@ostralopithicus Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Stephan makes a misleading implication at time 8:35 when he says, "There are some people ***like the agorists*** who think that currency itself is wrong." While there may be some agorists who think that paper currency itself is wrong, this is not true of the group.
I don't agree with you Stefan on the Net Neutrality because it would inevitably mess up the internet for low income or poor families,or individual people. So the internet would be a privilege, and not a free source as it is now. If you have enough money to pay for it, you will not care of course but at the shoulders of the poor and low income families, at the same time would inevitably discourage startups that start from really low. So it is really bad for business, it is only good for comcast.
Whoa. Molyneux defending big corporations. The thing is, I pay to my ISP real money and they don't have the right to control how I use MY service - a service I pay for.
@verymaddog "I pay to my ISP real money and they don't have the right to control how I use MY service - a service I pay for."
.
Check your service contract. If that's what it says, great.
.
If it does not, then find an ISP that will put that in writing. The prior ISP will learn, or go out of business.
.
Getting paid is a powerful motivation to provide what people want. That's why taxation is so awful, it detaches the money from any provision of actual "service".
@CurtHowland Or it will become standard that all ISPs do that or they will be forced out as profit is the end goal.No wonder you have been spammed so many times.You're like a GOV do boy."yes master I like how your ass tastes, yes master I will lick your ball sack.Pleae put it in my ass."Thats the Curt way.What,you wont like me playin your game will you?
@verymaddog WTF you don't control the internet tubes - the property owner does.
Molyneaux is an anarchist - of course he's against big government and net neutrality. It has nothing to do with 'corporatism' - in fact, net neutrality is a corporatist scheme, that's why Google is lobbying for it.
Profits are not slavery, because the only way to make a profit is to provide a better service than someone else does. Customers do not voluntarily pay for something they don't want.
.
Taxation is slavery, because it is involuntary. The very definition of slavery, "involuntary servitude."
@CurtHowland Really?I didn't know thats what they actually do it?Maybe because its not true.The best service/product possible will increase costs and your competition will strategically cut things to make thier product more affordable and the best will lose out to the cheapest since profits can only be made off some1 elses hard work that you dont compensate them for.Instead you live off them and better than them usually.And is the need to eat any less of a form of involuntary servitude?
@CurtHowland Actually my point exactly.An employeer=SLAVER
As far as go elsewhere.Where to the other shit paying master who wants your labor?
No choice at all.
No they wont pay for it, unless ur job is masturbating money or economics.
As for it not being my strong suit.I recently read all western economic thought from Aristotle and Plato to Mises,yes Smith as well.If you'd like a factual history lession not current lies I'll ablidge.Otherwise know who you're talking to before you denigrate.
@99missingperson99 "I recently read all western economic thought from Aristotle and Plato to Mises,yes Smith as well."
.
Even granting such a Herculean feat as true, you still do not grasp that an employer operates at the mercy of both customers and employees, having to compete by offering better salaries and benefits against other employers.
.
It's in Human Action, Man Economy and State, and several other books you say you've read.
@CurtHowland To a degree the institution is bound by the consumer,but only a small degree.Really they are bound by $.The customer comes 2nd in the physical market,stock shares and $ is the prime reason for most products and services.If acustomer or employee wants better they really only have the choice between the duopolies that are the innevitable conclusion of the market.Cartels and Monopolies are just good capitolism=no real options just the illusion.
@CurtHowland The Coke or Pepsi choice.Dem/Rep,Sprint/Verizon.The list goes on.?If a company comes along and decides to do a better job they get out played by ads and such then bought up to keep the hedgemony.
I have read all western economic thought and understood it.It took a few months as a hobby.
1 thing people dont seem to remember is every single 1 was against the for profit motive and called it usury.Smith only admitted that people would corrupt so use it.not that it was good.commontwist
@CurtHowland No thats critical thinking.You can think for yourself.Look Smith was right in his day,but alot changed.The mechanization of the labor force during WW1 & WW2,global communications,global travel in a day.Alot.And now we are even cybernating our assembly and production lines.Its outdated and only leads to static institutions that will collude to stay relevant.People need jobs but jobs dont need people anymore.So wheres the humanity in keeping an outdated system of distributiion.4 a few
@99missingperson99 "You can think for yourself." . And I do, which is why I appreciate the Austrian school of economics. . You should try it some time. . "People need jobs but jobs dont need people anymore." . A demonstrably false statement. Socialists have been proclaiming that technology would create unemployment for hundreds of years. No matter how many ways they are proven wrong, they keep making the same dire warnings. . Like the de-mobilization after WW2 would cause a huge depression.
@CurtHowland 1.Praxeology economics "The study of human spending behavoir in SCARCITY" penned by Mises.It means the dilleberate withholding of production to increase profits based on the supply and demand equation.
Im well aware of that abomination.
2.Production has risen in labor stats while employing less workers.Thats why we are now a service nation.We currently are seeing unemployment at its highest ever and yet we still have "economic growth".
We as in the dominant force in the world militarily which does the bidding of companies and corporations alike who pay the most in campaign and lobby $.
Thats Capitolism for ya.The Free market could never exist as regulations are the peoples response to the absolute power and abuse.So the same Caps turn around and buy the GOV.Thats what u are seeing now is the FREE MARKET so love how only those with 100mill$ get to vote or affect change.FREE MARKET WOO!
"Praxeology economics "The study of human spending behavoir in SCARCITY" penned by Mises.It means the dilleberate withholding of production to increase profits based on the supply and demand equation."
.
That is a false projection. Economics deals with scarcity, as opposed to something that is not scarce, like "air", which is not an economic good.
,
The projection above is to assume "scarcity" means "monopoly". Proof that "99" didn't read anything but the title.
@CurtHowland Again with the attacks.Wrong,By deliberately making things more scarce than necessary.Profits will be increased.That is the negative of Austrian economics.Which no 1 talks about those,only the benefits which are now being outweighed by a large margin.The benefits are less waste,sounds rosey.But its at the expense of availabilty and affordability to most.
Just because you like the few good things youve heard doesnt mean that negatives dont exist.Which are worse for all than the beni
@99missingperson99 You know what. Why dont you put your stand out so I can dismantle it using logic and reason.Instead of going hes not agreeing with what mainstream is told to believe.Put it out there if you're such a man or even a real man at all and not a fake profile or bot to discredit TRUTH.PUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST.DON'T BE SCARED.
@CurtHowland I quit responding because of your inflamatory remarks.I am aware of both aspects of economic theory I just realize the negatives that you dont want to admit exist.Which are real and deadly to 3.8 billion people in this world.And disadvantaged to the 2 billion mindless drones who live in a varying degree of survival to comfortable.and the 1% who own more than every1 else combined.
Scarcity =monopoly?!?are you stupid?
I said scarcity =profit.I said capitolism=monopoly,only outcome.
@99missingperson99 "the negatives that you dont want to admit exist" . You are ascribing the enforcement of monopoly to the word "scarce", which is idiocy. You continue in your idiocy when it is pointed out to you. . "are you stupid?" . No. I am using English. . Scarcity vs. non-scarcity is simply the difference between an economic and a non-economic good. That's all. . Your phrasing looks like you are speaking "envy". Good luck with that.
@CurtHowland Now unless you can actually respond without insults to any of theese points dont respond at all.Im tired of wasting good info on some1 who doesnt even contemplate it for validity.Id review anything you posed exept oh thats right you didnt contribute anything.All you said was Capitolism is good cause capitolism is good,DUH.?!?The market is the answer because the word free is in front?!?
I think you guys should research net-neutrality more. I'm sure the PTB want to turn the internet into another government mouthpiece, just like television.
@99missingperson99 It was created by an act of Congress, most of its directors are appointed by the President, and if that charter and the legal tender laws that mandate Federal Reserve Notes were repealed, it would vanish.
.
If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a duck.
@CurtHowland Its a little more like,if its an inacurate lie then just accept the misperception.Thats what you are really sayin.By the way the act that created it isnt even legal,congress has the authority to print money not to sub contract it out.But thats all irrellevant as its not even the best method of distribution we can invent so why keep doing it?It is a rigged game that favors the already wealthy.And did you know that the FED buys its currency from the BIS?
@ehpl I've wondered that myself , I don't have an intelligent /real understanding of economics , I'm just learning about it all.
What I don't understand is how so much of the money doesn't seem to really exist physically . I guess they can't just print more because it would destabilize the general value of it all ?
From what I can tell (in the U.K anyways) the bankers owe the taxpayer as we have bailed them out with our tax/government money, again I could be wrong.
