DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THN BELIEVE THESE 2 PROPHECIES,THESE R IN THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE WHO LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 WHOEVER SERVS ME MUST FOLLOW ME& WHRE I AM,MY SERVANT ALSO WILL BE.MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THN BELIEVE THESE 2 PROPHECIES,THESE R IN THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE WHO LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 WHOEVER SERVS ME MUST FOLLOW ME& WHRE I AM,MY SERVANT ALSO WILL BE.MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
@Morogath. Not sure you understand what I am saying. You are putting the cart before the horse. Government did not invent itslef, nor was it invented by benign minds! Also dont tell the UK people what they want and dont want. They know what they want and it is not something for nothing, they pay for it. You really dont know what you are saying. Who the hell mentioned evidence of people defending themselves in the presence of a threat, I meant as a team to build technology.
Don't you see the contradiction in saying that men and women are imperfect so they need a gun pointed at them, and then suggesting that other imperfect men and women will be the only ones who get to point the gun?
A quote that I liked:
"Ancaps acknowledge human faults, and merely say that the way to minimize their effects is to remove the power structure by which one man's defects are imputed onto an entire nation of persons."
@ZombehPug Have you read "On liberty" by John Stuart Mill? In the introduction he talks about how you can live in a world where "might makes right", and protect yourself from the innumerable vultures and raiders that will try to control you, or you can band together and accept the rule of a powerful group, with the understanding that their power will have limits, else they will be overthrown. Somalia is an example of a modern anarchy...its one of the worst places to live, divided among warlords
@radscorpion8 Also look at other historical examples. For example how China was united under the strength of an extremely aggressive would-be emperor...each individual Chinese state only looked out for itself, and so one by one each territory fell. Voluntary armies would have even less success. The fact is anarchy is doomed. The only reason people think it works is because they believe the peace they see living in a democracy would exist in spite of government, which is flawed reasoning
According to your "On Liberty" example, innumerable vultures and raiders would still try and control you either way. Under Ancap, those who wish to join your powerful group may, and those don't wouldn't have to. Why do you want to drag others into it?
But we are also supposed to be a corporation, a fiction...but taxed!! The government is not an entity either Steph it is a fiction. Yet some fictions you credit with power and some not. Hell this is a confused mish mash.
It takes quite an infrastructure to enable us to build machines (the idea Steph suggested to reduce our enslavement). Ironically that requires some sort of organisation of people. Would a truly free society ever come together to these ends? If so what evidence do we have to show this?
@2012Aragorn We need evidence that people would defend themselves in the presence of a threat? Why do "we" need "evidence"? Why must we continually be enslaved because some people want "evidence" that everything will go on as it does now, as if this is a desirable state? What "evidence" do we have of the state really defending us? Hm?
@2012Aragorn Nope. "We" don't want it. What they want is something for nothing, to varying levels of quality and for varying wants. Well, we'll see how worse it can get soon I suppose.
My only concern with the idea of statism being the fiend of all, is that this problem is not a function of a state per se. It is a function of a sociopathic elite. It could be called a Kingdom or any other name unless the cause of this violent control is seen for what it is we can't begin to put it right.
@2012Aragorn How the hell can it not be the function of a unilateral monopoly over the arbitration of all disputes in its territory including with itself? It is a direct consequence of this unique feature that states are so easily controlled by sociopaths.
Not trying to be a jerk. As an interviewer don't say "yeah, yeah, right..." after your subject finishes an answer. Just ask the next question. You don't need any filler in between and it is kind of irritating. Overall, great questions and good interview but just wanted to pass this advice along.
@kropotkinbeard1 "Some folks, those who are detached from reality to a great degree, believe taxes are theft... because they obviously know little to nothing about how ANY civil society works."
Serious? What is civil about violence, theft and coercion being used as the ultimate solution to societies problems?
This guy has so sweet voice I thought for a second he is a girl :). I guess he tried to qualify you a bit. Maybe searching for some flaws to determine best path for attack later by some other guy? Hm.. I'm not paranoid enough, yet. So I thing he should have blue and violet and you should have black and red, based on what you were saying ;). Keep up!
@stefbot Fantastic! Very nice to share with beginners. You address here many of the arguments that people bring up when anarchy is mentioned in conversation. (Oh you can see the hairs raise.) Great fundamentals. As always I look forward to your vids.
@bweazel is that all you noticed in the dialogue here? I have to say I learned much, this time play it again and just listen .. you might find something more interesting going on
@Equity213 limited liability would still be viable in contracts though. The real problem is corporate personhood, which is what protects ceos from the criminal actions taken by them through their companies.
I can predict less need in the future for the public educational system because of the advancement of computer technology and learning applications that are effective via the computer and people such as Salman Kahn and his org. With the internet we have the ability to wipe out fucking fraud from the learning process, as well. We should not forsake this amazing opportunity in the evolution of the human being. We should denounce lies from the MSM rather than rolling w/it to promote our own agenda
"Are you saying that the farmer who sells you a basket of apples is a thief?"
I have given you anarcho communists an open mind and all the chances in the world, but cant you answer this question? This is what it all boils down to.
Your wrong about property rights, they do exist regardless of governments enforcement of them because of the fact that I am responsible for the effects of my actions.
Your wrong about trade. voluntary exchange is not theft.
Here is a problem I ran into while thinking about the non-aggression principal. Violence was done to me intentionally because I was thinking about the non-aggression principal. Violence. What does a person do when there is violence upon him or her and (s)he is incapable of stopping the violence done upon them through self defense? I was forced into thinking about his scenario by someone who hopefully is in jail right now. Jail is government
A piece of technology from the stoneage, that we still use? Fire. Or perhaps the wheel (ok of that I'm not sure)? Fur Clothing. This should remind us that we're standing on the shoulders of giants. :o)
Ellis Wyatt is a fat old man sucking gin by a Wilford Brimley fireplace. Dagne Taggert has a Captain Kirk "Kaaahhhn!" moment. John Galt comes off as a cross between an Amway salesman and a creepy stalker. The roller-coaster of sexual tension between Taggert and Reardon, gets boiled down to "I'm married, but... AW FUCK IT". Then, there's the ending, "I'M ELLIS WYATT, AND I'M NOT ANSWERING MY PHONE ANYMORE!" I wept for days.
Hmm, so laws are collective state punishments of slaves. Interesting.
If people support a ruler and really believe they need one, why don't they rule themselves. The individual is powerless in a statist society, individuality is not respected in our societies at all. New ideas are crushed everyday under demoralising state oppression by slave on slave violence. Such a sad race humanity is. Anarchism to me is happiness, freedom and wisdom, you don't truly have any of those without anarchism. :-)
@undeadpresident Very interesting, thank you. In my own little corner of the universe, sometimes it's hard not to feel alone. But through digital communication, I learn that indeed I am not. Very inspiring. It is so obvious to me now that truth will prevail...the only remaining unknown is how soon.
A very good set of questions though! I agree with the non-violence but it seems to me that a lawless state would most likely degenerate into violence and oligarchic rule ... stef says on his channel that he studied Kant and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke ... it surprises me that his criticisms of the state are so superficial ... you could argue that the state in the UK has done much to control domestic violence, child abuse, oppression of the poor and so on.
@bicyclethief2nd Stefan is most emphatically not talking about a 'lawless' state. But such law can and aught be provided for voluntarily rather than imposed upon everyone in what inevitably is vastly unjust. Exactly how, remains to be seen, but Stefan and others have proposed many ways in which law and law enforcement could exist in a perfectly voluntary manner.
Ben you seem like a nice guy and all, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning authority, but take one moment and think about your speed limit statement. It would NOT be freedom to allow everyone to drive at whatever speed they wished. In fact, it would infringe upon other freedom to a large extent. The idiots would be racing through my neighborhoods and putting the lives of children in danger. Therefore, their perceived freedom DOES infringe upon mine. Mine doesn't.
@nanciqwerty Sorry, but by definition 'laws' do dictate what people can and cannot do. Get used to it. It's called being an adult. There are no such things as natural laws beyond what science offers us, just as there are no natural rights beyond what people decide to create. Regarding your contract law and "private" anything, this can be debated. Again, you are saying "government" as if this is not the population. They are the same. False distinction. Government/People own the roads. Not sad.
I understand your desire to believe that there are government-made laws that apply to us simply because lots of people support the ideas.
It is an illusion.
The lawyers understand real law & had to work around it by deception.
They started in the mid 1800s when they started writing laws to control us.
If you undertand that, but STILL want to keep things as they are, you would be supporting the continued deception of 99.9% of the people & I believe that is immoral.
