It might be too late for our generation. So pull your children out of public schools & into alternatives with an emphasis on real (non cult worship revisionist) history, fiscal mastery, and a strong understanding of civic duty. Above all, critical thinking. Home school them if you are capable of imparting this knowledge.
That statistic. 100,000 deaths, including 4,000 American soldiers. I never understood how being annoyed at the fact that American soldiers are somehow propped up as a greater loss in that statistic, could be seen as radical. Then I looked up the etymological history of the word "radical" and realized that it's really not a bad thing. It comes from the Latin word "radix", which means "root." Sure, I'm a radical by that understanding. I like getting to the root of things. Humans are humans.
The moral ground as it has become is if you are the top or connected heavily with the top, you can do whatever you want. As for the rest of us, well where does that leave us? It's kind of like chess, there are Kings and there are pawns and that is just the way it has always been, of course you can always look at it through shaded sun glasses, that way it will look better.
If we have a state free life is there some mean to keep the people with the most wealth from hiring mercenaries (turning military) to keep their assets safe? I am not even talking about them protecting them self from theft but also to get power to keep it though valance. What would stop them from becoming lords of a fatalistic society. What going to stop one tribe from dominating another. You made some good arguments that statism does not work but is still seems inevitable?
your title is a bit misleading Mr. Molyneux. while youre right Statism is dead morally and intellectually, it is not only alive but thriving in any physical sense. (afterall physical force, not any sort of truth, is what it operates on anyway, as you say).
Every day it passes new laws to increase its power. Every day the need for government increases (albeit wrongly, in the eyes of many misled people) as new problems and hostilities emerge in the world.
You are some smart cookie, but i think you are missing something. Statism was always dead. The negativity that we are fighting as evil gave us statism in the first place. Also, I think your numbers of the Iraq war deaths are too low. Half a million children is one number. When Bush went to Calgary, a truthseeker tried to arrest him and got thrown in jail. Finally, I think I am against liberalism. There should be no tolerance for people like Bush in the world, anywhere ever!
Well. I guess I will have to find out what occurred between October 1, 2002 through October 7, 2002. Do you know what other information came in during that time? Also, I find it hard to follow your logic because sometimes you state your conclusions as assumptions. If I don't agree with your assumptions, then we most likely will never agree on our conclusions.
Ron Paul's function appears to that of distraction. Ron will still be a fed and will still perpetuate the failed idea that the feds are something other than the enemy of humans in America and the world. The act of occupying any federal office is an act of violence regardless of who it is that is actually in office.
All of my posts have made it to the board. The way I'm replying to you is by compiling those of yours that I receive in my e-mail.
I've pointed out many of your strawmen. How many more do I have to do? When you make a statement that I have not made and present it as something that I have said or believe you are creating a strawman in order to knock it down. It´s a misrepresentation of my position that you can easily defeat.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My 3rd part never posted. Hummm. Okay, let´s try a different approach. I hadn't realized that there is such a thing as an anrachist as dumber or perhaps even dumber than a republican.
You're in your anarchy. You have a contract dispute with another party. He still owes you money, or services, or whatever. How do you resolve this dispute legally in your anarchic system?
@ChimeraWarrior73 That is an excellent question, I have released a free book entitled Practical Anarchy, and audio book and PDF format, on my website, you might want to check out the answer to your question :)
@stefbot Sorry, I disagree. It's not an "excellent" question-it's the same literal minded stupidity that rules the primitive thought processes of most people.
Confederatesocialist here on youtube has some damn good examples of stateless "public" services that i haven't heard stef mention personally. (Maybe he has, but i did not stumble upon it.)
@ExquisiteDoom Yes it is difficult to follow who said what when and where. You really need to try harder at reading what people say and not reading INTO it what you want it to say. I´ve never said that those 4 are the only traits that we have. They are-IMO-4 major human characteristics that play a major role in eventually corrupting, thus guaranteeing the eventual failure of, any ¨ism¨we come up with. Ciao! It's been fun. Best to you.
It really is very simple to understand. Homo sapiens possess 4 character flaws or traits which always are at the root of his problems. The State is NOT a living, breathing entity. The State can do nothing! Only people functioning within the framework of that which we have labeled the State can do any of the things of which you speak. A legitimate government is accountable and responsive to the people and functionaries are not above the law. A State is closer to totalitarianism.
That's a non answer, you're not participating and still putting the words legitimate and government together despite the fact that there is extortion involved as original sin. Even putting the words together sheds light on your ignorance on the subject, you're either making a value claim, or inadvertently contradict yourself . If it's a value claim, then you contradict your anti-violence stance.
If the 4 traits are included in our DNA, and statism leads to unhealth in every empirical case, isn't it just possible anarchy is the solution? There's a lot of information out there to support the fact that when human volition and autonomy is unfettered, those same humans outgrow the need for violence, fraud and deceit. Let me add those 2 traits to your negative 4. Volition and autonomy. I'm sure you can add many more positive traits.
Just for clarification purposes, i realise the state is not a living entity, i realize it comes down to people making a choice , however when you have the bureaucratic class extorting money from people whom may or may not need the "services" then there is no way to say no, or limit the funds if the services are horrible. You're giving a liscence to kill, extort, kidnap a group of PEOPLE by another group of PEOPLE. Of course it's going to lead to exploitation because it's not VOLUNTARY.
Another clarification that i did overlook. Turns out i was wrong to blugeon governments; since i am myself an advocate of self-governance. Any other form however is asking for trouble.
If youre such an expert on the scientific method perhaps you can explain why you commit 3 logic fallacies on your first 3 sentences; hasty generalization, false dichotomy, and another wagon load of straw men. Your trying to ¨figure out¨ my position rather than allowing it to develop through the course of commentary is precisely your weakness. You choose to read into another persons comments rather than reading and asking for explanations on the part(s) that you are not clear on.
Well that's all good and dandy, but you're still not pointing out those fallacies. You still haven't explained why they are strawmen, nor answered any of my questions i have just presented you with.
You either have statism, or anarchism, if that's a false dichotomy, explain. If you can't explain, then you were most likely wrong about your ISM's. If you detest violence, then you're yourself an anarchist.
Answer my questions accordingly, and if they were falsely built, point it out.
As a species we´re less than 200 thousand years out of the savanna. We only crawled out of the medieval swamp of superstition and into enlightenment a few hundred years back. Until we—as a species—are able to recognize and truly evaluate our strengths and weaknesses any social framework we design is doomed to failure eventually. It may start out fairly decent but given time it will become distorted, corrupted, and crumble.
When one understands one´s strengths and weaknesses life is anything but depressing. Knowing your limits helps you to better navigate through life. Life is what it is and there´s little one man can do alone to effect any significant change. Before you distort what I just said; be clear that little change is not equivalent to no change at all. Homo sapiens ¨fear¨ change; that´s why it takes such a long time to advance further down the road of enlightenment.
Your flippant remarks about not trying to change, educate, or giving in to the status quo are meant to further distort my position. That´s pure poppycock! Those are your strawmen that you use to oversimplify my position and easily knock down because you are actually debating yourself. You have a foundational bias.
I´ve pointed out a couple of your distortions already. You simply chose to ignore them. Here´s another one for you: 1.¨you refuse to elaborate on how violence magically prevents violence.¨ Where did I say that? Especially since I know that violence begets submission, annihilation, or more violence until one side dominates. Here´s another distortion: 2. ¨You´d still have to prove that the state is a result of our DNA¨ Would you care to show us that quote?
Surely if those 4 traits bring havoc, it is part of our DNA, correct?
If you claim anarchism doesn't work, then surely you're claiming statism works?
Why would you put the words legitimate and government together if you don't beleive it?
If you desire for little change, how can you desire this change to be in a statist setting? (You said legitimate government after all). And how can a statist solution be non-violent and moral other than by dissolving it?
I'm sorry for using the scientific method and using hypotheses to figure out your position. I can't figure out it without using my own words to describe wether i understand your position or not, i'm sorry this passes off for a strawman, but you refuse to budge from your hole and have refused to explain why they are unreasonable, which in turn would make you unreasonable. I'm merely asking questions, you're not giving me any relevant answers, which is only slimey at best.
The State is not a living breathing entity. The State is comprised of ideas and humans functioning within a framework originating from those ideas. The ¨isms¨don't work because of our 4 evolutionary traits. Avarice, hubris, envy and fear. And if you like you can throw in Homo sapiens´ abhorrence of the truth.