@ehpl They dont.The Gov has to ask for money from a private institution that charges full price + interest to sell us paper that we must repay+ interest.And they buy that amount from a world central bank that no 1 knows exists its called the BIS.Or Bank of International Settlements.Which is now the Central Bank to Central Banks.Originated in 1933 to dole out reperations to countries that were the victim of another country in war.It was givin international imunity from audit and moved after WW2
@ehpl into money exchange then to market stability.Some have conspiracy theories about the BIS but if you look into them including thier home site.A senoir VP was Quoted in thier mission statement(which I saw with my own eyes before it was removed due to increased traffic that I might have been responsible for)Karen "The goal is to control the world through a 1 world economy" and that was on thier site.I swear.Others have seen it to.They removed it because of "increased traffic"webuy moneythere.
@ehpl "if the government can just print all the money"
.
I have $200Trillion dollars. I make Bill Gates look like a pauper.
.
Well, no, because they're Zimbabwe dollars.
.
When governments just print money, they make the money worthless. In order to avoid that, they pretend that their money has some basis in reality, which is why they work through bankers, sell bonds, etc.
.
Money works because it's relatively scarce. Fiat money works, IF it stays scarce, which it never does.
Agorists are against currency? News to me. They're against fiat currency for the post part, but in the agora you can print it and offer it if you want, nothing to stop you from trying. Whether people will accept it for value is an open question.
The comments about the donation model are interesting. Stefan advocates anarcho-capitalism, but the donation model seems the complete opposite of any normal notion of capitalism. I've studied his ideas about how a stateless society could operate and I haven't seen him mention anything about a donation model.
@Hamandchees3 I said "any normal notion of capitalism". I'd be fine with Stefan's anarcho-capitalism if it was primarily or entirely based on a donation model. However, his model is based on the ideas of contracts which although voluntary in theory for certain isn't a donation model. No donation model of capitalism and no anarcho-capitalism has ever existed on the largescale. So, I'm talking about real-world capitalism and not idealistic theory.
To stef anarcho-capitalism is simply a state of affairs where people do things voluntarily with respect for private property and nonviolence. No one said anarcho-capitalism is based on a donation model. Its that a donation model is not at odds with capitalism, as long as its voluntary and doesn't initiate force.
@Hamandchees3 I never claimed anyone said anarcho-capitalism was based on a donation model. That was precisely my point. Stefan was praising the donation model in the beginning of this video. Yes, I understand the ideal of voluntarism. I have nothing against ideals, but an ideal is just an ideal. If I ever see a real world example of this working on the largescale, I'll consider it as a worthy proposition.
@MarmaladeINFP Personally, I find the donation model more interesting than the anarcho-capitalism model. Voluntarism and anarchism are great ideas with real world examples, but I haven't seen any examples combining these with capitalism (at least not on the largescale). The problem is that we have to deal with capitalism as it has existed in reality. The real capitalism we have is a dysfunctional system.
You're changing the subject. Your original quote I replied to was "the donation model seems the complete opposite of any normal notion of capitalism". I asked how. You've yet to answer. And donation models do exist in reality's capitalism. From FDR to charities to buskering.
@Hamandchees3 I answered you directly. You referred to "capitalism" as a general term, but I specifically was commenting about "any normal notion of capitalism" by which I meant the reality of our present capitalist system. In the history of capitalism, it has always tended towards centralization of wealth & power in the hands of a few. There has been many alternative experiments of capitalist models, but they've either never been implemented on the largescale or never lasted.
@Hamandchees3 In our society, capitalism & donation are separate models. They're opposite in their ideology, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily in opposition on the practical level. They typically don't interact in a competitive way b/c they tend to be applied in different areas. My point is that I don't recall Stefan ever having previously mentioned the donation model in relation to his theory of anarcho-capitalism. As I said, the former has real world examples & the latter doesn't.
Hello. I just discovered your channel. I really appreciate your level-headed polite discussion on stateless society issues that makes is so much more digestible to the public at large. Great stuff.
Right on Stefan, you hit some points dead on with the internet and it's usability as an educational tool, and sadly as a tool for espionage and censorship and propaganda and brainwashing, etc,.. There are negatives and positives in everything, but the free flow of information is better than the institutionalized main stream Blah Blah. Your knowledge, thoughts and interests are very educational to me, and help me think clearly and intelligently about my own. I prefer free will.
I can agree with you for the most part Stef, but I think the problem arises when users sign a contract with Comcast that offers unlimited data transfer at a set certain speed. I don't believe for a second that execs or techs within Comcast didn't know that a small percentage of people will use a huge amount of bandwidth. While Comcast is free to change its business model, it should be honoring its contracts or publicly changing its terms of agreement rather than using shady net controls.
Wait, agorists oppose currency qua currency? I thought they just preferred bartering under the current system of fiat currencies as a form counter-economics as it cannot be taxed as easily.
I don't get your point regarding the torrent throttling. The contract with your ISP guarantees you say, 8 megabits/second downloads.
Whether you download 8 megabits/second worth of "illegal" material or "legal" material, it shouldn't be your problem whether the neighboor is getting his part of the pipe or not, it's the ISP's problem since both are lawful customers and paying their share. Tell me where I'm wrong :P
Good for companies because they can profit. Good for you, because you don't need to be confuse over multiple choices. Just like coke and pepsi - illusion of choice. Illusion is good - don't get me wrong.
Great video Stefan. I see a lot of people agreeing and disagreeing on some issues with you. With that said, being a philosopher or just a thinker as yourself doesn't mean, you or anyone else for that matter, have all the right answers. Questioning current systems leads to answers and innovations. It opens up conversations that lead to progress.
@NIK4EVA I've started watching your channel and listening to your podcasts a long while ago. It has really opened up my eyes and the spectrum of ideas. I do not always agree with what you have to say, none the less, you do bring up valid points that do need to be looked into. Thanks again for your great work and the sincere effort you put into your work. /cheers from Richmond Hill.
A few tweaks to your premise is worthy of further study.
Take a look at "The Secrets of OZ" by Bill Still for a broader understanding of currency.
Government is the means to an end for privately owned banks. not the other way around.
Read the FAQ's of "Save the Internet" You already have the option for increased bandwidth at a premium. Porn & torrents are not robbing resources as much as loss in revenue to the cabal over the 3 sins money, music & sex. The real issue is information
Regarding net neutrality; there is a model you neglected to mention. Here in Australia an ISP account gives you an allotted block of bandwidth per month, after which they throttle back your connection to 64Kb/s comparable to dial up speeds. If you want more bandwidth, you pay for it. So if you torrent all day long, you're going to pay the most. In essence, it's a pay for what you use model, rather than the one price fits all model of the US internet infrastructure.
If you don't use more than your allotted bandwidth, you pay a flat monthly fee. If you use more, you have to buy extra bandwidth. It seems to me a much fairer model. That way you don't end up with a system that limits or throttles speeds to certain sources based on who pays the ISP for premium services. Be it end-users or content providers.
What ISP wouldn't accept payment from Site-X to give them preferential service? Google can afford to pay ISP-x for non-limited access by the ISPs customers to their sites, but Joe Everyman at home cannot. And just like that non-commercial interests are essentially cock-blocked from the web.
@Textra1 I'm from NY, USA and though my connection is not throttled. However if I use more then an allocated amount of bandwidth my bill goes up by about $20 that month.
It's similar here, but you get throttled if you go over and you have to pay per block to get your normal speed back. For example, my ISP gives me 50 GB per month and after that is costs $15 per 10GB block. It sounds like a lot to pay, but it really means that people pay for what they use, rather than 10% of an ISPs users using 90% of the bandwidth.
@Textra1 No problem with paying more for using more. That's understandable. I'm considering switching from DSL to cable. About the same price after the usage fee and far more bandwidth.
There are times when I can barley stream Netflix and Youtube without buffering and it gets annoying.
@deadman12078 The CEOs of the three largest ISPs here have often said that they don't dread increased traffic like US ISPs do because the more traffic, the more money they make, which pays for infrastructure upgrading. Which in the long run means they don't have to destroy net neutrality.
Even if you get rid of the state, violence or the threat of violence is how peace is achieved. It stopped Hitler. We could get back to the Hatfield and McCoy days, but the threat of violence will still be needed. The trouble is when the state turns the violence on their own people, like the Drug War. Is it morally correct to use violence to prevent violence against oneself?
It would be one thing if Governments had monopoly on printing money, but what's worse, is that the Fe deral Reserve is NOT a Government agency. It's a private company and the Government pays them interest on the money that they print. If the Government owned it, they could print money without interest.
Please show me that part where Apple has used violence against Google in the iPhone -vs- Andriod phone market. Or Google using violence against Apple. Because they are in serious competition there.
Please, if competition is violence, then please show me the violence between these two "lions" as you so call them,
When they advertise this stuff, it's always something along the lines of: UNLIMITED INTERNETS!!1! 400Mb/S! UNLIMITED!!!1 NO LIMITS!!!
They sign up a million people for that.... It's like renting out the same room in a hotel five times and hoping none of the guests are ever in the room at the same time to notice.
If my contract says 'unlimited,' but they can't physically provide that service, Bittorent isn't the problem.
This had some interesting comments, but unfortunately both Steph and Stef completely missed the ball. Your Isp does not care that you are illegally downloading or that it takes over 80% of the traffic. Web traffic is their business. The problem is that Isp's oversell their lines with "unlimited" internet. This is false advertising. The Isp's were simply hoping that no-one would use the bandwidth so they could collect money without delivering. The "illegal downloads" are just a red herring.
@Nomels I don't see how you think that competition is violent. Fair competition is people offering different solutions and people voluntarily supporting one solution or another by voting with their feet. How does that involve any violence? If someone decides to use violence to destroy their competition, that is nothing to do with competition itself, that's resorting violence, pure and simple.
A dream of a businessman is to have a monopoly. Therefore I need violence to achieve it - either by destroying competitor or buying it up. For instance, I can put it out of business with lower prices and while making a loss in my own company for few years or just acquiring with a better product. Once there is no competition any more, I will dictate the price and a supply to you of the product or service. Violence is ok. If you look at the nature, you will see violence everywhere.
@Nomels Something existing in nature is not an argument. I suppose you support rape, murder and child molestation, because that happens all the time in nature.
Well, are you saying that humans are not part of nature? :) I am not arguing - I am telling you - try explaining to someone with no money and in starvation not to steel. Try telling Walmart to stop putting out of business small stores :D
@Nomels Humans are part of nature, but we are more than nature.
Walmart is a fierce competitor/monopoliser but they are not beating up store owners or smashing up their stores, as far as I know. Monopoly can be a problem but it's not relevant to the discussion of violence.
Well, there is non physical violence as well, I you know - more subtle. The people who are hurt are not screaming - they are quietly crying in their bedrooms. :)
If I want to put him out of business, I will smash his stand during the night and blame it on hooligans. If that will not work. I will acquire and monopolise the resource supply - lemonade company. I'll do it not because I am evil, but as a preventative measure. It is called thinking ahead. I have to do it or my competitor probably will because of monetary incentive.
Competition is naturally violent. I don't know how people can come up with the a concept of non-violent competition :D
@Nomels By using violence against others to "compete" you are fighting against society. In doing so you are damaging yourself, since we all rely on each other to survive. This is the human way of survival, otherwise we would not need to evolve brains that can process language. You may temporarily gain, but you will cause a net loss for yourself and your descendants. Society will also punish you with exclusion and other means.
I am competing to preserve myself - the ultimate property of life. I don't like violence, but if it is needed for my self preservation, I will use it - like a rat squeezed in the corner. Every competitor can potentially put me out of business, there fore I have to put them out first.
@Nomels I think you are using a different definition of competition, which is causing you to confuse the issue. Darwinian competition is not what I am talking about.
Competition is the opposite of cooperation. Competition is based on self interest. Cooperation, on the other hand, is based on social benefits. You are confused, I think, not me :)
@Nomels Competition can have social benefits by choosing the most effective solution. That's why capitalism works (it's not perfect but socialism is universally a failure). Do you believe that competitive self interest can never benefit others?
I think competition is awesome, because someone will always win and someone will always loose. Look at USA - loads of loosers, homeless and desperate and few winners. The competition determines the best approach to continuation of species. Homeless people hopefully will die out and the rich people will evolve into super-technology society - it will be good for human species. Socialism takes care of poor people and loosers - I think that is wrong.
@Nomels Would you not expect some backlash from consumers? What's it cost to monopolize the resource supply for a lemonade stand? Now, what's the amount of profit you make from that expenditure? If you had that much money, why the hell mess around with a lemonade stand? You realize you still have to live next to these neighbors, right? What do you do when Little Suzy's dad hears you swinging around a sledgehammer in his garage?
Well no one says anything about eating deadly food in USA - GMO's, mcdonalds, coke - stuff like that. People are ignorant and you should take advantage of this fact.
@Nomels So rather than sell them diet books, I should set up my own fast food restaurants, put on a bandana and grab a Bowie knife with a saw blade on the back, then go hunt down some McDonald's executives.
Riiight.
Tell me, how's this whole violence thing working out for you in your personal life?
Practically violence is a good way to solve my problems if I want to secure my future and continuation. Look at nature - every one does it for self preservation. Violence is part of evolution.
----
There is no reason to assume that violence (physical or psychological) will ever end.
464 videos. All worth watching. You don't have to always agree with what is said. It makes you think and wonder about the world. Hopefully enough people watch and it makes a difference.
Stefan I really like your philosophical take on stuff that goes around but you are making statements about financial world you don't (I hate to say it) fully understand. If you just go back in history - in 19 ct. in USA you had myriad of banks issuing their on deposit certificates (for gold and silver) and those were basically transferable ,in other words they were emitting private money backed by hard assets. It didn't work. Many things were tried before - the boom & bust cycle is reoccurring.
@konshoff Thank you for adding that, I am quite aware of that, but none of the boom and bust cycles -- and in particular the deflation of the currency -- were nearly as bad as what we have had since government took control of currency.
@stefbot The scale of boom & bust cycle depends on the volume of assets and liabilities in the economy. You can't expect to have one on a scale of today in 16 century. Back in the day it was always caused by disruption in gold and silver supply.
Today it is more complex. I recommend highly the "financial collapse rigged by Venice, and then stuff about Rome collapse, medieval Spain, black Friday etc. Anyway we have to get rid of income & property tax but the private money is not the right method
The pre-Fed booms and busts were caused by the government eliminating the redeemability of banknotes and then printing like mad in order to fight wars and fund other insane projects. It had nothing to do with fluctuations in the gold and silver supply.
By saying that private money is not the right method, by necessity you are implying that the State must control the money. But was already know that they're incompetent. So we're back to private money again.
@17Spartacus76 See my comment above - we have tried the private money -it didn't work. It will never work for very simple reasons - just like gold and silver didn't work in long run.
Go figure why. Now, most of the pre Fed monetary regimes were based on precious metals - as far as I'm concerned the history is just filled with wars, famine, and human suffering. Who do you think used to have a control over gold mines in 14cent. -regular people? boom & bust is unavoidable coz it's a natural cycle
@konshoff Excuse me, how didn't gold and silver work in the long run? Precious metals have always spontaneously been used by traders. The reason it's not used to the same extent today is that governments make it illegal to trade with gold, because they can only tax their own currency properly. The reason the had to ban it was that people used gold and silver in trade, and the reason they used it was that it worked better than most other alternatives.
I don't know dude what you've been smoking but all metals - even uranium is traded on commodity exchanges around the world. (maybe not lithium - I didn't check lately). You can sell your gold and buy wheat with no problem. As a matter of fact u can take all of your savings and transfer it to silver if you want - I guess it would be too hard to buy gasoline with it but hey it's ur choice. The simplest reason why it doesn't work is that economy expends but gold reserves are finite. There r others.
@jrgenkratz So what is your point? Let me tell you something- if anybody talks about competing private currencies, I'm afraid he's got absolutely no clue about how money and economy works. That same thing applies to people talking about gold as money.
I mean these people are not even practical just to begin with. It is just a complete nonsense. Government and money is not a problem - it is trust versus corruption that shift things around- people never change. Gold is a hedge against corruption.
@konshoff I have no clue about "how money and economy works"? I have a university degree in economics and have studied Austrian economics extensively on my spare time. I may very well be that you have some supersecret information that renders all my knowledge worthless, but please don't say that I have no clue.
@konshoff "Government and money is not a problem"
.
Tell that to someone holding German marks in 1923, a Zimbabwe dollar, a Ruble, Argentinian peso, Greenback, Continental, or other fiat currency that has been printed into obscurity.
.
Just like the US dollar, the Euro and the Japanese Yen are now.
Saw it, you clearly aren't familiar with history. The USA never had a free banking era, it was a government imposed bi-metallic standard until 1900 when the gold standard act was passed, making it a mono-metallic standard. Scotland had a free banking era and it was quite successful and so your claim isn't based in history or any kind of fact.
Unbacked paper has been tried as currency for thousands of years and failed every single time. Paper is the cause of wars, famine and suffering, not commodity currency. Boom/bust is not a natural cycle, see ABCT.
@17Spartacus76 It seems to me that you are rather confused by wrong interpretation of historical facts. Precious metals were not imposed by anyone as a monetary system - they were generally recognized around the world for millennia. If you think that wars were caused by paper money throughout the history all I can say is " GO BACK TO SCHOOL!" ( hopefully not American public ).
Wrong again konshoff, so please don't pretend like you have a degree in anything. Indeed metals are chosen as money in a free market but you are completely ignorant about monetary history in the USA. The US printed money in order to finance the revolutionary war (Colonial Scrip), civil war (Greenbacks), WWI, WWII and so on. They imposed a metal standard with the Coinage Act of 1792. You would know this if you were an actual economist. Stop supporting state monopolies on money.
@17Spartacus76 My friend, there is no such thing as free market. Never was. Also, coinage act doesn't mean people in America had not been using metals before -they were using English coins, even Spanish down south. Actually, English king started to withdraw the silver and gold and pay back in copper what caused a strong sentiment against the crown in colonies. Yes, Lincoln had to print Greenbacks and I'm glad he did coz he saved the USA. I'm also glad for it helped to defeat fascism in WW2.
And why do you suppose that when the colonies were able to freely choose what their money would be, that they chose gold and silver hmm??
Lincoln also didn't save anything, but thanks for once again proving you have no clue what you're talking about. Fascism and socialism would not be possible if not for a central bank printing money to fund those regimes. But then again your bias against real money has driven you to say all kinds of crazy things so far.
@17Spartacus76 People had chosen p.metals 1000's of years before there were any colonies, but it turned out to be better and more practical when minting of the coins started (cca 500b.c. Illyria). by a king of name I don't remember. Now, it is 21 cent. and we have electronic form of money - and I assume you recognize absurdity of the idea doing the billions of transactions that go around the world everyday in gold coins. Gold is a hedge against currency mismanagement by gov.
Actually, it worked quite well. The occasional bank that over-issued notes would create a run and maybe go out of business, which only reinforced the business benefits of 100% reserves banking.
.
The large systematic boom/bust cycles always happen through government and central bank actions.
.
Do a search for "Martin van Buren What Greatness Really Means" and "America's Great Depression"
Stef made some good points on neutrality, but I don't think I really understand the issue any better. Maybe I'm dense on the subtleties of the internet and bandwidth. I did instinctively have a resistance to giving gov. power over the internet, and I think after stef's points that my instincts were correct, I just haven't heard anything that would make me able to convince others not to support net neutrality.
This is a good interview. What was Steve drinking during the interview, beer & coffee? Awesome combo :-)
If one wants to put the internet down... it can't be done. The routing protocols are designed to find and follow the shortest path to the destination. As long as there is some connection with the destination, it doesn't matter if the infrastructure in US is down, a big part of the content would be lost, but not the live connection outside US. It will work, slower... but it will work for sure
One problem with the idea that Bittorrent is "sucking up bandwidth": Each person pays for the bandwidth they use, unless the business model of the ISP doesn't actually cover the cost of that bandwidth.
.
What is needed is honesty. The ISPs can't sell high speed "cheap" service and then pretend to be offended when someone actually uses it!
.
Porn is not the only thing on the net, Mises-org started Mises University last night and it's a wonderful success.
Don't bother trying to tell any politicians or bureaucrats that, it seems they are convinced that there is nothing government cannot do if they spend enough of my money!
Well, that's kind of a misleading statement. I'm pretty sure most politicians know exactly how badly each law they put through is going to fail, mainly because their primary goal was not to solve any problems but instead to advance their own interests.
Besides, politicians created the large majority of the problems that they try to 'fix' Expecting someone to fix a problem that they intentionally created in the first place just doesn't make any sense.
@ReligionIsTheDevil "Expecting someone to fix a problem that they intentionally created"
.
I think you're giving them far, far more credit than they deserve.
.
Without any reservation, I believe that many, if not most, politicians just cannot understand why their good intentions never seem to come true. The few who are diabolical rise in power and lead their parties, behind or in front of the cameras, aided by lots of "useful idiots" like Barbara Boxer.
Fiat currencies only exist because of legal tender laws. Remove those laws, even remove the power of government to regulate money at all, people will use commodity based money. That's what people always use, be it denominated in cowrey shells, obsidian, gold, silver, iron tripods (The Odyssey), whatever.
Agree with Stefan wholeheartedly. Been saying much of it myself for some time.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ostralopithicus Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 2 weeks ago
Stephan makes a misleading implication at time 8:35 when he says, "There are some people ***like the agorists*** who think that currency itself is wrong." While there may be some agorists who think that paper currency itself is wrong, this is not true of the group.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
"Locked in a barrel, rolled down a hill and trying to have a conversation w/ a schizophrenic on crack." LOL =)
TheJovanist 1 year ago
people are moving to FSP because of your work
luvhafiz 1 year ago
I don't agree with you Stefan on the Net Neutrality because it would inevitably mess up the internet for low income or poor families,or individual people. So the internet would be a privilege, and not a free source as it is now. If you have enough money to pay for it, you will not care of course but at the shoulders of the poor and low income families, at the same time would inevitably discourage startups that start from really low. So it is really bad for business, it is only good for comcast.
cjdallas21 1 year ago
Comment removed
cjdallas21 1 year ago
Whoa. Molyneux defending big corporations. The thing is, I pay to my ISP real money and they don't have the right to control how I use MY service - a service I pay for.
verymaddog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@verymaddog "I pay to my ISP real money and they don't have the right to control how I use MY service - a service I pay for."
.
Check your service contract. If that's what it says, great.
.
If it does not, then find an ISP that will put that in writing. The prior ISP will learn, or go out of business.
.
Getting paid is a powerful motivation to provide what people want. That's why taxation is so awful, it detaches the money from any provision of actual "service".
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Or it will become standard that all ISPs do that or they will be forced out as profit is the end goal.No wonder you have been spammed so many times.You're like a GOV do boy."yes master I like how your ass tastes, yes master I will lick your ball sack.Pleae put it in my ass."Thats the Curt way.What,you wont like me playin your game will you?
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 I must say, you continue to impress.
.
Does your mother know you're using her computer to write this stuff?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@verymaddog WTF you don't control the internet tubes - the property owner does.
Molyneaux is an anarchist - of course he's against big government and net neutrality. It has nothing to do with 'corporatism' - in fact, net neutrality is a corporatist scheme, that's why Google is lobbying for it.
libertyplayground 1 year ago
Information should be free - period.
Profit = Slavery. Period.
How about we take the profit and corruption out of education and information for good?
PsyogiBottoms 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PsyogiBottoms "Information should be free - period."
.
Information is free. Transmission requires resources, resources cost money.
.
Before you talk about economics, read some economics. Mises dot o rg
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@PsyogiBottoms "Profit = Slavery."
.
If I may address this,
.
Profits are not slavery, because the only way to make a profit is to provide a better service than someone else does. Customers do not voluntarily pay for something they don't want.
.
Taxation is slavery, because it is involuntary. The very definition of slavery, "involuntary servitude."
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Really?I didn't know thats what they actually do it?Maybe because its not true.The best service/product possible will increase costs and your competition will strategically cut things to make thier product more affordable and the best will lose out to the cheapest since profits can only be made off some1 elses hard work that you dont compensate them for.Instead you live off them and better than them usually.And is the need to eat any less of a form of involuntary servitude?
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "some1 elses hard work that you dont compensate them for."
.
If someone is not getting paid what they think they're worth, let them go elsewhere.
.
If there labor really is worth it, an employer will pay for it.
.
But an employer MUST get more value than the employee costs, or they cannot afford to hire them.
.
Basic economics is obviously not your strong suit.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Actually my point exactly.An employeer=SLAVER
As far as go elsewhere.Where to the other shit paying master who wants your labor?
No choice at all.
No they wont pay for it, unless ur job is masturbating money or economics.
As for it not being my strong suit.I recently read all western economic thought from Aristotle and Plato to Mises,yes Smith as well.If you'd like a factual history lession not current lies I'll ablidge.Otherwise know who you're talking to before you denigrate.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "I recently read all western economic thought from Aristotle and Plato to Mises,yes Smith as well."
.
Even granting such a Herculean feat as true, you still do not grasp that an employer operates at the mercy of both customers and employees, having to compete by offering better salaries and benefits against other employers.
.
It's in Human Action, Man Economy and State, and several other books you say you've read.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland To a degree the institution is bound by the consumer,but only a small degree.Really they are bound by $.The customer comes 2nd in the physical market,stock shares and $ is the prime reason for most products and services.If acustomer or employee wants better they really only have the choice between the duopolies that are the innevitable conclusion of the market.Cartels and Monopolies are just good capitolism=no real options just the illusion.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@CurtHowland The Coke or Pepsi choice.Dem/Rep,Sprint/Verizon.The list goes on.?If a company comes along and decides to do a better job they get out played by ads and such then bought up to keep the hedgemony.
I have read all western economic thought and understood it.It took a few months as a hobby.
1 thing people dont seem to remember is every single 1 was against the for profit motive and called it usury.Smith only admitted that people would corrupt so use it.not that it was good.commontwist
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "but only a small degree."
.
Really? Then can you tell me where a firm makes money without satisfying the consumer?
.
"the duopolies that are the innevitable conclusion of the market."
.
Where did you read that? Not in any history book, because it's fiction.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland No thats critical thinking.You can think for yourself.Look Smith was right in his day,but alot changed.The mechanization of the labor force during WW1 & WW2,global communications,global travel in a day.Alot.And now we are even cybernating our assembly and production lines.Its outdated and only leads to static institutions that will collude to stay relevant.People need jobs but jobs dont need people anymore.So wheres the humanity in keeping an outdated system of distributiion.4 a few
99missingperson99 1 year ago
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland 1.Praxeology economics "The study of human spending behavoir in SCARCITY" penned by Mises.It means the dilleberate withholding of production to increase profits based on the supply and demand equation.
Im well aware of that abomination.
2.Production has risen in labor stats while employing less workers.Thats why we are now a service nation.We currently are seeing unemployment at its highest ever and yet we still have "economic growth".
3.we have had constant war since to keep MIC
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "Im well aware of that abomination."
.
Obviously not. But I'll let your own words damn you.
.
"we have had constant war"
.
You, maybe. I'm not at war with anyone.
.
What a sad life you lead.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Comment removed
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "Couldnt address the words so you verbally assualt me?"
.
How, may I ask? All I did was let your own obvious ignorance demonstrate the reality of your position.
.
"When did we last have no military action in a foriegn land?"
.
Who is "we"?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Thats an answer to nothing.
We as in the dominant force in the world militarily which does the bidding of companies and corporations alike who pay the most in campaign and lobby $.
Thats Capitolism for ya.The Free market could never exist as regulations are the peoples response to the absolute power and abuse.So the same Caps turn around and buy the GOV.Thats what u are seeing now is the FREE MARKET so love how only those with 100mill$ get to vote or affect change.FREE MARKET WOO!
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "We as in the dominant force in the world militarily"
.
I've never enlisted, sorry. I can't speak on that issue.
.
"The Free market could never exist as regulations are the peoples response to the absolute power and abuse."
.
Non-sequiter. The "free market" is the opposite of regulation. Regulation fosters vested interests and abuse.
.
I recommend the book, "Hamilton's Curse" by Tom DiLorenzo, to understand how deeply rooted fascism is in the US.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@99missingperson99
"The Free market could never exist"
.
"Thats what u are seeing now is the FREE MARKET"
.
Wow. I'm impressed. Not only do you get every definition wrong, you directly contradict yourself inside of a single posting.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Just in case anyone reads this,
.
"Praxeology economics "The study of human spending behavoir in SCARCITY" penned by Mises.It means the dilleberate withholding of production to increase profits based on the supply and demand equation."
.
That is a false projection. Economics deals with scarcity, as opposed to something that is not scarce, like "air", which is not an economic good.
,
The projection above is to assume "scarcity" means "monopoly". Proof that "99" didn't read anything but the title.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Again with the attacks.Wrong,By deliberately making things more scarce than necessary.Profits will be increased.That is the negative of Austrian economics.Which no 1 talks about those,only the benefits which are now being outweighed by a large margin.The benefits are less waste,sounds rosey.But its at the expense of availabilty and affordability to most.
Just because you like the few good things youve heard doesnt mean that negatives dont exist.Which are worse for all than the beni
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "By deliberately making things more scarce than necessary"
.
You again prove you have NOT READ the materials you claim to disagree with.
.
Why not try actually reading it, rather than continue to make false assertions while claiming to know of what you speak?
.
All you're doing is making a fool of yourself.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Well that proves your point, or even that you know what your talking about?!?
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 You know what. Why dont you put your stand out so I can dismantle it using logic and reason.Instead of going hes not agreeing with what mainstream is told to believe.Put it out there if you're such a man or even a real man at all and not a fake profile or bot to discredit TRUTH.PUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST.DON'T BE SCARED.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@CurtHowland I quit responding because of your inflamatory remarks.I am aware of both aspects of economic theory I just realize the negatives that you dont want to admit exist.Which are real and deadly to 3.8 billion people in this world.And disadvantaged to the 2 billion mindless drones who live in a varying degree of survival to comfortable.and the 1% who own more than every1 else combined.
Scarcity =monopoly?!?are you stupid?
I said scarcity =profit.I said capitolism=monopoly,only outcome.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Now unless you can actually respond without insults to any of theese points dont respond at all.Im tired of wasting good info on some1 who doesnt even contemplate it for validity.Id review anything you posed exept oh thats right you didnt contribute anything.All you said was Capitolism is good cause capitolism is good,DUH.?!?The market is the answer because the word free is in front?!?
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "Now unless you can actually respond without insults..."
.
Why? You're not.
.
So not only does the world owe you a living, you get to be a sarcastic little turd while no one else is allowed to point it out to your face?
.
Does your mother know you write like this?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
anarcho-capitalist examples , see "The Not So Wild, Wild West" by Anderson and Hill.
theosis4u 1 year ago 3
I think you guys should research net-neutrality more. I'm sure the PTB want to turn the internet into another government mouthpiece, just like television.
Loveseekingmissile 1 year ago 2
The FED is not a Government institution, it's a private bank.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 It was created by an act of Congress, most of its directors are appointed by the President, and if that charter and the legal tender laws that mandate Federal Reserve Notes were repealed, it would vanish.
.
If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a duck.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Its a little more like,if its an inacurate lie then just accept the misperception.Thats what you are really sayin.By the way the act that created it isnt even legal,congress has the authority to print money not to sub contract it out.But thats all irrellevant as its not even the best method of distribution we can invent so why keep doing it?It is a rigged game that favors the already wealthy.And did you know that the FED buys its currency from the BIS?
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@99missingperson99 "Thats what you are really sayin."
.
No. I said what I said.
.
"so why keep doing it?"
.
I didn't do it. I'm not doing it. They are, and forcing it on everyone else at gun point.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
can some explain to me how if the government can just print all the money - why all governments are in debt to the bankers?
ehpl 1 year ago
@ehpl I've wondered that myself , I don't have an intelligent /real understanding of economics , I'm just learning about it all.
What I don't understand is how so much of the money doesn't seem to really exist physically . I guess they can't just print more because it would destabilize the general value of it all ?
From what I can tell (in the U.K anyways) the bankers owe the taxpayer as we have bailed them out with our tax/government money, again I could be wrong.
ColdNova75 1 year ago
@ehpl They dont.The Gov has to ask for money from a private institution that charges full price + interest to sell us paper that we must repay+ interest.And they buy that amount from a world central bank that no 1 knows exists its called the BIS.Or Bank of International Settlements.Which is now the Central Bank to Central Banks.Originated in 1933 to dole out reperations to countries that were the victim of another country in war.It was givin international imunity from audit and moved after WW2
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@ehpl into money exchange then to market stability.Some have conspiracy theories about the BIS but if you look into them including thier home site.A senoir VP was Quoted in thier mission statement(which I saw with my own eyes before it was removed due to increased traffic that I might have been responsible for)Karen "The goal is to control the world through a 1 world economy" and that was on thier site.I swear.Others have seen it to.They removed it because of "increased traffic"webuy moneythere.
99missingperson99 1 year ago
@ehpl "if the government can just print all the money"
.
I have $200Trillion dollars. I make Bill Gates look like a pauper.
.
Well, no, because they're Zimbabwe dollars.
.
When governments just print money, they make the money worthless. In order to avoid that, they pretend that their money has some basis in reality, which is why they work through bankers, sell bonds, etc.
.
