I'm still not sold on anarchy. I'll support Ron Paul. I'm accused of being a libertarian but I'm not. I passed the Von Mises test having never heard of Von Mises. It was my Christian understanding that led to conclude same as Mises. Fortunately I read for myself and I'm not read to. I think the love of money is the root of all evil.
I'm not angry at your "against me" conclusion as I know that most people allow the mischief we have. "Against me" is very true and makes it very personal.
Damn it, Stef, the West is NOT moving towards socialism! Socialism is workers' control over production, something TOTALLY consistent with your philosophy. I love your videos, but you need to STOP mischaracterizing socialism!
@whiterchocolate There is no requirement in socialism for the economy to be under the control of government. That is a requirement of Marxism, but there are numerous non-Marxist currents within socialism. I suggest you read Benjamin Tucker or Kevin Carson; socialism is totally consistent with the free market.
@QuatFax thanks fo the names im reading so much communist literature and its driving me nuts but once again thanks for the pointers good day comrade haha
stop tyrany? globally? no... i think not BUT what HAS been achieved is setting it back... we can do damage controll... the answer to this lies in getting as far away from the psychos with guns as possible. however, martyn luthor stopped black people being lynched to such an extent & thats a posetive thing & its proven to be achievable. we are obligated to do as much damage controll as posible & make our governments as least likely to shoot us as possible.
I'm not sure I understand. I haven't used this approach but so far I've had very little luck persuading anyone that behind every law there is a gun pointed at them! Won't all these people who want to shoot us be totally comfortable in each other's company? How does this free me from the state, which can still shoot me at will...? I'd be free in the Viktor Frankl sense, I guess, but I was kinda hoping the police wouldn't come by some afternoon and just randomly shoot my dog...
I've found, maybe just me, that no one has any problem with violently robbing me to pay for "the poor" or "schools". I suspect that the minds of people are now fully corrupted into believing that the govt is the only source of good in the world. Honestly, it scares me. "Against me" just doesn't seem to compel people. I actually got a "Shut up and pay your taxes", from a (former) friend.
thanks to you for the "Against me" free skool... :) ...I just go back to being in the secret rabbit status, take in the homeless, drug addicts and poor that I do... feed and love people. military wife says "stand down" and come home.
Stefan, Dr. Paul says things?...just little slips of the tongue that make me hear the very same things I am trying to avoid. Things that just make you go, ooo! ... and how come you do not come down here to the states and be our "person" A?..
I don't understand this video at all, after enjoying a number of your others. How would cutting off from differently minded people (99.99% of the people you will ever know) help liberty in any way? It may be more philosophically consistent, and you declare it to be more worthy of respect, but in reality this would just remove you from almost all social interaction and nothing more. If I remove myself from the discussion with friends and family, what have I achieved?
@TMOvids could it be, like a rock in a pond, this conversation just ripples?... and carries forth to another and another, "viral" like?.. I am just asking?
but i ask myself, where the circle ends you talking about? if u measure people you love by the against me argument, should you measure people wich arent as close to you also by taht?! dosent it mean then, that you cant interact with the rest of the world? for example the libertariens u holding speeches: they all would advocate violence against u by their nature as minarchists.... its hard to make this great argument (against me) universal ans consistent.
Excellent! I have posed questions that are similar in nature to this to people for years. They have been much longer and harder for them to follow but, at the heart are the same. I thank you for condensing them to the heart of the matter. I have always said that the answers are everywhere - it is the right question that is tuff to come up with. I will also share with you something I learned a long time ago. When you ask such a question - shut up - the next guy who speaks loses. Thanks
Why break with relationships instead of trying to help the people involved? Wouldn't the most effective means of spreading the message of liberty for most people be attempting to reach their immediate family members and friends? I don't understand this at all. Yes there is something to be said about leaving destructive relationships, but I believe in many circumstances the problem is confusion, not malice.
@mindinclined There is only so much effort and time you can put in to try to convince someone see the light. Unfortunately the majority are scared of reality and therefore reject it out of fear. Fighting fear is very hard. Most people are not mature enough to face something that would change their entire outlook on life.
Does the point about hypocrisy/integrity also apply to libertarians who work in the public sector, but who want to, and would work in the private sector if they could?
"Ron Paul riding over the horizon to grant us personal freedom" This quote shows your clear misunderstanding of freedom and rights. Freedom and Rights are not GRANTED to us by anyone, we are born with them, they are natural rights, they are a part of our human nature. The only thing the government can do is 1. take them away or 2. protect us from others aggressively taking them away. Therefore, the only proper role of government in a just world is the role of protecting our natural rights.
Damn, that feels like a direct order against me! I'm going to procrastinate this one Paul, n make it frustrating to all Liberians out there including YOU! Wow, I must be totally messed up in my head, right. Oh wait, what if that's not just a abstraction. Damn this scares me. Thank you for opening my head and giving me the choice between the red and the blue pill. My head wants to take them both. DAMN. Abstract paradoxical madness right here. What? I'm just joking this issue away, am I?
Once again, you are drastically overlooking the fact that many people have to go through that period of researching the Fed, flat taxes, unjust wars, etc. in order to get to the point to where anarchism is even an option in there heads. if you are hoping the majority of people will go from a lifetime of statist neocon propaganda to anarchism, we'll be waiting a long time. just like kids need to use training wheels before riding a bike, they need to be exposed to minarchism before anarchism.
The reason is because people like you and I have no desire to rule over people, therefore, we don't get involved in implementing the rules for others to obey. It would be a huge contradiction for us to use govt. force to dismember govt. force.
Also, people are easily manipulated and our overlords take full advantage of that fact. It's happened over and over and over again, historically.
it is a good rule of thumb that whenever somebody uses the word "basically," he is just about to completely misrepresent someone else's position... :)
@stefbot but that is the postion you stated, if someone does not come to the same conclusion as you, they are calling for you to be shot. Does that mean that anyone who disagrees is calling for your murder?
@justicar5 actually as a further point, you call taxes armed robbery, but then fail to codem corporations as machines of robbery, you cannot have your cake and eat it, you cannot condem public 'tyranny' and ignore the private tyranny. The reducing of people to wage slaves has to be condemed as well.
@justicar5 There are fundamentals to creation, whether it be through thought, speech or action. I believe, in order for stefbot to ad inquiry into depth, would require much more time and assimilation, on the part of the listener. He creates a spark to begin thinking openly and without misrepresentation, so if you would like to expound upon this discussion, I'm sure we would all be willing to listen. Good luck :)
Some of your idea's I agree with but I think you're taking an idea and taking it to too far. I believe in non-aggression but I also believe that there are times when aggression is needed. From your mugger idea, sure when you're mugged "it's done and over" but what stops that same person from doing it again and again? THAT is the reason for police, just because they abuse thier powers or try to increase thier powers doesn't make them wrong or immoral. That is the result of the human condition.
The whole point of the state is to ensure we all have an equal chance in life. Of course that gets corrupted over time but only because people become lax. Of course I also believe we can't have no government at all because, as history shows us, no laws leads to one law, the one with the guns and people make the laws. I don't see why I can't believe in non-aggression but acknowledge that there is violence in the world. I don't seek it but we must respond to it at some point if it becomes too much
The standard response would be a sarcastic, "yeah, right."
Look...The point I'm trying to make is that the argument doesn't sound compelling when you immediately jump to the violent conclusion, while ignoring all the intermediary steps.
This is a real problem when you're attempting to convince the uninitiated.
Unless convincing people isn't the goal, I'd tone it down. If the goal is just to prove intellectual superiority...Have at it. You won't produce any change, though.
We're talking about facts. When you simply refuse to allow the government to steal from you and resist them when they come, the way you would resist a common robber, the violence that would come your way would be obvious. I don't think people who can be convinced of such obvious facts can be convinced of much of anything. Everybody knows you can't say no to the IRS. What DO they think's gonna happen if they refuse to cooperate?
Too many people think the IRS rewards them at the end of the year. I've met some individuals who were surprised to learn that it's THEIR MONEY being returned to them...Well...Some do get the Earned Income Credit, which is just a Welfare program administered by the IRS.
There's gotta be a better way of relaying the violence inherent in government than, "refuse the IRS, and they'll shoot you."
What's a better way? I wish I knew. I know this tactic won't work. I've tried it.
The mentality, right or wrong, that exists is this idea that "the government" is innate. I think that arguments challenging this idea would be more effective.
If people think the government is a permanent fixture, they don't question it's existence, they just develop opinions on what they want it to do for them.
This video has hit me with a ton of bricks. And I'm going to take this new-found perspective and realize it on all levels of my life, not just an intellectual level.
It did hit me at christmas last year 2008; I was baffled and spent my christmas THINKING! IT will hit you more and more. I still feellike crying when I heard this. I immediately ACT and it is kind of CHANGING DRASTICALLY YOUR NERVES SYSTEM MY FRIEND!
Be strong as it is a HAMMER THINKING AND COULD BE PAINFUL! and I am honest with and I am still fighting and I think I will WIN! It is for me the MOST POWERFUL THINKING I EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE! SO STRONG!
This might be one of the most powerful Stefan's video I have seen/listen to. If you add to it Harry Brown's book (How I found...World) then you are ready to see the world through a very different and amazing perspective.
My only regret: Why I haven't discover all this earlier in my life?
Goodness gracious. :) Very interesting. Some curious rabbit holes from here that I won't consume time with in this forum, and some I have just recently begun to act on, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. Let positive sensible coelesence of thought continue.
That really put it in a very different perspective for me. While I had used that tactic before, it was always something that just happened organically, not a strategy. It never even occurred to me.
This could be an incredible tool. Thank you, Stefan.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
tl;dr This didn't need to be so long. Episodes on TV are often shorter than this. But here we are, staring at your shiny head for forty-some minutes. Lol sorry, but really.
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you propose personalising political discussions. It is much more hardhitting and longlasting than wheeling out statistics that people forget 10seconds later.
Maybe I am missing something however since I cannot see how still being forced to pay taxes to support things I don't believe in makes me free at all. Sure, I can make my personal life and friendships 100% truthful and based on decency etc but still, its not making me free.
On a side note. I feel it a neccessary to ask you to try and lessen up on the condescending air you tend to bring to those things that you dont believe, many with very good reason I may add, dont work.
Myself, being a supporter of liberty (in any form , whether it be a philosopher , statesman or document) , I found it abit taxing to carry on listening to your advice. I was close to just turning it off - hey, who wants to spend time being semi-ridiculed? but I had the foresight to carry on (tbc)
I guess the only time a person can be 100% free is when they are dead (probably after a shoot out with the feds for trying to be free of theft and slavery)
(I already posted a similar message to this, but it didnt post for some odd readon.... its supposed to follow on from my 1st post)
So tell me Stefbot why I am wrong. Why shouldn't the State own everything (as it so assuredly does at the moment). Once I know your moral basis of ownership, then I will see what I can do.
This is shown by the material reality that one's Property is treated by the State as it's property (for instance Taxation) and only owned by virtue of Law, which means that the State is in the buisness of deciding what everyone owns, because without a legal means of protecting their property against thieves, they own nothing.
If ownership = justification, then the State owns everything anyway. The fact the State does own everything, because it can decide which of it's property to allocate to what individual by writ of Law. You have therein a moral question of what should the individual have, rather than a question of defending the nothing that people have against the State that owns everything.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Property is based upon violence. The State (body with monopoly on violence) decides what property everyone owns. Without the use of violence, there is no property, since there is no means to enforce it. You support Property, you support violence, oppose all forms of Property and you can't live. The question is then to whom should property rightly go morally. The only moral basis of property is labour, labour is collective, thus the only moral system of property is Communism.
Not Madness but Truth. When you think about it, what you actually own is what the State says you own. Unless you can defend what is yours by initiating violence against the Thief, then you don't own anything at all. The State, by virtue of possessing the might to do so, decides what everyone has and doesn't have. So what you are left with is not the question of who owns what, but what people should own, which is itself decided by the State also.
@stefbot cliffracerslayer is clearly a very violent man because he owns the keyboard he uses to write to you. And the T-shirt he was wearing while he was writing it... unless he was getting a radiation treatment from his monitor onto his moobs :-D
I've used "Against Me" many times. It forces a choice between one radical end to total acceptance of a flawed morality. And you're right, it's a bomb. People reluctantly say "Yes, I think that violence should be used against you." to which I reply, "Would you like to use the phone to turn me into the police for admitting that I smoke pot?" They always say no, but that final conclusion never rings in their head. They just say "no" and go back to old platitudes and propoganda.
One thing about Ron Paul is that he is promoting freedom. The reason I am now an anarcho-capitalist is because of RP. So, the educative factor of the movement is pretty valuable.
Well, I was introduced to libertarianism by virtue of his campaign. I started reading Milton Friedman and Hayek. Then I found LRC and started reading the articles. At that point I was a minarchist, and after actually seeing the anarchist argument I had to agree with it.
All in all, it was just a progression from ignorance to logic (I used to consider myself a Democrat).
Stefan, I'm already there! I agree! But there's still no good reason you give not to walk a precinct for Ron Paul. First off, because it allows you to find people who "don't want you shot". Moreover, democratic elections decreased the suffering from what it was in dictatorship, and provide an alternative to the worst suffering. As such, it makes sense to take a small amount of one's time and vote for any candidate that wants a net reduction in the total amount of government.
He wants to lead the culture in a nude erection?! ...I don't get it! Ha ha ha... But seriously, Ron Paul is a good thing, and the Harry Browne approach is also a good thing. And typing on line is also a good thing, but less useful than the other things.
We should poll that. Should people have violence used against them if they don't support the government programs you support? Should I have violence used against me if I don't support the government program you support?
I thought I was a libertarian for the past year or so...but wow. Simply Amazing! The logic of the "against me" argument is gold! I'm gonna use this against everyone in debate tournaments. Holy shit! What is your political philosophy? I'm guessing "none of the above."
What about the Milligram experiments that showed that when the experts said that "the experiment demands that you do this", most people went along with the experts?
linguistically and memetically, phrase "against me", works because it activates/awakens certain frequencies/pathways or memories in the human brain, because the brain-slave has been infected and distracted by matrix programs ...; how can this be done? - to ask every 18 year old to sign a document of humanity/non-violent/cooperation with a passport photo and it becomes their worldwide passport?
This is no doubt a powerful question but I think you overestimate people's ability to confront when you say it would result in anarchy if all libertarians did this. Nevertheless, I would be extremely interested in a psychological experiment to find out how many people could confront it and how long it took them to confront. Ever thought about getting some actual statistics on this? If you tell people to throw away their dream, at least be able to back it up.
By what principles do you rate, in terms of a broad scheme, fundamental differences in political-economic liberty throughout the world? Do you accept the Heritage Found./WSJ "Index of Economic Freedom", for example?
Don't forget that state is a broad term, the french state is different than the german state is different than the United States. So your sweeping generalization breaks down when you have to qualify your conception of state. What about a state that is constructed to restrict the power of the state? As in the US? You project an authoritarian qualification for the state by appealing its transitive quality across the many institutions that share that general name.
That would bring us back where we are now, no reason for not trying in bed. In anarchy you can choose your own leader if you want in bed. This leader can however not force you and others on your behalf in bed. Government has no safety net against mass violence in bed. 200 megadeaths in the past 100 years in bed.
Not voting and accepting rule is accepting domination to whatever extent the majority (of those who bothered to vote) decide to inflict on the minority (including those who do not vote).
Not voting and not actively rebelling is acceptance. If what you are accepting is immoral, not voting is less moral than voting for the least immoral of an immoral bunch.
Improvement through increments and reaching out to provide others windows to lives of freedom is a noble, rewarding, and an enjoyable pursuit.
Self selecting our own societies through selective association is indeed a road to individual freedom as is any effort towards having a community brimming with freedom lovers. We need a fleet vehicles to achieve this ends; yours, NH & WY Freestate Projects, Ron's, freetalk live, read the bills, etc.
Don't fall for this. Stefbot's sole concern is keeeping his hands clean. Freedom is secondary to this paramount concern. He is so afraid of being "immoral" that he ties his own hands. Not to mention that his morality is not derived pragmatically or scientifically, so it's useless.
Grassroots connections with the people around us will cause change. Producing our own goods, and trading with each other will change things. The use of violence and debating over the use of centralized control is absurd when talking about "libertarianism". This video was refreshing to say the least, simple truth.
Stefbot: Excellent video, and use of metaphors on ethics. Great work when you spoke about how many ignore the connections of individuals. It IS all nonsense. Thank you Stefan! I have been saying this to those who would listen for 2 years. It is so apparent that it is an abstract debate, and many are disconnected and backwards. "Forget them, it is never going to change anyones mind". It does not achieve anything, and it never will.
23rd Of September: You are Canadian, so what the hell kind of right do you have to say anything about our politics?
To avoid appearing hypocritical, I must state that I am backing Stefan because he opposes statism, which is not bound by any methods of control. I am an Anarchist First, and a Nationalist Second ( yes, they are compatible in the most basic circumstance ) You however are producing political commentary, which entails supporting the use of force.
Most Americans like Ron Paul because he is honest and he's not a war monger. If you want, you can look into Libertarian principles and debate forever. Most Americans just want an integral guy who can get on and off airforce one and represent the United States. Your arguements are irrelevant.
Interesting but I have a question. What do you do about people who are bound and determined to perpetuate violence against you regardless of your efforts to withdraw yourself from their presence?
You are a liar. Ron is not a racist, he is for EVERYONES Rights. He is not Anti-Education, he thinks that the states can do better. The oil people hate him. He is running for president because his friends asked him to, so he is hardly selfish. You are simply a liar and make stuff up as you go or you listen to liars that make stuff up as they go. I think you need a vacation or something. You are one hateful person.
I understand and agree with you...i do have a question...the idea that is put forth here...has merit...but for it to show an effectual change on the masses...would a RP winning actually be considered step one...and this realization be step two...as you yourself say...for 2 decades the idea evaded you....first you must want to find truth...to look for it.....and then attain it.....what you say attains it....but so many people...dont know that there is even a question 2 be asked...
if everyone learns your message and is free...who will do the work and who will manage...people who can see the whole picutre are needed...but the need for workers to do the smaller jobs like a small gear in a big machine...every person has his part to play....and if everyone was on top...less would be...created.....right?? sry for my inapproraite format of thought
I am starting to fully understand your message and while it is honorable we need to get real.
The reason people are supporting Ron Paul is not so we can all achieve "personal freedom", but because he can seriously affect the politics of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. His campaign has woken such a large number of people up to the fact that our rights and freedoms are slowly being eroded. He is voice for what most American's stand for, even if they do not know it.
I never said that to be my friend that it is necessary that they don't want me to be shot. Say I'm getting help with schoolwork from my friend. I don't need to lose that help just because of the inconvenience of having to deal with someone who wants me to be shot. Interpersonal relationships are for MY personal gain.
This guy is a disinfo agent. That's why he is putting out almost true, slightly skewed opinion. Just don't believe this guy and take a look at Ron Paul's voting record in congress.
Haha, disinfo agent, that's great! Seriously, you need to learn how to refute points. I am not quibbling with RP's voting record. I am saying that politics has never made us free, not for thousands of years, and we need to give up on this seductive fantasy and spread freedom personally.
By handing out one daisy at a time at the airport.................. Ron Paul is the best shot America has at getting back on solid ground. Anyone trying to muddy the water is a traitor to the American people.
The lowest common denominator is the totally dependent. Ron Paul scares the shit out of the lowest common denominator. He scares the shit out of me for that matter. That's why he has my vote. Confidence can only be achieved through conditions of personal responsibility. Not fun. Do the math. The lowest common denominator is the majority. Now look at Pauls numbers.
Sorry but I keep finding problems with your video.
You talk about personal freedom and Ron Paul talks about individual freedom. The government is trying to remove the constitutional values and Ron Paul is simply standing up against these tyrants and trying to get people to care about their individual rights, not personal freedom.
As limited resources are competed for, violence ensues always. The only way around this reponse is to limit the number of animals competing for the resource. Now we're talking about state enforced birth rate control and we're back to state control. Peaceful anarchy is impossible unless either 1)resources are infinite or 2)population growth is controlled. No way around it.
One fact you left out of your opinion, If they used the trillions of dollars they have spent on the big lie war. There would be enough money to feed and educated every person on the planet. we don't have to compete for the oil, there are plenty of alternitives.
It has nothing do to with money. At some point max food production is reached (or oil or water) and there isn't enough to go around - what happens then? Do human beings (or any other animal) limit their birth rate to keep from having to fight for resources? no. They grow until they reach max, there's a mass die off, and then they start growing again. The only thing that might keep this from happening is forced birth rate control.
Well for those of you that don't want to spend the 42 plus min it takes to watch this video let me break it down for you. Personalize every argument, create your own reality and become a hermit. That about sums it up. End each point you make with the words "against me" and then refuse to associate with anyone that agrees "against you" is bad but sometimes necessary. The even shorter version is drop out of society.
The fundamental argument is flawed in that it presumes the use of force is wrong/evil and therefore unnecessary. A better phrasing of the premise might be if everyone refused to fight there would be no fighting. The key word is "everyone". No two people think alike and force has been the deciding factor since Cain and Able. If you want utopia then find God before he finds you. If you want your own "enlightened" version of society then you and yours better have more guns than he and his.
And by the by if Mr. Stefbot truly believed everything he just said he wouldn't even be on Youtube which is a state entity that in his terms would support his being shot, sodomized or otherwise forced to conform over just about anything. Paid taxes? Buying Chinese slave labor products? Obeying the traffic laws? Would you shoot Mr. Stefbot for running a stop sign? If not then why should he bother really? Don't worry, he conforms just like everyone else. How do I know? He's not a hermit.
You have a good point, but I'm not sure that such a discussion will garner much change in the individual or society at large. It certainly won't have any impact on government. We already know they would kill each and every one of us if we are perceived as a threat. That's where I'm directing my attention - is the government a threat to you and me, and if so what can be done to reverse that situation. And I'll continue to support Ron Paul for that very reason.
I would also say that Bush is dead certain person about his beliefs but obviously doesn't make him right. So saying the most certain person will alway win a debate is irrelevant.
Alright my friend I am sorry for that, but I don't agree with some of your points. Especially, when you say that supporting Ron Paul and donating to his campaign wont help emphasize individual liberty in our world.
Ron Paul stands primarily for personal liberty and freedom. So my question to you is:
Which GOP candidate do you support, and if none, why does somebody who wants personal liberty criticize Ron Paul and wish to impede his message of individual liberty?
I liked this video, it made me think... we who support Ron Paul need to BECOME Ron Paul, the Revolution needs to happen in the heart of our being--we need to become the leader we want to see in the world (to have integrity, courage, conviction). If we do that there will be a REVOLUTION within us... and we will see and feel the effects of FREEDOM right away... and that will effect those in our circle of influence and by extension bring a greater measure of LIBERTY to the whole world.
Nicely put, except the RIGHT AWAY part. There is suffering involved. Suffering that gives birth to something else. Be aware that the need for instant gratification is a condition that has been manifested by our system since 1929.
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
Very interesting video. I'm gonna start asking people that question when these things come up. Definitely made me think. I wondered why I always got a sick feeling in my stomach when I'd hear family defend some program or another. I guess subconsciously I understood the conflict... I'm still gonna give Ron Paul support though because he is fighting so I won't get shot. He's basically going around the country asking that question of everybody. So he is okay by me.
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
I don't know what this guys agenda is but he is completely confused about the difference between personal liberty.
Stef. I'm looking you in the eye and you should be shot. Not because I support the idea of you being shout. It is beacuse I belive if you support the message of freedom then you should take any means necessary to spread that message, and you are telling people not to spread the message of freedom.
you gotta have balls of steel to put this against me argument on the table with your friends
WerSeidIhrDenn2 1 month ago
People I know would just say I am being sensationalist if I said, "Do you think I should be shot?"
racehorse593 1 month ago
I'm still not sold on anarchy. I'll support Ron Paul. I'm accused of being a libertarian but I'm not. I passed the Von Mises test having never heard of Von Mises. It was my Christian understanding that led to conclude same as Mises. Fortunately I read for myself and I'm not read to. I think the love of money is the root of all evil.
I'm not angry at your "against me" conclusion as I know that most people allow the mischief we have. "Against me" is very true and makes it very personal.
ifreemantoo 3 months ago
Damn it, Stef, the West is NOT moving towards socialism! Socialism is workers' control over production, something TOTALLY consistent with your philosophy. I love your videos, but you need to STOP mischaracterizing socialism!
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax under the control of a government . i guess you missed the rest of dast kapital dont feel bad it put me to sleep many times lol
whiterchocolate 1 week ago
@whiterchocolate There is no requirement in socialism for the economy to be under the control of government. That is a requirement of Marxism, but there are numerous non-Marxist currents within socialism. I suggest you read Benjamin Tucker or Kevin Carson; socialism is totally consistent with the free market.
QuatFax 1 week ago
@QuatFax thanks fo the names im reading so much communist literature and its driving me nuts but once again thanks for the pointers good day comrade haha
whiterchocolate 6 days ago
stop tyrany? globally? no... i think not BUT what HAS been achieved is setting it back... we can do damage controll... the answer to this lies in getting as far away from the psychos with guns as possible. however, martyn luthor stopped black people being lynched to such an extent & thats a posetive thing & its proven to be achievable. we are obligated to do as much damage controll as posible & make our governments as least likely to shoot us as possible.
pauloscum 4 months ago
Comment removed
pauloscum 4 months ago
I don't think most people are "chickening out". I think that most people just haven't thought to address the issues in such a personal way.
sonsengnim88 5 months ago
I'm not sure I understand. I haven't used this approach but so far I've had very little luck persuading anyone that behind every law there is a gun pointed at them! Won't all these people who want to shoot us be totally comfortable in each other's company? How does this free me from the state, which can still shoot me at will...? I'd be free in the Viktor Frankl sense, I guess, but I was kinda hoping the police wouldn't come by some afternoon and just randomly shoot my dog...
carolm62 6 months ago
I've found, maybe just me, that no one has any problem with violently robbing me to pay for "the poor" or "schools". I suspect that the minds of people are now fully corrupted into believing that the govt is the only source of good in the world. Honestly, it scares me. "Against me" just doesn't seem to compel people. I actually got a "Shut up and pay your taxes", from a (former) friend.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
This has given me alot to think about. I will listen to this one again today at work.
Equity213 8 months ago
Comment removed
Equity213 8 months ago
thanks to you for the "Against me" free skool... :) ...I just go back to being in the secret rabbit status, take in the homeless, drug addicts and poor that I do... feed and love people. military wife says "stand down" and come home.
MsJustanotherhuman 8 months ago
Stefan, Dr. Paul says things?...just little slips of the tongue that make me hear the very same things I am trying to avoid. Things that just make you go, ooo! ... and how come you do not come down here to the states and be our "person" A?..
MsJustanotherhuman 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video doesn't have enough views.
bepetersn 9 months ago
I don't understand this video at all, after enjoying a number of your others. How would cutting off from differently minded people (99.99% of the people you will ever know) help liberty in any way? It may be more philosophically consistent, and you declare it to be more worthy of respect, but in reality this would just remove you from almost all social interaction and nothing more. If I remove myself from the discussion with friends and family, what have I achieved?
TMOvids 9 months ago 4
@TMOvids could it be, like a rock in a pond, this conversation just ripples?... and carries forth to another and another, "viral" like?.. I am just asking?
MsJustanotherhuman 8 months ago
i agree with u stef.
but i ask myself, where the circle ends you talking about? if u measure people you love by the against me argument, should you measure people wich arent as close to you also by taht?! dosent it mean then, that you cant interact with the rest of the world? for example the libertariens u holding speeches: they all would advocate violence against u by their nature as minarchists.... its hard to make this great argument (against me) universal ans consistent.
infokriegerBerlin 9 months ago
Excellent! I have posed questions that are similar in nature to this to people for years. They have been much longer and harder for them to follow but, at the heart are the same. I thank you for condensing them to the heart of the matter. I have always said that the answers are everywhere - it is the right question that is tuff to come up with. I will also share with you something I learned a long time ago. When you ask such a question - shut up - the next guy who speaks loses. Thanks
Deanw777 1 year ago
Excellent video. Makes one take a hard look at ourselves.
medini2 1 year ago 2
Why break with relationships instead of trying to help the people involved? Wouldn't the most effective means of spreading the message of liberty for most people be attempting to reach their immediate family members and friends? I don't understand this at all. Yes there is something to be said about leaving destructive relationships, but I believe in many circumstances the problem is confusion, not malice.
mindinclined 1 year ago 2
@mindinclined There is only so much effort and time you can put in to try to convince someone see the light. Unfortunately the majority are scared of reality and therefore reject it out of fear. Fighting fear is very hard. Most people are not mature enough to face something that would change their entire outlook on life.
grumpone 1 year ago
Does the point about hypocrisy/integrity also apply to libertarians who work in the public sector, but who want to, and would work in the private sector if they could?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
"Ron Paul riding over the horizon to grant us personal freedom" This quote shows your clear misunderstanding of freedom and rights. Freedom and Rights are not GRANTED to us by anyone, we are born with them, they are natural rights, they are a part of our human nature. The only thing the government can do is 1. take them away or 2. protect us from others aggressively taking them away. Therefore, the only proper role of government in a just world is the role of protecting our natural rights.
dpod916 1 year ago
@dpod916 Is it a fact that you have rights, dpod916? If it is a fact, what evidence do you have that could support the 'fact' that you have 'rights'?
