New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 2)

[helltrackrider]

How can someone dislike this?...F'ing Statist!!!

[Panpiper]

This is my second time watching this two parter. I dare say it's even better the second time through. It 'is' a great debate strategy Stefan, and I've started using it myself.

[stefbot]

@Panpiper Thanks, I'm so glad it was helpful! :)

[goten1201]

07:00 to 07:42 is the why how what argument, instead of the common commercial use of what how why, and its a great concept, covered in a TED Speech.

[SunBeamsan]

AHH COOL REP. OF NEW MEXICO ADAM KOKESH TALKING TO STEFEN O:

[flaunttnualf]

Good stuff. Definitely worth thinking about.

[Sivels]

hey, is that adam kokesh?

[Pazrayna]

why's he talking about FDR, he's the worst president ever!

[ronpaulspanish]

What an AWESOME conference!!!! It was a great surprise to see Adam Kokesh in there too! What a great moement! Thank you for making this video available.

[Nphyx]

Excellent point on segregation here! I had been struggling with that one internally, thankfully never having faced someone one it from the anarchist position.

[Claytrainor]

16:45

[marjan15]

You get a feeling that with the roads question Stefan didn't want to answer it directly. Even more, it was a clear example of anarchy principle failing.

But two strong issues from the public were more or less ignored at their core:

- In the real world the transition from current system to anarchy would be violent.

- More chaotic society equals to less safe society.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"In the real world the transition from current system to anarchy would be violent."

1)When the state is being graudually diminished to a minimal state, convincing the minarchists that there should be competiting DRO's will ease the transition to anarchy.

2)Even if violence is required to bring down the state this would be legitimite violence since this violence stems from retialiation rather than initiation.

"More chaotic society equals to less safe society."

Arguement from apocalapse.

[marjan15]

Legitimate violence? So, we need someone that will tell which violence is legitimate? And it needs to be anarchist, right? I thought that anarchists are against violence a priori.

It is not clear if anarchy is just an idea or should be practically realized. What we can assume from speech is that for Stefan it is more of an philosophical idea.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"Legitimate violence? So, we need someone that will tell which violence is legitimate? And it needs to be anarchist, right?"

How hypocritical. The government is violence so what's the point in pointing out anarchists intend to bring about violent revolution. If violence is bad why condemn the anarchist? A possible violent struggle against the government is morally equivalent to the police locking up a deranged serial killer. Clearly you consider THAT legitimate use of force do you not?

[DaveDoggOwns]

"It is not clear if anarchy is just an idea or should be practically realized. What we can assume from speech is that for Stefan it is more of an philosophical idea."

If it was merely a philosophical idea there would be no point in trying to make it reality. Stef is a Canadian. You think he'd spend all his money going into the U.S. in order to make a speech about an idea he doesn't intend to bring into reality? You think a man as wise as Stef would perform such an obvious contradiction?

[marjan15]

Well, if it is more than just an idea, then we should start talking about violent revolution and real world consequences.

I just don't think you are any better if your path to solution is violence. And even then it is not clear if solution is really more peaceful (safety of children, health care, drugs, transition, foreign policy...)

[DaveDoggOwns]

"Well, if it is more than just an idea, then we should start talking about violent revolution and real world consequences."

That would be retarded to be talking about violent revolution in the midst of big government that is willing to crack down on "homegrown terrorists". And Stef is here to talk about his Against Me arguement, not practical anarchy.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"I just don't think you are any better if your path to solution is violence."

If you are so against violence it makes NO SENSE to be supporting the status quo. You know there is a difference between retialiation and initiation. Quit acting like you didn't here what I said. Quit implying that anarchists support the initiation of force like the government does when they do not. Telling anarchists they cannot revolt against the government is like telling a rape victim she can't seek justice.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"And even then it is not clear if solution is really more peaceful (safety of children, health care, drugs, transition, foreign policy...)"

Of course it will be more peaceful. There won't be a violent monopoly of force running the place. Competiting DRO's couldn't possible draft men to go to war nor would they have the money to go to war. As Stef said, the government's violent policies wouldn't happen if people had to pay for these policies with their own money.

[marjan15]

I'm not supporting status quo, i just think we can do more (in terms of reaching stable peace & freedom for most people) if we actively debate in favor of small governments. I see that as slow international transition of spreading right ideas.

