True News 40: Privatising the Senate, Nationalizing Industry...

[libertarianjury]

Pause at 01:26, and take a hit of this logic comin' straight through your speakers!

[TreachMarkets]

"monopoly on violence"

Cool, Obama's been reading Murray Rothbard. Why is he still acting like Obama?

[sniped101]

Lol. Even in the government. They want to get away from the government. Priceless.

[wolfcan]

Stef, you have very very blue eyes, do you know that?

And you make funny faces.

And sense.

Somehow.

[2Roo7ted]

What is in it for the man is what drives Capitalism, that why no one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves in America. Socialism no one just gives a fuck, the taxpayer sets them up for life, headache if they got to lay anyone off. The answers is inbetween, the government becomes landlord, contacts their businesses to private, and collects their share, and let the man's greed do the rest.

[Shezmu]

I think 13:00 to 13:30 was the most emotionally gripping thirty seconds I've ever seen on youtube. We are being ruled over by a man who KNOWINGLY and CONSCIOUSLY uses violence to achieve his goals. I'm not sure if I should be ecstatic or fucking terrified.

[RogueSwordThesco]

GAAAAAAHHH! I need to take my anger, and bottle it up, and then throw these bottles at DC.

How in god's name do you not turn a profit with a monopoly on FOOD! Why on earth are low skill jobs being paid 30k. This is so GODDAMN FOOLISH. GAH!!!

[dissent4freedom]

haha, soon... people need to re-learn that the power resides with the people and that the government has only the"privileges" that we allow them to have. and as stated in the constitution; when the gov becomes destructive of the rights that we were endowed with from our creator--it is time to "alter or abolish it" and in this case i choose the latter!

[Rokasomee]

4:49 - "the education of the young"

BEST. PUNCHLINE. EVER. <33333

[ElishaShemuel]

Statism is of hell.

So is anything else man thinks is better.

Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

(Ecclesiastes 8:17)

[glopur0]

See "Morality, Atheism, and Child Abuse" and "Religion and Statism" and realize that your quoting out of a 2 thousand old book written by starvation-crazed monks which only contains things they knew at the time. If God wrote it wouldn't it say something anymore than the tiny bit of knowledge they had at the same time? Maybe he could've thrown in there "Cut part of your penis off, stone people who work on Sunday, oh yea and oranges contain penicillin!"

[ElishaShemuel]

Rule by men after rebellion from rule by God...

This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

(Daniel 4:17)

[OHT53]

End of days for the economy I like that.

If the economy does collapse perhaps belief in being "governed" will also collapse.

[bluballzzz]

further more think of all the mess halls in the forts servicemen go to them 4 5 times a day and get all the free food they want with out paying

[ks100001]

"Dear... dude"

:D

[timedrunkwine]

Excellent in every way, Stef!  Thank you.

[stefbot]

Thank you for your kind comment, I'm glad that you liked it!

[bluballzzz]

the reason these resturants fail is beacuse soldiers go to these food bars and pile on food with out paying. when i was in the army i would go to the hospital mess hall and pile on plates of food show my ID and not pay

[stealthswimmer]

possibly. Or they might just be paid by tax dollars since taxes support the military. I dunno how they actually do it though. If they do honestly give out all that food without any sort of payment, that's pretty messed up, lol.

[DCLugi]

If there is no evidence than isn't "I don't know" truer than believing in something? If I have no conclusive evidence about Noah's ark then it's foolish to believe because some man wrote it in an old book but one can still remain open minded about things unknown until evidence presents itself.

[JupiterJulius]

illuminating as always Stef. = )

[jerami101]

Repeat this three time! What makes the general population so damned, is that they have a hard time percieving the idea that..there..are..those.. who..only..care..about..themse­lves!!!

[RebelRadius]

Stefan. I strongly recommend you watch Dr. Leonard Peikoff''s outstanding lecture.

"America versus Americans"

[pelucas716]

thats an interesting term , the anti answer for the 'god' solution, it seems like every time , human kind runs into a problem , one that can't be solved they resort to superstition, i think that the problem is not that we have hope for an non existing being but that we lack hope in our own capacities.

[nathanjonessr]

stef, you have caricatured the believer's views. yes there are those guilty of exactly that, saying "i don't need to understand, god made it all", but I think this caricature dismisses the much greater majority of Christians who look at the natural world and informed by the scripture are confident that everything has a reason and purpose and place in God's plan, and understanding these things is a glory to their designer.

[nathanjonessr]

I think that saying that their is no reason for the world and its parts, defies science. Why try to understand something that was an accident and has no underlying reason or plan. why is it better for science to believe that life is a lucky accident, rather than that life was designed and founded in reason and wisdom. Is it better for biology to endlessly search for a missing link or to look at the human body with the premise that everything here is purposeful and needs to be understood.

[DCLugi]

I think (good) science just wants to look with clarity to see what actually is. One can't look clearly with "belief". Belief is generally a product of want. It would be nice to think that there is a purpose but not at the expence of it being an illusion.

[nathanjonessr]

There is an essay by William James, "The Will To Believe". He makes the point that it is the opposite, that everything in science was first a belief before it was known to be true. He says that to even do an experiment or look at something you must believe something about the thing observed. All that we know about atomic science was a result of man's belief that there was something there. Before there were any successful experiments or clear observations there was "belief".

[DCLugi]

Perhaps I'm confusing belief with curiosity or even hypothesis. If I think I saw a ghost and then make the hypothesis that it was a reflection I would investigate. If I "believe" that it was a ghost then I wouldn't need to investigate because my belief is enough. If someone else shows me that it was a reflection I may still cling to my belief.

[nathanjonessr]

You're placing your belief before you know for a fact. You presupposed that it couldn't have been a ghost, because they don't exist, so that option was dead from the get-go. What is the real difference there, you simply chose one option over another without any evidence and then sought the evidence to support it. Seriously, that essay from William James, is right on for this conversation. You must make assumptions before you can find the truth. The key is to have your eyes open.

[DCLugi]

I will have a look at the Essay but the first question that comes to mind is do we need to believe in gravity in order for it to effect us?

[nathanjonessr]

No, we don't have to believe in it to be affected by reality. But we're talking about an issue that's effects on us are not always so unambiguous. To have a theory of gravity, you must first believe something about its universal effects on matter, before you have experimental confirmation. To even look for gravity, you must at least believe you will see something, or could see something. Truth's effects are constant and consistent, but truth is not always seen.

[DCLugi]

I do see what you are saying and it makes sense. How about discoveries that you were not looking for at all? If I have no idea what will happen by putting instant coffee in the microwave and suddenly I go back in time. Some things are learned completely by accident, no?

[nathanjonessr]

whenever you discover something by accident, you still can't call it a truth or a fact, not by a single incident. (most of the time). You have to develop a faith in a hypothesis and test it out. The Bible calls faith the evidence of things not seen. It is a legal metaphor, faith can't be proven by logic or evidence, but it is itself an evidence of something that is not yet understood or known. For all of human history they had faith in gravity, now we don't need faith for gravity, it is a law.

[DCLugi]

Yes but there are thousands of religions that have faith in things unknown. Perhaps I'll start one today:) When a scientist looks for something his "faith" is based on previous discoveries or an educated guess. I have "faith" that my car will turn when I move the steering wheel but it's based on consistent evidence from previous driving.

[nathanjonessr]

Thats not faith though, that is knowledge based on facts and experimental data. Faith is believing that the universe started in a singularity, no real, conclusive evidence; faith is believing in science as the arbiter of truth, when every new discovery necessarily proves old science wrong.

Science is a very valuable means for apprehending the truth, but it is not the exclusive means.

[Bilakaifa]

But if you follow this line of thinking, and try and explain the origin of everything from a completely naturalistic point of view... you get nothing became everything, randomly. Now, I do not have the answer. All I can do is logically point out the flaws of evolution, and the big bang, and whatever other state funded scientific endeavor comes next, and hope that the scientific community drops it's love of evolution.

[broeman]

Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory, but I agree that (all I guess?) western public schools are teaching these as fact. I for one don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, since a continuous universe seems more likely, but I do believe in the Evolution Theory, since I can see it happen (no, it doesn't take longer time, recent research have shown mutations in several animals (e.g. birds) over the last 10-20 years).

[frostyuk2007]

Correct me if I'm wrong but evolution should not be an issue as it right in front of our faces. What I mean is an African man has black skin to cope with a warmer climate and the shape of an Oriental man's eyes helps him cope with high winds etc. Shouldn't this sort of thing be enough evidence to convince anyone of evolution on our planet?

Even deceases evolve and adapt. Evolution is all around us. Every time someone cries out for freedom, Government will adapt and protect itself ;-)

[stefbot]

Evolution is not randomness, quite the opposite -- you might want to check out the book The Blind Watchmaker.

[frostyuk2007]

I haven't read "The Blind Watchmaker" yet, is it really that good a book? I reading Daniel C. Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" at the moment and he mentions it a couple of times.

I'd recommend another Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" for anyone who is struggling with the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

And thank you so much Stef for all your podcasts on your website. I've only recently started listening and I'm hooked. Truly eye opening!!!

[Bilakaifa]

sorry, I will clarify. Evolution, the science that deals with the change in species over "long" periods of time (keeps getting longer every time I hear a new theory), does not directly deal with the origin of species, or the origin of matter...

It makes the argument that everything can be explained threw natural order... the ant is an ant because millions of years of survival of the fittest... or luckiest, has led it to it's current place. No design whatsoever.

[DCLugi]

Hey Stef. If I may be way off topic. What drew you to the theatre and what ultimately led you to drop it?

[Boxmanboxman]

Hey Stef can you please make a video that details the difference between the state and the government. I watched another video about this but it completely failed in matching your analogical, logical, and philisophical prowess.

I believe this video could be extremely important in helping people discovering whether they are market anarchists or true anarchists.

[stefbot]

Tell me more?

[Bilakaifa]

besides that, I love your videos, and try to share them with whoever is willing to watch. Liked the one on Somalia in particular. Had a run in with a radio talk show host a couple times over different things, and his response was always, if you don't like it, leave. If you like anarchy, go to Somalia, and see what it's like. Thanks to your research, I was able to call back in with some of that info and shut his ass up.

Keep up the good work, and consider my comment below... or don't.

[Bilakaifa]

Interesting how you lump two things not connected together... creationism and statism... I happen to be an anarchist like yourself, for all the same reasons, but I also dismiss evolution out of logic...

Your against the status quo on government, but believe the government sponsored scientific community with no problems? Out of logic, total random start to the universe makes no sense... nothing became stuff, and stuff became alive... and the life randomly got dna, and learned to eat and mate...

[stefbot]

I can guarantee you that you do not understand evolution at all... :)

[nathanjonessr]

Whats there not to understand? You talk about boiling things down to simplicity and looking at what is really happening, to great effect talking about the "government" doing violence. But isn't that exactly what evolution is: "nothing became something, something became alive, alive something evolved into everything we see." Whatever the mechanisms or the nuances that is evolution. Why does it have to be complicated: Everything came from something or everything came from nothing.

[DCLugi]

The origins of life is a tough one. I don't think evolution necessarliy attempts to answer this. Do you have a theory?

[OttoVonKonrad]

You logical deduction of the state is refreshing.

Excellent video!

[RebelRadius]

Stefan, you have a serious morality problem with those that would seek out to destroy you.

If you had a sense of life that you genuinely valued, then you would not apologise for those whose ambition in life is to either to kill all non believers or make them submit.

Did you listen to Cheney's speech by the way?

[adammcg2]

Stef, I love your videos particularly your analogies and examples. However on the point of an ideal, stateless society and having protection of our property and lives from those competing for our money as well as ourselves, who would protect our country at the national level? There are still other countries around the world who could attack us and who would deal with defence? I don't like the anarchist argument, the founders taught, i believe correctly that a very minimal state is required.

[HOLLNAIER]

Read your own comment. Notice you have just regurgitated the msm message, "'They' are coming to get you and the State will save you!" Beliefs are the assumptions we make about how we expect things to be...how can you have a 'correct' assumption? As that would render it 'Fact' instantly!

[Boxmanboxman]

You have a valid point but look at it this way. "I'm afraid of other nations acting violently against me, so instead of volunarily giving my money to personal private businesses to protect me against violence, it is perfectly reasonable to give for the government use violence against me (in terms of imprisonment) if I dont give it money to protect me from... violence."

Do you see the morality issue now? How does it make sense to use use violence to protect us from violence?

Hope it helps

[adammcg2]

I understand your abstract principles but as Edmund Burke taught, we need to concern ourselves with their practical application. The fact is that there are other nations who if we removed the defence dept would take advantage of that. I believe in a minimal state, with the bare elements of the justice system and defence dept with very little else. Every power would have to become anarchist before we could be safe and they wouldn't change until we changed... a conundrum!

[Spalg]

who will police the police? Stef goes Cochran

[waksibra]

I want more videos like this.

[stefbot]

Can you tell me more about what you liked please? :)

[waksibra]

I liked that you explained a lot about libertarianism and why you want to do what you want to do.

[Fetchdafish]

Can't we watch the watchers?

[RuddODragonFear]

The Obama clip... when I saw it on the news, I thought EXACTLY THE SAME thing that you said in the video -- "oh, Thor, how is it that the truth is allowed to peek out through the elaborate web of lies and deceit?"

[RuddODragonFear]

This video has made me laugh. It's just too much contradiction inside the government for it NOT to be humorous (in an "I want to cry my eyes out" kinda way).

[newexperiment]

speaking of shows like this out there. stef you should do a who suggesting other shows we can watch!

[TheStig000]

I find it funny that senators go to private catering companies. Or sad.

[garvess]

In my very first undergraduate political science course our professor defined the government as a group of people with a monopoly on violence in the first ten minutes of class.

[adorianvlad]

Eyeball soup is the proof that our God in Heaven has created the sensory organs for the purpose of pleasure!

[stefbot]

Haha for people who have yet to see the video, that sentence is going to seem totally random! :)

[adorianvlad]

Yeah, I bet it will seem random, provided they are from Reykjavik, Island or perhaps Tunguska, Siberia. I apologize for my modest political incorrectness apropos' to what a culinary delicacy is, here.

[AngryRam1]

Stef, you are one of the most rational person i have heard on the intertubes. Well done on your videos mate.

[Adipatus]

That was a "BOOYAH!!!!" moment for me.

[JTsmiley14]

Stef, I humbly request you explain your remarks about voluntarism and the free market as it relates to the realities of poverty. Would a truly free anarcho-capitalist market cause poverty to evaporate, and if so, why? You're too intelligent to think that people are poor because they are lazy, so please explain this to me, as I feel, regardless of our ideas about society, that we should (either out of self interest or altruism) help those who cannot help themselves when it isn't their fault.

[aerocabin]

Anarchism and the free market don't completely evaporate poverty, they simply offer better incentives for the poor to become wealthier. Poverty is a resting state, it's what happens when people don't have incentive to generate wealth. Statism, or the welfare state have the opposite effect, they destroy incentive by taking half of the wealth of productive people. Half of that stolen wealth is wasted in government, and the other half is redistributed arbitrarily, usually never reaching the poor.

[JTsmiley14]

This seems like a long-winded way of saying that poor people are lazy, which is simply not true. People in poverty have every incentive to get out of poverty, what they don't have is ABILITY. Many factors contribute to this, including racism, improper distribution of funding, the prison-industrial complex, etc. Granted, the State is responsible for complicity in a lot of these things, but a self-interest model still leaves tens of millions of people (including children) in the same state.

[thorell9]

Of course they have the ability. The drive to be productive is sucked out of them by a childhood of welfare and being told they are a victim. Anyone can get a stocking job at Wal-Mart, which isn't enough to support a family but IS enough to put yourself through community college or a trade school. Sure, it takes work, but that's what you get paid for.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Sorry if I'm answering for Stef. He'd probably have a better answer than I.

But the idea is to find non-violent solutions to solving societal problems.

He has lots of podcasts on this topic, especially about how the state does way more to keep people in poverty than it does to get people out. Hopefully he or others can point you towards them, but don't fret, the answers are there. :-)

[newperve]

Ok, for a start even the laziness is mostly caused by the state. Laziness doesn't just happen it's a response to a percieved inability to affect outcomes in one's life. The state is of course the main cause of powerlessness. Let's say that it's true that we should help those cannot help themselves (and there are far less of those than you might think) see his video "Helping the Poor: Analyzing a Banana Republic" on why the state isn't needed to do this.

[PeterTheEvilBastard]

Look at this this way. You want to help the poor. So, being a considerate person, would you refrain from helping the poor in the absence of a state? Of course not! People form private charities. There already are a ton of them, building schools in Africa, feeding the poor and whatnot. Is the Red Cross a government agency? I'm pretty certain the poor would be better taken care of without a state, becouse private charities have an incentive to actually REDUCE poverty, unlike the state.

[PeterTheEvilBastard]

From my experience, private charities like the Caritas, or Food not Bombs movement, are all that keeps certain people from starvation here in Poland. People who lost their rights for help for various reasons, most often administrative idiocy, explained away as "lack of money". If you ever see the luxurious palaces our ZUS (agency responsible for social security, welfare etc) operates in, you will be amazed at the BALLS those people have.

[PeterTheEvilBastard]

Now granted, Poland may be a bit of an extreme case, but all governments are basically the same. The poor are just an excuse to get to your money, and feed an army of parasites. Thats why all government programs ultimatly have the effect of INCREASING poverty, and never the opposite. Bigger poverty means more tax money for them to "redistribute", and no sane person actively works against his self interest. When the state is involved, only a tiny fraction of the money ever goes to the poor.

[dimebagslash]

this could just be me being thick, but haw can you have courts and law and due process without a state.

Im interested in your ideas but have questions about parts of the theory

[ForOrAgainstUs]

You should just go to freedomainradio(.)com/podcasts­.html and listen to his first podcast. You can also search for podcasts based on the types of topics you're interested in.

There's two separate menus. One is podcasts in chronological order and the other is by category.

[stefbot]

That's not a thick question at all, but rather I think goes to the heart of the matter - you might want to check out my free books on anarchy, available on my website. :)

[LibertarianOnline]

great

[Signzit]

like created FRNs,

20 hundred million- billion-trizillion stars.

STOP believing FICTION

If no one is watching, stealing is happening

If someone is watching, stealing is happening

That's why there should be many little piles to steal from NOT one big large one

Because there will aways be stealing, those thefts should be local

It's certainly cheaper to hire local watchers, cuz you know where they live, redress will be quicker! Somehow they got all the money & left town; how did that happen?

[MaikUniversum]

exactly

[MaikUniversum]

7:35 brilliant :) " you can not have a state because you can't solve a problem who will watch the watchers" :)

[MaikUniversum]

thanks for interesting videos :)

[aarythmic]

All hail Stefan. He is one of my few heroes. IMHO, it would behoove you to buy and read his books, (I have), ... because you get hardcopy for your money, and your soon to be worthless dollars also enable Stefan to keep doing his amazing thing. Peace...

[EvolFighter]

is this a joke, because of the response of the media?

love evil? what is evil?

[erdal0]

black comedy : obama

lol

[jessesainthimmel]

That Obama clip was freaky, the language he used almost made it seem like he knows what he's doing... in a bad way.

[doctorofghetto]

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the day, if not week. Politics is and has been played out for god knows how long. Politics is not even a profession, but an intrusion on economical and social aspects. After that 2008 election, and proposal of extending/unlimiting terms from all levels of government lately, democracy is no more.

[xelenty]

What' s so interesting is how much little effort they put into hiding the reality lately.. I guess it's hubris, maybe..

[KathyGurl14]

A long, hard place to go: the DMV.

[MT2R]

Can we pull that Obama clip out and make it a separate clip?

[stefbot]

the clip is linked to the right

[SpykerSpeed]

Holy crap, Obama actually admitted what a Government is out loud... wow. That's an amazing piece of footage.

[stefbot]

the clip is linked to the right...

[sovereignself]

anybody who has studied politics knows this, defined by max weber... its not that surprising.

[sovereignself]

2:02 < this expression explains everything.