending this, but that's why America is under attack. Peaceful countries that keep their military at home for defense don't have these problems. They don't have to worry about terrorist attacks, and they don't have give up their liberty and privacy for the sake of security. So my question is "Why does the US do it? Who benefits?" Surely the people don't benefit. During Bush 2's invasion Americans were arguing it was justified because they needed oil. But, the total cost of the ongoing conflict in Iraq is estimated to total around $75,000 per American household--enough to buy every family a new Tesla Model S and eliminate America's dependence on oil and drive the cost of the technology so low that electric could overtake gas globally. I know for Americans the idea of killing a bunch of Arabs sounds pretty cool, but isn't doing 0-60 in 2.8 seconds pretty cool too? Wouldn't that money have been better spent at home, rather than giving it to the military industrial complex to destroy a region on the other side of the planet?

IMO, the war mongers just play the American people like puppets, riling them up and tricking them into sacrificing their quality of life to pursue endless wars.

You were talking about actions by Clinton. Now you've jumped to Gulf War 1, which was Bush, not Clinton.

Also, nothing In that wiki article you linked said Iraq could not import food. The UN deal expressly provided for it and allowed iraq to sell oil to pay for it. There was a subsequent scandal when it was discovered that France and some other countries were using that loophole to sidestep the boycott and buy cheap Iraqi oil in exchange for things Saddam wasn't supposed to have. I can't now recall what year that was.

Anyway, my point is that you can make your point, which I find to be a valid point, without setting off our collective bullshit detectors. Less hype and anecdotes, more facts. That's all I'm saying.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:41 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2015 10:48 AM by Chas.)
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 08:09 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 07:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  terrorist attacks [in Switzerland] were "an increasing possibility."

Sure, there is always the possibility and the Swiss should be vigilant. They do after all border countries that are targets of terrorism for having previously attacked muslim countries and terrorist cells planning attacks in, say, France may do their planning next door in Switzerland, and so the Swiss should be on guard. But that doesn't change the fact that every country in the world which first invaded a muslim country and killed muslims is now under attack by said muslims, whereas radical muslims have never attacked a single country that was peaceful and didn't first attack them.

But that's just a distraction from the question: Would Americans be better off if instead of being on the list of countries that attacked muslims and is under attack by them, they were on the list of peaceful countries that didn't attack anybody. It would save Americans trillions of dollars. Look at how much is deducted from the paycheck for Federal Income taxes? The lion's share goes to military and only a tiny sliver goes to things like education and infrastructure. Wouldn't you get more bang for the buck the other way around? Wouldn't it be nice not to have big brother reading your emails and weakening encryption standards so they can listen in on your private conversations? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about having millions of muslims ready to do anything, including suicide, to get revenge?

Lay out the opposing side. How is America better off by spending it's money on war? How have all these wars made the average American's life better?

Oh, really? When did Bali attack Muslims? Consider

Your florid rhetoric is rarely entirely factual.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? When did Bali attack Muslims? Consider Your florid rhetoric is rarely factual.

Chas, you're embarrassing yourself with such ignorance. Obviously I never said there was no violence between muslims within muslim countries. Hello, have you not noticed that Iraq, Syria, etc., are in civil wars between muslim factions. Duh.

I said when was a non-muslim countries attacked by radical muslims that did not first attack a muslim country? Your answer "Indonesia". rofl. google muslims in indonesia and get a clue. Apparently you're not aware that like Iraq, Syria, etc. Indonesia _IS_ a muslim country, in fact 95% are muslims, and it's the largest muslim country in the world.

Apparently you're under the impression they're some other religion. Maybe you're confusing Indonesia with India??? They're 2 separate countries you know. Indonesia is a muslim country and like Iraq, Syria, etc., suffers internal attacks.

You just proved my point. I challenged anyone to name one non-muslim country that was attacked and which did not first attack a muslim country. And you answer "Indonesia" unaware that it's not only a muslim country, it's the largest muslim population in the world.

So my point still stands. 100% of the non-muslim countries that first attacked muslim countries are now under attack by radical muslims. And 0% of the non-muslim countries that never attacked muslim countries are under attack. This isn't a gray area or subject to debate. It's 100% to 0%. As black & white as you can get. The US, UK, France, etc. invited the terrorist attacks by attacking first. They brought it on themselves because, for decades, while we libertarians keep screaming that attacking and killing other countries is not only a waste of money, it makes you less safe since they'll be justified in attacking back, the rest of the political parties laugh at our golden-rule non-sense and think they can attack and kill whoever they want and it will never come back to bite them.