@nanciqwerty Your first sentence is incorrect in that it presupposes that there is some difference between government and the people who make it up. Let me make this simple. The government ARE the people, assuming that it's a functioning democracy. You're trying to make the "terror of the majority" argument, and this is nonsense. If you don't like what the majority decide, you are free to try and change it. This is how things work in a world of adults. (part 1)
"The government are the people, assuming that it's a functioning democracy." What is a "functioning democracy"? Politicians routinely make promises they do not keep - is that a "functioning democracy," or, indeed, the complete opposite? Do you like making assumptions and asserting fantasy into your arguments? Is a two-party system with either party being one side of the same coin a functioning democracy?
"You're trying to make the 'terror of the majority' argument, and this is nonsense." When the threat of the initiation of the use of force is a factor the democratic way becomes self-imposed tyranny. "Oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler." Do you think unjust laws cease to be unjust when most people find them acceptable, or that unjust laws are always unjust regardless of the opinion of the majority?
"If you don't like what the majority decide, you are free to try and change it." You can't make moral a system that is fundamentally immoral. The system relies on the initiation (or threat thereof) of the use of force, thus without it it falls apart and becomes something different entirely.
@nanciqwerty The only "illusion" here is your belief that people can achieve some sort of non-existent freedom. There are a few ways. You can go to a different planet, or perhaps find a nice spot near the Arctic. That's about it. I agree with much of what you say regarding lawyers. Unfortunately, many are supporting the very criminal economics of free-market thieves. And there are MANY laws which are great and need to be expanded. Supporting rational free people is is not deception at all.
@Panpiper No, the farmer is not whom I was referring to. The farmer, unless he's receiving huge subsidies from the government, which many do, is probably more likely to be something more in line with a socialist anyway, regardless that he's unaware that he is. Sort of like how most tea baggers unwittingly support the very people and policies which screw them. But then again those who have brainwashed them into supporting them are all too aware of this fact. Not too bright.
@Panpiper Oh, and regarding the farmer again, it would depend on how he got his land, depend on whether or not he was doing the work himself and not using wage slaves, etc....Many things to look at. Say, if there is a person who is jobless and homeless due to the fact that most land has already been confiscated from the public and nature, and he decides to eat some of the apples from the tree on the "farmers land", it is also not stealing.
Voluntary exchange cannot be theft. Both of your comments are laced with fallacies. I figured you were a teenager by the "arguments" you use. "This is how things work in a world of adults." You realize that's not even an argument, right? It's meaningless. You also assert there's no freedom on Earth, but elsewhere in the universe. How is that objective and not just a product of your imagination? Facetiousness does not make your flawed arguments valid.
@regresseur Sure it can. Many examples. That being said, the notion of "theft" might be argued. Some folks, those who are detached from reality to a great degree, believe taxes are theft. Anyone falling into this group should simply stop the conversation from step one because they obviously know little to nothing about how ANY civil society works. And your "teenager" comment is itself childish. But projection among the right is common, so...Regarding freedom, never even hinted at such.
@kropotkinbeard1 People pay taxes out of fear, not because they want to. Fear of legal troubles, then further down the line: imprisonment, and, were they to actually defend themselves, being beaten and / or killed. If people wanted to pay taxes the government wouldn't have to threaten them.
@regresseur People who wish not to pay taxes are people who wish not to participate in the society they have. Taxes exist to (hopefully) help maintain and improve upon that society. The question has nothing to do with whether or not people should pay for this, but how much and for what. Does a society wish to be a civil society by putting the funds into healthcare, education, environment, etc...i.e. the moral things. Or does a society wish to waste it on military, corporate welfare, i.e.immoral?
@regresseur Also, when you say that people pay out of fear, again, you are saying the people fear themselves then. The people ARE the government, as I personally believe it should be. The government therefore, if it is doing what it's supposed to be doing, carrying out the will of the people of the public at large i.e.themselves. If they are not doing this, then what is standing in the way? Answer: Private, unaccountable tyrannies. People have a say in gov. They have none in private tyrannies
@jeffiek Saying someone can't read a dictionary, not that I need to, isn't an argument. Try again, but this time have something. Perhaps the babbling in my own language means I'm using words you are unfamiliar with. This would be your problem, not mine. It would also lead one to believing that the reality is not clear because one doesn't know what the word mean. This would be you. Try again, again. Trying wiping your butt with a few pages of Atlas Shrugged. You'll feel better&IQ is sure to rise
@jeffiek I've seen no evidence of my having my own language, so your assertion that I do is as yet unproven. I'll wait for an example. Regarding publising a dictionary, no, I haven't. However, I know who and how they've been published, know their weaknesses, such as how many terms have been dropped, altered, redefined, etc...Most anyone having studied philosophy or linguistics is well aware of the limitations of using terms taken from dictionaries such as Websters. Looking up pig might be okay.
@jeffiek No, no evidence. Try again. "Babbling in my own language" is your comment about what you perceived I to be doing. I've simply said that because you don't know the words of "my language" (this is called being "ironical"), that this leads you to not understanding the content. It's sort of like trying to discuss the works of Chomsky with an anti-Chomsky drooler who has never read a single one of his books. One person knows the content and words. One hasn't a clue. That would be the anti-C
@regresseur Also, saying something is "laced with fallacies" doesn't make it true. If you believe you see some you need to point them out. You haven't. Nothing. But you can offer them if you wish. Saying how things work in the world of adults isn't supposed to be an argument, but rather an observation of fact, sort of like saying the earth is round. Does THIS still need be argued? The rest of your comment provides nothing but charges of flawed arguments and no evidence. I'm waiting.
@kropotkinbeard1 I already did in responding to them, with four whole comments. The very first point in my very first post to you is one of them, and the fact that you apparently couldn't identify something so blatantly obvious is evidence that you don't know what a fallacy is or that you're unaware of your own fallacious lines of reasoning. Your comment about adults was an idea you posited to support something you'd previously asserted - in other words, essentially, an argument.
@regresseur You're not answering the question. You're pointing and saying that whatever it is is supposed to be "over there somewhere". Not a single fallacy you've presented. Next, I can easily present blatantly obvious anything if I said I could. But this is easy and trivial. What interests me more is what you don't see. Try again. And if I've posited something to support an earlier assertion, this is called be consistent. Did you, like, have an argument anywhere in the future?
Twice now have chosen to avoid what should be a simple job of showing HOW my clear explanation is incorrect. Instead you use crude diversionary tactics.
Ergo, you are either still a tax farm animal, not ready to leave the safety of the herd, or, a crown employee deflecting others from looking behind the curtain of your sad livelyhood.
@nanciqwerty What clear explanation? Nothing I've said is diversionary, but feel free to copy and post it if you find something. "Tax farm animal"? "Safety of the herd"? The "herd" is called society and civilization in the real world. We actually have terms for these things. And you, nor any of the human species, would exist today were it not for "the herd". Sorry, but this is simply a evolutionary fact. As a matter of fact, all species which have ever existed did so due TO collectivity. Sorry.
@nanciqwerty Your clear explanation of what? I need use no diversionary tactic speaking with anyone here. And the notion of "tax farm animal" is irrelevant and meaningless. People live in a system. People contribute to the workings of that system. Period. This is done by using taxes i.e. a % of the funds each person should happily contribute to making things work as they so desire. Such lessons about working together are usually taught in elementary school. Most folks are aware of such basics.
@jeffiek Don't know what you're referring to. No evidence provided, just gas. Uhhh..."People contribute", yeah, so? This is logical, moral, and supports my position. You don't go to jail for the most part. Depends on what you do or don't do as decided by the free people of the free country where you freely live. WoooOOOoo...Deep. No, "taught in elementary school" as in 'We are all in the school. These are all of our things. We share. No hoarding by you two spoiled libertarian pricks either."
@jeffiek Yes, they are not theft. That's why I don't call them theft. Sort of like why I don't call a cat a dog. And contribution would be much more accurate. Biggest problem though is getting pricks who don't want to contribute to the system from which they've gotten their mostly ill-earned winnings to do so. You know, the ones who use the system like parasites, whine about paying taxes i.e.putting money back into the system from which they've taken. Contributions/taxes semantics.
@jeffiek Yes, words have meanings and I have nothing odd. But if it makes you feel better, as it should, you should drop using the term tax and simply use contribution, which it is, at least in a free society. Regarding violence and mis-typing, is that important for you? Here, I'll make you feel better: Kan u reed wat eyem riting nao? See, typos really make no difference to understanding sentences and meanings. Many words exist in my vocabulary. Is this the issue you wish to try and discuss?
