So, you are basically saying that it is better to let corporations run free than to be subjected at least a bit by the government?, not everybody is corrupt at the government, what makes you think the corps won't agree to set the price of goods and give you a false sense of a non monopoly, how a DRO will protect us from it?. I consider myself anarchist, but I'm still trying to find a model of anarchy that will work in a country taking into account that the rest of the world may not be anarchist.
A DRO is a state in all but name, you pathetic intellectual lightweight. Contract law and backing of private property, including absentee property, with formalized class relations? Congrats, you have the anthropological definition of the state.
It's so funny to me how the mainstream (read: dipshit) "definition" of the word 'anarchy' has managed, like so many other terms treated by the masses, to actually become both the opposite of correct and rather trite. ("might makes right," specifically)
Like James Madison said,"If men were angels we wouldn't need any government."Unfortunately It's is a necessary evil. Anarchism would be the way of a Utopian society but unless the world is full of people with pure hearts it would not work in this age.Libertarianism is a huge step in right direction from where we are today.
@EDTHEWATERGUY I agree, Libertarianism is the only way to ensure every person the maximum amount of freedom while still providing protection to the individual. The only way that an anarchist state would ever work is to eliminate all those individuals who disagree with the ideals of anarchy and would try to harm the non-society. So the only way to enforce a system of no rulers or rules is to initiate a rule in which the most absolute force of death is the lynchpin. Very progressive huh?
I think "free market" capitalism, voluntarism and "anarcho" capitalism should all be lumped into one word- oxymoronism. Any market economy cannot exist (private property) without force.A minority class cannot control industry/distribution without a state apparatus (public or private).
@crud4 Does that mean that you are against private property? The idea of the free market is not an oxymoron, private property is inherent in the state of nature. Most large mammals have what they consider to be their property and defend it vigorously. It is natural. Just like a bear will defend its kill or its cubs, so will a lion, tiger, moose, deer, squirrel, dog, cat, human. It is natural for private property to exist and it will exist whether or not there is a government to enforce the right
@dlstb "private property is inherent in the state of nature" LOL Ya sure- 2% of the animal kingdom own and control 95%b of earths land and resources! LOL Learn the difference between private ownership of industry/distribution, vast amounts of land/resources and possessions. Start by reading Proudhon's "What Is Property". A state MUST exist to legitimize a capitalists claim to vast amounts of water, land, industry and hence wage slaves. Would serfs have submitted to 'noblemen' without force?
@crud4 In fact, private property is something that only appears with the appearance of proto-states; chiefdoms and the like. Hunter gatherers have no concept of private property besides their personal possessions (spear, rifle, clothes, etc).
I think it was John Adams that said that nothing in natural law had to do with the right to own an acre of land.
@crud4 Those corporations and industries that you site as owning most of everything are owned by individuals. If you own any stock, you own a portion of that corp. and you earn dividends of the profit unless you pick bad stocks. It is not a single person who owns these types of things. Also, those corporations provide the population with resources, products, jobs, investment opportunities, and a higher standard of living and they aren't forced on the population like gov't usually is.
@crud4 Personally, I think you sound like a whining toddler who is mad because he doesn't have the same toys as his play mate. If you had worked your whole life to amass a fortune and created a new industry or started a corporation, you wouldn't speak the way that you do. Moreover, people like you won't be happy until either there is no personal property beyond what a person can defend with a stick, or we all are given a set acreage at birth and not allowed to buy any more than that.
@crud4 Wealth is not theft. The money that a person earns is compensation for the time a person takes out of their own life to work for others. Some people are just far better at leveraging the worth of their time and some just work alot. Neither of these things implies dominance or control over others. Actually, it is quite the contrary, every person who works to earn money and wealth is dependant upon the person or people that he works for, in the case of the businessman it is his consumers.
@GoldRainGirl It sounds like you are basing your statement completely on your own opinion and not on any facts. Every large primate is territorial. We are homonid, not primate, but primates are our closest living relatives since the absorbtion and extinction of neanderthals. Maybe your confusion comes from the small portion of the human population that is nomadic. This is an extremely small portion of the human population and for the last few thousnad years, most people have lived in cities.
@dlstb I'm based on fact, anthropological fact. The closest primate to the human in behavior is the bonobo which differs tremendously from great apes. You talked about state of nature - humans live for the majority of the half a million years the species has existed as nomads. That's the state of nature we evolved in.
@GoldRainGirl The bonobo is canibalistic and a sexual predator, good choice. Homo saiens have not existed for a half million years and even if they had and they were nomads, that doesn't make it right to assume that the way of life that the dead assumed should be the way that the living MUST live. As Thomas Paine said, the dead can hold no stock in the living. Your argument is entirely invalid because it enslaves us to our ancestors lifestyles.
so who prints the money and decides how much there is stops forgery? so there's politicians, who sort out defense but no government, who pays them?!? sorry if i'm missing something but it just doesn't work?! also who pays/oversees the advancement of science/exploration of space? me not locking my girlfriend in the basement is along way off creating the kind of equipment needed for such things
its flawed....it takes one greedy, smart, charismatic person to fuck it up for everyone.
By proving his ideas are better then everything els saying dont worry ill do it for you will appeal to alota lazy weak minded people...shit but i hate the fucken way we do it now but i suppose its better then a government
Stef, you said something about 'recreational' degrees shouldn't be paid for by other people and that vocational degrees would pay for themselves? So only the wealthy could afford to study human cultural heritage like sanskrit literature for example. I don't really see that as pure liberty if the only reason someone can't do something they want (which I also think is beneficial) is because they were born into the wrong family. Please tell me if I've misunderstood you.
I have read through a lot of libertarian blog posts, articles, etc. (have not gotten around to reading actual literature, shame on me), and this is the first time I have heard of a concept of a DRO. And it sounds fairly brilliant. Especially wonderful having these things spelled out to me. My point is, something went terribly wrong in the fact that this is the first time I am hearing of it.
@jozhikas You should watch Mises institute stuff too, some of them are religious some of the time, but its not really overboard. DROs are the same as private courts, Stef just has a flashy name.
sounds like a great idea if everybody had healthy minds.......but things are different, if you leave schools for the poor to random people there's no way to know before hand if they will receive an equal education, so that later they can be at a reasonably equal level
@liquidjorge Because state schools have children, graduating high school in poor districs, who can't read should negate that arguement. Schools that don't perform should be put out of business not given more power and money. The point is that violence doesn't solve complex social problems.
Stefan, it's malicious of you to title this video Anarchy, when you know anarchism is about NON-HIERARCHY, and not just the use of violence as you say. Please rename your video to Anarcho-Capitalism so people are not misinformed. Don't be nasty to anarchists and present your stance as it is.
@brewerscrew you're going against 200 years of history. if i cam out and called myself a capitalist but in fact wanted state capitalism then if you were a real laissez faire advocate you'd call me out because state capitalism is hardly real capitalism from a laissez faire point of view. anarcho capitalism has NEVER been accepted by anarchists as a form of anarchism. the only people who give it creed are the same people who think libertarianism is rightwing, when in fact it is left wing. HISTORY
@BloodTypeRagu You can have the word anarchism, it doesn't do anything for me. I want to be free, call it what ever you want... that's what I am. In my point of view it's Anarchy.
@brewerscrew at least you're conscious about it which is a lot better than most people do. usually you can get people to agree that the state sucks but then the question of what to actually do gets people divided. personally im with the libertarian socialists who want to get rid of capitalism and the state at the same time, in other words to throw out marxism which is more of an authoritarian brand of socialism. i just dont buy the idea that markets are perfect or even the best solution.
