Stefbot, you speak of many things being "impossible", such as no way to fight even a minarchist government. I think you might be going too far with these absolutes. You of all people know the creative power of the individual. I don't think it's a good idea to suggest these devices or strategies to be used in warfare in the comments here but, I would look into it a bit further regarding what people could build or do. I would be careful throwing around absolutes.
On the question of resolving conflicts, Michael basically says, "You need government because we're willing to kill people in you behalf because you don't want to."
This man (of course - Stefan) cleared so many unclear areas of my suspicion I had thou my life by his podcasts and books and other works as NOBODY ELSE. Listen to what he is saying. You will see reality, that all wrongness is basically learned and accepted by respecting of big illusions we had to accept since childhood, and after that we did not "time" it think over. Please - take a time now. :-)
Stefan's opening statement has got to be one of the finest, most powerful, most DESTRUCTIVE arguments against minarchism I've ever heard in my life. Jaw-dropper.
"pieces of paper that's all laws are are pieces of paper do you hold up a piece of paper against a bullet its just a piece of paper piece of paper piece of paper".
Stopped watching right there.
Who has EVER argued that paper does anything other than fucking store information?! Who has EVER argued that laws directly prevent crime? LAWS SIMPLY PUNISH CRIMINALS WHICH HAS THE DIRECT EFFECT OF INTIMIDATING OTHER CRIMINALS!
@olmoscd - Stefan uses the "piece of paper" analogy for the Constitution because the sociopaths that run this country could care less about what the piece of paper says. Just look around at what they've done to see the proof of what he is saying. Sadly, this experiment in minimum government and free markets was pretty much over within two generations after the ink dried on the Constitution. You totally missed his point.
Stefan should talk more about the competitive voluntary protection agency
Balderick doesn't get that sure people may be 'scared' of violence but that is exactly what government is- the centralization of the initiation of force.
If u really want protection & justice, u don't have to necessarily do it urself nor do u have to rely on a coercive monopoly
u can also determine a voluntary protection agency to help protect & arbitrate for u
I have to say Stefan is a pretty smart and nice guy and means well, but honestly anarchy is not a good idea. Idealistically, it's the perfect idea. It's the most moral and free, but the sad fact is human nature would not allow anarchy. It seems that all forms of government or non-government suck, and we will just be going in infinite cycles of BS.
Molyneaux presents a remarkable capacity to speak at length without really saying much of anything, contradicting himself repeatedly along the way. Just one example: Without a Constitution, we would have had 13 smaller nations + the smaller a government, the more rapidly it grows = Delaware would never have invaded Iraq... WHAT??? It's not all that easy to contradict yourself, when you never said much of anything in the first place. This, I suppose, is something of an accomplishment. Kudos.
The idea that organized nations only invade for tax purposes is not accurate. Land and resources have been motivations for invasions before, and they will continue to be. Expansion of an empire is another reason.
This has been helpful. It has been the ongoing debate within my mind for many years now. Zero government or a a bare minimum? Good points on both sides. For anyone interested I would suggest reading Harry Browne's "How I found freedom in an un-free world." It's full of bottom up solutions to the problem that is the state.
human rights up held like laws ,you go to jail for braking human rights .laws strips rights give them to rulers of people ,call it kings or presidents. that means kings or presidents or leader or police or very rich or company can't hide behind laws .laws are the tools of wicked started in Babylon .human rights protect all people equal laws give these rights away
I've heard this exact statement before and I don't like when people use vague generalities: "all we have to do is stand up and say enough is enough. Freedom". That sounds like rhetoric to me. If that's actually what we did it wouldn't do squat. Can you be a little more specific Mr. Badnarik? (yea I know this is Stefans channel).
@paullie6719 natural resources are not easy to extract. it is not profitable, even with a tax system in place. for example, colonialism. this was EXTREMELY unprofitable for the the taxpayers. however, it was extremely profitable for a few people, like king. if you want to look at "King Leopold's Ghost" it goes into the costs of of how much it cost vs the benefit. basically, it was a disaster for belgium, but a huge success for the king. and this was with a tax system in place!!!
@paullie6719 They're taxed. States usually allow private people to exploit resources and they tax them. It's just more efficiant to let the people do all the work and steal from them rather than do it through state's bureucracy.
So Badnarik says he's not worried about the 98% of people that mind their own business but the 2% of crazies. What if those 2% happen to be the ones running the gov't.?
What I'm trying to understand is: in an anarchistic society, what is to stop the most business savvy and evil capitalists from gaining enough wealth to buy bigger weapons and then collude with other wealthy evil people and thus be able to control "regular" people just like the government does today?
@paullie6719 You must stop them! There's nothing to stop you and other like minded individuals from fighting those bastards! Just look at the success of the American Revolution!
Dude, stef... stay still, man. Stay behind your podium, stay in your chair. Great points, but good lord, man. You look like you're uneasy, which may translate to some people as you being uneasy about your message. Not only that, I think it's rude to your opponent. Just my opinion
@jerkbeast81 It has nothing to do with conforming to anything. What you take as passion some others might take as nervousness or zealousness, neither of which you want people to consider when it is your message that should be considered. If his passion is more important to you than his message, by all means, have at it, makes you just the same as 95% of the losers in this country. Theatre is concerned with passion, debate is concerned with the message.
Also I didn't compare you to a loser. I guess what I said may have come off as insulting to you, but if so just let me know that you didn't appreciate my tone. Don't insult me, and lump me with a group based on your arbitrary usage of terms, and statistics as facts.
@jerkbeast81 You condescend me, speak to another person while aiming your msg at me, and you have the audacity to tell me how to speak to you and what I should or shouldn't say to you? Give me a break, bro. The message is simple, if you care more about someone's passion than their message, you should be watching movies, not debates.
@bweazel and your reading comprehension is lacking. I care about the message first, and the passion second, but I care about both. Do I just need to keep restating that to you over and over before you understand? Also in response to your last message the tag "@jerkbeast81" means that it is directed at me. Also I "dare" because it was more of a joke/sarcasm then an attack, but if you were offended I apologize.
@jerkbeast81 You don't need to waste your time restating anything. I cared about your second and third post about as much as I cared about your first one, which is to say I don't care at all. I stated my opinion to the owner of this video, and that's all that is important to me. Have a nice day.
@bweazel you keep responding which shows that you care in some way. I'm not trolling; I apologized, and you continue to be a dick so...fuck off you morally corrupt piece of shit. :)
So I have the same question for you that I have for the Zeitgeist people - has thios been tested anywhere ? Are you planning to really test it in the field, see what works and what doesn't ?
great points stef,but i wish youd stop with this as a solution.the reason the state is what it is now is because people are stupid and cant take any responsibility for theyre lives NOW,let alone without any state at all. im starting to loose respect for you.your sounding more and more like a preacher instead of a teacher.
I'm @ about 20:23 and I'm amazed. Mr. Badnarik's thinking is so naive yet so common. We can argue the difference between a "privilege" and a "right" until we are blue in the face and gasp for air. It doesn't matter to the state. They can grant and remove either of these things at their whim. Stef, I fear your metaphor (throwing the magic paper at the mugger) went over your opponents head.
@stefbot Its not only the existence of a tax structure that is a benefit to the would be invader, its also the existence of a weak minded population who has already proven themselves to be use to being controlled and will therefore be easier to increase or implement a new tax structure. A society without government not only doesn have a tax structure to take over but proves that the people in such a society are less prone to be controlled. its like stealing cattle or stealing a wild mustang.
Wow, finally at 22min in I can no longer restrain my urge to PRAISE you! Superb!!
I especially take note of the coincidence of technology and government power you describe (and I think about this a LOT). Until recently, it was one thing for a government to write a law, and quite ANOTHER to actually enforce it. Soon, government will be in a position to enforce every MINOR DETAIL of ever arbitrary piece of crap they write.
Another debate and for another time the same set of anarchist myths. Governments don't always grow, I can't say I think the government is small enough in my country (Poland) but it's gotten considerably smaller since 1989, and in history it's been small for hundreds of years and it didn't fail because it was too big but because it became so decentralized that it turned into a complete anarchy, other states came in and annexed it. And that'd be what would happen to U.S. if FF were anarchists
Chinese government's been getting smaller since Mao died. Small government and the constitution didn't fail. The people failed to enforce it. And anarchism doesn't offer any alternative to that because anarchy (state of nature) is the best environment to create a government, unless the people don't let it happen. But if they couldn't enforce the constitution... Limited anarchy is a fallacy folks.
@GompCelticPL Limited anarchy is impossible because it will create a state? So your answer to this is that we need to create a state? We might loose so we need to give up?
@Hashishin13 Anarchy limited enough so there could be order in society is impossible. In a free market society someone would just buy lots of land and let people live there with protection of the law/police/army in exchange for money/property tax cos it's a good business. And IMHO it's the only form of government that can avoid breaking Non-aggression axiom. We need Private government/minarchy to limit inconveniences that are to be found in anarchy (state of nature). We know it empirically.
@GompCelticPL Uhh, no you don't know it empirically, and you shouldn't be speaking for me. Anarchy has been successful in the past and we have improved its legal structure and code since then. The only thing Anarchy is lacking is a fair chance.
@Hashishin13 I know it empirically because at some point the whole world was in a state of nature, and nearly everywhere the people constituted governments through social contracts, kings/prince's private property right/or conquer. As long as people are able organize themselves, own land or be the source of violence anarchy won't last. That's why private government/minarchy is the most natural option.
@Hashishin13 I know. My point is that government isn't some mystical force that is evil itself and grows like a being in fact history shows it can get smaller and/or stay small for a long time. Ultimately its up to the people to preserve their liberty and enforce constitution. If the people can't preserve their liberty with the help of legal system then neither they'll be able to do it in anarchy. Anarchy isn't a silver bullet, it's doomed to fail and it has all and more dangers of minarchy.
@Hashishin13 And btw/ in Poland we had anarchy for nearly 100 years, the nobles striped the government of all of its power, and blocked any attempts to give the king some real power. And guess what, it didn't end up well.
Stefan's debates with minarchists seem to always be disappointing. This guy doesn't really respond to Stefan's points, he just starts talking about personal responsibility and the constitution. I am disapoint.
great discussion. i see it as different wavelengths of thought rather than a debate.
there is almost a palatable distinction of "theism/atheism" here. when Badnarik cites the U.S. Federal Constitution it's almost like Bible verses. Stefan's wide-open mind is untamed, while Badnarik is a tad cloistered/conservative; indeed a good illustration of pragmatism and idealism is on display, here.
I have to say, i really don't understand how anybody could possibly be convinced by anything that Michael Badnarik had to say. Aside from touting the nonsense about anarchy being "all against all", the weird thing is he keeps making statements about how bad government is, yet continues to reach the conclusion - somehow - that it is still necessary. He doesn't even see the contradiction.
Why not improve upon the minarchist model? The governmental "corruption" that Stefan mentions was subversion through economics, and although it further supports his own argument, it does not entirely dismiss the potential of humans to develop an increasingly better (carefully chained down), and more efficient form of government. The concept of "no government" does stand as a perfect model, offering absolute liberty with the exception that humans are imperfect and fallible.
The forefathers of USA came up with a very good system. The following generations are the ones who enacted laws that constantly restricted those laws or completely negated them. But the masses were poor uneducated & endoctrinated with lies, so they could not figure out what was done by the next generations. We need to start educating people & making it standards insead of making corruption & incompetence a standard. Also those with power & money are right & the mob rules; that needs to change.
Actually, George Washington himself basically told people to shut up and obey the government. He was one of the people drawing up the constitution, was he not?
Besides, there are always "excuses" such as indoctrination. People are indoctrinated NOW, so how would you prevent the same thing happening now that happened back then?
This video and lecture does not teach most people anything but socialism & fascism. USA is a fascist terrorist nation that goes to other countries and steals their resources. USA is a warlords war profiteering nation of fascist terrorists. I am responsible like the rest of the people for the government we ALLOW TO EXIST. No wonder so many dumb people come out of schools. So much nonesense taught. 20% truth pushing 80% lies. Everybody is subjugated; this guy has a job misleading us & is paid well
That's a nice point about the right to bear arms now being irrelevant against Government arms technology and Nuclear/Biological weapons.The ability to read thought is now coming into the realm of the possible which will make total control of the individual possible.Thank you for provoking me to think
Badnarik incorrectly mixed force with violence. Initiation of force is violence but defending yourself is not. Also, fraud uses no force but is violence.
Furthermore, just because someone want to outsource their self defense does not mean there need be a monopoly. In an anarchy you could easily pay someone to defend you and your property if you don't want or can't do it. And in fact that already happens around the world today.
I don't understand the concept of private property; and neither did every aboriginal that ever lived sustainably upon this earth. Property is an anathema to humanity. It is possible to live outside of the idea of 'private property' with respect for space and privacy instead, rather than fences and boundaries that preclude your free right to walk anywhere upon this earth. There should be no 'ownership' of this earth or any of her resources.
@various8 The second you put food in your mouth you have claimed it as you person private property. Without private property you can not sustain life. Your body is your, it does not belong to anyone else. That is private property.
I just want to say, this was a valuable in depth experience to watch between two very intelligent people. Having said that, Badnarik comes off as being full of shit, and phony. I bet hes a good dude. Hes obviously smart in his reference towards specific clauses of certain articles in defined sections of a certain document. He just sounds false and phony, like hes a B rated actor.**kind of like every other politician ever**
@mynewschannel Yes, it is with the common and well used definition of the term capitalism. However the anarcho-capitalism was started by an economic scholar which simply defined capitalism as a market.
However even if that definition is used I still agree with you that anarcho-capitlaims is oxymoronic, because the philosophy of property of anarcho-capitalism which is a sticky and hard philosophy of property opens up for feodalism by allowing one person to control whole cities or bigger lands.
You say government is so bad, but I don't understand why you think it's so bad. Canada and other Democratic/Socialist countries seem to do just fine to me.
Sorry, i don't really understand how this all works,I don't really understand what anarchy means, and i'm trying to learn, but since your videos are so long i hoped you could point me in the right direction.
@xdearlifex Doesn't Canada send troops to war to kill innocent, untried individuals? Doesn't Canada steal money from it's "citizens" in the form of taxation? Doesn't Canada raid marijuana growers' homes? Canada may not be as severe of a police state as the US, but it is still violent & monopolistic. How is that good? It might be less bad, but you can't call it good honestly.
People fail to realize that the free market, where corruption is frequent, is also the engine that allows for people to have a quality of life that is not only monetarily fulfilling but also spiritually- that is, doing what one loves producing a certain product- offering a certain service- or developing a certain field. As Einstein said - when a man labors under the freedom of his own desire only then does he reach the height of his potential. There is can unquantifiable value to free enterprise
No the issue that is always being ballanced is how much law is needed to "protect" the quality of freedom for people- whether that be immeadiate (taxes and government aid) or in the future (enviornmental regulation). So the founders had it right when they said that the goal was to protect the fullness of people's freedoms so long as they were not violating the freedoms of others.
i think they should invite Robert Menard to debate on this topic. Seriously!!!!! For example: search youtube for mrmitee then find his videos 'Society and Statutes' Part 1-3 .....
The idea of living without a state structure in society is so foreign to us we can't even wrap our brains around it. Societies like this, pagans and tribal peoples around the world a few hundred years ago, were all wiped out. We can't have examples of truly free societies running around, now can we?
@DannelDoo Ancient Ireland and Iceland. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island is among the ones I remember that did not have the institution of govt' and prevailed through private agencies, the nearest one(recent) is Somalia, which inevitbly was consume to govt', *ahem UN. Stateless societies simply means just that, no monoply on force(which is the main one) and on currency, welfare programs, etc. instead competing agencies.
I'm not sure if this is of any relevance to your comment, but w/e.
@fireman12888 Whole of Scandinavia during the first few hundread centuries was all state-less. However then Christianity was imported from the continent as a means to claim supreme power by the clans' cheifs.
The Gauls also had very rich and wealthy societies without a centralized state until the Roman tyrant opressors decided that they needed the various metal mines that existed in the Gaulic lands.
And then how does an oligopoly full-on quasi state NOT develop between the winning defence agencies and courts?
The winning defence agencies have nothing intrinsically to answer to except its funders. It has no inherent duty to law or collective security; its duty is to itself and to maintain itself.
And there is a possibility, maybe even a propensity, for these quasi states to become vast corporations.
At this point, you have nothing more than private states paid to use force.
It can actually be argued that corporations are the result of heavy government lobbying, which allows them to get so big in the first place. The useful thing about the free market is that competition ensures that an equilibrium will always exist - the moment you add in a centralized source for power and governance, is the moment you totally unbalance the system and endanger that equilibrium with monopolization through force. Does the government answer to the people, or special interest groups?
Not to mention the totally immoral principle on which government is based. No one should force you to pay money (taxes) for your own protection. If the free market and DROs were to act as their replacements, then their duty would be to win the customer's trust, which is certainly a better situation than giving up your tax money because you have to! However, I'm sure corruption would continue. But the key difference is it would be on a smaller scale, due to its decentralized nature.
And these private agencies, this quasi state, would, surely, need to use force to perform its duties.
Force has to be used to stop a murderer for the collective benefit of those who can be affected by that murderer.
But who decides which agency has authority or right to deal with the murderer? People finance them, so does that mean the highest paid, most powerful agency solves the problem? But what if my agency wants to deal with it but loses out?
Transition from our state capitalist system to a minarchist one is feasible.
Transition from our state capitalist system to anarchy is seemingly infeasible.
And you say an anarchist soceity, ideally, would have armies, police, courts, and such. Even if you get all that to be funded voluntarily, the people who employ those agencies are essentially entrusting themselves to a quasi state.
haha stef you must realize your understandings of human society and also your superb english vocabulary are not comprehended fully by the majority of the audience..even badnarik at times.
Doesn't Michael contradict his argument against anarchism (majority of people don't want to practice violence) at the end of this video, when he quotes Jefferson about rights. How do you defend your rights against violence by not using violence? If the government (which are meant to "protect" those rights in the first place) violates rights, who's supposed to protect them? If you're afraid of violence in defense of self... How are you going to defend your liberty in either statism or anarchism?
Stef Argument is not against violence, is against the initation of the use of force, the initiation of violence. Based on the non aggression principle, if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself. If i break into your house you dont have to just stand there (that's just silly), you have all the right to take me down.
Stef has so many videos out it's almost too much. It'd take me about a year to go through all of them and they are all soooo long. I like the vision, but it might take an apocalyps for it ever to happen.
@stefbot This was definitely the case for me. I listened to at least 10 videos/interviews with you Stef, but after listening to your non-fiction books, I really got it. As a matter of fact, I've since returned to the interviews/videos that I listened to before your books, and I'm quite shocked at how much I missed. To me, reading the books was like learning a new programming language, and watching the videos is like developing in that language.
@superhuegi It's too much for most, sadly. It's entertaining for others. If you don't use any other forms of media entertainment, it fills up that "empty space" nicely.
@superhuegi The more the information, the more understanding through simple repetition. Some people just need it for minor deprogramming. I have found it necessary to reintroduce some information multiple times to fully absorb it. Just make sure you have done your own research on the side, so that you can trust the individuals information you are receiving. Balance is the key. Yes, you will inevitably end up spending most of your free time learning and less of your free time entertaining.
We are the problem with governemnt. If we don't make gov big then we will make churches even bigger. We are a goofy spieses that needs to point fingers at things for their own wrongs. We look at out gov as the police of a free market. If something gets to big at our cost we need to go and whine to someone. That's all it is. If I knew I could only be president for 8 years, 4 years minimum what the hell do you think you'd get accomplished or get away with? " We've meet the enemy..its us".
Stef well done you are a wonderfully articulate Speaker. I would love for you to do a podcast on how to debate. Or how to set up for a debate. I would also love for you to explain how to structure a Socratic question. :) Thanks for your wisdom.
Stefan, I think you did very well in this debate. You're a really great speaker.
Something that frustrated me a bit was when Mr. Badnarik made the same argument 3 times, which was, "In anarchy, private citizens would have to commit violence to defend themselves, and most people don't want to do this, therefore most people will always be against anarchy.
Of course, this argument is ridiculous. But I think you probably should have addressed it since he mentioned it so much.
In your response to the question about Ayn Rand, you should've simply agreed with her, but in naming the gang that would take over, the government. I was under the impression that you didn't agree with the social contract theory. I read a book about the gangs that populated the Chicago housing projects, they resembled, to me, baby governments.
There are lots of reasons an anarchistic region might be invaded - eg, oil, minerals, timber, fresh water, space, weapons (whatever they've got), etc. The idea that a region won't be invaded just because its occupants don't pay taxes is entirely fallacious.
There was an econ paper that concluded that from all wars analyzed, it would be cheaper to buy the stuff than to invade the country. Economic incentives is seldom the reason for war. Either way, I still think asymmetrical warfare would be the best defense for an anarchist society. Consider how Switzerland has managed to stay neutral of wars.
It depends on how effectively an anarchist society could defend itself as to how expensive it would be to invade an anarchist region. If the anarchist region is not heavily defended, then it would be relatively cheap to invade it.
Yeah, i totally agree. We totally need violent overlords who steal from us by force and dominate our lives without our consent to keep us safe from violent overlords.
It's actually not entirely fallacious, just not entirely true. Rome invaded nations for resources, a new tax base, and future military recruits/locations.
The extra population *might *be a bonus, if you decided to keep them alive, but it need not be the reason for invading a country. It may be preferable to kill the entire population and take their land.
That wouldn't be a likely approach because rebellion would most likely happen. Rome mostly enslaved and assimilated the populations they took over. They drafted men for "auxiliary units". They did also do what you mentioned above, just not to an entire population. They probably murdered the upper class and stole that wealth.
This is so frustrating to watch. Michael is ignoring all the points that Stef makes. Stef is using Michael's points in his arguments. It's like Michael is not in the same world as Stef.
Badnarik gives an obnoxious argument of civilians training to use weapons, however, they lacked the nerve to kill. Never mind, he assures, actual killing is possible through the agency of government. Great, civilians can shoot up mere targets safe in the knowledge that government will go the full way.
I look for Badnariks checks and balances to find that he cannot operate his state violence with legal paper, it requires "eternal vigilance" (As in vigilantes, perhaps?). He makes my head hurt.
1) Of course if there was no WW1 there would have been no WW2 because otherwise it would have been called WW1. ^_^
2) What I do not like about constitutionalists is that they treat the Constitution as if it is a Bible. They sound almost like fundamentalists to me, "
Stefbot, you speak of many things being "impossible", such as no way to fight even a minarchist government. I think you might be going too far with these absolutes. You of all people know the creative power of the individual. I don't think it's a good idea to suggest these devices or strategies to be used in warfare in the comments here but, I would look into it a bit further regarding what people could build or do. I would be careful throwing around absolutes.
RedOutcast 2 days ago
On the question of resolving conflicts, Michael basically says, "You need government because we're willing to kill people in you behalf because you don't want to."
solielj 5 days ago
This man (of course - Stefan) cleared so many unclear areas of my suspicion I had thou my life by his podcasts and books and other works as NOBODY ELSE. Listen to what he is saying. You will see reality, that all wrongness is basically learned and accepted by respecting of big illusions we had to accept since childhood, and after that we did not "time" it think over. Please - take a time now. :-)
petonovy 6 days ago in playlist "How Much Government is Necessary?" from Freedomain Radio
I haven't heard one point the minarchist said that refutes the efficacy of Stefans points. Everything he says sounds like inane campaign slogans.
magentawave 1 week ago
Badnarik is hopeless. He keeps using arguments against the State as pro-state arguments. Can't take him seriously.
rumco 1 month ago
Stefan's opening statement has got to be one of the finest, most powerful, most DESTRUCTIVE arguments against minarchism I've ever heard in my life. Jaw-dropper.
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
"pieces of paper that's all laws are are pieces of paper do you hold up a piece of paper against a bullet its just a piece of paper piece of paper piece of paper".
Stopped watching right there.
Who has EVER argued that paper does anything other than fucking store information?! Who has EVER argued that laws directly prevent crime? LAWS SIMPLY PUNISH CRIMINALS WHICH HAS THE DIRECT EFFECT OF INTIMIDATING OTHER CRIMINALS!
Strawmen. Strawmen everywhere.
olmoscd 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@olmoscd wikipedia. org/wiki/Hyperbole
jeffiek 1 week ago
@olmoscd - Stefan uses the "piece of paper" analogy for the Constitution because the sociopaths that run this country could care less about what the piece of paper says. Just look around at what they've done to see the proof of what he is saying. Sadly, this experiment in minimum government and free markets was pretty much over within two generations after the ink dried on the Constitution. You totally missed his point.
magentawave 1 week ago
Stefan should talk more about the competitive voluntary protection agency
Balderick doesn't get that sure people may be 'scared' of violence but that is exactly what government is- the centralization of the initiation of force.
If u really want protection & justice, u don't have to necessarily do it urself nor do u have to rely on a coercive monopoly
u can also determine a voluntary protection agency to help protect & arbitrate for u
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880
And the voluntary protection agency is more accurate to the highest desires & preferences of each & every person precisely because its voluntary
swu880 3 months ago
@swu880 You can check out my free book 'Practical Anarchy'
stefbot 3 months ago
I have to say Stefan is a pretty smart and nice guy and means well, but honestly anarchy is not a good idea. Idealistically, it's the perfect idea. It's the most moral and free, but the sad fact is human nature would not allow anarchy. It seems that all forms of government or non-government suck, and we will just be going in infinite cycles of BS.
TheTrueConservative 3 months ago
Just wanna say this now bc i'm annoyed that i couldn't find it, but they only show stefan's opening remarks, not michaels...
Tokojano 3 months ago
Molyneaux presents a remarkable capacity to speak at length without really saying much of anything, contradicting himself repeatedly along the way. Just one example: Without a Constitution, we would have had 13 smaller nations + the smaller a government, the more rapidly it grows = Delaware would never have invaded Iraq... WHAT??? It's not all that easy to contradict yourself, when you never said much of anything in the first place. This, I suppose, is something of an accomplishment. Kudos.
poetrychurch 3 months ago
The idea that organized nations only invade for tax purposes is not accurate. Land and resources have been motivations for invasions before, and they will continue to be. Expansion of an empire is another reason.
SHNUCAU 4 months ago
This has been helpful. It has been the ongoing debate within my mind for many years now. Zero government or a a bare minimum? Good points on both sides. For anyone interested I would suggest reading Harry Browne's "How I found freedom in an un-free world." It's full of bottom up solutions to the problem that is the state.
8yerbrain 4 months ago
Who controls the nukes you're talking about at 42 minutes? What body presides over them? Sounds like....a government.
bwood21390 4 months ago
@bwood21390
Government is not necessarily the State. The State operates without transparency and consent
JoeKopsick4Congress 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
human rights up held like laws ,you go to jail for braking human rights .laws strips rights give them to rulers of people ,call it kings or presidents. that means kings or presidents or leader or police or very rich or company can't hide behind laws .laws are the tools of wicked started in Babylon .human rights protect all people equal laws give these rights away
greenearthnazi20204u 5 months ago
first of all governments with no leaders ,no voting ,no laws ,
greenearthnazi20204u 5 months ago
"okay, maybe the 100th step after you are offered a lot of money." hahaha
stevenwagner 5 months ago
The title should be "IS government necessary?"
And the answer is: NO!
bradleyrimbleus 5 months ago
Comment removed
DMU555 7 months ago
I am appreciating the gift of this truth. What a rare treat to hear such brilliance.
TimothyADonaghue 7 months ago
"Won't be nobody takin' over our land, if everybody''s brother's got a gun in his hand".
- Grand Funk Railroad
mikemat3307 8 months ago
Well if people aren't willing to defend themselves, then that is their problem.
paullie6719 8 months ago
I've heard this exact statement before and I don't like when people use vague generalities: "all we have to do is stand up and say enough is enough. Freedom". That sounds like rhetoric to me. If that's actually what we did it wouldn't do squat. Can you be a little more specific Mr. Badnarik? (yea I know this is Stefans channel).
paullie6719 8 months ago
Nothing to take over but tax structure? What about natural resources?
paullie6719 8 months ago
@paullie6719 natural resources are not easy to extract. it is not profitable, even with a tax system in place. for example, colonialism. this was EXTREMELY unprofitable for the the taxpayers. however, it was extremely profitable for a few people, like king. if you want to look at "King Leopold's Ghost" it goes into the costs of of how much it cost vs the benefit. basically, it was a disaster for belgium, but a huge success for the king. and this was with a tax system in place!!!
lukaskoube 8 months ago
@paullie6719 They're taxed. States usually allow private people to exploit resources and they tax them. It's just more efficiant to let the people do all the work and steal from them rather than do it through state's bureucracy.
GompCelticPL 7 months ago
So Badnarik says he's not worried about the 98% of people that mind their own business but the 2% of crazies. What if those 2% happen to be the ones running the gov't.?
paullie6719 8 months ago
What I'm trying to understand is: in an anarchistic society, what is to stop the most business savvy and evil capitalists from gaining enough wealth to buy bigger weapons and then collude with other wealthy evil people and thus be able to control "regular" people just like the government does today?
paullie6719 8 months ago
@paullie6719 You must stop them! There's nothing to stop you and other like minded individuals from fighting those bastards! Just look at the success of the American Revolution!
AustereAustrian 6 months ago in playlist "How Much Government is Necessary?" from Freedomain Radio
Here we go
Motherlandpluto 8 months ago
Stop arguing you two
elchafa 8 months ago
Why'd you say you don't believe in rights, but at the beginning you said that property rights are absolute?
AlbeenoCookie 9 months ago
Dude, stef... stay still, man. Stay behind your podium, stay in your chair. Great points, but good lord, man. You look like you're uneasy, which may translate to some people as you being uneasy about your message. Not only that, I think it's rude to your opponent. Just my opinion
bweazel 9 months ago
@bweazel @bweazel Yes stef...conform to the nature of debate, and be just like the other guy.....damn your passion!
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 It has nothing to do with conforming to anything. What you take as passion some others might take as nervousness or zealousness, neither of which you want people to consider when it is your message that should be considered. If his passion is more important to you than his message, by all means, have at it, makes you just the same as 95% of the losers in this country. Theatre is concerned with passion, debate is concerned with the message.
bweazel 9 months ago
@bweazel The message is the most important part, but I admire his passion as well. Why can't I enjoy both?
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 The message was not directed at you, it was directed at stefbot. You go ahead and enjoy whatever you want.
bweazel 9 months ago
Also I didn't compare you to a loser. I guess what I said may have come off as insulting to you, but if so just let me know that you didn't appreciate my tone. Don't insult me, and lump me with a group based on your arbitrary usage of terms, and statistics as facts.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 You condescend me, speak to another person while aiming your msg at me, and you have the audacity to tell me how to speak to you and what I should or shouldn't say to you? Give me a break, bro. The message is simple, if you care more about someone's passion than their message, you should be watching movies, not debates.
bweazel 9 months ago
@bweazel and your reading comprehension is lacking. I care about the message first, and the passion second, but I care about both. Do I just need to keep restating that to you over and over before you understand? Also in response to your last message the tag "@jerkbeast81" means that it is directed at me. Also I "dare" because it was more of a joke/sarcasm then an attack, but if you were offended I apologize.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 You don't need to waste your time restating anything. I cared about your second and third post about as much as I cared about your first one, which is to say I don't care at all. I stated my opinion to the owner of this video, and that's all that is important to me. Have a nice day.
bweazel 9 months ago
@bweazel you keep responding which shows that you care in some way. I'm not trolling; I apologized, and you continue to be a dick so...fuck off you morally corrupt piece of shit. :)
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
Yes, you are trolling. Again, have a nice day.
bweazel 9 months ago
find the soulution
reel1840 11 months ago
So I have the same question for you that I have for the Zeitgeist people - has thios been tested anywhere ? Are you planning to really test it in the field, see what works and what doesn't ?
firuinthehouse 1 year ago
@firuinthehouse, anti-statism?
its been tested many times. check out ryan faulk's book: for an emergent governance
OscarVega92 1 year ago
great points stef,but i wish youd stop with this as a solution.the reason the state is what it is now is because people are stupid and cant take any responsibility for theyre lives NOW,let alone without any state at all. im starting to loose respect for you.your sounding more and more like a preacher instead of a teacher.
timHYPERLITE 1 year ago
I'm @ about 20:23 and I'm amazed. Mr. Badnarik's thinking is so naive yet so common. We can argue the difference between a "privilege" and a "right" until we are blue in the face and gasp for air. It doesn't matter to the state. They can grant and remove either of these things at their whim. Stef, I fear your metaphor (throwing the magic paper at the mugger) went over your opponents head.
Sarahon06 1 year ago
the founding fathers were elitist til the 1820sonly free white property owners had a voice-vote
black folk were repressed from 1880-1960 as free people they advanced
southernharmony65 1 year ago
Thats why the world pulled out of Somalia. No government tax system.
Bristow42 1 year ago
@Bristow42 That's a great point, thanks, I never thought of that...
stefbot 1 year ago
@stefbot Its not only the existence of a tax structure that is a benefit to the would be invader, its also the existence of a weak minded population who has already proven themselves to be use to being controlled and will therefore be easier to increase or implement a new tax structure. A society without government not only doesn have a tax structure to take over but proves that the people in such a society are less prone to be controlled. its like stealing cattle or stealing a wild mustang.
slickbtk 3 months ago
very inspiring/thought provoking. thanks stef.
andthereisntone 1 year ago
Interesting. I was always under the assumption that you were a minarchist/libertarian.
straydoglogic 1 year ago
I'm looking forward to the next debate with switched roles, that would be highly interesting.
TheArjan1982 1 year ago
Lets shorten the answer for those for won't watch the whole video.
Question: How Much Government Is Necessary?
Answer: None.
andrewpyrah 1 year ago 71
@andrewpyrah thank you man...it's 2 am and I need to sleep! :)
dolfanlinda 4 months ago
Wow, finally at 22min in I can no longer restrain my urge to PRAISE you! Superb!!
I especially take note of the coincidence of technology and government power you describe (and I think about this a LOT). Until recently, it was one thing for a government to write a law, and quite ANOTHER to actually enforce it. Soon, government will be in a position to enforce every MINOR DETAIL of ever arbitrary piece of crap they write.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago 11
@GetMeThere1 thanks :)
stefbot 1 year ago
Another debate and for another time the same set of anarchist myths. Governments don't always grow, I can't say I think the government is small enough in my country (Poland) but it's gotten considerably smaller since 1989, and in history it's been small for hundreds of years and it didn't fail because it was too big but because it became so decentralized that it turned into a complete anarchy, other states came in and annexed it. And that'd be what would happen to U.S. if FF were anarchists
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
Chinese government's been getting smaller since Mao died. Small government and the constitution didn't fail. The people failed to enforce it. And anarchism doesn't offer any alternative to that because anarchy (state of nature) is the best environment to create a government, unless the people don't let it happen. But if they couldn't enforce the constitution... Limited anarchy is a fallacy folks.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@GompCelticPL Limited anarchy is impossible because it will create a state? So your answer to this is that we need to create a state? We might loose so we need to give up?
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Anarchy limited enough so there could be order in society is impossible. In a free market society someone would just buy lots of land and let people live there with protection of the law/police/army in exchange for money/property tax cos it's a good business. And IMHO it's the only form of government that can avoid breaking Non-aggression axiom. We need Private government/minarchy to limit inconveniences that are to be found in anarchy (state of nature). We know it empirically.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@GompCelticPL Uhh, no you don't know it empirically, and you shouldn't be speaking for me. Anarchy has been successful in the past and we have improved its legal structure and code since then. The only thing Anarchy is lacking is a fair chance.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 I know it empirically because at some point the whole world was in a state of nature, and nearly everywhere the people constituted governments through social contracts, kings/prince's private property right/or conquer. As long as people are able organize themselves, own land or be the source of violence anarchy won't last. That's why private government/minarchy is the most natural option.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@GompCelticPL the exact same arguement could be made against minarchy, or any limited government. It would be equally as true.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 I know. My point is that government isn't some mystical force that is evil itself and grows like a being in fact history shows it can get smaller and/or stay small for a long time. Ultimately its up to the people to preserve their liberty and enforce constitution. If the people can't preserve their liberty with the help of legal system then neither they'll be able to do it in anarchy. Anarchy isn't a silver bullet, it's doomed to fail and it has all and more dangers of minarchy.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 And btw/ in Poland we had anarchy for nearly 100 years, the nobles striped the government of all of its power, and blocked any attempts to give the king some real power. And guess what, it didn't end up well.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
it's like these guys are speaking different languages
narrowbarrow 1 year ago
great speaking Stef! I could barely stand to listen to the other guy's droning...
errorspending 1 year ago
@errorspending thank you so much!
stefbot 1 year ago
I wish i would have found this a long time ago :) One day your materials will be taught in the free market schools of the future an-cap world...
l1xx3r 1 year ago 15
@l1xx3r thank you so much, that would be most excellent!
stefbot 1 year ago
Stefan's debates with minarchists seem to always be disappointing. This guy doesn't really respond to Stefan's points, he just starts talking about personal responsibility and the constitution. I am disapoint.
sstearns34 1 year ago
rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.
george carlin (he was a true visioner)
foxgirl38 1 year ago
Not much governance is necessary, but states surely aren't necessary.
MirageScience 1 year ago
Badnarik's hesitation is because there is absolutely a power-vacuum that is created in the absence of a gov't.
how does one avoid the mafia coming and demanding that you pay them protection money; whether or not they have an officially ratified charter?
onceRoquin 1 year ago
@onceRoquin you grow a few
matsutakneatche 1 year ago
great discussion. i see it as different wavelengths of thought rather than a debate.
there is almost a palatable distinction of "theism/atheism" here. when Badnarik cites the U.S. Federal Constitution it's almost like Bible verses. Stefan's wide-open mind is untamed, while Badnarik is a tad cloistered/conservative; indeed a good illustration of pragmatism and idealism is on display, here.
onceRoquin 1 year ago
I have to say, i really don't understand how anybody could possibly be convinced by anything that Michael Badnarik had to say. Aside from touting the nonsense about anarchy being "all against all", the weird thing is he keeps making statements about how bad government is, yet continues to reach the conclusion - somehow - that it is still necessary. He doesn't even see the contradiction.
tridentmovies 1 year ago
Very refreshing
MrSpecialop 1 year ago
Why not improve upon the minarchist model? The governmental "corruption" that Stefan mentions was subversion through economics, and although it further supports his own argument, it does not entirely dismiss the potential of humans to develop an increasingly better (carefully chained down), and more efficient form of government. The concept of "no government" does stand as a perfect model, offering absolute liberty with the exception that humans are imperfect and fallible.
brokor1 1 year ago
The forefathers of USA came up with a very good system. The following generations are the ones who enacted laws that constantly restricted those laws or completely negated them. But the masses were poor uneducated & endoctrinated with lies, so they could not figure out what was done by the next generations. We need to start educating people & making it standards insead of making corruption & incompetence a standard. Also those with power & money are right & the mob rules; that needs to change.
candygir7 1 year ago
@candygir7
Actually, George Washington himself basically told people to shut up and obey the government. He was one of the people drawing up the constitution, was he not?
Besides, there are always "excuses" such as indoctrination. People are indoctrinated NOW, so how would you prevent the same thing happening now that happened back then?
tridentmovies 1 year ago
Legal violence in society is the government!
candygir7 1 year ago
This video and lecture does not teach most people anything but socialism & fascism. USA is a fascist terrorist nation that goes to other countries and steals their resources. USA is a warlords war profiteering nation of fascist terrorists. I am responsible like the rest of the people for the government we ALLOW TO EXIST. No wonder so many dumb people come out of schools. So much nonesense taught. 20% truth pushing 80% lies. Everybody is subjugated; this guy has a job misleading us & is paid well
candygir7 1 year ago
That's a nice point about the right to bear arms now being irrelevant against Government arms technology and Nuclear/Biological weapons.The ability to read thought is now coming into the realm of the possible which will make total control of the individual possible.Thank you for provoking me to think
jonnyy40 1 year ago
Badnarik incorrectly mixed force with violence. Initiation of force is violence but defending yourself is not. Also, fraud uses no force but is violence.
Furthermore, just because someone want to outsource their self defense does not mean there need be a monopoly. In an anarchy you could easily pay someone to defend you and your property if you don't want or can't do it. And in fact that already happens around the world today.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
Government has only three moral purposes:
1. Protect the nation from foreign attack.
2. Protect individual rights/individuals from the initiation of force by other individuals.
3. Provide a court system to adjudicate differences peacefully between individuals.
No other moral purpose of government is possible. All other use of government is a violation of individual rights.
basspig 1 year ago
I don't understand the concept of private property; and neither did every aboriginal that ever lived sustainably upon this earth. Property is an anathema to humanity. It is possible to live outside of the idea of 'private property' with respect for space and privacy instead, rather than fences and boundaries that preclude your free right to walk anywhere upon this earth. There should be no 'ownership' of this earth or any of her resources.
various8 1 year ago
@various8
Tell me where you live. I'd like to walk all over your body.
bulldogvillan 1 year ago
@various8 The second you put food in your mouth you have claimed it as you person private property. Without private property you can not sustain life. Your body is your, it does not belong to anyone else. That is private property.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
Cliff notes?
NoLongerFooled 1 year ago
I like Badnarik, but the man needs to read some Rothbard.
AustinW90 1 year ago
The audio is terrible!
zambizzi 1 year ago
if badnarik was consistent, he'd be anti-self defense with his argument. Nice work, Stefan.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
@mistara31415 go to freedomainradio dotcom
qkholster 1 year ago
Stefan you are brilliant!
mladenik 1 year ago
Why would WW1 not have happened?
Syclone538 1 year ago
(40:00) So who in an anarchist society would be trusted to control the nukes? Someone would have to push the button if it were ever needed.
AndyWright68 1 year ago
@AndyWright68 There are actually more options.
- 1 person. The one person could be rotated
- many people push, some % vote
- everyone push 100% vote
- no one veto, the launch sequence could be automatically with a manual abort.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
I just want to say, this was a valuable in depth experience to watch between two very intelligent people. Having said that, Badnarik comes off as being full of shit, and phony. I bet hes a good dude. Hes obviously smart in his reference towards specific clauses of certain articles in defined sections of a certain document. He just sounds false and phony, like hes a B rated actor.**kind of like every other politician ever**
IterProLibertasV 1 year ago 2
Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron.
mynewschannel 1 year ago
@mynewschannel Yes, it is with the common and well used definition of the term capitalism. However the anarcho-capitalism was started by an economic scholar which simply defined capitalism as a market.
However even if that definition is used I still agree with you that anarcho-capitlaims is oxymoronic, because the philosophy of property of anarcho-capitalism which is a sticky and hard philosophy of property opens up for feodalism by allowing one person to control whole cities or bigger lands.
lordmetroid 1 year ago
You say government is so bad, but I don't understand why you think it's so bad. Canada and other Democratic/Socialist countries seem to do just fine to me.
Sorry, i don't really understand how this all works,I don't really understand what anarchy means, and i'm trying to learn, but since your videos are so long i hoped you could point me in the right direction.
xdearlifex 1 year ago
@xdearlifex Doesn't Canada send troops to war to kill innocent, untried individuals? Doesn't Canada steal money from it's "citizens" in the form of taxation? Doesn't Canada raid marijuana growers' homes? Canada may not be as severe of a police state as the US, but it is still violent & monopolistic. How is that good? It might be less bad, but you can't call it good honestly.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
Michael Badnarik really comes across as part of the problem. He's the fucking man, and everyone else can't handle the truth.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
I love how stef was all strong and passionate in his debate, then Michael is all quiet talking lol
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
People fail to realize that the free market, where corruption is frequent, is also the engine that allows for people to have a quality of life that is not only monetarily fulfilling but also spiritually- that is, doing what one loves producing a certain product- offering a certain service- or developing a certain field. As Einstein said - when a man labors under the freedom of his own desire only then does he reach the height of his potential. There is can unquantifiable value to free enterprise
frost122585 1 year ago
No the issue that is always being ballanced is how much law is needed to "protect" the quality of freedom for people- whether that be immeadiate (taxes and government aid) or in the future (enviornmental regulation). So the founders had it right when they said that the goal was to protect the fullness of people's freedoms so long as they were not violating the freedoms of others.
frost122585 1 year ago
i think they should invite Robert Menard to debate on this topic. Seriously!!!!! For example: search youtube for mrmitee then find his videos 'Society and Statutes' Part 1-3 .....
squeegiegrrl 2 years ago
The idea of living without a state structure in society is so foreign to us we can't even wrap our brains around it. Societies like this, pagans and tribal peoples around the world a few hundred years ago, were all wiped out. We can't have examples of truly free societies running around, now can we?
DannelDoo 2 years ago
@DannelDoo Ancient Ireland and Iceland. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island is among the ones I remember that did not have the institution of govt' and prevailed through private agencies, the nearest one(recent) is Somalia, which inevitbly was consume to govt', *ahem UN. Stateless societies simply means just that, no monoply on force(which is the main one) and on currency, welfare programs, etc. instead competing agencies.
I'm not sure if this is of any relevance to your comment, but w/e.
fireman12888 2 years ago
@fireman12888 Whole of Scandinavia during the first few hundread centuries was all state-less. However then Christianity was imported from the continent as a means to claim supreme power by the clans' cheifs.
The Gauls also had very rich and wealthy societies without a centralized state until the Roman tyrant opressors decided that they needed the various metal mines that existed in the Gaulic lands.
lordmetroid 1 year ago
I think we can.
SoapBoxIdol 2 years ago
Just saw 1:44:40 and that puts the problem of force and dispute resolution in anarchism in a nut shell.
Your answer to that was a non-answer that just strawmanned the propensities of the state.
And there's nothing to curtail the power and authority of a DRO except other DROs...
NoMorFear 2 years ago
@NoMorFear Stefan Molyneux answers that question at 58:00
TheGodofAtheists 2 years ago
4
Anarchists will scream strawman to this, but the problem that arises is intuitively and empirically self-evident.
A degree of force is absolutely necessary to maintain order in a civilized society.
A limited state seems most ideal for, without that, you merely have competion over force.
Also, you support private property, but what ensures and justifies your right over your property?
Private property is as abstract as the state; I feel both are justified; the latter to an extent.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
3
And then how does an oligopoly full-on quasi state NOT develop between the winning defence agencies and courts?
The winning defence agencies have nothing intrinsically to answer to except its funders. It has no inherent duty to law or collective security; its duty is to itself and to maintain itself.
And there is a possibility, maybe even a propensity, for these quasi states to become vast corporations.
At this point, you have nothing more than private states paid to use force.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
It can actually be argued that corporations are the result of heavy government lobbying, which allows them to get so big in the first place. The useful thing about the free market is that competition ensures that an equilibrium will always exist - the moment you add in a centralized source for power and governance, is the moment you totally unbalance the system and endanger that equilibrium with monopolization through force. Does the government answer to the people, or special interest groups?
radscorpion8 2 years ago
Not to mention the totally immoral principle on which government is based. No one should force you to pay money (taxes) for your own protection. If the free market and DROs were to act as their replacements, then their duty would be to win the customer's trust, which is certainly a better situation than giving up your tax money because you have to! However, I'm sure corruption would continue. But the key difference is it would be on a smaller scale, due to its decentralized nature.
radscorpion8 2 years ago
And these private agencies, this quasi state, would, surely, need to use force to perform its duties.
Force has to be used to stop a murderer for the collective benefit of those who can be affected by that murderer.
But who decides which agency has authority or right to deal with the murderer? People finance them, so does that mean the highest paid, most powerful agency solves the problem? But what if my agency wants to deal with it but loses out?
At best, its mere competing states.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
Transition from our state capitalist system to a minarchist one is feasible.
Transition from our state capitalist system to anarchy is seemingly infeasible.
And you say an anarchist soceity, ideally, would have armies, police, courts, and such. Even if you get all that to be funded voluntarily, the people who employ those agencies are essentially entrusting themselves to a quasi state.
continued
NoMorFear 2 years ago
haha stef you must realize your understandings of human society and also your superb english vocabulary are not comprehended fully by the majority of the audience..even badnarik at times.
Debatewithme 2 years ago
This is the best debate I've heard.
lmccourry 2 years ago
Anarchist vs. Libertarian, awesome debate.
pantadon 2 years ago 2
anarchists are dumb
goblue122394 2 years ago
@goblue122394 Care to elaborate?
lordmetroid 1 year ago
Doesn't Michael contradict his argument against anarchism (majority of people don't want to practice violence) at the end of this video, when he quotes Jefferson about rights. How do you defend your rights against violence by not using violence? If the government (which are meant to "protect" those rights in the first place) violates rights, who's supposed to protect them? If you're afraid of violence in defense of self... How are you going to defend your liberty in either statism or anarchism?
Crustanarchy 2 years ago 15
bravo
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
Stef Argument is not against violence, is against the initation of the use of force, the initiation of violence. Based on the non aggression principle, if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself. If i break into your house you dont have to just stand there (that's just silly), you have all the right to take me down.
chazdoit 10 months ago
There is a new Rule of Law presented on the world-wide0website PortablePublishing a COM site.
That rule of law is called the 2012 Constitution. You might like it; or like to comment in it.
Kingery4President 2 years ago
Stef has so many videos out it's almost too much. It'd take me about a year to go through all of them and they are all soooo long. I like the vision, but it might take an apocalyps for it ever to happen.
superhuegi 2 years ago
I appreciate your concern, you might want to check out my free audio books, they are a bit of a shortcut in a way... :)
stefbot 2 years ago 3
@stefbot This was definitely the case for me. I listened to at least 10 videos/interviews with you Stef, but after listening to your non-fiction books, I really got it. As a matter of fact, I've since returned to the interviews/videos that I listened to before your books, and I'm quite shocked at how much I missed. To me, reading the books was like learning a new programming language, and watching the videos is like developing in that language.
tapary 1 year ago
@superhuegi It's too much for most, sadly. It's entertaining for others. If you don't use any other forms of media entertainment, it fills up that "empty space" nicely.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@superhuegi The more the information, the more understanding through simple repetition. Some people just need it for minor deprogramming. I have found it necessary to reintroduce some information multiple times to fully absorb it. Just make sure you have done your own research on the side, so that you can trust the individuals information you are receiving. Balance is the key. Yes, you will inevitably end up spending most of your free time learning and less of your free time entertaining.
Jbarrtndrsr 1 year ago
I smetimes think of molyneux as a prophet ;p, Seriously, a great speaker who really makes me interested in these things
Sivels 2 years ago
We are the problem with governemnt. If we don't make gov big then we will make churches even bigger. We are a goofy spieses that needs to point fingers at things for their own wrongs. We look at out gov as the police of a free market. If something gets to big at our cost we need to go and whine to someone. That's all it is. If I knew I could only be president for 8 years, 4 years minimum what the hell do you think you'd get accomplished or get away with? " We've meet the enemy..its us".
JimTL1000R 2 years ago
Michael did seem to be open to a compromise at around 50:00, didn't he?
throwntomato 2 years ago
Michael sounds like one of my high-school history teachers. droning... ugh
Crustanarchy 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this, great debate!
boxant 2 years ago
Stef well done you are a wonderfully articulate Speaker. I would love for you to do a podcast on how to debate. Or how to set up for a debate. I would also love for you to explain how to structure a Socratic question. :) Thanks for your wisdom.
J
jaminunit 2 years ago
I just wait for the second part of the debate. Guys, you're good.
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
Stefan, I think you did very well in this debate. You're a really great speaker.
Something that frustrated me a bit was when Mr. Badnarik made the same argument 3 times, which was, "In anarchy, private citizens would have to commit violence to defend themselves, and most people don't want to do this, therefore most people will always be against anarchy.
Of course, this argument is ridiculous. But I think you probably should have addressed it since he mentioned it so much.
DrDoubleplusungood 2 years ago 14
Thanks, I think you're quite right... :)
stefbot 2 years ago 5
In your response to the question about Ayn Rand, you should've simply agreed with her, but in naming the gang that would take over, the government. I was under the impression that you didn't agree with the social contract theory. I read a book about the gangs that populated the Chicago housing projects, they resembled, to me, baby governments.
Crustanarchy 2 years ago 2
A E
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
Thank you.
deadman12078 2 years ago
I'm having a bit of deja vu here. Didn't this same debate already happen?
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
There are lots of reasons an anarchistic region might be invaded - eg, oil, minerals, timber, fresh water, space, weapons (whatever they've got), etc. The idea that a region won't be invaded just because its occupants don't pay taxes is entirely fallacious.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
There was an econ paper that concluded that from all wars analyzed, it would be cheaper to buy the stuff than to invade the country. Economic incentives is seldom the reason for war. Either way, I still think asymmetrical warfare would be the best defense for an anarchist society. Consider how Switzerland has managed to stay neutral of wars.
picapauengracado 2 years ago 4
It depends on how effectively an anarchist society could defend itself as to how expensive it would be to invade an anarchist region. If the anarchist region is not heavily defended, then it would be relatively cheap to invade it.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Yeah, i totally agree. We totally need violent overlords who steal from us by force and dominate our lives without our consent to keep us safe from violent overlords.
Claybird121 2 years ago 13
It's actually not entirely fallacious, just not entirely true. Rome invaded nations for resources, a new tax base, and future military recruits/locations.
Crustanarchy 2 years ago 2
The extra population *might *be a bonus, if you decided to keep them alive, but it need not be the reason for invading a country. It may be preferable to kill the entire population and take their land.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
That wouldn't be a likely approach because rebellion would most likely happen. Rome mostly enslaved and assimilated the populations they took over. They drafted men for "auxiliary units". They did also do what you mentioned above, just not to an entire population. They probably murdered the upper class and stole that wealth.
Crustanarchy 2 years ago
This is so frustrating to watch. Michael is ignoring all the points that Stef makes. Stef is using Michael's points in his arguments. It's like Michael is not in the same world as Stef.
gt8595b 2 years ago 5
i think he is in a parallel universe
modelmark 2 years ago
Badnarik gives an obnoxious argument of civilians training to use weapons, however, they lacked the nerve to kill. Never mind, he assures, actual killing is possible through the agency of government. Great, civilians can shoot up mere targets safe in the knowledge that government will go the full way.
I look for Badnariks checks and balances to find that he cannot operate his state violence with legal paper, it requires "eternal vigilance" (As in vigilantes, perhaps?). He makes my head hurt.
Sliptodance 2 years ago 3
I'm really glad; judging from the questions they asked, there seem to be some very cool people in the audience :D
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago
1) Of course if there was no WW1 there would have been no WW2 because otherwise it would have been called WW1. ^_^
2) What I do not like about constitutionalists is that they treat the Constitution as if it is a Bible. They sound almost like fundamentalists to me, "