Sefan claims that if people had listened to Ayn Rand, government would be about 5% of what it is now, currency would be privatized or gold based, there would be complete free trade, virtually no government agencies, and we'd be going through a scientific, economic, philosophical renaissance the likes of which we've never ever seen.
@flyermay How do you square the historical facts that the biggest socialist experiments produced by far the poorest populations to the point of mass starvation? (Google Democide) And the nearest approximations to free trade, the U.S. pre-1913 produced the most abundance, and largest middle class with the least poverty of all times? The last century was entirely regression toward bigger government, more poverty, dependency, and stealing of assets by the ruling class starting with the Fed.Res
@leafwatch I think you are making an unfair comparison. Russia just came out of a civil war, WWI, and the Rusian-Japanese war; not to mention it was already a technologicaly backwards country under the Tzars, where people starved already. It would be a big surprise to me if they had abundance of anything.
On the other hand, before WWI the US had a 30 years period of peace and progress; and had just conquered a vast virgin territory from the native americans along the previous century.
@flyermay Somehow I don't think you researched Democide. It is not one or two examples but an overwhelming pattern. Big, powerful, centralized regimes kill their own citizens at the most rapid and ruthless paces of any other governmental systems ever realized. We see it ongoing today in the disparities and food shortages in North Korea and many African/mid-east countries. Mao's China was the all-time worst in terms of sacrificing people to a rigid economic ideology. The pattern is clear.
@leafwatch You are again only looking at examples that either just came out of a war, revolution or suffered other disasters; while completely disregarding any starvation under capitalism (which has now reached an all time record of 1 billion people around the world).
Here, check the historical list of famines worldwide, and then tell me what the percentage of socialist states is: wikipedia . org / wiki /List_of_famines
You are only picking the data that fits your preconceived conclusions.
@flyermay I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears you are an apologist for mass atrocities entirely due to large scale centralized planning, which caused many many millions of deaths due to starvation and oppression, per nation. Your examples are utterly fictitious as examples of free markets. The Irish famine was British empire oppression. Calling a hodge podge list of feudal, mercantalistic, monarchies, dictatorships "capitalism" betrays your bias or naivete'.
@leafwatch No, you are not giving me the benefit of the doubt; you are telling me what I should believe by just looking at the information that suits your ideology -which is what most libertarians do (as you can clearly see in Stefan's videos)-.
I am the one giving you the benefit of the doubt, by point you to impartial and unbiased data that confirms famine and starvation has nothing to do with socialism.
Does pointing you towards the truth makes me a socialist? Well, I've heard far worse.
@flyermay Facts are not ideology. While it is true that recent mass-scale democide has been committed under socialist schemes, USSR, Nazi, Mao, that isn't the point. Any variety of big centralized scheme will fail, no matter what label. All have the same fundamental error: force is used to control humans instead of rational persuasion. None can exist without coercion. The more oppressive a regime, the less people produce. The more power at the top, the more corruption and abuse.
@flyermay I just watched that video. Go see my comments.
Reporters are really, really good at giving biased research. Do you own.
"by just looking at the information that suits your ideology " - a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"The success of a system is not measure by how well those at the top do, but by how bad those at the bottom ("the poor") are treated." - I agree. Let's start with TSA gropes children.
What I'm seeing is that you meassure everything in our current economic terms; that's probably why the solution offered by the right-wing might seem reasonable to you. But it's our current economic system what needs to be changed in the first place... human beings are not meant to be productive little slaves for the economy; and the economy should never by before the wellbeing of the whole population.
I don't understand how Stefan talks about morality and not realise that simple fact.
@flyermay Well, after listening to his latest video, I do understand why he does it; which is the reason why every right-winger does it... he realised he could be quite successful in the current economic system, and therefore he is not willing to leave that privileged position.
Oil prices are higher than they could`ve been, due to price fixing(OPEC cartel)/regulations(oil is of course non-renewable, so the price is bound to increase regardless).
I like this but disagree with social security. Government pensioners take 20 times more from taxes than those on SS and without paying anything. Further there is some question as to how their service benefited the taxpayer. Second maybe the Palestinians should try building something but I could be wrong on that
If there was one criticism of Ayn Rand from Machines of Loving Grace, it wasn't her perspective on economics or money systems, it was that objectivism advocates "rational self-interest" which portrays humans as mechanical, logical, selfish entities. Not saying we aren't, but there lies that old favorite debate on "human nature". Adam Curtis' conclusion was that we are "victims" of our selfish genes, but should pursue altruism for humanity to survive...
It seems inevitable to me that the US will have to sell off the overseas bases, possibly to the local governments or private companies, but I have a feeling it will be a global government rather than "productive" people, in an attempt to shift the military empire of the US into the hands of the UN. Same empire, different management.
However, the amount of influence of this global force, I think, will be overshadowed by technology, and this global government will collapse before it starts.
I have a hard time listening to Stefan Molyneux because of the things he is talking about that I know about in detail, he is very inaccurate. He also talks quickly moving from one topic to another with a lot of generalities and unprovable claims; doesn't that sound like a snake oil salesman to you.
Notice that he just talks and talks and talks with nothing to back up his claims. He doesn't even use news segments/articles to back up anything he says. Stefan, get legit!
@focuskid100 Understand your need for substantiation. I do my own research and can agree with the general framework that Stefan operates within in the video. I guess I've just read / seen / thought about most of this to be able to reference what he talks about without needing him to waste my time with it. We do disagree on some very substantial philosophical underpinnings....content in this video didn't touch any of those subjects...
@focuskid100 I see so you're saying he makes a lot of generalities an unprovable claims. Of course that is a lot of generalities and an unprovable claim. So you don't have any credibility there. Of course in his own videos he always backs himself up with links.
The only problem with radical liberals/free thinkers is they predict all the shit coming our way, yet are anti gun. So what good is the philosophy (which allot is correct) and have nothing to defend it with, other than You tube blogs, paper and pen?
Sorry steffy, but as a large supporter of both philosophy and science, I have to correct you. You must be vigilant, ALWAYS, about saying you 'Hypothesizing', not 'Theorizing'. This is vital, because as you have said before, language is extremely important. The last thing we need is for people to confuse the two.
Other wise, EXCELLENT work my friend. You are a true, modern, philosophical, super hero!
Greenspan was most definitely NOT "one of the good guys." Ayn Rand herself didn't like him very much and thought he was just a slimy social climber. But anyone who wants to know just what an oleaginous, smarmy and self-serving son of a gun Greenspan was is highly encouraged to read Frederick Sheehan's great biography of him called "Panderer to Power." Everything Greenspan did was a calculated move to increase his own prestige and influence, and he abandoned Randianism after becoming Fed chairman
Stefan was wrong about one thing. Time travel is not possible. :P At least I don't think it is.
You can slow yourself down as you get closer to the speed of light making everything else go faster relatively. This would make you age, act and think slower and everything else progress faster so it's like traveling to the future.
the two problems ive had with the NWO one world government is that if there is infact one inacted. is that. if there is just one government. wouldent that make them a easy target? i mean its only one government so they would just be there. and weapons are easy to get. the second is if the multitude of governments can barely do anything now. how could they do it on a global scale.
Stef, when you talk about the coming 'fire sale' of government assets you never mention how unjust this is. Wouldn't it be better for these assets to be given back to the public, who it was stolen from? The scheme of privatization that loots from the taxpayers, then sells the goods to private corporations seems like an even greater evil than government monopolies.
@arterex its the same thing. the "private corporations " you refer to are also the ones sitting down to dinner with politicians to weed them buckets of money.
I own USD (by force) gold, silver and bitcoin (ecurrency)... what adrenaline junkie puts all their faith in one currency? I say diversify your savings its healthy for you!