@BloodTypeRagu Libertarianism is a truly conservative party, in that it almost perfectly follows the original constitution. The problem is that neither the republicans or democrats are conservative anymore, so when making comparisons to one of the two, it is easy to get confused in the wording of the statement.
@skiddlecrumms sure, if your point of reference is the constitution. but in the bigger picture the constitution was a 'liberal' document because it came out of enlightenment views which challenged the state which was more or less unaccountable in those days. terminology hasn't been warped in Europe like it has in the United states so there the 'rightwing' 'conervatives' are still seen in the original terms, with the rightwing being associated with state power and the nobility.
@BloodTypeRagu That's why I try not to use the terms liberal or conservative. They have no definite meaning anymore and have swapped sides in the past.
From what I gathered Stefan, you are an Anarcho-Capitalist. Some Anarchists believe true Anarchy opposes Capitalism completely because it leads to hierarchical oligarchs and exploitation of humanity. What argument do you have against this statement?
How can you be free without Anarchy ? By definition you would end up being ruled and its obvious that to be free you cant have people rule you !!
Surely i am not the only person with the ability of reasoned thought to understand this ? If you understand this and want to be free / at Liberty you are an Anarchist - If you want to
Private industry can be even more coercive and less accountable than government given the chance. You say "anarcho" capitalism -- I see "anachro" capitalism. Right-anarchism isn't anarchism at all.
"Anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong. If violence is a bad way to solve problems then the government is by definition is immoral."
The word 'Free' is a control word. The wise Dr. Gene Ray said that people are word controlled animals. One of the control words is 'Free'. Whenever somebody says free, I know that they are just herding me into a cage.
LOL Go and live in an island, start your anarchic society there, make it work, and then come here and preach to the crowd. Until that time comes, I see your monologues are full of bullshit chit chat. Or do you really think you are gonna change society with youtube videos that almost nobody see? Practice what you preach. Start an anarchic society today with your followers! If it works, i´ll be the first to support your then proven theories.
Their moves are slow and why you are making up wild card panacea groups, they are building walls around cities. Just saying. You're a smart dude, you make me want to make videos.
Really interresting but you assume the people can be rationalized with. If people can not think clearly (which sadly they can't) what does keeping a DRO from indoctrinating their "customers"? Secondly, what keeps a DRO from "absorbing" or otherwise outmaneuvering other DRO's? If that happens we have already formed a government.
Thirdly, I have to say that you answer a lot of questions by saing it would not be in the interest of the DRO to do so. Repeatedly have companies acted in fashions that in hindsight was not in their interests. What keeps a DRO to not make misstakes? Unlike companies who suffers only economically and the the workers might get unemployed a misstake from a DRO might be lifethreatening.
THANK YOU. I've been trying to explain my belief in anarchy, and people assume i'm some Sex Pistols fan who wants to smash windows. Now i have a link to send them to.
So what is the solution to private roads when you don't need investors because you already have enough capital to put forth your program, and you don't need any DRO because you have one of your own? If you think such a thing is far-fetched I would point you to walmart. When I go buy stock in walmart, I notice a distinct lack of any ability to change or shape the decisions walmart makes.
I want Thomas Hobbes Leviathan! It's like Nietzsche says, people are born to slaves or masters. And Marx was right. The source of every fight, every violence is the difference between up and down, poor and rich.
BUT what you gonna do? Complaining? Give people "ideas"? 95% of the people who watch this are like "yeah he's right" next day the go buy an ipod and eat at mcdonalds while watching fox news at the evening. hypocrites. WALK THE WALK.
@MarmaladeINFP Just because companies exist does not mean that people are oppressed. The basic idea is that in a completely free market no one will be commanded by anybody, hierarchies only exist when people agree to it, usually because they receive compensation by taking part in something like a business or company. If everybody has these rights, then imposing non-consensual hierarchy will have been essentially eliminated without the need to resort to quasi-totalitarian anarcho-socialism.
"... conflicts in society are currently being resolved by governments. This is also pure nonsense."
"Governments do not persuade, governments do not reason, governments do not motivate, governments do not encourage, governments do not resolve disputes."
While that may all look very compelling and true in writing, it falls flat in reality. Anyone can see that using common sense. Interesting video nonetheless...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
he keeps talking about evil but has established no basis for morality aprt from what he thinks is right. evil? especially if you're a modern atheist rationalist you have absolutely NO basis to say anything about it
non-initiation of force is really libertarianism, which is an application of natural law mutualism, usually absent georgist principle due to damage from anarcho-capitalist, and the bastardized forms of anarchism, individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-socialism (and variants).
anarcho-capitalism is a fraud. mutualism is the original anarchism and closest to the center and truth. any anarchism school not based in natural law is a fraud. other schools have some useful utilitarian merit but if it is based in egoism, it is feudalistic crap.
That is the criticism I've had that no anarcho-capitalist has answered. The mining towns owned by corporations were perfect examples of anarcho-capitalism. These mining towns were essentially a capitalistic version of feudalism. Anarcho-fiefdoms?
I like the ideal of anarchism, but the reality of anarcho-capitalism does seem to be very appealing. How can anarcho-capitalism avoid the failings of the oppressive abuse of power by corporations?
@N7a7v7i Yes... 'if' but that is a very very big IF. Anarcho-capitalism is no less idealistic than anarcho-socialism. Similar criticisms can be made against libertarianism as are made against populist progressivism. Stef admitted in one video that his ideals aren't necessarily probable, but he argued that we need to strive for our ideals even when they don't seem likely. In that case, what makes Stef's right-leaning idealism any better than left-leaning idealism? Nothing.
@MarmaladeINFP the mining corporations were able to oppress their workers ONLY because they had the full weight of the federal government behind them.
@captaincool98 That is just a convenient dismissal. Capitalists really want to be good but the govt just keeps making them do bad. Those poor poor corporations. Why won't the govt leave alone the innocen, helpless capitalists? The govt is the way it is because capitalists have helped make it that way. Wealthy capitalists want a large govt to do their bidding. I understand small business owners aren't this way, but small business owners have never been the force behind modern capitalism.
@jesselakerr I think anarcho-socialism is closer to basic human nature than anarcho-capitalism. In human history and before, the only time capitalism had power and wasn't controlled/regulated by a state govt was when capitalism itself became a fascist government. I know of one rare example of anarcho-capitalism, but it was on the smallscale & didn't last long. Most examples of anarchism are tibal communities which are closer to the ideas of socialism than capitalism.
@MarmaladeINFP The basic idea is that in a completely free market it will not be beneficial for corporations to oppress people because people can simply not work for them or use their products and services. Anarcho-Capitalism also holds that it isn't morally wrong to try and make money and to engage in business, just because corporations and companies exist doesn't mean that they are on the rampage oppressing people. Like I said previously, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society people always have
@Sunoco I understand the theory & have nothing against it as a theory. I just don't see the evidence supporting the position that it could be applied on a large scale. It might work as you think it would, but there is no clear reason to assume it would. Applying the theory would demand a complete change in human culture and civilization. This massive of a shift in collective identity & behavior hasn't been seen since the beginning of civilization.
@MarmaladeINFP Just because companies exist does not mean that people are oppressed. The basic idea is that in a completely free market no one will be commanded by anybody, hierarchies only exist when people agree to it, usually because they receive compensation by taking part in something like a business or company. If everybody has these rights, then imposing non-consensual hierarchy will have been essentially eliminated without the need to resort to quasi-totalitarian anarcho-socialism.
