Stef, if you could vote (..being a Canadian you can´t, unless you have clever ways to bypass the system..).. whom would you vote for the next President of the Land of the American Dream... I found a mindblowing video, man I want this to happen ((RP 2012)) for the sake of us ALL not just the U.S. citizens.. ´´Ron Paul: The 45th President of the United States``..must see.. watch?v=kAulpWLZC2Y
@PluralOfEverything Because it reeks of the libertarian "taxes are coercion" argument which follows the idea that "all coercion is bad" to a fault. Not something that can really be argued about in a youtube comment area.
@eukota It can't be that you disagree with it simply because libertarians use it. That wouldn't be valid. What I get from what you said is that you don't think that all coercion is immoral. I disagree. I think that threatening people so they will give you money is wrong no matter what the money is used for and no matter how many people have accepted it as a fact of life.
@PluralOfEverything You appear to not have read the page that I went to the trouble of finding and pointing out for you. There are several examples on the page of coercion which is not immoral. Likely what is the case is that you and I disagree on what is considered moral - that type of philosophical discussion is covered on the site. The idea of subjective vs objective morality that is. Please read the page and then respond.
@eukota It got marked as spam, so I didn't notice it at first. I'll give it a looksee and get back to you with my thoughts, possibly in a pm if they are too charactery for a comment here.
@PluralOfEverything I think the argument presented here is in line with my thinking: socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/05/coercion-and-taxation-is-theft-argument.html. "Progressive taxes and Keynesian macroeconomic management of an economy are justifiable on utilitarian grounds. As for the libertarian minority who disagree, there is no reason why a minority of people with a debased sense of morality should not pay their share.
@eukota So what you and the article seem to be saying is that the majority decides what is moral. I disagree. Just because the majority decides that I should help pay for an invasion of a third world country does not mean that it's right to force me to. What if the majority decided that a certain percentage of the population should be slaves and a portion of my income should go to paying bounty hunters to catch runaways?
@PluralOfEverything You are the 3rd person I have chatted with to claim that Harris' article is claiming majority rules. He is not. He does state that a minority of people with a debased sense of morality are ok to overrule. It is not the majority that matters here but instead the merit of the argument. You offer some straw-man fallacies - slavery is not moral and that idea would not merit overruling a small minority. The invasion is not on topic as we live in an representative democracy.
@PluralOfEverything General consensus based on the merit of the argument. I think the way that currently happens in our government is someone in congress sees the need, makes a proposal which gains momentum if others agree to it and then it is voted on. Then it has to bass both houses (one based on majority and one based on a per-state basis) and pass the president. After that, if the morality was still in question, it might get challenged int he courts. So ultimately I suppose judges judge it.
@PluralOfEverything You are twisting my words but I am not surprised. The decision is made the same way scientific consensus is reached. That is it can be questioned down the road. Are you suggesting that scientific consensus is simply a majority vote? If so then your definition of "majority rules" differs from mine.
@eukota Congress is a group of people. I am not a member of congress, so nobody in congress is me. I added the "me" part to my summary of what you said to indicate that I don't care what their majority decision is any more than I care about the majority of u.s. citizens' opinions. The majority opinion of any group does not dictate whether or not the opinion that taxation is immoral is based on debased morality.
@PluralOfEverything Agreed. But I was arguing that the government is not just a "majority opinion". Only the House of Reps is population-based. There is also the president, the senate, and the courts. All of this is to attempt to get the best mileage out of any legislation. Your statement was still meant to obfuscate what I stated. Would prefer to think more but have to run. More later.
@eukota Technically, you're arguing that congress and the courts have the authority to decide that it is immoral to not want to pay taxes. My question was: "And who decides, in the case of taxation, whose sense of morality is debased?" Your answer was the general consensus among people in congress. It was a funny answer considering the fact that you're trying to make a case for morality not being decided by a majority.
@eukota It doesn't matter what the government is called. The situation is that I was born in a place where a group of people say I have to follow their rules and pay them money or else they will put me in a cage and/or hurt me. I disagree with this, and since my opinion matters as much as anybody else's, I say the government should either leave me alone or try to make a deal with me that I agree to. I don't care how many roads or schools they've built. I owe them nothing.
You my sir have a golden voice lol btw i like your videos very much they make all the sense in the world, never ever stop what your doing, you do more good then you'll ever know (:
When a group of people destroy a couple buildings and kill 3000 American citizens it's called terrorism, but when America drop bombs on 2 countries for 10 years and kill 900,000 of their citizens it's called just getting warmed up. What's wrong with this picture?
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
Mass media and Hollywood act in concert with the gangster government to deceive and manipulate--even to stampede the herd.
The conspiracy of mass media/Hollywood is a big clue as to who is behind the international terrorism--especially 9-11, Mumbai, 7/7 and other false flags events.
I've always been of the opinion that this is one of your crowning works, Mr. Molyneux. It is daring and powerful, yet empirical and objective.
Don't stop. Don't ever stop, don't give in to their threats. We CAN prevail. Unforeseen events in the Middle East are making our Mafia Dons quite uneasy. A golden opportunity is beginning to emerge and it must be grasped. Truth will always remain, regardless of the lies the Dons use to cover it up and distract you from it.
Every time I see a highway patrol car staked out on the side of the road, the word "terrorism" comes to mind. The guy is parked there to instill fear in you, in order to control your behavior; and if you don't behave, the State gets paid. Or, even worse, he hides so that he can scrutinize your behavior without you being aware of it, and then he appears out of nowhere to punish you for a victimless crime. The best, however, is when he tailgates you and entraps you into speeding--because he can.
@GnomesAmok what you are relying upon is 'argument ad populum'
Whether 2 people approve of the initiation of violence or 100% of the people approve of it does not cease it from being the initiation of violence. The dictionary definition for initiation has nothing to do with popular approval.
@DeathBringer9000 as human history shows, power corrupts and more power just makes things worse. the state is an inherently corrupt institution - it asserts the right to do things to people that would be considered crimes if you or I did it to other people
right from the get go, the state is a compromise of morality
@DeathBringer9000 I am not going to dispute that. But that is not a refutation of what I said. In fact, I could use your argument to strengthen mine, in the sense that the more people there are, the more likely it is to become corrupt and abusive.
Further, I argue that having things as decentralized as possible makes the problem less worse as people are more likely to know each other in smaller groups. People feel less guilty about doing wrong to strangers.
I agree that all governments are corrupt to some degree or another. But the reality is that what you're saying would only be completely true to one who is in anarchy, who wants to live life with no rules, no laws. The only one who need fear the law is one who is breaking the law; in theory, and for the most part, in reality.
Terrorists came to the US and "pretended" to be my neighbor, then murdered my fellow Americans. We didn't do that to them, we warned them, then we went. It's not the same.
@Thistlesifter220 anarchy does not mean no laws or rules, it means no masters... society has prospered most under anarchy in the past & would do again in the future if people would only see peaceful equality is required to remove corruption... watch this watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY
@djdnauk1977 I hear you, but it doesn't work, because normal people are just as self centered as "masters". The real solution is to have Masters who truly serve the subjects.
@Thistlesifter220 if normal people are just as self centered then surely the best option is limiting the power any one man can have over another? ie: anarchism (rather than letting one selfish man dictate what other men do = tyranny) & it works great! history shows this, the most successful civilization of all time in terms of liberty/prosperity, celtic ireland, under brehan law, was an anarchist/free market society. watch this: watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY
@dj - Who is going to govern to ensure the limits are kept? Again, one selfish man is not what I said... I am talking about a Government made up of unselfish leaders who truly desire the best for everyone. A land with no law ends up in chaos.
I looked at your video, and it may be describing what I mean... LOL The difference being that the narrator is calling those in charge "judges", but it was still a governmental structure.
@dj - cont. Interesting to note, the name Brehons comes from 'brithem'. This word in Hebrew could be a compound of two words brith meaning 'covenant' & am meaning 'people' i.e. 'covenant people'. The Irish are also known as Tuatha de danann, or Tribe of Dan. It is well established that the Irish are actually descendants of one of the sons of Israel whose name is Dan.
It may be that the traditions they passed down were from those days long ago.
@Thistlesifter220 yep agree here, the history of ireland is very interesting its certainly a good example of anarchy/free markets in action as it worked for over 1000 years with less violence & more prosperity than most statist societies... btw anarchy doesnt mean no law, just no rulers. laws can be agreed upon voluntarily.
@Thistlesifter220 it wasnt governmental, it was free market anarchism as there was no monopoly of force... the judges relied on their reputation to obtain funding not force/taxation... it was a free market, stateless society because interaction was voluntary.
oh please i'm sick of people saying "9/11 happens everyday in iraq". NO it doesn't..people may die, but airliners aren't hijacked and flown into 110 stpry towers in ny and pentagons in washington (maybe the whitehouse). on a country never really touched on its soil...the two don't compare.
@SelectedHandfull ashole airlines where hijacked by poppets of USA government, you idiot! An excuse to invade Iraq. Open you eyes you sheepple ignorant people.
@SelectedHandfull in iraq people die slower & more brutal deaths, get injured, raped... 1 14 year old girl was raped 10 times by US soldiers before killing herself... nuclear weapons like depleted uranium mean iraqi women have deformed babies, many innocents in iraq get cancer from it... do you really think 911 is worse than that?
Remember, war IS peace! enslavement births freedom! killing is living! submission makes dominance! and finally DEATH brings LIFE! These are the only 5 things we need to know from the second we open our eyes but only until that questionable second when maybe, just maybe, we pry open our minds and we see ourselves in the middle of going forward in reverse and it's our foot that's pushing the accelerator not our owners foot!.
Curious this video shows the exact moment 4:27 that depicts a fake SFX plane entering the WTC South Tower. If one slows down this footage frame by frame, it becomes obvious this is a cartoon - actually a military psyop of which the media was complicit from the start.
Sad pics my friend... But I am an American, and I will fight to my last day for this blessed country. You may want to check out Ronald Reagan to understand who WE ARE. Obama (who I am sure you love) will be voted out in 2012.
in '90 US killed 1.600.000 included 5000 children under 5 years in iraq and they say they are attaked by terroristS?in 9/11 died 2995 ppl and it wasen't iraq the one to suport that.the war was for the oil
This video makes mention of the horrible people that await you in federal prison. Without the government and its taxes, those horrible people would be out on the streets, free to do to you whatever they wish.
Whether the creator of this video wants to acknowledge it or not, government is the only institution capable of protecting your freedoms from those who would impugn upon it.
@KevDurden government is the institution that takes freedom away via threats and use of force. Those in the US are simply protected usually by being behind the biggest gun instead in front of it. Owing to the nature of institutionalized power, those that desire power will be attracted to it like bees to honey. What would you say to those who has had freedom taken away unjustly by government, to any degree? We can create a new and better concept than the state. We first have to try.
That's completely untrue. People want protection, and they're happy to pay for it. A resident of the USSR would likely say something similar about food, "But, if we don't have the regime, who will run the bread lines?" But they couldn't imagine the possibilities of supermarkets, soup kitchens, etc -- what could be created when people are free.
No good or service must be funded by extortion. That notion is just silly, and wrong -- although convenient for the extortionists.
@echoessubmarine Thank you. I was only summarizing what his previous video was about, but I'm glad that I was able to reiterate it--that means I must've learnt sumthin'! Hahah.
Beautiful video man. I should've subscribed a long time ago when I watched number "14" (I believe). The video about how statism is dead and that we humans are much like livestock and the only reason we have the illusion of freedom of "movement" is so that we don't slowly kill ourselves. That's not so productive for the elite, even they need us to a very certain (if miniscule) degree.
Stef, compared to some of the overbearing shock jockeys I could mention, I very much enjoy your analysis, presentation and common sense perspectives - a refreshing voice that challenges the preconceived notions that imprison us from birth.
no place in the universe expanded, to the dictators of consciousness, although they are acting on this planet, under the cover of religion, and politics, the systematic error of this rounding, since the system itself is perfect, and is giving perfect power minds, therefore, give to your minds nutrients of freedom, and so,
will you who to travez, the system itself, achieve the perfect change for a new world, obviously the new order shall be established, but improvements in mental revolution in expansion of freedom, and of course in a new era of communication with your external civilizations sisters ...
really good clip! makes alot of sense, I been into this for quite some time but u were the one that brought the last dot I needed to get a better picture of the situation.
Are you an anarchist? You say statism is dead, but the only alternatives I can see are anarchy and world government. If you're for world government, what makes you think all the examples of corruption which arrise from statism amongst separate states, wouldn't happen amongst a single, larger state governing the world? I hope you're just an anarchy via your "free will" and not forced into it by government or natural laws!!!
Stefbot is an anarcho-capitalist. He has many videos/podcasts which discuss the stateless society and common objections towards it. I recommend them if you liked this video.
I don't really like it. This guy seems extremely intellectually disingenuous. As his 'free will' videos and debates illustrate pretty clearly.
And if he wants a world government, fuck him to. Statism is fucked but world government is just world statism. The only way it could work is with a rational world court system which could examine what is best for the population and resources, energy, etc.. But, with our world now, that wouldn't happen.
hey dude. you're free will videos are rambling, incoherent, contain a few non-sequiturs, and worst of all, self-defeating. 85% of it was you explaining exactly why what you were about to conclude, (that human beings have free will) is funamentally wrong and is not conducive to reality as we can measure it.
HAARP is stupid, anyone who believe we have the technolgy and / or resources to create earthquakes is fucked up in the head and needs a basic lesson on earth quakes m'kay? Believing 9/11 was an inside job? M'kay Believing bilderberggroup has to hide something? M'kay? Believing global warming is a hoax? M'kay. Believing earthquakes are man made? CRAZY.
What I was trying to say was that our belief of "what the meaning of life is?" plays a fundamental role in our reasoning. So an atheist is going to look at abortion much differently than a Buddhist or a Christian. This variance in reasoning is why people have different conflicting beliefs. As for being an insincere sophist who uses "huffy, grandiose language", you caught me, I clearly intertwined false logic with big words to bring about my evil agenda of getting people to......think?
You sir, Understand much. However everything boils down to one element, our unnatural self awareness that is, our ability to question leads us to question why we are able to question, a conundrum equivalent to "what is the meaning of life?" The answer chosen by an individual is the core determining factor of every other decision made. Thus an incorrect answer makes all proceeding logic to be fundamentally flawed. Therefore variance in this answer causes human incompatibility or statism.
@stefbot Thank you Stef. You have finally convinced me that libertarianism / non-aggression principle is morally superior. Took me a while though, but late is better than never.
Thank you very much for making me a better person:)
@stefbot why are ua fan of money? I know u don't seem to belive that humans are able to have a society without money, how come u think that is impossible? I mean your videos do point serious matters within the human psyche and our love for money and greed in the end at least that's what the monetary system has become. I personally belive that we have come to the point in our civil evolution that makes money oldfashioned.
The necessity of money is bound to the variance of human needs and wants between individuals. An extended division of labour requires a common medium of exchange i.e. money in order to facilitate exchange between individuals with entirely different ordinal values. As a fungible and divisible medium of exchange money facilitates numerical price values to represent relative values of goods and services to induce helpful investment.
This aggression proves the irrationality of non-market 'defence.'
@stefbot you are a fan of money because you like the gimmicky toys that you are bribed with to cooperate with this model of society.. work hard, be a productive slave and one day you could earn this car / house / t.v
So war & violence was non-existent pre-statist society? That's untrue.
The whole concept of an agreed-upon authority in society was to preserve property. The divergence of government from this role in the entirety of history rests on the persistent manipulation of this authority to achieve other means.
Call paying for this protection whatever you wish, but I see enforcing law as an integral part of human evolution, akin to an extensional organ.
We are all trained since birth, and re-enforced daily by government/media/public school propaganda to entrust the protection of our property rights to a group of people who violate our property rights every single day...
If an authority is agreed upon, then it is not taxation and essentially isn't government. Taxation is forced by the government. This force is an initiation of aggression upon people who may or may not want to pay for that which the individuals in government demand of them.
The idea that government is meant to preserve property is contradictory, since it must steal property in order to preserve it.
"If an authority is agreed upon, then it is not taxation and essentially isn't government" - true, the definition of "government" does not necessarily have "agreed upon" in it, but certainly some aspect of modern government is agreed upon, primarily directing authority to preserve property. And true, taxation is forced, however, logically the preservation of authority necessitates taxation, because some authority is necessary for the protection of property.
You said, "the preservation of authority necessitates taxation," which is completely true. If people didn't like the authority, they just wouldn't give them money. Therefore, they have to be forced.
It's just not an argument to say that government is necessary for the protection of private property since government steals private property. What's the point in that? I'd much prefer to keep everything I justly deserve.
You left out the second clause in my proposition: "some authority is necessary for the protection of property". True, this authority can be autonomously (individually) derived; if I try to steal what is justly yours you can defend yourself. However, it's my belief that what spontaneously emerges out of this condition is the organization of individuals that submit their autonomous authority to a larger, hierarchical one. Thus, taxation may appear to be coerced, but it has been earlier agreed to.
Necessity is not a logical argument. The argument from necessity is a circular one. "We need taxation because X is necessary." The argument that we need something in no way validates any action in order to acquire it.
I didn't agree to be taxed. That was there before I was. And the initiation of violence, spontaneous or not, is never justifiable. We can submit to an authority, but that submission must be voluntary and contractual on both sides, not just on one side like with government.
My proposition was more like: "If preservation of property is necessary for human progression, and consented organized authority is necessary for preservation of property, and authority operations need funds, then taxation is necessary"
"That was there before I was" - that's my point, it was there for a reason, as part of a mechanism for sustaining human progression which needs property to be preserved.
You disagree with being taxed yet enjoy all the privileges of living in modern society.
Taxation isn't consensual, so you're disagreeing with yourself. If taxation is based off consent, you don't need to enforce it. You don't need authorities to protect property either--just a mechanism which will cause people to respect property rights, like ostracism.
And it's really unfair to say that I disagree with taxation even though I benefit from it. There's no way to know how much better society would be if there wasn't a monopoly on the initiation of force controlling society.
Causally, taxation is consented through the agreement of establishing a governing authority over society. Logically if an organization is agreed upon it needs sustenance.
And the empirical evidence clearly shows that authority is crucial in protecting property (see "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando De Soto as example).
Societies that don't have taxation are primitive ones (i.e. Kalahari Bushmen) because logically they do not have the need to protect individual property rights.
"Logically if an organization is agreed upon it needs sustenance. "
That's not an argument. That's like saying because you agreed to be my friend, I now have a right to force you to be my friend. It's completely illogical, like the idea of selling yourself into slavery.
And I don't care what you think is "crucial" or necessary. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Do you see how you're going back and forth between necessity and consent, when I'm only talking about the violence?
I keep emphasizing necessity because its my argument - society needs an organized authority to protect the property rights of individuals, as historically shown.
Talking about the violence is a straw man argument against said authority. It does not argue against the fact no civilization in existence operated without said authority. If you read my first post, you will see I use this to corroborate my claim that the state should be treated as an organ, like an eye, heart, or lung, by humanity.
I really feel like you're trying to manipulate me into saying that I consented to taxation when I did no such thing. You're not putting forth arguments. All you're saying is that taxation is necessary (not an argument) and that other people say that taxation is either necessary or beneficial (not arguments either). Those are preferences. You can tell me preferences all day and I'll listen, but those aren't arguments. When you insist on forcing them upon me, though, that's violence.
No I'm not. You're argument is that taxation, when not consented, is unjustified. My argument is that to consider whether taxation is consensual or not is meaningless, because individuals have agreed to submit to an organized authority since the dawn of civilization, and that authority can only function if it has sufficient resources.
Your judgment on taxation is really a judgment about governing authority. You're against it - I'm for it b/c of the fact it is central to civilization.
You're just giving me preferences. You're not giving me arguments. It's not an argument to say that no civilization has existed without the use of the initiation of violence. There was no democracy before there was democracy, therefore, by your "logic" there should be no democracy.
There's also no argument for the initiation of force; there is just the initiation of force, just the force and after-the-fact rationalization.
I'm giving you an argument that organized authority is critical for human progression, and am providing you with a fact about civilization to support my argument. You are claiming this isn't an argument at all and just my "preference", yet I am asserting and I've tried to support this assertion with empirical claims twice.
Instead of arguing against my justifications, you are arguing I have made no argument. Ironically, you are the one who appears to be providing a preference with no evidence.
You really have to understand that there is no logical justification for the existence of an imposing authority. If you have an initiation of violence, the ONLY thing you can do is post-rationalize. Logically, that's just a fact. There is no logical justification for the existence of the state because you can't start a syllogism with "If you don't agree, I'm going to use force on you," which is the basic premise of the state.
My whole line of reasoning has been that there IS logical justification. I'm claiming we could only be having this dialogue on the Internet because of the existence of an imposing authority that ensures individuals will have their property rights upheld. This leads to productivity amongst the species. Contrast modern society to the bushmen in Africa, or to the aborigines in Australia, or to the tribes of the Amazon, which do not have a concept of property and thus do not have a taxation system.
I just told you that you don't have a logical justification, and I told you why. You can't begin an argument with the initiation of violence.
You have to give it up. There can be no discussion unless you put down the gun of the state to solve society's problems. If you don't put it down, you first and foremost support violence. It has to stop.
Yes, because I can't meaningfully disagree with you without violence being used against me. If you support the state, then you support violence being initiated against me, so what's the point of debating you? I debate you, we disagree, people come to my house with guns to take me away. If I resist, I'm shot. That's not a debate. If you support the state, you absolutely cannot have a meaningful debate, because no one can disagree with you without implicitly having their lives threatened.
This is what your fallacious argument of reducing the state to an instigator of violence boils down to. Apparently if you disagree with me someone will shoot you? So because of this you can't debate with me even though that is what we've been doing? Or are you simply saying you cannot reason with someone like me who supports the state because the disagree will have their life threatened?
It's not a debate if you aren't open to argumentation, which you aren't, because it doesn't matter if I prove you wrong or anything, you have the gun to fall back on. I don't. I'm not suggesting initiating violence against you. The same isn't true on the other side.
I'm not saying you can't be reasoned with at all, but in this particular instance, there is no reasoning with you. I can only reason with you if you don't support the initiation of violence against me if I disagree with you.
The problem for you there is, once you agree not to support the initiation of violence against me, it becomes a debate which I have already won. The only thing I'm trying to do is to get you to be reasonable and not support the initiation of violence "as a principle." That's all any anarchist could ever ask for.
As I have written prior, your argument rests on viewing the state as an perpetrator of violent acts, justifying its removal. As I have repeatedly stated, the state provides humanity order through the protection of private property rights. If someone steals my car the state has the right to retrieve it and forcefully rectify the situation. It is literally beneficial for the organism to devote a fraction of their resources to provide this order, explaining its existence altogether.
You have evaded the fact I raised about the state being existent since the dawn of civilization, and have evaded my proposition that explains its existence. And its clear that by doing so you can avoid having to explain why society would be more progressive and productive stateless, because its pointless. Further, you can avoid having to change your position on taxation, and more fundamentally, your view of the state.
The statement about the state existing since the dawn of civilization (which isn't entirely accurate, depending on your definition of civilization) is not an argument. Just like the fact that democracy didn't exist before it did exist is not an argument that it shouldn't exist. The same can be said for the ending of slavery.
I know why it exists. It exists because if you disagree with it, you go to jail or are killed; it doesn't exist because it provides services. If it did, it'd be a business.
true, but is a justification of my argument that you continue to evade: it is necessary to increase the genetic fitness of the human species, akin to the human eye being necessary to increase the genetic fitness of a single human.
You're going into a shady area of evolution-driven morality. I won't evade it, you just haven't brought this aspect up yet.
There is no valid argument that states that any action is justifiable so long as it further progresses the genetic fitness of a species for three reasons:
1. We're not the only species.
2. That argument can be used to justify virtually any act which would otherwise be considered immoral.
3. "Progression" is subjective and means different things to different people.
I'm sorry, I thought using phrases like "I see enforcing law as an integral part of human evolution, akin to an extensional organ." and "the state should be treated as an organ, like an eye, heart, or lung, by humanity" implied I was speaking about a biologically derived explanation about the existence of the state.
You're conflating the initiation of violence with the implementation of the state by human society. It's a false presupposition.
"Progression" in this context obviously means increased genetic fitness. Hopefully you agree we live in better conditions today than even 50 years ago.
You're first sentence is a bit nonsensical - how does having the gun to fall back on change your proof of my errors? And the fact that you imply I am suggesting initiating violence against you is an absurd ad hominem. You've completely disregarded every point I've raised about the purpose of the state and instead focus on "the initiation of violence", and therefore, the state should remove it. As I raised before this is a straw man argument for the removal of the state.
It's not a straw man. The state initiates violence. This is an obvious fact. If you support the state, you support the initiation of violence against me. Saying that the state is necessary (not a logical argument) does not change this fact.
Your points about the purpose and necessity of the state don't mean anything because they rest upon the initiation of violence.
It is a straw man in the context of arguing against the state, for it lacks the comprehension of the reason the state is granted the right to initiate violence.
Is it possible to grant a right to some individual or entity, a right which you do not possess?
That's a question Jan Helfeld asks politicians (check him out on Youtube--he's a minarchist).
How can we grant the state a right to initiate violence on our behalf if we don't also have that right. And if we do have that right, and the state has that right, the only way the state can maintain itself is to overpower us with violence, which, like I said, isn't an argument. Violence=/=argumentation.
So are you saying we do not possess the right to ownership? We therefore do not have the right to own our own bodies? Consequently, we do not have the right to preserve our bodies if someone attempts to desecrate it? Through this logic, yes, the state should not have the right to preserve property, which suffices the right to impose violence. But that is incoherent with reality.
In the context of the conversation I was having, presupposing these 'rights' you mention is begging the question. I was attempting to shift away from a priori reasoning towards an empirical derivation of 'rights'. As such, the right to initiate violence in order to protect property, as endowed by the state, is proper.
The persistent problem with states, however, is that this right is grossly abused.
History repeats itself when said authority abuses its sufficient conditions with taxation. That is what we are seeing in the United States in the last century.
genocide is a method of maintaining the balance of power in the world. it is going to happen more frequently, and we are going to know more about it than ever possible before thanks to information age. However this is nothing new; it's going to happen more frequently because it will become necessary population control. Climate change/natural disaster also may help with population control.
....uhh you ma friend are an idiot, please return later when you have empirical or logical proof that the claims you have made are true or justified; until than I have hard time understanding you because I cant get my head that far up my ass.
coming from the person that subs to glen beck, i'll take that as a compliment. empirical evidence, my such big words. If history book is too heavy, try a newspaper. Or wait, you are on computer, internet has lots of information if open your eyes, as far out of your ass as they might be.
09:40 is a wonderful start & at 1:02 it starts boiling.. and at 11:17 you're no more in a lecture hall.. you're suddenly watching your favourite band (we all have at least one..) ouch!!.. Stefan, your work is inspiring.. more pls ;)
cool.. Stefan himself replying :) have included your video in my featured COP15 message.. it's attached to dog's message when he's in front the cottage, in case you'd want to check it ;) have a great evening & if you can help with climate awareness the coming months en route to Copenhagen, I'd be grateful.. see ya, Stefan :)
love returning here, thnx Stef !!
annalenacrying 1 week ago
I wish the founders of this country had gone all the way in eliminating government.
brianmo180 2 weeks ago
Stef, if you could vote (..being a Canadian you can´t, unless you have clever ways to bypass the system..).. whom would you vote for the next President of the Land of the American Dream... I found a mindblowing video, man I want this to happen ((RP 2012)) for the sake of us ALL not just the U.S. citizens.. ´´Ron Paul: The 45th President of the United States``..must see.. watch?v=kAulpWLZC2Y
annalenacrying 1 month ago
I've been watching the world die since I was young.
Now Australia, my home, is dying, too.
Treat people as your equal. Deny those who would have you bow down their pleasure. Even if they fine you. Tear up the paper.
You are free.
DrFuckingPepper 2 months ago
I totally agree with this! But where do we start? Can you put up a video explaining that?
boulaajaj 4 months ago
I like most of the vid. I disagree that taxes are based on domestic terrorism.
eukota 6 months ago
@eukota I don't understand how you can disagree with that.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Because it reeks of the libertarian "taxes are coercion" argument which follows the idea that "all coercion is bad" to a fault. Not something that can really be argued about in a youtube comment area.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota It can't be that you disagree with it simply because libertarians use it. That wouldn't be valid. What I get from what you said is that you don't think that all coercion is immoral. I disagree. I think that threatening people so they will give you money is wrong no matter what the money is used for and no matter how many people have accepted it as a fact of life.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything You appear to not have read the page that I went to the trouble of finding and pointing out for you. There are several examples on the page of coercion which is not immoral. Likely what is the case is that you and I disagree on what is considered moral - that type of philosophical discussion is covered on the site. The idea of subjective vs objective morality that is. Please read the page and then respond.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota It got marked as spam, so I didn't notice it at first. I'll give it a looksee and get back to you with my thoughts, possibly in a pm if they are too charactery for a comment here.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PluralOfEverything I think the argument presented here is in line with my thinking: socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/05/coercion-and-taxation-is-theft-argument.html. "Progressive taxes and Keynesian macroeconomic management of an economy are justifiable on utilitarian grounds. As for the libertarian minority who disagree, there is no reason why a minority of people with a debased sense of morality should not pay their share.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota So what you and the article seem to be saying is that the majority decides what is moral. I disagree. Just because the majority decides that I should help pay for an invasion of a third world country does not mean that it's right to force me to. What if the majority decided that a certain percentage of the population should be slaves and a portion of my income should go to paying bounty hunters to catch runaways?
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything You are the 3rd person I have chatted with to claim that Harris' article is claiming majority rules. He is not. He does state that a minority of people with a debased sense of morality are ok to overrule. It is not the majority that matters here but instead the merit of the argument. You offer some straw-man fallacies - slavery is not moral and that idea would not merit overruling a small minority. The invasion is not on topic as we live in an representative democracy.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota And who decides, in the case of taxation, whose sense of morality is debased?
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything General consensus based on the merit of the argument. I think the way that currently happens in our government is someone in congress sees the need, makes a proposal which gains momentum if others agree to it and then it is voted on. Then it has to bass both houses (one based on majority and one based on a per-state basis) and pass the president. After that, if the morality was still in question, it might get challenged int he courts. So ultimately I suppose judges judge it.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota So the majority of a group of people, none of whom are me? I thought so.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything You are twisting my words but I am not surprised. The decision is made the same way scientific consensus is reached. That is it can be questioned down the road. Are you suggesting that scientific consensus is simply a majority vote? If so then your definition of "majority rules" differs from mine.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota I summarized what you said. I twisted nothing.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Your summary did not match what I said. It was an incorrect interpretation of my argument.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota Congress is a group of people. I am not a member of congress, so nobody in congress is me. I added the "me" part to my summary of what you said to indicate that I don't care what their majority decision is any more than I care about the majority of u.s. citizens' opinions. The majority opinion of any group does not dictate whether or not the opinion that taxation is immoral is based on debased morality.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Agreed. But I was arguing that the government is not just a "majority opinion". Only the House of Reps is population-based. There is also the president, the senate, and the courts. All of this is to attempt to get the best mileage out of any legislation. Your statement was still meant to obfuscate what I stated. Would prefer to think more but have to run. More later.
eukota 5 months ago
@eukota Technically, you're arguing that congress and the courts have the authority to decide that it is immoral to not want to pay taxes. My question was: "And who decides, in the case of taxation, whose sense of morality is debased?" Your answer was the general consensus among people in congress. It was a funny answer considering the fact that you're trying to make a case for morality not being decided by a majority.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything You almost had him. Statists are pretty slippery. lol
09jake12 1 month ago
@eukota It doesn't matter what the government is called. The situation is that I was born in a place where a group of people say I have to follow their rules and pay them money or else they will put me in a cage and/or hurt me. I disagree with this, and since my opinion matters as much as anybody else's, I say the government should either leave me alone or try to make a deal with me that I agree to. I don't care how many roads or schools they've built. I owe them nothing.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
You my sir have a golden voice lol btw i like your videos very much they make all the sense in the world, never ever stop what your doing, you do more good then you'll ever know (:
batdog3 6 months ago
guys wake up
smallrossy 6 months ago
When a group of people destroy a couple buildings and kill 3000 American citizens it's called terrorism, but when America drop bombs on 2 countries for 10 years and kill 900,000 of their citizens it's called just getting warmed up. What's wrong with this picture?
FreedomFighter1131 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
whatis-theplan(dot)org
malamute543 7 months ago
35 people have low or below 100 point I.Q.s
JewLoco 8 months ago 3
I must have watched this a thousand times and it's still my favourite YouTube video.
frostyuk2007 8 months ago 4
Mass media and Hollywood act in concert with the gangster government to deceive and manipulate--even to stampede the herd.
The conspiracy of mass media/Hollywood is a big clue as to who is behind the international terrorism--especially 9-11, Mumbai, 7/7 and other false flags events.
ReDiscover911. COM
It wasn't muslims.
It ain't the Irish.
whole2th 9 months ago
Oppose the deceivers
pmcgraw13 9 months ago
Finally somebody worded my thoughts! And use of RATM only made it better :) Much love!
Alenthas 10 months ago
@Alenthas I feel the same way.
dangoettel100 10 months ago
I've always been of the opinion that this is one of your crowning works, Mr. Molyneux. It is daring and powerful, yet empirical and objective.
Don't stop. Don't ever stop, don't give in to their threats. We CAN prevail. Unforeseen events in the Middle East are making our Mafia Dons quite uneasy. A golden opportunity is beginning to emerge and it must be grasped. Truth will always remain, regardless of the lies the Dons use to cover it up and distract you from it.
MrEpicTruth 11 months ago 31
@MrEpicTruth thank you thank you
stefbot 11 months ago 10
good
TheArjan1982 11 months ago
Powerful Video Hard to Swallow Message. But that's the Truth for you.. The uprising is coming to USA Next.
PainlessTragedy23 11 months ago
Your exactly right lets take a look at the RNC St. Paul Riot as a Grand Example of Government RegulatedTerrorism.
PainlessTragedy23 11 months ago
Incredible series.
moniker127 1 year ago 3
Every time I see a highway patrol car staked out on the side of the road, the word "terrorism" comes to mind. The guy is parked there to instill fear in you, in order to control your behavior; and if you don't behave, the State gets paid. Or, even worse, he hides so that he can scrutinize your behavior without you being aware of it, and then he appears out of nowhere to punish you for a victimless crime. The best, however, is when he tailgates you and entraps you into speeding--because he can.
katrudy7 1 year ago
hmm is the meaning of terrorism in law is that, the same president should put under arrest u.u
MathiasMichell 1 year ago
It seems this whole "state iniates violence" and supporting the state means violence against you thing needs to be debunked.
Also, Stefan or whatever his name is has a serious flaw: he takes very simple things and makes them stupidly complicated / nonsensical.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok really? So his facts were wrong? I had no idea that the government was totally okay with you not paying your taxes.
:rolls eyes:
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
Why would anyone be okay with you not paying taxes, let alone the government? I wouldnt be okay with that. I dont work for the government.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok what you are relying upon is 'argument ad populum'
Whether 2 people approve of the initiation of violence or 100% of the people approve of it does not cease it from being the initiation of violence. The dictionary definition for initiation has nothing to do with popular approval.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
So you dont think you should pay taxes?
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GnomesAmok You can't "debunk" the truth.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like this video. Thank you for your sharing. Hope to see next your video.
many9662 1 year ago
the way i see it, its not a flaw in the system, but a flaw in the people running the system
DeathBringer9000 1 year ago
@DeathBringer9000 suppose I said that about the mafia?
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier you could say the that about any group of people.
good, strong, moral people will make a good, strong, moral system, and vice versa.
DeathBringer9000 1 year ago
@DeathBringer9000 as human history shows, power corrupts and more power just makes things worse. the state is an inherently corrupt institution - it asserts the right to do things to people that would be considered crimes if you or I did it to other people
right from the get go, the state is a compromise of morality
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier everything involving two or more people is an easily corrupted system
DeathBringer9000 1 year ago
@DeathBringer9000 I am not going to dispute that. But that is not a refutation of what I said. In fact, I could use your argument to strengthen mine, in the sense that the more people there are, the more likely it is to become corrupt and abusive.
Further, I argue that having things as decentralized as possible makes the problem less worse as people are more likely to know each other in smaller groups. People feel less guilty about doing wrong to strangers.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier (the more people there are in one political system)
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
I agree that all governments are corrupt to some degree or another. But the reality is that what you're saying would only be completely true to one who is in anarchy, who wants to live life with no rules, no laws. The only one who need fear the law is one who is breaking the law; in theory, and for the most part, in reality.
Terrorists came to the US and "pretended" to be my neighbor, then murdered my fellow Americans. We didn't do that to them, we warned them, then we went. It's not the same.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 anarchy does not mean no laws or rules, it means no masters... society has prospered most under anarchy in the past & would do again in the future if people would only see peaceful equality is required to remove corruption... watch this watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
@djdnauk1977 I hear you, but it doesn't work, because normal people are just as self centered as "masters". The real solution is to have Masters who truly serve the subjects.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 if normal people are just as self centered then surely the best option is limiting the power any one man can have over another? ie: anarchism (rather than letting one selfish man dictate what other men do = tyranny) & it works great! history shows this, the most successful civilization of all time in terms of liberty/prosperity, celtic ireland, under brehan law, was an anarchist/free market society. watch this: watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
@dj - Who is going to govern to ensure the limits are kept? Again, one selfish man is not what I said... I am talking about a Government made up of unselfish leaders who truly desire the best for everyone. A land with no law ends up in chaos.
I looked at your video, and it may be describing what I mean... LOL The difference being that the narrator is calling those in charge "judges", but it was still a governmental structure.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@dj - cont. Interesting to note, the name Brehons comes from 'brithem'. This word in Hebrew could be a compound of two words brith meaning 'covenant' & am meaning 'people' i.e. 'covenant people'. The Irish are also known as Tuatha de danann, or Tribe of Dan. It is well established that the Irish are actually descendants of one of the sons of Israel whose name is Dan.
It may be that the traditions they passed down were from those days long ago.
Interesting.
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 yep agree here, the history of ireland is very interesting its certainly a good example of anarchy/free markets in action as it worked for over 1000 years with less violence & more prosperity than most statist societies... btw anarchy doesnt mean no law, just no rulers. laws can be agreed upon voluntarily.
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
@Thistlesifter220 it wasnt governmental, it was free market anarchism as there was no monopoly of force... the judges relied on their reputation to obtain funding not force/taxation... it was a free market, stateless society because interaction was voluntary.
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
oh please i'm sick of people saying "9/11 happens everyday in iraq". NO it doesn't..people may die, but airliners aren't hijacked and flown into 110 stpry towers in ny and pentagons in washington (maybe the whitehouse). on a country never really touched on its soil...the two don't compare.
SelectedHandfull 1 year ago
@SelectedHandfull ashole airlines where hijacked by poppets of USA government, you idiot! An excuse to invade Iraq. Open you eyes you sheepple ignorant people.
sweetmisslatin 1 year ago
@SelectedHandfull in iraq people die slower & more brutal deaths, get injured, raped... 1 14 year old girl was raped 10 times by US soldiers before killing herself... nuclear weapons like depleted uranium mean iraqi women have deformed babies, many innocents in iraq get cancer from it... do you really think 911 is worse than that?
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
I've known this stuff since i was a kid
A55ma57er 1 year ago
Remember, war IS peace! enslavement births freedom! killing is living! submission makes dominance! and finally DEATH brings LIFE! These are the only 5 things we need to know from the second we open our eyes but only until that questionable second when maybe, just maybe, we pry open our minds and we see ourselves in the middle of going forward in reverse and it's our foot that's pushing the accelerator not our owners foot!.
DemonDik 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should all check out this film on exposing terrorism: youtube.com/watch?v=2csljjTMtTk
francescahammond 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should all check out this film on exposing terrorism: youtube.com/watch?v=2csljjTMtTk
francescahammond 1 year ago
Curious this video shows the exact moment 4:27 that depicts a fake SFX plane entering the WTC South Tower. If one slows down this footage frame by frame, it becomes obvious this is a cartoon - actually a military psyop of which the media was complicit from the start.
There were no planes on 9/11.
Watch September Clues - septemberclues . info
4ezMoney 1 year ago
Sad pics my friend... But I am an American, and I will fight to my last day for this blessed country. You may want to check out Ronald Reagan to understand who WE ARE. Obama (who I am sure you love) will be voted out in 2012.
TheUsman2000 1 year ago
The globe is like Little Italy and its mob families are government dogs.
sano0311 1 year ago
Thats why the Bible says satan (the enemy) makes war against itself...
TheEye22 1 year ago
in '90 US killed 1.600.000 included 5000 children under 5 years in iraq and they say they are attaked by terroristS?in 9/11 died 2995 ppl and it wasen't iraq the one to suport that.the war was for the oil
jardy90 1 year ago
This video makes mention of the horrible people that await you in federal prison. Without the government and its taxes, those horrible people would be out on the streets, free to do to you whatever they wish.
Whether the creator of this video wants to acknowledge it or not, government is the only institution capable of protecting your freedoms from those who would impugn upon it.
KevDurden 1 year ago
@KevDurden government is the institution that takes freedom away via threats and use of force. Those in the US are simply protected usually by being behind the biggest gun instead in front of it. Owing to the nature of institutionalized power, those that desire power will be attracted to it like bees to honey. What would you say to those who has had freedom taken away unjustly by government, to any degree? We can create a new and better concept than the state. We first have to try.
kmatzukaze 1 year ago
@KevDurden
That's completely untrue. People want protection, and they're happy to pay for it. A resident of the USSR would likely say something similar about food, "But, if we don't have the regime, who will run the bread lines?" But they couldn't imagine the possibilities of supermarkets, soup kitchens, etc -- what could be created when people are free.
No good or service must be funded by extortion. That notion is just silly, and wrong -- although convenient for the extortionists.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
dude
you are awesome.
suedeslounge 1 year ago
@echoessubmarine Thank you. I was only summarizing what his previous video was about, but I'm glad that I was able to reiterate it--that means I must've learnt sumthin'! Hahah.
Ronnock 1 year ago
Beautiful video man. I should've subscribed a long time ago when I watched number "14" (I believe). The video about how statism is dead and that we humans are much like livestock and the only reason we have the illusion of freedom of "movement" is so that we don't slowly kill ourselves. That's not so productive for the elite, even they need us to a very certain (if miniscule) degree.
Ronnock 1 year ago
Stef, compared to some of the overbearing shock jockeys I could mention, I very much enjoy your analysis, presentation and common sense perspectives - a refreshing voice that challenges the preconceived notions that imprison us from birth.
GMPresents 1 year ago
Cant give your videos enough thumbs ups!
1bulletleft 1 year ago
no place in the universe expanded, to the dictators of consciousness, although they are acting on this planet, under the cover of religion, and politics, the systematic error of this rounding, since the system itself is perfect, and is giving perfect power minds, therefore, give to your minds nutrients of freedom, and so,
jesussuperstar1 1 year ago
will you who to travez, the system itself, achieve the perfect change for a new world, obviously the new order shall be established, but improvements in mental revolution in expansion of freedom, and of course in a new era of communication with your external civilizations sisters ...
Grand master of masters
Perfect light and mind
King of Kings
Mr Jesus Super Star
jesussuperstar1 1 year ago
What was the Guide Stones photo about? Kewl?
graphattic 1 year ago
You are a mastermind Stef
TVwakeup 1 year ago
All war begins with taxation.
.
It is taxation itself which is immoral. All taxation is enforced by overwhelming violence, the very definition of terrorism.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 3
Statism is dead??? WHOOO HOOO, let's throw a fucking PARTEEEEEEE!!!
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
really good clip! makes alot of sense, I been into this for quite some time but u were the one that brought the last dot I needed to get a better picture of the situation.
kingxciter 1 year ago 15
Stefan, this video inspired me to make one similar, but in my own version. Thanks for everything, Peace
DonateToFreedomCom 1 year ago
Steff, im with you brother!
MtnDwarf 1 year ago
Are you an anarchist? You say statism is dead, but the only alternatives I can see are anarchy and world government. If you're for world government, what makes you think all the examples of corruption which arrise from statism amongst separate states, wouldn't happen amongst a single, larger state governing the world? I hope you're just an anarchy via your "free will" and not forced into it by government or natural laws!!!
AllWalksofLife 1 year ago
Stefbot is an anarcho-capitalist. He has many videos/podcasts which discuss the stateless society and common objections towards it. I recommend them if you liked this video.
TheYoungLibertarian 1 year ago 2
@TheYoungLibertarian
I don't really like it. This guy seems extremely intellectually disingenuous. As his 'free will' videos and debates illustrate pretty clearly.
And if he wants a world government, fuck him to. Statism is fucked but world government is just world statism. The only way it could work is with a rational world court system which could examine what is best for the population and resources, energy, etc.. But, with our world now, that wouldn't happen.
AllWalksofLife 1 year ago
hey dude. you're free will videos are rambling, incoherent, contain a few non-sequiturs, and worst of all, self-defeating. 85% of it was you explaining exactly why what you were about to conclude, (that human beings have free will) is funamentally wrong and is not conducive to reality as we can measure it.
AllWalksofLife 1 year ago
BRAVO !!!! brilliant lecture that should hit ex-YouTube space.......
BrotheBlairWitch1084 1 year ago
HAARP is stupid, anyone who believe we have the technolgy and / or resources to create earthquakes is fucked up in the head and needs a basic lesson on earth quakes m'kay? Believing 9/11 was an inside job? M'kay Believing bilderberggroup has to hide something? M'kay? Believing global warming is a hoax? M'kay. Believing earthquakes are man made? CRAZY.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
I was curious why was the Georgia Guidestones used?
h0bgobl1n 1 year ago
great video
Wesker1982 1 year ago
I usually give a standing ovation after these vids and this was one of them.
Well done.
45a14 2 years ago
BRILLIANT!!
ronpaulspanish 2 years ago
What I was trying to say was that our belief of "what the meaning of life is?" plays a fundamental role in our reasoning. So an atheist is going to look at abortion much differently than a Buddhist or a Christian. This variance in reasoning is why people have different conflicting beliefs. As for being an insincere sophist who uses "huffy, grandiose language", you caught me, I clearly intertwined false logic with big words to bring about my evil agenda of getting people to......think?
caniflysouthtoo 2 years ago
You sir, Understand much. However everything boils down to one element, our unnatural self awareness that is, our ability to question leads us to question why we are able to question, a conundrum equivalent to "what is the meaning of life?" The answer chosen by an individual is the core determining factor of every other decision made. Thus an incorrect answer makes all proceeding logic to be fundamentally flawed. Therefore variance in this answer causes human incompatibility or statism.
caniflysouthtoo 2 years ago
Im going to bookmark this, and share it with everyone I know. This is deserving of recognition
42NDElite 2 years ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so money allows for corruption and militarisim; so everyone should be poor...idiot.