Actually sorry, you were complaining for people downloading your podcasts and books but not donating or something like that. If its free, then everything should be free, without the owner hassling people to donate
I have a question for this guy, if Freedomain radio is really free, then why look for donations ? i saw one of your videos where you complained about people downloading your videos on your website, and not donating . If its free, then they complain if people are not donating ? false advertising thats what you are at, is it ?
@batmanthe On the contrary I already have broken down his break down & invalidated him sir .
/watch?v=tDkNPNSgiaY
/watch?v=cWjKL9Olqic
if you wish to persist in further preposterous illogical Austrian rhetoric I may be able to get you a time slot on TNS radio to publicly debate these very important monetary issues that we all need to comprehend?.
@flyermay well then there also may be the problem of if value in different places. unless it it a metal currency or something that is universally valuable. if they cant do that the only way i could see is the anarcho-syndicalist barter system like in apalachia during the "secret" westward expasion. when irish scot and whatnot people moved out to there. there was little to no government there....but they where also mainly farmers so it was more easy
@flyermay Of course they won't behave. They will go straight to the government and get new bank deposit guarantees which would lead to a new fiat currency which would get us straight back to what we have now. If such handouts from government to irresponsible banking is not what is regulated, than other regulations don't mean a damn. Fiat currency is all about rewarding the bank that finds the most irresponsible way to operate.
@mortalisk In a unregulated market banker won't need to rob you through the government; they can do it directly. There would be nothing stopping them from getting inocent fools to sign any loan contracts under whatever conditions they want and at whatever interest they like... you think foreclosures and credit card interests are bad now? Well, think what would happen in a unregulated market.
Same for any corporation... At least now they have to bribe someone before ripping us off.
@flyermay Such a bank would quickly go out of business. The fact that such banks were going to go bankrupt in the past, is the reason the government started to give bank deposits guarantees and made the central bank to guarantee that such banks would continue to exist so that no one would loose their money. I say people who put their money in such banks need to loose their money so that it will become attractive to put money in safe banks in stead of the most risk taking banks.
@mortalisk Why would a bank go out of business for making more money than any other? Do you realise there are many people actually taking loans from real loan sharks and other mafious types because the can't get them on a real bank; even when it's illegal?... Why would they go out of business if it was legalized?
I heard this argument before: "the market will regulate itself; and the bad apples would go out of business"... No man; the bad apples would have an advantage in a unregulated market.
@mortalisk Bankers don't need to create money; their business is already the most profitable in the entire history of humanity: USURY!!!
Usurists will end up owning the whole earth regardless of fractional reserve banking or fiat currencies; those just help them do it faster. Therefore, the problem is not fractional reserve banking or fiat currencies; it's our capitalist system that allows a few usurists and rich fucks to own the economy, every natural resouce and all means of production.
@flyermay If you lend out over market rates, you are by definition lending to the more risky borrowers. Do you really want a world where anyone can get any loan at any time? There would be no prices that meant anything any more. In my world you could never use violence to punish non payers of debt, so lenders would either be outlaws, or would really be careful who they lent money to. Of course with a state protecting lenders, all bets are off as to what happens.
@mortalisk What I'm saying is that in a unregulated market; all these unscrupulous sharks would do as they please (both the legal and the illegal would be able to freely operate as they wish). There would be nothing stopping them from completely owning, abusing and corrupting the whole world and everyone in it (far more than now). A small guy would have nothing to do against them; no help, no defense, no protection... nothing!
It would be the law of the strongest (the wealthiest).
@flyermay that is one of the main complaints for anarcho-syndicalists against capitalists. but possibly if people made there own currency like a LA dollar and a chicago dollar. it could possibly work like that but i dont think it will
@TheAmazeingAnarchist Yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating for; simply because it's impossible to have these rich fuck owning everything and on top allowing them to do as they please, just because they were able to swindle everyone from everything... a capitalist free market is complete madness!!!
@flyermay You are just stating what you are afraid of, but there is no argument there. What exactly is it they would do to take over the world and against the small man? This is completely unrealistic, and without empirical backing. No company of men has ever grown anywhere near such sizes without government involvement and support. Which time is the time with overgrown banks and the IMF running the world? Do you really think anything like this is possible without central banks?
@mortalisk Can't you see how big corporations are completely wipping out small businesses (even with regulations)? Can't you see how they put all sort of shit in foods, medications, cosmetics, etc (even with regulations)? Can't you see these big coroporations completely destroy the environment and contaminate every corner of the earth (even with regulations)? Can't you see how they exploit workers and cheat consumers (even with regulations)?... What do you think the would do without them????
@flyermay Can't you see that what you are saying here is based on some feeling of how the world works and not on evidence? Can't you see that there are so many regulations already with most of them serving to destroy competition? Can't you see that having central banks is exactly what banks and big business wants? Can't you see that you are stupid for buying their shitty products because they are cheap and then complaining?
@mortalisk Well, I'm afraid you are quite wong; at difference from all of you, and from Stefan, I'm a graduate in business studies, and I actually know what I'm talking about. It's obvious to me that Stefan only considers the few arguments for a free market, and completely avoids getting anywhere near all the reasons why regulations are necesary in capitalism.
You can deny all I said so far; but that will not change the facts.
@flyermay You haven't really said that much. You are not giving any reasons for why the world is in trouble other that big evil corporations are stealing it. I agree with that fact, anyone with their eyes open can see it. Now, what is enabling them? When I look for the answer I see : 1. Central banks 2. That corporations are recognized as legal entities 3. A lot of regulations make it difficult to compete.(perhaps not all)
@mortalisk Well, I didn't intend to get into all the details; just outline the main ideas for you to consider. There is much Stefan and other libertarians are not telling you, and I'm totally with them in regards to small (or no) government, but they completely avoid touching the downside of what they propose -which overweights by far the benefits-.
You are all well meant, but you will never get rid of bankers and the elite while you have capitalism... and the small guy will always lose.
@flyermay What is capitalism to you? I agree that there might be downsides to statelessness, but we will never have a perfect world. But having a legal use of force will always be used by the power hungry to gain power, no matter what you call it, and democracy is probably the worst in this regard. So I am for looking for alternatives to having a state at all.
@mortalisk During my study of political system I found a very simple way to explain it through a political compass; which has 2 dimension: the economic and the social . The social ranges from totalitarianism on the top to anarchism on the bottom, and the economic from private ownership on the right to common ownership on the left. Capitalism entails everything on the right, from fascism to libertarianism; and the main common characteristic is private ownership of resources.
@mortalisk In the same way, communism entitles everything on the left; from Stalinism (USSR and China; which is a form of totalitarian socialism), to anarcho-communism (which is what most liberals of nowadays stand for, and which was what Orwell also stood for). It's main common characteristic is the common (or public) ownership of resources; whether it is through a state or directly by the people.
@flyermay I used to consider myself more of an anarcho-communist, until I realized that I had no economic basis for what I was thinking, and I had no vision of how anything could even function. I was just like "Screw profits and competition and violence". Then I realized that competition and free choice in who supplies what I want is keeping me alive, and that I profit hugely every time I purchase something.
@mortalisk But anarcho-communism (or anarcho-syndicalism) does not end free trade and free choice; it just ends profits and the economy being the main goal, and the services and products being the main purpose... that is: the wellbeing of the whole society.
Imagine that business worked for the wellbeing of society, instead of for their own selfish greed...
I know many demagogs will say that will never work, but we did have such a society already in the form of anarcho-syndicalism (read Orwell
@flyermay And capitalism is not "everything on the right". In fascism the means of production are managed by the state for the benefit of "the country". You would have to go to the bottom half to find anyone identifying as capitalist on a philosophical level.
