The Benevolent Leviathan (Re: Self-Evident Freedom)

[dmfc593]

I agree that the state or "leviathan" wants power and it is difficult to incentivize "benevolent" behavior. So my question to you is, in a video where you are explaining why you don't like Ron Paul yet here you state people have called you an anarchist for your views on optional participation in taxation and other government programs. Exactly what Paul wants to do.

[dmfc593]

Also in that video you state you do not buy into John Lockes "natural rights of man" and the state is inherent not the natural rights of man, yet here you you are admitting that the state is out for its own power and does nothing but eat people.

Why the contradictions in beliefs?

[walkingisboring]

my god, this was a great video.

[KentN383]

you are only as free as the least free person in your country

[hornylink]

@KentN383 does that include prisoners and people on death row? because if it does we're all fucked

[KentN383]

@hornylink Yes, if you do what they did you might end up in there with them. i was more referring to unjust persecution. Anyone can have children/grandchildren that are in a persecuted minority, Hispanic, gay, Jewish, etc. Most people would rather they be attacked themselves rather than see their children/grandchildren persecuted. people should not be treated different because of the way they were born. The freedom limited by society should be the same for everyone.

[Juggalowlyfe]

the funny thing is that seeing how profound your videos can be, and how uneducated i obviously am, we can meet on such a level ground as the works of GDPC. the man has literally had a lifechanging effect on my life, one which i could never describe to an average human, yet i see in your everyday discourse he has made an evident effect on you as well.. that leads me to believe we could possible relate in some way, and i thank you for at least reading all this, i know you're busy, but still.thxTJ.

[Juggalowlyfe]

amazing and i just wanted to thank you, being one of the people that you've genuinely impacted, though i only share the atheism subject with you.. it seems intriguing to me that all of your topics, even most recently being this STORY OF KETCHUP, i can absolutely ALWAYS identify/agree with you on the topics which you discuss... my only complaint, and sorry if i seem selfish among your hundreds of thousands of fans in saying this... i sent msgs 2u regarding GeorgeCarlin and his impact on you......

[Juggalowlyfe]

god damn, you know.. you are literally quite the amazing atheist! um.. disregarding the sole reason you drew me in, which is that of the atheist quality you display.. the thing that blows me away even further is that you're an intillect i can strive to understand, relate to, what have you.. i mean, i'm not much for politics, in fact i try in my everyday life to defer from such....... but the fact that you can talk about things like that which i don't even understand and make me still relate is..

[Mike10four]

The world should revisit man’s unalienable Rights viewed through the prism of science (see my channel video), one will find they apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. Most understand the Laws of Nature trumps mortals in power; a new understanding of these Rights may help make this world a better place to live.

[TheDcrat]

well, if you elect the government, they'll care about you because you have they power. It won't save you from very bad thing the government can do, but it's goes very far. P.S we don't have a democracy, we have a republic, the rights of the minority r protected. Most people r dumb, true, but if you get enough people, the stupid people r on the left r cancled out by the people on the right, so the general population has the influence

[yuo252]

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY WATER BEAST THE LEVIATHAN!

[Jcolinsol]

See, AA can be well considered and insightful. You're better when you don't yell opinions at the camera.

[TheSouthparkrulz]

oǝpıʌ ʇɐǝɹƃ

[LanteanKnight]

Yes democracy isn't the best political system, but it's the best one around.

Others like monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies could in theory be better but in practice the leader(s) don't act very benevolent.

[Jcolinsol]

@LanteanKnight

Prefer Anarchy.

[LanteanKnight]

@Jcolinsol

An anarchy would only work with a population of rational people, but people aren't rational, we're driven by our emotions (some more than others).

Plus the fact that autarkism is not achievable, meaning we always need other people to live with, meaning we need rules, meaning we need a mechanism to enforce those rules, which means we need a government.

That's why an anarchy can't be considered.

[Jcolinsol]

@LanteanKnight

Only said I prefer it, any reasoning as to how or if it could work is superfluous.

I don't think that a rational population is necessary at all, if anything that would be more of a detriment to a functional society if anything. What's important is empathy and respect. The arch of societal progress is towards exponentially more empathy and respect, so at some point I suspect people will finally respect my preferences.

[Jcolinsol]

@LanteanKnight

I don't know what yer argument about self-sufficiency is about. I don't think that self-sufficiency is inherent to Anarchy, though I think that certain forms of self-sufficiency are likely to predominate in the near future

I also disagree that we need a government to make and enforce rules. Just like with churches, it's much healthier to have voluntary participation than forced association. We don't need a state monopoly, just access to conflict resolution services

Consider it

[LanteanKnight]

@Jcolinsol

I agree on the respect; for example: there would need to be a moral system in place to make sure that no one steals other's properties. This can only be achieved through rationality; one would need to suppress one's feeling of jealousy.

My argument about autarkism goes back to the same principle; if one isn't self-sufficient, there need to be rules to make sure that trade is fair for example. These rules can only be enforced by a government.

And sorry if I went too serious on you:P

[Jcolinsol]

@LanteanKnight

Most good my friend.

[OnyonKnight]

"Hey, Fred. I put forth this question to you: how does one incentivize the leviathan into behaving benevolently when all it wants to do is eat people?"

By making human sacrifices. Such as the escapegoats for the economic crisis.

[dellaire11]

You are truly inspirational.

[xaq141175]

the government is like the media ... it needs 'bad stuff' to happen in order to exist. it is not in the government's interests to have a law abiding citizenry. it needs people to fear something in order to present itself as the solution to a problem that it had it's hand in creating in the first place.

'crime' has been industrialized into a vicious circle of cause and effect. the most profitable produce of this industry are sexual offences, followed by drugs offences etc.

[Theboxer500]

Your voice sounds deeper.

[soyousay18]

One way to "tame the beast" of government is to make it work for you through social welfare and (most advantageously) socialized healthcare (or whatever you want to call it).

The government's power can be used against other powerful and sometimes equally oppressive organisations such as unregulated corporations.

Of course all this requires democratic consent and being so conservative it's never going to happen in America.

So perhaps there anarchy would be preferable to a powerful govt.

[Jcolinsol]

@soyousay18

I agree that government can be used against other institutions. The example you give is slightly ironic though, because governments create corporations in the first place. Seems like the institutions will run together when it's advantageous.

[mumme22]

about the experiment with the smoke; a few of the people in the room were actors to sit still and pretend like everything was fine when smoke started coming into the room.

[hcnuup]

I too have been thinking how the system would work properly.

The problems of this society boil down to two things:

1. Your average person is not adequate but retarded.

2. Intelligence (including morality etc) is not an actual merit.

This leads to that retards rule in democracy and end up being used.

The ideal system would cherry pick it's least egoistic rulers (schizoids and stuff) who would have lot of power yet no self interest.

The system would sustain itself, but it can't be set up. =/

[ligerman30]

Nah that's far from true in these times. or problems boil down to: 1. All our money are invested in buildings we don't own. 2.There are hateful Orginaizations that still operate (Blood and Honour, Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, blood, cripps, ect.) 3. War 4. Bad Drinking water 5. homless/jobless/poor 6. Bad Revoloutions 7.Bad Religons 8. Impeded Freedom of humans and animals 9. Inflation/Deflation one all those problems are permanently gone global minarchy should do the trick.

[andrewh817]

TJ, you're right in that the leviathan can't ever be made benevolent. A piece of paper doesn't restrict human beings.....

Also, you mentioned the fact that the masses are in large, idiots looking for a leader. That begs the question..........

WHO IS EDUCATING THEM?!?!

It's the Leviathan as well!!!!!

[hugesinker]

The answer to your question, according to Hobbes, is that you don't provide incentive the leviathan, nor are you able to. He is basically attacking human nature-- the idea is that all humans will do evil with power, therefore if you only have one person who has become evil with power, it is superior to having many evil people with power.

[HardRawRocknRoll]

VOLUNTARY TAXATION FTW!

[Tru5t]

Unrelated but the captions in Google translated "gay" to "happy".

"you know like the Mississippi happy people voted that"

[fabianrudberg]

sit still! haha :D

[FirstAmongNerds]

Those who would argue with your assertion that mot people are stupid, unthinking, and unquestioning are more than likely one of the stupid, unthinking, and unquestioning individuals that make up the majority.

[kirkpear]

what's the emulator he used on the camera? all yellow. it looks purdy....

[Bones0]

That experiment sounds lulzy, but I could totally see it happening. I hope you keep posting vids on this channel because it is quite reminiscent of your other channel a year or so ago.

[Kogerii]

Hobbes and the other enlightenment thinkers who claimed governments formed out of social contracts were bullshitters. The timeline of social development isn't a council forms and then chooses a leader over soldiers who enforce the law. The timeline of events is one thief succeeds more than the rest and establishes the infrastructural machinery for his thievery (like soldiers and taxmen) warps society's shape.

[magx01]

Morally palatable?

Lol.

Not quite the phrase you wanted to use, I'm sure :P

[TheStig000]

The government does not protect us. They keep us just well enough to be productive. They are farming us for taxes. It's never been about protecting the people. It's been about sustaining the government.

[wingman13]

Another interesting video.

[CollegeRants]

looking For Student Vloggers.... add me

[TrashmanKegs]

you sir might have just explained what i have been pondering about for the last 5 years of my life.! thank you !

[LordVith]

What if you could change human nature such that 'dumb, vacant, go-along-with-the-crowd-mother­#$*@ers' were the minority?

Consider for a moment: a government willing to force selective breeding (or some other means) on its citizens to select for traits more likely to produce intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate individuals for the express purpose of changing human nature for the better, thus making the 'Benevolent Leviathan' a possibility.

Do the ends justify the means?

[snewso]

@LordVith no, the biggest problem i have with this idea, is who would define "desirable traits" for the people allowed to reproduce.

[dimanganime]

Very interesting TJ. This upload recalls me of a situation discussed with an ex-psychology teacher of mine regarding groups' "diffusion of responsibility" or "bystander effect", in a criminal scenario, in which a thug tried to rape a women in a shady street. The victim screamed in time to call out the attention of the area's inhabitants, who idled at their windows and balconies, expecting someone else to call 911. No one did, the assailant took his time looting her purse before taking off.

[Umbalafum]

perhaps you're not able to see a system benevolent, because you grew up in a concept which had gone the wrong way - the concept of freedom, the greatest 'achievement' introduced into society is just an illusion, kept together by constant overstimulation of national pride and ego as well as to excessive consumption. The 2 party system with no third intermediary will always delude between reason and hubris.

[Black24Thought]

the failure for people to see outside their own bubble and realize that not everything is about them is the biggest hindrance to progress in this country

[cda6590]

You should definitely make a video on the whole "voluntary taxation" idea. It seems to me like it wouldn't work in the least bit.

[milkeddowncocobrown]

before you can give a voice to the minority, you have to be willing to accept others with their difference of beliefs..... but the truth is if people didn't look for reason to exclude others from a group, how will that group gain a feeling of superiority? in fact, it's the people wanting to keep hold on their position of superiority that makes them vote or fight against other's freedoms, or rights......

unless we stop focusing on the differences of people, we can never come together as people

[jared1k]

These videos are really TJ at his best.

[byteXI]

I agree, the biggest problem with democracy is that the vast majority of people are stupid.

[mos277]

@byteXI agreed

[99minerkc]

@byteXI , ??? da what??

[EdwardMandellHouse]

Futarchy is an interesting idea, don't know that I agree with it.

[drthunder481]

If a democracy listened to the majority Marijuana would have already been legalized for recreational use already. Democracy only listens to others opinion within the Gov't (Which is wrong).

[catbuffalo]

@drthunder481

no that's a republic lol

[123Larra]

Freedom .. True Freedom is the best thing ... the problem is (and it shouldnt be a problem) is that it wont always go your way .. to get the freedom you want then you have to tolerate the freedoms of others. FREEDOM FOR ALL !!!! Its a beautiful thing.

[NewtonsStudent]

for a while there i just watched your right shoulder swaying back and forth

[showABCshow]

ramen!

[KalebTheAtheist]

Glad to see that the classic style amazing atheist videos have returned.

[christo930]

TJ, I don't know if you participate in this channel, but I hope you do. When you talk about the nature of democracy and how the majority oppress the minority, that is EXACTLY why our country was not set up to be a democracy. This is EXACTLY why it shouldn't be put to vote, because we will ALWAYS vote SOMEONE to the back of the bus. We have done it again and again throughout history.

[wareya]

Have you read Isaac Asimov's Robot's And Empire? If not, do so.

[siggyboss]

There is no taming the Leviathan. You might as well pray.

[gsread]

Good video. Our tendency to form groups in times of crisis is a result of our desire to lessen the overwhelming feelings of isolation and responsibilty. When one is completely free they come to the realization that the entire course of their life is based on the decisions they make. This engenders a form of anxiety that causes us to feel that we are "condemned to be free". Most people desire relative freedom but not complete freedom. As much as we claim to love freedom most need some stability.

[MNICY]

Social Contracts are a very nice idea. Could even say they are how the world should be. But your right, the sad truth is that people are willing to break the social contract when they can get away with it (such as when they are the majority).

[MNICY]

A theoretical group of perfectly rational people could make it work ;)

[zombieiscool]

TJ, you're an interesting character. Let me riddle you this, if you had all the freedom in the world, would you be happy? What's really going to change in your life TJ.

[gabrielnorburg]

hear hear! this is what i don't like with politics of this day, A) let the stupid masses rule or B) let the leviathan lose.

i honesty believe the american system is broken. voltaire wrote that the best way to run a nation was to find the most enlightened man possible and let him rule with a iron fist. and in many ways this is the idea behind the presidential system.

problem is today every tea-baggers and their grandma has a right to vote. neither franklin or Voltaire or could expect that

[gammainn]

The problem with letting only one guy "rule with an iron fist" is that it may go to his head and he might abuse his power. Man is egoistic and will always think of him- or herself first. This means that if only ONE guy rules over all he will most likely without doubt do evil against other people.

What we need is to give people time to change. They need to learn to set themselves in other peoples positions. You can't force people to something and expect them to learn.

[gabrielnorburg]

people don't change... the swiss are famed for being the one nation that has total democracy aka they let the peopel vote on everything. and look at them now:

1. you have to own a gun by law

2. it's illegal to build a minaret ( in other words their people just threw away religious freedom

3. their banks store more illegal money then they store money from it's citizens

4. women didn't get the right to vote until 1990.

giving the people to much power would be disastrous.

[rockdup99]

you want to test a person?

put it in a powerful rank

[HardRawRocknRoll]

@rockdup99 you don't wanna give power to a fool

[rockdup99]

you can give power to a wise man, and he'll probably get corrupted by it

[snewso]

@gabrielnorburg interesting, i'm not terribly familiar with swiss law, but i would ask you if they have the ability for people to vote for evrything then how did women not get the right till 90. thanks. i agree minorities will be oppressed in this system.

[gabrielnorburg]

because people are egoistic/ which results in ignorance... if the law says you can have all the pie, and you where raised being told you had the right to have all the pie, wouldn't you take all the pie?

it was not until the end of the 19th and the early 20th century that non landowners were given the right to vote. why because the nobles and landowners had all the power and wanted it to stay that way. like i said people are egoistic.

[thelifeofanomad]

I'm glad you're going back to more information based videos. Thanks TJ! X)

[Joyness333]

TJ, do you think lazy people are bad people? Just curious what your stance is on that.

[Serostern]

Have you fucking seen TJ? He IS a lazy man.

[mattfreaknparker]

an interesting dilemma

[TheSwager]

I love what you are doing with this channel.

[2bsirius]

I didn't know you had another channel. You seem like a different person on this channel, a more interesting person.

Interesting video.

[2bsirius]

Btw I five starred this video because [again] your thoughts were interesting, but I don't agree with some of your conclusions. I was just very glad to see that you really are someone who can think....I hate to admit it, but I didn't know that about you before...

I thought conferencereport's response raised a lot of the same things I would have.

I'm enjoying this exchange!

[2bsirius]

A comic view of your point on false consensus or groupthink insanity:

watch?v=TS7P-eo-COo

[StrapOnDildoSexRulez]

in the navy?

[Max20854]

Sounds like you're turning back into a Libertarian.

[ArtinEmil]

He is a libertarian. He just hates to admit that. Everything about him is libertarian. He is just anti-capitalist but nonetheless one can be a libertarian but not a capitalist (though that is rare). When I watch his old video I have to say that I do not see any difference between him back then and now. Except the label he used to identify himself as.

[missdih]

Most ppl are used to the society they were born in, therefore any sign of change would be seen as affecting the existing order, putting in cause the system of values. Thats why ppl go against it. Obviosly i dont think that way, but its hard to make other ppl stop acting selfish, and realize how awful it is when someone try to stop others from their rights. I believe though we can create a more fair society based in tolerance, but not through some utopic benevolent government.

[collins1188]

"its hard to make other ppl stop acting selfish."

One of the most insightful comments thus far in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

This is why a system of government that takes the inherent selfish desires of people and uses it as a basis to produce the most desirable outcome for all who are concerned would be the best system to employ.

This is why America is democratic and employs free-market capitalism.

That is the whole point!!!

It is a beautiful system that works.

[Curas1]

A lot of my videos address this when I talk of politics because to me a state has to be dynamic to adjust to the needs of it's citizens but be self accurate enough to set reliable guidelines and I think in a mechanical industrial world that is done through economic benchmarks to achieve the best balance of resource and ideal across the whole economic social political spectrum.

In fact it's why I'm so fervent on some extremely unpopular or even outright politically incorrect views.

[Starbat88]

"Democracy" literally translates to "rulership of the mob".

What we need is a government whose decisions are not based in ANY mere human opinion. Decisions must be ARRIVED at through empirical means, and the application of the Scientific Method.

We don't need "democracy".  We need Science applied for Social concern.

[DaveDoggOwns]

But science is performed BY humans! Also, morality is not scientific so science cannot answer questions about what laws SHOULD be passed and what ones shouldn't be. It can only bring the facts.

[Starbat88]

No, the Scientific Method is independent of human limitations of opinion. If anything, it can only be superior to our current governments that pretty much promote all legislation based on nothing but opinion.

And morality is not scientific? How do you figure?

You would propose that human opinion, with all its biases, all its ego problems, all its selfishness and short-sightedness, all its tendency toward self-interest... will be more "moral" than the Scientific Method?

[DaveDoggOwns]

The Scientific Method is correct. The people that claim to use it are fallible and biased. The scientific method has to be performed by someone. It's not some mythical beast that operates independently from humans.

Morality is not scientific because you cannot logically get an ought from an is.

I didn't say anything was more moral than the other nor did I advocate basis everything around human opinion.

[collins1188]

"Morality is not scientific because you cannot logically get an aught from an is." ~DaveDoggOwns

Quoted for emphasis and agreement. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Starbat88]

Well that "aught" you refer to is human opinion again. And people have different opinions about how things "aught" to be.

As far as human opinion goes, all we need to do is agree on our common ground. Everyone needs adequate shelter, food, water, warmth, and basics freedoms and human rights, as supposedly upheld by the UN

Everything after that, like the question of gay marriage, the question of how to distribute food, etc. These are issues that can be solved scientifically, not politically.

[Starbat88]

"I didn't say anything was more moral than the other nor did I advocate basis everything around human opinion."

Can you suggest a better idea then?

Perhaps we can't ENTIRELY escape the fallibility of human opinion, but it can only be a step in the right direction from what we have now.

[collins1188]

@starbat88

Your argument for the scientific method is a non-argument. You assert that the scientific method is completely unbiased and thus it is better at discerning moral truths than people.

Unfortunately the scientific method CAN NOT be used in a quantitative manner. The scientific method will never tell you what to do. It's sole purpose is to enhance human knowledge on a subject in hopes that we can take that knowledge and use it. In the end, it is always human decision.

[Starbat88]

@collins1188

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not saying the Scientific Method should "tell" people what to do. It's still people that will do them. The Scientific Method is a tool for guiding decisions in the most expedient and sensible direction possible. It's really not that different from the democratic process, once applied, except that the democratic process has proven so flawed since it has NO guidance other than human opinion.

[collins1188]

"the democratic process has proven so flawed since it has NO guidance other than human opinion."

OK... slow your roll there Starbat

Do you believe humans are rational life forms? Do you believe humans make decisions based on absolutely nothing ie complete randomness?

If human beings ARE rational and do have basis for decisions, than human opinion MUST be based in something. I assert to you that it is based in prediction of what will bring about the most desireable outcome.

[collins1188]

(CONTINUED)

Are human predictions sometimes wrong. By definition they MUST be wrong sometimes however they are correct more times than not. Where do humans gain knowledge to make accurate predictions? The scientific method. Science allows us to examine past events and generate probability curves for what is likely to occur given some moral dilemma.

The point is, democracy is the best form of government because the scientific method is already employed inherently in the system.

[Starbat88]

"Do you believe humans are rational life forms?"

Individually, yes. But as TJ has rightly pointed out, there are variances in perspective across the population. So by the time everyone has their "vote", all you get generic autodetermination, and politicians that rely more on inspiring words than actual results.

Science certainly plays a role in society today, but not ENOUGH! Basketball players make more money than cancer research scientists. How is that rational? cont...

[Starbat88]

There's so much self-interest in institutions.

Just look at the oil industry. We could have had the use of an electric car way back in the nineties. By now, we'd have made the complete transition of infrastructure from gas cars to electric cars.

However, the self-interest (opinion) of certain groups use their financial muscle to hold back such advances. This is just one of many examples of technology being held back.

If we were guided mainly by science, this would not have happened.

[Starbat88]

And does democracy help with this? No. As long as the average person can still have their SUV and can get to work in the morning, are they going to vote for and push for the electric car?

You see what I mean? You can't rely on democracy to bring what's rational and best for all into implementation. It's all just a tug-of-war with different opinions.

Politicians just worry about appealing to the masses, so they'll get re-elected. There's no drive to improve the status quo.

[collins1188]

"Basketball players make more money than cancer research scientists."

Honestly, its because basketball players are rarer than cancer research scientists and, to be quite honest, it takes much more skill and ability to play basketball at a pro level than it does to research cancer. It's just a fact.

Think of it this way. You can train the average person, from birth, to become a cancer researcher. However, you can't train that same person to be a pro basketball player. You just can't.

[Starbat88]

"...it takes much more skill and ability to play basketball at a pro level than it does to research cancer."

And what does THAT have anything to do with what's relevant?

Try telling a dying caner patient that basketball players are more valuable than those who are working to save her life.

Basketball is just a game, while cancer research is something productive and progressive. What difference does is make who is "rarer".

[XeliosX]

@collins1188 I disagree, and here's why.

What you're arguing is you can't train someone to be a professional athlete, because there's natural talent, skill, and ability in that.

So what you're arguing is you can instead convince someone who hates science, who has a pre-developed opposition to reading and number-crunching. You can train him to be a 'professional' cancer researcher.

But you can't train someone who's body fully functions to shoot a ball through a hoop?

Kay then.

[LeksServices]

You want an irrational decision made by humans? Think about all the restrictions we're putting on sex offenders. Seems the impirical evidence points towards the complete and utter failure of these policies. They are regarded by many people in the sciences as actually being destructive to their own goals, counterproductive. So why are they there? Because they work? If the scientific consensus is that they are not and probably never will work, then why do common people insist on having them?

[Starbat88]

Really good point. Yet another example of how current policies are ignorant of scientific knowledge. In a democracy, new knowledge is implemented only very slowly, if at all. This is unacceptable if we are to make any progress.

The US was not originally a "democracy". It was a Constitutional Republic; a social contract with certain basic principles to follow.

Perhaps the Scientific Method should be adopted as one of those fundamental principles.

[collins1188]

@ LeksServices

There is a difference between irrational behavior and illogical behavior. What you described in your example is illogical but not irrational.

I must admit that I am ignorant to this sex offender topic. I don't know what you mean by "restrictions on sex offenders".

I can tell you that there are many reasons why we would try to put restrictions on sex offenders and I think those reasons are intuitively obvious so I'm not going to list them.

[LeksServices]

By the same standards, we would be treating alcohol offenders - people who commit crimes while drunk - the same way as sex offenders. We have seen in our neck of the woods, in the news, alcoholics getting caught driving drunk without licenses, alcoholics killing children in front of their peers, alcoholics killing adults in front of church groups and sheriff's deputies, and all kinds of alcohol-related car accidents. And this doesn't include all the other crimes in which alcohol was a factor.

[LeksServices]

It seems to me, if we REALLY want to PROTECT our citizens from VIOLENT, REPEAT OFFENDERS, we would go after ALCOHOL OFFENDERS, not SEX OFFENDERS. This is not "prohibition," btw, as most people seem to think it is. It is disallowing someone the right to drink who has clearly shown he is not responsible with alcohol. If you're all for preventing violent alcoholics from using alcohol and getting violent, then this idea is for you!

[HardRawRocknRoll]

@LeksServices so according to you, drunks are worst than rapists. shame on you

[collins1188]

@LeksServices

If someone is prone to committing crimes under the influence of alcohol, restricting their alcohol consumption doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea if you disregard practicality.

It just seems like alcohol related crimes are so rampant that if we did try to prohibit alcohol consumption in this way, we would get the same result as prohibition...

Prohibition wasn't a bad idea in the first place. It was simply that the consequences of prohibition outweighed the benefits.

[jjfarm58]

@LeksServices pragmatically speaking we americans tend to pratical with intervention than prevention

[NOVAtheRetard]

@collins1188 I can't believe you're arguing against the scientific method. I doubt you understand what the method itself is. It's just a method for fact and double checking your scientific work, while there's arguing of "bias" on it which makes no sense what so ever. Google it some time.

[zOMGpokemon]

Good GRAVY you're smart. I'm having trouble keeping up with this channel!

[CombustTheChronic]

tj are you allways right or have you been wrong before?

[collins1188]

"TJ are you always right or have you been wrong before?"

Many times. TJ is wrong about voluntary taxation and government participation.

TJ believes that all govt programs should apply to those who pay taxes and taxation should be optional.

Unfortunately that is impossible. I'll cite an example. How could the military only protect those who pay taxes? How could police only protect those who pay taxes? The idea itself is absolutely absurd.

[DaveDoggOwns]

So I guess by your very broad definition of a state Tj, even ancoms, ansoc, and ancaps are technically not anarchists since ALL societies are to some extent democratic.

[FiveStarsPerShoulder]

I like this, these are really interesting points. And I agree with you 100%, that the idea that flawed people can created an unflawed government is quite silly. I also agree about voluntary taxation, by the way.

[collins1188]

"I also agree about voluntary taxation"

I don't get it. TJ is an anti-free-market capitalist but to employ "dollar voting" in govt taxing and spending is an endorsement of the ideology.

Does TJ know he is a walking-talking contradiction? I don't think he realises it but he is.

Plus, voluntary taxation would never work. How would the govt create incentive for people to pay taxes? How would they limit that incentive to only apply to taxpayers?

[FiveStarsPerShoulder]

@collins1188 The incentive is quite simple: nobody pays, nobody gets roads, schools, libraries, defence from foreign threats, a police force, and so on. Besides, if you choose what you pay for than there are no programs that the people do not approve of, and basically all government action reflects what the people want.

[thisisarecordingcom]

Awesome video TJ. I hope you do more like this. I look up the terms, books and whatever else mentioned and learn a lot. Thank you for that.

[pcwildcat]

@thisisarecordingcom yea even if you don't agree with him  hes a pretty smart dude

[TheEfkk]

reference to the 50 common myths about popular psychology book?

[sulthus]

Sure, but its a lot better than some of the other things that are shoved down our throats.

[francisleech]

artificial intelligence could protect us from ourselves. It sounds crazy, I know, but I have hope in robots. lol

[Sn00kyCr00ksWorld]

F that......If i was ina group,and there was danger...id BE OUT OF THERE!

[Saerain]

Nice video. Great points made. It's cool to know that you watch ConferenceReport.

[sulthus]

I personaly think that the only freedom we shouldnt have (aside from what is required to sustain society) is the freedom to be ignorant, I personaly think you should have no choice but to educate yourself untill you die.

[TheKillerKlok]

Some actual thought was put into this video... a Complicated Topic, to be sure.

I personally Believe people should be free to do whatever they want, except for harming others.

It seems political solutions tend to do more harm then good, Gun laws don't stop criminals from getting weapons...

People need to stop buying into the Bullshit spread by those with a political agenda...

[Emil246]

cooperation should be used to divide tasks or an idea that would take longer days if one person did it.

[truefakeness]

What do you think of Plato's solution? Only allow those who have demonstrated over their lifetime a concern for justice and fairness the right to rule, and further deny rulers the right to own or acquire property.

[nocturnezero]

Who judges them?

[Brainkiller]

You're an atheist and you're amazing!!

[bobster451]

Excellent commentary.

I hope you get over your congestion quickly.

[JazzySoulMusic]

this channel is great man, you and conferencereport make the best videos.

[UncomfortableSilence]

That is diffusion of responsibility. A by product of evolution. The bystander effect often can let people die. But the better we understand it, the better we can deal with the following the majority. I wish more people would read Thoreau.

[crocz]

Agreed

[IDvok]

last

[Exposure101com]

hey TJ, love your vids, thanks for bringing it down to earth for the dumbasses in the world

[Vrachtraffel]

God hates you.

[StyleKrong]

god can't hate him because he's an athiest, thus rendering god non-existent.