You need to take international politics into the picture. Russia, China, Korea are far from transitioning to small governments, so it is too dangerous for western countries to go to that path prematurely.

[DaveDoggOwns]

Oh come on have some spine. Are you really going to deny yourself freedom because someone might take it away? He who gives up liberty for a little bit of safety deserves niether liberty or safety. We are allready armed to the teeth and we will be more so in anarchy. We got leftover nukes anyway. There is no reason to fear other governments. Military occupations always fail anyway.

[atrickpay11]

Good to see Adam Kokesh at the 16:35 mark.

[jaminunit]

Fucking awsome! Stef you are a total insperation. Thank you.

[megamanium]

Great work Stefan!

[okcupidvitame]

Great interplay. Using the devil's advocate stance was awesome. But only two hours? What a tease. :p

[wait887]

I really felt bad that I missed your speech since I was at the liberty forum. Unfortunately for me stef, I had to make sure I was at the airport early enough to make my flight. You know how long it takes to get through the government checkpoint in the airport. Maybe we'll see you at the next liberty forum. I'll bring my daughter so she can play with yours. Take care.

Michael Garcia.

[heikocochius]

It was a delight to watch you present and debate. You are focused and stay focused on the important issue - the gun in the room.

[isjoeythere]

Excellent presentation!

[Jacko86plus5]

Too many jokes Stefan.

[stratvic]

It is a stalling for time to think mechanism.

[stratvic]

Justifying kidnapping other peoples children on the basis that they might turn into expensive miscreants for society would seem like the argument that we should kill all bears because they might attack a person.

As a society we have to accept that bears, miscreants, and other dangers exist and that we need to build in ability to protect ourselves from bears and bad people not wipe them out to protect society.

[buff001]

Stefan, at ~40min you advocate the use of force against parents that harm children. Can you speak to the slippery slope of this argument? Some would say that spanking or home schooling or vaccine avoidance is child abuse. How do you deal with this dilemma? How can you draw a logical line?

Thanks in advance.

[stefbot]

Actually, these issues can most likely be resolved without force, you might want to check out the chapter on child protection in my free book Practical Anarchy... :)

[crapalator]

More recorded Liberty Forum speaking please,that was incredible Stef,more like that would be grate.Dont stop what your doing other wise... PS : some really grate comments everyone,i see some super educated peeps watch  the Stfbot

peace

[guyjohn59]

17:00: Without a collective defense or state constitution, what moral agreement would people agree upon. Obviously the initiation of force would not be tolerated, but what else? And in terms of enforcement, how can private agencies determine who the aggressor is? What's to stop them from becoming armed thugs, who define their terms and laws based on what their customers want. I know that a state monopoly on retaliatory force is immoral, but is it necessary?

[zonsb]

People that liked this video should watch "Delusions". A talk by Marc Stevens at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum

[zonsb]

There are no citizens.

[MandrikSG]

Thanks again, Stefan. I really enjoyed watching this video.

[dinkolino2]

its a lame argument about the roads.. avoiding the issue that is basicaly a simply practical one..

[Spalg]

Brings up a question: if guns don't kill people, people kill people, then can't a similar argument be used for the government's use of force?

[MaikUniversum]

it can.

[TheStig000]

Governments kill people, guns don't kill people.

[Spalg]

I got the whole thoreau government is best which govern leasts idea and the idea of people's right to own guns, but my question still holds. If you can say "well guns don't kill people people do" and turn around and say "Government will always suck because they have the gun!" it seems like there is an issue. I may well be wrong.

[TheStig000]

It's not that they have guns, but that they will use them to get their way.

[zonsb]

Guns don't kill people. Governments don't kill people. People kill people.

Government is legal fiction, it has zero energy. It cannot act. People granting each other government titles assume the title gives them the authority to kill people is still people killing people.

Delusional people believing a piece of paper gives them authority to absolve them of any personal integrity and guilty consscience.

[TheStig000]

The government is made up of people...We aren't saying that ideas and pieces of paper are killing people we're saying that the people who believe in these ideas kill people.

[zonsb]

So you agree that it's people (most likely with delusional ideas) that kill people. It's a metaphysical point of identity that people exist. Government is an epistemological construct of the mind.

People that kill people are killers. You can dress them up in any costume and give them any title or give them no costumes or no titles and they're still killers. Costumes don't kill people.Titles don't kill people. People kill people.