@falooshie In the US, corporations such as defense contractors are taking over much of the role the military and police once had. They carry guns and have the legal right to kill people. They even are used domestically as in New Orleans. There was a gun fight in New Orleans involving Blackwater mercenaries defending the homes of rich people, but interestingly the people they were shooting at were identified by some as the New Orleans police who had gone rogue.
@falooshie It would be a bloodbath if the populace tried to fight a well trained (often military trained) and heavily armed group of corporate mercenaries. People in Afghanistan and Iraq have at times tried to stand up to these mercenaries. Usually, they get blown away. These mercenaries aren't trigger shy. In fact, they got in trouble for being a bit too trigger happy. These mercenaries are contracted by the govt, but similar private police work entirely outside of govt contracts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This all sounds like a very reasonable and good idea.. but your forgetting one thing... people as a whole are not reasonable or good. There will always be a group bent on suppressing or enslaving the other group. This is human nature greed lust and pride. It may not be part of your nature but unfortunately there are more of them than you. It has been said if your cut the head from the body it will die but I say it will just grow a new head with a different face.
Society is kinda like a parking lot and even though you may make you parking lot with no lines casue you want there to be freedom of choice. you and other begin to notice that poeple are in disorder cars and getting blocked in and damaged so you form a commity and decied that for the sake of order you need lines and even though your aginst a parking lot with lines it becomes apparent that you must have it and soon your chargeing to park to pay for the lines you are now exactly what you hate.
dont get me wrong Im not for big government all im saying is there are 2 types of people leaders and followers a group of leaders will spend all their time butting heads to find a peaking order and a group of followers will not do much of anything. the main leaders will have lesser leaders IE a commity the followers will follow the leaders and a government is born. governments arent the problem the problem is greed lust and pride. change is good but treat the sickness not the symptoms
You're right.. that's why capitalism works. People want what's best for themselves (and their family or group, sure). Ayn Rand noted this as the "Virtue of Selfishness"- check it out.
I would like to ask the others here- where has anarchy happened and thrived? Communes lasted only a generation or two, and transitional phases between one government and another didn't sustain itself. Gangs have a hierarchy, native tribes worldwide have government.
I don't see how an anarchist society can succeed without doing away with monetary systems in the first place. Money shouldn't be the reason that we do work or solve problems. Problems should be solved for the sake of finding a solution. Enough with this buying/selling bullshit.
money is only as good as the stuff that you can get with it. So getting rid of monetary systems would do nothing to change the motivations of people or to change the things that they would want.
True, we'd also have to no longer possess property of any kind. Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves. That's the only way anarchy could work. Everyone would need to teach one another towards the good of the human race. Greed of any kind would make anarchy impossible, so we would have to adopt radical philosophies of sharing that by today's standards, the large conservative majority of the world ironically would deem immoral.
We have some basic primitive needs that are driven by our DNA. Among these are a sense of community which has been destroyed in western, free mkt societys, where the rights of the individual are top priority. Another is the need for domination and control by the dominant 5% of any species over the weak . We cant escape our biological pre programming. Ask a feminist.
There is truth to the idea that corps run by the most aggressive tend to run down others, there are also methods for restraining these 'Type A'-holes. W/out Guv to stop protesters, they could do a lot more than parade in front of an office blg.They could demand & get action with their dollars! Hit 'em where it hurts- in the wallet. Add social pressure & voila! No purely economic, religious or political system can make the changes needed.Humans must change their paradigm 1 @ a time for that.
Its an arrogance to sneere at someones FAQs. Like, I have only just started wondering about this whole concept, since I got an unsolicited contact from confedsocialist and what I'm finding, is a kind of elitism, that the ordinary mortal, couldnt possibly comprehend "our little phylosophy". Its a bit cult like, in that regard
Like, what on earth makes anyone think for a second, that everyone would be altruistic, and giving. The human species is, by nature, an, imperious, decieptful, brutal manipulator. And if you are promoting a law of the jungle world,,,, well??????
I dont get it. How is your stateless society supposed to overcome these natural urges?The urge to create exploit workers for the benefit of the well off? Isnt it just going to go in a cycle? Y'know, the workers going to unite to counter the greedy employer. I just dont see how your going to prevent a tyrant emerging to control the rest .
antidallard, just because you think it is ludicrous doesn't mean it is. it is a matter of opinion. we do not criticize your beliefs, so why do you criticize ours? who is the arrogant one now?
I lived in blissfull ignorance, until I got an unsolicited contact from confedsocialist, Who talks on, about cells, molecules, and some other b.s. But he didnt appreciate my simple minded questions and got all smart. But, the more I listened , the more I believe you are a bunch of utopian dreames, who like the sound of your own voices,
Blah, Blah, Woof, Woof, Lincoln, Einstein, Gandhi, MLK; they were all told the same thing. Guess you're right! Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through 3 stages:1st Laughed at 2nd Violently opposed. 3rd accepted as self evident. Look how long slavery was considered normal & moral. Now it's unthinkable. So people aren't programmed by DNA.There is science to back this up. That's a cop out for people too lazy to change. The name calling is nice too, thanks! (But you cant change that, can you?)
concerning defence how about a company build a large town/village and then charges for the price of the houses which would be more because the company that built the houses would ensure their protection?
Your premise of Government's role is not correct. I am an Objectivist with questions, hence my presense here. However, we hold that a proper government's only role is the protection of man's rights and it holds a monopoly on the RETALIATORY use of force.
You described government as an applicator of the INITIAL use of force. This only describes current improper government.
The authority for who holds that monopoly is my concern.
You suggest that we should not consider what might happen if we get rid of the government. If we do not consider the consequences of getting rid of the government then how can you decide which is the lesser evil? And even if there was Anarchy around the world, there would still be evil, you as having done philosophy should know its an imperative, Without considering the consequences how can you say we would be better of without? (Believe in Anarchy too, but want to see your reply.) (9:56)
Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
BTW I am far from an expert on global warming this is just a quote from a website I found. If your interested in finding the truth on global warming I suggest you look at a wide variety of sources.
No, he didnt supply evidence. Clearly your a fucking retard since you dont know what evidence is.
I cant link on youtube, i get marked as spam; but you can find scientific researches if you just search the internet. Click the d o t edu links, they have been accepted in a peer review paper, so you know that you can trust the reports.
I'm not saying global warming is true or not, what I am saying there is still much debate left in it.
There is numerous evidence for both sides of the issue, in fact if you've done your research than you must've noticed that there is solid proof that the world has been COOLING during the past several decades.
Once you dismiss claims that counter your own in science, it can no longer be called science, you mine as well call it religion ...you fuggin ignorant douchebag.
No, not really. The debate is about how much damage we have done, what has happened and so on. There's too much paranoia sometimes but we HAVE damaged our earth, to deny that is ignorant.
Provide evidence that the world has been cooling pls?
Agree, so go study science from a legit source. . Yeah, right back at ya you ignorant prick.
global warming is fiction....during the middle ages, there was a point where the temperature was high.... just has high as temperature today, in the same area. look up the weather charts
why do you guys keep saying no country possessing nuclear arms has ever been invaded over and over again? how many times can I say Argentina tried to cease back the Faulklands even though we had the bomb and they didn't, CAN YOU STOP SAYING THIS FALSEHOOD PLEASE
(and yes I know the uk gov was morally in the wrong but thats not the point)
Argentina would NEVER have expected the UK to react with an A-Bomb, just because it would have been so damn irrational. Anyway invadeing the Falklands was not really like invadeing mainland britain.
How about a short drama set in a Catholic school to manifest your argument:
"Hey, Ronny, come on, you'll be late for 'private time' with Father Luke!"
