Everyday Anarchy

[joequirk]

@stefbot, Make bite-size video of 7:43 to 10:03. A perfect potentially viral meme.

[dududugary]

i was reallly getting into this video ....untilll TIPLE H !!! YEEEAAAAH

[nigeltheukhammer]

Well put

[flokatiman]

03:33 TRIPLE H! :D

[tomilia]

I love your channel!!!

Libertarians greetings from Switzerland!!

[TheInquisitor78]

Who's the guy in the chair with everything on fire behind him at 4:21?

[TheInquisitor78]

Who's the guy in the chair with everything on fire behind him?

[disgracious23]

@stefbot

Check it!

w ww. ana rchadi a.com

[MirageScience]

Anarchy is interaction though love and making only the smart our leaders. Instead of voting in rich ass holes who don't give a fuck. Anarchy is removing the layers of power to see the true men behind the curtain so they can't keep shoving shit down our throats. Anarchy is liberty without bullshit. Anarchy is no system for the evil assholes to abuse. Anarchy is natural.

[delboyzgzg]

@stefbot haha Reverse psychology anyone?

[darkfiete]

@stefbot sometimes you need to wash your brain from the lies and the false ideals, just to rethink and see a more direct and effective approach that you didn't see or didn't want to see because of inconvenience. only then you will see that there is only one way, YOUR WAY!

[SableMelody]

Great video.

Personally, I've always seen anarchy as being related more to the concept of "revolution" or "resistance" rather than "riot".

[sharperguy]

Ok, well it seems my definition of incest was a little off. Apparently the word itself often implies non-consent as well as other things.

[blobperson]

sat. 06.feb.2010 - every city around the world. we charge our politicians for the crimes which they have commited. you are all welcome to join. we need as many people, groups, teams, etc... to take part, please pass this on to all you know.

no more new world order. this time we will stop them. together we will make history !!

[carolinagsings77]

Whats going on with this... we really must get together... but that day is now in my past... whats for the future...? :)

[blobperson]

@carolinagsings77 the future? well i dont know, its whatever you make it to be...

[951IVAN]

what song is this? in the start?

[JackyRowe]

Bach's Suite No. 1 for Cello. Beautiful.

[NeloAngeloXI]

(A)

[DirtyJerzProductions]

anarchy = fun

[MannoMagic]

anarchy is hard work for us... anarchy is education and social skilll

[BearWindAppleyard]

exactly, good education is the way to go. keep people clever and open their minds, make them think for themselves but also open up for others thoughts.

[darkfiete]

@MannoMagic it took over a hundred years for the anarchist ideas to seize spain. 100 years of education for a few years of anarchy.... poor anarchy sure is the hard way but damn its worth it

[Motherlandpluto]

@MannoMagic especially if you've been abused as a child

[AshillaBeige]

Vote Super Nanny!

[muzzleray]

Dear Stef

could you please re-post this in high def

[onecoolcat43]

The problem with many modern governments, is their desire to control their populations through law. Their are now laws that are not related to protection of property or individuals and these laws infringe on the Rights of Man. This is the common beef that many people have against modern government. But just remember that even anarchy will evenutally lead into a form of communal governance.

[onecoolcat43]

Anarchy thus evolves into a system of rule much like a dictatorship which controls by force. What many people do not understand, as Thomas Hobbes points out in "Leviathan" that government takes shape out of anarchy. Nations are created as compacts between its inhabitants to protect personal interest and property. Laws were initially created to prevent theft and murder and other heinous crimes against people and property.

[drew335533]

But who's right is it to decide what crimes agiasnt people and property are?

[onecoolcat43]

Well that is a good question. In reality no one has the true right to dictate law over other men. I believe it was Jefferson who said "If man cannot be trusted in the governance of himself, then how can he be trusted with the governance of others?" The answer is, he can't. To agree with Hobbes, man is nasty and brutish (Two adjectives he used to describe mans life, but he would also rightly apply to man as well.) THat is why dictators are seen in such a negative light,

[onecoolcat43]

That is why the American Government has a number of checks and balances, or is alleged to have such balances. We must remember that Governments work for the people in which they govern. Once the government begans to work against its own, it no longer is a government, rather a rogue power. People have a right to end their social contract with their nation state at anytime by either leaving or revolting. Revolt however, is an extreme that is a last resort to the ending of such a socialcontract

[djboony]

the "contract" is amyth i never signed anything, why should i leave my own home to end anothers authority over me?