Here's a great video showing this. When the 2012 Presidential candidates were asked what to do with Iran, Ron Paul said we should practice the golden rule, and the crowd of conservative christians booed him for actually deferring to jesus himself on the matter. Then they ask Newt, and his response "kill them" receives a roar of applause, despite 'murder' being kind of frowned upon by their own religion.





I've traveled to over 60 countries and never found a country that is so blood-thirsty. Even when I've been in poor, impoverished countries in Africa, the people are warm and inviting. Nowhere else have I seen people so anxious to kill others just for being different.

Here's another good example. Remember how long it took the Nazi's to persuade the German public to go along with genocide? Hitler had been pushing that agenda for more than a decade, and they launched slick propaganda machines with music and brainwashing to indoctrinate young people from an early age. It was a ton of work. In the US, however, while filming Borat, comedian Sacha Barren Cohen, went into a rodeo and called upon Americans to commit mass genocide, wipe out 35 million people, leaving an entire country nothing but a pool of blood, and without having to provide any justification, the crowd jumped to their feet and applauded the suggestion to wipe out an entire race of people who had never threatened them. If Hitler were around to watch Borat he'd be cursing German people for not being like Americans and letting him skip all that brainwashing hassle and just one day show up in Berlin stadium and say "let's kill all the jews" and watch the Germans jump to their feet and start firing up their ovens.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
22-12-2015, 11:20 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2015 05:26 PM by Chas.)
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 11:09 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? When did Bali attack Muslims? Consider Your florid rhetoric is rarely factual.

Chas, you're embarrassing yourself with such ignorance. Obviously I never said there was no violence between muslims within muslim countries. Hello, have you not noticed that Iraq, Syria, etc., are in civil wars between muslim factions. Duh.

I was mistaken, I thought Bali was still independent.
Bali is largely Hindu, so there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 11:09 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? When did Bali attack Muslims? Consider Your florid rhetoric is rarely factual.

Chas, you're embarrassing yourself with such ignorance. Obviously I never said there was no violence between muslims within muslim countries. Hello, have you not noticed that Iraq, Syria, etc., are in civil wars between muslim factions. Duh.

I said when was a non-muslim countries attacked by radical muslims that did not first attack a muslim country? Your answer "Indonesia". rofl. google muslims in indonesia and get a clue. Apparently you're not aware that like Iraq, Syria, etc. Indonesia _IS_ a muslim country, in fact 95% are muslims, and it's the largest muslim country in the world.

Apparently you're under the impression they're some other religion. Maybe you're confusing Indonesia with India??? They're 2 separate countries you know. Indonesia is a muslim country and like Iraq, Syria, etc., suffers internal attacks.

You just proved my point. I challenged anyone to name one non-muslim country that was attacked and which did not first attack a muslim country. And you answer "Indonesia" unaware that it's not only a muslim country, it's the largest muslim population in the world.

So my point still stands. 100% of the non-muslim countries that first attacked muslim countries are now under attack by radical muslims. And 0% of the non-muslim countries that never attacked muslim countries are under attack. This isn't a gray area or subject to debate. It's 100% to 0%. As black & white as you can get. The US, UK, France, etc. invited the terrorist attacks by attacking first. They brought it on themselves because, for decades, while we libertarians keep screaming that attacking and killing other countries is not only a waste of money, it makes you less safe since they'll be justified in attacking back, the rest of the political parties laugh at our golden-rule non-sense and think they can attack and kill whoever they want and it will never come back to bite them.

Here's a great video showing this. When the 2012 Presidential candidates were asked what to do with Iran, Ron Paul said we should practice the golden rule, and the crowd of conservative christians booed him for actually deferring to jesus himself on the matter. Then they ask Newt, and his response "kill them" receives a roar of applause, despite 'murder' being kind of frowned upon by their own religion.





I've traveled to over 60 countries and never found a country that is so blood-thirsty. Even when I've been in poor, impoverished countries in Africa, the people are warm and inviting. Nowhere else have I seen people so anxious to kill others just for being different.