@kropotkinbeard1 "... simply use contribution, which it is, at least in a free society."
Are you discussing the year 2525? That situation certainly doesn't exist anywhere on this planet, now or for the foreseeable future. So, if you want to make any progress, YOU should drop the term contribution and simply use tax.
*smh*
I didn't write mis-type. "can't even type the word".
Glad to see you finally worked up the nerve to type it. Can you go one step farther and look it up in a dictionary
@jeffiek Uhhh...as in it wasn't your stuff in the first place and without all the folks making it you wouldn't even have the opportunity to use it. And, yes, then bitchslap the little twerp back into kindergarten where he can learn some ethics. haha There's something I've said here which is violent, other than the passage just used? Where? Teaching the spoiled children to share is not violent. Sorry. I'm sure they feel under attack, but then again I simply don't care. They're free to fight back.
@jeffiek No idea what you're referring to. Try using English and whole sentences. We learned those just after learning that the freedom to be a prick in a system of otherwise good folks by demanding special attention and not wanting to play with others will get you sent to the principle's office for a good spanking, regardless of your notion of freedom which doesn't exist. Sorry, you either acknowledge that you live in a system and try participating in it like a grown up, or move. It's simple.
@waksibra Yeah I agree, there is so much misunderstanding about the corporations, everyone seems to think that corporations are part of the free market . It needs addressing @stefbot. :]
@fynnab I agree. The documentary The Corporation does a fine job of showing how they came about, managed to get the rights of persons, and how anti-democratic, thereby anti-freedom they are.
@waksibra If we wanted to know what the doctor said to your mom when you were born we would have asked but like your mother, we dont give a fuck ok? thanks
Absolutely clear as a bell explanations, Stef! Nicely done! And you asked great questions, Ben. You really got to the core of the arguments. (Sorry, I ran out of exclamation points.)
I had to roll my eyes when he said that if we just aren't violent to kids, we won't have STDs, rape, murder, drug addiction, etc. It doesn't matter how perfectly our children are raised, some will just make bad decisions.
@shamgar001 I agree. Environment isnt the only factor in determining how someone turns out as an adult. You are right sometimes people will just make bad decisions. His assumption is way too simple.
@darrenritt27 I'd like to extend and invitation to both of you to look into his other videos on the subject and double-check the sciences behind his "assumptions." Each and everyone of those topics take a lot more time to really flush out so you can see how the dots connect. This is not to say he's right, but just as I'm sure you'd agree it would be foolish to simply believe him and take a stance in his favor without bothering to check, so too would be to do the oppoisite without checking.
@darrenritt27 It is not important how you turn out as an adult because you were not spanked or mistreated, what is important is that you were not violent against your children. Life has risks, grow up and accept them and don't force your ideas through violence on me or your children.
@shamgar001 You make bad decisions when you can't think. Children that are raised with violence are less able to reason and make good decisions. No violence leads to greater judgement, IQ and social skills.
@shamgar001 Where was the word "perfect" bandied about by anyone else, in the video or your discussion here? Define the word, man. It's impossible to remain innocent and gain experience in life. You learn to walk by controling falling forward, not by standing still to avoid tilting or making a choice. Drop this vague idea of "perfect," and you'll have a much easier time understanding simple suggestions on how the lot of an individual can be improved and it snowballing through generations.
@JaceJohanson The assertion made by Stefan was (as I heard it) that if children were raised without violence, then we would have no rape or murder, and thus would not need a state to deal with those things. He then went on to add drug addiction and STDs to that list as well. While perfect is hyperbole on my part, it still sound utopian on his (and NIK4EVA's) part to suggest that a violence-free childhood would end or nearly end these problems.
@shamgar001 The is most definitely a correlation between a violent upbringing and violent behavior or anti-social behavior later on, but it's by no means an all or nothing phenomena. There are many children who have been abused who don't follow paths of crime, etc...However, when emotional states have been influenced negatively during formative years, the probably of there being deficits in normal human sentiments such as empathy, altruism, compassion, etc...
@JaceJohanson Regarding the term "perfect", if I remember correctly, whereas people use the term as if it means some sort of final state of being which cannot be improved upon, it actually means 'a continual working toward some non-existent final state which can never be achieved'. In other words, it means 'continual practice and improvement', not a final state of something.
@shamgar001 Dude, saying kids will make bad decisions is about as insightful as saying rocks fall down when dropped. It's about how the kids are treated in response to ALL their actions, successful or mistaken. I you keep the standard of non-violence towards your children, they will not grow up to be aggressive. Nowhere does he imply that this will make them faultless beings, because that WOULD be rediculous. But that was YOUR implication, not his. Projection does not equal proof, mate.
@JaceJohanson I have no problem with the idea that a non-violent childhood would make a child less aggressive, but to say that there will be no aggression is far-fetched.
And then he added drug addiction and STDs to the list, which is just absurd.
@shamgar001 Could you substantiate this claim of absurdity in some fashion? Drug addiction, or any addictive and self-destructive behavior, will almost always have it's roots in past traumas, as it is usually self-medication to avoid withdrawals or the pain of the grieving process or both. STD's pose the greatest problem if there is sexual promiscuity, which is also a type of deviant behavior linked with abuses and neglect, more often with parents/guardians than any other relationships.
@JaceJohanson Isn't it more likely that these social problems are the result of multiple factors? Non-violence could certainly help, but I don't think that would solve it.
Granted, I'm not a psychologist, but to blame present problems only on past mistakes is just too simplistic.
@shamgar001 Occam's Razor, bro. Though I don't discount the validity that there are a number of factors in any given child-rearing situation that influence them, this is looking to greatest common denominators. There's the pressures of drives to survive, to create, to procreate, to recreate; but at the core of all things is sentient awareness and choice. So, raising the standard of morality in society to simply not validate aggressive behavior incentivises mutually beneficial choice making.
@shamgar001 Present problems can only be teased out and evaluated on past mistakes and successes, mate. Just looking to facts and reasoning analysis, patterns emerge, trends and principles reveal themselves. And if those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, then here he's saying, "Here are some mistakes of the past many thousands of years which have remained almost entirely unaltered, and have proven to simply repeat the same poor results, so let's change."
@JaceJohanson To clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't change, or that ending violence is a bad idea. I just was questioning what Stef seemed to be saying, that no violence in childhood = no rape from adults. No violence = less rape, sure. But he didn't say that,. He was spot on on everything else, though.
@shamgar001 The first things you brought up at the beginning were the drugs and STD's, dude. But if you're satisfied enough with the rest that this is your only sticking point, I just intend to point out that the deviant behavior in rape is covered by the reduction in aggression, and he did bring up rape as an example to prove a related point of behavior and choice making/choice restricting. He does great work presenting the proofs at length in other videos.
@shamgar001 Jace, you are correct that multiple factors are involved. Multiple factors are always involved. So many, in fact, that this is what prevents psychology from being a hard science. That being said, there are patterns within all the multiple factors which are relatively consistent. Abused children are more likely to abuse when they grow up, etc...It's definitely NOT 100%, but knowing about as much about the background as possible, might lead to a somewhat reasonable picture.
@shamgar001 And again, too, mate, he's not just making this assertion willy nilly. He's being asked to give summarial views on a wide variety of controversial topics in 45 minutes. He's offering conclusion based on science and reasoning not presented in whole here for sake of time, but it IS presented by him in detail on his channel, website, and in his books. Now, whether anyone who studies these ends up agreeing with him or not is less important than that they checked it before deciding.
@shamgar001 So let's just keep being violent to our kids then, if it makes no difference. Why is voluntarism so difficult for you to comprehend and accept? I roll my eyes at people that believe we need to be told what to do by the state because they know whats best for us or me. Why don't you love freedom? Is it because you are afraid or it is too risky? I would rather die a free man than live an oppressed one any day. No one should be our masters. Do you like slavery?
@hooverdog1957 It's like you didn't take time to read what I said at all; like the moment I said something critical of Stefan, I must love the government and be a child-abuser.
No, I'm not saying that violence is good, I'm just saying that it's too much of a stretch to say that if we stop being violent, every other social problem will just disappear. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend and accept?
@hooverdog1957 Sorry to say, but actually "the state" does often know what is best for people. Also, there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of libertarianism, actually, there are TONS of flaws, but one of the primary ones is the notion that "the state" and the people are somehow different. In North Korea such blatant differences are obvious because of the structure of the state. In any democratic state this notion is nonsense, or at least should be if the government is actually democratic.