PsychoticusRex 2 years ago
That certainly is not my perspective, if that's what you mean, I'm a great fan of money, just not government money...
stefbot 2 years ago 11
@stefbot Thank you Stef. You have finally convinced me that libertarianism / non-aggression principle is morally superior. Took me a while though, but late is better than never.
Thank you very much for making me a better person:)
waksibra 2 years ago 53
Thank you very much for your kind words, I am very happy to have been of some help in this matter! :)
stefbot 2 years ago 16
@waksibra I don't see it so much as morally superior but rather a rational and universal approach to many ethics we hold today.
fps0chris 11 months ago
@stefbot why are ua fan of money? I know u don't seem to belive that humans are able to have a society without money, how come u think that is impossible? I mean your videos do point serious matters within the human psyche and our love for money and greed in the end at least that's what the monetary system has become. I personally belive that we have come to the point in our civil evolution that makes money oldfashioned.
kingxciter 1 year ago
The necessity of money is bound to the variance of human needs and wants between individuals. An extended division of labour requires a common medium of exchange i.e. money in order to facilitate exchange between individuals with entirely different ordinal values. As a fungible and divisible medium of exchange money facilitates numerical price values to represent relative values of goods and services to induce helpful investment.
This aggression proves the irrationality of non-market 'defence.'
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@stefbot you are a fan of money because you like the gimmicky toys that you are bribed with to cooperate with this model of society.. work hard, be a productive slave and one day you could earn this car / house / t.v
TheCivilDisobedient 1 year ago
Comment removed
wreckerpecker 2 years ago
fantastic words . u speak truth stefbot. *****
NeuroParadise 2 years ago
USA use this theory against other countries
deansusky 2 years ago
The video says: "War is an effect of taxation".
So war & violence was non-existent pre-statist society? That's untrue.
The whole concept of an agreed-upon authority in society was to preserve property. The divergence of government from this role in the entirety of history rests on the persistent manipulation of this authority to achieve other means.
Call paying for this protection whatever you wish, but I see enforcing law as an integral part of human evolution, akin to an extensional organ.
UCIBME 2 years ago
We are all trained since birth, and re-enforced daily by government/media/public school propaganda to entrust the protection of our property rights to a group of people who violate our property rights every single day...
furyofbongos 2 years ago
yes...and my point is that this entrusting is a necessary condition of human society - the property rights violation, however, is not.
UCIBME 2 years ago
If an authority is agreed upon, then it is not taxation and essentially isn't government. Taxation is forced by the government. This force is an initiation of aggression upon people who may or may not want to pay for that which the individuals in government demand of them.
The idea that government is meant to preserve property is contradictory, since it must steal property in order to preserve it.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"If an authority is agreed upon, then it is not taxation and essentially isn't government" - true, the definition of "government" does not necessarily have "agreed upon" in it, but certainly some aspect of modern government is agreed upon, primarily directing authority to preserve property. And true, taxation is forced, however, logically the preservation of authority necessitates taxation, because some authority is necessary for the protection of property.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You said, "the preservation of authority necessitates taxation," which is completely true. If people didn't like the authority, they just wouldn't give them money. Therefore, they have to be forced.
It's just not an argument to say that government is necessary for the protection of private property since government steals private property. What's the point in that? I'd much prefer to keep everything I justly deserve.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
You left out the second clause in my proposition: "some authority is necessary for the protection of property". True, this authority can be autonomously (individually) derived; if I try to steal what is justly yours you can defend yourself. However, it's my belief that what spontaneously emerges out of this condition is the organization of individuals that submit their autonomous authority to a larger, hierarchical one. Thus, taxation may appear to be coerced, but it has been earlier agreed to.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Necessity is not a logical argument. The argument from necessity is a circular one. "We need taxation because X is necessary." The argument that we need something in no way validates any action in order to acquire it.
I didn't agree to be taxed. That was there before I was. And the initiation of violence, spontaneous or not, is never justifiable. We can submit to an authority, but that submission must be voluntary and contractual on both sides, not just on one side like with government.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
My proposition was more like: "If preservation of property is necessary for human progression, and consented organized authority is necessary for preservation of property, and authority operations need funds, then taxation is necessary"
"That was there before I was" - that's my point, it was there for a reason, as part of a mechanism for sustaining human progression which needs property to be preserved.
You disagree with being taxed yet enjoy all the privileges of living in modern society.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Taxation isn't consensual, so you're disagreeing with yourself. If taxation is based off consent, you don't need to enforce it. You don't need authorities to protect property either--just a mechanism which will cause people to respect property rights, like ostracism.
And it's really unfair to say that I disagree with taxation even though I benefit from it. There's no way to know how much better society would be if there wasn't a monopoly on the initiation of force controlling society.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Causally, taxation is consented through the agreement of establishing a governing authority over society. Logically if an organization is agreed upon it needs sustenance.
And the empirical evidence clearly shows that authority is crucial in protecting property (see "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando De Soto as example).
Societies that don't have taxation are primitive ones (i.e. Kalahari Bushmen) because logically they do not have the need to protect individual property rights.
UCIBME 2 years ago
"Logically if an organization is agreed upon it needs sustenance. "
That's not an argument. That's like saying because you agreed to be my friend, I now have a right to force you to be my friend. It's completely illogical, like the idea of selling yourself into slavery.
And I don't care what you think is "crucial" or necessary. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Do you see how you're going back and forth between necessity and consent, when I'm only talking about the violence?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
I keep emphasizing necessity because its my argument - society needs an organized authority to protect the property rights of individuals, as historically shown.
Talking about the violence is a straw man argument against said authority. It does not argue against the fact no civilization in existence operated without said authority. If you read my first post, you will see I use this to corroborate my claim that the state should be treated as an organ, like an eye, heart, or lung, by humanity.
UCIBME 2 years ago
I really feel like you're trying to manipulate me into saying that I consented to taxation when I did no such thing. You're not putting forth arguments. All you're saying is that taxation is necessary (not an argument) and that other people say that taxation is either necessary or beneficial (not arguments either). Those are preferences. You can tell me preferences all day and I'll listen, but those aren't arguments. When you insist on forcing them upon me, though, that's violence.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
No I'm not. You're argument is that taxation, when not consented, is unjustified. My argument is that to consider whether taxation is consensual or not is meaningless, because individuals have agreed to submit to an organized authority since the dawn of civilization, and that authority can only function if it has sufficient resources.
Your judgment on taxation is really a judgment about governing authority. You're against it - I'm for it b/c of the fact it is central to civilization.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You're just giving me preferences. You're not giving me arguments. It's not an argument to say that no civilization has existed without the use of the initiation of violence. There was no democracy before there was democracy, therefore, by your "logic" there should be no democracy.
There's also no argument for the initiation of force; there is just the initiation of force, just the force and after-the-fact rationalization.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
I'm giving you an argument that organized authority is critical for human progression, and am providing you with a fact about civilization to support my argument. You are claiming this isn't an argument at all and just my "preference", yet I am asserting and I've tried to support this assertion with empirical claims twice.
Instead of arguing against my justifications, you are arguing I have made no argument. Ironically, you are the one who appears to be providing a preference with no evidence.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You really have to understand that there is no logical justification for the existence of an imposing authority. If you have an initiation of violence, the ONLY thing you can do is post-rationalize. Logically, that's just a fact. There is no logical justification for the existence of the state because you can't start a syllogism with "If you don't agree, I'm going to use force on you," which is the basic premise of the state.
Please, prove me wrong by giving me an argument.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
My whole line of reasoning has been that there IS logical justification. I'm claiming we could only be having this dialogue on the Internet because of the existence of an imposing authority that ensures individuals will have their property rights upheld. This leads to productivity amongst the species. Contrast modern society to the bushmen in Africa, or to the aborigines in Australia, or to the tribes of the Amazon, which do not have a concept of property and thus do not have a taxation system.
UCIBME 2 years ago
I just told you that you don't have a logical justification, and I told you why. You can't begin an argument with the initiation of violence.
You have to give it up. There can be no discussion unless you put down the gun of the state to solve society's problems. If you don't put it down, you first and foremost support violence. It has to stop.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Comment removed
UCIBME 2 years ago
So based on your argument, if I don't agree with your view on the state, I first and foremost support violence.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Yes, because I can't meaningfully disagree with you without violence being used against me. If you support the state, then you support violence being initiated against me, so what's the point of debating you? I debate you, we disagree, people come to my house with guns to take me away. If I resist, I'm shot. That's not a debate. If you support the state, you absolutely cannot have a meaningful debate, because no one can disagree with you without implicitly having their lives threatened.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
This is what your fallacious argument of reducing the state to an instigator of violence boils down to. Apparently if you disagree with me someone will shoot you? So because of this you can't debate with me even though that is what we've been doing? Or are you simply saying you cannot reason with someone like me who supports the state because the disagree will have their life threatened?
UCIBME 2 years ago
It's not a debate if you aren't open to argumentation, which you aren't, because it doesn't matter if I prove you wrong or anything, you have the gun to fall back on. I don't. I'm not suggesting initiating violence against you. The same isn't true on the other side.
I'm not saying you can't be reasoned with at all, but in this particular instance, there is no reasoning with you. I can only reason with you if you don't support the initiation of violence against me if I disagree with you.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
The problem for you there is, once you agree not to support the initiation of violence against me, it becomes a debate which I have already won. The only thing I'm trying to do is to get you to be reasonable and not support the initiation of violence "as a principle." That's all any anarchist could ever ask for.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
As I have written prior, your argument rests on viewing the state as an perpetrator of violent acts, justifying its removal. As I have repeatedly stated, the state provides humanity order through the protection of private property rights. If someone steals my car the state has the right to retrieve it and forcefully rectify the situation. It is literally beneficial for the organism to devote a fraction of their resources to provide this order, explaining its existence altogether.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You have evaded the fact I raised about the state being existent since the dawn of civilization, and have evaded my proposition that explains its existence. And its clear that by doing so you can avoid having to explain why society would be more progressive and productive stateless, because its pointless. Further, you can avoid having to change your position on taxation, and more fundamentally, your view of the state.
UCIBME 2 years ago
The statement about the state existing since the dawn of civilization (which isn't entirely accurate, depending on your definition of civilization) is not an argument. Just like the fact that democracy didn't exist before it did exist is not an argument that it shouldn't exist. The same can be said for the ending of slavery.
I know why it exists. It exists because if you disagree with it, you go to jail or are killed; it doesn't exist because it provides services. If it did, it'd be a business.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
true, but is a justification of my argument that you continue to evade: it is necessary to increase the genetic fitness of the human species, akin to the human eye being necessary to increase the genetic fitness of a single human.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You're going into a shady area of evolution-driven morality. I won't evade it, you just haven't brought this aspect up yet.
There is no valid argument that states that any action is justifiable so long as it further progresses the genetic fitness of a species for three reasons:
1. We're not the only species.
2. That argument can be used to justify virtually any act which would otherwise be considered immoral.
3. "Progression" is subjective and means different things to different people.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I thought using phrases like "I see enforcing law as an integral part of human evolution, akin to an extensional organ." and "the state should be treated as an organ, like an eye, heart, or lung, by humanity" implied I was speaking about a biologically derived explanation about the existence of the state.
You're conflating the initiation of violence with the implementation of the state by human society. It's a false presupposition.
UCIBME 2 years ago
"Progression" in this context obviously means increased genetic fitness. Hopefully you agree we live in better conditions today than even 50 years ago.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You're first sentence is a bit nonsensical - how does having the gun to fall back on change your proof of my errors? And the fact that you imply I am suggesting initiating violence against you is an absurd ad hominem. You've completely disregarded every point I've raised about the purpose of the state and instead focus on "the initiation of violence", and therefore, the state should remove it. As I raised before this is a straw man argument for the removal of the state.
UCIBME 2 years ago
It's not a straw man. The state initiates violence. This is an obvious fact. If you support the state, you support the initiation of violence against me. Saying that the state is necessary (not a logical argument) does not change this fact.
Your points about the purpose and necessity of the state don't mean anything because they rest upon the initiation of violence.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 33
It is a straw man in the context of arguing against the state, for it lacks the comprehension of the reason the state is granted the right to initiate violence.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Is it possible to grant a right to some individual or entity, a right which you do not possess?
That's a question Jan Helfeld asks politicians (check him out on Youtube--he's a minarchist).
How can we grant the state a right to initiate violence on our behalf if we don't also have that right. And if we do have that right, and the state has that right, the only way the state can maintain itself is to overpower us with violence, which, like I said, isn't an argument. Violence=/=argumentation.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
So are you saying we do not possess the right to ownership? We therefore do not have the right to own our own bodies? Consequently, we do not have the right to preserve our bodies if someone attempts to desecrate it? Through this logic, yes, the state should not have the right to preserve property, which suffices the right to impose violence. But that is incoherent with reality.
UCIBME 2 years ago
@UCIBME
You are mistaking the right to self-defend with the right to iniciate violence.
chicalleje 2 years ago
In the context of the conversation I was having, presupposing these 'rights' you mention is begging the question. I was attempting to shift away from a priori reasoning towards an empirical derivation of 'rights'. As such, the right to initiate violence in order to protect property, as endowed by the state, is proper.
The persistent problem with states, however, is that this right is grossly abused.
UCIBME 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The right to initiate violence in order to do whatever they want, as imposed by the state, is perfectly evil.
FlailingJunk 2 years ago
History repeats itself when said authority abuses its sufficient conditions with taxation. That is what we are seeing in the United States in the last century.
UCIBME 2 years ago
amazing & inspiring work Stefan
a true "deprogramer"
can i translate it please for education purposes only?
more pleas :)
benhorinfreedom 2 years ago
genocide is a method of maintaining the balance of power in the world. it is going to happen more frequently, and we are going to know more about it than ever possible before thanks to information age. However this is nothing new; it's going to happen more frequently because it will become necessary population control. Climate change/natural disaster also may help with population control.
ramble on i do sometimes.
elvis316 2 years ago
....uhh you ma friend are an idiot, please return later when you have empirical or logical proof that the claims you have made are true or justified; until than I have hard time understanding you because I cant get my head that far up my ass.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
coming from the person that subs to glen beck, i'll take that as a compliment. empirical evidence, my such big words. If history book is too heavy, try a newspaper. Or wait, you are on computer, internet has lots of information if open your eyes, as far out of your ass as they might be.
elvis316 2 years ago
09:40 is a wonderful start & at 1:02 it starts boiling.. and at 11:17 you're no more in a lecture hall.. you're suddenly watching your favourite band (we all have at least one..) ouch!!.. Stefan, your work is inspiring.. more pls ;)
stoneandeddie 2 years ago 4
Thanks! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
cool.. Stefan himself replying :) have included your video in my featured COP15 message.. it's attached to dog's message when he's in front the cottage, in case you'd want to check it ;) have a great evening & if you can help with climate awareness the coming months en route to Copenhagen, I'd be grateful.. see ya, Stefan :)
stoneandeddie 2 years ago
This is very well done. I gotta check out the other parts now.
msgtsd 2 years ago
holy...fucking....shit
CarrieKM1 2 years ago 2
yeh.. love it.. true news true masterpiece!!
stoneandeddie 2 years ago