Here's another good example. Remember how long it took the Nazi's to persuade the German public to go along with genocide? Hitler had been pushing that agenda for more than a decade, and they launched slick propaganda machines with music and brainwashing to indoctrinate young people from an early age. It was a ton of work. In the US, however, while filming Borat, comedian Sacha Barren Cohen, went into a rodeo and called upon Americans to commit mass genocide, wipe out 35 million people, leaving an entire country nothing but a pool of blood, and without having to provide any justification, the crowd jumped to their feet and applauded the suggestion to wipe out an entire race of people who had never threatened them. If Hitler were around to watch Borat he'd be cursing German people for not being like Americans and letting him skip all that brainwashing hassle and just one day show up in Berlin stadium and say "let's kill all the jews" and watch the Germans jump to their feet and start firing up their ovens.




The way I see it you're facing a huge dilemma. Should you change the entire West to suit your moral standards or should you just pack your bags and head to Muslimlands? I wish you a safe journey (which will be - it's your stay I'm not so sure about with all them drones buzzzzzzzzing about).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2015 01:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(21-12-2015 11:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-12-2015 05:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But that's not an attack. That's an embargo.

Ok, so if I use force to prevent anyone from providing you food, and use armed patrol outside your house to make sure no food can get in to your family, and you have to watch your child die of starvation, and if your wife asks why I would attack your family like that, would you still defend my actions and say "it's not an attack, it's an embargo"? I mean, seriously, you're defending killing half a million children??

You still haven't provided the UN report citing that number. And no that still would not be an attack. It would be a siege. Not sure why you think using the proper terminology (e.g hasty attack vs. deliberate attack vs. siege vs. ambush vs. feint vs. movement to contact) means I'm defending a statistic for which you still have not provided the source other than the fact that your mind works in mysterious non sequitur ways. You certainly would not produce a reasoned tactical response if you are unaware of which tactic is being used against you.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-12-2015, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2015 01:55 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Reality has arrived in politics concerning muslims!
(22-12-2015 11:41 AM)0Duke0 Wrote:  The way I see it you're facing a huge dilemma. Should you change the entire West to suit your moral standards or should you just pack your bags and head to Muslimlands? I wish you a safe journey (which will be - it's your stay I'm not so sure about with all them drones buzzzzzzzzing about).

No dilemma at all. I didn't want to be a part of a regime that kills others for sport, so I packed my bags and moved to Switzerland right after high school, more than 20 years ago. Let's compare how well things are going... Switzerland has no poverty and virtually no crime. There's no pollution, everything is recycled, and even the main river running through the largest city is crystal clear drinking water. The Swiss live considerably longer than Americans. In 'quality of life' 'best to places to live', etc., it ranks much better than the US. Freedom of speech and privacy are strongly protected, unlike in the US. Nobody lives in fear, and the government never uses 'threat level' tactics to scare people into giving up liberty ("the terror alert level is red today"). The average Swiss family has $700,000 in savings, and even the janitor at McDonald's makes about $40k/year and has a month's paid vacation every year, health insurance and a good pension. The economy and currency is regarded the most stable in the world, and they don't have the ups and downs like the US. Plus it's very pretty. And, you have a government deeply rooted in libertarian values of non-aggression and charity, so Swiss organizations, like the Red Cross, actively send people to other countries, including all over the middle east, but instead of bringing bombs and weapons like the US, the Swiss bring with them medicine, food and aid. For this reason a Swiss passport is welcome in all sorts of countries a US one is not. What did I give up by leaving the US?

To be honest, though, Switzerland was pretty boring. Being a libertarian society everything just functions too perfectly. So after 10+ years I left and moved to Rio de Janeiro for a while, and now live in Colombia, though my business is Hong Kong. And I couldn't be happier. Whenever I have to go back to the US for meetings, it amazes me how dysfunctional things have gotten. Americans are terrified of who's going to attack them now, but still think the solution to every problem is to just carpet bomb a country somewhere else, so they're stuck in a cycle with no exit. And then when I see Donald Trump saying the most absurd stuff, crazy non-sense that would never be tolerated other countries, like banning muslims, and the American public lives in such fear that nearly half the population agrees with him and says they should suspend the whole 'freedom of religion' constitution non-sense. And now the war on encryption where politicians are up in arms that whatsapp encrypts messages and argues the government needs a backdoor to listen on everybody's conversations--and again, half the country is so terrified that they're willing to go along with it. I just scratch my head and ask why people want to live that...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: