Libertarian Enslavement - Dr David R Barker on Freedomain Radio (HD)

[xcvsdxvsx]

Even though in a free society people would have the right to contract in a way that would allow others to beat them on a daily basis, i dont think very many people would sign such a contract. If a person committed a common law crime only their natural right to free travel would need to be revoked. Therefor the beatings used to incentivize slaves in the past would still be against the law and slavery would probably not be particularly efficient with out the whip.

[tonyfalca]

Deposit insurance.. let me see if I've got this right, "if the bank runs out of money, [the government] will pay you" --- so to pay you back, the government then increases its debt, and, ultimately, the burden of paying back that debt is on you. That's absolute nonsense, how fuckin' silly.

[tonyfalca]

I find it beyond suspicious that the majority of governments are established and enforced under the disguise of God's will; I mean, isn't Canadian and or British law based upon a declaration of God? And if so, doesn't government operate from the assumption that, in a sense, whomever establishes and enforces such law is righteous, or they themselves are righteous... I must've missed out on some really important information sometime between my birth and now.

[tonyfalca]

@Skorge729 @LeksServices Sure, labour is voluntary, but when one has to pay for a permit to hunt their food and ultimately their clothing or face the explicit and implicit repercussions; buy property off of an institution, which assumes its ownership over something that cannot be owned without prejudice, to build shelter or face the explicit and implicit repercussions, so on and so forth, it's voluntarism under duress. It's important to note that ownership is a legal concept and nothing more...

[chuckfrmgamestop]

Ownership is the the one cog we can control that allows the machine of social evolution to run, but without a government the only thing protecting my ownership is my ability to defend it from thieves. I may use the free market to hire some people to protect the things that I own but then maybe the thief hires some people to take what I own. This would seem to escalate into a correlation between power and the use of force and I believe would eventually boil down to a central power; government.

[TheGodofAtheists]

AirHead^

[annewilken]

I did not give an opinion, I just wished to share my huge change. I still wish to help, always will, but non-aggression. I do realize I was being hippy-dippy. It is ok sometimes??? Plus I would never force you to help me help (also, I prefer helping those who are trying). I meant well. I will need to re listen now. :)

[annewilken]

enslave??? In my youth I was a democrat. I wanted opportunity for all. I made mine. Some people want a career, that is their life. Other people enough of a job to get by and then HAVE their life. They get to choose. I imagine if you have morals, & heart, he probably left the fed prior to becoming jaded. I am not a democrat anymore...if was part of my growing up (I was taught by schools ran by whom? Kinda makes sense). Just open your mind. Always question...be willing to learn.

[TS175]

If voluntary slavery was a good idea, than the military would be the most financially efficient entity in the government and its soldiers would be content and not killing themselves; but unfortunately, the opposite is true. Instead of Mr. Barker trying to soft sell slavery, why doesn’t he talk about the detrimental effects of overwhelming debt on individuals and the country? That’s the real issue, not trying to get people to enslave themselves to his former colleagues.

[braaitongs]

is this steve carell?

[necrom666]

Awesome and facinating interview. I may watch this a few times.

[ookiemand]

Great, great interview! I love to see Stefan actively thinking, to see the 'weaker side' to Stefan being presented with new and challenging information. - The selling yourself into slavery question. (Which was normal in the days of Rome). It's challenging to be against slavery, being controlled by a government, and then see lazy, misfortune, desperate, misinformed people voluntarily sell themselves into it.

Another question: How do you prevent global monopolies from occurring? - if you mind

[ookiemand]

@ookiemand

Nature is full of power games and tyrannies.

Ants have a strict hierarchy, Bee's do, are al displays of ingrained abilities. It takes energy to reach and live and maintain at a higher level of understanding, controlling ones immediate impulses and strongest drives. How do we prevent falling from the pedestal of voluntarism and liberty? It's so easy to fall back to tyranny and force when enough crises hit us.

Thanks, you've done a great job Stefan!

[pSychOAtDawn]

Slavery implies involuntary servitude. However, in a private property-anarchist society it would be called being some sort of "butler" type job or voluntary servitude, which is 180 degrees in today's spectrum of violence.

[TatutKhem]

The discussion of slavery omitted the distinction of voluntary and involuntary as well as the first principle of nonviolence.

[4HITMAN7]

He is not a Libertarian, he is a globalist.

[4HITMAN7]

I do not understand the title "Libertarian Enslavement" there are to camps of libertarians one is for small government, minimalists the other is for no government but both love freedom. Anarco capitalists are libertarians.

[Intangion]

if self ownership is inalienable. how can you sell it, seems like it would be fraud

[NezumiM]

@Intangion It's definitely a tough question! I could (needless to say) be wrong, but self-ownership seems to imply that you could give permission to another to do some arbitrary thing to you, which would mean that demanding a price for that permission would be okay.

[Intangion]

its really creepy how he advocates slavery..

i think more likely criminals will have to submit to certain restrictions in order to be insured/covered by DROs and whatnot. not really enslaved, or incarcerated, but more closely managed/monitored, probalby live in a controlled environment, or be exiled..

[PersianPaladin]

Stefan Molyneux is an extremist who hates representative government, and loves corporate parasites who prey on the common man.

[NezumiM]

@PersianPaladin　You are talking about the consequential ideas of the views that he holds, which are non-agression and self ownership. While consistency is often viewed as extremism these days, they are not the same. What he displays is the former. I kindly ask you to reflect on the difference between consistency and extremism, and gain an appreciation for how one can be mistaken for the other. I ask this with no sarcasm, no hostility :)

[andrewh817]

@PersianPaladin Your statement proves that you haven't been following Stefan very closely.

[fergus247]

Time tells you that there are problems with government, but its paying you so who cares:)

[fergus247]

what does one do at the fed? when he is a employee?

[szaki]

Dr. Barker at times look like Mr. Beans! hehe!

Banks are full of these nerdy technoc-rats. (o:

[MillionthUsername]

The term "self-ownership" is metaphorical. It applies within the context of social ethics. It becomes circular and meaningless outside of the metaphorical sense. Philosophically it makes no sense to say, "I own me" because "own" is a relation between a subject (person) and an object (property). There is only one subject with "I" and "me," and no object.

How can a person's self, their mind and will, ever become property? Only by alienating a person from personhood. It's absurd.

[TheCapitalistdog]

@MillionthUsername

Self-Ownership simply means an individual has exclusive control over their mind and body. For example, I cannot gain exclusive control over your mind and body, I can only influence it through external means, such as persuasion and coercion.

To try and refute self-ownership requires a person to exercise exclusive control over their mind and body, and thus, validates the axiom.

[MillionthUsername]

@TheCapitalistdog You own property, but you ARE a person.

You can control both, but you cannot alienate both.

This distinction reveals why it's irrational to "argue from self-ownership" that someone can literally sell their person. The fact is that they cannot alienate the self like property to another because they *are* the self. No one could justly enforce a slavery "contract"

once the slave changed their mind. You cannot NOT exercise any control over yourself. : )

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

When you say that "a person cannot alienate herself," you're not only assuming what you're trying to prove, but also ignoring the examples provided.

Selling personal equity, seems to be something that you could conceivably do. Becoming so indebted to the victim of your violent crime that the only way you can pay them back is through indenture, is something you could conceivably do. Doesn't this prove that a person can in fact alienate herself?

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM When you say that "a person cannot alienate herself,"

I did not say that.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

"You own property, but you ARE a person.

You can control both, but you cannot alienate both.

This distinction reveals why it's irrational to "argue from self-ownership" that someone can literally sell their person. The fact is that they cannot alienate the self like property to another because they *are* the self."

That's your last post. It is falsified by the very argument to which you were responding.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM "It is falsified by the very argument to which you were responding."

How?

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

Baker gives examples of how people could, in fact, alienate themselves. You sell personal equity, which is defined as an indefinite obligation upon some or all of your income, or have it claimed as restitution. You responded by building a ratiocinative argument on the premise on the assumption that it is theoretically impossible for people to alienate themselves.

Should I really need to describe how this is problematic?

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM It seems like you didn't read all of my posts because you are not addressing my points at all. The language you are using is clearly metaphorical, yet you glibly claim that a person can actually alienate themselves like property simply because you use the term "equity." The whole point of what I wrote was to make a distinction between person and property. You don't address this. You just repeat the equivocation.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

But you conceded in your first post that, if someone can alienate himself, then his person is a form of property.

The fact is, that unless a third party intervenes to stop you, then you can take any kind of obligation upon your person that you want. However you define the property or faculty of personhood, you can write a voluntary contract which restricts it in some fashion in exchange for something else.

I would argue that this is what "trade" means.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM You can't alienate yourself like you can property. Property can be disposed of. You can't sell 50% of your will to Citibank and have them decide to dispose of their share while you keep yours. You can't hand over your mind to investors and your body to venture capitalists to sell to the Chinese.

You can make agreements to perform, but you just can't logically equate a person to property. Two different things, regardless of any metaphorical overlap.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM You are always you. In order to sell you or a portion of you, you'd have to be able to alienate that portion from you or all of you from you. That's what PROPERTY is. It's alienable stuff. A person is not stuff, but a moral agent with a mind and will, not an object.

The will cannot be alienated from the person. It inheres in the person. You can't decide/contract to sell your will. It sticks to you. It is you. Enforcing a contract like that is unthinkable.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

The reason why "50% of my will to Citibank" is unthinkable isn't that it crosses some subtle metaphysical line to which all men of sound moral judgment recognize, but that it's so impractically and ambiguously defined that no one can claim to know what it means. If you specified what it means, in practical terms, to "alienate 50% of your will," then the enforcement of that contract becomes conceivable, if not necessarily practical.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM "If you specified what it means, in practical terms, to 'alienate 50% of your will,'"

You keep falling back upon metaphor. Metaphorically, you can do anything. You can "reach the stars." Yes, you can "specify" ANYTHING, that doesn't mean you ACTUALLY are ABLE TO alienate your will from yourself LIKE PROPERTY. That's because a person is NOT property.

Metaphorically, you can "sell" yourself or "buy" time. But basing logic on metaphor won't work.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM If you apply metaphorical language to everything, then you can never make proper distinctions. And philosophy depends upon being able to make those distinctions. You have to be able to say A is like B in this or that way, but A is not B since, in X situation, they don't correlate. So, you'd conclude definitely that A does not equal B. That would help you to refine the concepts of A and B so that they are a solid basis upon which to build other concepts.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM I haven't though about it too much, but off hand I'd say that what we term "self-ownership," for the sake of shorthand in discussing social ethics, is more like personal sovereignty. It's "ownership" in the sense that no other person has a right to control us and dispose of us like property, but that correlation to property ends when you consider what a person is vs what property is. We use the term to oppose coercive acts, not to define personhood.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@MillionthUsername

You're the one confusing the issue with nebulous terms like "will" and "person".

I completely agree that the contract "I give ownership of my person to Citibank" is unenforceable. That does not mean that anything that you define as falling under the umbrella of "selling one's person" is inherently unethical or impossible. The proof of this is that, when you disambiguate the word "person" - that is, actually list all the practical, observable items and -

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

-

- actions you're contracting for - then the contract becomes at least theoretically enforceable.

The contract "I relinquish ownership of the red thing to Citibank" is also unenforceable. That's because no judge can claim to have the faintest idea of just what the Hell you're talking about. That does not mean that whatever deal you had in mind when writing it is impossible or unethical. Just explain clearly what you're supposed to do and what with, and voíla - enforceable.

[MillionthUsername]

@PanzerDivisionBOM "You're the one confusing the issue with nebulous terms like "will" and "person"."

Nebulous terms? Ok.

I think I've said all I need to say. I don't want to say anything else.

[donworland]

1)The organization for investing in students exists, they are called Benevolence Societies. Oft-times in my upbringing I knew kids from the descendency of some 'village' in Guandong that got money if they graduated with the best grades for school. It's how the community got by without round eyes taxing their money. Sicilians did this here as well.

2)Brazil has anti-slavery military units that are HARD at work today.

Human trafficking, narcotics and contraband the hidden hand of the state?

[zikalify]

The incentive for someone to work is a roof over their head in most cases.

[arion45]

*would not

[arion45]

The will is inalienable. You can not contract it away. To force people to work as an indentured servant would be done by the threat of cutting people out of society if they did not comply. They would be physically forced to do so. Scarey that this guy doesn't get it quite yet.

[not2tees]

Conscious consumers with moral concerns will become more and more necessary as we move into truly free markets. Slavery could be part of the free market, though. A slavery that would permit the slaves to work toward their freedom, as was the case in the Roman era, could be good for both the slave and the slave owner involved.

[not2tees]

If you want to save up for something and pay cash for it, and so avoid the accursed money lenders, zero interest is the best thing for those money lenders, so far. In the future, saving money could be thought of as some kind of unfair abuse of money lending institutions, and so could be penalized. For the time being, zero interest will have to do.

[weablez]

This guy seems like a completely ignorant amateur on these topics. I'd be shocked if he's ever read the likes of Mises or Rothbard for example--it doesn't show if he has. Not surprised in the least he worked for the Fed.

[st3jace]

15:00 I think people have learned to chant for their 'favorite team.' Just like sports and everything, we just have to have idols and guru's, so we will keep looking for someone to look after us. We need a culture which respects how things come into being and value relationships. I think it's possible, we just have a long way to go.

[ashane77]

fascinating discussion...thanks!

[mike6459]

baby boomers value the present over the future

[TS175]

He's a former Federal Reserve employee, so it's no surprise he's thinking of ways to enslave people.

[mweibleii]

@TS175

Haa! True, but, I think it's fine to think about Slavery and markets. I personally always thought Slavery retarded economic development.

[szaki]

@mweibleii

No, it didn't!

As they saying on the video clip, technology/mechanization , price of slaves going up illuminated slavery.

Also, it was very unpopular institution!

You should see the movie -BURN!- Marlon Brando

>>The professional mercenary Sir William Walker instigates a slave revolt on the Caribbean island of Queimada in order to help improve the British sugar trade..<<<

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@TS175

I think calling voluntary indenture by the name "slavery" is deceptive, and highly insensitive to those who have actual slavery in their family history, not to mention the tens of millions of people today who were born or captured and sold into slavery.

Trading personal equity, or putting it up as collateral to get a loan, is a choice. Owing restitution to someone for a violent crime you've comitted against them, is a choice.

Slavery is NOT a choice.

[NezumiM]

@TS175 I want to call you out on this, he's not advocating slavery; he is contemplating whether it is profitable... a good thing to know whether you are an advocate or an opponent. The man is a *former* fed employee, but he's clearly got an open mind and that's really something! It's certainly not overwhelmingly common for people to be able to expose their worldview to scrutiny.

[dirint]

@TS175 Former.. meaning.. He quit.. --a

[TerrierBram]

In fact bought Greece tanks on debt from Germany. America did not only took over our defense, after American business men financed for 70% nazi Germany in their quite militant activities, they poisoned our culture with their petrochemical carcinogenic agricultural activities. Which now have be changed to be able to have food. I hate this America the good picture. It is a hideous country full of profound stupid imbeciles and grand children of all the psychopaths we threw out of Europe.

[shadowbankers]

What about currency based on the value of the company?

[SpykerSpeed]

I don't think a society that respects private property rights as much as anarchocapitalists would like them to, would end up getting into the slavery business. I mean certainly it's PHYSICALLY possible, on a small scale. But culturally it would just be massively diametrically opposed to market-based defense.

[jarvy251]

@SpykerSpeed

Well under a free society, the obvious question is how do you keep your slaves?

If they escape, there's no government to help you get them back. Any expensive gulag facility you would need to prevent their escape would cost more money than it's worth.

[molapft]

@jarvy251

and slaves do a remarkable bad job. youre better off with a robot.

[jarvy251]

@molapft

Even if you do not have access to robots, when you consider the costs of guards, weapons, equipment, fences, bounty hunters to bring slaves back...

It's cheaper and easier to just hire workers.

[jonesey5168]

Dr Barker thinks that the Fed debasing the dollar 95%+ in the last 100 years is "remarkable ". Lost me right there.

[Iseeyoursoul]

i hope David Barker never gets into positions of power, he'll enslave us all !!!

[Skorge729]

David also kept switching between voluntary slavery and non voluntary slavery. He was talking about slavery in the past which was forced onto people and then mid sentence switched over to talking about people entering into contracts where they would give up portions of their future income from their labor.

[LeksServices]

@Skorge729 - The line between "voluntary" and "involuntary" is very fine. So fine, in fact, that when you must work to have basic needs met, the line may very well end up being crossed.

This is the problem with your ideology. You take one of the most basic needs of any human being - A PLACE TO SLEEP - and you PUT A PRICE ON IT. When you MUST work just to have a place to sleep, is your labor truly "voluntary," or is it "forced?"

It is in this way you're "voluntary" actions lead to feudalism.

[Skorge729]

@LeksServices The line between voluntary and involuntary is very defined. One uses force to achieve its means, one doesnt. No one is sticking a gun to someones head when they offer wages at $1 an hour. No one is making you accept the job either its a voluntary contract. No one has a entitlement to a place to sleep, eat, or breed. They only have the "right" to self ownership and the ownership of their actions. Labor is voluntary until someone sticks a gun to your head and makes you work.

[Alectr0n]

@Skorge729 The standard reply is that someone who is desperate enough to work at such a low wage has no choice in the first place.

[Skorge729]

@Alectr0n Certainly, if I was starving and had to take a $1 an hour job I would have to do so to survive. However the employer is not sticking a gun to anyones head to make them do so. I am "forced" to take a job because if I do not work I will starve but the employer is not the one forcing me to do so. The fact that we live in a world where desires are infinite and resources are finite dictate that we have to work to eat. So blame the universe for not having infinite resources. =P

[yanpagh]

ah so this is why those economists are jumping into the libertarian bandwagon, they wish to implement slavery again.

Actually his arguments that slavery is highly productive is wrong. For every railroad track the south produced the north produced seven (and this was back then imagine now with our industrial progress) so this is why the south lost and all slave based societies (still today) are technically backwards. Least efficiency.

[LeksServices]

@yanpagh - Your argument is "if people want to build something, they'll build it more and faster."  But your argument, and it sounds like the guy Stef's talking to also missed, is that YOUR BASIC NEEDS NOW HAVE A PRICE ON THEM. If you MUST work just to have a place to sleep, ignoring food, clothes, heat, water, and medical care, then is it truly "voluntary" decision? "Voluntary" means "OPTIONAL." If work is not "optional," it is not "voluntary," making it "slavery."

[jarvy251]

@LeksServices

"YOUR BASIC NEEDS NOW HAVE A PRICE ON THEM."

Basic needs already have a price on them. Instead of paying a "bill," you pay a "tax." These two words have the same meaning.

This creates two problems.

1-Because the government has a monopoly, they can raise the "prices" of services to higher than they are worth.

2-Because the services are also provided to people who do not pay taxes, the government does not "profit" and must go into debt, causing it's collapse.

[jarvy251]

@LeksServices

To explain what I mean by "The government does not profit-"

Because the government provides these services to both people who pay for them, and people who do not pay for them, the services cost more money than what the government takes in, so the government goes into debt. This is ok for a little while, but as the debt grows, the government will eventually collapse as it becomes clear to lenders that the debt cannot be paid back.

[alique087]

Why was this reposted?

[wrednynerd]

@alique087 read the title

[TheReallitycheck]

@alique087 your too smart move on for the next upload.