OldSmellyCrotch 1 year ago
Damn, that feels like a direct order against me! I'm going to procrastinate this one Paul, n make it frustrating to all Liberians out there including YOU! Wow, I must be totally messed up in my head, right. Oh wait, what if that's not just a abstraction. Damn this scares me. Thank you for opening my head and giving me the choice between the red and the blue pill. My head wants to take them both. DAMN. Abstract paradoxical madness right here. What? I'm just joking this issue away, am I?
yoinkz 1 year ago
Once again, you are drastically overlooking the fact that many people have to go through that period of researching the Fed, flat taxes, unjust wars, etc. in order to get to the point to where anarchism is even an option in there heads. if you are hoping the majority of people will go from a lifetime of statist neocon propaganda to anarchism, we'll be waiting a long time. just like kids need to use training wheels before riding a bike, they need to be exposed to minarchism before anarchism.
RiseUpRadio 1 year ago 3
The reason is because people like you and I have no desire to rule over people, therefore, we don't get involved in implementing the rules for others to obey. It would be a huge contradiction for us to use govt. force to dismember govt. force.
Also, people are easily manipulated and our overlords take full advantage of that fact. It's happened over and over and over again, historically.
RiseUpRadio 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so basically anyone who disagrees with you is a mass murderer?
justicar5 2 years ago
it is a good rule of thumb that whenever somebody uses the word "basically," he is just about to completely misrepresent someone else's position... :)
stefbot 2 years ago 22
@stefbot but that is the postion you stated, if someone does not come to the same conclusion as you, they are calling for you to be shot. Does that mean that anyone who disagrees is calling for your murder?
justicar5 2 years ago
@justicar5 but I'll give credit where it is due, you state your postion well, and have made me think, I have however not come to the same conclusion.
justicar5 2 years ago
@justicar5 actually as a further point, you call taxes armed robbery, but then fail to codem corporations as machines of robbery, you cannot have your cake and eat it, you cannot condem public 'tyranny' and ignore the private tyranny. The reducing of people to wage slaves has to be condemed as well.
justicar5 2 years ago
@justicar5 There are fundamentals to creation, whether it be through thought, speech or action. I believe, in order for stefbot to ad inquiry into depth, would require much more time and assimilation, on the part of the listener. He creates a spark to begin thinking openly and without misrepresentation, so if you would like to expound upon this discussion, I'm sure we would all be willing to listen. Good luck :)
Jbarrtndrsr 1 year ago
Some of your idea's I agree with but I think you're taking an idea and taking it to too far. I believe in non-aggression but I also believe that there are times when aggression is needed. From your mugger idea, sure when you're mugged "it's done and over" but what stops that same person from doing it again and again? THAT is the reason for police, just because they abuse thier powers or try to increase thier powers doesn't make them wrong or immoral. That is the result of the human condition.
Intrabeldin 2 years ago
The whole point of the state is to ensure we all have an equal chance in life. Of course that gets corrupted over time but only because people become lax. Of course I also believe we can't have no government at all because, as history shows us, no laws leads to one law, the one with the guns and people make the laws. I don't see why I can't believe in non-aggression but acknowledge that there is violence in the world. I don't seek it but we must respond to it at some point if it becomes too much
Intrabeldin 2 years ago
They don't shoot you for not paying taxes. They throw you in jail. I'd tone down the argument because it smacks of hyberbole.
caltrop69 2 years ago
all threats eventually lead to getting shot, if you resist any of the threats
martinmont1 2 years ago
I'm going to continue to play along here, just to show you how ridiculous this is:
Why don't they arm IRS agents with guns, then? Surely, if not paying taxes is punishable by death, the auditors should be well armed.
caltrop69 2 years ago
If people would *start* resisting the IRS enough, they WILL start wearing guns.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
The standard response would be a sarcastic, "yeah, right."
Look...The point I'm trying to make is that the argument doesn't sound compelling when you immediately jump to the violent conclusion, while ignoring all the intermediary steps.
This is a real problem when you're attempting to convince the uninitiated.
Unless convincing people isn't the goal, I'd tone it down. If the goal is just to prove intellectual superiority...Have at it. You won't produce any change, though.
caltrop69 2 years ago
We're talking about facts. When you simply refuse to allow the government to steal from you and resist them when they come, the way you would resist a common robber, the violence that would come your way would be obvious. I don't think people who can be convinced of such obvious facts can be convinced of much of anything. Everybody knows you can't say no to the IRS. What DO they think's gonna happen if they refuse to cooperate?
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Too many people think the IRS rewards them at the end of the year. I've met some individuals who were surprised to learn that it's THEIR MONEY being returned to them...Well...Some do get the Earned Income Credit, which is just a Welfare program administered by the IRS.
There's gotta be a better way of relaying the violence inherent in government than, "refuse the IRS, and they'll shoot you."
caltrop69 2 years ago
So what's the better way to convey the violence inherent in government?
"refuse the IRS, and they'll walk away?"
"refuse the IRS, and they'll take your stuff?"
What do these questions lead to? The answer would probably be "well...DUH..."
It's all about the nature on which government is based, not the expression of that nature with various ways in responding to them.
Besides, you'll probably get the same response if you say "government steals your money".
tridentmovies 2 years ago
tridentmovies:
What's a better way? I wish I knew. I know this tactic won't work. I've tried it.
The mentality, right or wrong, that exists is this idea that "the government" is innate. I think that arguments challenging this idea would be more effective.
If people think the government is a permanent fixture, they don't question it's existence, they just develop opinions on what they want it to do for them.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Uh, they do...
glopur0 2 years ago
This video has hit me with a ton of bricks. And I'm going to take this new-found perspective and realize it on all levels of my life, not just an intellectual level.
Things are going to get interesting.
MotionFur 2 years ago
You too!
It did hit me at christmas last year 2008; I was baffled and spent my christmas THINKING! IT will hit you more and more. I still feellike crying when I heard this. I immediately ACT and it is kind of CHANGING DRASTICALLY YOUR NERVES SYSTEM MY FRIEND!
Be strong as it is a HAMMER THINKING AND COULD BE PAINFUL! and I am honest with and I am still fighting and I think I will WIN! It is for me the MOST POWERFUL THINKING I EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE! SO STRONG!
STEF IS A JEWEL FOR SURE!
T
operateur007 2 years ago
he is morbidly hilerious! "would you throw me in a pit of anal rape?"
hahahaha!!! can family guy please spoof that!
combatleague 2 years ago
This might be one of the most powerful Stefan's video I have seen/listen to. If you add to it Harry Brown's book (How I found...World) then you are ready to see the world through a very different and amazing perspective.
My only regret: Why I haven't discover all this earlier in my life?
Take care All and please enjoy!
operateur007 3 years ago 3
Goodness gracious. :) Very interesting. Some curious rabbit holes from here that I won't consume time with in this forum, and some I have just recently begun to act on, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. Let positive sensible coelesence of thought continue.
entwisenva 3 years ago
Ron Paul is the 1 in 1000 libertarians that actually lives it. so again.. you misrepresent. Love the rest of it though.. bravo!
saithial 3 years ago
I don't see how that is true considering his life-long employer exists for the sole purpose of initiating violence against people.
bunabayashi 3 years ago
RE: I don't see how that is true considering his life-long employer exists for the sole purpose of initiating violence against people.