[threebobs]

The only way you could logically say "government that works for its people", if if you ELIMINATE government. Then you'd get a situation where people could actually pay other people for contract enforcement and defense. Then you could say the government "works" for people.

Forcible democracy isn't representation. It's quite the opposite. It's violence.

[sharperguy]

I don't have to revolt to end a contract with my car insurance company. What makes this contract so special? Maybe the fact that I never signed it in the first place?

[onecoolcat43]

While I should hear the entire book before I make this comment, I wish to point out the inherent flaws of anarchy as a practical system of "self-governance." Much like many of theoretical governmental systems it does not take into account human aggression. In a system of anarchy, might makes right and the strong abuse the weak people there is nothing to hold them in check. The powerful use their strength to take what they wish and in turn become more powerful.

[sharperguy]

You arguments assumes two things.

One is that the governments actually solve this problem currently. I would say it doesn't because taxation is the only way to fund wars that people don't agree with, and violent crime is encouraged with drug law, prostitution law etc by making these things much more profitable for violent criminals.

It also assumes that humans cannot form a system of protection based on voluntary contracts, and hence must subject themselves to a violent monopoly.

[conquesimo]

Useful commentary, but I can't get over the fact that this guy sounds like Captain Kirk when he speaks.

[erdal0]

but nobody will pay tax for schools if its voluntary to pay tax

i dont understand how you can run a effective government

[lancebrace2009]

thats the point of anarchy... there is no government.

[erdal0]

but my question is then how could people collect money to pay tax for school as mentioned in this video

nobody will pay without force/police

[threebobs]

Good question. If you download the free audio book it will talk about how we can have a better way to pay for schools and roads and things.

Listen to it. It might change your life.

[prisburning]

At least in agorist or otherwise free market anarchism, schools and other services operated currently by the government would be owned and operated privately in a free and competitive market, guaranteeing choice, low cost, and higher quality.

As for those who STILL cannot afford education but wish to provide it for their children, there can and probably will develop help programs LOCALLY and VOLUNTARILY.

[CrustyElmo666]

I believe the rigid systemification of the organized and undeniably imperialistic state is utterly incompatible with human nature at a core fundamental level. It, in it's very nature, fails to recognize human individuality in attempts to create something oversimplified and generic. Assuming an Absolute status, it's sole function is to mold humanity to fit it's arbitrary goals, rather then molding itself so as to fit the needs of humanity.

Awesome video, can't wait to check out the book!

[Trandofir]

My god this book was awesome!

[Gebirgsjager88]

Nice video. What is the song at the begining?

[snipa4lyfe]

look up yoyoma's music on itunes. it's one of his most popular songs I believe.

[threebobs]

This is played by a member of the freedomainradio boards.

[AllyourbasicGerrard]

This is a fantastic book! Moral and intellectual logic is all you need to form a brilliant argument!

[DasGuntLord01]

Your vids need more exposure stef.

5 stars from me.

[threebobs]

Remember, this is just a tiny tiny snippet from great book.

The only way to experience it is to download the real thing (and then the follow up, 'practical anarchy')

[threebobs]

It's funny you mentioned the need for'practical applications'. Molyneux has just written a book, you can download for free called 'practical anarchy' that talks exclusively about HOW a voluntary society would work.

It's 6 hours of practical applications.

But I'm sure an intellectual giant such as yourself has already listened to it.

[charliesgym]

What a great video - it's time we live in a world without political violence!

[JTickett]

What a beautiful video. You've expressed the meaning very well, and found the words I can't string together alone in my mind! Thankyou, I'll be glad to share this around with friends.

[Sepero1]

Damn good reading. Not boring at all. Just excellent Stef.

[DuanePerry]

Isn't being paid by "those who lead by incentive" to earn them more money with one's labor simply coersion, that is to say, leadership by violence of another means? To remove class oppression from the discussion, even praising those who would exploit people for profit, is to completely ignore the goal of anarchist ideals: freedom. Anarchism must recognize the importance of class/labor solidarity to be of any value whatsoever.

[erhnamdj]

In what way would you have people choose to act if not in their own self interests?

[CorrosionX3]

How about the freedom to work voluntarily for someone, like "those who lead by incentive"?

My only problem with this is that they are forced by coercion to pay me in Federal Reserve Notes, and I can't be paid in gold instead.

[D4Shawn]

I've been listening to it today. So far so good! Thanks for making it free this time. That worked out since I'm broke at the moment.

[lastnymleft]

This has been a topic I've been cogitating on for some years, too. The forces of Collectivism have - through psyops, and PR - successfully equated - in the public's perception - anarchism with barbarism, such that people instinctively equate the word anarchy with rioting, etc. But that is barbarism - the law of the jungle, might makes right, etc. This has been wilful. Moving to a new term, such as autarchy ("self-government") will only lead the forces of Collectivism to besmirch that term, too.

[lastnymleft]

The solution, at least in part, as I see it, is to have a number of very high-profile, suit and tie wearing anarchists, speaking openly about anarchism, in order to create cognitive dissonance in the general public's perception of the term. Who are such people? Well, Stefan, you can start, but to be honest, I'm not sure such people exist on high enough level. Perhaps we need to start with those high-profile libertarians, that are sympathetic to the anarchist philosophy? People like Dr. Ron Paul.

[lastnymleft]

The other angle to take, is to try to drag the perception of Collectivism into the gutter, along with anarchy. This has happened already, to some extent, leading to increased cynicism. But we need to be more in-your-face than to just create cynicism, which inevitably leads to non-involvement, giving the forces of Collectivism a free hand. We need to make the evils of Collectivism obvious, so that the public will actively rebel against such: past incidents of state-based terrorism, for instance.

[ronhelwig]

How about Alicia Keys? There was just an article in the news about her claiming to be an anarchist.

[bebop54]

very well stated 'last'...bravo!

we can just call it 'progressivism'...

[TheBigHo111]

I think for most people Anarchy represents "chaos". I believe most human beings have yet to free themselves from the idea that government is absolute and eternal.

Since the Egyptians (probably before them) there has been systematic structure building, this has shaped humanity since.

I'm afraid Anarchy is a archaic ideal that has no place in industrial society, short of nuclear destruction. Anarchy is small groups is plausible, but Anarchy in a group of 350 million is impossible. CONT -

[TheBigHo111]

The idea of Anarchy seems to me like utopia. I do as I wish; freedom. It seems to me the ideal is seated on the presumption all human beings are "good" and will naturally adhere to un-animalistic tendencies. Since man is animal and part of the animal kingdom, he will act accordingly. Control, dominance, and aggression are natural animal (or do I mean government) behavior.

[modelmark]

it is not based on the idea of all human beings being good. If you think they are all good, you indeed do not need a government, if you think they are bad, you certainly don't want to give a bunch of them a license to kill. The idea that the 'good' ones will go for the gun in order to force the bad ones into doing good, is about 200 million deaths off the mark.

[TheBigHo111]

modelmark - Anarchy is freedom from authority. This is a nice and fluffy idea. What is continually not represented in Anarchy arguments is if humans were given "freedom" from authority, they will abuse it. For Anarchy to work you need rational, intellectuals for the population. Solid intellects are hard to come by.

[modelmark]

so people will abuse freedom because they are irrational, but people will not abuse the power over a nuclear arsenal to destroy the world 70 time over because they are irrational ?

According to your own statement of certain abuse of people who are free from authority, our political rulers (who are free of authority) will abuse their freedom. I can attest to that.

[TheBigHo111]

modelmark - Your nuclear weapons argument is flawed.

Having a absurd amount of nuclear weapon is like "who's got the biggest d*ck?" Primitive, ego driven scare tactic against other nations. Again, a very human trait.

The reasons the elite (no or little authority) have not used a nuclear weapon lately is:

1 - Other nations have them as well.

2 - What fun would it be at the top, if you don't exist?

Anarchy goes against the natural social order of human beings. CONT...

[TheBigHo111]

Human beings gather into groups. They establish a leader (alpha). Who then, lays down the law for the group. This social involvement in primitive man is the beginnings of government.

Now with that said, I personally believe government should be a tool for society's needs. Anarchy or "peoples" government can not exist until the man's 50/50 thinking (animal/reason) becomes just reason.

See if you like this one: "When government is perfected, Anarchy will reign."

[modelmark]

You create two kinds of people:good ones with guns that force irrational ones without guns. The good ones mysteriously end up in governments. Then you declare this will work better than only irrational ones with guns. Then you say that irrational leaders with nukes are prevented from using nukes because others have nukes as well. need I say more ? If mutual deterrence works to keep the irrationality of the rulers in check, it will also work to keep the irrationality of the ruled in check.

[TheBigHo111]

I'm confused, why do you keep bringing up guns? I never said anything about guns, yet you act like that is part of my argument.

I'm sorry, you declared a lot of things I never said. I did not bring up guns and nukes, you did. I gave a response.

"If mutual deterrence works to keep the irrationality of the rulers in check, it will also work to keep the irrationality of the ruled in check." -

Please elaborate on this so I may better understand your statement.

[modelmark]

"I'm confused, why do you keep bringing up guns?"

Sorry, I thought it would be clear from the movie. It is the difference between anarchy (voluntary coorperation) and the state (coercion, backed by guns). If you oppose voluntary coorperation and anarchy because of the irrationallity of people, I assume you are in favor of the state and coercion.

[Koahp]

That is the social beginnings of a business as well. Businesses are a group of people with a leader. Businesses take the place of states in market anarchy. There's no need for involuntary funding of the positive functions of governments. Look up Stef's idea of a DRO for elaboration on that idea

[CorrosionX3]

It should say: "When government is perfected, Chaos will reign."

[j3rdog]

awesome..im gunna make this video a post on myspace if thats ok with you Stef?

[stefbot]

You bet - thanks! :)

[DeraJa]

Great video!  We need to get these vids to go viral somehow...

[AJTalkingAnarchism]

Great one

[marjan15]

"...without political violence"

How you define political violence and why do you think similar violence could not happen in anarchy?

[RussellsParadox]

By definition, violence could not occur in the presence of anarchy - anarchy is defined as the absence of political violence; where there is political violence, there is not anarchy.

You can argue that pockets of violence will inevitably creep up in a largely anarchistic society - that is, that anarchy isn't sustainable - but the degree to which there is violence in a society is the degree to which it is not anarchistic... by definition.

[Ape65]

Virtue is defined as the absence of evil so in a virtualist society there can be no evil, which is why I'm a virtualist...

;-)

[qtronman]

That definition is far too operational.

[WorBlux]

There are 1000 podcast on this guy's site.

The main reason that I am convinced it that political violence is not practical unless you can get people to believe that being a slave is virtuos.

[Adipatus]

Great work, Stef!

THANKS!

[Ape65]

Good video, but I would like to mention that there are probably as many Anarchies as there are Anarchists. I used to consider myself an Anarchist but now I realize I'm more a "Small is Beautiful-ist". Ideally no state should have a population of more than 100,000, which would be about the size of a borough (in big urban areas), city or county (in rural areas). These states could form free-trade areas, confederations, etc., but would always have the right to secede. I know it's a pipe-dream :)

[sumadartsan]

Certainly democracy must have looked like a pipe dream in any of the totalitarian societies of the past which are now domocracies.

[sumadartsan]

Even ones that are democracies. :) No clue what a domocracy is.

[TheBigHo111]

Ape65 - I am more inclined to your thinking. I personally do not believe Anarchy can work with very large populations.

[CorrosionX3]

are you claiming that states work better?

[TheBigHo111]

No, you are.

[Xandirfan]

o_O wha?

[Harpakhrad11]

What is wrong with incest?

[realworldplayer]

lol

[ithinkronpaulissmart]

it did seem a little out of place in that list.

[WorBlux]

It's an abuse of power, against those who are most vulnerable to you.

[IShitOnYourGod]

Incest can be consensual, for example between two adult siblings. It is not a synonym for sexual child abuse.

[stefbot]

...which would only indicate earlier child abuse...

[czarwright]

Great job, keep it up.