"I'm not going in there anymore. What he's doing in there is wrong."
"You have to come! It's always been like this, you know that!"
"Sorry, this is wrong and I won't do it anymore."
"Pathetic! What a spoiled child! Boo hoo, 'I don't wanna get my ass raped by a priest'. Then don't come here anymore! Don't expect Catholic schools to change!"
I'm afraid that doesn't work as a comparasion, because in your Catholic Church example the subject could complain to a higher "authority", in this case the police. Who are you going to go crying to the government about? If the conditions of being part of the Catholic church were that you had to get raped by a priest then obviously the probably course of action would be to leave. In society you can leave too, as you seem to have done, but for most people the benefits outweigh the negati.. cont
And, well, if you do go to that extent as far as nit-picking my Catholic school analogy, obviously not every little bit will add up. However, the gist of it is how stupid it is to demonize the victims of a coercive system who choose not to conform.
I somehow feel that all that's lacking from your argument is to call me "unpatriotic", which, upon my reading it, would paint a much clearer picture of where you're coming from.
...negatives, even if things aren't exactly as they would like (and you can bend the rules). But if you want to, for instance, use currency, get a job from a capitalist employer, buy property, drive on public roads, etc. then you're submitting to becoming a part of the corporate-state society and therefore it's hypocritical to go whine about it. You're always able to go attempt to do something about it, but don't expect everyone else to assist or even be on your side when most people... cont
i'm sorry but you're asking that question to the wrong person, i guenuienly couldn't care less about my belongs and even money, i'm only 15 years old and all i want are friends and the ability to create art and insperation.
I am this unmaterealistic becasue i am an anarchist. and to awsner your queation if that really happened i would just shrug it off because i would omit it as a problem of mine.
Anarchism does not preclude the enjoyment of material possessions you have worked towards, at least not in and of itself.
It was only an analogy anyway, to simplify my argument. Most people would mind if possessions they valued were stolen. I'll admit your peppy self-righteousness makes it fall flat, but overall it is still a working simile for government theft.
So, you are basically saying that it is better to let corporations run free than to be subjected at least a bit by the government?, not everybody is corrupt at the government, what makes you think the corps won't agree to set the price of goods and give you a false sense of a non monopoly, how a DRO will protect us from it?. I consider myself anarchist, but I'm still trying to find a model of anarchy that will work in a country taking into account that the rest of the world may not be anarchist.
videofonico 1 month ago
I would love to see you in a debate with noam chomsky. Libertarian Socialism vs. Libertarian Capitalism.
HanStanwell 1 month ago
holy shit. that is such an obvious answer that I feel ashamed to have asked it before.
@17:55
darris321 2 months ago
This is one of your best videos imo
ott0Kitam 3 months ago 3
@ott0Kitam thank you
stefbot 3 months ago 3
A DRO is a state in all but name, you pathetic intellectual lightweight. Contract law and backing of private property, including absentee property, with formalized class relations? Congrats, you have the anthropological definition of the state.
GoldRainGirl 6 months ago
It's so funny to me how the mainstream (read: dipshit) "definition" of the word 'anarchy' has managed, like so many other terms treated by the masses, to actually become both the opposite of correct and rather trite. ("might makes right," specifically)
plarfusa 6 months ago
As a radical Libertarian I agree with everything you say in this video. Thank you for the philosphy and please keep giving talks.
maunderingcabal 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maunderingcabal You mean as a right wing libertarian.
crud4 6 months ago
Like James Madison said,"If men were angels we wouldn't need any government."Unfortunately It's is a necessary evil. Anarchism would be the way of a Utopian society but unless the world is full of people with pure hearts it would not work in this age.Libertarianism is a huge step in right direction from where we are today.
EDTHEWATERGUY 7 months ago
@EDTHEWATERGUY I agree, Libertarianism is the only way to ensure every person the maximum amount of freedom while still providing protection to the individual. The only way that an anarchist state would ever work is to eliminate all those individuals who disagree with the ideals of anarchy and would try to harm the non-society. So the only way to enforce a system of no rulers or rules is to initiate a rule in which the most absolute force of death is the lynchpin. Very progressive huh?
dlstb 6 months ago
I think "free market" capitalism, voluntarism and "anarcho" capitalism should all be lumped into one word- oxymoronism. Any market economy cannot exist (private property) without force.A minority class cannot control industry/distribution without a state apparatus (public or private).
crud4 7 months ago
@crud4 Does that mean that you are against private property? The idea of the free market is not an oxymoron, private property is inherent in the state of nature. Most large mammals have what they consider to be their property and defend it vigorously. It is natural. Just like a bear will defend its kill or its cubs, so will a lion, tiger, moose, deer, squirrel, dog, cat, human. It is natural for private property to exist and it will exist whether or not there is a government to enforce the right
dlstb 6 months ago
Comment removed
crud4 6 months ago
@dlstb "private property is inherent in the state of nature" LOL Ya sure- 2% of the animal kingdom own and control 95%b of earths land and resources! LOL Learn the difference between private ownership of industry/distribution, vast amounts of land/resources and possessions. Start by reading Proudhon's "What Is Property". A state MUST exist to legitimize a capitalists claim to vast amounts of water, land, industry and hence wage slaves. Would serfs have submitted to 'noblemen' without force?
crud4 6 months ago
@crud4 In fact, private property is something that only appears with the appearance of proto-states; chiefdoms and the like. Hunter gatherers have no concept of private property besides their personal possessions (spear, rifle, clothes, etc).
I think it was John Adams that said that nothing in natural law had to do with the right to own an acre of land.
GoldRainGirl 6 months ago
@crud4 Those corporations and industries that you site as owning most of everything are owned by individuals. If you own any stock, you own a portion of that corp. and you earn dividends of the profit unless you pick bad stocks. It is not a single person who owns these types of things. Also, those corporations provide the population with resources, products, jobs, investment opportunities, and a higher standard of living and they aren't forced on the population like gov't usually is.
dlstb 6 months ago
@crud4 Personally, I think you sound like a whining toddler who is mad because he doesn't have the same toys as his play mate. If you had worked your whole life to amass a fortune and created a new industry or started a corporation, you wouldn't speak the way that you do. Moreover, people like you won't be happy until either there is no personal property beyond what a person can defend with a stick, or we all are given a set acreage at birth and not allowed to buy any more than that.
dlstb 6 months ago
@dlstb My goal in life isnt to accumulate wealth and dominate/control others in the process. Sorry.
crud4 6 months ago
@crud4 Wealth is not theft. The money that a person earns is compensation for the time a person takes out of their own life to work for others. Some people are just far better at leveraging the worth of their time and some just work alot. Neither of these things implies dominance or control over others. Actually, it is quite the contrary, every person who works to earn money and wealth is dependant upon the person or people that he works for, in the case of the businessman it is his consumers.
dlstb 6 months ago
@dlstb Humans are actually not particularly territorial, and territoriality is not property.
Humans became territorial with sedentarity, the state, etc, which led to the creation of private property.
GoldRainGirl 6 months ago
@GoldRainGirl It sounds like you are basing your statement completely on your own opinion and not on any facts. Every large primate is territorial. We are homonid, not primate, but primates are our closest living relatives since the absorbtion and extinction of neanderthals. Maybe your confusion comes from the small portion of the human population that is nomadic. This is an extremely small portion of the human population and for the last few thousnad years, most people have lived in cities.
dlstb 6 months ago
@dlstb I'm based on fact, anthropological fact. The closest primate to the human in behavior is the bonobo which differs tremendously from great apes. You talked about state of nature - humans live for the majority of the half a million years the species has existed as nomads. That's the state of nature we evolved in.
GoldRainGirl 6 months ago
@GoldRainGirl The bonobo is canibalistic and a sexual predator, good choice. Homo saiens have not existed for a half million years and even if they had and they were nomads, that doesn't make it right to assume that the way of life that the dead assumed should be the way that the living MUST live. As Thomas Paine said, the dead can hold no stock in the living. Your argument is entirely invalid because it enslaves us to our ancestors lifestyles.
dlstb 6 months ago
I like the goverment = cancer metaphor
KvalnirFox 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
anarchist facebook group (only true anarchists allowed)
facebook(dot)com/home.php?sk=group_210539805634907
proxyfinders 8 months ago
so who prints the money and decides how much there is stops forgery? so there's politicians, who sort out defense but no government, who pays them?!? sorry if i'm missing something but it just doesn't work?! also who pays/oversees the advancement of science/exploration of space? me not locking my girlfriend in the basement is along way off creating the kind of equipment needed for such things
totallifeforever2012 8 months ago
I made it to 2 :56 and i couldn't fight the urge any more, i had to subscribe. fantastic videos good sir
SirHedden 10 months ago
its flawed....it takes one greedy, smart, charismatic person to fuck it up for everyone.
By proving his ideas are better then everything els saying dont worry ill do it for you will appeal to alota lazy weak minded people...shit but i hate the fucken way we do it now but i suppose its better then a government
BadVoodo0 10 months ago
@BadVoodo0 Tell me you see the hypocrisy in that statement. :P
jaieet 8 months ago
Stef, you said something about 'recreational' degrees shouldn't be paid for by other people and that vocational degrees would pay for themselves? So only the wealthy could afford to study human cultural heritage like sanskrit literature for example. I don't really see that as pure liberty if the only reason someone can't do something they want (which I also think is beneficial) is because they were born into the wrong family. Please tell me if I've misunderstood you.
musikiola 10 months ago
I have read through a lot of libertarian blog posts, articles, etc. (have not gotten around to reading actual literature, shame on me), and this is the first time I have heard of a concept of a DRO. And it sounds fairly brilliant. Especially wonderful having these things spelled out to me. My point is, something went terribly wrong in the fact that this is the first time I am hearing of it.
jozhikas 11 months ago
@jozhikas You should watch Mises institute stuff too, some of them are religious some of the time, but its not really overboard. DROs are the same as private courts, Stef just has a flashy name.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
sounds like a great idea if everybody had healthy minds.......but things are different, if you leave schools for the poor to random people there's no way to know before hand if they will receive an equal education, so that later they can be at a reasonably equal level
liquidjorge 1 year ago
@liquidjorge Because state schools have children, graduating high school in poor districs, who can't read should negate that arguement. Schools that don't perform should be put out of business not given more power and money. The point is that violence doesn't solve complex social problems.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
Stefan, it's malicious of you to title this video Anarchy, when you know anarchism is about NON-HIERARCHY, and not just the use of violence as you say. Please rename your video to Anarcho-Capitalism so people are not misinformed. Don't be nasty to anarchists and present your stance as it is.
For proper answers, google Anarchist FAQ
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa 'Anarchism' is democracy. Mob rules simply means majority rules, or the majority are the rulers. Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchy.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
@brewerscrew you're going against 200 years of history. if i cam out and called myself a capitalist but in fact wanted state capitalism then if you were a real laissez faire advocate you'd call me out because state capitalism is hardly real capitalism from a laissez faire point of view. anarcho capitalism has NEVER been accepted by anarchists as a form of anarchism. the only people who give it creed are the same people who think libertarianism is rightwing, when in fact it is left wing. HISTORY
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
@BloodTypeRagu You can have the word anarchism, it doesn't do anything for me. I want to be free, call it what ever you want... that's what I am. In my point of view it's Anarchy.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
@brewerscrew at least you're conscious about it which is a lot better than most people do. usually you can get people to agree that the state sucks but then the question of what to actually do gets people divided. personally im with the libertarian socialists who want to get rid of capitalism and the state at the same time, in other words to throw out marxism which is more of an authoritarian brand of socialism. i just dont buy the idea that markets are perfect or even the best solution.
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
@BloodTypeRagu Libertarianism is a truly conservative party, in that it almost perfectly follows the original constitution. The problem is that neither the republicans or democrats are conservative anymore, so when making comparisons to one of the two, it is easy to get confused in the wording of the statement.
skiddlecrumms 11 months ago
@skiddlecrumms sure, if your point of reference is the constitution. but in the bigger picture the constitution was a 'liberal' document because it came out of enlightenment views which challenged the state which was more or less unaccountable in those days. terminology hasn't been warped in Europe like it has in the United states so there the 'rightwing' 'conervatives' are still seen in the original terms, with the rightwing being associated with state power and the nobility.
BloodTypeRagu 11 months ago
@BloodTypeRagu That's why I try not to use the terms liberal or conservative. They have no definite meaning anymore and have swapped sides in the past.
skiddlecrumms 11 months ago
@brewerscrew
Even if anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate type of anarchism, it cannot claim to speak for all other types ;)
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa Anarcho-capitolism seems like quite the oxymoron to me... Then again, so does the anarchist flag.
skiddlecrumms 11 months ago
From what I gathered Stefan, you are an Anarcho-Capitalist. Some Anarchists believe true Anarchy opposes Capitalism completely because it leads to hierarchical oligarchs and exploitation of humanity. What argument do you have against this statement?
TheSentienthuman 1 year ago
How can you be free without Anarchy ? By definition you would end up being ruled and its obvious that to be free you cant have people rule you !!
Surely i am not the only person with the ability of reasoned thought to understand this ? If you understand this and want to be free / at Liberty you are an Anarchist - If you want to
live at Liberty you are an Anarchist (-A-)
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
how can a guy this smart not know that anarcho capitalism is not even close to anarchism?
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
@BloodTypeRagu He knows that Anarco-Socialism is a mob with guns. How can Anarcho-MobWithGuns not get their philosophy is no where near Anarchy?
brewerscrew 1 year ago
Private industry can be even more coercive and less accountable than government given the chance. You say "anarcho" capitalism -- I see "anachro" capitalism. Right-anarchism isn't anarchism at all.
vapidkunst 1 year ago
"Anarchy is merely the logical application of the moral premise that the initiation of the use of force is wrong. If violence is a bad way to solve problems then the government is by definition is immoral."
haha, wonderful
Claybird121 1 year ago
How does patents work in the free market?
fergus247 1 year ago
The word 'Free' is a control word. The wise Dr. Gene Ray said that people are word controlled animals. One of the control words is 'Free'. Whenever somebody says free, I know that they are just herding me into a cage.
JasonDamisch 1 year ago
Extremely interesting and pretty much how I look at it but, youre very clear where im kinda nebulous ...
cosmicbrotha 1 year ago
Ugh, this guys logical errors really bother me. They come up every time he tries to talk about morality.
Math does not exist in the real world: False. Math is simply a description of the real world, like blue describes the color of an object.
Morality does not exist in the real world: true. Morality is therefore *completely* arbitrary.
Whether someone dislikes murder is simply their personal preference. (One that many people happen to share.) Unless you wish to evoke a god.
RedBloodReign 1 year ago
A 43 minutes video? Wasn't it 10 the max?
agormanvideos 1 year ago
@agormanvideos If you get enough views you get the option of being a Youtube partner. Allowing you to upload longer videos..
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
How could you dislike this? Thank the gods someone is talking about this stuff.... thank you thank you thank you thank you Stef!
cucumbersalad2 1 year ago
i would like to learn more about anarchy, what books would you recommend?
school4811 1 year ago
LOL Go and live in an island, start your anarchic society there, make it work, and then come here and preach to the crowd. Until that time comes, I see your monologues are full of bullshit chit chat. Or do you really think you are gonna change society with youtube videos that almost nobody see? Practice what you preach. Start an anarchic society today with your followers! If it works, i´ll be the first to support your then proven theories.
jlgilesrivera 1 year ago
@jlgilesrivera
Check out the Free state project on Google. It's a new stateless society that is beginning to have popularity in new Hampshire.
Emil246 1 year ago
@jlgilesrivera try and imagine 11 thousand people in a room. If you dont think thats many people... well :)
fergus247 1 year ago
Look at a roadmap of the Denver-Metro area.
Their moves are slow and why you are making up wild card panacea groups, they are building walls around cities. Just saying. You're a smart dude, you make me want to make videos.
thesimulacre 1 year ago
Really interresting but you assume the people can be rationalized with. If people can not think clearly (which sadly they can't) what does keeping a DRO from indoctrinating their "customers"? Secondly, what keeps a DRO from "absorbing" or otherwise outmaneuvering other DRO's? If that happens we have already formed a government.
TheOnlyMrFake 1 year ago
Thirdly, I have to say that you answer a lot of questions by saing it would not be in the interest of the DRO to do so. Repeatedly have companies acted in fashions that in hindsight was not in their interests. What keeps a DRO to not make misstakes? Unlike companies who suffers only economically and the the workers might get unemployed a misstake from a DRO might be lifethreatening.
TheOnlyMrFake 1 year ago
This leads me to my fourth and final question: What happens when a person can not find employment? How does this person get money enough to buy food?
TheOnlyMrFake 1 year ago
Anarcho-capitalism is very dangerous without the proper mechanisms of practicing total transperancy and proper boundaries.
tetrahydroscope 1 year ago
Man I love your videos!
jaminunit 1 year ago
THANK YOU. I've been trying to explain my belief in anarchy, and people assume i'm some Sex Pistols fan who wants to smash windows. Now i have a link to send them to.
DirtySanchezLives 1 year ago
So what is the solution to private roads when you don't need investors because you already have enough capital to put forth your program, and you don't need any DRO because you have one of your own? If you think such a thing is far-fetched I would point you to walmart. When I go buy stock in walmart, I notice a distinct lack of any ability to change or shape the decisions walmart makes.
hallavast 1 year ago
I want Thomas Hobbes Leviathan! It's like Nietzsche says, people are born to slaves or masters. And Marx was right. The source of every fight, every violence is the difference between up and down, poor and rich.
BUT what you gonna do? Complaining? Give people "ideas"? 95% of the people who watch this are like "yeah he's right" next day the go buy an ipod and eat at mcdonalds while watching fox news at the evening. hypocrites. WALK THE WALK.
ElTresDeMayo1808 1 year ago
Resource Based Economy ! Anarcho-Socialism !
jammasterjj6969 1 year ago
@jammasterjj6969 Well keep in mind the pitfall of technocracy.
tetrahydroscope 1 year ago
Your talking about Cap free market system . A Right wing system we started in the USA . But fell off of about 100 years ago
jaay334 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarmaladeINFP Just because companies exist does not mean that people are oppressed. The basic idea is that in a completely free market no one will be commanded by anybody, hierarchies only exist when people agree to it, usually because they receive compensation by taking part in something like a business or company. If everybody has these rights, then imposing non-consensual hierarchy will have been essentially eliminated without the need to resort to quasi-totalitarian anarcho-socialism.
Sunoco 1 year ago
truth is the sum of our experiences
punkrocker1377 1 year ago
what do u think of milton friedmans ideas
thewirrow 1 year ago
how would anarcho-capitalism deal with poverty???
jesselakerr 1 year ago
sorry
bahramf 1 year ago
"... conflicts in society are currently being resolved by governments. This is also pure nonsense."
"Governments do not persuade, governments do not reason, governments do not motivate, governments do not encourage, governments do not resolve disputes."
While that may all look very compelling and true in writing, it falls flat in reality. Anyone can see that using common sense. Interesting video nonetheless...
SigurdHeathen 1 year ago
I'm going to have to watch this alot to make sure to get everything. I love your views on education!
YagiKaru 1 year ago
What do you think of zeitgeist?
SunChax 1 year ago
I have done a review of the addendum, you might want to have a look...
stefbot 1 year ago
Comment removed
jesselakerr 1 year ago
@SunChax its perfect
meatpuppetsk8 1 year ago 2
@meatpuppetsk8
haha, yea! Allmost ^^
SunChax 1 year ago
@SunChax
Check it!
w ww. ana rchadi a.com
disgracious23 1 year ago
Oh man, one of the best ones.Crammed with information.
okcupidvitame 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he keeps talking about evil but has established no basis for morality aprt from what he thinks is right. evil? especially if you're a modern atheist rationalist you have absolutely NO basis to say anything about it
robtherub 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the greatest evil from a libertarian standpoint in coercion.
"especially if you're a modern atheist rationalist you have absolutely NO basis to say anything about it"
Are you being serious?
ohbobsagetpiss 2 years ago
Why ain't morallity subjective? I don't understand your arguments in that direction ...
SpiderDiscord 2 years ago
@stefbot Keep up the fine work.
PlurSaveTheRave 2 years ago
non-initiation of force is really libertarianism, which is an application of natural law mutualism, usually absent georgist principle due to damage from anarcho-capitalist, and the bastardized forms of anarchism, individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-socialism (and variants).
jeepndesert 2 years ago
Statements are not arguments...
stefbot 2 years ago 11
true. statements are thoughts.
jeepndesert 2 years ago
@stefbot lmao! well played
laural1000 1 year ago
@stefbot Maybe he meant to make a statement?
Clyaton 1 year ago
anarcho-capitalism is a fraud. mutualism is the original anarchism and closest to the center and truth. any anarchism school not based in natural law is a fraud. other schools have some useful utilitarian merit but if it is based in egoism, it is feudalistic crap.
jeepndesert 2 years ago
@jeepndesert
That is the criticism I've had that no anarcho-capitalist has answered. The mining towns owned by corporations were perfect examples of anarcho-capitalism. These mining towns were essentially a capitalistic version of feudalism. Anarcho-fiefdoms?
I like the ideal of anarchism, but the reality of anarcho-capitalism does seem to be very appealing. How can anarcho-capitalism avoid the failings of the oppressive abuse of power by corporations?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
An excellent question, you might want to check out my free books on anarchy, on my web site... :)
stefbot 1 year ago
Transparency!
If the people force, through great social pressure, corporations to become transparent and democratic, we can avoid monopolies and corporate abuse.
N7a7v7i 1 year ago
@N7a7v7i Yes... 'if' but that is a very very big IF. Anarcho-capitalism is no less idealistic than anarcho-socialism. Similar criticisms can be made against libertarianism as are made against populist progressivism. Stef admitted in one video that his ideals aren't necessarily probable, but he argued that we need to strive for our ideals even when they don't seem likely. In that case, what makes Stef's right-leaning idealism any better than left-leaning idealism? Nothing.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP the mining corporations were able to oppress their workers ONLY because they had the full weight of the federal government behind them.
captaincool98 1 year ago
@captaincool98 That is just a convenient dismissal. Capitalists really want to be good but the govt just keeps making them do bad. Those poor poor corporations. Why won't the govt leave alone the innocen, helpless capitalists? The govt is the way it is because capitalists have helped make it that way. Wealthy capitalists want a large govt to do their bidding. I understand small business owners aren't this way, but small business owners have never been the force behind modern capitalism.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP what you think of anarcho-socailism??
jesselakerr 1 year ago
@jesselakerr I think anarcho-socialism is closer to basic human nature than anarcho-capitalism. In human history and before, the only time capitalism had power and wasn't controlled/regulated by a state govt was when capitalism itself became a fascist government. I know of one rare example of anarcho-capitalism, but it was on the smallscale & didn't last long. Most examples of anarchism are tibal communities which are closer to the ideas of socialism than capitalism.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Comment removed
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP The basic idea is that in a completely free market it will not be beneficial for corporations to oppress people because people can simply not work for them or use their products and services. Anarcho-Capitalism also holds that it isn't morally wrong to try and make money and to engage in business, just because corporations and companies exist doesn't mean that they are on the rampage oppressing people. Like I said previously, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society people always have
Sunoco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sunoco I understand the theory & have nothing against it as a theory. I just don't see the evidence supporting the position that it could be applied on a large scale. It might work as you think it would, but there is no clear reason to assume it would. Applying the theory would demand a complete change in human culture and civilization. This massive of a shift in collective identity & behavior hasn't been seen since the beginning of civilization.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Just because companies exist does not mean that people are oppressed. The basic idea is that in a completely free market no one will be commanded by anybody, hierarchies only exist when people agree to it, usually because they receive compensation by taking part in something like a business or company. If everybody has these rights, then imposing non-consensual hierarchy will have been essentially eliminated without the need to resort to quasi-totalitarian anarcho-socialism.
Sunoco 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Weapons, if a corporation becomes oppressive, the populace will be able to make sure to put them in their place.
falooshie 1 year ago
@falooshie In the US, corporations such as defense contractors are taking over much of the role the military and police once had. They carry guns and have the legal right to kill people. They even are used domestically as in New Orleans. There was a gun fight in New Orleans involving Blackwater mercenaries defending the homes of rich people, but interestingly the people they were shooting at were identified by some as the New Orleans police who had gone rogue.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@falooshie It would be a bloodbath if the populace tried to fight a well trained (often military trained) and heavily armed group of corporate mercenaries. People in Afghanistan and Iraq have at times tried to stand up to these mercenaries. Usually, they get blown away. These mercenaries aren't trigger shy. In fact, they got in trouble for being a bit too trigger happy. These mercenaries are contracted by the govt, but similar private police work entirely outside of govt contracts.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
50 cents a clip aye? right....
longfootbuddy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This all sounds like a very reasonable and good idea.. but your forgetting one thing... people as a whole are not reasonable or good. There will always be a group bent on suppressing or enslaving the other group. This is human nature greed lust and pride. It may not be part of your nature but unfortunately there are more of them than you. It has been said if your cut the head from the body it will die but I say it will just grow a new head with a different face.
spit9lvr1 2 years ago
Yes, so let's let those people actively participate in government where they really canf ruther their goals.
The good in humanity outweighs the bad, PROVIDED it is profitable and beneficial to be so. overnment obscures this antural tendency.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
Society is kinda like a parking lot and even though you may make you parking lot with no lines casue you want there to be freedom of choice. you and other begin to notice that poeple are in disorder cars and getting blocked in and damaged so you form a commity and decied that for the sake of order you need lines and even though your aginst a parking lot with lines it becomes apparent that you must have it and soon your chargeing to park to pay for the lines you are now exactly what you hate.
spit9lvr1 2 years ago
dont get me wrong Im not for big government all im saying is there are 2 types of people leaders and followers a group of leaders will spend all their time butting heads to find a peaking order and a group of followers will not do much of anything. the main leaders will have lesser leaders IE a commity the followers will follow the leaders and a government is born. governments arent the problem the problem is greed lust and pride. change is good but treat the sickness not the symptoms
spit9lvr1 2 years ago
You're right.. that's why capitalism works. People want what's best for themselves (and their family or group, sure). Ayn Rand noted this as the "Virtue of Selfishness"- check it out.
I would like to ask the others here- where has anarchy happened and thrived? Communes lasted only a generation or two, and transitional phases between one government and another didn't sustain itself. Gangs have a hierarchy, native tribes worldwide have government.
PhantomP63 2 years ago
I don't see how an anarchist society can succeed without doing away with monetary systems in the first place. Money shouldn't be the reason that we do work or solve problems. Problems should be solved for the sake of finding a solution. Enough with this buying/selling bullshit.
seanotube85 2 years ago
money is only as good as the stuff that you can get with it. So getting rid of monetary systems would do nothing to change the motivations of people or to change the things that they would want.
shepf2 2 years ago
True, we'd also have to no longer possess property of any kind. Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves. That's the only way anarchy could work. Everyone would need to teach one another towards the good of the human race. Greed of any kind would make anarchy impossible, so we would have to adopt radical philosophies of sharing that by today's standards, the large conservative majority of the world ironically would deem immoral.
seanotube85 2 years ago
We have some basic primitive needs that are driven by our DNA. Among these are a sense of community which has been destroyed in western, free mkt societys, where the rights of the individual are top priority. Another is the need for domination and control by the dominant 5% of any species over the weak . We cant escape our biological pre programming. Ask a feminist.
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
There is truth to the idea that corps run by the most aggressive tend to run down others, there are also methods for restraining these 'Type A'-holes. W/out Guv to stop protesters, they could do a lot more than parade in front of an office blg.They could demand & get action with their dollars! Hit 'em where it hurts- in the wallet. Add social pressure & voila! No purely economic, religious or political system can make the changes needed.Humans must change their paradigm 1 @ a time for that.
kingofthebrittains 2 years ago
The more I hear of this anarchy, the more ludicrous it seems to be. And the more arrogant the anarchist s are
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
Comment removed
1brettsnyder 2 years ago 2
Its an arrogance to sneere at someones FAQs. Like, I have only just started wondering about this whole concept, since I got an unsolicited contact from confedsocialist and what I'm finding, is a kind of elitism, that the ordinary mortal, couldnt possibly comprehend "our little phylosophy". Its a bit cult like, in that regard
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
Like, what on earth makes anyone think for a second, that everyone would be altruistic, and giving. The human species is, by nature, an, imperious, decieptful, brutal manipulator. And if you are promoting a law of the jungle world,,,, well??????
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
Comment removed
1brettsnyder 2 years ago
Comment removed
1brettsnyder 2 years ago
I dont get it. How is your stateless society supposed to overcome these natural urges?The urge to create exploit workers for the benefit of the well off? Isnt it just going to go in a cycle? Y'know, the workers going to unite to counter the greedy employer. I just dont see how your going to prevent a tyrant emerging to control the rest .
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
antidallard, just because you think it is ludicrous doesn't mean it is. it is a matter of opinion. we do not criticize your beliefs, so why do you criticize ours? who is the arrogant one now?
rockliveson93 2 years ago
I lived in blissfull ignorance, until I got an unsolicited contact from confedsocialist, Who talks on, about cells, molecules, and some other b.s. But he didnt appreciate my simple minded questions and got all smart. But, the more I listened , the more I believe you are a bunch of utopian dreames, who like the sound of your own voices,
So, if you dont want my opinion, dont ask for it.
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
Anarchy is imperfect, but simple, it's better than capitalism and corporatocracy.
MinimoviesInc 2 years ago 2
An anarchic society can run on capitalist principles.
It can have a capitalistic economy.
Free market.
Anon1696 2 years ago
I'd rather live in Sweden than Somalia. Gimme big government, high tax and high public spending. A cohesive society with law and order.
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
government in general is imperfect
cobracarg 2 years ago
god forbid someone get smart! Intelligence will be the end of us all! Lets all stay simple minded...
kingofthebrittains 2 years ago
Yeah. You fruitcakes enjoy your little hobbie, and your lofty ideas. Cos thats all it'll ever amount to.
I'd rather live in Sweden than Somalia
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
Blah, Blah, Woof, Woof, Lincoln, Einstein, Gandhi, MLK; they were all told the same thing. Guess you're right! Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through 3 stages:1st Laughed at 2nd Violently opposed. 3rd accepted as self evident. Look how long slavery was considered normal & moral. Now it's unthinkable. So people aren't programmed by DNA.There is science to back this up. That's a cop out for people too lazy to change. The name calling is nice too, thanks! (But you cant change that, can you?)
kingofthebrittains 2 years ago
And there was also Charlie Marx. He had a well worked out set of undisputable logic, that went through these stages, and look where HIS
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
And look where HIS ideas lead.
Because there wasnt the same knowledge about genetics as there is now, and Marx misunderstood human nature, and what drives us to do the things we do.
ANTIDALLARD 2 years ago
yer babbling
diddymuck 2 years ago
You could construct an overpass, and go over the million dollar toll road.
Robinsonero 2 years ago
concerning defence how about a company build a large town/village and then charges for the price of the houses which would be more because the company that built the houses would ensure their protection?
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
Your premise of Government's role is not correct. I am an Objectivist with questions, hence my presense here. However, we hold that a proper government's only role is the protection of man's rights and it holds a monopoly on the RETALIATORY use of force.
You described government as an applicator of the INITIAL use of force. This only describes current improper government.
The authority for who holds that monopoly is my concern.
Comments?
dreadrocksean 2 years ago
Minarchism: Turning back the clock and hoping something else will happen.
myusernameisluc 2 years ago
You suggest that we should not consider what might happen if we get rid of the government. If we do not consider the consequences of getting rid of the government then how can you decide which is the lesser evil? And even if there was Anarchy around the world, there would still be evil, you as having done philosophy should know its an imperative, Without considering the consequences how can you say we would be better of without? (Believe in Anarchy too, but want to see your reply.) (9:56)
liebezudritt12345 2 years ago
as far as their being no positive unchose obligations, what about an obligation to feed your children? I am genuinly wondering, not critisizing.
dhushw 2 years ago
Well, you have an obligation to feed your children because you voluntarily chose to have children... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
That never occured to me. Thanks.
Also, looking at the grammatical structure and spelling of my question, I look retarded...
dhushw 2 years ago
dosent look to bad to me, it acually stands above most internet comments (y)
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
I respect the most of things you says, but Global warming is a fact.
1000 and 1000s of Scientific reports can support that fact, so I lost a little bit of respect of you Stef in this video. Very ignorant.
nitarna 2 years ago
Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
BTW I am far from an expert on global warming this is just a quote from a website I found. If your interested in finding the truth on global warming I suggest you look at a wide variety of sources.
00JIZZLE00 2 years ago
Show me the proof that global warming is real, at least the guy below you supplied evidence that global warming is actually global "cooling"
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
No, he didnt supply evidence. Clearly your a fucking retard since you dont know what evidence is.
I cant link on youtube, i get marked as spam; but you can find scientific researches if you just search the internet. Click the d o t edu links, they have been accepted in a peer review paper, so you know that you can trust the reports.
nitarna 2 years ago
I'm not saying global warming is true or not, what I am saying there is still much debate left in it.
There is numerous evidence for both sides of the issue, in fact if you've done your research than you must've noticed that there is solid proof that the world has been COOLING during the past several decades.
Once you dismiss claims that counter your own in science, it can no longer be called science, you mine as well call it religion ...you fuggin ignorant douchebag.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
No, not really. The debate is about how much damage we have done, what has happened and so on. There's too much paranoia sometimes but we HAVE damaged our earth, to deny that is ignorant.
Provide evidence that the world has been cooling pls?
Agree, so go study science from a legit source. . Yeah, right back at ya you ignorant prick.
nitarna 2 years ago
global warming is fiction....during the middle ages, there was a point where the temperature was high.... just has high as temperature today, in the same area. look up the weather charts
cobracarg 2 years ago
Ooooh.. that's some great scientifically peer reviewed data you just cited! Sorry, try again.
seanotube85 2 years ago
-10
ddrumsman549 2 years ago
why do you guys keep saying no country possessing nuclear arms has ever been invaded over and over again? how many times can I say Argentina tried to cease back the Faulklands even though we had the bomb and they didn't, CAN YOU STOP SAYING THIS FALSEHOOD PLEASE
(and yes I know the uk gov was morally in the wrong but thats not the point)
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
he doesnt KEEP saying it you just keep watching the vid
dowapbambutt 2 years ago
he keeps saying it in many vids, and so do other people
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Argentina would NEVER have expected the UK to react with an A-Bomb, just because it would have been so damn irrational. Anyway invadeing the Falklands was not really like invadeing mainland britain.
But yeah... good point
superhuegi 2 years ago
you can't derrive an ought from an is :-P
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
How about a short drama set in a Catholic school to manifest your argument:
"Hey, Ronny, come on, you'll be late for 'private time' with Father Luke!"
"I'm not going in there anymore. What he's doing in there is wrong."
"You have to come! It's always been like this, you know that!"
"Sorry, this is wrong and I won't do it anymore."
"Pathetic! What a spoiled child! Boo hoo, 'I don't wanna get my ass raped by a priest'. Then don't come here anymore! Don't expect Catholic schools to change!"
prisburning 3 years ago
I'm afraid that doesn't work as a comparasion, because in your Catholic Church example the subject could complain to a higher "authority", in this case the police. Who are you going to go crying to the government about? If the conditions of being part of the Catholic church were that you had to get raped by a priest then obviously the probably course of action would be to leave. In society you can leave too, as you seem to have done, but for most people the benefits outweigh the negati.. cont
HelloMarco 3 years ago
And, well, if you do go to that extent as far as nit-picking my Catholic school analogy, obviously not every little bit will add up. However, the gist of it is how stupid it is to demonize the victims of a coercive system who choose not to conform.
prisburning 3 years ago
I somehow feel that all that's lacking from your argument is to call me "unpatriotic", which, upon my reading it, would paint a much clearer picture of where you're coming from.
prisburning 3 years ago
...negatives, even if things aren't exactly as they would like (and you can bend the rules). But if you want to, for instance, use currency, get a job from a capitalist employer, buy property, drive on public roads, etc. then you're submitting to becoming a part of the corporate-state society and therefore it's hypocritical to go whine about it. You're always able to go attempt to do something about it, but don't expect everyone else to assist or even be on your side when most people... cont
HelloMarco 3 years ago
i'm sorry but you're asking that question to the wrong person, i guenuienly couldn't care less about my belongs and even money, i'm only 15 years old and all i want are friends and the ability to create art and insperation.
I am this unmaterealistic becasue i am an anarchist. and to awsner your queation if that really happened i would just shrug it off because i would omit it as a problem of mine.
xfiggyballsx 3 years ago
Anarchism does not preclude the enjoyment of material possessions you have worked towards, at least not in and of itself.
It was only an analogy anyway, to simplify my argument. Most people would mind if possessions they valued were stolen. I'll admit your peppy self-righteousness makes it fall flat, but overall it is still a working simile for government theft.
prisburning 3 years ago