@hooverdog1957 (2) Regarding freedom, again, sorry, but the evidence for the number of folks who can't handle freedom is not minimal. Children want the freedom to eat chocolate 24 hours a day, too. The adults know better than to allow this to happen. About 95% of libertarian theory is basically the child whining and crying to get the chocolate. A truly right libertarian society wouldn't last for a week. On the other hand, a left/anrcho/socialist/libertarian society is probably the only hope.
@kropotkinbeard1 Not really a good idea to just tell the child not to eat chocolate just because i have the power over you and disregard the rational thought behind why the child shouldn't eat chocolate 24 hours a day. The government has no business telling adults thought whether they can eat chocolate 24 hours a day or not as long as I am not forcing you to do the same. The folks that can't handle those that have power over us is not minimal.
@hooverdog1957 Well, actually, yes it IS a good idea to tell the kid not to eat chocolate because he's probably too young to have developed much rational thought yet. You know, like most right wing Libertarians. Secondly, if one feels compelled to try and teach the child why he shouldn't eat it, and I would support this, then he should tell them. This is called teaching. And, actually, by looking at the average American adult, yes, I'm afraid they probably DO need someone telling them not to eat
@hooverdog1957 That being said, I'm all for allowing people to eat themselves to death on chocolate if they so desire. I mean, albeit from me to try and stop some poor soul from "infringing" upon his "freedom" to bloat himself to death. That being said, if the population are informed of the fact that X amount of their offerings to their country (taxes) is being used to pay for the medical bills of folks exercising their freedom to eat chocolate, and freely vote to ban chocolate, then great.
@hooverdog1957 After all, the chocolate-eater who has no self control is infringing upon my right to have my money to go towards something useful for society, say, free healthcare, education, etc...LOTS of things. By the way, this goes for guns, too. Allowing folks who have a latent desire to shoot someone own guns infringes upon my right to walk peacefully around the neighborhood at night. My freedom to walk infringes upon nothing. So, I'm against these thieves who are stealing my freedom.
@kropotkinbeard1 You really don't understand that I am not infringing on your right to have my money if I spend it and don't give it to you. Are you serious? You really are want to rob from one to give to another and you feel that is just dandy. Do you not believe you have a right to defend your life? If someone breaks into your home and decides to steal your possessions and rape your wife you think not owning a gun is acceptable? Are you insane?
@hooverdog1957 Well, actually, it's technically not your money. The money belongs to the system from which it was extracted. Talking it out of the system and not putting it back is called theft, and anyone who does it is a parasite. (See Top 1%) So, if I live in a free society, which has had free elections, and has freely chosen to put X amount of money towards, say, free medical care for everyone, then by you not wanting to pay, you are stealing. No system, no money for you to take.
@kropotkinbeard1 You are acting like the system owes you or something. That's nonsense. Without the system you have exactly nothing. Sorry, but that's the real world in the 21st century. Perhaps if your philosophy wasn't grounded in early 19th century thought, and there was still an abundance of stolen land to claim, etc...you might have some sort of argument. However, simply won't work now. But thanks to it being a democratic system, you can leave, live in the woods, etc...You're free already.
@hooverdog1957 Haven't said a word about "robbing" either. This is what is good about democracy i.e.theft isn't really necessary or desirable, as most socialist countries demonstrate. Being that the U.S. is not quite as democratic as would be good, there is MUCH more crime. Regarding someone "breaking in...etc" and thinking it's acceptable..Why on earth would I think it's acceptable? Nothing I've said would even remotely infer anything like this. That being said, guns DO infringe upon freedom.
@jeffiek That's fine with me. Extreme scenarios like this simply have little relationship to the real world. That being said, yes, I can vote on my committal thanks to democracy. And if this vote isn't making any difference then something is interfering with democracy. The problem is not with democracy, but whether or not it's being carried out appropriately. The answer is to demand more from democracy in this case, not get rid of it. Democracy allows you to have the freedoms you do.
@jeffiek Yes, and? Here, let's dumb it down for you. There are 101 people voting on whether to pass a gun law or not. 50 have voted for banning all guns i.e. the rational group), and 50 would vote for having as many guns as they wanted. Your vote is the deciding vote. If you vote either way, you'll become past of the "mob rule". Therefore, I'm assuming from this elementary first step that you will not vote, yes? So, Mr. X will take your your vote thereby deciding the outcome. You've lost. Whine.
oboy
peaceful2300 6 days ago
argggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
peaceful2300 6 days ago
wow, one of the best I think.
Demon4403 4 months ago
Ahhhh, it's great to be white and living in socialist suburban Canada. How are those donations coming Stefan?
As Evangelicals succumb to the wiles of male prostitutes, it's guys like these who will fill in the void.
TheWacousta 4 months ago
His "You have to do what I say" argument-
North vs. South= Government vs. Constituents?
Is this what he means?
Goodatconnect4 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THN BELIEVE THESE 2 PROPHECIES,THESE R IN THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE WHO LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 WHOEVER SERVS ME MUST FOLLOW ME& WHRE I AM,MY SERVANT ALSO WILL BE.MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
ENTERRAPTURE20 4 months ago
"The law is opinion of those in power backed up by guns of those wiling to use violence against their fellow slaves"
Stef you said it just like it is.
spol07 4 months ago 4
"If you make the slaves wear armbands they'll know they outnumber us"
karlpokus 4 months ago
@karlpokus They solved that problem. It's called a taxpayer identification number. They can identify us. We can't identify each other.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek bastards!
karlpokus 4 months ago
Everyone's lesson for today: youtube.com/watch?v=7F2FKxxN_IE&feature=uploademail
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THN BELIEVE THESE 2 PROPHECIES,THESE R IN THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE WHO LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 WHOEVER SERVS ME MUST FOLLOW ME& WHRE I AM,MY SERVANT ALSO WILL BE.MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
ENTERRAPTURE20 4 months ago
Someone know where I can find Stefs film? :D
STAB1L 4 months ago
@Morogath. Not sure you understand what I am saying. You are putting the cart before the horse. Government did not invent itslef, nor was it invented by benign minds! Also dont tell the UK people what they want and dont want. They know what they want and it is not something for nothing, they pay for it. You really dont know what you are saying. Who the hell mentioned evidence of people defending themselves in the presence of a threat, I meant as a team to build technology.
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
@GalacticColosus
Don't you see the contradiction in saying that men and women are imperfect so they need a gun pointed at them, and then suggesting that other imperfect men and women will be the only ones who get to point the gun?
A quote that I liked:
"Ancaps acknowledge human faults, and merely say that the way to minimize their effects is to remove the power structure by which one man's defects are imputed onto an entire nation of persons."
– Jmaltman mises.org
ZombehPug 4 months ago
@ZombehPug Have you read "On liberty" by John Stuart Mill? In the introduction he talks about how you can live in a world where "might makes right", and protect yourself from the innumerable vultures and raiders that will try to control you, or you can band together and accept the rule of a powerful group, with the understanding that their power will have limits, else they will be overthrown. Somalia is an example of a modern anarchy...its one of the worst places to live, divided among warlords
radscorpion8 4 months ago
@radscorpion8 Also look at other historical examples. For example how China was united under the strength of an extremely aggressive would-be emperor...each individual Chinese state only looked out for itself, and so one by one each territory fell. Voluntary armies would have even less success. The fact is anarchy is doomed. The only reason people think it works is because they believe the peace they see living in a democracy would exist in spite of government, which is flawed reasoning
radscorpion8 4 months ago
@radscorpion8
According to your "On Liberty" example, innumerable vultures and raiders would still try and control you either way. Under Ancap, those who wish to join your powerful group may, and those don't wouldn't have to. Why do you want to drag others into it?
ZombehPug 4 months ago
Ben Lowrey!!! He's a prick!!
tecnogof 4 months ago
But we are also supposed to be a corporation, a fiction...but taxed!! The government is not an entity either Steph it is a fiction. Yet some fictions you credit with power and some not. Hell this is a confused mish mash.
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
It takes quite an infrastructure to enable us to build machines (the idea Steph suggested to reduce our enslavement). Ironically that requires some sort of organisation of people. Would a truly free society ever come together to these ends? If so what evidence do we have to show this?
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
@2012Aragorn We need evidence that people would defend themselves in the presence of a threat? Why do "we" need "evidence"? Why must we continually be enslaved because some people want "evidence" that everything will go on as it does now, as if this is a desirable state? What "evidence" do we have of the state really defending us? Hm?
Moragauth 4 months ago
And Rand was an hypocrite. Man this seems too ambiguous for me.