@mortalisk No, that's not true; that's a misinterpretation of what fascism is, due to a mixture with Naziism (which is towards the center of economic dimension). This is what Benito Mussolini, the creator of the fascist ideology, said: "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power"... Therefore, fascism is perfectly positioned on the right-top corner of the political compass (private ownership and state control)
@flyermay Well, corporatism is more similar to mercantilism. This more resembles the system of today and has nothing to do with capitalism as defined by people who consider themselves capitalist thinkers/philosophers. Fascism is a facade of private property. People are only allowed it as long as they follow the states instructions. It is my personal opinion that corporations themselves have nothing to do with capitalism, as they are non individuals claiming separate legal status.
@mortalisk Yes, our system is totally corporatism (aka fascism). There is no difference between state and corporate powers; both are in bed setting policies that benefit only themselves.... But that doesn't change the fact that our system is still well positioned on the right (actually, a bit towards the center nowadays; thanks to the many social advances during the 20th century)
@flyermay If your main opposition to capitalism is the evil corporations, I think you have more in common with stefan and me than you think. Corporations are an extension of statist hierarchy. It is not a conspiracy, but a natural evolution of any violent hierarchy. What they are called and how they look will change, but as long as there is a hierarchy of violence, there will be institutions adapting to this environment.
@mortalisk Oh yes, I have a lot in common with you and Stefan; more than you think. It's just that I see no point in discussing what we agree, and think it's better to focus in what we disagree.
I said it many times before; I think you are good people; but awfuly mislead by the right-wing... reason why I think these discussion are worth the effort. :-)
@flyermay I think anarcho-communism could at most be small commune farmers who have common ownership of the land through agreement. But they would have to rely on other communes to respect their "property" and not come and get whatever they felt entitled to at any moment. For this to work one needs some kind of property system in peoples minds. This IS private property and entirely possible in an an-cap system. Some dream of a big egalitarian single movement that will not be oppressive, heh :p
@mortalisk Yes, that's the idea; since there is no state control nor private ownership, it's those that work the resources and own and control them collectively. But that doesn't prevent you having your own shop, or even working you own land; nor it prevents competition.
In terms of protection; it's the community itself that it's responsible for it. And since the idea is shared by other communities, many would be willing to help those who are the rightful owners to keep the system going.
@flyermay Well, then it would seem anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are pretty much compatible. But what happens if I have a farm for myself, and one guy would rather come work with me than on his commonly owned farm since he is facing some personal hardships there. I do not really need him, but agree to feed him in exchange for some help over the harvest for a few years. Is there some theory for handling such situations?
@mortalisk Well yes; I actually prefer libertarianism to most other systems (exect their equivalents on the left).
About your question; look at it this way: the whole community is like a family (a tribe), there is no reason why you should not treat that man as your own brother and share everything with him while he works with you... actually, the whole community would behave in the same way; because there would be no point to accumulate wealth, or anything else... everyone would be equal.
@flyermay I agree, but the man might be coming to me because the others are bullying him, and there might be a lot of others feeling the same. I can't share one farm equally with everyone, but chose to help this man for a while. He won't suddenly be sharing the master bedroom with me and my wife. Even my brother would have had to sleep on the couch. The man agrees. The harvest goes really well this year. Now, how much am I supposed to share with the man? More than we agreed?
@mortalisk I think you are overcomplicating things; there might be a lot of things that could go wrong with this man (maybe he is even a psychopath). But what you need to keep in mind is that in any anarchist system voluntarism is the rule; your own internal moral compass dictates you what's right and wrong (and we are all born knowing the difference; regardless of the fact that some rationalise against it).
In any case, you cal always get the whole community to help with the issue.
@flyermay I think you are not really considering how different the world would be if no one would be permitted to use force to get other people to do what they wanted. Not even for collecting debts or returning stolen goods.
@mortalisk Now, in answer to all your "can't you see"... I totally agree with you. But you need to understand that those things don't happen as a consequence of regulation; at the contrary, regulation prevent most of it -whether you believe it or not-. They are a consequence of having a capitalist system in which those who are wealthy buy and control everyone else.
Yes, they also buy their way out of regulations; and that's precisely what capitalism is the problem.
@flyermay Inflation is a consequence of regulation if there ever was one.
Capitalism through enabling more efficient division of labor enables everyone to get richer. Regulation is what is preventing me from starting my own small businesses. Before I used to blame the "evil big businesses" for my wage "slavery". But now I can see so clearly how easily I would out-compete them if it were not for the regulations around every corner.
@flyermay Can't you see that you are getting poorer while the bankers are stealing all wealth of the world because of inflation? Can't you first study the economy and look for reasons, in stead of following the herd and repeating what they say? Can't you see that when the world is in shit, then the one speaking the truth is probably not popular?
@flyermay I would appeal to you to at least consider how it is completely unrealistic to expect big business and big government not to be in bed with one another. To consider how central banks are completely screwing over everyone for the benefit of big banks and finance. I do know it is extremely hard to admit to being wrong. I used to see the world exactly like you did. But I know I can never go back after seeing through the propaganda.
@mortalisk Perhaps I am not right now, but I am very confident that I was in error when I overlooked the role of central banks and government created barriers to entry in pretty much setting up the world for picking by big banks and big business. To even call it business is sick when they are so involved with VIOLENT government.
@flyermay All reformist regulator types do not realize it, but they are the ones helping the big banks stay in business, by not looking at what is the real source of their power. It is like most people have a blind spot when it comes to the government and its VIOLENT involvement. I think it is because so many have a deep desire for themselves to be in control, and thus show how they would fix everything.
@pretorious700 Who is "they" mate? If you are refering to the bankers or the government, let me tell you I'm against both bankers and government; not like Stefan, who only want's to get rid of the government to allow his rich friends to fuck you up pretty well with his capitalist free market.
He tries to state that she has had a big influence on greenspand and the modern politics in social and economics and that it is now a world where people doesnt have old reasonable values, but only sees themselves, their ambitions, shareholders etc maximization to an extend that it harms themselves, their sourroundings and the planet
Hes a fast talker also and he misses the point, that zionism with which israel is being run, isnt only judaism and politics mixed in a mess.. He sayd that religion stated it should be where it is but the Torah actually says that the jews should never have their own land and should only coexist etc etc...
btw, i think stefan would get more clear with what adam curtis directs, if he will also see: The century of the self . . ... . . . and . ... The Power of nightmares . ... interesting docus
he has so many good points but missunderstandings too :)
ayn rand issue : all watched over by machines of loving grace, by bbc adam curtis..
It didnt say it was her fault all this economic crisis etc. He tries to state that she had a big influence on greenspand and the modern politics in social and economics and that it had become a world where people doesnt have old reasonable values, but only sees themselves, their ambitions, shareholders etc maximization to ab extend that it harms themselves
@cchessmaster Of course bankers own the government (along with their rich elitist and royal friends), and of course usury is inmoral and; but sadly not unlawful. The point is, how the hell are you going to have a free market and at the same time prevent the bankers to sell their products (i.e. loans) under whatever conditions and interests they like?
And that's the whole point... a free market is the opposite of what all of you really want!!!
@SCARREDMIND But the point is: it's inevitable when you have these few guys with such wealth and not expect them to be able to buy whoever they want; including whole governments. But it's not only bankers that buy politicians; every big corporation does it too.... and, why do they bribe them? To let them do as they please!... Yet that's what you guys want by asking for a free capitalist market!!!
Think about it: if you had a free market; these fucks won't even need to bribe anyone anymore!
@flyermay they can buy away at it, its what they do now. nobody gets elected without campaign funds from these people. get rid of the government & that issue is solved.
and if they ran around abusing the populations their business operated in they would have no govt holy text to protect them from mob retaliation.
as it stands they hide behind govt regulation that gives them a free pass because its 'legal' and the govt will shoot you for getting in the way.
@SCARREDMIND Yes, you are right; I agree with you: the government forces are only there to protect the have's from the don't have's... But, what would prevent them from paying their own particular armies in a free market? This would look quite a lot like feudal Japan; don't you think?
A free market is wonderful for small people like us; but it would be hell with big sharks like them running rampant with no restrains; which is what created this crisis: them buying a way our of regulations.
@flyermay only an uneducated & indoctrinated population would accept such treatment. private security operating the same way as insurance companies could be used by comunities to combat such a force. but thats a bit irrelivent, since in a free market, who would choose to do business with these people when just about anyone could set up an honest competing business.
the advantage to that being they wouldnt need the cost of maintaining a private army, letting them undercut such a group.
@flyermay yet you seem to think that these people, intricately tied to government as they are, will regulate themselves, rather then use regulation to drown out start-up businesses & competition.
there will never be some egalitarian utopia, there will always be problems.
but none of those groups would get away with half of what they do if they didnt have the government there to wave a magic wand to legitimise their abuse of monopoly by declaring it 'legal' under regulation they in part ask for.
@SCARREDMIND Oh no... I'm totally against regulations... and actually against governments too. And I'm going to tell you a secret: I hate banksters -they are the scum of the earth-.
But let's be realistic, if you guys want capitalism; that's the only way it will work, totally regulated. There no other way you can foment greed and egoism, and expect those at the top to behave.
@SCARREDMIND Well, capitalism also needs a government; because it is the government that preserves by force the priviledges of those who own the natural resources, means of production and goods. So, since capitalism needs a state, which is supposedly formed by all of you, then the state should also regulate what's warmful and beneficious for society.
Or... without capitalism... there would be no need for a state; because there would be nothing to protect or regulate.
@flyermay 1) what is your hangup with capitalism? if anything a governments main function is to enforce the monopolies that allow all the abuses & flaws of capitalism to shine through.
2) a bunch of people shouting from a hill does not constitute either a govt or a state. besides there are differences between emergent common law & state dictated law.
@SCARREDMIND Is this what's happening now? Does the population avoid making business with big mother fuckers like Goldman Sachs, blackwater, monsanto, BP, MacDonald’s, etc, etc, etc?
I recognise all of you are well meant (including Stefan), and I totally agree with your anarchist views; but I honestly think you are a bit misguided in business and economic terms. The idea that an invisible hand will regulate and balance the market on its own is totally wrong; and well proven as a false idea.
@flyermay u are right ... freedom sux, what we need is more regulation and a centralized power that makes sure everything is working fine. and of course we need more police to enforce all of that!
@flyermay It is against natural law and God's law. The product they sell is a fraud. They do not lend you anything of value. The fiat money is created when you sign the loan. You do not know what it is to be free.
I don't know why you think most people should not be in the stockmarket. It is the best long term asset that's easily accessible. No other investment gives you 10% p.a. return with little long term risk .
You don't have to be an expert, either, to make a reasonable investment. If you just make sure you diversify enough and only invest money you don't need you can make no big mistake.
Check out Hillary and Walter Cronkite talk about the one world government, TRAITORS. This video is the reason why Hillary is not able to run for public office in America and so has to look for World Bank job after her current Obama post. Must view: watch?v=iUuXxA2UgOA
Hillary gushes after Cronkite speaks his love of one world order and keep in mind, she was 1st Lady when she said this. Obama had to have known………..
@pretorious700 No doubt. Lame interviewing skills. Why would you waste time asking an anarchist, "So, what do you think of the carbon tax?" Good grief. Take the conversation up another level. Or down, to be specific -- into the foundation, the fundamentals.
I'm glad Stefan has the tolerance for this guy -- and an ability to maneuver the discussion, as you say -- but if I hear another "and all that kind of stuff" in a question again, I'm going to scream at my monitor.
I was always taught that globalization was about worldwide trade rather than world government. When people refer to that word what are they talking about?
@derekaiton Globalisation means moving jobs in the West to the East to where the wages are cheaper. In my view thats the simplest definition. It also involves bringing living standards around the world to parity , which will probably mean lower ones in the West. World government/ New World Order is the long term plan of an elite group of politicians and business people that have no allegiance to any one country and wish to consolidate their power.
@PersianPaladin Wow. It always amazes me to hear people advocate mass murder as an acceptable solution to anything. You need to ask yourself why you hate humanity so much. The problem is within you.
why would you want to get rid of drugs....?
bart666a 5 months ago
Does this guy know something? Do headphones come with this video?
FacesofNewWorldOrder 5 months ago
im in the marine corps ... my wife moved back home two years ago and our relationship still works....
thoughtcorrosion 6 months ago
@thoughtcorrosion Yay! :D
theworldeatswithyou 3 months ago
@thoughtcorrosion he said they rarely work....im sure it helps if you're already married
TSMPimpDaddyPain 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thoughtcorrosion he said they rarely work....im sure it helps if you're already married
TSMPimpDaddyPain 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The new world order is way cooler than that lame old one. IT ROCKS!
Put on your tinfoil hat and tip a cold Bilderberg light to the NWO (now improved with 10% more mind control and RFID).
dospesentas 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
holocaust? common stefan i thought you were smarter than that
mHalfLife 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
17:30, search what heppent in argetine in 1970 and 1990, you will see what happens when that takes place
elmaxidelsur 8 months ago
the jews say give me the power of the currency of a country and I dont need anything else to controll that country
erdal0 8 months ago
Sefan claims that if people had listened to Ayn Rand, government would be about 5% of what it is now, currency would be privatized or gold based, there would be complete free trade, virtually no government agencies, and we'd be going through a scientific, economic, philosophical renaissance the likes of which we've never ever seen.
That's not what Rand haters claim.
mustang607 8 months ago
the upcoming threats of war and terrorism are mere scare tatics designed to distract us from the real issue which is growing statisim at home...
saanderud 8 months ago
Me gusta
KidEatingClown 8 months ago
One of the best interviews I have seen you do Steph. I have shared this vid with many. Thanks heaps
PlatinumGordon 8 months ago 2
you should have a debate with theamazingatheist and beat him
COGKevin333 8 months ago
@COGKevin333 he is a statist which basically mean he is religious. I can debate that guy easily
Motherlandpluto 8 months ago
I just came across a video that you might want to watch, in order to understand why I'm against a free market capitalism: /watch?v=j1vTx4TjDEs
The success of a system is not measure by how well those at the top do, but by how bad those at the bottom ("the poor") are treated.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay How do you square the historical facts that the biggest socialist experiments produced by far the poorest populations to the point of mass starvation? (Google Democide) And the nearest approximations to free trade, the U.S. pre-1913 produced the most abundance, and largest middle class with the least poverty of all times? The last century was entirely regression toward bigger government, more poverty, dependency, and stealing of assets by the ruling class starting with the Fed.Res
leafwatch 8 months ago
@leafwatch I think you are making an unfair comparison. Russia just came out of a civil war, WWI, and the Rusian-Japanese war; not to mention it was already a technologicaly backwards country under the Tzars, where people starved already. It would be a big surprise to me if they had abundance of anything.
On the other hand, before WWI the US had a 30 years period of peace and progress; and had just conquered a vast virgin territory from the native americans along the previous century.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Somehow I don't think you researched Democide. It is not one or two examples but an overwhelming pattern. Big, powerful, centralized regimes kill their own citizens at the most rapid and ruthless paces of any other governmental systems ever realized. We see it ongoing today in the disparities and food shortages in North Korea and many African/mid-east countries. Mao's China was the all-time worst in terms of sacrificing people to a rigid economic ideology. The pattern is clear.
leafwatch 8 months ago
@leafwatch You are again only looking at examples that either just came out of a war, revolution or suffered other disasters; while completely disregarding any starvation under capitalism (which has now reached an all time record of 1 billion people around the world).
Here, check the historical list of famines worldwide, and then tell me what the percentage of socialist states is: wikipedia . org / wiki /List_of_famines
You are only picking the data that fits your preconceived conclusions.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears you are an apologist for mass atrocities entirely due to large scale centralized planning, which caused many many millions of deaths due to starvation and oppression, per nation. Your examples are utterly fictitious as examples of free markets. The Irish famine was British empire oppression. Calling a hodge podge list of feudal, mercantalistic, monarchies, dictatorships "capitalism" betrays your bias or naivete'.
leafwatch 8 months ago
@leafwatch No, you are not giving me the benefit of the doubt; you are telling me what I should believe by just looking at the information that suits your ideology -which is what most libertarians do (as you can clearly see in Stefan's videos)-.
I am the one giving you the benefit of the doubt, by point you to impartial and unbiased data that confirms famine and starvation has nothing to do with socialism.
Does pointing you towards the truth makes me a socialist? Well, I've heard far worse.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Facts are not ideology. While it is true that recent mass-scale democide has been committed under socialist schemes, USSR, Nazi, Mao, that isn't the point. Any variety of big centralized scheme will fail, no matter what label. All have the same fundamental error: force is used to control humans instead of rational persuasion. None can exist without coercion. The more oppressive a regime, the less people produce. The more power at the top, the more corruption and abuse.
leafwatch 8 months ago
@flyermay socialism can be set up in a free market, I hope you understand that.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyermay I just watched that video. Go see my comments.
Reporters are really, really good at giving biased research. Do you own.
"by just looking at the information that suits your ideology " - a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"The success of a system is not measure by how well those at the top do, but by how bad those at the bottom ("the poor") are treated." - I agree. Let's start with TSA gropes children.
jeffiek 7 months ago
What I'm seeing is that you meassure everything in our current economic terms; that's probably why the solution offered by the right-wing might seem reasonable to you. But it's our current economic system what needs to be changed in the first place... human beings are not meant to be productive little slaves for the economy; and the economy should never by before the wellbeing of the whole population.
I don't understand how Stefan talks about morality and not realise that simple fact.
flyermay 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Well, after listening to his latest video, I do understand why he does it; which is the reason why every right-winger does it... he realised he could be quite successful in the current economic system, and therefore he is not willing to leave that privileged position.
Rand’s rational egoism, perhaps?
flyermay 8 months ago
Jews probably got the impression they were disliked in Europe around the year 1940, so it`s not just in the Middle-East they`re not popular.
nammoo89 8 months ago
Oil prices are higher than they could`ve been, due to price fixing(OPEC cartel)/regulations(oil is of course non-renewable, so the price is bound to increase regardless).
nammoo89 8 months ago
Stef looks like he lost weight.
kevinjoubert 8 months ago
I like this but disagree with social security. Government pensioners take 20 times more from taxes than those on SS and without paying anything. Further there is some question as to how their service benefited the taxpayer. Second maybe the Palestinians should try building something but I could be wrong on that
bookfellow1949 8 months ago
Giving your money to the government for 40 years is not a gamble. It's a donation.
newperve 8 months ago
If there was one criticism of Ayn Rand from Machines of Loving Grace, it wasn't her perspective on economics or money systems, it was that objectivism advocates "rational self-interest" which portrays humans as mechanical, logical, selfish entities. Not saying we aren't, but there lies that old favorite debate on "human nature". Adam Curtis' conclusion was that we are "victims" of our selfish genes, but should pursue altruism for humanity to survive...
logicChemist 8 months ago
It seems inevitable to me that the US will have to sell off the overseas bases, possibly to the local governments or private companies, but I have a feeling it will be a global government rather than "productive" people, in an attempt to shift the military empire of the US into the hands of the UN. Same empire, different management.
However, the amount of influence of this global force, I think, will be overshadowed by technology, and this global government will collapse before it starts.
socrates0ne 8 months ago
I have a hard time listening to Stefan Molyneux because of the things he is talking about that I know about in detail, he is very inaccurate. He also talks quickly moving from one topic to another with a lot of generalities and unprovable claims; doesn't that sound like a snake oil salesman to you.
Notice that he just talks and talks and talks with nothing to back up his claims. He doesn't even use news segments/articles to back up anything he says. Stefan, get legit!
focuskid100 8 months ago
@focuskid100 Understand your need for substantiation. I do my own research and can agree with the general framework that Stefan operates within in the video. I guess I've just read / seen / thought about most of this to be able to reference what he talks about without needing him to waste my time with it. We do disagree on some very substantial philosophical underpinnings....content in this video didn't touch any of those subjects...
logicChemist 8 months ago
@logicChemist
Thanks Chemist. Good rebutal.
focuskid100 8 months ago
@focuskid100 I see so you're saying he makes a lot of generalities an unprovable claims. Of course that is a lot of generalities and an unprovable claim. So you don't have any credibility there. Of course in his own videos he always backs himself up with links.
newperve 8 months ago
@newperve What ??? That makes so much sense I'll just say ... Thank You.
focuskid100 8 months ago
The only problem with radical liberals/free thinkers is they predict all the shit coming our way, yet are anti gun. So what good is the philosophy (which allot is correct) and have nothing to defend it with, other than You tube blogs, paper and pen?
JimmyGunXD556 8 months ago
@JimmyGunXD556 Not sure if your talking about Stef, he is not anti gun he believes in self defense
eg626 8 months ago 5
Didn't Alcoa take down Iceland?
timfmr 8 months ago
The interviewer (unchallenged), damns Fox News, the ONLY channel which employs libertarian hosts?
BAH!
RebelRadius 8 months ago
@RebelRadius Not even Comedy Central?
OregonCoastGhost 8 months ago
Freedom is a mind set.
Travis123086 8 months ago
Sorry steffy, but as a large supporter of both philosophy and science, I have to correct you. You must be vigilant, ALWAYS, about saying you 'Hypothesizing', not 'Theorizing'. This is vital, because as you have said before, language is extremely important. The last thing we need is for people to confuse the two.
Other wise, EXCELLENT work my friend. You are a true, modern, philosophical, super hero!
PaperSoapy 8 months ago
Get the 50 bucks on the gold eagle !
qminusis 8 months ago
Greenspan was most definitely NOT "one of the good guys." Ayn Rand herself didn't like him very much and thought he was just a slimy social climber. But anyone who wants to know just what an oleaginous, smarmy and self-serving son of a gun Greenspan was is highly encouraged to read Frederick Sheehan's great biography of him called "Panderer to Power." Everything Greenspan did was a calculated move to increase his own prestige and influence, and he abandoned Randianism after becoming Fed chairman
IvanTheHeathen 8 months ago
Stef's in top form! Great questions, great answers!
Iseeyoursoul 8 months ago
Stefan was wrong about one thing. Time travel is not possible. :P At least I don't think it is.
You can slow yourself down as you get closer to the speed of light making everything else go faster relatively. This would make you age, act and think slower and everything else progress faster so it's like traveling to the future.
god0fgod 8 months ago
What is Setfans religous belifes? Anyone know? Just curious.:)
synn1980 8 months ago
@synn1980
atheist
colloredbrothers 8 months ago
@synn1980 I think he is atheist...or agnostic. Not completely sure though.
frionelhero 8 months ago
you can dangle sth interesting in front of countries not interested in a world currency or send them an earthquake or the likes....via HAARP.
19missi59 8 months ago
the two problems ive had with the NWO one world government is that if there is infact one inacted. is that. if there is just one government. wouldent that make them a easy target? i mean its only one government so they would just be there. and weapons are easy to get. the second is if the multitude of governments can barely do anything now. how could they do it on a global scale.
TheAmazeingAnarchist 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
Dear John Kettle.
If you think the internet kill switch would even work, you really are guillible. It can't happen.
Stick to the NWO conspiracy stuff.
Stef, you are a saint for putting up with some of these guys.
johnycannuk 8 months ago
globalisation is economic, and market based. "globalism" is political and that's super statist ideology.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 8 months ago 8
00:56 they don't work cos you didn't get with a pinay !
bondsan 8 months ago
do a search for Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business
ehpl 8 months ago
Stef, when you talk about the coming 'fire sale' of government assets you never mention how unjust this is. Wouldn't it be better for these assets to be given back to the public, who it was stolen from? The scheme of privatization that loots from the taxpayers, then sells the goods to private corporations seems like an even greater evil than government monopolies.
arterex 8 months ago
@arterex its the same thing. the "private corporations " you refer to are also the ones sitting down to dinner with politicians to weed them buckets of money.
they are government monopolies.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
I own USD (by force) gold, silver and bitcoin (ecurrency)... what adrenaline junkie puts all their faith in one currency? I say diversify your savings its healthy for you!
deshaebeasley 8 months ago
Actually sorry, you were complaining for people downloading your podcasts and books but not donating or something like that. If its free, then everything should be free, without the owner hassling people to donate
shepspur81 8 months ago
@shepspur81 You don't have to listen to that. Hassling isn't laudable, but if that's the only cost, it's not too bad.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 8 months ago
I have a question for this guy, if Freedomain radio is really free, then why look for donations ? i saw one of your videos where you complained about people downloading your videos on your website, and not donating . If its free, then they complain if people are not donating ? false advertising thats what you are at, is it ?
shepspur81 8 months ago
America's federal reserve is privately owned, Stefan.
paulrprichard 8 months ago
@paulrprichard Congress is also privately owned.
CrooksWithoutBorders 8 months ago
@CrooksWithoutBorders Time to renationalise congress
paulrprichard 8 months ago
"I don't agree with a carbon tax."
O RLY???
This Jake Kettlle guy is so damn boring
greg66662000 8 months ago
@batmanthe On the contrary I already have broken down his break down & invalidated him sir .
/watch?v=tDkNPNSgiaY
/watch?v=cWjKL9Olqic
if you wish to persist in further preposterous illogical Austrian rhetoric I may be able to get you a time slot on TNS radio to publicly debate these very important monetary issues that we all need to comprehend?.
Thank you.
chotaboy66 8 months ago
America's federal reserve has always been wrong in the past.
paulrprichard 8 months ago
Goal is global dictatorship of the elite.
paulrprichard 8 months ago
Who is the interviewer. Sounds like 'How the world works'.
ashleyjohnston 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay well then there also may be the problem of if value in different places. unless it it a metal currency or something that is universally valuable. if they cant do that the only way i could see is the anarcho-syndicalist barter system like in apalachia during the "secret" westward expasion. when irish scot and whatnot people moved out to there. there was little to no government there....but they where also mainly farmers so it was more easy
TheAmazeingAnarchist 8 months ago
Well done mate; you really caught him with the question about regulation.
Sorry Stefan, praying the Lord for bankers and big corporations to behave on an unregulated market is simply not practical.
flyermay 8 months ago in playlist day
@flyermay Of course they won't behave. They will go straight to the government and get new bank deposit guarantees which would lead to a new fiat currency which would get us straight back to what we have now. If such handouts from government to irresponsible banking is not what is regulated, than other regulations don't mean a damn. Fiat currency is all about rewarding the bank that finds the most irresponsible way to operate.
mortalisk 8 months ago 2
@mortalisk In a unregulated market banker won't need to rob you through the government; they can do it directly. There would be nothing stopping them from getting inocent fools to sign any loan contracts under whatever conditions they want and at whatever interest they like... you think foreclosures and credit card interests are bad now? Well, think what would happen in a unregulated market.
Same for any corporation... At least now they have to bribe someone before ripping us off.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Such a bank would quickly go out of business. The fact that such banks were going to go bankrupt in the past, is the reason the government started to give bank deposits guarantees and made the central bank to guarantee that such banks would continue to exist so that no one would loose their money. I say people who put their money in such banks need to loose their money so that it will become attractive to put money in safe banks in stead of the most risk taking banks.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Why would a bank go out of business for making more money than any other? Do you realise there are many people actually taking loans from real loan sharks and other mafious types because the can't get them on a real bank; even when it's illegal?... Why would they go out of business if it was legalized?
I heard this argument before: "the market will regulate itself; and the bad apples would go out of business"... No man; the bad apples would have an advantage in a unregulated market.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay How would a bank create money if I may ask?
mortalisk 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mortalisk Bankers don't need to create money; their business is already the most profitable in the entire history of humanity: USURY!!!
Usurists will end up owning the whole earth regardless of fractional reserve banking or fiat currencies; those just help them do it faster. Therefore, the problem is not fractional reserve banking or fiat currencies; it's our capitalist system that allows a few usurists and rich fucks to own the economy, every natural resouce and all means of production.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay If you lend out over market rates, you are by definition lending to the more risky borrowers. Do you really want a world where anyone can get any loan at any time? There would be no prices that meant anything any more. In my world you could never use violence to punish non payers of debt, so lenders would either be outlaws, or would really be careful who they lent money to. Of course with a state protecting lenders, all bets are off as to what happens.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk What I'm saying is that in a unregulated market; all these unscrupulous sharks would do as they please (both the legal and the illegal would be able to freely operate as they wish). There would be nothing stopping them from completely owning, abusing and corrupting the whole world and everyone in it (far more than now). A small guy would have nothing to do against them; no help, no defense, no protection... nothing!
It would be the law of the strongest (the wealthiest).
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay that is one of the main complaints for anarcho-syndicalists against capitalists. but possibly if people made there own currency like a LA dollar and a chicago dollar. it could possibly work like that but i dont think it will
TheAmazeingAnarchist 8 months ago
@TheAmazeingAnarchist Yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating for; simply because it's impossible to have these rich fuck owning everything and on top allowing them to do as they please, just because they were able to swindle everyone from everything... a capitalist free market is complete madness!!!
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay You are just stating what you are afraid of, but there is no argument there. What exactly is it they would do to take over the world and against the small man? This is completely unrealistic, and without empirical backing. No company of men has ever grown anywhere near such sizes without government involvement and support. Which time is the time with overgrown banks and the IMF running the world? Do you really think anything like this is possible without central banks?
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Can't you see how big corporations are completely wipping out small businesses (even with regulations)? Can't you see how they put all sort of shit in foods, medications, cosmetics, etc (even with regulations)? Can't you see these big coroporations completely destroy the environment and contaminate every corner of the earth (even with regulations)? Can't you see how they exploit workers and cheat consumers (even with regulations)?... What do you think the would do without them????
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Can't you see that what you are saying here is based on some feeling of how the world works and not on evidence? Can't you see that there are so many regulations already with most of them serving to destroy competition? Can't you see that having central banks is exactly what banks and big business wants? Can't you see that you are stupid for buying their shitty products because they are cheap and then complaining?
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Well, I'm afraid you are quite wong; at difference from all of you, and from Stefan, I'm a graduate in business studies, and I actually know what I'm talking about. It's obvious to me that Stefan only considers the few arguments for a free market, and completely avoids getting anywhere near all the reasons why regulations are necesary in capitalism.
You can deny all I said so far; but that will not change the facts.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay You haven't really said that much. You are not giving any reasons for why the world is in trouble other that big evil corporations are stealing it. I agree with that fact, anyone with their eyes open can see it. Now, what is enabling them? When I look for the answer I see : 1. Central banks 2. That corporations are recognized as legal entities 3. A lot of regulations make it difficult to compete.(perhaps not all)
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Well, I didn't intend to get into all the details; just outline the main ideas for you to consider. There is much Stefan and other libertarians are not telling you, and I'm totally with them in regards to small (or no) government, but they completely avoid touching the downside of what they propose -which overweights by far the benefits-.
You are all well meant, but you will never get rid of bankers and the elite while you have capitalism... and the small guy will always lose.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay What is capitalism to you? I agree that there might be downsides to statelessness, but we will never have a perfect world. But having a legal use of force will always be used by the power hungry to gain power, no matter what you call it, and democracy is probably the worst in this regard. So I am for looking for alternatives to having a state at all.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk During my study of political system I found a very simple way to explain it through a political compass; which has 2 dimension: the economic and the social . The social ranges from totalitarianism on the top to anarchism on the bottom, and the economic from private ownership on the right to common ownership on the left. Capitalism entails everything on the right, from fascism to libertarianism; and the main common characteristic is private ownership of resources.
flyermay 8 months ago
@mortalisk In the same way, communism entitles everything on the left; from Stalinism (USSR and China; which is a form of totalitarian socialism), to anarcho-communism (which is what most liberals of nowadays stand for, and which was what Orwell also stood for). It's main common characteristic is the common (or public) ownership of resources; whether it is through a state or directly by the people.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay I used to consider myself more of an anarcho-communist, until I realized that I had no economic basis for what I was thinking, and I had no vision of how anything could even function. I was just like "Screw profits and competition and violence". Then I realized that competition and free choice in who supplies what I want is keeping me alive, and that I profit hugely every time I purchase something.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk But anarcho-communism (or anarcho-syndicalism) does not end free trade and free choice; it just ends profits and the economy being the main goal, and the services and products being the main purpose... that is: the wellbeing of the whole society.
Imagine that business worked for the wellbeing of society, instead of for their own selfish greed...
I know many demagogs will say that will never work, but we did have such a society already in the form of anarcho-syndicalism (read Orwell
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay And capitalism is not "everything on the right". In fascism the means of production are managed by the state for the benefit of "the country". You would have to go to the bottom half to find anyone identifying as capitalist on a philosophical level.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk No, that's not true; that's a misinterpretation of what fascism is, due to a mixture with Naziism (which is towards the center of economic dimension). This is what Benito Mussolini, the creator of the fascist ideology, said: "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power"... Therefore, fascism is perfectly positioned on the right-top corner of the political compass (private ownership and state control)
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Well, corporatism is more similar to mercantilism. This more resembles the system of today and has nothing to do with capitalism as defined by people who consider themselves capitalist thinkers/philosophers. Fascism is a facade of private property. People are only allowed it as long as they follow the states instructions. It is my personal opinion that corporations themselves have nothing to do with capitalism, as they are non individuals claiming separate legal status.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Yes, our system is totally corporatism (aka fascism). There is no difference between state and corporate powers; both are in bed setting policies that benefit only themselves.... But that doesn't change the fact that our system is still well positioned on the right (actually, a bit towards the center nowadays; thanks to the many social advances during the 20th century)
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay If your main opposition to capitalism is the evil corporations, I think you have more in common with stefan and me than you think. Corporations are an extension of statist hierarchy. It is not a conspiracy, but a natural evolution of any violent hierarchy. What they are called and how they look will change, but as long as there is a hierarchy of violence, there will be institutions adapting to this environment.
mortalisk 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@mortalisk Oh yes, I have a lot in common with you and Stefan; more than you think. It's just that I see no point in discussing what we agree, and think it's better to focus in what we disagree.
I said it many times before; I think you are good people; but awfuly mislead by the right-wing... reason why I think these discussion are worth the effort. :-)
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay I think anarcho-communism could at most be small commune farmers who have common ownership of the land through agreement. But they would have to rely on other communes to respect their "property" and not come and get whatever they felt entitled to at any moment. For this to work one needs some kind of property system in peoples minds. This IS private property and entirely possible in an an-cap system. Some dream of a big egalitarian single movement that will not be oppressive, heh :p
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Yes, that's the idea; since there is no state control nor private ownership, it's those that work the resources and own and control them collectively. But that doesn't prevent you having your own shop, or even working you own land; nor it prevents competition.
In terms of protection; it's the community itself that it's responsible for it. And since the idea is shared by other communities, many would be willing to help those who are the rightful owners to keep the system going.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Well, then it would seem anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are pretty much compatible. But what happens if I have a farm for myself, and one guy would rather come work with me than on his commonly owned farm since he is facing some personal hardships there. I do not really need him, but agree to feed him in exchange for some help over the harvest for a few years. Is there some theory for handling such situations?
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Well yes; I actually prefer libertarianism to most other systems (exect their equivalents on the left).
About your question; look at it this way: the whole community is like a family (a tribe), there is no reason why you should not treat that man as your own brother and share everything with him while he works with you... actually, the whole community would behave in the same way; because there would be no point to accumulate wealth, or anything else... everyone would be equal.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay I agree, but the man might be coming to me because the others are bullying him, and there might be a lot of others feeling the same. I can't share one farm equally with everyone, but chose to help this man for a while. He won't suddenly be sharing the master bedroom with me and my wife. Even my brother would have had to sleep on the couch. The man agrees. The harvest goes really well this year. Now, how much am I supposed to share with the man? More than we agreed?
mortalisk 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@mortalisk I think you are overcomplicating things; there might be a lot of things that could go wrong with this man (maybe he is even a psychopath). But what you need to keep in mind is that in any anarchist system voluntarism is the rule; your own internal moral compass dictates you what's right and wrong (and we are all born knowing the difference; regardless of the fact that some rationalise against it).
In any case, you cal always get the whole community to help with the issue.
flyermay 8 months ago
@mortalisk that sounds like a voluntary situation, which is all that matters for it to have the "anarcho" prefix
TSMPimpDaddyPain 2 weeks ago
@flyermay I think you are not really considering how different the world would be if no one would be permitted to use force to get other people to do what they wanted. Not even for collecting debts or returning stolen goods.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Now, in answer to all your "can't you see"... I totally agree with you. But you need to understand that those things don't happen as a consequence of regulation; at the contrary, regulation prevent most of it -whether you believe it or not-. They are a consequence of having a capitalist system in which those who are wealthy buy and control everyone else.
Yes, they also buy their way out of regulations; and that's precisely what capitalism is the problem.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay Inflation is a consequence of regulation if there ever was one.
Capitalism through enabling more efficient division of labor enables everyone to get richer. Regulation is what is preventing me from starting my own small businesses. Before I used to blame the "evil big businesses" for my wage "slavery". But now I can see so clearly how easily I would out-compete them if it were not for the regulations around every corner.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@flyermay Can't you see that you are getting poorer while the bankers are stealing all wealth of the world because of inflation? Can't you first study the economy and look for reasons, in stead of following the herd and repeating what they say? Can't you see that when the world is in shit, then the one speaking the truth is probably not popular?
mortalisk 8 months ago
@flyermay I would appeal to you to at least consider how it is completely unrealistic to expect big business and big government not to be in bed with one another. To consider how central banks are completely screwing over everyone for the benefit of big banks and finance. I do know it is extremely hard to admit to being wrong. I used to see the world exactly like you did. But I know I can never go back after seeing through the propaganda.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@mortalisk Perhaps I am not right now, but I am very confident that I was in error when I overlooked the role of central banks and government created barriers to entry in pretty much setting up the world for picking by big banks and big business. To even call it business is sick when they are so involved with VIOLENT government.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@flyermay All reformist regulator types do not realize it, but they are the ones helping the big banks stay in business, by not looking at what is the real source of their power. It is like most people have a blind spot when it comes to the government and its VIOLENT involvement. I think it is because so many have a deep desire for themselves to be in control, and thus show how they would fix everything.
mortalisk 8 months ago
@flyermay just how do you suppose they collect on the bad debts they run up? start shooting their clients?
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
@flyermay typical static statist analysis. they have you right where they want you....now say baaaaaaaaaaaaaah
pretorious700 8 months ago
@pretorious700 Who is "they" mate? If you are refering to the bankers or the government, let me tell you I'm against both bankers and government; not like Stefan, who only want's to get rid of the government to allow his rich friends to fuck you up pretty well with his capitalist free market.
flyermay 8 months ago
I Stef like to mirror your response to the last question. Sobering.
DragonYearJoji 8 months ago
*sorry, lets clear that up
He tries to state that she has had a big influence on greenspand and the modern politics in social and economics and that it is now a world where people doesnt have old reasonable values, but only sees themselves, their ambitions, shareholders etc maximization to an extend that it harms themselves, their sourroundings and the planet
smokingslime 8 months ago
Hes a fast talker also and he misses the point, that zionism with which israel is being run, isnt only judaism and politics mixed in a mess.. He sayd that religion stated it should be where it is but the Torah actually says that the jews should never have their own land and should only coexist etc etc...
btw, i think stefan would get more clear with what adam curtis directs, if he will also see: The century of the self . . ... . . . and . ... The Power of nightmares . ... interesting docus
smokingslime 8 months ago
the rothschild family is the reason israel exists........
lumpfish99 8 months ago
he has so many good points but missunderstandings too :)
ayn rand issue : all watched over by machines of loving grace, by bbc adam curtis..
It didnt say it was her fault all this economic crisis etc. He tries to state that she had a big influence on greenspand and the modern politics in social and economics and that it had become a world where people doesnt have old reasonable values, but only sees themselves, their ambitions, shareholders etc maximization to ab extend that it harms themselves
smokingslime 8 months ago
@flyermay The banks own the government. Do some research. Usury is immoral and unlawful.
cchessmaster 8 months ago
@cchessmaster Of course bankers own the government (along with their rich elitist and royal friends), and of course usury is inmoral and; but sadly not unlawful. The point is, how the hell are you going to have a free market and at the same time prevent the bankers to sell their products (i.e. loans) under whatever conditions and interests they like?
And that's the whole point... a free market is the opposite of what all of you really want!!!
flyermay 8 months ago
Comment removed
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
@flyermay if it wasnt for government laws enforced upon the population the current bankers would be out of work at best, dead at worst.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@SCARREDMIND But the point is: it's inevitable when you have these few guys with such wealth and not expect them to be able to buy whoever they want; including whole governments. But it's not only bankers that buy politicians; every big corporation does it too.... and, why do they bribe them? To let them do as they please!... Yet that's what you guys want by asking for a free capitalist market!!!
Think about it: if you had a free market; these fucks won't even need to bribe anyone anymore!
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay they can buy away at it, its what they do now. nobody gets elected without campaign funds from these people. get rid of the government & that issue is solved.
and if they ran around abusing the populations their business operated in they would have no govt holy text to protect them from mob retaliation.
as it stands they hide behind govt regulation that gives them a free pass because its 'legal' and the govt will shoot you for getting in the way.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
@SCARREDMIND Yes, you are right; I agree with you: the government forces are only there to protect the have's from the don't have's... But, what would prevent them from paying their own particular armies in a free market? This would look quite a lot like feudal Japan; don't you think?
A free market is wonderful for small people like us; but it would be hell with big sharks like them running rampant with no restrains; which is what created this crisis: them buying a way our of regulations.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay only an uneducated & indoctrinated population would accept such treatment. private security operating the same way as insurance companies could be used by comunities to combat such a force. but thats a bit irrelivent, since in a free market, who would choose to do business with these people when just about anyone could set up an honest competing business.
the advantage to that being they wouldnt need the cost of maintaining a private army, letting them undercut such a group.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay yet you seem to think that these people, intricately tied to government as they are, will regulate themselves, rather then use regulation to drown out start-up businesses & competition.
there will never be some egalitarian utopia, there will always be problems.
but none of those groups would get away with half of what they do if they didnt have the government there to wave a magic wand to legitimise their abuse of monopoly by declaring it 'legal' under regulation they in part ask for.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
Comment removed
flyermay 8 months ago
@SCARREDMIND Oh no... I'm totally against regulations... and actually against governments too. And I'm going to tell you a secret: I hate banksters -they are the scum of the earth-.
But let's be realistic, if you guys want capitalism; that's the only way it will work, totally regulated. There no other way you can foment greed and egoism, and expect those at the top to behave.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay capitalism is one of many economic systems such a society could use.
and who do you suppose should regulate such a system regardless?
government at BEST is just a layer of abstraction of responsibility the population hold over the society they are in, at worst its just an enabler
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
@SCARREDMIND Well, capitalism also needs a government; because it is the government that preserves by force the priviledges of those who own the natural resources, means of production and goods. So, since capitalism needs a state, which is supposedly formed by all of you, then the state should also regulate what's warmful and beneficious for society.
Or... without capitalism... there would be no need for a state; because there would be nothing to protect or regulate.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay 1) what is your hangup with capitalism? if anything a governments main function is to enforce the monopolies that allow all the abuses & flaws of capitalism to shine through.
2) a bunch of people shouting from a hill does not constitute either a govt or a state. besides there are differences between emergent common law & state dictated law.
SCARREDMIND 8 months ago
@SCARREDMIND Is this what's happening now? Does the population avoid making business with big mother fuckers like Goldman Sachs, blackwater, monsanto, BP, MacDonald’s, etc, etc, etc?
I recognise all of you are well meant (including Stefan), and I totally agree with your anarchist views; but I honestly think you are a bit misguided in business and economic terms. The idea that an invisible hand will regulate and balance the market on its own is totally wrong; and well proven as a false idea.
flyermay 8 months ago
@flyermay u are right ... freedom sux, what we need is more regulation and a centralized power that makes sure everything is working fine. and of course we need more police to enforce all of that!
it'll work like a charm ;)
pipobun 8 months ago
@flyermay It is against natural law and God's law. The product they sell is a fraud. They do not lend you anything of value. The fiat money is created when you sign the loan. You do not know what it is to be free.
cchessmaster 8 months ago
I don't know why you think most people should not be in the stockmarket. It is the best long term asset that's easily accessible. No other investment gives you 10% p.a. return with little long term risk .
You don't have to be an expert, either, to make a reasonable investment. If you just make sure you diversify enough and only invest money you don't need you can make no big mistake.
benjayk 8 months ago
Comment removed
GhostOfJayLeno 8 months ago
Check out Hillary and Walter Cronkite talk about the one world government, TRAITORS. This video is the reason why Hillary is not able to run for public office in America and so has to look for World Bank job after her current Obama post. Must view: watch?v=iUuXxA2UgOA
Hillary gushes after Cronkite speaks his love of one world order and keep in mind, she was 1st Lady when she said this. Obama had to have known………..
p4h10oso 8 months ago
I like the way Stephan maneuvers the discussion in a direction this dolt interviewer could never.
pretorious700 8 months ago
@pretorious700 No doubt. Lame interviewing skills. Why would you waste time asking an anarchist, "So, what do you think of the carbon tax?" Good grief. Take the conversation up another level. Or down, to be specific -- into the foundation, the fundamentals.
I'm glad Stefan has the tolerance for this guy -- and an ability to maneuver the discussion, as you say -- but if I hear another "and all that kind of stuff" in a question again, I'm going to scream at my monitor.
TomMichaels101 8 months ago
Don't blame the baby boomers for the system that was forced on them at gunpoint.
furyofbongos 8 months ago
@furyofbongos Excellent point, like they had a choice.
pretorious700 8 months ago
@furyofbongos If they kept voting for the same politicians who were perpetuating it, then yes, they are at least partly to blame.
WreakingHavoc1 8 months ago
I was always taught that globalization was about worldwide trade rather than world government. When people refer to that word what are they talking about?
derekaiton 8 months ago
@derekaiton Globalisation means moving jobs in the West to the East to where the wages are cheaper. In my view thats the simplest definition. It also involves bringing living standards around the world to parity , which will probably mean lower ones in the West. World government/ New World Order is the long term plan of an elite group of politicians and business people that have no allegiance to any one country and wish to consolidate their power.
hablerz 8 months ago
Let's just nuke the planet and get rid of the pest of the human race.
PersianPaladin 8 months ago
@PersianPaladin Wow. It always amazes me to hear people advocate mass murder as an acceptable solution to anything. You need to ask yourself why you hate humanity so much. The problem is within you.
WreakingHavoc1 8 months ago