By and large, control of INFORMATION has been successful because the intellectual world is still locked into a phony verbal battle between 'left' and 'right', whereas the real struggle is the battle between individual freedom and the encroaching power of the absolute State.
Is not about Anarchy or Tyranny is about equilibrium.
Interesting videos. One contradiction I see in anti-statists ideas is this: the anti-nationalism, no borders, free trade idea fits nicely in the platform of the globalist agenda. Surely, this is not intended yet this anti-nationalism is only weakening the barriers to a global government takeover - the super state.
Look at the EU - it wasn't the nationalists who voted yes on those treaties.
Do anti-statists consider NWO conspiracy theory? Are jobs not being outsourced?
What the EU, UN, WTO, etc want, is not free trade. They want trade that is controlled or taxed by no one except themselves.
They just use words like "free market" to convince people that they're doing something else than grabbing all the power and squeezing every dime out of their slaves.
If the UN wants no border, then how come every person in the world needs a UN-approved passport just to be able to travel from one country to another?
The state is the only thing protecting you from the global monoply that is the NWO. The weak nations are already in. The border they are taking down is that between commerce and workers. It just happens to be that cheap labor is needed for commerce to be profitable hence open borders to allow poor workers into industrialized nations and free trade to allow industry into poor nations.
The Federal Reserve prints the global currency, and people in the US are forced to accept it as payments for all debts and use it to exchange all products.
The US federal state is right behind the NWO. They are owned by the same people. Now Obama is gonna be president of the UN, too. President of the world. Yeah.
What protects you from tyranny is not a lesser tyranny, it's you and your neighbors choosing not to cooperate with the tyrants.
I don't consider the FED part of the state. The state is under attack on many fronts. The answer is to take back the state not throw it out and be left sitting ducks.
How is The FED not part of The State when it is The State that makes US dollar "legal tender" (forces it on everyone in the US), putting anyone who uses any other medium of exchange in prison and taking all their assets?
Nobody would use those useless green pieces of paper if it wasn't for The State.
Look up what The State did with the Liberty Dollar.
Andrew Jackson went to battle against the FED and won. When I talk about the state, I'm talking about the state as it should be not this POS that we have now. However, even communism is better than anarchy.
You're quite free to move any of the wonderful stateless societies - Somalia may be to your liking. Or you could stay here and wait for the next hurricane to strike New Orleans.
I give anarchy a slight chance in a 100% homogenous society - that's not us.
The UN has been trying to invade Somalia for years. And the poor people are still able to resist.
Look, I'm not gonna argue with you on whether statelessness is better, I'll just ask again, do you want to force your state on those who don't want it?
Say 90% of the people in an individual state or a city in the US wanted to secede and not put up another state in place of the one they had. Would you oppose this?
Btw, it is precisely because a society is not homogenous that you can't have a large territorial state. Because then everybody fights each other over who will get their way.
I think you may find this short article interesting, it's about different conceptions of what "anarchy" is and it draws a lot from the chaos that resulted in New Orleans from hurricane Katrina
strike-the-root(dot)com/52/davis/davis4(dot) html
Read the article. I agree that the welfare state is the main reason for the rising criminal underclass but criminals will
always be present -you need cops. Does anarchy allow for a police force?
I like small homogenous towns - that works best. You can get close to anarchy now by just dropping out, moving out of the cities and starting a community of like-minded people or family members.
Statelessness does allow for police protection. The only difference is that it is funded voluntarily, that means, people who pay for the police protection are doing so because they value the service that this police agency provides. If they don't value it, they can stop paying, and choose another one, or choose to provide their own protection for themselves and/or others.
The state pays for police protection by extracting money by force from everybody, and then granting itself a monopoly on police protection, as well as on the court system.
And we can see that when we grant only one entity the ability to solve disputes, even disputes they themselves generated, there will be problems. Especially if this entity obtains it's resources by force.