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
In the UK, socially controlled healthcare is what the people do want.
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
@2012Aragorn Nope. "We" don't want it. What they want is something for nothing, to varying levels of quality and for varying wants. Well, we'll see how worse it can get soon I suppose.
Moragauth 4 months ago
My only concern with the idea of statism being the fiend of all, is that this problem is not a function of a state per se. It is a function of a sociopathic elite. It could be called a Kingdom or any other name unless the cause of this violent control is seen for what it is we can't begin to put it right.
2012Aragorn 4 months ago
@2012Aragorn How the hell can it not be the function of a unilateral monopoly over the arbitration of all disputes in its territory including with itself? It is a direct consequence of this unique feature that states are so easily controlled by sociopaths.
Moragauth 4 months ago
Checked out Stefbot channel on YouTube; saw two updated videos...
Was happier about this than I was when I remembered that it is payday today.
helltrackrider 4 months ago 6
@GalacticColosus
Of course, and I'm guessing that these imperfect men and women will be the ones pointing the gun?
ZombehPug 4 months ago
Not trying to be a jerk. As an interviewer don't say "yeah, yeah, right..." after your subject finishes an answer. Just ask the next question. You don't need any filler in between and it is kind of irritating. Overall, great questions and good interview but just wanted to pass this advice along.
yoyartube 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Some folks, those who are detached from reality to a great degree, believe taxes are theft... because they obviously know little to nothing about how ANY civil society works."
Serious? What is civil about violence, theft and coercion being used as the ultimate solution to societies problems?
ott0Kitam 4 months ago
I thought the Atlas Shrugged movie couldn't go wrong either Stef, it does. One of the worst films I've seen in years. >_<
evanmille 4 months ago
This guy has so sweet voice I thought for a second he is a girl :). I guess he tried to qualify you a bit. Maybe searching for some flaws to determine best path for attack later by some other guy? Hm.. I'm not paranoid enough, yet. So I thing he should have blue and violet and you should have black and red, based on what you were saying ;). Keep up!
qedisk 4 months ago
@stefbot Fantastic! Very nice to share with beginners. You address here many of the arguments that people bring up when anarchy is mentioned in conversation. (Oh you can see the hairs raise.) Great fundamentals. As always I look forward to your vids.
SonjaSmith 4 months ago
This is pretty funny. Any point you skip to in the video, the interviewer is nodding his head. What a feminine dude.
bweazel 4 months ago
@bweazel is that all you noticed in the dialogue here? I have to say I learned much, this time play it again and just listen .. you might find something more interesting going on
jabbertheferb 4 months ago
Another great show.
WASDsweden 4 months ago
@WASDsweden Som alltid. :)
STAB1L 4 months ago
@WASDsweden Som alltid. :)
STAB1L 4 months ago
Rearden defended himself in court. Ragnar gave Rearden a pep talk. And FRISCO gave the money speech.
barleyLEGALdotCA 4 months ago
Oh Steph just say it. "limited liability"
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 limited liability would still be viable in contracts though. The real problem is corporate personhood, which is what protects ceos from the criminal actions taken by them through their companies.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
I can predict less need in the future for the public educational system because of the advancement of computer technology and learning applications that are effective via the computer and people such as Salman Kahn and his org. With the internet we have the ability to wipe out fucking fraud from the learning process, as well. We should not forsake this amazing opportunity in the evolution of the human being. We should denounce lies from the MSM rather than rolling w/it to promote our own agenda
kroovyandcal 4 months ago
@kroovyandcal You left out mentally ill.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek oops, meant that reply for nanciqwerty
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Plus, of course, mentally ill
kroovyandcal 4 months ago
So many great metaphors in this one...
"I do not open my beer with the jawbone of an ass."
"I'm not using my feces to paint graffiti on my study wall."
LMAO...Perfectly captures the antiquated ideas of religion and the state.
YJohannM 4 months ago
Comment removed
Equity213 4 months ago
"Are you saying that the farmer who sells you a basket of apples is a thief?"
I have given you anarcho communists an open mind and all the chances in the world, but cant you answer this question? This is what it all boils down to.
Your wrong about property rights, they do exist regardless of governments enforcement of them because of the fact that I am responsible for the effects of my actions.
Your wrong about trade. voluntary exchange is not theft.
Equity213 4 months ago
Here is a problem I ran into while thinking about the non-aggression principal. Violence was done to me intentionally because I was thinking about the non-aggression principal. Violence. What does a person do when there is violence upon him or her and (s)he is incapable of stopping the violence done upon them through self defense? I was forced into thinking about his scenario by someone who hopefully is in jail right now. Jail is government
kroovyandcal 4 months ago
"garage" what is that french for car hole?
trishgoo 4 months ago
A piece of technology from the stoneage, that we still use? Fire. Or perhaps the wheel (ok of that I'm not sure)? Fur Clothing. This should remind us that we're standing on the shoulders of giants. :o)
Alux2003 4 months ago
Ellis Wyatt is a fat old man sucking gin by a Wilford Brimley fireplace. Dagne Taggert has a Captain Kirk "Kaaahhhn!" moment. John Galt comes off as a cross between an Amway salesman and a creepy stalker. The roller-coaster of sexual tension between Taggert and Reardon, gets boiled down to "I'm married, but... AW FUCK IT". Then, there's the ending, "I'M ELLIS WYATT, AND I'M NOT ANSWERING MY PHONE ANYMORE!" I wept for days.
ProjectFreeSelf 4 months ago
It DID go wrong. It went horribly wrong. I wept, it went so wrong.
ProjectFreeSelf 4 months ago
Hmm, so laws are collective state punishments of slaves. Interesting.
If people support a ruler and really believe they need one, why don't they rule themselves. The individual is powerless in a statist society, individuality is not respected in our societies at all. New ideas are crushed everyday under demoralising state oppression by slave on slave violence. Such a sad race humanity is. Anarchism to me is happiness, freedom and wisdom, you don't truly have any of those without anarchism. :-)
frostyuk2007 4 months ago 11
Stefan and his guest look like relatives.
Sivels 4 months ago 2
"You can't elicit virtue from people by threatening them with punishment."
So true, so simple, and so perfect. Thank you, my friend.
YJohannM 4 months ago 22
@YJohannM there was a whole game made around that theme called Ultima V
undeadpresident 4 months ago
@undeadpresident Very interesting, thank you. In my own little corner of the universe, sometimes it's hard not to feel alone. But through digital communication, I learn that indeed I am not. Very inspiring. It is so obvious to me now that truth will prevail...the only remaining unknown is how soon.
YJohannM 4 months ago
@YJohannM and to what degree....I feel you, it can suck to be surrounded by people you don't relate to.
undeadpresident 4 months ago
what is the name of the firm they speak about at 15:38 ?
foxgirl38 4 months ago
@foxgirl38 Atlas shrugged by Ayn Rand, I'd read the book though before seeing the movie =P
Batta0909 4 months ago
A very good set of questions though! I agree with the non-violence but it seems to me that a lawless state would most likely degenerate into violence and oligarchic rule ... stef says on his channel that he studied Kant and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke ... it surprises me that his criticisms of the state are so superficial ... you could argue that the state in the UK has done much to control domestic violence, child abuse, oppression of the poor and so on.
bicyclethief2nd 4 months ago
@bicyclethief2nd Stefan is most emphatically not talking about a 'lawless' state. But such law can and aught be provided for voluntarily rather than imposed upon everyone in what inevitably is vastly unjust. Exactly how, remains to be seen, but Stefan and others have proposed many ways in which law and law enforcement could exist in a perfectly voluntary manner.
Panpiper 4 months ago
Ben you seem like a nice guy and all, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning authority, but take one moment and think about your speed limit statement. It would NOT be freedom to allow everyone to drive at whatever speed they wished. In fact, it would infringe upon other freedom to a large extent. The idiots would be racing through my neighborhoods and putting the lives of children in danger. Therefore, their perceived freedom DOES infringe upon mine. Mine doesn't.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 " It would NOT be freedom to allow everyone to drive at whatever speed they wished...."
Sorry. There is nothing in law that allows one group of people to dictate what others can do!
There are ONLY 2 types of law.
1) Natural Law - injured party needed.
2) Contract law - use of road on PRIVATE land = contractual agreement to obey owner's limit.
Government does NOT own roads. We are prosecuted via the fraudulent mechanismn of - breach of imaginary contract.
Sad but true.
nanciqwerty 4 months ago
@nanciqwerty Sorry, but by definition 'laws' do dictate what people can and cannot do. Get used to it. It's called being an adult. There are no such things as natural laws beyond what science offers us, just as there are no natural rights beyond what people decide to create. Regarding your contract law and "private" anything, this can be debated. Again, you are saying "government" as if this is not the population. They are the same. False distinction. Government/People own the roads. Not sad.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
I understand your desire to believe that there are government-made laws that apply to us simply because lots of people support the ideas.
It is an illusion.
The lawyers understand real law & had to work around it by deception.
They started in the mid 1800s when they started writing laws to control us.
If you undertand that, but STILL want to keep things as they are, you would be supporting the continued deception of 99.9% of the people & I believe that is immoral.
nanciqwerty 4 months ago
@nanciqwerty Your first sentence is incorrect in that it presupposes that there is some difference between government and the people who make it up. Let me make this simple. The government ARE the people, assuming that it's a functioning democracy. You're trying to make the "terror of the majority" argument, and this is nonsense. If you don't like what the majority decide, you are free to try and change it. This is how things work in a world of adults. (part 1)
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
2.
"The government are the people, assuming that it's a functioning democracy." What is a "functioning democracy"? Politicians routinely make promises they do not keep - is that a "functioning democracy," or, indeed, the complete opposite? Do you like making assumptions and asserting fantasy into your arguments? Is a two-party system with either party being one side of the same coin a functioning democracy?
regresseur 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
3.
"You're trying to make the 'terror of the majority' argument, and this is nonsense." When the threat of the initiation of the use of force is a factor the democratic way becomes self-imposed tyranny. "Oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler." Do you think unjust laws cease to be unjust when most people find them acceptable, or that unjust laws are always unjust regardless of the opinion of the majority?
regresseur 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
4.
"If you don't like what the majority decide, you are free to try and change it." You can't make moral a system that is fundamentally immoral. The system relies on the initiation (or threat thereof) of the use of force, thus without it it falls apart and becomes something different entirely.
regresseur 4 months ago
@nanciqwerty The only "illusion" here is your belief that people can achieve some sort of non-existent freedom. There are a few ways. You can go to a different planet, or perhaps find a nice spot near the Arctic. That's about it. I agree with much of what you say regarding lawyers. Unfortunately, many are supporting the very criminal economics of free-market thieves. And there are MANY laws which are great and need to be expanded. Supporting rational free people is is not deception at all.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "...free-market thieves..."
Are you saying that the farmer who sells you a basket of apples is a thief?
Panpiper 4 months ago
@Panpiper No, the farmer is not whom I was referring to. The farmer, unless he's receiving huge subsidies from the government, which many do, is probably more likely to be something more in line with a socialist anyway, regardless that he's unaware that he is. Sort of like how most tea baggers unwittingly support the very people and policies which screw them. But then again those who have brainwashed them into supporting them are all too aware of this fact. Not too bright.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Panpiper Oh, and regarding the farmer again, it would depend on how he got his land, depend on whether or not he was doing the work himself and not using wage slaves, etc....Many things to look at. Say, if there is a person who is jobless and homeless due to the fact that most land has already been confiscated from the public and nature, and he decides to eat some of the apples from the tree on the "farmers land", it is also not stealing.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
1.
"free-market thieves"
Voluntary exchange cannot be theft. Both of your comments are laced with fallacies. I figured you were a teenager by the "arguments" you use. "This is how things work in a world of adults." You realize that's not even an argument, right? It's meaningless. You also assert there's no freedom on Earth, but elsewhere in the universe. How is that objective and not just a product of your imagination? Facetiousness does not make your flawed arguments valid.
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur Sure it can. Many examples. That being said, the notion of "theft" might be argued. Some folks, those who are detached from reality to a great degree, believe taxes are theft. Anyone falling into this group should simply stop the conversation from step one because they obviously know little to nothing about how ANY civil society works. And your "teenager" comment is itself childish. But projection among the right is common, so...Regarding freedom, never even hinted at such.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 People pay taxes out of fear, not because they want to. Fear of legal troubles, then further down the line: imprisonment, and, were they to actually defend themselves, being beaten and / or killed. If people wanted to pay taxes the government wouldn't have to threaten them.
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur People who wish not to pay taxes are people who wish not to participate in the society they have. Taxes exist to (hopefully) help maintain and improve upon that society. The question has nothing to do with whether or not people should pay for this, but how much and for what. Does a society wish to be a civil society by putting the funds into healthcare, education, environment, etc...i.e. the moral things. Or does a society wish to waste it on military, corporate welfare, i.e.immoral?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@regresseur Also, when you say that people pay out of fear, again, you are saying the people fear themselves then. The people ARE the government, as I personally believe it should be. The government therefore, if it is doing what it's supposed to be doing, carrying out the will of the people of the public at large i.e.themselves. If they are not doing this, then what is standing in the way? Answer: Private, unaccountable tyrannies. People have a say in gov. They have none in private tyrannies
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "those who are detached from reality to a great degree, believe taxes are theft"
Then there are those (like yourself) that can't read a dictionary, and wind up babbling in their own language.
As a result, they can't see reality.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Saying someone can't read a dictionary, not that I need to, isn't an argument. Try again, but this time have something. Perhaps the babbling in my own language means I'm using words you are unfamiliar with. This would be your problem, not mine. It would also lead one to believing that the reality is not clear because one doesn't know what the word mean. This would be you. Try again, again. Trying wiping your butt with a few pages of Atlas Shrugged. You'll feel better&IQ is sure to rise
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Perhaps the babbling in my own language means I'm using words you are unfamiliar with."
*smh*
You have your own language and fail to comprehend why no one else understands it? Have you published a dictionary?
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek I've seen no evidence of my having my own language, so your assertion that I do is as yet unproven. I'll wait for an example. Regarding publising a dictionary, no, I haven't. However, I know who and how they've been published, know their weaknesses, such as how many terms have been dropped, altered, redefined, etc...Most anyone having studied philosophy or linguistics is well aware of the limitations of using terms taken from dictionaries such as Websters. Looking up pig might be okay.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 No evidence?
"Perhaps the babbling in my own language"
That was too easy.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek No, no evidence. Try again. "Babbling in my own language" is your comment about what you perceived I to be doing. I've simply said that because you don't know the words of "my language" (this is called being "ironical"), that this leads you to not understanding the content. It's sort of like trying to discuss the works of Chomsky with an anti-Chomsky drooler who has never read a single one of his books. One person knows the content and words. One hasn't a clue. That would be the anti-C
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@regresseur Also, saying something is "laced with fallacies" doesn't make it true. If you believe you see some you need to point them out. You haven't. Nothing. But you can offer them if you wish. Saying how things work in the world of adults isn't supposed to be an argument, but rather an observation of fact, sort of like saying the earth is round. Does THIS still need be argued? The rest of your comment provides nothing but charges of flawed arguments and no evidence. I'm waiting.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I already did in responding to them, with four whole comments. The very first point in my very first post to you is one of them, and the fact that you apparently couldn't identify something so blatantly obvious is evidence that you don't know what a fallacy is or that you're unaware of your own fallacious lines of reasoning. Your comment about adults was an idea you posited to support something you'd previously asserted - in other words, essentially, an argument.
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur You're not answering the question. You're pointing and saying that whatever it is is supposed to be "over there somewhere". Not a single fallacy you've presented. Next, I can easily present blatantly obvious anything if I said I could. But this is easy and trivial. What interests me more is what you don't see. Try again. And if I've posited something to support an earlier assertion, this is called be consistent. Did you, like, have an argument anywhere in the future?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Twice now have chosen to avoid what should be a simple job of showing HOW my clear explanation is incorrect. Instead you use crude diversionary tactics.
Ergo, you are either still a tax farm animal, not ready to leave the safety of the herd, or, a crown employee deflecting others from looking behind the curtain of your sad livelyhood.
nanciqwerty 4 months ago
@nanciqwerty What clear explanation? Nothing I've said is diversionary, but feel free to copy and post it if you find something. "Tax farm animal"? "Safety of the herd"? The "herd" is called society and civilization in the real world. We actually have terms for these things. And you, nor any of the human species, would exist today were it not for "the herd". Sorry, but this is simply a evolutionary fact. As a matter of fact, all species which have ever existed did so due TO collectivity. Sorry.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@nanciqwerty Your clear explanation of what? I need use no diversionary tactic speaking with anyone here. And the notion of "tax farm animal" is irrelevant and meaningless. People live in a system. People contribute to the workings of that system. Period. This is done by using taxes i.e. a % of the funds each person should happily contribute to making things work as they so desire. Such lessons about working together are usually taught in elementary school. Most folks are aware of such basics.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Still spewing your drivel?