Money works because it's relatively scarce. Fiat money works, IF it stays scarce, which it never does.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Agorists are against currency? News to me. They're against fiat currency for the post part, but in the agora you can print it and offer it if you want, nothing to stop you from trying. Whether people will accept it for value is an open question.
Nphyx 1 year ago
The comments about the donation model are interesting. Stefan advocates anarcho-capitalism, but the donation model seems the complete opposite of any normal notion of capitalism. I've studied his ideas about how a stateless society could operate and I haven't seen him mention anything about a donation model.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
how does a donation model contradict capitalism?
Hamandchees3 1 year ago
@Hamandchees3 I said "any normal notion of capitalism". I'd be fine with Stefan's anarcho-capitalism if it was primarily or entirely based on a donation model. However, his model is based on the ideas of contracts which although voluntary in theory for certain isn't a donation model. No donation model of capitalism and no anarcho-capitalism has ever existed on the largescale. So, I'm talking about real-world capitalism and not idealistic theory.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
To stef anarcho-capitalism is simply a state of affairs where people do things voluntarily with respect for private property and nonviolence. No one said anarcho-capitalism is based on a donation model. Its that a donation model is not at odds with capitalism, as long as its voluntary and doesn't initiate force.
Hamandchees3 1 year ago
@Hamandchees3 I never claimed anyone said anarcho-capitalism was based on a donation model. That was precisely my point. Stefan was praising the donation model in the beginning of this video. Yes, I understand the ideal of voluntarism. I have nothing against ideals, but an ideal is just an ideal. If I ever see a real world example of this working on the largescale, I'll consider it as a worthy proposition.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Personally, I find the donation model more interesting than the anarcho-capitalism model. Voluntarism and anarchism are great ideas with real world examples, but I haven't seen any examples combining these with capitalism (at least not on the largescale). The problem is that we have to deal with capitalism as it has existed in reality. The real capitalism we have is a dysfunctional system.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
You're changing the subject. Your original quote I replied to was "the donation model seems the complete opposite of any normal notion of capitalism". I asked how. You've yet to answer. And donation models do exist in reality's capitalism. From FDR to charities to buskering.
Hamandchees3 1 year ago
@Hamandchees3 I answered you directly. You referred to "capitalism" as a general term, but I specifically was commenting about "any normal notion of capitalism" by which I meant the reality of our present capitalist system. In the history of capitalism, it has always tended towards centralization of wealth & power in the hands of a few. There has been many alternative experiments of capitalist models, but they've either never been implemented on the largescale or never lasted.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Hamandchees3 In our society, capitalism & donation are separate models. They're opposite in their ideology, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily in opposition on the practical level. They typically don't interact in a competitive way b/c they tend to be applied in different areas. My point is that I don't recall Stefan ever having previously mentioned the donation model in relation to his theory of anarcho-capitalism. As I said, the former has real world examples & the latter doesn't.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarmaladeINFP "If I ever see a real world example of this working on the largescale, I'll consider it as a worthy proposition."
.
Linux.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Hello. I just discovered your channel. I really appreciate your level-headed polite discussion on stateless society issues that makes is so much more digestible to the public at large. Great stuff.
rbairos1 1 year ago
MINDBLOWING AS ALWAYS!
TWISTbeats 1 year ago
Right on Stefan, you hit some points dead on with the internet and it's usability as an educational tool, and sadly as a tool for espionage and censorship and propaganda and brainwashing, etc,.. There are negatives and positives in everything, but the free flow of information is better than the institutionalized main stream Blah Blah. Your knowledge, thoughts and interests are very educational to me, and help me think clearly and intelligently about my own. I prefer free will.
~Peace and Love...
Snowblindinfinity 1 year ago
The metaphor for using non-violence as the center of the "solar system" of philosophy was BRILLIANT! I love it.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
I can agree with you for the most part Stef, but I think the problem arises when users sign a contract with Comcast that offers unlimited data transfer at a set certain speed. I don't believe for a second that execs or techs within Comcast didn't know that a small percentage of people will use a huge amount of bandwidth. While Comcast is free to change its business model, it should be honoring its contracts or publicly changing its terms of agreement rather than using shady net controls.
andyissemicool 1 year ago
Wait, agorists oppose currency qua currency? I thought they just preferred bartering under the current system of fiat currencies as a form counter-economics as it cannot be taxed as easily.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
Another great conversation, Stef.
Any comments on the Digital Economy Bill?
chitchcott 1 year ago
"..this is getting a little bit too far out there..." :-D Excellent discussion with, as a side benefit, some great random humour.
gottogochild 1 year ago
I don't get your point regarding the torrent throttling. The contract with your ISP guarantees you say, 8 megabits/second downloads.
Whether you download 8 megabits/second worth of "illegal" material or "legal" material, it shouldn't be your problem whether the neighboor is getting his part of the pipe or not, it's the ISP's problem since both are lawful customers and paying their share. Tell me where I'm wrong :P
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
@StrafingMoose
I know - cartels are good side effects of competition because they can exploit you without direct violence.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels
Good for companies because they can profit. Good for you, because you don't need to be confuse over multiple choices. Just like coke and pepsi - illusion of choice. Illusion is good - don't get me wrong.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels
Welp, I guess other ISPs will be more lenient towards "torrenting" if they see Comcast going down because of such strict throttling policies.
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
Great video Stefan. I see a lot of people agreeing and disagreeing on some issues with you. With that said, being a philosopher or just a thinker as yourself doesn't mean, you or anyone else for that matter, have all the right answers. Questioning current systems leads to answers and innovations. It opens up conversations that lead to progress.
NIK4EVA 1 year ago 14
@NIK4EVA I've started watching your channel and listening to your podcasts a long while ago. It has really opened up my eyes and the spectrum of ideas. I do not always agree with what you have to say, none the less, you do bring up valid points that do need to be looked into. Thanks again for your great work and the sincere effort you put into your work. /cheers from Richmond Hill.
NIK4EVA 1 year ago
@NIK4EVA Amen to that, well said! :)
stefbot 1 year ago 5
@stefbot
A few tweaks to your premise is worthy of further study.
Take a look at "The Secrets of OZ" by Bill Still for a broader understanding of currency.
Government is the means to an end for privately owned banks. not the other way around.
Read the FAQ's of "Save the Internet" You already have the option for increased bandwidth at a premium. Porn & torrents are not robbing resources as much as loss in revenue to the cabal over the 3 sins money, music & sex. The real issue is information
sioxs 1 year ago
Regarding net neutrality; there is a model you neglected to mention. Here in Australia an ISP account gives you an allotted block of bandwidth per month, after which they throttle back your connection to 64Kb/s comparable to dial up speeds. If you want more bandwidth, you pay for it. So if you torrent all day long, you're going to pay the most. In essence, it's a pay for what you use model, rather than the one price fits all model of the US internet infrastructure.
Textra1 1 year ago
If you don't use more than your allotted bandwidth, you pay a flat monthly fee. If you use more, you have to buy extra bandwidth. It seems to me a much fairer model. That way you don't end up with a system that limits or throttles speeds to certain sources based on who pays the ISP for premium services. Be it end-users or content providers.
Textra1 1 year ago
What ISP wouldn't accept payment from Site-X to give them preferential service? Google can afford to pay ISP-x for non-limited access by the ISPs customers to their sites, but Joe Everyman at home cannot. And just like that non-commercial interests are essentially cock-blocked from the web.
Textra1 1 year ago
@Textra1 I'm from NY, USA and though my connection is not throttled. However if I use more then an allocated amount of bandwidth my bill goes up by about $20 that month.
deadman12078 1 year ago
@deadman12078
It's similar here, but you get throttled if you go over and you have to pay per block to get your normal speed back. For example, my ISP gives me 50 GB per month and after that is costs $15 per 10GB block. It sounds like a lot to pay, but it really means that people pay for what they use, rather than 10% of an ISPs users using 90% of the bandwidth.
Textra1 1 year ago
@Textra1 No problem with paying more for using more. That's understandable. I'm considering switching from DSL to cable. About the same price after the usage fee and far more bandwidth.
There are times when I can barley stream Netflix and Youtube without buffering and it gets annoying.
deadman12078 1 year ago
@deadman12078
Yeah, cable is the way to go I think. There are very few cable access points here in Australia unfortunately. It's 95% DSL. :(
Textra1 1 year ago
@deadman12078 The CEOs of the three largest ISPs here have often said that they don't dread increased traffic like US ISPs do because the more traffic, the more money they make, which pays for infrastructure upgrading. Which in the long run means they don't have to destroy net neutrality.
Textra1 1 year ago
stef in tear away pants. hilarious
5:19
capgains 1 year ago
The analogy of the solar system is absolutely brilliant, and perfectly apt.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
stef, have you been deleting comments?
kokopelli314 1 year ago
Even if you get rid of the state, violence or the threat of violence is how peace is achieved. It stopped Hitler. We could get back to the Hatfield and McCoy days, but the threat of violence will still be needed. The trouble is when the state turns the violence on their own people, like the Drug War. Is it morally correct to use violence to prevent violence against oneself?
bigtarrose 1 year ago
It would be one thing if Governments had monopoly on printing money, but what's worse, is that the Fe deral Reserve is NOT a Government agency. It's a private company and the Government pays them interest on the money that they print. If the Government owned it, they could print money without interest.
floridawaterfronttv 1 year ago
Comment removed
kurtu5 1 year ago
non violent competition :D that makes me laugh. Tell lions to non-violently feed theselves :D
Nomels 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nomels
Please show me that part where Apple has used violence against Google in the iPhone -vs- Andriod phone market. Or Google using violence against Apple. Because they are in serious competition there.
Please, if competition is violence, then please show me the violence between these two "lions" as you so call them,
kurtu5 1 year ago
@kurtu5
Competition works as well in forms of cartels. You are the pray they share :D
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels
I asked for the violence. Where is it?
kurtu5 1 year ago
@kurtu5 Competition is violence is the same mind set that believes profits are slavery.
.
Economic ignorance. Pretty sure they're American government school educated.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
This looks like a contractual issue to me.
When they advertise this stuff, it's always something along the lines of: UNLIMITED INTERNETS!!1! 400Mb/S! UNLIMITED!!!1 NO LIMITS!!!
They sign up a million people for that.... It's like renting out the same room in a hotel five times and hoping none of the guests are ever in the room at the same time to notice.
If my contract says 'unlimited,' but they can't physically provide that service, Bittorent isn't the problem.
erhnamdj 1 year ago 2
@erhnamdj I like to call it fractional reserve bandwidth ;-)
shaurz 1 year ago 2
"Information Super Highway"... I haven't heard that phrase for at least a decade ;-)
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz "I haven't heard that phrase for at least a decade"
.
Algore's proposal was deeply frightening, scared that phrase right out of the lexicon!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
I liked the story about fish - it is a good allegory
Nomels 1 year ago
This had some interesting comments, but unfortunately both Steph and Stef completely missed the ball. Your Isp does not care that you are illegally downloading or that it takes over 80% of the traffic. Web traffic is their business. The problem is that Isp's oversell their lines with "unlimited" internet. This is false advertising. The Isp's were simply hoping that no-one would use the bandwidth so they could collect money without delivering. The "illegal downloads" are just a red herring.
Mathannix 1 year ago 2
Also. Competition is violence in itself. You encourage non-violence and competition. WHAT? How does that work?
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels I don't see how you think that competition is violent. Fair competition is people offering different solutions and people voluntarily supporting one solution or another by voting with their feet. How does that involve any violence? If someone decides to use violence to destroy their competition, that is nothing to do with competition itself, that's resorting violence, pure and simple.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
A dream of a businessman is to have a monopoly. Therefore I need violence to achieve it - either by destroying competitor or buying it up. For instance, I can put it out of business with lower prices and while making a loss in my own company for few years or just acquiring with a better product. Once there is no competition any more, I will dictate the price and a supply to you of the product or service. Violence is ok. If you look at the nature, you will see violence everywhere.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels Something existing in nature is not an argument. I suppose you support rape, murder and child molestation, because that happens all the time in nature.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
Well, are you saying that humans are not part of nature? :) I am not arguing - I am telling you - try explaining to someone with no money and in starvation not to steel. Try telling Walmart to stop putting out of business small stores :D
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels Humans are part of nature, but we are more than nature.
Walmart is a fierce competitor/monopoliser but they are not beating up store owners or smashing up their stores, as far as I know. Monopoly can be a problem but it's not relevant to the discussion of violence.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
Well, there is non physical violence as well, I you know - more subtle. The people who are hurt are not screaming - they are quietly crying in their bedrooms. :)
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels "A dream of a businessman is to have a monopoly."
.
Yes, but the only way to prevent competition is through government action or violence.
.
Violence alienates customers, it's really bad for business. What's left? Government.
.
That's why monopolies only exist through government action. Bend over and get ready for more "corporate/government partnership"!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@Nomels
I set up a lemonade stand.
My neighbor sets up a lemonade stand across the street.
Show me the violence.
erhnamdj 1 year ago
@erhnamdj
If I want to put him out of business, I will smash his stand during the night and blame it on hooligans. If that will not work. I will acquire and monopolise the resource supply - lemonade company. I'll do it not because I am evil, but as a preventative measure. It is called thinking ahead. I have to do it or my competitor probably will because of monetary incentive.
Competition is naturally violent. I don't know how people can come up with the a concept of non-violent competition :D
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels By using violence against others to "compete" you are fighting against society. In doing so you are damaging yourself, since we all rely on each other to survive. This is the human way of survival, otherwise we would not need to evolve brains that can process language. You may temporarily gain, but you will cause a net loss for yourself and your descendants. Society will also punish you with exclusion and other means.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
I am competing to preserve myself - the ultimate property of life. I don't like violence, but if it is needed for my self preservation, I will use it - like a rat squeezed in the corner. Every competitor can potentially put me out of business, there fore I have to put them out first.
Nomels 1 year ago
@shaurz
You will not be punishing anyone if I have power over you :D
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels I think you are using a different definition of competition, which is causing you to confuse the issue. Darwinian competition is not what I am talking about.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
Competition is the opposite of cooperation. Competition is based on self interest. Cooperation, on the other hand, is based on social benefits. You are confused, I think, not me :)
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels Competition can have social benefits by choosing the most effective solution. That's why capitalism works (it's not perfect but socialism is universally a failure). Do you believe that competitive self interest can never benefit others?
Gotta go to bed now anyway, it's 2:30 AM here.
shaurz 1 year ago
@shaurz
I think competition is awesome, because someone will always win and someone will always loose. Look at USA - loads of loosers, homeless and desperate and few winners. The competition determines the best approach to continuation of species. Homeless people hopefully will die out and the rich people will evolve into super-technology society - it will be good for human species. Socialism takes care of poor people and loosers - I think that is wrong.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels Would you not expect some backlash from consumers? What's it cost to monopolize the resource supply for a lemonade stand? Now, what's the amount of profit you make from that expenditure? If you had that much money, why the hell mess around with a lemonade stand? You realize you still have to live next to these neighbors, right? What do you do when Little Suzy's dad hears you swinging around a sledgehammer in his garage?
erhnamdj 1 year ago
@erhnamdj
Well no one says anything about eating deadly food in USA - GMO's, mcdonalds, coke - stuff like that. People are ignorant and you should take advantage of this fact.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels So rather than sell them diet books, I should set up my own fast food restaurants, put on a bandana and grab a Bowie knife with a saw blade on the back, then go hunt down some McDonald's executives.
Riiight.
Tell me, how's this whole violence thing working out for you in your personal life?
erhnamdj 1 year ago
@erhnamdj
I do what ever I want for my self preservation and everyone else can do what ever they want. The winner survives or gets better lifestyle choices.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels "If I want to put him out of business, I will smash his stand during the night and blame it on hooligans."
.
Do that more than once, and you'll be freezing to death in the dark when no one will do business with you any more.
.
What an awful attitude you have.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Practically violence is a good way to solve my problems if I want to secure my future and continuation. Look at nature - every one does it for self preservation. Violence is part of evolution.
----
There is no reason to assume that violence (physical or psychological) will ever end.
Nomels 1 year ago
"Sorry.... did you say there's pornography on the Internet??" -Stef
I laughed out loud and nearly snorted to death.
N7a7v7i 1 year ago
464 videos. All worth watching. You don't have to always agree with what is said. It makes you think and wonder about the world. Hopefully enough people watch and it makes a difference.
deadman12078 1 year ago 2
@deadman12078 Thanks! :)
stefbot 1 year ago 2
Without porn we'd be a species without purpose!
ReptilianOverlord 1 year ago 3
Stefan I really like your philosophical take on stuff that goes around but you are making statements about financial world you don't (I hate to say it) fully understand. If you just go back in history - in 19 ct. in USA you had myriad of banks issuing their on deposit certificates (for gold and silver) and those were basically transferable ,in other words they were emitting private money backed by hard assets. It didn't work. Many things were tried before - the boom & bust cycle is reoccurring.
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff hello, konshoff why didnt it work?
fergus247 1 year ago
@konshoff Thank you for adding that, I am quite aware of that, but none of the boom and bust cycles -- and in particular the deflation of the currency -- were nearly as bad as what we have had since government took control of currency.
stefbot 1 year ago
@stefbot The scale of boom & bust cycle depends on the volume of assets and liabilities in the economy. You can't expect to have one on a scale of today in 16 century. Back in the day it was always caused by disruption in gold and silver supply.
Today it is more complex. I recommend highly the "financial collapse rigged by Venice, and then stuff about Rome collapse, medieval Spain, black Friday etc. Anyway we have to get rid of income & property tax but the private money is not the right method
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff
The pre-Fed booms and busts were caused by the government eliminating the redeemability of banknotes and then printing like mad in order to fight wars and fund other insane projects. It had nothing to do with fluctuations in the gold and silver supply.
By saying that private money is not the right method, by necessity you are implying that the State must control the money. But was already know that they're incompetent. So we're back to private money again.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76 See my comment above - we have tried the private money -it didn't work. It will never work for very simple reasons - just like gold and silver didn't work in long run.
Go figure why. Now, most of the pre Fed monetary regimes were based on precious metals - as far as I'm concerned the history is just filled with wars, famine, and human suffering. Who do you think used to have a control over gold mines in 14cent. -regular people? boom & bust is unavoidable coz it's a natural cycle
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff Excuse me, how didn't gold and silver work in the long run? Precious metals have always spontaneously been used by traders. The reason it's not used to the same extent today is that governments make it illegal to trade with gold, because they can only tax their own currency properly. The reason the had to ban it was that people used gold and silver in trade, and the reason they used it was that it worked better than most other alternatives.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
I don't know dude what you've been smoking but all metals - even uranium is traded on commodity exchanges around the world. (maybe not lithium - I didn't check lately). You can sell your gold and buy wheat with no problem. As a matter of fact u can take all of your savings and transfer it to silver if you want - I guess it would be too hard to buy gasoline with it but hey it's ur choice. The simplest reason why it doesn't work is that economy expends but gold reserves are finite. There r others.
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff Of course you can own all metals, but all transactions have to be made in the official currency. That's the law in most countries.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
@jrgenkratz So what is your point? Let me tell you something- if anybody talks about competing private currencies, I'm afraid he's got absolutely no clue about how money and economy works. That same thing applies to people talking about gold as money.
I mean these people are not even practical just to begin with. It is just a complete nonsense. Government and money is not a problem - it is trust versus corruption that shift things around- people never change. Gold is a hedge against corruption.
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff I have no clue about "how money and economy works"? I have a university degree in economics and have studied Austrian economics extensively on my spare time. I may very well be that you have some supersecret information that renders all my knowledge worthless, but please don't say that I have no clue.
jrgenkratz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@konshoff "Government and money is not a problem"
.
Tell that to someone holding German marks in 1923, a Zimbabwe dollar, a Ruble, Argentinian peso, Greenback, Continental, or other fiat currency that has been printed into obscurity.
.
Just like the US dollar, the Euro and the Japanese Yen are now.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@konshoff
Saw it, you clearly aren't familiar with history. The USA never had a free banking era, it was a government imposed bi-metallic standard until 1900 when the gold standard act was passed, making it a mono-metallic standard. Scotland had a free banking era and it was quite successful and so your claim isn't based in history or any kind of fact.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@konshoff
Unbacked paper has been tried as currency for thousands of years and failed every single time. Paper is the cause of wars, famine and suffering, not commodity currency. Boom/bust is not a natural cycle, see ABCT.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76 It seems to me that you are rather confused by wrong interpretation of historical facts. Precious metals were not imposed by anyone as a monetary system - they were generally recognized around the world for millennia. If you think that wars were caused by paper money throughout the history all I can say is " GO BACK TO SCHOOL!" ( hopefully not American public ).
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff
Wrong again konshoff, so please don't pretend like you have a degree in anything. Indeed metals are chosen as money in a free market but you are completely ignorant about monetary history in the USA. The US printed money in order to finance the revolutionary war (Colonial Scrip), civil war (Greenbacks), WWI, WWII and so on. They imposed a metal standard with the Coinage Act of 1792. You would know this if you were an actual economist. Stop supporting state monopolies on money.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
That should say 'Continental Scrip', not 'Colonial Scrip'
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76 My friend, there is no such thing as free market. Never was. Also, coinage act doesn't mean people in America had not been using metals before -they were using English coins, even Spanish down south. Actually, English king started to withdraw the silver and gold and pay back in copper what caused a strong sentiment against the crown in colonies. Yes, Lincoln had to print Greenbacks and I'm glad he did coz he saved the USA. I'm also glad for it helped to defeat fascism in WW2.
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff
And why do you suppose that when the colonies were able to freely choose what their money would be, that they chose gold and silver hmm??
Lincoln also didn't save anything, but thanks for once again proving you have no clue what you're talking about. Fascism and socialism would not be possible if not for a central bank printing money to fund those regimes. But then again your bias against real money has driven you to say all kinds of crazy things so far.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76 People had chosen p.metals 1000's of years before there were any colonies, but it turned out to be better and more practical when minting of the coins started (cca 500b.c. Illyria). by a king of name I don't remember. Now, it is 21 cent. and we have electronic form of money - and I assume you recognize absurdity of the idea doing the billions of transactions that go around the world everyday in gold coins. Gold is a hedge against currency mismanagement by gov.
That's why it's up.
konshoff 1 year ago
@konshoff "It didn't work."
.
Actually, it worked quite well. The occasional bank that over-issued notes would create a run and maybe go out of business, which only reinforced the business benefits of 100% reserves banking.
.
The large systematic boom/bust cycles always happen through government and central bank actions.
.
Do a search for "Martin van Buren What Greatness Really Means" and "America's Great Depression"
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Stef made some good points on neutrality, but I don't think I really understand the issue any better. Maybe I'm dense on the subtleties of the internet and bandwidth. I did instinctively have a resistance to giving gov. power over the internet, and I think after stef's points that my instincts were correct, I just haven't heard anything that would make me able to convince others not to support net neutrality.
nathanjonessr 1 year ago
This is a good interview. What was Steve drinking during the interview, beer & coffee? Awesome combo :-)
If one wants to put the internet down... it can't be done. The routing protocols are designed to find and follow the shortest path to the destination. As long as there is some connection with the destination, it doesn't matter if the infrastructure in US is down, a big part of the content would be lost, but not the live connection outside US. It will work, slower... but it will work for sure
SopraTutt1 1 year ago 2
Who did he say was against currencies at 8.36?
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
One problem with the idea that Bittorrent is "sucking up bandwidth": Each person pays for the bandwidth they use, unless the business model of the ISP doesn't actually cover the cost of that bandwidth.
.
What is needed is honesty. The ISPs can't sell high speed "cheap" service and then pretend to be offended when someone actually uses it!
.
Porn is not the only thing on the net, Mises-org started Mises University last night and it's a wonderful success.
.
Junk email, however MUST DIE.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@CurtHowland
"Junk email, however MUST DIE."
There is absolutely nothing that the government can do about this.
ReligionIsTheDevil 1 year ago
@ReligionIsTheDevil "nothing that the government can do about this."
.
Don't bother trying to tell any politicians or bureaucrats that, it seems they are convinced that there is nothing government cannot do if they spend enough of my money!
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@CurtHowland
Well, that's kind of a misleading statement. I'm pretty sure most politicians know exactly how badly each law they put through is going to fail, mainly because their primary goal was not to solve any problems but instead to advance their own interests.
Besides, politicians created the large majority of the problems that they try to 'fix' Expecting someone to fix a problem that they intentionally created in the first place just doesn't make any sense.
ReligionIsTheDevil 1 year ago
@ReligionIsTheDevil "Expecting someone to fix a problem that they intentionally created"
.
I think you're giving them far, far more credit than they deserve.
.
Without any reservation, I believe that many, if not most, politicians just cannot understand why their good intentions never seem to come true. The few who are diabolical rise in power and lead their parties, behind or in front of the cameras, aided by lots of "useful idiots" like Barbara Boxer.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Fiat currencies only exist because of legal tender laws. Remove those laws, even remove the power of government to regulate money at all, people will use commodity based money. That's what people always use, be it denominated in cowrey shells, obsidian, gold, silver, iron tripods (The Odyssey), whatever.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
BRILLIANT !! The first half should be added to the highlights of FDR!
ronpaulspanish 1 year ago