.... So because PEOPLE are greedy, envious, fearful and arrogant.... we should give a group of PEOPLE an army, a judicial system, roads a police force and much more. Makes perfect sense to me, i think chocolate, sugars, and possibly cyanide is bad for me, maybe if i ingest more i'll have a better constitution than the Hulk.
@ExquisiteDoom This is what happens when a Homo sapien confronts the truth; it begins to babble on incoherently trying to wiggle away so that it won't have to face it.
Your allegory is a massive fail. Would you like to try again?
I don't have any problem with logic. I simply haven't seen any logic exhibited by you. You make a little strawman, knock him down, and then believe that an argument from personal incredulity proves your point.
Uhm, you never brought anything to the table as to why this is considered a strawman. It's called reasoning from first principles. Tell me, how is government not violence? Make a point will you.
A strawman argument is a misrepresentation or over simplification of an opponents argument. ALl I've said is that no ¨ism¨works because of our 4 evolutionary traits. To read what you've written I´ve presented an entire desertation here.
There are many aspects of government that are violent just as there are others that aren´t. If you are injuried and carried to the hospital by a government provided ambulance service is that service provided you violence or succor?
"There are many aspects of government that are violent just as there are others that aren´t. If you are injuried and carried to the hospital by a government provided ambulance service is that service provided you violence or succor?" How is it funded? Surely, if this service is so important people would voluntarily organize to provide it. It doesn't make any logical sense to extort to provide it. Why not extort people to feed them? What about their haircut? It's completely arbitrary.
(cont) "ALl I've said is that no ¨ism¨works because of our 4 evolutionary traits." isn't THAT an oversimplification? Especially since one of the "ism" has nothing to do with the others. One is simply incompatible with the state, while the others are impossible in practise.
(cont2) from the point that the money is extorted it automatically implies that you cannot cut the revenue if the "service" is crap. You can't even call it a service. Which this leads to a plethora of unintended consequences. Seeing as how it's based on force, who are you as an individual to fight back?Are you going to choose political action so that you may point the gun at those who charged you for the shit service?Can't see how this snowballs into immoral action and never justifies the means?
No it isn´t an oversimplification. It´s quite complicated when it comes to accepting the truth about us as a species and how we go about dealing with these character flaws or evolutionary traits.
Homo sapiens are imperfect thus no system designed by Homo sapiens can be perfect. None are compatible with the State. The State is not a living, breathing entity. There is also a difference between a legitimate government and a State. If you mean anarchism as the one ¨ism¨ that is not compatible you are correct.
Okay, isn't it contradictive to assert "Homo sapiens are imperfect thus no system designed by Homo sapiens can be perfect"
then "The State is not a living, breathing entity. There is also a difference between a legitimate government and a State."
People suck, but we should still have people rule over others.... you're still living a lie right there. perhaps you should elaborate in order to make a logical statement. Legitimate government... LOL.
Your problem is that not only is it not compatible, it is impossible; it´s impossible due to the four evolutionary traits. The economic mess that the U.S. and the world are suffering through is due in large part to avarice and economic terrorism (anarchy). If humans have a hand in something and it goes awry you can trace it back to one or more of those 4 traits.
Okay. if you dig deep enough i garantee it comes down to patent law arbitrage and state created entities such as corporations defrauding people, or government enforced monopolies wasting time and money.
Anarchy has nothing to do with terrorism, you're just flinging assumptions left and right.
Let's deal with your 4 traits first and point out how the state is not violent or explain how it justifies the means. I'm not gonna let you flee away from your potential contradiction.
@ExquisiteDoom: I´m not going to flee. Hang in there. The very reasons that the State is so screwed up are the same reasons this anarchic fallacy won´t work. Homo sapiens and those 4 basic evolutionary traits. Youre looking at effects and not causes.
That's a non-answer again. Because of 4 basic evolutionary traits, we should have "legitimate" government. That's just circular reasoning, dude. If you have a genuine point to make i'll be there, if you don't, i'm going to have to put an end to this debate.
@ExquisiteDoom The only thing circular here is your constant distortions of what I have said. Are you or are you not an English speaker? Rather than read what I say you are reading into it. Where have I said that because of those 4 traits we have to have a government legitimate or otherwise? I´ve said exactly the opposite. Because of those 4 traits no ¨ism¨ functions perfectly. They´re all doomed to failure. History is full of examples. Show me an example of anarchy working.
Um, what about googling them? Anarchy has been around for far longer than statism has.
Your problem is that instead of pointing out where the "distortions" in my claims are you simply fall back to your 4 traits, that's circular reasoning and dishonest. You refuse to elaborate on how violence magically prevents violence, or why we need your legitimate government when that hasn't happened in history either. I'm not in the tough spot here, you're stuck in a loop and refuse to venture outside.
Or perhaps let's not try to change anything or educate anyone about the folly of the state, because you know, we can't do anything about it since we have 4 traits, you know. so let's just opt for the status quo. Which also has it's own inherent contradictions... You'd still have to proove that the state is a result of our DNA even though it leads to unhealth consistently... and it's also a very depressing way to live a life.
@ExquisiteDoom you were answered. I put them at the top of the comments rather on reply. I still don´t see them. I´ll check later to verify that they´re there.
Okay you know that, this youtube confusion shit gets the best of me, i appreciate the debate, i've learned much, i'm going to have to put a stop to it before this degenerates. If this were a forum i could address every single point you're trying to make, but alas it's not the case.
However you still do display certain contradictory characteristics in your line of thinking, and your 4 traits aren't all there is (see Doctor Phillip Zimbardo) there are several conditions to meet. Good bye.
I´ve listened to Stef for at least 3 years now and while he really seems to be a very sincere and amicable person--a really great guy--his utopian anarchy or stateless society model has a fatal flaw man!
So anarchy has a fatal flaw because we're homo sapiens? Non answers are worse than not giving any answers at all, it retards your own advancement. It's like saying God did it.
Had you taken the time to read further down the comments section you'd see that it's not a non answer.
It won't work because of the same reasons none of the ¨isms¨don't work. Homo sapiens have 4 major evolutionary traits that eventually ruin any social system we design.
If the State is finished why are they all still here?
I don't expect this to change in my lifetime. lol, but i have no problem being the example by applying the anarchist's values.
And uh. The only reason any of those isms don't work is due to the state. Wether or not the state is a reflection of our DNA is still left to be debated. Living a contradictory life doesn't sound very healthy to me anyway.
We already have voluntarism. UK, OZ, NZ, Canada are common law jurisdictions. That means do no harm & do not cause loss. & that includes the govt ,not just individuals. Check out "Bursting bubbles of government deception" by Robert Arthur Menard. Freeman-on-the-land is one way to voluntarism.
-and stefbot's "news reports" are found to be false
- Can anyone believe stefbot's truth claims ever again?
Title of report "statism is dead" is in itself false, therefore stefbot is not to be trusted. Wow, didn't have to go to far to find that falsehood...there's many more I could list if I cared to devote the time to it...look back over my other posts there's lots.
I cant help but be reminded of that part in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
Isn't it natural for humans to live in a hierarchical society where those under the top will always be subjected more or less to the will of those powers on top.
If we remove the government, there would just be a power vacuum possibly taken over by mega corporations or with people with significant influence, in which we'll be back to square one.
Since a ruling class can only be supported through aggression, at least without a state there's a much more level playing field to resist potential aggressors. Furthermore, states only really have power through the silent consent of the majority. If people learned to see such things as obviously evil--the way they see slavery today--it would be much more difficult to maintain one.
There is also a much more level playing field for potential aggressors to oppress.
There rest of what you refer to is also known as the social contract. If you succeed in destroying peoples trust in government you will find that you've also destroyed peoples in society in general, thus broader society no longer exists... Only fractions competing for control and dominance.
The whole world is carved up into 200 prison camps controlled by violent oligarchies, and you worry about "potential oppression"? States can't protect you from violence, for they are based on violence.
The "social contract" is a justification for violence. similar to the divine right of kings. The state is not society, but a tyranny. The fact that it may have the passive consent most individuals doesn't justify this, anymore than it justified slavery. Aggression is always evil.
That doesn't make any sense... Breaking someone's trust in violence would cause people to be destroyed? Unless i'm somehow strawmanning you, it's a logical fallacy.
That is exactly what I've been wondering. You can get rid of one massive power, but our civilization is set up so another massive power will just take it's place. The only way to avoid this would be to eliminate civilization itself... and that would be a messy prospect.
If forced to choose between an oppressive state and an oppressive mega corporation, I'd take the former. Mega corporations have even greater potential for oppression in that they're transnational.
Is it Now at Last becoming clear to America that democracy is Not an option any longer ... ???
We all live within Corporations Great Britain Corp .. Homeland Security Corp ... we actually live within Maritime Law in Admiralty Jurisdiction !! FACT .. our countries are trading Us, the people .. our lives, our labour .. through Bonds .. OUR Bonds
The first vid in this series (outstanding) had me psyhed up, and this delivered on a more level plane... I am now in the zone. Thanks, I needed this, tonight. Somehow I always find, rather they find me, things I'd forgotten I was looking for.
To attack Bush you must attack all of his conspirators, otherwise they go on. Bush is only a face to a larger force, whom works in the background through various organizations and loopholes. If anything, the President is a sacrifice and expendable.
The name of the expendable creature is "cat's paw." The aphorism is about a monkey the wants something in a fire and uses a cat's paw to get the thing. The monkey is unscathed while the cat is expendable.
In Obama's cabinet it would be wise to consider that while Cheney was CFR so is Michelle Obama - both board of directors. What about the Federal Reserve? Goldman Sachs? Look into the financial/corporate links and you'll find a sudden desire for a stiff drink.
Obama isn't a police man. It's up to the attorney general to prosecute Bush, not Obama.
Your overblown rhetoric is hard to take.
You never even bother to define voluntarism before you declare it to be intellectually superior to your strawman statism.
"...I step over this murder in order to give someone a parking ticket..." Give me an F'n break. Is it ironic that you spend half the video attacking Bush just to toe his party line for the rest of the vid.?
I'm not sure what you mean. There are other parties but none that are viable. OR are you trying to say there both the same party and the choice between them is an illusion? I've considered that concept and find it in itself to be an illusion, created in part to disfranchise the electorate.
Indeed. There can only be two. Two choices. You must either be one or the other. The whole of human thought can be expressed within the confines of the n"two" parties: Republican or Democrat.
If you do not agree that clearly means that the other person is the opposite of you. What else could there possibly be?
You logic is truly admirable. By God I wish that you were head of our noble government. You would oust the ___s from their seats and show us how good the ___s are.
I didn't say there were only two choices. I said there are only two viable choices, and what I should have added was 'currently in America'.
It is the anti-statists position that there are only two choices (state or anarchy) and makes no distinction between different types of states. 'All states are evil' is an absolute claim I find nauseatingly simplistic.
I hope that your right wing philosophy never gains control of the government again. Anarchy is as far right as it gets.
If it weren't coming from you I'd be insulted at being accused of "right wing."
I'd like to note that you use the qualifier "currently in America." Doesn't that kind of tell you that the whole thing is a big pile of crap? We have to pretend that these parties are really important so that we have something to vote for. When really the only thing we're voting for is whether we get peed on or shat on.
Personally, I think Right and Left are constructs for babies.
the fact that I'm clueless? That's not a fact that's your presumption that since I'm disputing your claims I must not know what I'm talking about. "your" makes it personal and "clueless" is an insult.
I will not accept that I'm mistaken based on you assertion alone. I'm actually a person that requires the burden of proof be met. I've learned quite a bit on this subject and I've found it's mostly based on fallacy and not fact.
I'd like to point out that under Bush the government got a lot bigger. Many in the Right Wing speak of smaller government, but the practice is the opposite. Look at the policies of "both parties" and you'll see the exact same proceedures and rhetoric - carefully delineated to appear as Real Choice.
Make no mistake. The only difference between Obama's policies and Bush's are that one happened before the other. We simply watched the puppet show change characters.
How could you procecute Bush with a legal system that comes from the very state you call illegitimate?
How do you go from IF genocide to genocide happened? It's an extraordinary claim that require extraordinary evidence, you've failed to provide any. Genocide is not mass murder. Uh, aren't there Dems. that called for Bushes impeachment?
The virtue of the early US? You mean slavery or genocide of the natives? Which one was part of your early US utopia?
I don't choose to be governed also. But I think about it differently than you. I run my own life, as all people should. However, we have our reputations.
No one will trust anyone who's above the law, so why would you want that anyways. It's a trust issue. I want people to trust me, I can't do that if I have "above the law" status granted to me by the government at my own choosing. I look at the tiers of reputation individuals and governments have in order to trust them on diff levels.
Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. In my view and most everyone's is that if a man or woman threatens them with violence to compel them to use their service, they recognize it as a criminal act that is against the law.
Talk about being above the law. A description of "above the law" should read as follows: "See government".
I'm fine with government that doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any one or their property.
Veridia, you've certainly made it clear that YOU desire and or need to be governed. I respect your choice to be governed.
I on the other hand do not chose to be governed and will make good any harm I cause to a person or their property. As man of his word, honor and integrity I do not commit acts of harm against other people or their property. I'm a man of peace.
It is you that's a danger. For you want to use force/violence to govern me.
People who are men of honor and integrity generally don't have problems with the government, for they respect authority. Most of the people in prison today are people with anti-social personality disorder, and they don't respect authority, or anyone else for that matter.
The only danger is that you trust people too much so as to let them be above the law. I want to be able to trust people enough, so that I feel safe. I can't trust people in a society where some get the right to be above the law. Then we create a society where everybody has to watch his back. Fine, you have integrity, that doesn't mean I trust you enough for you to be above the law; hence ungovernable.
This guy is a complete loon. America has improved its values tremendously since inception. Lets see. Abolishing slavery, establishing worker rights, ending Jim Crow, Great Society, ending the great depression and stablizing the economy. Recognizing that internment of the Japanese was a mistake, so we didn't do the same to the Arabs after 9/11. We've improved tremendously.
The only government to drop not just one one, but two atomic bombs on two cities. Governments created Jim Crow laws in the first place. The government allowed the *_PRIVATELY OWNED_* Federal Reserve to be established in 1913 which caused the great depression.
People wrote the Jim Crow laws. Their hatred and lack of proper values were the problem, not government. Stop blaming government for bad people's actions.
The dropping of atomic bombs ended a war that would have netted a bigger loss of life had they not been dropped.
The great depression was temporary, it only lasted 5 years.
If man is incapable of self governing how is it that he could be capable of governing others? To which I respond...
"I'm fully capable of self-governing. I'll never intentionally harm or initiate force, fraud or coercion against anyone or their property. I realize accidents do happen and if I cause harm to anyone or their property I will correct the situation so they are whole again. If you are incapable of self-governing yourself then perhaps you need government.
"I still think government is unnecessary because I can competently protect myself and my property from you without enlisting a gang of men and women pretending to be government agents -- which is nothing more than men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun -- to do it for me. That said, I'll respect your freedom to be governed by others and expect you to respect my freedom to not be governed by others."
LOL, the redoubtable zonsb. You have no experience protecting yourself from others without the cocoon of government protection. You have no idea what you would be up against should government close up shop. I smell ego and inexperienced arrogance in your post. Without government, people will be coming to your house with shotgun ready to loot your possessions. Gangs will run rampant, killings, rapes, theft will be everywhere. Government is a psychological force that stablizes society.
That you can't be trusted to self-govern ranks among the small minority of people that are mentally incompetent and or deficient.
Govt. is irrelevant no matter what type it is so long as the Law is that no one shall initiate force, fraud or coercion against anyone or their property.
I respect your choice to be governed by what ever means you chose -- chose any degree of initiated force, fraud and coercion against yourself and property. I expect you to respect my right to not be governed.
It's about what is best for society, not the individual. Sure, there are a few people that would do well without government. Gangleaders, criminal enterprises, outlaws, ruthless people who would take advantage of others.
I seriously doubt that you are fully capable of protecting yourself. That just sounds like arrogance to me. God complexes and narcissism are not wise recipies for the human character.
Man is capable of self-governing alongside government. Government creates the stability which a civilization requires. Without government all hell breaks loose.
No offense, but "I'm fully capable of self-governing", sounds like someone is an insecure, arrogant, SOB.
Because of government society is stable enough for people to "self-govern". It is only in periods of instability where by people can't handle themselves. Hyperinflation is a classic example, as they led the Nazis to power.
I wouldn't say that the Founding Fathers created statism - in fact, I would suggest that they created the exact opposite through the foundation of a society based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and over time we have taken our eyes away from government and fixed them on our own lives...the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we have not been vigilant. When you look at the Bill of Rights, you're looking at the template for the world's first free society of sovereign individuals.
Because without a government one would see the true meaning of "dog eat dog"... You want a lord of the flies scenario. Just eliminate government and watch everyone fend for themselves and do whatever the hell they want. Gangs would instantly rule the streets with racketeering... a very common form of domestic terrorism. And frankly, I'd rather be ruled by the United States of America than MS13, the bloods, the crips or the Mexican Mafia.
You're kidding right. A nation that has slavery is clearly not a nation based on freedom. The United States was founded on a deeply racist and slave owning foundation. Only land owners were allowed to vote in the beginning. Gradually, we changed into what we are now... which is better than what we were before.
Government sets a standard of values through the code of laws. Before the code of laws we were a very primitive species. I prefer the advances that came from the presence of government, and certainly we don't want to go back to being cavemen because of the arrogance of a few people who think they can hack it on their own without government to set societal standards.
A government is just another monopoly of force, you have a very basic understanding of politics but anarchic systems have been historically shown to be no more chaotic and even less chaotic than normal nation states. A system without a government doesn't meant there would be no law and courts, it just means that people would be free to choos what rules they would like for themselves.
By no means would I want people to be free to choose what rules they would like for themselves. Imagine playing chess or tennis by that principle and saying the pawn could move 4 spaces instead of 1... The system doesn't work unless the rules fairly apply to all. No one gets to murder, rape, etc. I'm against any system of law based on relativistic ethics.
The rule of law should apply equally to all. People choosing their own rules is relativistic ethics, and that is just wrong.
Slavery never was abolished it's just been "outsourced", and how can you not describe statism and collectivism as anything but highly organised slavery?
"Gangleaders, criminal enterprises, outlaws, ruthless people who would take advantage of others."
True slavery involves being the property of another. Savery was not outsourced. And money doesn't grow on trees so people will have to work for a living whether there is a government or not.
I simply prefer there being a government, because government creates a stabilizing force upon the people.
The Founding Fathers didn't create a society based on individual liberty. We had slavery at the time. A society based on individual liberty does not have so much liberty as to allow people to subjugate and enslave one another.
The founding fathers are grossly overrated. True progress began with the emancipation proclaimation.
Freedom comes with responcibility. The latter we will all be slaves to, whether we like it or not.
And freedom is inherent, not something that is given by government.
The emancipation proclomation has been debunked as pure propoganda which the federal government was incapable of enforcing, im suprised you are naive enough to bring it up.
Whether you call it propoganda or not, slavery was still abolished. It made good PR, sure. Abolishing slavery made America look good in the eyes of Europe, who didn't believe in slavery at that time.
Ethics matters, and slavery is wrong. This whole choose your own ethics attitude here is rather absurd. A universal code of ethics is important to the development of civilization. Hence, we are not cavemen anymore, and we don't adhere to ethical relativism.
I agree with everything you say in all your videos, your bang on on all topics. I believe however that your one problem with your ideology is greed/selfishness, without this a free world would have already been achieved. Since these two things our in our nature, a true free world will not happen/can not happen until humanity as a whole advances to a higher level of intellect?...
What you are basically describing is weeding out the criminals. The lies come from the top down, supported by the ones below. Of course many ideas are fed to the top to be regurgitated as authority, but that's the same thing. Statism has us over a barrel until we pull up our pants and grab the whip ourselves. IMO it's self defense till the criminals are afraid to take office.
You are so fucking brilliant, it's scary...So am I, just not as eloquent as I get lost in emotion and rant and rave incoherently, but this is exactly how I feel.
Stef- Great work as a whole. Do you have some wider distribution than what is seen here? Because your ideas are well stated and rational. Its nice to know there are others. Few as we may be. Keep it up.
the reason why Ron Paul or any other member of congress are not calling for impeachment of bush, ... it is because bush threatened congress to launch an attack on Iran and call martial law in the U.S., if they would do so.
Bush is a puppet. Burning him at the stake is an exercise in futility. You're too smart to believe the myth of the all power POTUS. Me suspects you are not what you seem to be, Stef.
The 'people of france' donated the statue of liberty voluntarily?
Make that, a freemason group donated the statue of Ishtar to a freemasonic country.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but your examples leave much to be desired. Your Wall-Mart comparison doesn't do you much good either. Corporatism equals/leads to fascism. Just look at 1930s Germany.
"Corporatism equals/leads to fascism". Even if your premise that corporatism equals/leads to fascism is true, it can only be true if corporations have governments to aid them. No one is forced to buy from corporations unless they can get unfair advantages with the government's help. Also, and more importantly, without the government, a corporation doesn't exist at all. A corporation is really a fictional entity in which the government grants special protections to the owners of the entity.
It might be too late for our generation. So pull your children out of public schools & into alternatives with an emphasis on real (non cult worship revisionist) history, fiscal mastery, and a strong understanding of civic duty. Above all, critical thinking. Home school them if you are capable of imparting this knowledge.
6of6 1 month ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
That statistic. 100,000 deaths, including 4,000 American soldiers. I never understood how being annoyed at the fact that American soldiers are somehow propped up as a greater loss in that statistic, could be seen as radical. Then I looked up the etymological history of the word "radical" and realized that it's really not a bad thing. It comes from the Latin word "radix", which means "root." Sure, I'm a radical by that understanding. I like getting to the root of things. Humans are humans.
intricatic 1 month ago
The moral ground as it has become is if you are the top or connected heavily with the top, you can do whatever you want. As for the rest of us, well where does that leave us? It's kind of like chess, there are Kings and there are pawns and that is just the way it has always been, of course you can always look at it through shaded sun glasses, that way it will look better.
4390100 2 months ago
"Unless you can think of a crime worse than genocide?" ... no, no I cannot.
3o4Titties 3 months ago
"...Unless you can think of a crime that's worse than genocide."
Let's see... How about genorape? Genotorture? I thought of two! Do I win?
TheCeejReturns 5 months ago
While I basically agree with the content, I don´t think spontaneous screams (to make a point) are particularly helpful nor pleasant to listen to.
PeFro1 7 months ago
If we have a state free life is there some mean to keep the people with the most wealth from hiring mercenaries (turning military) to keep their assets safe? I am not even talking about them protecting them self from theft but also to get power to keep it though valance. What would stop them from becoming lords of a fatalistic society. What going to stop one tribe from dominating another. You made some good arguments that statism does not work but is still seems inevitable?
WEH1123 8 months ago
You sir, wield common sense with the skill of a Samurai. I'm glad you exist.
knolram1 10 months ago
The American people must share Bush's culpability in the illegal. immoral Iraq war for not refusing to allow such an abomination.
pretorious700 11 months ago
7:00
A PARKING TICKET!!!
mynameaborat993 11 months ago
your title is a bit misleading Mr. Molyneux. while youre right Statism is dead morally and intellectually, it is not only alive but thriving in any physical sense. (afterall physical force, not any sort of truth, is what it operates on anyway, as you say).
Every day it passes new laws to increase its power. Every day the need for government increases (albeit wrongly, in the eyes of many misled people) as new problems and hostilities emerge in the world.
sheepblitzer 1 year ago
@sheepblitzer I believe that Stefan addresses that issue in his first "Statism is Dead" vid - the last two minutes! :)
antoniocostaamaral 1 year ago
You are some smart cookie, but i think you are missing something. Statism was always dead. The negativity that we are fighting as evil gave us statism in the first place. Also, I think your numbers of the Iraq war deaths are too low. Half a million children is one number. When Bush went to Calgary, a truthseeker tried to arrest him and got thrown in jail. Finally, I think I am against liberalism. There should be no tolerance for people like Bush in the world, anywhere ever!
Sugamari 1 year ago
Well done Stefan again.
dublen 1 year ago
Well. I guess I will have to find out what occurred between October 1, 2002 through October 7, 2002. Do you know what other information came in during that time? Also, I find it hard to follow your logic because sometimes you state your conclusions as assumptions. If I don't agree with your assumptions, then we most likely will never agree on our conclusions.
mrgrgtaz 1 year ago
Ron Paul's function appears to that of distraction. Ron will still be a fed and will still perpetuate the failed idea that the feds are something other than the enemy of humans in America and the world. The act of occupying any federal office is an act of violence regardless of who it is that is actually in office.
TheMrnonviolent 1 year ago
Actually it's more like 75% of national income, if you include inflation, taxation, regulation and so on...
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Statism is also a belief...
one that is quite pervasive... :(
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
(Standing Ovation)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago 8
@ ExquisiteDoom:
All of my posts have made it to the board. The way I'm replying to you is by compiling those of yours that I receive in my e-mail.
I've pointed out many of your strawmen. How many more do I have to do? When you make a statement that I have not made and present it as something that I have said or believe you are creating a strawman in order to knock it down. It´s a misrepresentation of my position that you can easily defeat.
I see we've got the attention of the MAN himself!
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
That should read all of my post HAVEN´T made it to the board.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My 3rd part never posted. Hummm. Okay, let´s try a different approach. I hadn't realized that there is such a thing as an anrachist as dumber or perhaps even dumber than a republican.
You're in your anarchy. You have a contract dispute with another party. He still owes you money, or services, or whatever. How do you resolve this dispute legally in your anarchic system?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 That is an excellent question, I have released a free book entitled Practical Anarchy, and audio book and PDF format, on my website, you might want to check out the answer to your question :)
stefbot 1 year ago 21
I've got them all Stef. I already know how he should answer if he's read and/or heard your teachings.
You're a great guy and I enjoy your work immensely!
Hope you and yours are all doing well.
Regards
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
@stefbot Sorry, I disagree. It's not an "excellent" question-it's the same literal minded stupidity that rules the primitive thought processes of most people.
pretorious700 11 months ago
Confederatesocialist here on youtube has some damn good examples of stateless "public" services that i haven't heard stef mention personally. (Maybe he has, but i did not stumble upon it.)
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago 2
@ExquisiteDoom Yes it is difficult to follow who said what when and where. You really need to try harder at reading what people say and not reading INTO it what you want it to say. I´ve never said that those 4 are the only traits that we have. They are-IMO-4 major human characteristics that play a major role in eventually corrupting, thus guaranteeing the eventual failure of, any ¨ism¨we come up with. Ciao! It's been fun. Best to you.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
2
It really is very simple to understand. Homo sapiens possess 4 character flaws or traits which always are at the root of his problems. The State is NOT a living, breathing entity. The State can do nothing! Only people functioning within the framework of that which we have labeled the State can do any of the things of which you speak. A legitimate government is accountable and responsive to the people and functionaries are not above the law. A State is closer to totalitarianism.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
That's a non answer, you're not participating and still putting the words legitimate and government together despite the fact that there is extortion involved as original sin. Even putting the words together sheds light on your ignorance on the subject, you're either making a value claim, or inadvertently contradict yourself . If it's a value claim, then you contradict your anti-violence stance.
Now answer my questions or dodge them some more?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
You´re up to bat.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
If the 4 traits are included in our DNA, and statism leads to unhealth in every empirical case, isn't it just possible anarchy is the solution? There's a lot of information out there to support the fact that when human volition and autonomy is unfettered, those same humans outgrow the need for violence, fraud and deceit. Let me add those 2 traits to your negative 4. Volition and autonomy. I'm sure you can add many more positive traits.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Just for clarification purposes, i realise the state is not a living entity, i realize it comes down to people making a choice , however when you have the bureaucratic class extorting money from people whom may or may not need the "services" then there is no way to say no, or limit the funds if the services are horrible. You're giving a liscence to kill, extort, kidnap a group of PEOPLE by another group of PEOPLE. Of course it's going to lead to exploitation because it's not VOLUNTARY.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Another clarification that i did overlook. Turns out i was wrong to blugeon governments; since i am myself an advocate of self-governance. Any other form however is asking for trouble.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
1
If youre such an expert on the scientific method perhaps you can explain why you commit 3 logic fallacies on your first 3 sentences; hasty generalization, false dichotomy, and another wagon load of straw men. Your trying to ¨figure out¨ my position rather than allowing it to develop through the course of commentary is precisely your weakness. You choose to read into another persons comments rather than reading and asking for explanations on the part(s) that you are not clear on.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Well that's all good and dandy, but you're still not pointing out those fallacies. You still haven't explained why they are strawmen, nor answered any of my questions i have just presented you with.
You either have statism, or anarchism, if that's a false dichotomy, explain. If you can't explain, then you were most likely wrong about your ISM's. If you detest violence, then you're yourself an anarchist.
Answer my questions accordingly, and if they were falsely built, point it out.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
As a species we´re less than 200 thousand years out of the savanna. We only crawled out of the medieval swamp of superstition and into enlightenment a few hundred years back. Until we—as a species—are able to recognize and truly evaluate our strengths and weaknesses any social framework we design is doomed to failure eventually. It may start out fairly decent but given time it will become distorted, corrupted, and crumble.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
When one understands one´s strengths and weaknesses life is anything but depressing. Knowing your limits helps you to better navigate through life. Life is what it is and there´s little one man can do alone to effect any significant change. Before you distort what I just said; be clear that little change is not equivalent to no change at all. Homo sapiens ¨fear¨ change; that´s why it takes such a long time to advance further down the road of enlightenment.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Your flippant remarks about not trying to change, educate, or giving in to the status quo are meant to further distort my position. That´s pure poppycock! Those are your strawmen that you use to oversimplify my position and easily knock down because you are actually debating yourself. You have a foundational bias.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
I´ve pointed out a couple of your distortions already. You simply chose to ignore them. Here´s another one for you: 1.¨you refuse to elaborate on how violence magically prevents violence.¨ Where did I say that? Especially since I know that violence begets submission, annihilation, or more violence until one side dominates. Here´s another distortion: 2. ¨You´d still have to prove that the state is a result of our DNA¨ Would you care to show us that quote?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Surely if those 4 traits bring havoc, it is part of our DNA, correct?
If you claim anarchism doesn't work, then surely you're claiming statism works?
Why would you put the words legitimate and government together if you don't beleive it?
If you desire for little change, how can you desire this change to be in a statist setting? (You said legitimate government after all). And how can a statist solution be non-violent and moral other than by dissolving it?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I'm sorry for using the scientific method and using hypotheses to figure out your position. I can't figure out it without using my own words to describe wether i understand your position or not, i'm sorry this passes off for a strawman, but you refuse to budge from your hole and have refused to explain why they are unreasonable, which in turn would make you unreasonable. I'm merely asking questions, you're not giving me any relevant answers, which is only slimey at best.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
The State is not a living breathing entity. The State is comprised of ideas and humans functioning within a framework originating from those ideas. The ¨isms¨don't work because of our 4 evolutionary traits. Avarice, hubris, envy and fear. And if you like you can throw in Homo sapiens´ abhorrence of the truth.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
.... So because PEOPLE are greedy, envious, fearful and arrogant.... we should give a group of PEOPLE an army, a judicial system, roads a police force and much more. Makes perfect sense to me, i think chocolate, sugars, and possibly cyanide is bad for me, maybe if i ingest more i'll have a better constitution than the Hulk.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom This is what happens when a Homo sapien confronts the truth; it begins to babble on incoherently trying to wiggle away so that it won't have to face it.
Your allegory is a massive fail. Would you like to try again?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
I guess logic doesn't get to you. So using logic again to show you that you're being a hypocrite right there wouldn't work, now would it?
I don't know why you choose dishonesty over honesty but that's not healthy.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I don't have any problem with logic. I simply haven't seen any logic exhibited by you. You make a little strawman, knock him down, and then believe that an argument from personal incredulity proves your point.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Uhm, you never brought anything to the table as to why this is considered a strawman. It's called reasoning from first principles. Tell me, how is government not violence? Make a point will you.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
A strawman argument is a misrepresentation or over simplification of an opponents argument. ALl I've said is that no ¨ism¨works because of our 4 evolutionary traits. To read what you've written I´ve presented an entire desertation here.
There are many aspects of government that are violent just as there are others that aren´t. If you are injuried and carried to the hospital by a government provided ambulance service is that service provided you violence or succor?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There are many aspects of government that are violent just as there are others that aren´t. If you are injuried and carried to the hospital by a government provided ambulance service is that service provided you violence or succor?" How is it funded? Surely, if this service is so important people would voluntarily organize to provide it. It doesn't make any logical sense to extort to provide it. Why not extort people to feed them? What about their haircut? It's completely arbitrary.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
(cont) "ALl I've said is that no ¨ism¨works because of our 4 evolutionary traits." isn't THAT an oversimplification? Especially since one of the "ism" has nothing to do with the others. One is simply incompatible with the state, while the others are impossible in practise.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
(cont2) from the point that the money is extorted it automatically implies that you cannot cut the revenue if the "service" is crap. You can't even call it a service. Which this leads to a plethora of unintended consequences. Seeing as how it's based on force, who are you as an individual to fight back?Are you going to choose political action so that you may point the gun at those who charged you for the shit service?Can't see how this snowballs into immoral action and never justifies the means?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
No it isn´t an oversimplification. It´s quite complicated when it comes to accepting the truth about us as a species and how we go about dealing with these character flaws or evolutionary traits.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Homo sapiens are imperfect thus no system designed by Homo sapiens can be perfect. None are compatible with the State. The State is not a living, breathing entity. There is also a difference between a legitimate government and a State. If you mean anarchism as the one ¨ism¨ that is not compatible you are correct.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Okay, isn't it contradictive to assert "Homo sapiens are imperfect thus no system designed by Homo sapiens can be perfect"
then "The State is not a living, breathing entity. There is also a difference between a legitimate government and a State."
People suck, but we should still have people rule over others.... you're still living a lie right there. perhaps you should elaborate in order to make a logical statement. Legitimate government... LOL.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Your problem is that not only is it not compatible, it is impossible; it´s impossible due to the four evolutionary traits. The economic mess that the U.S. and the world are suffering through is due in large part to avarice and economic terrorism (anarchy). If humans have a hand in something and it goes awry you can trace it back to one or more of those 4 traits.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Okay. if you dig deep enough i garantee it comes down to patent law arbitrage and state created entities such as corporations defrauding people, or government enforced monopolies wasting time and money.
Anarchy has nothing to do with terrorism, you're just flinging assumptions left and right.
Let's deal with your 4 traits first and point out how the state is not violent or explain how it justifies the means. I'm not gonna let you flee away from your potential contradiction.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom: I´m not going to flee. Hang in there. The very reasons that the State is so screwed up are the same reasons this anarchic fallacy won´t work. Homo sapiens and those 4 basic evolutionary traits. Youre looking at effects and not causes.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
That's a non-answer again. Because of 4 basic evolutionary traits, we should have "legitimate" government. That's just circular reasoning, dude. If you have a genuine point to make i'll be there, if you don't, i'm going to have to put an end to this debate.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom The only thing circular here is your constant distortions of what I have said. Are you or are you not an English speaker? Rather than read what I say you are reading into it. Where have I said that because of those 4 traits we have to have a government legitimate or otherwise? I´ve said exactly the opposite. Because of those 4 traits no ¨ism¨ functions perfectly. They´re all doomed to failure. History is full of examples. Show me an example of anarchy working.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Um, what about googling them? Anarchy has been around for far longer than statism has.
Your problem is that instead of pointing out where the "distortions" in my claims are you simply fall back to your 4 traits, that's circular reasoning and dishonest. You refuse to elaborate on how violence magically prevents violence, or why we need your legitimate government when that hasn't happened in history either. I'm not in the tough spot here, you're stuck in a loop and refuse to venture outside.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Or perhaps let's not try to change anything or educate anyone about the folly of the state, because you know, we can't do anything about it since we have 4 traits, you know. so let's just opt for the status quo. Which also has it's own inherent contradictions... You'd still have to proove that the state is a result of our DNA even though it leads to unhealth consistently... and it's also a very depressing way to live a life.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
3 await you.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom you were answered. I put them at the top of the comments rather on reply. I still don´t see them. I´ll check later to verify that they´re there.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Okay you know that, this youtube confusion shit gets the best of me, i appreciate the debate, i've learned much, i'm going to have to put a stop to it before this degenerates. If this were a forum i could address every single point you're trying to make, but alas it's not the case.
However you still do display certain contradictory characteristics in your line of thinking, and your 4 traits aren't all there is (see Doctor Phillip Zimbardo) there are several conditions to meet. Good bye.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Right On.
shadowcii 1 year ago
wow, he was getting really pissed lol
rahulk552008 1 year ago
@ henteacher:
Homo sapiens! Homo sapiens have four fatal characteristic flaws: 1.) avarice 2.) hubris 3.) envy 4.) fear.
These four character flaws are what make ALL of the ¨isms¨ flawed and guarantees a massive fail regardless which system is implemented.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
I get you. Yeah, sad but true.
henteacher 1 year ago
I have a larger e-peen than you do!
VyseLegend 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone else notice the resemblance with Glen Beck?
NriGrtI 1 year ago
I´ve listened to Stef for at least 3 years now and while he really seems to be a very sincere and amicable person--a really great guy--his utopian anarchy or stateless society model has a fatal flaw man!
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
Comment removed
henteacher 1 year ago
Which one? (Honest question)
ronpaulspanish 1 year ago
Which one what? Can you be a little more specific?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
And that is?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
And what is? Can you be a little more specific?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
"his utopian anarchy or stateless society model has a fatal flaw man! "
Where is this fatal flaw?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Mankind, humans, Homo sapiens. I think Stef let his emotions get ahead of him on these series of videos.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
So anarchy has a fatal flaw because we're homo sapiens? Non answers are worse than not giving any answers at all, it retards your own advancement. It's like saying God did it.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Had you taken the time to read further down the comments section you'd see that it's not a non answer.
It won't work because of the same reasons none of the ¨isms¨don't work. Homo sapiens have 4 major evolutionary traits that eventually ruin any social system we design.
If the State is finished why are they all still here?
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
And if you think you're ever going to see the day that Bush is prosecuted you're also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and god.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
I don't expect this to change in my lifetime. lol, but i have no problem being the example by applying the anarchist's values.
And uh. The only reason any of those isms don't work is due to the state. Wether or not the state is a reflection of our DNA is still left to be debated. Living a contradictory life doesn't sound very healthy to me anyway.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Thanks! You saved me from writing!
ronpaulspanish 1 year ago
We already have voluntarism. UK, OZ, NZ, Canada are common law jurisdictions. That means do no harm & do not cause loss. & that includes the govt ,not just individuals. Check out "Bursting bubbles of government deception" by Robert Arthur Menard. Freeman-on-the-land is one way to voluntarism.
TooMuchStatism 2 years ago
You're speaking like foolish, vindictive prats. Please grow up.
voiceboy224 2 years ago
This video is not even internally consistent.
- if stefbot claims to be the "true news"
-and stefbot's "news reports" are found to be false
- Can anyone believe stefbot's truth claims ever again?
Title of report "statism is dead" is in itself false, therefore stefbot is not to be trusted. Wow, didn't have to go to far to find that falsehood...there's many more I could list if I cared to devote the time to it...look back over my other posts there's lots.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Don't be a hater. :)
jtel 2 years ago
I cant help but be reminded of that part in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
Cettywise 2 years ago
Isn't it natural for humans to live in a hierarchical society where those under the top will always be subjected more or less to the will of those powers on top.
If we remove the government, there would just be a power vacuum possibly taken over by mega corporations or with people with significant influence, in which we'll be back to square one.
I wonder how voluntarism can change this.
Can someone explain it or post a link about it?
IAteBrownies 2 years ago
Since a ruling class can only be supported through aggression, at least without a state there's a much more level playing field to resist potential aggressors. Furthermore, states only really have power through the silent consent of the majority. If people learned to see such things as obviously evil--the way they see slavery today--it would be much more difficult to maintain one.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
There is also a much more level playing field for potential aggressors to oppress.
There rest of what you refer to is also known as the social contract. If you succeed in destroying peoples trust in government you will find that you've also destroyed peoples in society in general, thus broader society no longer exists... Only fractions competing for control and dominance.
verstwo2 2 years ago
The whole world is carved up into 200 prison camps controlled by violent oligarchies, and you worry about "potential oppression"? States can't protect you from violence, for they are based on violence.
The "social contract" is a justification for violence. similar to the divine right of kings. The state is not society, but a tyranny. The fact that it may have the passive consent most individuals doesn't justify this, anymore than it justified slavery. Aggression is always evil.
OldCottage2 2 years ago 2
Versetwo2
So you your argument is this:
The the potential to oppress DECREASES when one small group of people has power over others.
Is that right?
You should re-think that premise.
threebobs 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"..So you your argument is this:
..The the potential to oppress DECREASES when one small group of people has power over others."
-no, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that stefbots arguments are fallacy.
verstwo2 2 years ago
That doesn't make any sense... Breaking someone's trust in violence would cause people to be destroyed? Unless i'm somehow strawmanning you, it's a logical fallacy.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@IAteBrownies
That is exactly what I've been wondering. You can get rid of one massive power, but our civilization is set up so another massive power will just take it's place. The only way to avoid this would be to eliminate civilization itself... and that would be a messy prospect.
If forced to choose between an oppressive state and an oppressive mega corporation, I'd take the former. Mega corporations have even greater potential for oppression in that they're transnational.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Is it Now at Last becoming clear to America that democracy is Not an option any longer ... ???
We all live within Corporations Great Britain Corp .. Homeland Security Corp ... we actually live within Maritime Law in Admiralty Jurisdiction !! FACT .. our countries are trading Us, the people .. our lives, our labour .. through Bonds .. OUR Bonds
Check out .. youtubedotcom/freemanshrout
Peace.
netlethe 2 years ago
The first vid in this series (outstanding) had me psyhed up, and this delivered on a more level plane... I am now in the zone. Thanks, I needed this, tonight. Somehow I always find, rather they find me, things I'd forgotten I was looking for.
ambj219 2 years ago
Comment removed
ks100001 2 years ago
To attack Bush you must attack all of his conspirators, otherwise they go on. Bush is only a face to a larger force, whom works in the background through various organizations and loopholes. If anything, the President is a sacrifice and expendable.
Rhetorikol 2 years ago
You speak reason.
The name of the expendable creature is "cat's paw." The aphorism is about a monkey the wants something in a fire and uses a cat's paw to get the thing. The monkey is unscathed while the cat is expendable.
In Obama's cabinet it would be wise to consider that while Cheney was CFR so is Michelle Obama - both board of directors. What about the Federal Reserve? Goldman Sachs? Look into the financial/corporate links and you'll find a sudden desire for a stiff drink.
Peace.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago
I fear some of your audience does not grasp what you are saying. Throroughly enjoyed it !
RenegadeTimes 2 years ago
Obama isn't a police man. It's up to the attorney general to prosecute Bush, not Obama.
Your overblown rhetoric is hard to take.
You never even bother to define voluntarism before you declare it to be intellectually superior to your strawman statism.
"...I step over this murder in order to give someone a parking ticket..." Give me an F'n break. Is it ironic that you spend half the video attacking Bush just to toe his party line for the rest of the vid.?
verstwo2 2 years ago
verstwo2. How can you base your argument on the two-party system? Do you really buy into that crap?
rht808 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean. There are other parties but none that are viable. OR are you trying to say there both the same party and the choice between them is an illusion? I've considered that concept and find it in itself to be an illusion, created in part to disfranchise the electorate.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Indeed. There can only be two. Two choices. You must either be one or the other. The whole of human thought can be expressed within the confines of the n"two" parties: Republican or Democrat.
If you do not agree that clearly means that the other person is the opposite of you. What else could there possibly be?
You logic is truly admirable. By God I wish that you were head of our noble government. You would oust the ___s from their seats and show us how good the ___s are.
Cheers.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago
I didn't say there were only two choices. I said there are only two viable choices, and what I should have added was 'currently in America'.
It is the anti-statists position that there are only two choices (state or anarchy) and makes no distinction between different types of states. 'All states are evil' is an absolute claim I find nauseatingly simplistic.
I hope that your right wing philosophy never gains control of the government again. Anarchy is as far right as it gets.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Right wing? Are you joking?
If it weren't coming from you I'd be insulted at being accused of "right wing."
I'd like to note that you use the qualifier "currently in America." Doesn't that kind of tell you that the whole thing is a big pile of crap? We have to pretend that these parties are really important so that we have something to vote for. When really the only thing we're voting for is whether we get peed on or shat on.
Personally, I think Right and Left are constructs for babies.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago 2
You know what I find nauseatingly simplistic?
Your cluelessness.
Sinopa9 2 years ago
ah, personal insults are so refreshingly unexpected by those who support such cynical and paranoid views.
I hope you go and have a nice vomit on my behalf.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Personal insults? I'm just stating the facts.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Is that really so outlandish?
Just accept that you're mistaken.
Try to learn a little on a particular subject before judging it. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Deny ignorance.
You know I'm making sense.
Sinopa9 2 years ago 2
the fact that I'm clueless? That's not a fact that's your presumption that since I'm disputing your claims I must not know what I'm talking about. "your" makes it personal and "clueless" is an insult.
I will not accept that I'm mistaken based on you assertion alone. I'm actually a person that requires the burden of proof be met. I've learned quite a bit on this subject and I've found it's mostly based on fallacy and not fact.
Spouting rhetorical actually makes little sense.
verstwo2 2 years ago
I'd like to point out that under Bush the government got a lot bigger. Many in the Right Wing speak of smaller government, but the practice is the opposite. Look at the policies of "both parties" and you'll see the exact same proceedures and rhetoric - carefully delineated to appear as Real Choice.
Make no mistake. The only difference between Obama's policies and Bush's are that one happened before the other. We simply watched the puppet show change characters.
Read more. Think more.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago
How could you procecute Bush with a legal system that comes from the very state you call illegitimate?
How do you go from IF genocide to genocide happened? It's an extraordinary claim that require extraordinary evidence, you've failed to provide any. Genocide is not mass murder. Uh, aren't there Dems. that called for Bushes impeachment?
The virtue of the early US? You mean slavery or genocide of the natives? Which one was part of your early US utopia?
verstwo2 2 years ago
Can't trust Skull and Bones members of New World Order and the other satanic Freemasons!
What is new? Nothing! Business as usual with the illuminati!
Hendo1974 2 years ago
this is solid, im so impressed
trevor920 2 years ago
I don't choose to be governed also. But I think about it differently than you. I run my own life, as all people should. However, we have our reputations.
No one will trust anyone who's above the law, so why would you want that anyways. It's a trust issue. I want people to trust me, I can't do that if I have "above the law" status granted to me by the government at my own choosing. I look at the tiers of reputation individuals and governments have in order to trust them on diff levels.
veridia 2 years ago
Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. In my view and most everyone's is that if a man or woman threatens them with violence to compel them to use their service, they recognize it as a criminal act that is against the law.
Talk about being above the law. A description of "above the law" should read as follows: "See government".
I'm fine with government that doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any one or their property.
zonsb 2 years ago
Veridia, you've certainly made it clear that YOU desire and or need to be governed. I respect your choice to be governed.
I on the other hand do not chose to be governed and will make good any harm I cause to a person or their property. As man of his word, honor and integrity I do not commit acts of harm against other people or their property. I'm a man of peace.
It is you that's a danger. For you want to use force/violence to govern me.
zonsb 2 years ago
People who are men of honor and integrity generally don't have problems with the government, for they respect authority. Most of the people in prison today are people with anti-social personality disorder, and they don't respect authority, or anyone else for that matter.
veridia 2 years ago
I respect authority that doesn't place itself above the law, doesn't deceive and communicates honestly. That certainly isn't government.
zonsb 2 years ago
The only danger is that you trust people too much so as to let them be above the law. I want to be able to trust people enough, so that I feel safe. I can't trust people in a society where some get the right to be above the law. Then we create a society where everybody has to watch his back. Fine, you have integrity, that doesn't mean I trust you enough for you to be above the law; hence ungovernable.
veridia 2 years ago
This guy is a complete loon. America has improved its values tremendously since inception. Lets see. Abolishing slavery, establishing worker rights, ending Jim Crow, Great Society, ending the great depression and stablizing the economy. Recognizing that internment of the Japanese was a mistake, so we didn't do the same to the Arabs after 9/11. We've improved tremendously.
This guy is about as cracked as a Scientologist.
veridia 2 years ago
The only government to drop not just one one, but two atomic bombs on two cities. Governments created Jim Crow laws in the first place. The government allowed the *_PRIVATELY OWNED_* Federal Reserve to be established in 1913 which caused the great depression.
zonsb 2 years ago
People wrote the Jim Crow laws. Their hatred and lack of proper values were the problem, not government. Stop blaming government for bad people's actions.
The dropping of atomic bombs ended a war that would have netted a bigger loss of life had they not been dropped.
The great depression was temporary, it only lasted 5 years.
veridia 2 years ago
How do we open the eyes of the partisan fairytale sheep?
kmc56 2 years ago
If man is incapable of self governing how is it that he could be capable of governing others? To which I respond...
"I'm fully capable of self-governing. I'll never intentionally harm or initiate force, fraud or coercion against anyone or their property. I realize accidents do happen and if I cause harm to anyone or their property I will correct the situation so they are whole again. If you are incapable of self-governing yourself then perhaps you need government.
continued...
zonsb 2 years ago
"I still think government is unnecessary because I can competently protect myself and my property from you without enlisting a gang of men and women pretending to be government agents -- which is nothing more than men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun -- to do it for me. That said, I'll respect your freedom to be governed by others and expect you to respect my freedom to not be governed by others."
zonsb 2 years ago
LOL, the redoubtable zonsb. You have no experience protecting yourself from others without the cocoon of government protection. You have no idea what you would be up against should government close up shop. I smell ego and inexperienced arrogance in your post. Without government, people will be coming to your house with shotgun ready to loot your possessions. Gangs will run rampant, killings, rapes, theft will be everywhere. Government is a psychological force that stablizes society.
veridia 2 years ago
That you can't be trusted to self-govern ranks among the small minority of people that are mentally incompetent and or deficient.
Govt. is irrelevant no matter what type it is so long as the Law is that no one shall initiate force, fraud or coercion against anyone or their property.
I respect your choice to be governed by what ever means you chose -- chose any degree of initiated force, fraud and coercion against yourself and property. I expect you to respect my right to not be governed.
zonsb 2 years ago
It's about what is best for society, not the individual. Sure, there are a few people that would do well without government. Gangleaders, criminal enterprises, outlaws, ruthless people who would take advantage of others.
I seriously doubt that you are fully capable of protecting yourself. That just sounds like arrogance to me. God complexes and narcissism are not wise recipies for the human character.
veridia 2 years ago
Man is capable of self-governing alongside government. Government creates the stability which a civilization requires. Without government all hell breaks loose.
No offense, but "I'm fully capable of self-governing", sounds like someone is an insecure, arrogant, SOB.
Because of government society is stable enough for people to "self-govern". It is only in periods of instability where by people can't handle themselves. Hyperinflation is a classic example, as they led the Nazis to power.
veridia 2 years ago
I completely agree with you...i feel a little bit less lonely than before! Very big person you are, thanks
GIANNIMUSART 2 years ago
4,000 dead. They purposely don't mention the thousands of maimed and mutilated , and MIA soldiers who are very cleverly hidden from the public.
Death1Ikki 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that the Founding Fathers created statism - in fact, I would suggest that they created the exact opposite through the foundation of a society based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and over time we have taken our eyes away from government and fixed them on our own lives...the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we have not been vigilant. When you look at the Bill of Rights, you're looking at the template for the world's first free society of sovereign individuals.
silverhawks 2 years ago
Just a question, was the abolishing of slavery a good idea, or do you guys think that it impinges on your right to own people as propety?
Government is there as an ethical guide to impose a standard of values upon a cynical and otherwise mercenary public.
veridia 2 years ago
Why would i need the government to have a "standard of values"? And why do you refer to the public as "cynical and mercenary"?
bettertobealive 2 years ago
Because without a government one would see the true meaning of "dog eat dog"... You want a lord of the flies scenario. Just eliminate government and watch everyone fend for themselves and do whatever the hell they want. Gangs would instantly rule the streets with racketeering... a very common form of domestic terrorism. And frankly, I'd rather be ruled by the United States of America than MS13, the bloods, the crips or the Mexican Mafia.
veridia 2 years ago
Thats your opinion, and there is no empircal basis to it whatsoever.
bettertobealive 2 years ago
You're kidding right. A nation that has slavery is clearly not a nation based on freedom. The United States was founded on a deeply racist and slave owning foundation. Only land owners were allowed to vote in the beginning. Gradually, we changed into what we are now... which is better than what we were before.
veridia 2 years ago
Government sets a standard of values through the code of laws. Before the code of laws we were a very primitive species. I prefer the advances that came from the presence of government, and certainly we don't want to go back to being cavemen because of the arrogance of a few people who think they can hack it on their own without government to set societal standards.
veridia 2 years ago
A government is just another monopoly of force, you have a very basic understanding of politics but anarchic systems have been historically shown to be no more chaotic and even less chaotic than normal nation states. A system without a government doesn't meant there would be no law and courts, it just means that people would be free to choos what rules they would like for themselves.
bettertobealive 2 years ago
By no means would I want people to be free to choose what rules they would like for themselves. Imagine playing chess or tennis by that principle and saying the pawn could move 4 spaces instead of 1... The system doesn't work unless the rules fairly apply to all. No one gets to murder, rape, etc. I'm against any system of law based on relativistic ethics.
The rule of law should apply equally to all. People choosing their own rules is relativistic ethics, and that is just wrong.
veridia 2 years ago
Slavery never was abolished it's just been "outsourced", and how can you not describe statism and collectivism as anything but highly organised slavery?
"Gangleaders, criminal enterprises, outlaws, ruthless people who would take advantage of others."
Certainly sounds like the government to me.
bettertobealive 2 years ago
True slavery involves being the property of another. Savery was not outsourced. And money doesn't grow on trees so people will have to work for a living whether there is a government or not.
I simply prefer there being a government, because government creates a stabilizing force upon the people.
veridia 2 years ago
The Founding Fathers didn't create a society based on individual liberty. We had slavery at the time. A society based on individual liberty does not have so much liberty as to allow people to subjugate and enslave one another.
The founding fathers are grossly overrated. True progress began with the emancipation proclaimation.
Freedom comes with responcibility. The latter we will all be slaves to, whether we like it or not.
veridia 2 years ago
And freedom is inherent, not something that is given by government.
The emancipation proclomation has been debunked as pure propoganda which the federal government was incapable of enforcing, im suprised you are naive enough to bring it up.
bettertobealive 2 years ago
Whether you call it propoganda or not, slavery was still abolished. It made good PR, sure. Abolishing slavery made America look good in the eyes of Europe, who didn't believe in slavery at that time.
Ethics matters, and slavery is wrong. This whole choose your own ethics attitude here is rather absurd. A universal code of ethics is important to the development of civilization. Hence, we are not cavemen anymore, and we don't adhere to ethical relativism.
veridia 2 years ago
One of the best channels on youtube!
Northern1961 3 years ago 2
I agree with everything you say in all your videos, your bang on on all topics. I believe however that your one problem with your ideology is greed/selfishness, without this a free world would have already been achieved. Since these two things our in our nature, a true free world will not happen/can not happen until humanity as a whole advances to a higher level of intellect?...
sambuka1989 3 years ago
What you are basically describing is weeding out the criminals. The lies come from the top down, supported by the ones below. Of course many ideas are fed to the top to be regurgitated as authority, but that's the same thing. Statism has us over a barrel until we pull up our pants and grab the whip ourselves. IMO it's self defense till the criminals are afraid to take office.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
This goes for Londons evil corrupt Parliament. Blair is a war criminal as well.
nbm34 3 years ago
true
stefbot 3 years ago
Quite right!
Northern1961 3 years ago
You are so fucking brilliant, it's scary...So am I, just not as eloquent as I get lost in emotion and rant and rave incoherently, but this is exactly how I feel.
JusticeLeague9 3 years ago
I'm sure you sure just as smart, you just need practice! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Or a teleprompter.
JusticeLeague9 3 years ago
Stef- Great work as a whole. Do you have some wider distribution than what is seen here? Because your ideas are well stated and rational. Its nice to know there are others. Few as we may be. Keep it up.
JadedPoser 3 years ago
the reason why Ron Paul or any other member of congress are not calling for impeachment of bush, ... it is because bush threatened congress to launch an attack on Iran and call martial law in the U.S., if they would do so.
777truthsetsufree 3 years ago
Thanks, can you provide me a link for that please?
stefbot 3 years ago
Ok, here it is!
congressman John Olver of Mass says bush will call martial law if we try to impeach
watch?v=46F36s4RVf4
777truthsetsufree 3 years ago
What would that mean for the U.S.?
Thanks for your help
heavyflower 3 years ago
Ron Paul is a luciferian freemason.
He is COMPLETELY CONTROLLED.
THAT IS WHY HE DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE.
He was used by the freemasons to see how strong the patriot movement is in this country.
Ron Paul REFUSES to admit that 9-11 was an inside job!
Watch my satanic ron paul playlist, if you dare, where he is flashing the satanic hand salute ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!
MrDuffy81 3 years ago
idiot.
joey4track 3 years ago
Stephen, when did Ron Paul say Bush shouldn't be fired?
chrislbrunner 3 years ago
Bush is a puppet. Burning him at the stake is an exercise in futility. You're too smart to believe the myth of the all power POTUS. Me suspects you are not what you seem to be, Stef.
freeyourcrt 3 years ago
The 'people of france' donated the statue of liberty voluntarily?
Make that, a freemason group donated the statue of Ishtar to a freemasonic country.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but your examples leave much to be desired. Your Wall-Mart comparison doesn't do you much good either. Corporatism equals/leads to fascism. Just look at 1930s Germany.
That said I like your videos.
Meanie83 3 years ago
"Corporatism equals/leads to fascism". Even if your premise that corporatism equals/leads to fascism is true, it can only be true if corporations have governments to aid them. No one is forced to buy from corporations unless they can get unfair advantages with the government's help. Also, and more importantly, without the government, a corporation doesn't exist at all. A corporation is really a fictional entity in which the government grants special protections to the owners of the entity.
sumadartsan 3 years ago
ahhhh ha!
RP4409 3 years ago
AHHHH HA!
RP4409 3 years ago
Too much Bush bashing i this video I think. 900 lies?
Congress has the power to stop most of the stuff. Why not blame the body with power? Why Bush, Bush, Bush?
elbuggo 3 years ago
Just do a Google search for the 900 lives, there is a whole database of them available on the web...
stefbot 3 years ago