Sunday, September 16, 2018

Stefan Verstappen - Paradise Stolen - Episode 1 - DON'T SHOW YOUR CHILDREN!

I'm putting this out again because I think it is timely, and many people new to this site might have not seen it.


10 comments:

Konrad said...

I apologize for being a wet blanket, but this video is misleading. Its quaint community is not isolated or unique. There are many like it in the USA and Canada. One example I have often visited is Balboa Island in California.

The place you see in this video is on Lake Ontario, just off Toronto, Canada on Ward Island, which is a part of the Toronto Islands.

The problem is that only rich people can afford to buy a house in these quaint little paradises.

Most major US and Canadian cities have mini-paradises like this. Detroit is a hellhole, but some of its suburbs are paradises. Chicago has Lake Forest. Los Angeles has Bell Air and San Marino. Near San Diego is Rancho Santa Fe, arguably the richest suburb in the USA. Santa Fe NM is very nice. So is Sedona AZ. On and on. They are all very beautiful, but again, you have to be very rich to live there.

The point is that Shangri-la (or Brigadoon) is real, but only the rich can live there -- although you can sometimes visit there. For example, the Toronto Islands are not hidden or isolated, as the video implies. They are a popular recreation destination. People load their bicycles onto ferries, or onto water taxis, and go out to enjoy Centreville Amusement Park, and Hanlan's Beach. The entire place is sometimes called “Toronto Islands Park.”

More info…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Islands

See more images by doing a Google image search for “Toronto Islands.”

A THOUGHT…

Some people believe that we all live in a paradise like this before we are born, and we return to it after we die. The type of paradise that we personally inhabit depends on our personal beliefs and thought-habits. According to this view, we voluntarily choose to come to earth and live in difficult circumstances in order to enhance our spiritual development. Earthy life may seem like hell, but it is only for a brief moment in the eternal scheme of things.

Maybe it’s true. I don’t know. But it kind of makes sense. You live in Shangri-la. After a while you take its beauty and tranquility for granted. It is no big deal for you. So you choose to leave Shangri-la for a brief time in order to know suffering here on earth. When you return to Shangri-la, you have a renewed appreciation for it, and your general wisdom and compassion are deepened.

Like I said, just a thought…

Konrad said...

That said, the video's main point is that we could all have more paradises if we didn't waste so much time, money, and energy on endless war.

Kaivey said...

You're right about the video, Konrad, and i did have a commentary on it that was slightly critical, but I removed it because I like the video. If you take it at face value, it's good, but I could easily see it was a very rich suburb, where probably where bankers and other elite live.

Also, Stefan Verstrappen is a survivalist and a libertarian. Did you see the part in the video where he says that there is no government regulation and people are allowed to do what they want with their houses, or build them as high as they would like. He thinks that this is good, but like most libertarians he hasn't thought it through. Well, I can't see the residents there being too happy if someone wanted to build a ten storey there, or even very tall dwelling. I'm sure they would soon check the regulations and get the district council involved if they did, and get the police and law involved too. The residents wouldn't be so nice.

But despite its faults, it does make a good point about all the money wasted on war, and the happier life we could have had instead.

Konrad said...

“Did you see the part in the video where he says that there is no government regulation and people are allowed to do what they want with their houses, or build them as high as they would like?”

Yes, I raised an eyebrow when I heard that. Libertarians think the world would be a better place if there was no regulation. The truth is that all systems need regulation, from the whirling of electrons to the rotation of galaxies. Our bodies have internal regulation systems. Planet earth has regulatory systems.

Without regulation, systems quickly lose their balance, and disintegrate. I remember in the 1956 film version of The Ten Commandments. As Moses comes down from the mountain, the evil Dathan sees the stone tablets and says, “Your laws will take away our freedom.” Moses responds, “There is no freedom without laws.” (That is, without regulation.)

When people call for deregulation, they mean for themselves alone. The Koch brothers are libertarians. They want no regulation of their destructive greed. Jeff Bezos of Amazon wants no regulation of his tyranny.

Deregulation of banks and Wall Street is destroying the USA.

“I can't see the residents there being too happy if someone wanted to build a ten story there, or even very tall dwelling. I'm sure they would soon check the regulations and get the district council involved, plus the police and law. The residents wouldn't be so nice.”

Yes. The Toronto Islands are not a privately owned enclave. Hence they are subject to Toronto municipal ordinances.

“But despite its faults, it does make a good point about all the money wasted on war, and the happier life we could have had instead.”

Yes. Certain aspects of the video are exaggerated for illustrative effect (e.g. the “no regulation” thing). Despite my criticisms of the video, I very much enjoyed it, and I endorse it. Later today I shall watch it again. I liked the 1937 movie Lost Horizon too.

Tom Hickey said...

“Your laws will take away our freedom.” Moses responds, “There is no freedom without laws.” (That is, without regulation.)

This was the view of the ancient Greeks and it became the foundation for Enlightenment-liberalism.

The key idea underlying this is that humans are social animals and also rational animals by definition since rationality distinguishes humans from other animals.

The Greeks were well-aware that the "freedom" of other animals and that what distinguishes humans from other animals is rationality.

It is non rational for humans living in society not to regulate themselves socially, which requires "governance." But nature does not a particular form of it. Thus, they debated the merits and demerits of different political systems.

Aristotle lists 3 conditions and 6 categories:

Rule of one:
Monarchy (Monarchy in this sense pertains when the monarch is virtuous)
Tyranny (Dictatorship, where the ruler is not virtuous)

Rule of a few:
Aristocracy (rule of the best, that is, most qualified)
Oligarchy (rule of the most powerful or wealthy)

Rule of many:
Constitutional government (rule of reason through law arrived at through deliberation)
Direct democracy (crowd rule, which Aristotle viewed as subject to demagoguery)

Aristotle did not consider rule by "anarchy" (exercise of personal freedom independently), nor did he consider theocracy (rule of purportedly divine law).

Tom Hickey said...

"The Greeks were well-aware that the "freedom" of other animals and that what distinguishes humans from other animals is rationality" should be "The Greeks were well-aware that the "freedom" of other animals led to the law of the jungle or herd-behvior, while that which distinguishes humans from other animals is rationality."

I really mangled that one in my hurry. :o

Matt Franko said...

I see Aristotle in contrast to Plato...

Tom consider “lawful” as thesis and “lawless” as anti-thesis...

“Rule by anarchy” those are opposites too...

Dialectic doesn’t work imo ...l

Tom Hickey said...

Aristotle considers types of government after Plato. Plato opted for aristocracy as rule of the enlightened and provided a training program for achieving this. Aristotle outlines three options for rule of the virtuous, monarchy rule of a virtuous one, aristocracy (rule of a few virtuous), and constitutional government (rule of many virtuous) and provides the corrupt form of rule of the one (tyranny), of the few (oligarchy) and rule of many (democracy).

That are no modern states that are democracies in Aristotle's sense. Most modern states are constitutional, whether constitutional monarchies, constitutional aristocracies or constitutional republics, largely as a result of the influence of the Roman republic as a historical and 18th century Enlightenment liberalism, which was influenced by ancient Greek thought, but the government of the small Greek city states was no directly applicable to the modern state.

At any rate, the ancient Greeks introduced rationality as the standard and this became the dominant force in Western thought that came after it, with the interruption of Medieval Christendom and theocracy.

Matt Franko said...

“That are no modern states that are democracies in Aristotle's sense.”

Well we don’t have that as we have most people who don’t accept the election results didactically...

Instead, they employ the dialectic and create an anti thesis to the elected government... instead of just falling in line with the program until next election...

We create permanent factions in a dialectic fashion..




Tom Hickey said...

The chief reason that no modern state has even experimented with Athenian democracy, in which citizens met in the forum and debated political issue prior to taking a vote, is that it is impractical in a large modern state in which most citizens don't have the leisure to do that. The Athenians had the leisure since slaves, who had no vote, did the work.

In the democratic republican form of government, representatives are elected to perform this function for their constituents and the means to do so are provided publicly.