Ron Paul does not pretend to be buddies with the government. Not even close.
Aakno 3 years ago
He doesn't have to pretend: It's his employer.
bunabayashi 2 years ago
I had a question that has bothered me over the last few years...
That question always was: How do you interact with the rest of society?
Well this video is an answer to that.
You've given me something to think about...and also raised a bunch of additional questions.
ybworld 3 years ago
...Wow.
Just f'ing wow.
That really put it in a very different perspective for me. While I had used that tactic before, it was always something that just happened organically, not a strategy. It never even occurred to me.
This could be an incredible tool. Thank you, Stefan.
Melkolmr 3 years ago 3
I didn't really get it.
tetraedronico 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hear blaa blaa blaa blaa. God what a waste of time
prof5759 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If brevity is truly wit, this guy is the most witless guy I've ever heard.
prof5759 3 years ago
I think it is quite wise of you to stop listening... :)
stefbot 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
tl;dr This didn't need to be so long. Episodes on TV are often shorter than this. But here we are, staring at your shiny head for forty-some minutes. Lol sorry, but really.
HaoLong07 3 years ago
Go back to your slave management device.
entwisenva 3 years ago
Stefbot,
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you propose personalising political discussions. It is much more hardhitting and longlasting than wheeling out statistics that people forget 10seconds later.
Maybe I am missing something however since I cannot see how still being forced to pay taxes to support things I don't believe in makes me free at all. Sure, I can make my personal life and friendships 100% truthful and based on decency etc but still, its not making me free.
tbc
RPFS2008 3 years ago
On a side note. I feel it a neccessary to ask you to try and lessen up on the condescending air you tend to bring to those things that you dont believe, many with very good reason I may add, dont work.
Myself, being a supporter of liberty (in any form , whether it be a philosopher , statesman or document) , I found it abit taxing to carry on listening to your advice. I was close to just turning it off - hey, who wants to spend time being semi-ridiculed? but I had the foresight to carry on (tbc)
RPFS2008 3 years ago
because I thought you had something worthwhile to say ... and I was correct.
You're an intelligent guy, and Im sure you already know in yourself that you could work on some of your delivery to maximise your endeavors.
I have no problem with you being confident and proud of your ideas etc , infact I am similar to Rand in this sense, they are worthy of being so.
RPFS2008 3 years ago
I guess the only time a person can be 100% free is when they are dead (probably after a shoot out with the feds for trying to be free of theft and slavery)
(I already posted a similar message to this, but it didnt post for some odd readon.... its supposed to follow on from my 1st post)
RPFS2008 3 years ago
So what should we do with the people who disagree with the non-agression principle?
Analfracture 3 years ago
So tell me Stefbot why I am wrong. Why shouldn't the State own everything (as it so assuredly does at the moment). Once I know your moral basis of ownership, then I will see what I can do.
cliffracerslayer 4 years ago
This is shown by the material reality that one's Property is treated by the State as it's property (for instance Taxation) and only owned by virtue of Law, which means that the State is in the buisness of deciding what everyone owns, because without a legal means of protecting their property against thieves, they own nothing.
cliffracerslayer 4 years ago
If ownership = justification, then the State owns everything anyway. The fact the State does own everything, because it can decide which of it's property to allocate to what individual by writ of Law. You have therein a moral question of what should the individual have, rather than a question of defending the nothing that people have against the State that owns everything.
cliffracerslayer 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Property is based upon violence. The State (body with monopoly on violence) decides what property everyone owns. Without the use of violence, there is no property, since there is no means to enforce it. You support Property, you support violence, oppose all forms of Property and you can't live. The question is then to whom should property rightly go morally. The only moral basis of property is labour, labour is collective, thus the only moral system of property is Communism.
cliffracerslayer 4 years ago
Whose keyboard did you type that with? Madness...
stefbot 4 years ago 22
Not Madness but Truth. When you think about it, what you actually own is what the State says you own. Unless you can defend what is yours by initiating violence against the Thief, then you don't own anything at all. The State, by virtue of possessing the might to do so, decides what everyone has and doesn't have. So what you are left with is not the question of who owns what, but what people should own, which is itself decided by the State also.
cliffracerslayer 4 years ago
"Whose keyboard did you type that with?"
With his mom's, obviously...
kimuraftw 3 years ago 2
@stefbot cliffracerslayer is clearly a very violent man because he owns the keyboard he uses to write to you. And the T-shirt he was wearing while he was writing it... unless he was getting a radiation treatment from his monitor onto his moobs :-D
RuddODragonFear 1 month ago
@cliffracerslayer Ahahahah, labour is collective. Man, you should be a stand-up comic!
grumpone 1 year ago
I've used "Against Me" many times. It forces a choice between one radical end to total acceptance of a flawed morality. And you're right, it's a bomb. People reluctantly say "Yes, I think that violence should be used against you." to which I reply, "Would you like to use the phone to turn me into the police for admitting that I smoke pot?" They always say no, but that final conclusion never rings in their head. They just say "no" and go back to old platitudes and propoganda.
RLore18 4 years ago
That's great - what do you do then?
stefbot 4 years ago
One thing about Ron Paul is that he is promoting freedom. The reason I am now an anarcho-capitalist is because of RP. So, the educative factor of the movement is pretty valuable.
kulza23 4 years ago
RP converted you to a/c? How?
stefbot 4 years ago
Well, I was introduced to libertarianism by virtue of his campaign. I started reading Milton Friedman and Hayek. Then I found LRC and started reading the articles. At that point I was a minarchist, and after actually seeing the anarchist argument I had to agree with it.
All in all, it was just a progression from ignorance to logic (I used to consider myself a Democrat).
kulza23 4 years ago
By the way, this video is really good. Thanks for adding a new dimension to the debate!
kulza23 4 years ago
Stefan, I'm already there! I agree! But there's still no good reason you give not to walk a precinct for Ron Paul. First off, because it allows you to find people who "don't want you shot". Moreover, democratic elections decreased the suffering from what it was in dictatorship, and provide an alternative to the worst suffering. As such, it makes sense to take a small amount of one's time and vote for any candidate that wants a net reduction in the total amount of government.
heywoodjablohme 4 years ago
He wants to lead the culture in a nude erection?! ...I don't get it! Ha ha ha... But seriously, Ron Paul is a good thing, and the Harry Browne approach is also a good thing. And typing on line is also a good thing, but less useful than the other things.
heywoodjablohme 4 years ago
We should poll that. Should people have violence used against them if they don't support the government programs you support? Should I have violence used against me if I don't support the government program you support?
InstantGradual 4 years ago
I thought I was a libertarian for the past year or so...but wow. Simply Amazing! The logic of the "against me" argument is gold! I'm gonna use this against everyone in debate tournaments. Holy shit! What is your political philosophy? I'm guessing "none of the above."
doctordrums 4 years ago
great video, very logical, well spoken & articulate
THEYLIVE2012 4 years ago
What about the Milligram experiments that showed that when the experts said that "the experiment demands that you do this", most people went along with the experts?
maganz 4 years ago
linguistically and memetically, phrase "against me", works because it activates/awakens certain frequencies/pathways or memories in the human brain, because the brain-slave has been infected and distracted by matrix programs ...; how can this be done? - to ask every 18 year old to sign a document of humanity/non-violent/cooperation with a passport photo and it becomes their worldwide passport?
matrixcmitech 4 years ago
This is no doubt a powerful question but I think you overestimate people's ability to confront when you say it would result in anarchy if all libertarians did this. Nevertheless, I would be extremely interested in a psychological experiment to find out how many people could confront it and how long it took them to confront. Ever thought about getting some actual statistics on this? If you tell people to throw away their dream, at least be able to back it up.
CivilRiot 4 years ago
Sure, come by the board on my web site, we have thousands of people talking about this - let us know what happens for you... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
What next if the guy says: "Yeah, I support shooting you if you don't support X [government program]..." ?
qtronman 4 years ago
Get up and leave. And don't look back.
stefbot 4 years ago
By what principles do you rate, in terms of a broad scheme, fundamental differences in political-economic liberty throughout the world? Do you accept the Heritage Found./WSJ "Index of Economic Freedom", for example?
qtronman 4 years ago
They seem reasonable to me, why?
stefbot 4 years ago
Um, I was wondering about your accent. It seems to change throughout the video. Why?
Matty420L 4 years ago
Irish/English/South African/Canadian...
stefbot 4 years ago
Actually, that's a movie...
Next time, logic is good!
stefbot 4 years ago
simply inspiring.
ArchonAlarion 4 years ago 3
my thought exactly!
Shandalaybgood 4 years ago
Don't forget that state is a broad term, the french state is different than the german state is different than the United States. So your sweeping generalization breaks down when you have to qualify your conception of state. What about a state that is constructed to restrict the power of the state? As in the US? You project an authoritarian qualification for the state by appealing its transitive quality across the many institutions that share that general name.
sokarII 4 years ago
Do you feel that the power of the state has been successfully restricted in the US?
stefbot 4 years ago
I found this video very thought provoking. Ron Paul would be assinated his first week. What does that tell ya?
Amerocan 4 years ago
6 stars.
ContraWagner 4 years ago
This reminds me of the old Chinese fortune cooky joke where you add "in bed" to the end of whatever the little slip of paper says.
Ape65 4 years ago
Can't resist with this:
That would bring us back where we are now, no reason for not trying in bed. In anarchy you can choose your own leader if you want in bed. This leader can however not force you and others on your behalf in bed. Government has no safety net against mass violence in bed. 200 megadeaths in the past 100 years in bed.
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
Not voting
Not voting and accepting rule is accepting domination to whatever extent the majority (of those who bothered to vote) decide to inflict on the minority (including those who do not vote).
Not voting and not actively rebelling is acceptance. If what you are accepting is immoral, not voting is less moral than voting for the least immoral of an immoral bunch.
Vote, submit, flee, or rebel, but choose.
stratvic 4 years ago
Well it hasn't worked for the past 300 years, and I haven't seen a specific plan this time, but I will be overjoyed to be proven wrong.
stefbot 4 years ago
Improvement through increments and reaching out to provide others windows to lives of freedom is a noble, rewarding, and an enjoyable pursuit.
Self selecting our own societies through selective association is indeed a road to individual freedom as is any effort towards having a community brimming with freedom lovers. We need a fleet vehicles to achieve this ends; yours, NH & WY Freestate Projects, Ron's, freetalk live, read the bills, etc.
stratvic 4 years ago
Don't fall for this. Stefbot's sole concern is keeeping his hands clean. Freedom is secondary to this paramount concern. He is so afraid of being "immoral" that he ties his own hands. Not to mention that his morality is not derived pragmatically or scientifically, so it's useless.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
If there is some error in Stef's reasoning, I'd like for you to point it out.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
Grassroots connections with the people around us will cause change. Producing our own goods, and trading with each other will change things. The use of violence and debating over the use of centralized control is absurd when talking about "libertarianism". This video was refreshing to say the least, simple truth.
TruthHidden 4 years ago
Stefbot: Excellent video, and use of metaphors on ethics. Great work when you spoke about how many ignore the connections of individuals. It IS all nonsense. Thank you Stefan! I have been saying this to those who would listen for 2 years. It is so apparent that it is an abstract debate, and many are disconnected and backwards. "Forget them, it is never going to change anyones mind". It does not achieve anything, and it never will.
TruthHidden 4 years ago
23rd Of September: You are Canadian, so what the hell kind of right do you have to say anything about our politics?
To avoid appearing hypocritical, I must state that I am backing Stefan because he opposes statism, which is not bound by any methods of control. I am an Anarchist First, and a Nationalist Second ( yes, they are compatible in the most basic circumstance ) You however are producing political commentary, which entails supporting the use of force.
TruthHidden 4 years ago
Most Americans like Ron Paul because he is honest and he's not a war monger. If you want, you can look into Libertarian principles and debate forever. Most Americans just want an integral guy who can get on and off airforce one and represent the United States. Your arguements are irrelevant.
23ofSeptember 4 years ago
Interesting but I have a question. What do you do about people who are bound and determined to perpetuate violence against you regardless of your efforts to withdraw yourself from their presence?
randomjsa 4 years ago
Can you give me an example?
stefbot 4 years ago
Hey DaBigMouth,
By you statement, I can tell that you don't have a clue what Ron Paul is. None whatsoever.
blx2000 4 years ago
so a democracy is necessarily more immoral than a dictatorship because it has greater potential to reflect society.
rossispossiofone 4 years ago
You are a liar. Ron is not a racist, he is for EVERYONES Rights. He is not Anti-Education, he thinks that the states can do better. The oil people hate him. He is running for president because his friends asked him to, so he is hardly selfish. You are simply a liar and make stuff up as you go or you listen to liars that make stuff up as they go. I think you need a vacation or something. You are one hateful person.
blx2000 4 years ago
Freedom and argument starts with YOU and yours. Awesome video
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
haha. yea. *rolls eyes*
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
I understand and agree with you...i do have a question...the idea that is put forth here...has merit...but for it to show an effectual change on the masses...would a RP winning actually be considered step one...and this realization be step two...as you yourself say...for 2 decades the idea evaded you....first you must want to find truth...to look for it.....and then attain it.....what you say attains it....but so many people...dont know that there is even a question 2 be asked...
Emptybottleofgin 4 years ago
i mean i have my qualms with anarchy aswell...
Emptybottleofgin 4 years ago
if everyone learns your message and is free...who will do the work and who will manage...people who can see the whole picutre are needed...but the need for workers to do the smaller jobs like a small gear in a big machine...every person has his part to play....and if everyone was on top...less would be...created.....right?? sry for my inapproraite format of thought
Emptybottleofgin 4 years ago
I am starting to fully understand your message and while it is honorable we need to get real.
The reason people are supporting Ron Paul is not so we can all achieve "personal freedom", but because he can seriously affect the politics of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. His campaign has woken such a large number of people up to the fact that our rights and freedoms are slowly being eroded. He is voice for what most American's stand for, even if they do not know it.
Have you ever seen Zeitgeist?
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
I never said that to be my friend that it is necessary that they don't want me to be shot. Say I'm getting help with schoolwork from my friend. I don't need to lose that help just because of the inconvenience of having to deal with someone who wants me to be shot. Interpersonal relationships are for MY personal gain.
iopqu 4 years ago
Theres something very,very wrong with you.
mizanthr0p 4 years ago
That's not an argument, but thanks for trying!
stefbot 4 years ago
I can't make an argument because I find your demeanor so disturbing I cant get through ten seconds of the video.
mizanthr0p 4 years ago
You have a very dishonest face,surely you've heard that before.
mizanthr0p 4 years ago
Thanks for trying to think!
stefbot 4 years ago
I can see by the majority of comments that I am not the only one that thinks you are full of shit.
ChoDilly 4 years ago 2
This guy is a disinfo agent. That's why he is putting out almost true, slightly skewed opinion. Just don't believe this guy and take a look at Ron Paul's voting record in congress.
ChoDilly 4 years ago
Haha, disinfo agent, that's great! Seriously, you need to learn how to refute points. I am not quibbling with RP's voting record. I am saying that politics has never made us free, not for thousands of years, and we need to give up on this seductive fantasy and spread freedom personally.
stefbot 4 years ago
What ever..... Start freedom personally....
By handing out one daisy at a time at the airport.................. Ron Paul is the best shot America has at getting back on solid ground. Anyone trying to muddy the water is a traitor to the American people.
ChoDilly 4 years ago
Haha, that's great - "traitor" :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I saw Stef at a Bilderberg meeting!
willyswear 4 years ago
The lowest common denominator is the totally dependent. Ron Paul scares the shit out of the lowest common denominator. He scares the shit out of me for that matter. That's why he has my vote. Confidence can only be achieved through conditions of personal responsibility. Not fun. Do the math. The lowest common denominator is the majority. Now look at Pauls numbers.
dhRzztt 4 years ago
I'll start asking that question today. I still will vote Ron Paul.
Mikey34549 4 years ago 3
Sorry but I keep finding problems with your video.
You talk about personal freedom and Ron Paul talks about individual freedom. The government is trying to remove the constitutional values and Ron Paul is simply standing up against these tyrants and trying to get people to care about their individual rights, not personal freedom.
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
As limited resources are competed for, violence ensues always. The only way around this reponse is to limit the number of animals competing for the resource. Now we're talking about state enforced birth rate control and we're back to state control. Peaceful anarchy is impossible unless either 1)resources are infinite or 2)population growth is controlled. No way around it.
jdcremin 4 years ago
One fact you left out of your opinion, If they used the trillions of dollars they have spent on the big lie war. There would be enough money to feed and educated every person on the planet. we don't have to compete for the oil, there are plenty of alternitives.
ChoDilly 4 years ago
It has nothing do to with money. At some point max food production is reached (or oil or water) and there isn't enough to go around - what happens then? Do human beings (or any other animal) limit their birth rate to keep from having to fight for resources? no. They grow until they reach max, there's a mass die off, and then they start growing again. The only thing that might keep this from happening is forced birth rate control.
jdcremin 4 years ago
One last question.
What about Ron Paul make you believe he does not have courage, integrity and certainty?
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
Well for those of you that don't want to spend the 42 plus min it takes to watch this video let me break it down for you. Personalize every argument, create your own reality and become a hermit. That about sums it up. End each point you make with the words "against me" and then refuse to associate with anyone that agrees "against you" is bad but sometimes necessary. The even shorter version is drop out of society.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
The fundamental argument is flawed in that it presumes the use of force is wrong/evil and therefore unnecessary. A better phrasing of the premise might be if everyone refused to fight there would be no fighting. The key word is "everyone". No two people think alike and force has been the deciding factor since Cain and Able. If you want utopia then find God before he finds you. If you want your own "enlightened" version of society then you and yours better have more guns than he and his.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
And by the by if Mr. Stefbot truly believed everything he just said he wouldn't even be on Youtube which is a state entity that in his terms would support his being shot, sodomized or otherwise forced to conform over just about anything. Paid taxes? Buying Chinese slave labor products? Obeying the traffic laws? Would you shoot Mr. Stefbot for running a stop sign? If not then why should he bother really? Don't worry, he conforms just like everyone else. How do I know? He's not a hermit.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
Ok stef. I am sorry for the shooting comment. I just found you wasted my time with that.
Who would you support for the GOP nomination and why do you object to a political approach to securing individual liberty?
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
You have a good point, but I'm not sure that such a discussion will garner much change in the individual or society at large. It certainly won't have any impact on government. We already know they would kill each and every one of us if we are perceived as a threat. That's where I'm directing my attention - is the government a threat to you and me, and if so what can be done to reverse that situation. And I'll continue to support Ron Paul for that very reason.
bbburton 4 years ago
I would also say that Bush is dead certain person about his beliefs but obviously doesn't make him right. So saying the most certain person will alway win a debate is irrelevant.
BigBrowz 4 years ago
Alright my friend I am sorry for that, but I don't agree with some of your points. Especially, when you say that supporting Ron Paul and donating to his campaign wont help emphasize individual liberty in our world.
Ron Paul stands primarily for personal liberty and freedom. So my question to you is:
Which GOP candidate do you support, and if none, why does somebody who wants personal liberty criticize Ron Paul and wish to impede his message of individual liberty?
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
Do you think if there wasn't police that mugging would be the only crime going on?
BigBrowz 4 years ago
? Where does that come from?
stefbot 4 years ago
Yes, I guess I'm brainwashed to assume crime would go up without police? Sorry, I guess we have to different views of common sense.
BigBrowz 4 years ago
I liked this video, it made me think... we who support Ron Paul need to BECOME Ron Paul, the Revolution needs to happen in the heart of our being--we need to become the leader we want to see in the world (to have integrity, courage, conviction). If we do that there will be a REVOLUTION within us... and we will see and feel the effects of FREEDOM right away... and that will effect those in our circle of influence and by extension bring a greater measure of LIBERTY to the whole world.
lasvegas4ronpaul 4 years ago 6
...and that is the only way it can work.
stefbot 4 years ago
Nicely put, except the RIGHT AWAY part. There is suffering involved. Suffering that gives birth to something else. Be aware that the need for instant gratification is a condition that has been manifested by our system since 1929.
dhRzztt 4 years ago
Nothing worth having comes without effort.
stratvic 4 years ago
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
Vote for Ron Paul stop this madness!.
UnitedOffensiveIII 4 years ago 2
Very interesting video. I'm gonna start asking people that question when these things come up. Definitely made me think. I wondered why I always got a sick feeling in my stomach when I'd hear family defend some program or another. I guess subconsciously I understood the conflict... I'm still gonna give Ron Paul support though because he is fighting so I won't get shot. He's basically going around the country asking that question of everybody. So he is okay by me.
davyjames 4 years ago 3
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
Vote for Ron Paul stop this madness!.
UnitedOffensiveIII 4 years ago
yet another wonderful video, stef. Thanks for sharing :)
Sarahon06 4 years ago
Who gave you all of the answers?
Forshman 4 years ago
The real problem is that we are waiting for someone ELSE to do something to change things for US.
In a true democracy we all have to take part in government, otherwise we might as well just allow a king to make all our decisions for us.
Toddo31 4 years ago 2
You make the point well. Thanks.
dhRzztt 4 years ago
It's a terrible thing that you're right, Stef. But you are right. "I love you" cannot be reconciled with "I'd condone violence against you."
lemur257 4 years ago
Good advice but Ron Paul has awakened people.
haircutname9 4 years ago 4
Excellent video! You are amazing!
dakatesr 4 years ago
I don't know what this guys agenda is but he is completely confused about the difference between personal liberty.
Stef. I'm looking you in the eye and you should be shot. Not because I support the idea of you being shout. It is beacuse I belive if you support the message of freedom then you should take any means necessary to spread that message, and you are telling people not to spread the message of freedom.
shoeJoe67 4 years ago
Donating to Ron Paul will only further the revolution of freedo