I am happy for you and the society you describe, whereabouts in South East Asia do you live? — Punshhh

Today, Cambodia (and Vietnam) mostly. That is not really "fixed", though. In 2017, I hired a Filipina tutor for the kids for a year, pulled them out of their private primary school, and travelled around Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines with them. Their then non-existent English became fluent after that. I am toying with the idea of doing that again sooner or later. It would probably be really good for their English literacy.

I am aware that there are some societies in that part of the world which function well, I am not well acquainted with the Islamic ones. — Punshhh

Cambodia and Vietnam are not Islamic majority societies. There is no need for that. These places just have thriving Islamic communities. That is more than enough, actually. Islam is not meant to be a country. It is just a neighbourhood where people think alike. In Cambodia and Vietnam, these local Muslim neighbourhoods are surrounded by Buddhist populations. My wife is actually a Buddhist. She knows how not to break Islamic law such as by serving me pork for dinner or allow relatives to hold beer drinking parties in the house.

The Buddhists, but only the traditional ones, are actually quite similar in lifestyle to the Muslims but their traditions are now eroding rapidly. My intuition says that sooner or later the only functioning neighbourhoods will be Islamic or Orthodox Jewish. Everybody else will be wallowing in depravity ...

I have spent some time in Egypt and it has an Islamic society which does not function well, corruption is widespread, torture in prisons and jails is commonplace. — Punshhh

The State may not function well, but that is actually a good thing. If the State has too much power and/or too much money it will soon try to shove its bad ideas down everybody's throat, creating in that process the need for a civil war which will dismantle the State and reduce its obnoxious ambition to impose its views.

For example, Cambodia was a more pleasant place to live in before 2000 than today, when the civil war was still going on. The government did not function back then, and that was a good thing.

You really have to give them a war to fight, because otherwise they will start paying too much attention to you, and try to micromanage every aspect of your life, and you really don't want that. The locals here still remember how they used to carry around their machine guns during the war, in order to shoot first and only then ask questions. Consequently, they still don't take any shit from the government.

My personal experience says that the best place to live, is right next to a war zone. As long as you don't get shot, life is much better there. From my perspective and in my experience, Cambodia and Vietnam are still quite free societies today, but the creep has started already, and I guess that sooner or later a new reset will be needed.

Freedom gradually erodes, and only a good bout of war can bring it back.

So you are describing a fraternity, a social group following a prescribed lifestyle which works on a local scale across borders. Great I live in a similar social grouping, more informal and not following anything prescribed other than a cultural norm. Unfortunately when it comes to the health of the country as a whole, there are many problems, one being a media fuelled political bias towards a free market capitalism, which has not weathered globalisation well and which has not worked well for the nation, it has for example resulted in Brexit.

From what you say about Cambodia, it sounds like there is not much governance going on and you don't mention how capitalism is affecting the people.

In my country there is a war of ideas, which does seem to be engaging people and may be good for the health of the country, if it does not become entrenched as it has in the US.

So you are describing a fraternity, a social group following a prescribed lifestyle which works on a local scale across borders. — Punshhh

The original congregations of Moses (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ), later on of Jesus (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ), and later on of Mohammed (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) were actually like that. For various reasons, the Islamic congregation turned into a State later on. Still, it also works fine without seeking secular power, if the existing State leaves everybody alone, which they often don't, which in turn, creates the need to get rid of it, and so on.

Unfortunately when it comes to the health of the country as a whole — Punshhh

Countries are actually quite irrelevant in this context. I am not interested in the health of the secular State. Their health is their problem and not mine. Furthermore, I just pick the place that suits me best, and if need be, I just move. The local economy is of no interest to me, because I tend to use the internet to make money (whenever I am actually interested in making money, which is not now).

media fuelled political bias towards a free market capitalism — Punshhh

Al-Baqarah 2:275 Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. — Quran

In Islamic terms, the problem with capitalism is not free trade but the widespread practice of usury, i.e. the entire fiat bankstering system that you will find at its core.

But then again, if you personally try to keep Islamic law, you will avoid most of the problems that the fiat bankstering system causes. You will do fine while the unbelievers around you will suffer from their enslavement to Satan and his usury. Furthermore, there is no need to save the unbelievers from their own choices. We cannot prevent anybody from making his own decisions or seek to exempt him from the consequences of his own decisions. That is not even allowed. These people eagerly desire to be slaves to such depravities. They actively want that. So, just let them. Myself, I am enslaved to the laws of Allah, our beloved Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of this universe. That is why, unlike the unbelievers, I am not required to pay Satanic usury fees. I enjoy my situation and they enjoy theirs.

[r

What do you actually know about the people making these statements? — Bitter Crank

Gun rights aren't a core issue for me. I don't actually know any gun rights sites or spend any time thinking about the issue. I do read some right wing, nativist and libertarian sites where people strenuously argue for gun rights. They all tend to be the responsible gun owner types generally making abstract points about freedom and law, not people hoping for mayhem. Note, I read the left wing wackos too. I've always had the ability to read things without necessarily agreeing with them. I regard myself as a centrist wacko. — fishfry

Well, here is my experience on the issue. There are three types of response from public forums on gun issues:

• First, a fringe element is definitely NOT only 'discussing abstract points about freedom. if you are working in gun control and such gun addicts find out where you live, they PHYSICALLY ASSAULT YOU. One was earning money by repairing guns for a black gang in Sacramento. I had to abandon my house there after gang attacks on me, property damage, and someone shooting my cat.
• Second, there are '2nd-Amendment evangelists' who refuse to accept anything the NRA says could be wrong, no matter what you say or do. Most of these actually profit from guns, and there are alot of them now. It's said there are more people selling guns than work in supermarkets and Starbucks combined. I suspect this includes all Walmart employees, but whatever the actual number, there are one hell of a lot of them.
• Third, the less fanatic are not actually aware that the NRA only emits propaganda. They only watch news like FOX, and they only talk with each other, such as on gun fan forums that ban me as a troll within 10 minutes of me sharing anything.

There are anti-gun sites, but they are totally dominated by people with emotional problems who don't read anything I post. Incidentally, no matter what I write anti-gun lobbyists, websites, and politicians, the only thing I have got back at all is mass-mail donation requests. And publishers wanted something less academic for a more biased audience, so I have been rather forced to abandon my work on the topic.

i can find no sites besides this one where people can express views without bias.

By the way, regarding the assaults, the police basically just found it amusing and have no apparent interest of trying to control the situation whatsoever. After the assaults on me started, someone was gun murdered around the corner, and I was already planning to leave Sacramento. I tried to provide the police with some information on a checkbook that was stolen, where someone cashed the checks faking my name at a bank the day before the murder. As you may not know, security checks are designed to retain a finger and thumbprint when someone rips it out the checkbook. So they even had that. I offered to give more information to a detective and testify if they wanted. It was totally ignored. The only thing they did was put yellow tape around the house of the victim.

I now live in a senior mobile home park that does not allow young people to live in it, with its own private security, and nowhere near Sacramento, with unpublished address. That may seem excessive paranoia, but someone WAS murdered just around the corner.

I started working in 1968 and stopped in 2008; over that time I witnessed the decline in living standards that one could have at a given income. — Bitter Crank

I started breathing in 1966, so you're a tad older. Going completely by recollection, I've seen a major change in expected standard of living. We buy bigger houses with all sorts of upgrades. Our cars are fancier. We eat out all the time. We have the latest gadgets. We go on bigger and better vacations.

I was born the son of a physician, so not exactly a peasant. Our house and its furnishings were modest by today's standards, but no different from my neighbors. We didn't play all sorts of travel sports, go on cruises, or upgrade to the newest model car every year. This is just to say if we all lived like it was 1968, we'd probably be doing a whole lot better. The problem is the buy in too many have of the consumerism/materialistic culture. It's the result of the death of God as I see it, as opposed to some government failing. Marxism is not the religion one needs to subscribe to to find happiness. I don't dismiss the struggles of those who can't earn even enough to sustain, but I do think much could be accomplished by reducing frivolity and rebelling against those who try to convince us to buy their foolishness. We can choose not to be fools without any government upheaval.

The 'Simple Living' movement, generally active in churches, attempts to get people to, you know, consume less -- much less -- crap. Those who cite spending habits as a significant contributing factor to money problems are, of course, spot on. It's not buying a better brand of canned tomatoes that gets people in trouble, it's the bigger, better car, the increased square-feet per person homes, the expensive cosmetic orthodontics for children, high end clothing (for whatever niche one is in), and so on.

"The average size of new homes built in the United States grew 62 percent from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,687 square feet in 2015, an increase of 1,027 square feet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau." The 1918 house I live in was built for 2 adults, 1 child, more or less) and has about 900 square feet of main floor space. And, it seems to me, meals away from home are a major expense for many people. Live entertainment and alcohol (never mind recreational drugs) are another layer of expense.

The death of God? I agree it's not a government failing. However, I've observed more than a few people who think God is as alive as ever engage in the same nonsensical spending that the godless riffraff engage in.

If you want to blame somebody, blame Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, who did so much to sharpen the practice of public opinion shaping and propaganda. The "desire manufacturing industry of advertising" deserves a lot of blame for the vast waste of money in the land.

The death of God? I agree it's not a government failing. However, I've observed more than a few people who think God is as alive as ever engage in the same nonsensical spending that the godless riffraff engage in. — Bitter Crank

God to me is more a representation of a proper goal, anchored in Truth. Without God, we have no way of knowing why buying a bunch of toys is a lesser goal than building relationships, expanding our knowledge, and experiencing more of the world. When we stopped believing in God, we were left incapable of distinguishing one idol from the next, as everything became an idol.

Upon what basis does one call the materialist shallow if we don't know depth?

We didn't play all sorts of travel sports, go on cruises, or upgrade to the newest model car every year. — Hanover

I know you are exaggerating to make a point...but this is not describing any average person anywhere but Monaco. I live in Southern California and this sounds like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" to me. I am not saying there are no people who live way beyond their means and would fit your description...but I don't know anyone that gets a new car every year?? It feels like you are noticing the increased consumption of the top 1%? The rest of us just added air conditioning and cable tv. Which is nice, but I would give up both of those to go back to when an average single earner could support a family and buy a house with just a high school diploma (I get that was likely due to the perfect storm of conditions that was the American economy after WW2, but it was "better" than today from many perspectives).

Without God, we have no way of knowing why buying a bunch of toys is a lesser goal than building relationships, expanding our knowledge, and experiencing more of the world. — Hanover

This may be for another thread but how do we "know" what is right with a god in the picture? You mean we are told what is right and god's absolute power means accept it or else? Don't many non-religious philosophies suggest that knowledge, relationships, and experience may have more value than material things?