"People contribute...." thefreedictionary. com/contribute
I don't see anything about "or go to jail" in the definition.
"..taught in elementary school" You mean like no violence? (don't hit?) I know that one. Do you?
Barack Obama: "... nation state apart, which is the monopoly on violence"
youtube. com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Don't know what you're referring to. No evidence provided, just gas. Uhhh..."People contribute", yeah, so? This is logical, moral, and supports my position. You don't go to jail for the most part. Depends on what you do or don't do as decided by the free people of the free country where you freely live. WoooOOOoo...Deep. No, "taught in elementary school" as in 'We are all in the school. These are all of our things. We share. No hoarding by you two spoiled libertarian pricks either."
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "You don't go to jail for the most part. "
Uh, hello, the topic is TAXES. You know, the thing you don't call theft. The topic you try to avoid by calling it a "contribution".
Yeah, people don't go to jail for the most part. Most people surrender their goods at the point of a gun.
"This is logical, moral, and supports my position. " CONTRIBUTIONS would support your position, not TAXES.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Yes, they are not theft. That's why I don't call them theft. Sort of like why I don't call a cat a dog. And contribution would be much more accurate. Biggest problem though is getting pricks who don't want to contribute to the system from which they've gotten their mostly ill-earned winnings to do so. You know, the ones who use the system like parasites, whine about paying taxes i.e.putting money back into the system from which they've taken. Contributions/taxes semantics.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Contributions/taxes semantics."
Words have meaning. Contributions != taxes.
THAT's why I say you have your own language.
What is it about violence that you can't even type the word? You can't even deny you're violent. Does this word exist in your language?
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Yes, words have meanings and I have nothing odd. But if it makes you feel better, as it should, you should drop using the term tax and simply use contribution, which it is, at least in a free society. Regarding violence and mis-typing, is that important for you? Here, I'll make you feel better: Kan u reed wat eyem riting nao? See, typos really make no difference to understanding sentences and meanings. Many words exist in my vocabulary. Is this the issue you wish to try and discuss?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "... simply use contribution, which it is, at least in a free society."
Are you discussing the year 2525? That situation certainly doesn't exist anywhere on this planet, now or for the foreseeable future. So, if you want to make any progress, YOU should drop the term contribution and simply use tax.
*smh*
I didn't write mis-type. "can't even type the word".
Glad to see you finally worked up the nerve to type it. Can you go one step farther and look it up in a dictionary
jeffiek 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "No hoarding ...."
As in "Give us some of your stuff, if you don't we'll take it from you"
You're a violent thug, without even the decency to admit it.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Uhhh...as in it wasn't your stuff in the first place and without all the folks making it you wouldn't even have the opportunity to use it. And, yes, then bitchslap the little twerp back into kindergarten where he can learn some ethics. haha There's something I've said here which is violent, other than the passage just used? Where? Teaching the spoiled children to share is not violent. Sorry. I'm sure they feel under attack, but then again I simply don't care. They're free to fight back.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@jeffiek No idea what you're referring to. Try using English and whole sentences. We learned those just after learning that the freedom to be a prick in a system of otherwise good folks by demanding special attention and not wanting to play with others will get you sent to the principle's office for a good spanking, regardless of your notion of freedom which doesn't exist. Sorry, you either acknowledge that you live in a system and try participating in it like a grown up, or move. It's simple.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Sorry, you either acknowledge that you live in a system and try participating in it like a grown up, or move."
Again with the threats. Do you treat your acquaintances that way when they disagree with you?
jeffiek 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "not wanting to play with others will get you sent to the principle's office for a good spanking"
More violence.
jeffiek 4 months ago
7:40 : We still use the wheel, because that was a great idea ;)
Bastii235 4 months ago
Definitely autistic ... and you ignore the Aristotelian model completely.
bicyclethief2nd 4 months ago
could you please make a video about corporations? how they work and how they are a result of state power.
waksibra 4 months ago
@waksibra Yeah I agree, there is so much misunderstanding about the corporations, everyone seems to think that corporations are part of the free market . It needs addressing @stefbot. :]
fynnab 4 months ago
@fynnab I agree. The documentary The Corporation does a fine job of showing how they came about, managed to get the rights of persons, and how anti-democratic, thereby anti-freedom they are.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@waksibra Lending my voice to this idea... Such a video is indeed needed.
Panpiper 4 months ago
A UK libertarian - and in the west of England (by the sound of it) too!!
robzrob 4 months ago
@waksibra lol
arion45 4 months ago
my gay radar sure is beeping hard.
waksibra 4 months ago
@waksibra If we wanted to know what the doctor said to your mom when you were born we would have asked but like your mother, we dont give a fuck ok? thanks
wideosvatcher 4 months ago
@wideosvatcher not sure i understand. are you mad about something?
waksibra 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this .is groovy on many levels
wideosvatcher 4 months ago
HOLY SHIT! that's the guy who teached me to play guitar :D !!!
Interkomkomind 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
_____卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐_____
____卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐____
___卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐___
__卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐__
_____卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐_____
____卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐____
___卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐___
__卐卐卐卐______卐卐卐卐__
kingbobnjoe 4 months ago
kind of a creepy mancrush
pretorious700 4 months ago
Awesome conversation!
LOL, I wouldn't be surprised if the handbook of human ownership is circulated among those in power or the next generation of elites.
vention4wh 4 months ago
to many odd statements about sex, im done with you , the real you came out. odd
jpanyk 4 months ago
@jpanyk the real sexy stud came out ;)
HigherPlanes 4 months ago
Absolutely clear as a bell explanations, Stef! Nicely done! And you asked great questions, Ben. You really got to the core of the arguments. (Sorry, I ran out of exclamation points.)
OldWhig1688 4 months ago 2
I had to roll my eyes when he said that if we just aren't violent to kids, we won't have STDs, rape, murder, drug addiction, etc. It doesn't matter how perfectly our children are raised, some will just make bad decisions.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 I agree. Environment isnt the only factor in determining how someone turns out as an adult. You are right sometimes people will just make bad decisions. His assumption is way too simple.
darrenritt27 4 months ago
@darrenritt27 I'd like to extend and invitation to both of you to look into his other videos on the subject and double-check the sciences behind his "assumptions." Each and everyone of those topics take a lot more time to really flush out so you can see how the dots connect. This is not to say he's right, but just as I'm sure you'd agree it would be foolish to simply believe him and take a stance in his favor without bothering to check, so too would be to do the oppoisite without checking.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@darrenritt27 It is not important how you turn out as an adult because you were not spanked or mistreated, what is important is that you were not violent against your children. Life has risks, grow up and accept them and don't force your ideas through violence on me or your children.
hooverdog1957 4 months ago
@shamgar001 You make bad decisions when you can't think. Children that are raised with violence are less able to reason and make good decisions. No violence leads to greater judgement, IQ and social skills.
NIK4EVA 4 months ago 3
@NIK4EVA Better? Sure, I can buy that. Perfect? No way.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Where was the word "perfect" bandied about by anyone else, in the video or your discussion here? Define the word, man. It's impossible to remain innocent and gain experience in life. You learn to walk by controling falling forward, not by standing still to avoid tilting or making a choice. Drop this vague idea of "perfect," and you'll have a much easier time understanding simple suggestions on how the lot of an individual can be improved and it snowballing through generations.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@JaceJohanson The assertion made by Stefan was (as I heard it) that if children were raised without violence, then we would have no rape or murder, and thus would not need a state to deal with those things. He then went on to add drug addiction and STDs to that list as well. While perfect is hyperbole on my part, it still sound utopian on his (and NIK4EVA's) part to suggest that a violence-free childhood would end or nearly end these problems.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 The is most definitely a correlation between a violent upbringing and violent behavior or anti-social behavior later on, but it's by no means an all or nothing phenomena. There are many children who have been abused who don't follow paths of crime, etc...However, when emotional states have been influenced negatively during formative years, the probably of there being deficits in normal human sentiments such as empathy, altruism, compassion, etc...
