Did you just come out of your mother's womb? This crushing naivety... "The use of force is immoral". Were you born yesterday? You libertatians and communists, who think that one day there shall be a world without force. Nobody's gonna use force on anybody. There won't be a need for democracy, because the economic forces... Sorry! Excuse me, "economic cuddlemechanisms of society", will not use force on people. And everyone will be happy. Without force. Only teddybears.
Something is strange with the audio in this video. I can hear you mono, but then there is a small delay voice which is deeper in the left headphone. It's kind of freaking me out.
@beauxq The idea presented at 4:08 is that the freemarket is predicated on win-win negotiations/transactions. That is not false. "that doesnt mean they will be better off" THAT is true, but It still doesnt change the fact that leading up to the volentary exchange there was a PERCEIVED need, want or justification for the said good or service, whether that is still true after the exchange is not the issue being raised.
Steve Jobs factories in China are sad as that is the best option for the workers. If the factories were not there these people would ether starved or did worse thing to make money. And your right it is not a complete free market. For one if it was there would not be any borders and the people can pick up and leave to a better factory in say India or Japan. Also Steve Jobs exploiting the work force is an act of malice but in the scale of malice it is not as bad as extortion.
The idea presented at @4:08 is false, and Stefan acknowledges its falsehood with some of the words he chooses but then goes on pretending that it's not false. The two people “anticipate or expect to be better off” but that doesn't mean they will be better off. Unless we are omniscient, you don't know how much the pen will benefit you and I don't know how much the five dollars will be worth tomorrow. And if everyone were omniscient, there wouldn't even be any need for market transactions.
all this cost-benefit, rational choice, non-coercive stuff is all well and good... So, since the vast majority of people are going to be the net beneficiaries of govt coercion, it should exist... thats the best outcome for the majority. John stewart mill would agree... and i do know a thing or two about econ, unlike this you tube bubble world that only learned free market ideas... it makes you feel smart, like you know whata really going on, b/c its this one-size fits all psudo theory, its FUN
lets put it another way... in a democracy, people are sovereign, ie the foundation of society. For von Mises, the consumer is the new soverign, their purchases are like votes for what institutions should do/make in a free society. If the govt "brainwashes" people into being forced to do things today, and republicans and democrats are a false choice, businesses and PR firms will similarly force people to make a fslse choice between equally shitty products/jobs...
@HoRostam What democracy? You realize that we don't live in a democracy and were never intended to right? And the difference between government and business is that government is permitted to initiate violence whereas businesses can't force you to do anything, only convince you.
Libertarianism doesn't mean no government.... Government is a real thing! Look at what the hell it is doing to this country.... I agree with most of his views, but I feel like he was weak on certain viewpoints and used poor examples. He spoke to libertarians, he didn't say anything that would convince a non-libertarian to convert. Basically, just perpetuated the idea that libertarians are nuts..... I really wish 31,000 people hadn't seen this.
@HoRostam You want the Government to be societies parents? The principle, which you dont seem to grasp, is to either volentarily help someone you value(through time, knowledge, money)OR through force, have something taken from you, partially sqaundered, then given to the said cause on your behalf(which doesnt usually end up doing what it was intended to do) id prefer the volentary action.
the problem with libertarians is that they A) dont understand what the social contract is, and B) dont seem to understand that the govt keeps wages up. w/o govt, the labor market would be MASSIVE (no citizenship, no restrictions beyond, hopefully, licensing for certain jobs like surgeons, issued by lord knows who) the supply of labor would be, by some measures, all 7 billion people on Earth... it wouldnt matter how hard you worked, wed probably ALL BE POOR! see the book "Wealth of NATIONS"
@HoRostam I would suggest looking into the work of Milton Friedman. He addresses your concerns in his works, especially "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom". It's a start at least.
@HoRostam It isn't a problem of not understanding the social contract, but of approaching liberty and rights in a different way. I'm not real sure what you're getting at about "Wealth of Nations", and I don't really get your point. Why do surgeons need licenses from government bureaucrats? What's to ensure they know what they're doing? And wouldn't an infinite supply of labor be a good thing? You seem to view everything as us versus them.
Ideally, Politicians would be accountable to The Republic that they were representing, and THEN to the States. If the Politician were to commit Treason, he/she would be hung by the neck until he/she was surely dead. Again, initiation of force for the common good. And the most extreme punishment for stepping out of line.
Waaaay too deep. This guy is the perfect example of a man who thinks too much.
Ask this guy what 2 + 2 equals and he'll answer, "Well what ARE numbers, anyway?"
Nothing would ever get done with this guy in charge. And while I consider myself to be a radically Conservative Libertarian, I completely disagree with most of what this man is saying.
To go back to the numerous rape analogies, I believe that rapists deserve to die, I would initiate force upon them and end their lives. Simple as that
When you say government doesn't exist do you mean that you don't aknowledge their authority? There is a group that manipulates and controls things, they call themselves the Government so at least in that way they exist.
So where do roads come from in the world between your ears? And would airplanes even exist without roads? Gonna need to get to the airport! So another transportation issue! How about mass transit in this make believe place you reside? How would you build the system without roads?
@kingg213 You will find your answer if you ask how were roads built in Colonial America... back when no real governments existed on the continent. (I am talking about the time period during Solitary-Neglect)
I like that you made a serious effort to intelligently answer these questions. I don't agree with some of your answers, and some of them are subjective, like your opinion on what's "moral." Obviously we differ on our morality, but I can't tell you you're wrong per se, just that my morality is different.
Arguing that diverting money from a corporation doesn't harm the it because it doesn't exist is silly. A corporation is a collection of property that is owned by a group. Its like saying that if I kill you, I don't harm you, since you don't exist, all you are is a collection of cells. Its stupid.
A corporation can't just raise its rates or reduce pay to its workers. It has competition. Fining them takes out of their profits, reducing their ability to expand or forcing them to shrink.
24:00 he flashed the illuminati sign thing hes illuminati i immediately disregard his rational arguments now because his ideas are trying to socially engineer me
Sounds good, but there is a problem, and that problem is PROPERTY! Some people are born owning nothing and have NO choice but to rent themselves ("sell their labour") in exchange for the necessities of life. Private ownership of these things is a highly unnatural condition. Sure, I think people should own the products of their labour, but land is not the product of anybody's labour. So, either we must abolish private ownership of land OR landowners must pay an indemnity to the dispossessed.
@itachi705 You misunderstand me. What the fuck is a mortgage? I am saying that LAND is not the product of anyone's labour, though it can be improved by labour. I am NOT in favour of abolishing private ownership of land! I am just saying that "owning the product of your labour" is not a sufficient system of property rights. I support something like Thomas Paine proposed in Agrarian Justice.
@RuinSonic really? well first, watch the video, take a look at the facts, compare what happens when a government is assigned task a or task b and when people NOT in government are assigned task a and task b. And try to think up actual examples, not be some lazy idiot who repeats their favorite propaganda
@jawsusofnazareth He's babbling about how theoretically good no force would be. That's what true libertarianism/anarchism is. A load of crap just like communism except communism was tested and failed. Libertarianism is yet to be tested because nature tends towards force, greed, and control.
There is no voluntary trade for the 'proletariate'. Most people are trained like monkeys to work like robots, indoctrinated by the rich and perpetually coerced. The variability of 'value' particularly of people, which is intrinsic in the separation of 'value' from the individual by the use of IOU's a.k.a. currency, guarantees inequality in the same way that a listing ship is guaranteed to be further destabilized by it's unsecured contents. Capitalism is intrinsically immoral.
Unless you want to quibble about semantics which philosophers so like to do. Another way of looking at it would be to say that capitalism is an inequality amplifier. 'Wealth' will always flow in ever increasing torrents to the most ruthless. Capitalism and Western 'democracy' is slavery.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Every person regardless of their skill set can choose to work anywhere they please, just because it is a larger risk for them to quit a job doesn't mean that they are forced to do anything, if they desire their leisure over their financial well-being they could quit. Furthermore they are free to find a better job. Just because they don't have a perfect choice doesn't mean they have no choice.
@ArcherOutLoud Where is YOUR proof? Do some work of your own, i havent thought about this issue in the longest time and one simple google search of "who built the pyramids" resulted in multiple sources dispelling the slave 'myth'. National Geographic, some Harvard magazine among others, besides why get so worked up? Who caresnwho built them? Was your family slaves and you dont want their legacy tarnished? Dry your eyes.
I read the article, and a few others most are based off the National Geographic story, they provided food, beer and medical care? That seems like their evidence, Southern slave owners provided food, housing, and medical care to their slaves, and some "house" slaves were even proud. A slave is determined by whether or not they had a choice to work, id would wager they did not, making them slaves. And Im sure employed slaves held foreman like jobs and did not actually toil. Logic
I just would like for the government not how to tell me how I should watch television. What I should download on the net, run my private business or what I do in my house.
5:05 - 5:42 THANK YOU!! You have no idea how long I've waited for someone other than talk show hosts on the radio say that, finally someone else who gets the idea
@MGsven Ya i remember reading or watching a program which talked about the latest understanding of it (because they had recently dug up the camps where the workers lived) was that it was more like the building of the hoover dam. A project that you could take pride in as a citizen, to show the greatness of Egypt. You worked, and received food and shelter.
@Vansit84 just look at the military, like napoleon said about talking to the soul of a man rather than to reason
in military tradition people gladly give their life for their country, *idiots*, but idk how he thinks people wouldnt do something like building a big ass building for their pride, and churches used this style of building too(the church of barcalona is a similar example
Please explain to me how freedom isn't a delusion and government is if you understood his ontological analogy so well @TimothyADonaghue I'm a fan of Stefan's, I watch his videos frequently but everytime he speaks of the basics of the libertarian ideology I find his arguments intellectually bankrupt. I want to validate the ideology but its axioms are too fanciful.
Government to liberty is like a ghost to a human? Freedom is not a material substance. It's a concept just like government. And to say government isn't real is to say freedom isn't real. Horrible ontological analogy.
Stefan never asserts that freedom is a real material thing, while advocates of statism do speak about government as if it's a material object. Freedom is a principle, and he does differentiate it. He's still logically valid. You just haven't watched enough of his videos to catch him making that point. And it wasn't necessarily relevant to do so on his part in this video either. @jakezielsdorf
@MGsven WRONG! just wrong. wheather they were Egyptian citizens or other, they were not paid and they were forced to work so regardless of their birthplace, they were certainly slaves.
@MGsven Where is your proof? from what source are you getting this information. Is it just the opinion of one particular historian? Because even without knowing anything about anything I could use Logic and reason to suggest that paying the number of people it would have taken to build the pyramids well would have next to impossible, and also why would someone like Khufu pay people a good % of his wealth to build the pyramids when he could have forced them? out of the kindness of his heart?
@ArcherOutLoud He probably did pay them, because it is more efficient and CHEAPER to use paid labour rather than slaves. If you uses slaves they have to be caught, fed, transported, housed, re-caught or replaced if they run away, trained, require more supervision AND their work would be poor quality because they'd rather not be there in the first place. If he paid his workers most of these costs would be reduced or eliminated and all parties would benefiting from the arrangement.
@arcanekrusader I don't buy that, way to many people to pay if you dont have to. Like I said im sure some were paid, "upper management type" lol. I would say it is very unlikely the rest were paid, the Egyptians were clearly involved in slave trading and keeping slaves, the idea that they decided to start paying them eludes me. Ill stay with the majority of historians and archeologists then the most recent ones trying for a grab at some recognition with a new unfounded "theory"
@ArcherOutLoud again I guess its a matter of opinion, ive gone over it in my head and i thought of different angles, none of them pan out for me, what about the whole story of slaves being set free after completing the pyramids. There are several scrolls and evidence this happened at least after the completion of one of the pyramids.
1. If the individual becomes the extension of the state rather than vice-versa.
2. If something enhances freedom then there's a demand for it which a free market will supply more than the public sector. The only reason everyone doesn't fly helicopters and other aircraft today instead of driving cars on the surly bonds of earth,is that there's too many assets and liabilities sunk in this marvelous "infrastructure" you so love.
3. (You get the idea-- government is limited; human ingenuity isn't.)
@DarkZerkerX First, Nothing is free. Second, If your finances are so strained that you cant afford it such a serious expenditure (why have costs have risen so dramatically over the years? -hint- Gov. intervention) you need to make a CHOICE in your financial priorities. Bottom line, NO ONE should be forced to shoulder the burden of those costs other than you.
@Vansit84 Explain to me how government intervention is responsible for the rise in gas prices. The fact of the matter is government isn't doing anything about middle men buying up oil contracts, holding them, and then selling them at a profit.
@ipwnallnubscuzirock You do realize that gas is artificially high, yes? The prices have nothing to do with supply and demand. This is where regulation comes into play.
@Antiks72 All hail the mighty regulations Gods, may their red tape shine down upon us and.... lower the price of something (without creating lines). I have to ask you this, and this is a serious question, are you always out of your mind, or is that just on youtube?
@Antiks72 I think I addressed the fact that regulations cannot lower prices without creating lines due to the laws of Supply and Demand. Regulations create barriers between the creation of a product and it's sale, almost never a good thing, unless keeping moral law in check. If they lower the prices of goods artificially, this creates lines and scarcity unlike what the free market would have allowed.
@Antiks72 *beep* The person you are trying to message is not in right now. "The real economy is way more complex." was not a valid response and does not register with the machines automated responses. Though we appreciate your time, we suggest you come up with something you read in a book rather than some article over the web. It is clear you do not know what you are talking about. Please leave a message after the beep.... *beep* I'm sorry the inbox is full right now, call back another time.
@Vansit84 Nothing is free? so, your parents should have thrown you out of the house when you were 1 second old, every housewife in history should never have done one second of work, when you go on a date you always split the bill, you never do favors for anyone, teachers should charge kids who stay after class to ask questions, you never gave anyone a ride in your car... ill be your friend for a day for 100 dollars
@HoRostam Nothing is free. You may not have to pay for something, but someone is. There is a cost to raising children and parents decide to provide care for free. It's a matter of cost and benefit. You don't seem to know much about economics. Anyway, all of those situations you mentioned are voluntary, so what exactly is your point?
Wait, so are you saying that free health care is bad? You're saying it's a choice but you need to BUY health care. It's not a voluntary trade at that point then. They're initiating the force of you not being able to pay for the ability to treat your medical conditions. Corporations are FORCING YOU to buy Health Care. I can say no, but that only stems from the fact that either I don't have enough money to pay for health care or I'm willing to risk it. More likely, it's the former.
@z3r0Projects Politicians are bought by corporations because government is active in the market. Because government is active in the market, corporations buy politicians to get political/governmental favors. How is this a free market? You're thinking of corporatism. :)
If the initiation of force is evil, and manipulation is evil. Then wouldn't that make the only people who are not evil people who are either victims of people who are evil or people who isolated from evil people. And wouldn't it make you evil (not to mention prejudiced) to isolate these "evil" people? Because to do so, would be initiating force on them? That is to say if a mugger tried to mug me and I knocked him out and ran away, would I be evil?
@DeChoiseulVIDEO The answe to your first question is: yes. To second question: yes, if you isolated people by force. (But where did you get such an idea as that? Not from Stef.) Third question: yes. Last question: no. (Self defense is use of force, not initiation of force. You have to understand each word in a sentence to understand the sentence.) I hope that helps a little. Hard to be clear in such a small space.
Libertarianism is a wolf in sheep's clothes. It appears to be some form of pacifism ("No initiation of violence") but somehow it is able to sneak a right wing agenda in the backdoor of your mind.
@Dodec84 yes well the term "right wing" implies that politics are one dimensional. If the left is a large state and the right is a small state, libertarianism is clearly the most extreme right opinion. Once you apply disconnected issues like abortion and immigration, you have confused this right-left scale.
@BWCmike no such thing as left or right, but an authoritarian right wing/left wing or a libertarian left wing or right wing. I am left wing but I don't agree with government either.
@MrTitiez I'd like to present to you a different perspective, coming from someone who has considered himself both a liberal (in my youth) and a conservative (more recently.) The more important political dynamic is that of Up/Down, not Left/Right. Yes, Free Markets must take precedence over Socialism I agree, BUT in a truly Free Market society nothing can stop people from (voluntarily) forming socialist communities and having mutual ownership while allowing capitalist to do there thing elsewhere.
@MrTitiez (part 2) This is how we can reconcile the left and the right; Libertarian Free Markets and Voluntaryism! There is no reason to debate against the Socialists or Syndicalists UNLESS they promote a form of State Socialism or State Syndicalism where all the means of production are coercively socialized. So long as individual liberty is paramount, the most extreme Liberal and most extreme Conservative may peacefully coexist within the same framework.
@MrTitiez (part 3) Instead of siding against Liberals, I believe we could be more open to Left Libertarians and gain more support for Individual Liberty by widening the base two both ends of the political spectrum. Explain methods of reconciling Free Markets with VOLUNTARY Socialism. All human interaction should be voluntary, and all voluntary interactions that are mutually agreed to should be allowed. This Libertarian Centrist view attempts to Unite freedom lovers on both sides of the aisle.
I thought this was comedy half way through. Does this guy know the difference between artificial and non-existent. You can't see language from space, does that mean it does not exist? I'm very confused here. Does he think that anything created by an idea is fictitious or is it just some kind of jargon?
This is why I am hesitant to call myself a libertarian. Because a handful of anarchists also claim the title. Libertarians don't believe in no government. They believe in small government. This is the only differentiation between libertarianism and anarchism. If you don't believe in governments, you are an anarchist. Be proud of it. Sew a stupid logo on your denim jacket. Learn to skateboard. Listen to Agnostic Front. Don't try to sell your law-free zone as libertarianism.
@nofalltoofar Well, define government, many anarchists believe in societal councils elected by the said area to "legislate" and create rules that would defend men from their inevitable violence. We all need some sort of "force" in society to prevent societal unrest, though many anarchists suggest this should be extremely minimal and voluntary.
@z3r0Projects No, argument ad hominem would be me saying you're a complete waste of a valuable allocation of resources because you toss around latin rhetorical phrases without knowing what they mean. Insisting ideas be categorized under the schools of thought they fall under rather than mis-packaged and inaccurately presented is just good argumentation. I suggest you either learn moar Latin or baaaaaaw less.
@nofalltoofar I don't think denim jackets ,skateboards & agnostic front are valid arguments to support your argument against anarchism. Governments power should be limited to an absolute minimum. "A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state. In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power"
@Laoch111: The IMF is a tool of Statism, not Capitalism.
Corporations are protected and empowered by big government. In limited government envisioned by libertarians, government protects your individual rights.
This is a classic example of a Statist not even knowing what capitalism is.
Why can't Citibank sell securities to their customers, who are willing buyers, and then hedge the residual that it holds on its book by shorting in the market? Why is that fraud?
@djb5255 "Where are the videos on how corporations wouldn't exist without a state?? I'm interested."
Corporations are given corporate person-hood by the state. This means they are classified as a person with all the legal protections that follow. I don't know if there's a Stefbot video on the subject. I would recommend the documentary "The Corporation". You can find it here on you tube.
@JJStarcade The bus driver cares because in a voluntary interaction, he is trading his time and labor with the owner of the bus fleet in a mutually beneficial agreement. The bus company has an interest in maximizing profits and ( absent a govt. granted monopoly) is in direct competition with other companies for the patronage of customers. To the extent that the driver allows bigotry to interfere with the ability of the company to profit he is violating the terms of his employment....cont..
Similarly, if the proprietor of the business is himself a racist, he is free to engage in discrimination but only at a very dear price(namely his own economic self interest). Don't forget that the only way that a company can succeed in either monopolizing or in engaging in self defeating, exclusionary business practices would be to attempt to compel the voluntary action of competitors through force ( hence Jim Crow Laws).
You also say that people make choices and should be rewarded/punished accordingly. While I agree with this statement in many cases, you take it and run with it to the fucking extreme. So a guy made a mistake in highschool and now he needs help, are you going to say 'fuck you' every time? No because sometimes people deserve second chances. Although it may come under debate whether or not our governments execution of this is flawed (the welfare system). What we need is REFORM not ABOLITION.
Its not that you cant do things like form an army, go on strike, regulate morals and etc without government; its that its just SO MUCH easier to use a government. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that going the tough route isn't always right but if you have to choose: getting things done quickly is what we're about nowadays and a government facilitates that.
@ThatOneAtheist the government facilitates anything to you? What? How? The bad thing about government is that it has a monopoly in governing... I guess there could be a dozen governments in the same country as long as they hadn't monopoly over anything and couldn't coerce anyone.
@MrFmmcosta Well then you're making the assumption that we could make a unit that governs without coercion which in my opinion is untrue. I feel that to some degree coercion is a necessary part of governing. Without coercion, i feel a governing body could not incentivize acting 'ethically' well enough.
As well, multiple governing bodies would cause conflict among them for the single country because there would be no unity. My evidence? Articles of Confederation.
@ThatOneAtheist If coercion is a necessary part of governing then government is bad and shouldn't exist. If I cannot steal from you why should I be able to do it if I work for the government? You incentive people to behave ethically by not behaving unethically against them. If you steal from and I cannot steal from you I may steal from others, especially if you aren't punished for stealing from me. Give 1 example were government should coerce/initiate force against me!
@ThatOneAtheist: Unity by force is not unity. You can't protect ethics with force because force is unethical. Ridiculous. You seem well intentioned, so I won't stuff your ears with satire.
I agree with most of libertarian values because they make more sence then other groups. I just think its important for every one to use logic and reason. Darwinism is not a theory it is a proven fact that the weak die off while the adept continue on. Free market is darwinism.
@shlockofgod Anarchism is as naive as communism. In theory people will work together but in reality force, greed and selfishness beats the weak that doesn't forceably stand against it. You can't join together to fight an army if there are no armies. The strong survive. Those who can get away with taking advantage of another will have no system of recourse. The fact is humans are a long ways from giving up control no matter how workable it could be in theory.
@shlockofgod EXACTLY! In the market, the "fittest" (to use the common term) is the one who satisfies the needs of the consumer the best; the one who cooperates most efficiently to mutual benefit of all traders. A market "predator" does not last long unless he has special favor from government.
2 things. Capitalism is dog eat dog, companies do eat each other. By saying dogs dont eat dogs therefore you have no argument is ignorant. Racism is not an invention of government it may have promoted it but it is not resposible.
Lol...ignorant view of economics. He only describes trade agreements...that has nothing to do with monopolistic tendencies which are in fact predatory in most circumstances. The ability of monopolies to profit maximize instead of taking the market price means that they are not a normal functioning part of a market. They cannot be broken up without government intervention, or regulation.
@Illyrien Markets can function with economies and diseconomies of scale. Government monopolies are only one type of monopoly. Look up natural monopolies. They are real. The recent gambling monopoly in Austria shows it. Energy companies in localities that are not created by government can have monopolies on those particular markets. The idea that government is the only way monopolies come about is completely ignorant.
Sometimes monopolies are needed in order to make production inexpensive - such as with electricity. Most small towns only have one service provider for your area. But, this allows for the cost of transmitting the electricity to be held by one entity, which can reduce cost per-watt as their company expands. In these situations, price controls are necessary to reduce profit maximization and increase equitable outcomes in the market.
@UsernameFECKLE But without government they have no guns, and more importantly, just as is the case today, no public trust whatsoever. That being the case, if one such monopoly were to occur and persist in a free society, it is because the public wanted it to (i.e. found it that useful, good, etc.). Reduce profit maximization? Are you retarded? Yes, because that is how businesses flourish - reducing profit... maximization. The better off business is, the better off its customers.