[TheStig000]

So why should we go out of our way to arm them, give them immunity from prosecution, and fund them? That's the difference between a criminal and the president or a cop. The people in the government are immune from punishment, are funded and armed on purpose. Why?

[zonsb]

BTW, who is this "we" that you count yourself a member of that give them immunity from prosecution. I can assure you I'm not a member of that group. I wish you and your group would stop funding them.

[TheStig000]

"WE" are forced at gunpoint to fund them, retard. That's why we are pissed off in the first place. If it was optional nobody would be arguing this right now! Can you please think before posting your next comment?

[zonsb]

You evaded the question of who "we" are. I am not a member of your group funding them. I assume you know that name calling indicates you can't present logically consistent argument to support your position. Government doesn't kill people. People kill people.

I know exactly what I'm saying. I'm challenging you to think before you lower yourself to ad hominem attacks.

I stand more firmly than most people --libertarians included -- on the non-initation of force, fraud and coercion principle/law.

[TheStig000]

"We" is citizens who are forced at gunpoint to pay taxes. Obviously.

[zonsb]

There are no citizens. The definition of citizens is a pledge of allegiance in return for a duty to protect. Every state supreme court and US supreme court has ruled that the government has no duty to protect.

Besides that, it's impossible for government to protect every supposed citizen 24/7. Government would have to provide around the clock body guards for every supposed citizen.

Heck, the government failed miserably on 9-11.

[TheStig000]

This conversation wasn't about defense it was about the government forcing its will by force. I don't know how you misunderstood the matter at issue here...

[zonsb]

I posted a response to your post wherein you stated: "governments kill people." I didn't misunderstand your comment. It was quite clear. That's what our back and forth dialog has been about.

I know what Stef was taking about in the video and I know that you wrote "governments kill people." I didn't respond to what Stef said. I responded to what you wrote.

Government doesn't kill people. People Kill people. If the government could take the witness stand what would you see in the witness box?

[TheStig000]

The government is made up of people who have been given power. That is what we are talking about. I do not mean that ideas or pieces of paper kill people, as I explained previously. Please don't argue in circles, I just got done explaining this.

[zonsb]

The constitution for the United States of America is four pieces of paper -- nothing more. Save for the delusions people give to it in their mind.

The United States is a corporation.

[zonsb]

I don't see how that supports your argument that government kills people. Government cannot take the witness stand much less defend itself. For it has no energy.

[TheStig000]

This conversation is over. It's a waste of time if you're seriously saying that the government cannot defend itself.

[zonsb]

Okay, if you're so smart, imagine that you call the government to take the witness stand, what do you see in the witness box? For example, assume that the government is the STATE OF VERMONT that you're going to call to the witness stand. What do you see in the witness box?

[TheStig000]

It doesn't matter, if you don't pay your taxes you will go to jail.

[zonsb]

I don't have any taxes. The government has taxes that it would like to impose on me. I didn't accept their offer. Nor did I or will I go to jail for not paying taxes. Probably because I didn't accept their taxes thereby making them my taxes.

Obviously you're among the duped populace. I know how it is. I too WAS a duped "citizen".

[TheStig000]

And which country do you live in?

[zonsb]

I don't live in a country? I live on the land. On the geographic continent known as North America. That's a scientific identification not a political political demarcation.

[TheStig000]

That's a pretty poor argument, just to let you know. I could simply say that none of your argument made sense because it was all letters and those combination of letters mean nothing to me. Please stop being so full of shit for a second and answer the question.

[zonsb]

There you go again making personal attacks against me. Obviously your arguments are failing you.

[TheStig000]

That's a cop out. Look at the argument and not the scary words. Please take it like a man and give a reasonable answer instead of dodging my arguments. Not everyone feels like tip toeing around people scared of certain words. If you want to tuck your tail and run feel free to do so but you win absolutely nothing by doing so.

[zonsb]

What is your question? And when you make a habit of making personal attacks against me you prove yourself undeserving of being acknowledged and your arguments not standing on their own merits.

[TheStig000]

If you stopped getting distracted by a few "naughty" words you would have seen the question. It was which country do you live in?

[zonsb]

What words do you think are "naughty"?

I do not live in a country. Mostly I live on North America. Sometimes I live on other continents and islands. I'm a sort of permanent traveler.