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@JaceJohanson Regarding the term "perfect", if I remember correctly, whereas people use the term as if it means some sort of final state of being which cannot be improved upon, it actually means 'a continual working toward some non-existent final state which can never be achieved'. In other words, it means 'continual practice and improvement', not a final state of something.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Right on. Thank you. Yeah, that's the definition I go by. It's unrealistic to treat with the word as if it means anything else.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Dude, saying kids will make bad decisions is about as insightful as saying rocks fall down when dropped. It's about how the kids are treated in response to ALL their actions, successful or mistaken. I you keep the standard of non-violence towards your children, they will not grow up to be aggressive. Nowhere does he imply that this will make them faultless beings, because that WOULD be rediculous. But that was YOUR implication, not his. Projection does not equal proof, mate.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@JaceJohanson I have no problem with the idea that a non-violent childhood would make a child less aggressive, but to say that there will be no aggression is far-fetched.
And then he added drug addiction and STDs to the list, which is just absurd.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Could you substantiate this claim of absurdity in some fashion? Drug addiction, or any addictive and self-destructive behavior, will almost always have it's roots in past traumas, as it is usually self-medication to avoid withdrawals or the pain of the grieving process or both. STD's pose the greatest problem if there is sexual promiscuity, which is also a type of deviant behavior linked with abuses and neglect, more often with parents/guardians than any other relationships.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@JaceJohanson Isn't it more likely that these social problems are the result of multiple factors? Non-violence could certainly help, but I don't think that would solve it.
Granted, I'm not a psychologist, but to blame present problems only on past mistakes is just too simplistic.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Occam's Razor, bro. Though I don't discount the validity that there are a number of factors in any given child-rearing situation that influence them, this is looking to greatest common denominators. There's the pressures of drives to survive, to create, to procreate, to recreate; but at the core of all things is sentient awareness and choice. So, raising the standard of morality in society to simply not validate aggressive behavior incentivises mutually beneficial choice making.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Present problems can only be teased out and evaluated on past mistakes and successes, mate. Just looking to facts and reasoning analysis, patterns emerge, trends and principles reveal themselves. And if those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, then here he's saying, "Here are some mistakes of the past many thousands of years which have remained almost entirely unaltered, and have proven to simply repeat the same poor results, so let's change."
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@JaceJohanson To clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't change, or that ending violence is a bad idea. I just was questioning what Stef seemed to be saying, that no violence in childhood = no rape from adults. No violence = less rape, sure. But he didn't say that,. He was spot on on everything else, though.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 The first things you brought up at the beginning were the drugs and STD's, dude. But if you're satisfied enough with the rest that this is your only sticking point, I just intend to point out that the deviant behavior in rape is covered by the reduction in aggression, and he did bring up rape as an example to prove a related point of behavior and choice making/choice restricting. He does great work presenting the proofs at length in other videos.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Jace, you are correct that multiple factors are involved. Multiple factors are always involved. So many, in fact, that this is what prevents psychology from being a hard science. That being said, there are patterns within all the multiple factors which are relatively consistent. Abused children are more likely to abuse when they grow up, etc...It's definitely NOT 100%, but knowing about as much about the background as possible, might lead to a somewhat reasonable picture.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@shamgar001 And again, too, mate, he's not just making this assertion willy nilly. He's being asked to give summarial views on a wide variety of controversial topics in 45 minutes. He's offering conclusion based on science and reasoning not presented in whole here for sake of time, but it IS presented by him in detail on his channel, website, and in his books. Now, whether anyone who studies these ends up agreeing with him or not is less important than that they checked it before deciding.
JaceJohanson 4 months ago
@shamgar001 So let's just keep being violent to our kids then, if it makes no difference. Why is voluntarism so difficult for you to comprehend and accept? I roll my eyes at people that believe we need to be told what to do by the state because they know whats best for us or me. Why don't you love freedom? Is it because you are afraid or it is too risky? I would rather die a free man than live an oppressed one any day. No one should be our masters. Do you like slavery?
hooverdog1957 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 It's like you didn't take time to read what I said at all; like the moment I said something critical of Stefan, I must love the government and be a child-abuser.
No, I'm not saying that violence is good, I'm just saying that it's too much of a stretch to say that if we stop being violent, every other social problem will just disappear. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend and accept?
shamgar001 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 Sorry to say, but actually "the state" does often know what is best for people. Also, there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of libertarianism, actually, there are TONS of flaws, but one of the primary ones is the notion that "the state" and the people are somehow different. In North Korea such blatant differences are obvious because of the structure of the state. In any democratic state this notion is nonsense, or at least should be if the government is actually democratic.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 (2) Regarding freedom, again, sorry, but the evidence for the number of folks who can't handle freedom is not minimal. Children want the freedom to eat chocolate 24 hours a day, too. The adults know better than to allow this to happen. About 95% of libertarian theory is basically the child whining and crying to get the chocolate. A truly right libertarian society wouldn't last for a week. On the other hand, a left/anrcho/socialist/libertarian society is probably the only hope.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Not really a good idea to just tell the child not to eat chocolate just because i have the power over you and disregard the rational thought behind why the child shouldn't eat chocolate 24 hours a day. The government has no business telling adults thought whether they can eat chocolate 24 hours a day or not as long as I am not forcing you to do the same. The folks that can't handle those that have power over us is not minimal.
hooverdog1957 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 Well, actually, yes it IS a good idea to tell the kid not to eat chocolate because he's probably too young to have developed much rational thought yet. You know, like most right wing Libertarians. Secondly, if one feels compelled to try and teach the child why he shouldn't eat it, and I would support this, then he should tell them. This is called teaching. And, actually, by looking at the average American adult, yes, I'm afraid they probably DO need someone telling them not to eat
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 That being said, I'm all for allowing people to eat themselves to death on chocolate if they so desire. I mean, albeit from me to try and stop some poor soul from "infringing" upon his "freedom" to bloat himself to death. That being said, if the population are informed of the fact that X amount of their offerings to their country (taxes) is being used to pay for the medical bills of folks exercising their freedom to eat chocolate, and freely vote to ban chocolate, then great.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 After all, the chocolate-eater who has no self control is infringing upon my right to have my money to go towards something useful for society, say, free healthcare, education, etc...LOTS of things. By the way, this goes for guns, too. Allowing folks who have a latent desire to shoot someone own guns infringes upon my right to walk peacefully around the neighborhood at night. My freedom to walk infringes upon nothing. So, I'm against these thieves who are stealing my freedom.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You really don't understand that I am not infringing on your right to have my money if I spend it and don't give it to you. Are you serious? You really are want to rob from one to give to another and you feel that is just dandy. Do you not believe you have a right to defend your life? If someone breaks into your home and decides to steal your possessions and rape your wife you think not owning a gun is acceptable? Are you insane?
hooverdog1957 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 Well, actually, it's technically not your money. The money belongs to the system from which it was extracted. Talking it out of the system and not putting it back is called theft, and anyone who does it is a parasite. (See Top 1%) So, if I live in a free society, which has had free elections, and has freely chosen to put X amount of money towards, say, free medical care for everyone, then by you not wanting to pay, you are stealing. No system, no money for you to take.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You are acting like the system owes you or something. That's nonsense. Without the system you have exactly nothing. Sorry, but that's the real world in the 21st century. Perhaps if your philosophy wasn't grounded in early 19th century thought, and there was still an abundance of stolen land to claim, etc...you might have some sort of argument. However, simply won't work now. But thanks to it being a democratic system, you can leave, live in the woods, etc...You're free already.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@hooverdog1957 Haven't said a word about "robbing" either. This is what is good about democracy i.e.theft isn't really necessary or desirable, as most socialist countries demonstrate. Being that the U.S. is not quite as democratic as would be good, there is MUCH more crime. Regarding someone "breaking in...etc" and thinking it's acceptable..Why on earth would I think it's acceptable? Nothing I've said would even remotely infer anything like this. That being said, guns DO infringe upon freedom.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You can freely vote on your committal (not that it will make any difference).
jeffiek 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
@jeffiek That's fine with me. Extreme scenarios like this simply have little relationship to the real world. That being said, yes, I can vote on my committal thanks to democracy. And if this vote isn't making any difference then something is interfering with democracy. The problem is not with democracy, but whether or not it's being carried out appropriately. The answer is to demand more from democracy in this case, not get rid of it. Democracy allows you to have the freedoms you do.
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "And if this vote isn't making any difference "
Did you fail 1st grade? Whether the vote is 2-1 or 3-0, it makes no difference.
jeffiek 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
@jeffiek Yes, and? Here, let's dumb it down for you. There are 101 people voting on whether to pass a gun law or not. 50 have voted for banning all guns i.e. the rational group), and 50 would vote for having as many guns as they wanted. Your vote is the deciding vote. If you vote either way, you'll become past of the "mob rule". Therefore, I'm assuming from this elementary first step that you will not vote, yes? So, Mr. X will take your your vote thereby deciding the outcome. You've lost. Whine.
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago