the dollar vigilante blog

Feedback Friday - December 7, 2012

Another week, and here we are again. Feedback Friday, where you get to ask TDV's writers about anything you wish in the TDV universe and beyond. This week, everything from Paraguay to advice for the young and in debt to...Romans 13?

Thanks as always for your feedback, on to this week's...

QUESTIONS ON PARAGUAY FROM TDV’S FORUMS

Dear TDV,

I'd like to know more about investing in farm land in Paraguay and specifically in the Chaco region. Based on the limited reading I've done it sounds like opportunity abounds.

Crockett

and...

Dear TDV,

I would also like more information on this topic.  Maybe a good website...in English would be nice, with Paraguayan real estate listings.  If even such a thing exists...? (i.e. in English)

JM

Jeff’s Response:

Hi Crocket and JM,

Taking Crocket's question first, opportunity ABSOLUTELY abounds down in Paraguay and Chile.  I absolutely love both these regions for that reason.  TDV Passports managing director, Ken Johnson, and I drove around Asuncion with an enterprising young lawyer/entrepreneur and our jaws dropped at all the opportunity.  And, it's the same in Chile.

Secondly, I have commented quite a bit, especially in our newsletter about how I see foreign farmland in places such as these as being excellent bets on the future.  Land costs are still unbelievably cheap in Paraguay... and for all the economic activity in Chile (which Paraguay is still far behind) the cost of land has nowhere near kept up with what its value should be, in my opinion.  Not to mention, no matter how bad the dollar collapse and The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI) gets, people will still want and need food.  And, even if transportation and financial systems break down for a period, you'll still be able to eat a nice steak every night.

That's what we are doing at Galt's Gulch Chile (galtsgulchchile.com), building a totally self-sufficient community in an incredibly fertile valley less than an hour from Santiago and less than an hour from Vina del Mar, one of the world's nicest oceanside resort cities.  

In response to JM, and his request for more info on finding real estate in Paraguay on the Internet, the best and often only way to find real estate in these kind of developing markets such as Paraguay is to get on the ground with trusted people.  Hardly any businesses in Paraguay even have websites (hint to website developers who speak decent Spanish) and if there is anything on the Internet, it almost certainly will be offered at "gringo" prices (5-10 times more than if you are on the ground).  We have people in Paraguay who have lived there for decades and who speak English and can easily show you the way.  Just email us at TDV@dollarvigilante.com and we'll get you connected.  Plus, remember, by subscribing to TDV you have access to Dollar Vigilante expats worldwide who can also point you in the right direction.  We're connecting dozens or hundreds of people per day to offshore employment and investment opportunities and as we grow it will become the most important network for freedom-lovers to be a part of.  For $15/month, it's the bargain of the century.

EXPAT ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG AND IN DEBT

Hi TDV,

I couldn’t agree with you more, but for us young, college-debt-drowning (I paid mine off), and jobless (or $10/hr employed) it's close to impossible just paying the extortion fees of visas, let alone the inflation of the dollar has led to outrageous prices in everything (except the deflation in housing). So in other words with regulations off the chart killing entrepreneurialism, acquiring capital is increasingly difficult. So the only option I have found has been to teach English, but again takes several g's of capital to get started....TEFOL, paid by the month, travel exp, etc. I happen to be an RN by profession and I'm able to actually save an ounce of Au per month so what’s one to do?  Leave now?....I might add there are few options country wise...due to visa restrictions... Cambodia is all that I know of with there e-visa that’s affordable for me. Thailand is now getting expensive and authoritative.  What about a house near the border?(I can’t afford much, but it could move you away from the herd) or hope my Au stores will give me more options like a move to Jeff's expat community in Chile for instance.  Any advice????

Thanks,

John

Gary’s Response:

It is not easy for the hopelessly indebted young person earning almost nothing, either to live here or to prepare a soft landing in another country. You don't have it so bad if you can put away an ounce of gold each month (though I'd recommend some diversification into silver). But I'll start by talking about those in real dire straits: the indebted, jobless or underemployed college grads.  I'm going to give them the advice that Jeff gave me: Just leave anyway.

After all, what are you sticking around for? The odds are very strong that your prospects here are only going to get worse. You had the misfortune to be born when the buck that's been passed for a hundred years (founding of the Federal Reserve and the start of the income tax) cannot be passed anymore. The Ponzi schemes in government entitlements, inflation and wars is collapsing on the heads of your generation. Your grandparents made out great. Your parents almost as well. You? You're screwed. Your quality of life has been the collateral that paid for your forebears to be coddled into complacency by their political masters and that paid for the world dominating schemes of those same masters.

Jeff would tell you to lose your apprehensions and throw the usual caution to the wind. Just take off for another country, resolve never to set foot in the collapsing USSA again. Good luck for those “past due” student letters to make it to you in Southeast Asia! Essentially disappear into the wide, wide world and take your chances. Because it's a better deal than you'd get here.

And now I'll give you my own heartfelt advice in case you aren't made of quite the same adventurous stuff as our dear editor-in-chief.

I like the “little house near the border idea.” A lot. Just so happens that it's something I was looking into myself just a week ago when I reading that some of the very cheapest places to live are in Texas on or near the border, like Harlingen and McAllen. I wanted to be able to skedaddle along the TDV Underground Railroad at least as far as Jim Karger's stronghold in San Miguel de Allende. Plus Texas has no income tax. And for more in depth research and advice about surviving and thriving if you have to stay in the USSA during the collapse, please join us at the very affordable TDV Homegrown. In fact, I'll run your specific situation by Dear Slavey – who now is a regular contributor to Homegrown – and see what other advice he can come up with.

Jeff would point out that you could live on the good side of the border in Mexico, too. Tijuana, for example, may be a much better choice than San Diego or Chula Vista, especially in terms of cost of living and being able to buy stuff after 9 pm. You could take little jaunts back for what you miss most about the US experience without subjecting yourself to all the bad things. And you're astronomically less likely to get trapped there on the next 9/11 false flat event and find yourself in a FEMA camp.  

I'd been thinking of hunkering down with my metal money in an adorable bungalow somewhere (like the cute one in whose attic loft I'm currently typing as the snow drifts down). But as much as I'd like to stay, it's becoming too much of a police state for my liking. Plus I don't want to pay any income tax and help fund murder in other countries.

NO LOVE FOR THE POLICE AND ROMANS 13

Dear TDV,

You might enjoy my recent article: I hate cops.

And, of course, as an atheist I think you are misinterpreting Romans 13 just the way the puppeticians hope you will. Nothing is Caesar's except what he actually owns, so you owe him nothing other than not robbing him.  Your property doesn't belong to him.  Plus, I have seen Christians point out that in America, the Constitution is the authority, not those people who violate it.

If you live in a Roman dictatorship and you are a "tax slave" as Jeff Berwick puts it, regardless of ethics (it's a dictatorship), you owe Caesar taxes.
 
If you use Federal Reserve notes, well, then give to the Federal Reserve what is the Federal Reserves. If you don't use them (i.e. gold and silver), well, how does the Fed know how much metal you got buried in a field?
 
If Jesus meant for political revolution, then why when Pilate told him to defend himself with the angels did he refuse? Because his kingdom is a spiritual one, not of this world, and the point of his coming is to save us from spiritual damnation and not political damnation.
 
There have always been dictatorships and there always will be until the end of time, do you think that we can change that? The historical record testifies otherwise. We should fight for freedom, but we can't expect it to be any different from the past cycle of Dictatorship>Revolution>Freedom>Apathy>Dictatorship...
 
One thing non-believers might overlook is that this life is short and just a breeze in the wind, so ultimately politics is of little import compared to eternity. The whole point of Jesus is coming was that we are sinners before a holy God with nothing to offer in recompense. I remember as a teen working at a grocery store helping unload a customer's heavy load of groceries into his shining Mercedes, which was part of the job description. The guy gave me a quarter and I was offended at his handing me such a pittance, I would rather have taken nothing, I was helping him for free.
 
This is the same thing when man tries to offer some "good works" to God, we are corrupt and have nothing to offer so God is offended. Christ completed the legal transaction, payment for our sins, so those accepting him could make it across the "River Styx" into heaven and not Hades.: http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ072512/christians-and-submittin...
 
It's not wholly a simple answer. Yes, I am saying that legally the US Constitution is the authority and not those who violate it. Yes, citizens should, where they can, stand up for justice, freedom and liberty. However, for believers, this is not a primary objective.
 
For somebody who is not a Christian, then this earth is all there is and of course they will be focused on making a "heaven" on earth. For those who believe in an eternal heaven, they are then making preparation for that and "storing up treasures in heaven".
 
P.S. Gospel in a nutshell, are you a good person?

Gary’s Response:

I don't care one whit about being a good person according to someone else's holy text. Being a good person comes down to whether one is ever willing to initiate force or use fraud against another (note: self-defense is fine against the initiation of force; anarchism is the only peaceful political ideology, but it does not mean pacifism). 

A good man does not submit to a dictator. A good man resists unjust laws, even at his own peril. At least he does if he is morally consistent and has a backbone. Believers are free to submit to this government and hope for the best in the next life. Those who do not believe the comforting myths about reconstitution in paradise after death...we'll just keep pushing for the complete abolition of slavery, not just the chattel variety that the brave abolitionsists before us resisted...but the slavery to the state that men still so willingly accept. 

We do expect the cycle to be different. And that won't happen if we just accept Caesar's whip on our backs and hope for better things after brain death. Remember, there's a reason that the state has always employed high priests. Faith in an unseen reward in return for earthly submission: it's hard to come up with a better program to tame the human livestock than that. 

I'm also saying that the Constitution gets its "authority" from the same inglorious violence that ultimately (and intimately) backs all politics. My liberty doesn't exist because those with a monopoly on violence write down a few allowances on paper and keep their guns trained on me. My liberty comes from my nature as a thinking human being, from reason and from ethics. And definitely not from any religious sentiment. As I implied above, religious sentiment is wrapped up in the same thoughtless submission to "authority" as statist sentiment. They really are two sides of the same coin, with the secular ruler on one side and his religious enabler on the other. You want me to "render unto Caesar" because some guy in an old book full of violence, rape and irrationality said to? Caesar can go render himself. 

G'day

Occasionally a Dollar Vigilante or another freedom-oriented newsletter (e.g. Laissez Faire Today) compares the safety of a non-USSA location with major cities of the world, including USSA cities. They are almost certainly using statistics provided by respective governments.

But are the government statistics accurate?

As an example, when comparing "homicide" rates provided by governments, do those statistics include the number of murders committed by government "security" forces and "law enforcement"?

When reporting violent crimes, do governments include assaults, home invasions and thefts (even ignoring taxes) committed by government "security" forces and "law enforcement"?

I suggest the answer is "no" in both cases.

Using government-supplied crime statistics should include caveats and taken with a few kilograms of salt.

Andrew F

Jeff’s Response:

As a rule, always take everything the government tells you with a grain of salt. In other words, don't trust them at all and assume that they are always trying to paint a picture to distort reality in a way that enhances their control over you. They are usually trying to increase your tendency to comply and give them more power by playing on your fears. So certain US cities are "dangerous" and therefore "need more government to tax one set of people to make the criminals nicer and to pay for more uniformed thugs." Meanwhile certain countries are "safe" (other Western kleptocratic tax farms) even as their economies collapse and slaves riot when the goodie train stops...and other countries are "dangerous"  (like in Latin America) even though you'd be able to live well there and be less likely to be held up either by a low level thug or a higher level uniformed thug.

We may cite statistics because everyone likes numbers. But we also encourage people to go see for themselves. I have been in over 100 countries (and at least 10 more in the next month that I've never been to in Eastern Europe and Africa) and encourage my editors to go live in a place before actually writing about it. I frequently find myself asking people with opinions on other countries, "Have you even ever been there? So how do you know?"

But aside from that, let's talk about "safety".  I have grown to hate that word.  Most westerners obsess on "safety" when their own governments are armed-robbing them every single day of the year for what usually amounts to over half their income.  Here's the truth. You are never "safe".  We are on a space rock apparently speeding through space at 18.55 miles per second.  And, that's just this rock.  The Sun travels around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 487,383 mph or 135 miles per second.  It's complete chaos!

Despite that, the resident chimpanzees on this rock furrow their brows and worry about every little bit of minutia... like how bad for you smoking is... or seatbelts.  Like they had some sort of completely ludicrous plan to live forever.  Meanwhile, while they admonish smokers or non-seat belt wearing people they are living in places being chemtrailed, eating food almost completely devoid of nutrients, living in a place where they are robbed every day, and don't seem to notice they are complete slaves to the statist system and live completely unfree.

So, when people ask me, "Is Mexico safe?" I just normally look at them with a blank stare. What is safe?  To me, where they usually live (the US or the West), it is imminently unsafe in terms of freedom.  They actually have no freedom, almost at all.  And, I find it incredibly naive and arrogant of Americans or other Westerners who think they are so in demand to be kidnapped or killed wherever they go.  Most people in foreign countries are actually quite nice to them, unnecessarily.  And, beyond that, they are ignored or, worse, looked at as lesser people with no culture, no class and definitely no balls.  I've seen countless Americans and Canadians come to Mexico in a fetal ball as though they are going to be beheaded and/or kidnapped as soon as they leave their all-inclusive artificial environment hotels.

As a person who has travelled the world, let me tell you, you are far "safer", if that is what you most care about, outside the Western world than almost anywhere in it.  You definitely won't have half your income stolen at gunpoint every day.  If you are raped, it will be totally voluntarily in almost every case!  And, what you may find is that you've been brainwashed almost since birth to fear the rest of the world.

I'm here to tell those that are so worried in the US to snap out of it and stop being so fearful.  It's sad and pathetic.  The home of the brave and the land of the free?  That's brainwashing from the child prison camps you were submitted to for 12 of your most formative years and later added to by main-dream media programming in the nights.  It's now the home of the slave and land of the weak, worrying, "safety- conscious.  

Step outside of your safety bubble and experience real life.  It's beautiful.

Comments (17)

mava's picture

Another Joe,

I'd like to stand up for Gary here. He is correct and you are not, - let me offer an explanation.

What you propose is that there is no such thing as a reasonable thought, but instead, there are statements made by so and so, and statements made by no one known. Further, you assume, that only the believers (followers of only one of possible interpretations of biblical account) are qualified to judge what biblical statements mean. This would be like me saying you don't understand anything about clothes, because you are not a wearer of blue jeans!

As for you asking Gary about the source of his principles, the ONLY source is reason. The other way around, the one that you offer, is actually a well known fallacy - 'ad hominem' - i.e. allowing that the statement is inherently more or less true, just because it was stated by a particular person, thus, a statement made by a disliked person is disqualified without regard to it's substance or the lack of it, while a statement by a liked person is automatically given weigh, as if it doesn't even need to have any substance.

Such practice, while is very street smart is not intelligent in the long run. It is appropriate for guiding a reflectory behavior, not for reasoning. Let me illustrate the difference. It is perfectly useful as a tactic to be suspicious of black men in all incidents without thinking, such as street encounters, simply because you'd live longer that way. At the same time, to reason that any black man is bad just because the average statistic says so about the mathematical, 'average' black man, is completely irrational, and unintelligent.

So, here I am pointing out that you are guiding your larger reasoning by 'ad hominem' principle, which is irrational, and should only be left to meaningless, 'automated' tasks, where statistical approach to judgement is better than no judgment at all.

Further, you commit a horrendous error is concluding that the intelligent design (which includes your theology as well) idea intellectually allows for a reason to be civil, while the idea of chaos allows for a reason to pronounce the coercion as the survival of the fittest. Here you probably just repeating someone else statements again, without actually thinking about them. If you would give them a thought, you'd be able to recognize, that in the case of a definitive purposeful creation being a fact, the end necessarily justifies the means, or there would not be any meaning to the word "purpose". If I create a farm to produce a certain weight of beef, it is of no consequence to me whether my cows suffer or not, as long as the goal is met. The religious babbling about the idea of 'loving god', falls flat on it's face every time anyone notices say a three year old suffering from the pain of his extremities being deformed by God, or, thorn of by a high precision drone strike. This means that while we accept the idea of God, we reject the popular sub-version of it that presumes 'loving God'. Which brings us back to the beef farm, and the purposeful creation. Purpose, always justifies the means. The principle that is opposing this is called living in accordance to rules, whatever the result that might bring, however, this denies a purpose.

And in the case of a chaotic accident of existence, there are only two options to conduct oneself, - coercively to other, and "minding your own business". Of these two, the former, is illogical, because it takes away from the meaning of the word "existence", i.e. if you chose to coerce me, then you will not exist as I will put an end to your existence. The only way to exist is to "co-exist", i.e., the latter option, otherwise known as non-initiation of violence.

Frequently, while thinking of these concept, people make errors of judgment, concluding that there is a possibility of existence through coercion, because there is an example of an animal world. Animals (except humans)  can not act out of principle, and that makes a crucial difference. While you can go around systematically killing Lions, no Lion is going to dedicate his time to finding and killing you out of this principal necessity. Humans, however, have always acted on their principal conclusions. This is why, the coercive existence, i.e. "survival of the fittest" (in the meaning of trigger happy, go kill whoever you can) is the means to actually ending the existence. Because it will ignite a thoughtful, purposeful resistance out of principal need, much like we see unfolding in Afghanistan.

I think that the core points have been made clear:

-You do not need to be religious to judge the words of Christ.
-Your principles need not to be given to you by an authority to be valid.
-Presumption of chaotic, accidental creation if logically followed by an intellectual necessity to follow non-aggression principle, while the presumption of a creation on purpose allows to discount any horrors as inconsequential, as long as the purpose is satisfied, and justifies the coercion as the survival of the fittest.

-And I think Christ meant that you owe Caesar absolutely nothing other than what is "his". Meaning, something he ether reasonably inherited, or made, or exchanged for things he made. Which in case of a Caesar, could mean absolutely NOTHING, as he was a thief. The most reasonless assumption is to propose that everything of this world belongs to Caesar, meaning that he made everything, and that would immediately mean that Caesar is the creator, and therefore require that he is not of this world, and thus, be self contradictory!

Another Joe's picture

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts Mava (and everyone else – some excellent thoughts and observations). Obviously this isn’t something that there will be consensus on. Rather than arguing every point you’ve made, I’ll just offer a few key points. Part of the challenge of these kinds of discussions is that the many tentacles are difficult to deal with in single posts.

First, my rebuttal was in response to what I perceived as an attack on one specific worldview. Therefore, my response was in kind, though certainly focused on the argument, not the person. I do respect Gary, who is clearly very intelligent and wrestles with what he perceives. I did not, as you contend, attack his character (which is what ad hominem means - informal fallacy = irrelevant). This detail responds to a great deal of your post, at least tangentially.

As for biblical principles, the main problem is that most people who bother to argue against them don’t really bother with the context of what was written. Unfortunately, many Christians are guilty of this as well, which is why they spew forth nonsensical argumentation that isn’t really verifiable by Scripture. And it’s also why many argue against such misrepresentation needlessly. As you may have noted, I’ve argued against some of the believers on these forums as well, as they’ve inaccurately used these verses.

Horrendous error? Intelligent design lends itself to order. It also lends itself to purpose. Chaotic or accidental evolutionary ideas do not. Furthermore, the law of atrophy simply negates the possibility of order created from disorder without intelligent intervention. As for your assumption regarding a loving God, it fails to understand sin. That is a discussion I’m more than willing to enter, but involves enough to merit a separate thread.

To be sure, it should at least be taken into consideration when one person has studied a given document or teaching (whether the Quran, Bible, Iliad or whatever) for many years, or even decades, including learning the original language it was written in (Greek, Russian, Cobalt, C++, Hebrew, Chinese, calculus or whatever), that they might know a bit more about what’s being said than others who might have studied more casually. That does not take away one person’s intelligence. It only points out expertise. I don't tell a computer programmer that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to writing code. Who is he to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to what the Bible actually teaches? (rather than what someone thinks it teaches)

This is precisely why I asked Gary questions about anarchy in another thread. He has expertise in this area that I lack. I’m seriously attempting to understand the sustainability of it. I don’t claim equal expertise in understanding your field of study and expertise. Why do you think you can claim such in mine? It’s a very logical and reasonable question.

As for your last paragraph, it illustrates my point. In order to reason as you have, the entire passage has to be divorced from its immediate context. What you propose is definitely not what Christ intended, at all. A simple reading beginning earlier in the book and all the way through the following chapter, whether one reads the account from Matthew 22, Luke 20 or Mark 12, will make this point clear (reading all three would make it even more so).

Well, that ended up being much longer than I intended. Please accept my apology. Brevity is not my strength. It’s a complex set of topics and worthy of discussion though. Thank you for the interaction Mava, and others. You’ve clearly spent a great deal of time contemplating your perspective.

[EDIT - Hopefully for clarity] All too often professing Christians are angry fundamentalists. That's been addressed here before, and I am in full agreement that it's a problem. Because this is true, it's entirely possible that my responses may be perceived as angry or hostile. Please believe me when I say that it's simply not true. I perceive these discussions more as friends with very similar interests and positions regarding socioeconomics and geopolitics sitting around discussing religion. Do I hope to persuade you? Yes, of course I do. And I know that a strong stance on biblical teaching is offensive to many people. But, regardless, I have no desire to be offensive in the way I interact on the topic.

Vince123's picture

Interesting discussion. I respectfully disagree with the comments of "Another Joe." Most American atheists know more about religion than the average self-professed Christian, since most of us (myself included) went through a crisis where we did lots of research and eventually decided to renounce our belief in the supernatural. That would probably be different in a nation like Russia or China where atheism was for a long time the official belief. No need for searching when you're following the crowd.
That said, I've come a long way in my attitudes about religion (grudging tolerance) more to an appreciation the sense of purpose and community that religion can provide. Lew Rockwell and his cadre of mostly Christian and Jewish anarchists were the primary impetus behind this paradigm shift. Still, I have no use for the theology. An ex-Mormon friend of mine perfectly summed it up perfectly: "I feel that I'm biologically incapable of religious faith." As for ethical theory, I've always believed the Golden Rule to be foundation of all morality. Even I don't accept its original religious context, it expresses something timeless and fundamental about human nature.

ArgusVonBlargus's picture

I prefer the Platinum Rule: ""Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same"
 
The Golden Rule was invoked during the Inquisitions, to wit: "It is better for the sinner to be executed so they can no longer sin and increase their eternal punishment."
 
 

Anonymous's picture

I like Gary, he is finding his way as we all are, in this world.  We should (and are) thankful TDV's are so generous with their information.  Gary may not realize it but he is serving Good with his generosity and peaceful intentions.  As a Christian I know God has placed Gary to do His will and serve His purposes.  Just as God led the captives to the U.S., God will again lead us out of captivity.  Gary is doing his part in this grand plan.  As are all TDVers..if Gary thinks he is an athesist, 'let it suffereth to be so' .....'what is it to you if (he) is not come to me?'

Sebastian's picture

In my opinion, if you want to believe in God or not or whatever, it's a personal thing. Where is it written that you must believe via a state-approved institute (usually called church) of some kind? Isn't that a statist thing? I've had many bible lessons when I was student in christian school and I can't remember a section where Jezus told you have to sign up at the temple of some creep wearing a dress, give him all your money, and do whatever he tells you. Usually the church and government do.
As for athism, I consider that the communist anti-religion.

dollarvigilante_5's picture

Dear TDV,

Two of my hobbies are gun collecting and growing/smoking cannabis. I am 67 years old and am married to a lady age 66. Also, I have a form of inflammatory arthritis that requires me to see a rheumatologist every two months, and at our ages my wife and I are likely to be needing good medical care. We are both retired engineers. I assume that our Medicare/Blue-Cross medical insurance would be useless outside the USA. I have approximately $800,000, of which about half is in a pre-tax IRA of some sort.

Are there any countries with a reasonable cost of living (Monaco is out!) that I could emmigrate to and continue to pursue my "hobbies" of gun collecting and smoking cannabis where access to decent medical care is available and isn't exorbitantly expensive?

Thank you,

Ron

JeffBerwick's picture

We'll reply to your question next week in Feedback Friday!  Thank you!

Another Joe's picture

I look forward to the answer to this one too Ron. Keep Chile on your radar though. Gun laws are not liberal, but you are allowed to own them. If I remember correctly, each person can have up to four, but it might only be two. There's some sort of ability to request more, but I can't remember what's entailed. I remember reading that Ecuador allows firearms too, though I can't remember details.

The drawback in Chile is that you cannot transport them without a permit. One way to get a permit is to join a shooting club. Otherwise they have to stay at your home. And if you move you have to get a permit to move them.

Medical care in the major cities in Chile, specifically Santiago, is excellent. Many of the doctors are US or European trained. Of course, there's a mixed view of whether or not that's good. But it's supposed to be top knotch health care there. The insurance is a bit confusing, but there are options.

Cost of living in Chile is very reasonable. Generally it's less than the US, but it depends where you live. It's certainly not as cheap as many other SA countries.

As for cannabis, I have no clue. But I'm sure others here do. I hope you find what you're looking for.

dollarvigilante_5's picture

Thanks for the info Another Joe. I've seen lesser gun collections than mine referred to in the mainstream media as an "arsenal", haha!  Plus, I have at least a half-ton of ammo for everything. Incidentally, I'm also an atheist, libertarian, and like to smoke a tobacco pipe from time to time.

Another Joe's picture

Heh, isn't everyone on these forums a libertarian?

Yeah, Chile wouldn't like that. I think they only allow 50 rounds per gun... though it might be 100. I'm with you on that... don't have as much ammo as you, but certainly would have to leave the overwhelming majority of it behind, along with quite a few guns. Wish I could offer more encouragement in that regard - for both our sakes.

Grandpa smoked a pipe. I still love the smell, though I've never smoked one. A good stogie is nice once in a while though.

dollarvigilante_5's picture

I smoked cigars for awhile until I realized that a decent cigar cost at least $15, so I switched to a tobacco pipe and never regretted it because the quality and variety and mixes of tobacco are astounding and vastly superior to all American cigarette tobacco. My favorite is Lane-Ltd., Mixture RLP6.

Another Joe's picture

You've intrigued me Ron. Thanks. I might be looking for a pipe now, though the missus will likely pitch a fit if I do... :)

Another Joe's picture

Romans 13.... Where to begin?

Cop hater here really doesn't understand Romans 13. Of course, beginning a discussion with "as an atheist" and then going on to express one's expertise about the Bible in an effort to correct someone who actually believes it is disingenuous at best.

The illustration regarding Rom 13 and Jesus' teaching on Caesar's property are two completely different applications. One deals with being at peace with all men while the other focuses on devoting one's life to God as His image bearer. Context is generally ripped apart by those who attempt to discredit the Bible with snippets.

This "feedback" seems to be a combination of different posts though, coming from different perspectives, which only adds to the confusion.

Gary, you offer your perspective as though you have the "truth" down pat. Yet you espouse a sense of good without offering a basis of that good. "A good man resists unjust laws," for instance. What is your source or foundation for what is "good"? You discuss moral consistency, and yet offer no baseline for your morality. In other words, "Who says so?" Why should anyone accept your perspective of good?

Furthermore, you fling your atheism in the face of believers, calling their acceptance of a devine Creator a myth "about reconsititution in paradise after death"? I'd submit that it takes a lot more faith to believe the unsubstantiated myth that we're all accidents of time, rising from slime, with no purpose other than whatever ideals we can dream up than that we've been created for a higher purpose. Simply put, if we're all accidents then "good" is completely arbitrary and coercion is merely survival of the fittest. And if there are no afterlife ramifications to our actions, then what's the point of striving for some personal sense of morality, ethics or "good"?

"religious sentiment is wrapped up in the same thoughtless submission to "authority" as statist sentiment." As a Christian, and having served as a pastor for several years, I beg to differ. It's anything but "thoughtless" and has no similarity to statist sentiment whatsoever. However, I surmise that you wouldn't understand, as an atheist.

ArgusVonBlargus's picture

Joe:
I think your opening statement: "Cop hater here really doesn't understand Romans 13." is a perfect encapsulation as to why there are about 30,000 different Christian denominations.
Why is it disingenuous to be a Bible expert without being a Christian? Surely, for example, one could be an expert on ancient Norse mythology without making sacrifice to Thor?
I can answer the question: "What is your source or foundation for what is "good"?"
Simple: The facts of reality as they relate to the survival and thriving of the individual and the social group.
One could say: "My source for what is good is the Bible." But then you will be faced with troublesome moral statements like Numbers 31:17-18: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."  This is Moses (Yahweh's servant) talking so it's pretty clear he has divine authority in this context. Basically, the Bible states that killing another -- whether they be combatants or innocent children -- is moral if God says it's OK. That kind of thinking leads to a 9/11 scenario.

reflector's picture

joe,
your reply was sensible and well put, and mirrors many of my own thoughts after reading the article.
further, i commend you on your brave confession, as to your connexion to christianity.
you lost it a bit in your last paragraph, however - concerning "religious sentiment", it's an entirely personal experience. for some, it will be a blind obedience to dogma and religious institution heirarchy. for others, it will be a direct personal experience and an understanding that each of us must become our own personal savior.

Another Joe's picture

Thank you reflector. Obviously we disagree on my last paragraph. Having read it again, I still hold to its verity. But, I think it's safe to assume that these discussions lend themselves to such disagreement.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
back to top