My gosh, the education systeml has brain wash indoctrinated you.

[TheStig000]

I don't think any words are naughty. It would help if you would explain how it is that you've managed to avoid paying taxes. If you want to continue this conversation I think personal messaging would be best. It's getting more difficult to follow the conversation here.

[zonsb]

What words do YOU think are scary? Yet you imply that I think they're scary. You created a mind-spun fabrication and attached it to me. That's called a strawman.

[TheStig000]

You were complaining about personal attacks. If words could hurt I would give a shit.

[zonsb]

It's widely known by veteran debtors that ad hominems (personal attacks) are used by a person when the realize their loosing the debate -- they realize their arguments are woefully weak. Sort of like as Stefan said, when people in government lose the battle of ideas they resort to violence, you resort to persona ad hominem attacks.

[Nebbyker]

Is that how you always debate, by calling your opponent names then asking them not to look at the scary words only at the argument? If you really want to get out of the government's grip it is possible, don't be so incredulous that some have already gotten out, you can do it too if you really want. If words could hurt?? Hahahah any 5 year old child knows that words hurt, sometimes even more than physical pain, go outside call someone a racial slur then tell them words don't hurt.

[TheStig000]

He admitted to paying sales tax. That was my argument, that he wasn't in complete control of his earnings.

[zonsb]

You asking me what country I live in is akin to asking what government I'm a subject of and what government I must answer to.

I'm not a subject. That's my choice. And I live it.

I'm the highest authority in my life. Nobody has authority over me nor do have authority over anyone else.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

[TheStig000]

I'm fairly certain you've bought an item from a store. If you haven't feel free to tell me. But if you did, you paid sales tax.

[zonsb]

You're right. I have paid sales tax. I should have been more clear and said I don't pay income tax or FICA.

Also, for the United States the listed price of products and services is 22 percent embedded tax due to the chain of business that took earth's resources and worked them into a product that eventually got to a retail store shelf. Each business passes their tax cost up to the next buyer in the chain. Just as they pass on their labor cost, electric cost etc.

[TheStig000]

Yes but these people are given weapons and funds to carry out their murders by the victims...That's the distinction.

[nathanjonessr]

as to the "golden gun", just as violence doesnt magically produce utopia, i would contend philosophy doesnt either. I love philosophy, but in 10K years it hasnt served up what it promised. to think that somehow philosophy or guns or whatever will give us utopia is vanity. There is something broken in humanity that violence or philosophy cant fix. we live in a constant state of paradox, because we struggle and strive for what we want most: an easy life. and we chase after the wind...

[nathanjonessr]

what is the empirical difference between your faith in philosophy and my faith in God? Empiricism is valuable but is it the only standard of truth, the only standard of validity?

I tell you this though it is hard to disagree with so much of what you say. there is no one on youtube that causes more fruitful thinking than you. good video, wish i could have been there.

[D3mi4n]

"but in 10K years it hasnt served up what it promised"

It has never being used properly.

Philosophy can not coexist with any religion nor any kind of upper/elite class.

[nathanjonessr]

you can say anything hasnt been used properly, but when it is, then it will work. The commies say it, the capitalists say it.

still, for 10k years man has been doing philosophy, year after year and no utopia. no final answer.

D3mi4n: philosophy has never existed without religion, so how can you say it can never coexist w/ religion? btw: religion is a philosophy.

[stratvic]

We discover the better solutions through trial and error. Eliminating the one golden gun solution gives us the ability to trial more solutions and to build on the better ones. Single solution problems are inherently risking and fragile. Creating a pluralism and the degrees of freedom required to achieve different solutions is not only a more ethical system but also one that will more reliably produce better societies.

[nathanjonessr]

why all the down thumbs?

[anakin005]

Did you piss off Julius Cesar?

[CelticReject]

I'm new to this sort of discussion. Would this fall under the title of 'ethics'?

[TheStig000]

I think so. It's not about the practicality of anarchism, it's about the ethical superiority of anarchism and non aggression.

[MaikUniversum]

nice video

[aarythmic]

Enlightening and entertaining.  Wish I'd been there.

[conquesimo]

Was that Adam Kokesh at 16:35?

[johnycannuk]

Yep

[RuddODragonFear]

@conquesimo oh yeah baby

[ya19375]

fail