@regresseur In economics, a firm in a competitive market makes $0 economic profit. That doesn't mean $0 accounting profit. They are two different measures. Profit maximization is specifically what monopolies and some oligopolies do. Competitive firms do not profit maximize, they satisfy demand at the market equilibrium. Sometimes this means economic loss, sometimes profit, but it always moves to $0 "economic profit."
@regresseur I should say "moves towards" $0 economic profit. On top of that, the EU had to break up the gambling monopoly, which had no backing from the government. If you think monopolies just fall apart on their own you are kidding yourself. You are right that when we decide to keep a beneficial monopoly we do so for a reason, but this is pretty much the only instance where monopolies are propped up in the US. They are also regulated in order to make them operate more similarly to
@regresseur a competitive firm. They have price ceilings etc. which means more people can afford the service. Just because the monopoly makes less economic profit does not mean they aren't doing great.
It's not about morality, 1:55 "Slavery enhances the freedom of trade for slave owners." Wrong, Slaver takes freedoms away from the slave, therefore not permissible in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. Most of his answers are just strawman arguments.
Libertarians are a little bit spoiled wen it comes to private property.In my view,no country or individual has the right to posess exclusive rights to the earths resources,other than that i am for free market capitalism.If you discover new non inhabited land the size of australia,do you just step on it and say"this is all mine,everyone else fuck off",its just immoral.By selling our collective rights to the earths resources to individuals we wouldnt need to raise any taxes on individuals.
Libertarian is not anarchist. Why don't you label yourself correctly. Libertarian is the view that government exists for the purpose of protecting liberty.
@Keeban3 Inside the wider libertarian movement, there is a sub-group of pro-market anarchists that stef is one of. Essentially he wants to privatize everything.
@Keeban3 You're right that "libertarian" doesn't mean "anarchist," but like The1Jebrim said, anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. It's one form of libertarianism.
To say that an anarchist is not a libertarian is like saying that a Democrat is not a statist. Or that a Christian is not a theist.
Then there should be a separate term for those that want limited government. Anarchist already exists as a term, and is well known, there is no reason to take a word that generally doesn't mean anarchism and have anarchists label themselves that. Lets not muddy the language. I want to keep libertarian separate from anarchism. When people start understanding what minarchist means, I'll use it. Until then I will spit vitriol at anarchists who steal my label.
I just listened til question 3 and might go on later, but let me guess: you are middle class, right ? And you really believe your lifes fortune is the product of your choice? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I have a real entity on video.Tell me what the hell is on my camera then,if ghosts aren't real
HoustonCabbie 9 hours ago
Did you just come out of your mother's womb? This crushing naivety... "The use of force is immoral". Were you born yesterday? You libertatians and communists, who think that one day there shall be a world without force. Nobody's gonna use force on anybody. There won't be a need for democracy, because the economic forces... Sorry! Excuse me, "economic cuddlemechanisms of society", will not use force on people. And everyone will be happy. Without force. Only teddybears.
AmbientSmiley 16 hours ago
Something is strange with the audio in this video. I can hear you mono, but then there is a small delay voice which is deeper in the left headphone. It's kind of freaking me out.
Tenche 21 hours ago
@Tenche yes, sorry about that, it happens when I use power director to produce WMV videos, I've stopped using that format...
stefbot 21 hours ago
@stefbot Thanks for the reply. Glad to hear you're aware of it. It wasn't a problem as much once I stopped using my headphones.
Tenche 20 hours ago
Libertarians FTW
MrTitiez 1 day ago
Nice video. But I wished you had spent more time on analyzing the articles of confederations.
onepiecefan74 3 days ago
@beauxq The idea presented at 4:08 is that the freemarket is predicated on win-win negotiations/transactions. That is not false. "that doesnt mean they will be better off" THAT is true, but It still doesnt change the fact that leading up to the volentary exchange there was a PERCEIVED need, want or justification for the said good or service, whether that is still true after the exchange is not the issue being raised.
Vansit84 3 days ago
Steve Jobs factories in China are sad as that is the best option for the workers. If the factories were not there these people would ether starved or did worse thing to make money. And your right it is not a complete free market. For one if it was there would not be any borders and the people can pick up and leave to a better factory in say India or Japan. Also Steve Jobs exploiting the work force is an act of malice but in the scale of malice it is not as bad as extortion.
WEH1123 3 days ago
101 people do not think dragons are immoral.
WilliamThomasStory 4 days ago
None of these 19 questions could be logically followed with "ergo, we need a powerful state."
WilliamThomasStory 4 days ago 2
The idea presented at @4:08 is false, and Stefan acknowledges its falsehood with some of the words he chooses but then goes on pretending that it's not false. The two people “anticipate or expect to be better off” but that doesn't mean they will be better off. Unless we are omniscient, you don't know how much the pen will benefit you and I don't know how much the five dollars will be worth tomorrow. And if everyone were omniscient, there wouldn't even be any need for market transactions.
beauxq 4 days ago
jon stewart is to liberals what ray comfort is to christians. the worst possible example who appeals to the lowest common denominator.
zackhanscom 4 days ago
all this cost-benefit, rational choice, non-coercive stuff is all well and good... So, since the vast majority of people are going to be the net beneficiaries of govt coercion, it should exist... thats the best outcome for the majority. John stewart mill would agree... and i do know a thing or two about econ, unlike this you tube bubble world that only learned free market ideas... it makes you feel smart, like you know whata really going on, b/c its this one-size fits all psudo theory, its FUN
HoRostam 4 days ago
lets put it another way... in a democracy, people are sovereign, ie the foundation of society. For von Mises, the consumer is the new soverign, their purchases are like votes for what institutions should do/make in a free society. If the govt "brainwashes" people into being forced to do things today, and republicans and democrats are a false choice, businesses and PR firms will similarly force people to make a fslse choice between equally shitty products/jobs...
HoRostam 5 days ago
@HoRostam What democracy? You realize that we don't live in a democracy and were never intended to right? And the difference between government and business is that government is permitted to initiate violence whereas businesses can't force you to do anything, only convince you.
DaddyRTO 5 days ago
Libertarianism doesn't mean no government.... Government is a real thing! Look at what the hell it is doing to this country.... I agree with most of his views, but I feel like he was weak on certain viewpoints and used poor examples. He spoke to libertarians, he didn't say anything that would convince a non-libertarian to convert. Basically, just perpetuated the idea that libertarians are nuts..... I really wish 31,000 people hadn't seen this.
haveYOUseenENOUGH 5 days ago
@haveYOUseenENOUGH look what concept A is doing to concept B. SOrry but that's a logic fail.
Sivels 3 days ago
Oh yeah, we are going to go back to colonial America! Whats it like in the world between your ears!
kingg213 6 days ago
finially a libertarian who understands private sector unions! yay! i thought i was the only one!
joshua1auhsoj 6 days ago
@HoRostam You want the Government to be societies parents? The principle, which you dont seem to grasp, is to either volentarily help someone you value(through time, knowledge, money)OR through force, have something taken from you, partially sqaundered, then given to the said cause on your behalf(which doesnt usually end up doing what it was intended to do) id prefer the volentary action.
Vansit84 6 days ago
and i mean "Wealth of Nations" as opposed to "Wealth of Praxiologically Organized Entities." There would be no Wealth, sorry.
HoRostam 1 week ago
the problem with libertarians is that they A) dont understand what the social contract is, and B) dont seem to understand that the govt keeps wages up. w/o govt, the labor market would be MASSIVE (no citizenship, no restrictions beyond, hopefully, licensing for certain jobs like surgeons, issued by lord knows who) the supply of labor would be, by some measures, all 7 billion people on Earth... it wouldnt matter how hard you worked, wed probably ALL BE POOR! see the book "Wealth of NATIONS"
HoRostam 1 week ago
@HoRostam I would suggest looking into the work of Milton Friedman. He addresses your concerns in his works, especially "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom". It's a start at least.
BudDickman 6 days ago
@HoRostam It isn't a problem of not understanding the social contract, but of approaching liberty and rights in a different way. I'm not real sure what you're getting at about "Wealth of Nations", and I don't really get your point. Why do surgeons need licenses from government bureaucrats? What's to ensure they know what they're doing? And wouldn't an infinite supply of labor be a good thing? You seem to view everything as us versus them.
DaddyRTO 5 days ago
Ideally, Politicians would be accountable to The Republic that they were representing, and THEN to the States. If the Politician were to commit Treason, he/she would be hung by the neck until he/she was surely dead. Again, initiation of force for the common good. And the most extreme punishment for stepping out of line.
There is danger in getting overly philosophical.
CaliforniaCarpenter7 1 week ago
Waaaay too deep. This guy is the perfect example of a man who thinks too much.
Ask this guy what 2 + 2 equals and he'll answer, "Well what ARE numbers, anyway?"
Nothing would ever get done with this guy in charge. And while I consider myself to be a radically Conservative Libertarian, I completely disagree with most of what this man is saying.
To go back to the numerous rape analogies, I believe that rapists deserve to die, I would initiate force upon them and end their lives. Simple as that
CaliforniaCarpenter7 1 week ago
When you say government doesn't exist do you mean that you don't aknowledge their authority? There is a group that manipulates and controls things, they call themselves the Government so at least in that way they exist.
BenjaminWirtz 1 week ago
So where do roads come from in the world between your ears? And would airplanes even exist without roads? Gonna need to get to the airport! So another transportation issue! How about mass transit in this make believe place you reside? How would you build the system without roads?
kingg213 1 week ago
@kingg213 You will find your answer if you ask how were roads built in Colonial America... back when no real governments existed on the continent. (I am talking about the time period during Solitary-Neglect)
zngga 6 days ago
I like that you made a serious effort to intelligently answer these questions. I don't agree with some of your answers, and some of them are subjective, like your opinion on what's "moral." Obviously we differ on our morality, but I can't tell you you're wrong per se, just that my morality is different.
Maytag99 1 week ago
I am so glad I subscribed to this channel. Thanks Stephan.
dylanpalmediy 1 week ago
Arguing that diverting money from a corporation doesn't harm the it because it doesn't exist is silly. A corporation is a collection of property that is owned by a group. Its like saying that if I kill you, I don't harm you, since you don't exist, all you are is a collection of cells. Its stupid.
A corporation can't just raise its rates or reduce pay to its workers. It has competition. Fining them takes out of their profits, reducing their ability to expand or forcing them to shrink.
Keeban3 1 week ago
24:00 he flashed the illuminati sign thing hes illuminati i immediately disregard his rational arguments now because his ideas are trying to socially engineer me
aknutson11 1 week ago
@aknutson11
Yeah, I used to believe this guy too, but then I saw that he was bald, and now I'm going bald as well. This guy speaks from the devil!
MrGuvnah 1 week ago
@aknutson11 You mean when he scratched his nose?
PbDeth 1 week ago
STEFAN NEEDS TO GO ON HIS SHOW. WE NEED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SOME HOW. SOME WAY.
pureaggression 1 week ago
Sounds good, but there is a problem, and that problem is PROPERTY! Some people are born owning nothing and have NO choice but to rent themselves ("sell their labour") in exchange for the necessities of life. Private ownership of these things is a highly unnatural condition. Sure, I think people should own the products of their labour, but land is not the product of anybody's labour. So, either we must abolish private ownership of land OR landowners must pay an indemnity to the dispossessed.
donteatthefishsticks 1 week ago
@donteatthefishsticks
"but land is not the product of anybody's labour."
What the fuck is a mortgage, then?
"So, either we must abolish private ownership of land"
Nice try Stalin.
itachi705 1 week ago
@itachi705 You misunderstand me. What the fuck is a mortgage? I am saying that LAND is not the product of anyone's labour, though it can be improved by labour. I am NOT in favour of abolishing private ownership of land! I am just saying that "owning the product of your labour" is not a sufficient system of property rights. I support something like Thomas Paine proposed in Agrarian Justice.
donteatthefishsticks 1 week ago
you have a cool voice
sindle36 1 week ago
Libertarianism is good in theory, but doubtful in practice. Force wins right or wrong. Too much force destroys itself.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic really? well first, watch the video, take a look at the facts, compare what happens when a government is assigned task a or task b and when people NOT in government are assigned task a and task b. And try to think up actual examples, not be some lazy idiot who repeats their favorite propaganda
nurbSoldier 1 week ago
wtf is this guy babbling about
jawsusofnazareth 1 week ago
@jawsusofnazareth He's babbling about how theoretically good no force would be. That's what true libertarianism/anarchism is. A load of crap just like communism except communism was tested and failed. Libertarianism is yet to be tested because nature tends towards force, greed, and control.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic "Libertarianism is yet to be tested because nature tends towards force, greed, and control."
Is that why we have the state?
TheCinemaTroll 1 week ago
@RuinSonic um, no, strawman argument. You obviously didn't even watch the video
nurbSoldier 1 week ago
There is no voluntary trade for the 'proletariate'. Most people are trained like monkeys to work like robots, indoctrinated by the rich and perpetually coerced. The variability of 'value' particularly of people, which is intrinsic in the separation of 'value' from the individual by the use of IOU's a.k.a. currency, guarantees inequality in the same way that a listing ship is guaranteed to be further destabilized by it's unsecured contents. Capitalism is intrinsically immoral.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 week ago
"Capitalism is intrinsically immoral."
Unless you want to quibble about semantics which philosophers so like to do. Another way of looking at it would be to say that capitalism is an inequality amplifier. 'Wealth' will always flow in ever increasing torrents to the most ruthless. Capitalism and Western 'democracy' is slavery.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 week ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Every person regardless of their skill set can choose to work anywhere they please, just because it is a larger risk for them to quit a job doesn't mean that they are forced to do anything, if they desire their leisure over their financial well-being they could quit. Furthermore they are free to find a better job. Just because they don't have a perfect choice doesn't mean they have no choice.
NamekianPrince 1 week ago
Surely the application of force in the absense of compliance is implied by government. What else would government mean?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 week ago
wtf thats stupid
shohchkheh 1 week ago
Great video
BagofHay 2 weeks ago
@stefbot < L RON PAUL 2012
Anarchism = Libertarianism = Communism = Laissez Faire Capitalism VS Murphys Law and human nature which wins everytime.
It never ceases to amaze me how smug overeducated assholes like this twit just ASSUME we all want to be businessmen and entrepreneurs.
sharkattacksteve 2 weeks ago
@sharkattacksteve Wtf are you talking about?
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
Is this a video of as many strawman arguments that you can make in in 28m15s? Cause that was it sounds like to me!
aacmckay 2 weeks ago
@aacmckay Ya, stef demolishes all jon stewart's strawman arguments.
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
Come on. First it's 28'14 and second you had some space left - why didn't you write one?
Straw man is cool though it's work like this - just shout "straw man" and argumen tis refuted.
Wait.
It doesn't work quite like this.
pipem4n 1 week ago
@aacmckay Then you must either be deaf or stupid.
itachi705 1 week ago
Steaming pile of bullshit.
drossidersca 2 weeks ago
Thank you Sir, Thank YOU
Elimaster1000 2 weeks ago 8
@ArcherOutLoud Where is YOUR proof? Do some work of your own, i havent thought about this issue in the longest time and one simple google search of "who built the pyramids" resulted in multiple sources dispelling the slave 'myth'. National Geographic, some Harvard magazine among others, besides why get so worked up? Who caresnwho built them? Was your family slaves and you dont want their legacy tarnished? Dry your eyes.
Vansit84 3 weeks ago
@Vansit84 thank you
MGsven 3 weeks ago
I read the article, and a few others most are based off the National Geographic story, they provided food, beer and medical care? That seems like their evidence, Southern slave owners provided food, housing, and medical care to their slaves, and some "house" slaves were even proud. A slave is determined by whether or not they had a choice to work, id would wager they did not, making them slaves. And Im sure employed slaves held foreman like jobs and did not actually toil. Logic
ArcherOutLoud 3 weeks ago
I just would like for the government not how to tell me how I should watch television. What I should download on the net, run my private business or what I do in my house.
brittanyverjes1 3 weeks ago
5:05 - 5:42 THANK YOU!! You have no idea how long I've waited for someone other than talk show hosts on the radio say that, finally someone else who gets the idea
xXxDANMANxXx 3 weeks ago
This guys opinions on welfare are extremely cuntish.
foofkanon 3 weeks ago
@MGsven Ya i remember reading or watching a program which talked about the latest understanding of it (because they had recently dug up the camps where the workers lived) was that it was more like the building of the hoover dam. A project that you could take pride in as a citizen, to show the greatness of Egypt. You worked, and received food and shelter.
Vansit84 3 weeks ago
@Vansit84 just look at the military, like napoleon said about talking to the soul of a man rather than to reason
in military tradition people gladly give their life for their country, *idiots*, but idk how he thinks people wouldnt do something like building a big ass building for their pride, and churches used this style of building too(the church of barcalona is a similar example
MGsven 3 weeks ago
Please explain to me how freedom isn't a delusion and government is if you understood his ontological analogy so well @TimothyADonaghue I'm a fan of Stefan's, I watch his videos frequently but everytime he speaks of the basics of the libertarian ideology I find his arguments intellectually bankrupt. I want to validate the ideology but its axioms are too fanciful.
jakezielsdorf 3 weeks ago
Government to liberty is like a ghost to a human? Freedom is not a material substance. It's a concept just like government. And to say government isn't real is to say freedom isn't real. Horrible ontological analogy.
jakezielsdorf 3 weeks ago
Stefan never asserts that freedom is a real material thing, while advocates of statism do speak about government as if it's a material object. Freedom is a principle, and he does differentiate it. He's still logically valid. You just haven't watched enough of his videos to catch him making that point. And it wasn't necessarily relevant to do so on his part in this video either. @jakezielsdorf
TimothyADonaghue 3 weeks ago
a small mistake on your part stefan, the piramids were built by egyptian citizens. not slaves
MGsven 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ArcherOutLoud 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MGsven WRONG! just wrong. wheather they were Egyptian citizens or other, they were not paid and they were forced to work so regardless of their birthplace, they were certainly slaves.
ArcherOutLoud 3 weeks ago
@ArcherOutLoud actually they were not, they were well payed citizens of egypt that had pretty good living conditions (for their time)
(ps, i didnt mark u as being spam, i dont do cencorship except on trolls
MGsven 3 weeks ago
@MGsven Where is your proof? from what source are you getting this information. Is it just the opinion of one particular historian? Because even without knowing anything about anything I could use Logic and reason to suggest that paying the number of people it would have taken to build the pyramids well would have next to impossible, and also why would someone like Khufu pay people a good % of his wealth to build the pyramids when he could have forced them? out of the kindness of his heart?
ArcherOutLoud 3 weeks ago
@ArcherOutLoud nationalgeographic *dot* com/pyramids/pyramids.html
MGsven 3 weeks ago
@ArcherOutLoud He probably did pay them, because it is more efficient and CHEAPER to use paid labour rather than slaves. If you uses slaves they have to be caught, fed, transported, housed, re-caught or replaced if they run away, trained, require more supervision AND their work would be poor quality because they'd rather not be there in the first place. If he paid his workers most of these costs would be reduced or eliminated and all parties would benefiting from the arrangement.
arcanekrusader 2 weeks ago
@arcanekrusader I don't buy that, way to many people to pay if you dont have to. Like I said im sure some were paid, "upper management type" lol. I would say it is very unlikely the rest were paid, the Egyptians were clearly involved in slave trading and keeping slaves, the idea that they decided to start paying them eludes me. Ill stay with the majority of historians and archeologists then the most recent ones trying for a grab at some recognition with a new unfounded "theory"
ArcherOutLoud 2 weeks ago
@ArcherOutLoud again I guess its a matter of opinion, ive gone over it in my head and i thought of different angles, none of them pan out for me, what about the whole story of slaves being set free after completing the pyramids. There are several scrolls and evidence this happened at least after the completion of one of the pyramids.
ArcherOutLoud 2 weeks ago
1. If the individual becomes the extension of the state rather than vice-versa.
2. If something enhances freedom then there's a demand for it which a free market will supply more than the public sector. The only reason everyone doesn't fly helicopters and other aircraft today instead of driving cars on the surly bonds of earth,is that there's too many assets and liabilities sunk in this marvelous "infrastructure" you so love.
3. (You get the idea-- government is limited; human ingenuity isn't.)
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
I'm having the hardest time placing your accent.
AzuAtoms 3 weeks ago
@DarkZerkerX First, Nothing is free. Second, If your finances are so strained that you cant afford it such a serious expenditure (why have costs have risen so dramatically over the years? -hint- Gov. intervention) you need to make a CHOICE in your financial priorities. Bottom line, NO ONE should be forced to shoulder the burden of those costs other than you.
Vansit84 3 weeks ago 11
@Vansit84 Newt wants a colony on the moon-- yep, he's a self-confessed LUNATIC!
LOL
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@Vansit84 Explain to me how government intervention is responsible for the rise in gas prices. The fact of the matter is government isn't doing anything about middle men buying up oil contracts, holding them, and then selling them at a profit.
Antiks72 1 week ago
@Antiks72 OH NO, PROFIT. QUICK, WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!!!!
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 week ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock You do realize that gas is artificially high, yes? The prices have nothing to do with supply and demand. This is where regulation comes into play.
Antiks72 1 week ago
@Antiks72 All hail the mighty regulations Gods, may their red tape shine down upon us and.... lower the price of something (without creating lines). I have to ask you this, and this is a serious question, are you always out of your mind, or is that just on youtube?
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 week ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock You did nothing to address my point and instead just resorted to insults. Good job Capt. Snark.
Antiks72 1 week ago
@Antiks72 I think I addressed the fact that regulations cannot lower prices without creating lines due to the laws of Supply and Demand. Regulations create barriers between the creation of a product and it's sale, almost never a good thing, unless keeping moral law in check. If they lower the prices of goods artificially, this creates lines and scarcity unlike what the free market would have allowed.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 week ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock Sounds great on paper, unfortunately the real world doesn't always work this way. The real economy is way more complex.
Antiks72 1 week ago
@Antiks72 *beep* The person you are trying to message is not in right now. "The real economy is way more complex." was not a valid response and does not register with the machines automated responses. Though we appreciate your time, we suggest you come up with something you read in a book rather than some article over the web. It is clear you do not know what you are talking about. Please leave a message after the beep.... *beep* I'm sorry the inbox is full right now, call back another time.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 week ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock troll on, bro
Antiks72 1 week ago
@Vansit84 Nothing is free? so, your parents should have thrown you out of the house when you were 1 second old, every housewife in history should never have done one second of work, when you go on a date you always split the bill, you never do favors for anyone, teachers should charge kids who stay after class to ask questions, you never gave anyone a ride in your car... ill be your friend for a day for 100 dollars
HoRostam 1 week ago
@HoRostam Nothing is free. You may not have to pay for something, but someone is. There is a cost to raising children and parents decide to provide care for free. It's a matter of cost and benefit. You don't seem to know much about economics. Anyway, all of those situations you mentioned are voluntary, so what exactly is your point?
DaddyRTO 5 days ago
Wait, so are you saying that free health care is bad? You're saying it's a choice but you need to BUY health care. It's not a voluntary trade at that point then. They're initiating the force of you not being able to pay for the ability to treat your medical conditions. Corporations are FORCING YOU to buy Health Care. I can say no, but that only stems from the fact that either I don't have enough money to pay for health care or I'm willing to risk it. More likely, it's the former.
DarkZerkerX 3 weeks ago
Wall-street buying the politicians sounds like free market to me :P
z3r0Projects 1 month ago
@z3r0Projects Politicians are bought by corporations because government is active in the market. Because government is active in the market, corporations buy politicians to get political/governmental favors. How is this a free market? You're thinking of corporatism. :)
ViewpointLibertarian 4 weeks ago
@ViewpointLibertarian Ok, so where would the government get its money?
z3r0Projects 4 weeks ago
If the initiation of force is evil, and manipulation is evil. Then wouldn't that make the only people who are not evil people who are either victims of people who are evil or people who isolated from evil people. And wouldn't it make you evil (not to mention prejudiced) to isolate these "evil" people? Because to do so, would be initiating force on them? That is to say if a mugger tried to mug me and I knocked him out and ran away, would I be evil?
DeChoiseulVIDEO 1 month ago
@DeChoiseulVIDEO The answe to your first question is: yes. To second question: yes, if you isolated people by force. (But where did you get such an idea as that? Not from Stef.) Third question: yes. Last question: no. (Self defense is use of force, not initiation of force. You have to understand each word in a sentence to understand the sentence.) I hope that helps a little. Hard to be clear in such a small space.
brindlebriar 1 month ago
Read Sowell/Walter Williams more and we can talk about who really is the wolf.
mootant 1 month ago
Libertarianism is a wolf in sheep's clothes. It appears to be some form of pacifism ("No initiation of violence") but somehow it is able to sneak a right wing agenda in the backdoor of your mind.
Dodec84 1 month ago
@Dodec84 yes well the term "right wing" implies that politics are one dimensional. If the left is a large state and the right is a small state, libertarianism is clearly the most extreme right opinion. Once you apply disconnected issues like abortion and immigration, you have confused this right-left scale.
BWCmike 1 month ago
@BWCmike no such thing as left or right, but an authoritarian right wing/left wing or a libertarian left wing or right wing. I am left wing but I don't agree with government either.
23lFrench 4 weeks ago
@Dodec84 What is a "right wing agenda"?
ViewpointLibertarian 4 weeks ago
@Dodec84 Nothing wrong with the right wing, better than the left!!
MrTitiez 1 day ago
@MrTitiez I'd like to present to you a different perspective, coming from someone who has considered himself both a liberal (in my youth) and a conservative (more recently.) The more important political dynamic is that of Up/Down, not Left/Right. Yes, Free Markets must take precedence over Socialism I agree, BUT in a truly Free Market society nothing can stop people from (voluntarily) forming socialist communities and having mutual ownership while allowing capitalist to do there thing elsewhere.
anonwoohoo 1 day ago
@MrTitiez (part 2) This is how we can reconcile the left and the right; Libertarian Free Markets and Voluntaryism! There is no reason to debate against the Socialists or Syndicalists UNLESS they promote a form of State Socialism or State Syndicalism where all the means of production are coercively socialized. So long as individual liberty is paramount, the most extreme Liberal and most extreme Conservative may peacefully coexist within the same framework.
anonwoohoo 1 day ago
@MrTitiez (part 3) Instead of siding against Liberals, I believe we could be more open to Left Libertarians and gain more support for Individual Liberty by widening the base two both ends of the political spectrum. Explain methods of reconciling Free Markets with VOLUNTARY Socialism. All human interaction should be voluntary, and all voluntary interactions that are mutually agreed to should be allowed. This Libertarian Centrist view attempts to Unite freedom lovers on both sides of the aisle.
anonwoohoo 1 day ago
Really good job on this.
dubified89 1 month ago
I thought this was comedy half way through. Does this guy know the difference between artificial and non-existent. You can't see language from space, does that mean it does not exist? I'm very confused here. Does he think that anything created by an idea is fictitious or is it just some kind of jargon?
RejectKing 1 month ago
12:05
That is some beautifully applied Lysander Spooner argumentation right there
KagarBeardtooth 1 month ago
This is why I am hesitant to call myself a libertarian. Because a handful of anarchists also claim the title. Libertarians don't believe in no government. They believe in small government. This is the only differentiation between libertarianism and anarchism. If you don't believe in governments, you are an anarchist. Be proud of it. Sew a stupid logo on your denim jacket. Learn to skateboard. Listen to Agnostic Front. Don't try to sell your law-free zone as libertarianism.
nofalltoofar 1 month ago
@nofalltoofar Well, define government, many anarchists believe in societal councils elected by the said area to "legislate" and create rules that would defend men from their inevitable violence. We all need some sort of "force" in society to prevent societal unrest, though many anarchists suggest this should be extremely minimal and voluntary.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 month ago
@nofalltoofar "argumentum ad hominem"
z3r0Projects 4 weeks ago
@z3r0Projects No, argument ad hominem would be me saying you're a complete waste of a valuable allocation of resources because you toss around latin rhetorical phrases without knowing what they mean. Insisting ideas be categorized under the schools of thought they fall under rather than mis-packaged and inaccurately presented is just good argumentation. I suggest you either learn moar Latin or baaaaaaw less.
nofalltoofar 4 weeks ago
@nofalltoofar I don't think denim jackets ,skateboards & agnostic front are valid arguments to support your argument against anarchism. Governments power should be limited to an absolute minimum. "A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state. In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power"
z3r0Projects 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cornampoo Of all examples he could have used, why use black rapists? Rapists come in all races.
porkchop745 1 month ago
Comment removed
porkchop745 1 month ago
Will you at least be voting Ron Paul?
Cornampoo 1 month ago
Seldom I disagree with Stefan Molyneux.
TerrierBram 1 month ago
I get the impression that you would like to privatise the whole planet and turn us all into corporate junkies/whores. The IMF would love you.
17:25 Steve jobs was deeply immoral.
18:40 are you seriously praising a Rockefeller scumbag - there must have been a profit motive in his publicity stunt.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom.
Laoch111 1 month ago
@Laoch111: The IMF is a tool of Statism, not Capitalism.
Corporations are protected and empowered by big government. In limited government envisioned by libertarians, government protects your individual rights.
This is a classic example of a Statist not even knowing what capitalism is.
"The IMF would love you."
So ridiculous.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 I am not a Statist - get your facts right.
Laoch111 1 month ago
Why can't Citibank sell securities to their customers, who are willing buyers, and then hedge the residual that it holds on its book by shorting in the market? Why is that fraud?
mason72518 1 month ago
Where are the videos on how corporations wouldn't exist without a state?? I'm interested.
djb5255 1 month ago
@djb5255 I found this short one: v=hSmfHq6SM7Y pretty interesting
mzmaj7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djb5255 "Where are the videos on how corporations wouldn't exist without a state?? I'm interested."
Corporations are given corporate person-hood by the state. This means they are classified as a person with all the legal protections that follow. I don't know if there's a Stefbot video on the subject. I would recommend the documentary "The Corporation". You can find it here on you tube.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
What does the bus driver care?
JJStarcade 1 month ago
@JJStarcade The bus driver cares because in a voluntary interaction, he is trading his time and labor with the owner of the bus fleet in a mutually beneficial agreement. The bus company has an interest in maximizing profits and ( absent a govt. granted monopoly) is in direct competition with other companies for the patronage of customers. To the extent that the driver allows bigotry to interfere with the ability of the company to profit he is violating the terms of his employment....cont..
weavermama 1 month ago
Similarly, if the proprietor of the business is himself a racist, he is free to engage in discrimination but only at a very dear price(namely his own economic self interest). Don't forget that the only way that a company can succeed in either monopolizing or in engaging in self defeating, exclusionary business practices would be to attempt to compel the voluntary action of competitors through force ( hence Jim Crow Laws).
weavermama 1 month ago
Sharp! Keep it up brother. Billions lie sleeping. We need to wake them up and put an end to statism->totalitarianism!
ultimateguitarwizard 1 month ago
A+
georgeendrulat 1 month ago
Great points.
Frenchyification 1 month ago
You also say that people make choices and should be rewarded/punished accordingly. While I agree with this statement in many cases, you take it and run with it to the fucking extreme. So a guy made a mistake in highschool and now he needs help, are you going to say 'fuck you' every time? No because sometimes people deserve second chances. Although it may come under debate whether or not our governments execution of this is flawed (the welfare system). What we need is REFORM not ABOLITION.
ThatOneAtheist 1 month ago
@ThatOneAtheist
You don't just say 'Damn, the system isn't working, lets start over.' You assess the situation, find the faults and REFORM the system.
We come to two fundemental disagreements:
1) Whether or not people deserve second chances
2) Whether REFORM or ABOLITION will create improvement
ThatOneAtheist 1 month ago
Its not that you cant do things like form an army, go on strike, regulate morals and etc without government; its that its just SO MUCH easier to use a government. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that going the tough route isn't always right but if you have to choose: getting things done quickly is what we're about nowadays and a government facilitates that.
ThatOneAtheist 1 month ago
@ThatOneAtheist the government facilitates anything to you? What? How? The bad thing about government is that it has a monopoly in governing... I guess there could be a dozen governments in the same country as long as they hadn't monopoly over anything and couldn't coerce anyone.
MrFmmcosta 1 month ago
@MrFmmcosta Well then you're making the assumption that we could make a unit that governs without coercion which in my opinion is untrue. I feel that to some degree coercion is a necessary part of governing. Without coercion, i feel a governing body could not incentivize acting 'ethically' well enough.
As well, multiple governing bodies would cause conflict among them for the single country because there would be no unity. My evidence? Articles of Confederation.
ThatOneAtheist 1 month ago
@ThatOneAtheist If coercion is a necessary part of governing then government is bad and shouldn't exist. If I cannot steal from you why should I be able to do it if I work for the government? You incentive people to behave ethically by not behaving unethically against them. If you steal from and I cannot steal from you I may steal from others, especially if you aren't punished for stealing from me. Give 1 example were government should coerce/initiate force against me!
MrFmmcosta 1 month ago
@ThatOneAtheist: Unity by force is not unity. You can't protect ethics with force because force is unethical. Ridiculous. You seem well intentioned, so I won't stuff your ears with satire.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
I agree with most of libertarian values because they make more sence then other groups. I just think its important for every one to use logic and reason. Darwinism is not a theory it is a proven fact that the weak die off while the adept continue on. Free market is darwinism.
fallingboybuddy 1 month ago
@fallingboybuddy "Darwinism is not a theory it is a proven fact that the weak die off while the adept continue on. Free market is darwinism."
That's not a free market. In a free market people exchange voluntarily for mutual profit. It's a win-win.
Darwinism is generally win-lose.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
@shlockofgod Anarchism is as naive as communism. In theory people will work together but in reality force, greed and selfishness beats the weak that doesn't forceably stand against it. You can't join together to fight an army if there are no armies. The strong survive. Those who can get away with taking advantage of another will have no system of recourse. The fact is humans are a long ways from giving up control no matter how workable it could be in theory.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic You are simply making bald assertions. Basically you're ranting at me.
There's no way to argue against what you're saying because you make no arguments.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
@shlockofgod EXACTLY! In the market, the "fittest" (to use the common term) is the one who satisfies the needs of the consumer the best; the one who cooperates most efficiently to mutual benefit of all traders. A market "predator" does not last long unless he has special favor from government.
copycat042 1 week ago
2 things. Capitalism is dog eat dog, companies do eat each other. By saying dogs dont eat dogs therefore you have no argument is ignorant. Racism is not an invention of government it may have promoted it but it is not resposible.
fallingboybuddy 1 month ago
Lol...ignorant view of economics. He only describes trade agreements...that has nothing to do with monopolistic tendencies which are in fact predatory in most circumstances. The ability of monopolies to profit maximize instead of taking the market price means that they are not a normal functioning part of a market. They cannot be broken up without government intervention, or regulation.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@UsernameFECKLE
Monopolies are the result of government intervention into the economy, not the free market.
Illyrien 1 month ago
@Illyrien Markets can function with economies and diseconomies of scale. Government monopolies are only one type of monopoly. Look up natural monopolies. They are real. The recent gambling monopoly in Austria shows it. Energy companies in localities that are not created by government can have monopolies on those particular markets. The idea that government is the only way monopolies come about is completely ignorant.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@Illyrien Also, not all monopolies are bad :)
Sometimes monopolies are needed in order to make production inexpensive - such as with electricity. Most small towns only have one service provider for your area. But, this allows for the cost of transmitting the electricity to be held by one entity, which can reduce cost per-watt as their company expands. In these situations, price controls are necessary to reduce profit maximization and increase equitable outcomes in the market.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@UsernameFECKLE But without government they have no guns, and more importantly, just as is the case today, no public trust whatsoever. That being the case, if one such monopoly were to occur and persist in a free society, it is because the public wanted it to (i.e. found it that useful, good, etc.). Reduce profit maximization? Are you retarded? Yes, because that is how businesses flourish - reducing profit... maximization. The better off business is, the better off its customers.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur In economics, a firm in a competitive market makes $0 economic profit. That doesn't mean $0 accounting profit. They are two different measures. Profit maximization is specifically what monopolies and some oligopolies do. Competitive firms do not profit maximize, they satisfy demand at the market equilibrium. Sometimes this means economic loss, sometimes profit, but it always moves to $0 "economic profit."
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@regresseur I should say "moves towards" $0 economic profit. On top of that, the EU had to break up the gambling monopoly, which had no backing from the government. If you think monopolies just fall apart on their own you are kidding yourself. You are right that when we decide to keep a beneficial monopoly we do so for a reason, but this is pretty much the only instance where monopolies are propped up in the US. They are also regulated in order to make them operate more similarly to
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@regresseur a competitive firm. They have price ceilings etc. which means more people can afford the service. Just because the monopoly makes less economic profit does not mean they aren't doing great.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
It's not about morality, 1:55 "Slavery enhances the freedom of trade for slave owners." Wrong, Slaver takes freedoms away from the slave, therefore not permissible in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. Most of his answers are just strawman arguments.
asleeperj 1 month ago
Libertarians are a little bit spoiled wen it comes to private property.In my view,no country or individual has the right to posess exclusive rights to the earths resources,other than that i am for free market capitalism.If you discover new non inhabited land the size of australia,do you just step on it and say"this is all mine,everyone else fuck off",its just immoral.By selling our collective rights to the earths resources to individuals we wouldnt need to raise any taxes on individuals.
affilinet 1 month ago
@affilinet
Which is not what libertarians say (generally). Check the principle called homesteading. Basically, Its only yours if you can use it.
Illyrien 1 month ago
Libertarian is not anarchist. Why don't you label yourself correctly. Libertarian is the view that government exists for the purpose of protecting liberty.
Keeban3 1 month ago
@Keeban3 Inside the wider libertarian movement, there is a sub-group of pro-market anarchists that stef is one of. Essentially he wants to privatize everything.
The1Jebrim 1 month ago
@Keeban3 You're right that "libertarian" doesn't mean "anarchist," but like The1Jebrim said, anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. It's one form of libertarianism.
To say that an anarchist is not a libertarian is like saying that a Democrat is not a statist. Or that a Christian is not a theist.
MrGarky 1 month ago
@MrGarky
Then there should be a separate term for those that want limited government. Anarchist already exists as a term, and is well known, there is no reason to take a word that generally doesn't mean anarchism and have anarchists label themselves that. Lets not muddy the language. I want to keep libertarian separate from anarchism. When people start understanding what minarchist means, I'll use it. Until then I will spit vitriol at anarchists who steal my label.
Keeban3 1 month ago
I just listened til question 3 and might go on later, but let me guess: you are middle class, right ? And you really believe your lifes fortune is the product of your choice? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Fendefadst 1 month ago