Conflict between different agencies will not be desirable as it will generate loss of customers, as well as massive loss of capital in the form of the costs of waging war. So peaceful settlements will be sought.
However, the statist police protection can just pay for all the costs of the conflict with stolen money, and they can grant themselves immunity.
That's why if you or I torture someone with a taser, we go to jail, but a cop gets a paid vacation.
I don't see how that idea of policing works in a big city. You can't have 10% of the territory enforced and let the other 90% be a safe haven for criminals.
Different police protection agencies will operate in different neighborhoods or streets, and there is no reason they can't overlap. Some videos and lectures that explain this idea: Ryan Faulk: /watch?v=2rR2Y0r_2Iw tinyurl(dot)com/y9w3xhm Hans-Herman Hoppe: /watch?v=egNAknkQ8_s /watch?v=J-b-KZZBWZE /watch?v=OxsS_fnC3v4 Roderick T. Long (10 parts, in the same account): /watch?v=ZLUPynLda7U
Also, the safer neighborhood would be one where most people owned guns and could defend themselves and each other against aggressors.
It's what they had in the old west, and their crime rates per capita were far lower than today's crime rates, even though the culture was much more primitive and most people were racist religious fundamentalists.
What they show in the movies is all lies. It was, for the most part, a peaceful place. And today it would be much more peaceful than that.
There can also be charity police protection for the poorer areas.
And also, the free market will eliminate poverty within less than a decade.
And of course the more immediate answer is for poor people to buy guns and protect themselves and their neighbors. They will be really cheap without government restrictions and regulations and taxation.
Old west, by Ryan Faulk:
/watch?v=w5ENtG3B8CQ
/watch?v=rvEod8Ljfu0
+go to mises(dot)org and type search "wild west", you'll get tons of articles.
This is something I've been mulling for some time. In general people's actions and attitudes when they interact directly are radically different from what they think their interactions via the state "ought" to be.
Check out the Butler Shaffer quote that LibertyInOurTime lists below. I think it hits the nail on the head. In childhood you ask your parents matter of fact questions about the state, such as "why do we have to pay taxes". They give you the standard answer and you shrug and say "well they think its kosher, so it must be". But that doesn't really explain it why people in general are decieved. It's a serious problem. I'm personally not satisfied with another popular answer, namely "religions..
...bamboozled people and then we got the State". I'm quite sure that cults were involved in the rise of the State, as cult thinking is involved now. The real question though is : what is it in the human mind that allows it to be decieved in this way in the first place? Why are we, under certain circumstancs, able to turn off our reason all together and think impossible things? It puzzles me intensely.
"The state has, in order to control us, introduced division into our thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection." -- Butler Shaffer
Great job on sending Hobbes' hypocrisy right back at him. The state divides people because people are adamant on debating how to use the guns against each other. I touched up on this in My Declaration of Anarchy, which I made when I was still a bit on the fence.
This video was real good I might input some of this in my book later on if that's all right with you.
I love the last 21 seconds.
"Politics, the actions of the state, facilitates and legitimizes theft, tyranny, and murder."
101caliber 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This is absolutely fantastic
AcresofAnarchy 3 months ago
Great video. Would you mind if I mirror it on my channel? It could use a few more views.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Glad you enjoyed it. That would be fine.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe:
Mirrored! :-)
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
By and large, control of INFORMATION has been successful because the intellectual world is still locked into a phony verbal battle between 'left' and 'right', whereas the real struggle is the battle between individual freedom and the encroaching power of the absolute State.
Is not about Anarchy or Tyranny is about equilibrium.
apocolypse11 1 year ago
that was fuckin rad
6sully8391 1 year ago
This is an essay I wrote for the video.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
What is this guy reading from...Rothbard or is it his own material? Google didn't return anything.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Excellent video friend. Please create more and share.
kailabreece 2 years ago
I think this is the way to end The State. Great video. We should be talking about this much more.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Great video, dude!
GarbagePlanet 2 years ago
Interesting videos. One contradiction I see in anti-statists ideas is this: the anti-nationalism, no borders, free trade idea fits nicely in the platform of the globalist agenda. Surely, this is not intended yet this anti-nationalism is only weakening the barriers to a global government takeover - the super state.
Look at the EU - it wasn't the nationalists who voted yes on those treaties.
Do anti-statists consider NWO conspiracy theory? Are jobs not being outsourced?
jdcremin 2 years ago
Nationalism can act as a counterbalance to the globalist agenda, but it is only a lesser evil. It's still bad.
Sure, a central government for 6 billion people will cause 20 times more problems than one for 300 million, but both are horrible and destructive.
However, I have no problem with those who want a state having one. The problem is that most of them want to force it on everyone else.
zuiprax 2 years ago
What the EU, UN, WTO, etc want, is not free trade. They want trade that is controlled or taxed by no one except themselves.
They just use words like "free market" to convince people that they're doing something else than grabbing all the power and squeezing every dime out of their slaves.
zuiprax 2 years ago
If the UN wants no border, then how come every person in the world needs a UN-approved passport just to be able to travel from one country to another?
Passports didn't exist before WW2.
zuiprax 2 years ago
The state is the only thing protecting you from the global monoply that is the NWO. The weak nations are already in. The border they are taking down is that between commerce and workers. It just happens to be that cheap labor is needed for commerce to be profitable hence open borders to allow poor workers into industrialized nations and free trade to allow industry into poor nations.
Passports - search Schengen Agreement.
jdcremin 2 years ago
Do you think so?
The Federal Reserve prints the global currency, and people in the US are forced to accept it as payments for all debts and use it to exchange all products.
The US federal state is right behind the NWO. They are owned by the same people. Now Obama is gonna be president of the UN, too. President of the world. Yeah.
What protects you from tyranny is not a lesser tyranny, it's you and your neighbors choosing not to cooperate with the tyrants.
zuiprax 2 years ago
I don't consider the FED part of the state. The state is under attack on many fronts. The answer is to take back the state not throw it out and be left sitting ducks.
jdcremin 2 years ago
How is The FED not part of The State when it is The State that makes US dollar "legal tender" (forces it on everyone in the US), putting anyone who uses any other medium of exchange in prison and taking all their assets?
Nobody would use those useless green pieces of paper if it wasn't for The State.
Look up what The State did with the Liberty Dollar.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Fine, take back your state if you want it so badly. Now, will you support it being forced on those who don't want to be a part of it?
If so, you're no better than the NWO you claim to oppose.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Andrew Jackson went to battle against the FED and won. When I talk about the state, I'm talking about the state as it should be not this POS that we have now. However, even communism is better than anarchy.
You're quite free to move any of the wonderful stateless societies - Somalia may be to your liking. Or you could stay here and wait for the next hurricane to strike New Orleans.
I give anarchy a slight chance in a 100% homogenous society - that's not us.
jdcremin 2 years ago
The UN has been trying to invade Somalia for years. And the poor people are still able to resist.
Look, I'm not gonna argue with you on whether statelessness is better, I'll just ask again, do you want to force your state on those who don't want it?
Say 90% of the people in an individual state or a city in the US wanted to secede and not put up another state in place of the one they had. Would you oppose this?
zuiprax 2 years ago
Seccession is constitutional and the South had every right to seceed. So no.
jdcremin 2 years ago
Good.
Btw, it is precisely because a society is not homogenous that you can't have a large territorial state. Because then everybody fights each other over who will get their way.
It's what this video was about...
zuiprax 2 years ago
I think you may find this short article interesting, it's about different conceptions of what "anarchy" is and it draws a lot from the chaos that resulted in New Orleans from hurricane Katrina
strike-the-root(dot)com/52/davis/davis4(dot) html
zuiprax 2 years ago
Read the article. I agree that the welfare state is the main reason for the rising criminal underclass but criminals will
always be present -you need cops. Does anarchy allow for a police force?
I like small homogenous towns - that works best. You can get close to anarchy now by just dropping out, moving out of the cities and starting a community of like-minded people or family members.
jdcremin 2 years ago
Statelessness does allow for police protection. The only difference is that it is funded voluntarily, that means, people who pay for the police protection are doing so because they value the service that this police agency provides. If they don't value it, they can stop paying, and choose another one, or choose to provide their own protection for themselves and/or others.
zuiprax 2 years ago
The state pays for police protection by extracting money by force from everybody, and then granting itself a monopoly on police protection, as well as on the court system.
And we can see that when we grant only one entity the ability to solve disputes, even disputes they themselves generated, there will be problems. Especially if this entity obtains it's resources by force.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Conflict between different agencies will not be desirable as it will generate loss of customers, as well as massive loss of capital in the form of the costs of waging war. So peaceful settlements will be sought.
However, the statist police protection can just pay for all the costs of the conflict with stolen money, and they can grant themselves immunity.
That's why if you or I torture someone with a taser, we go to jail, but a cop gets a paid vacation.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I will gladly take a 2% state over a 70% one. But a 0% state is even better.
zuiprax 2 years ago
I don't see how that idea of policing works in a big city. You can't have 10% of the territory enforced and let the other 90% be a safe haven for criminals.
jdcremin 2 years ago
zuiprax 2 years ago
Also, the safer neighborhood would be one where most people owned guns and could defend themselves and each other against aggressors.
It's what they had in the old west, and their crime rates per capita were far lower than today's crime rates, even though the culture was much more primitive and most people were racist religious fundamentalists.
What they show in the movies is all lies. It was, for the most part, a peaceful place. And today it would be much more peaceful than that.
zuiprax 2 years ago
That makes some sense but it assumes an area that will be unpoliced - poor areas.
The old west stuff is very interesting - is there a book or articles along your line of thinking?
jdcremin 2 years ago
There can also be charity police protection for the poorer areas.
And also, the free market will eliminate poverty within less than a decade.
And of course the more immediate answer is for poor people to buy guns and protect themselves and their neighbors. They will be really cheap without government restrictions and regulations and taxation.
Old west, by Ryan Faulk:
/watch?v=w5ENtG3B8CQ
/watch?v=rvEod8Ljfu0
+go to mises(dot)org and type search "wild west", you'll get tons of articles.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Very well done. 5 stars.
Mementomori690069 2 years ago
Thanks for the kind remarks, everyone.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
Excellently done, man.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Great video, man.
baggytheo 2 years ago
This is something I've been mulling for some time. In general people's actions and attitudes when they interact directly are radically different from what they think their interactions via the state "ought" to be.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago
Check out the Butler Shaffer quote that LibertyInOurTime lists below. I think it hits the nail on the head. In childhood you ask your parents matter of fact questions about the state, such as "why do we have to pay taxes". They give you the standard answer and you shrug and say "well they think its kosher, so it must be". But that doesn't really explain it why people in general are decieved. It's a serious problem. I'm personally not satisfied with another popular answer, namely "religions..
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
...bamboozled people and then we got the State". I'm quite sure that cults were involved in the rise of the State, as cult thinking is involved now. The real question though is : what is it in the human mind that allows it to be decieved in this way in the first place? Why are we, under certain circumstancs, able to turn off our reason all together and think impossible things? It puzzles me intensely.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
you are sooo right
LysSpooner 2 years ago
"The state has, in order to control us, introduced division into our thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection." -- Butler Shaffer
LibertyInOurTime 2 years ago 3
Excellant! You've got another sub. ;)
thecursedland 2 years ago
Thank you. I'm happy you enjoyed it.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
Great job on sending Hobbes' hypocrisy right back at him. The state divides people because people are adamant on debating how to use the guns against each other. I touched up on this in My Declaration of Anarchy, which I made when I was still a bit on the fence.
This video was real good I might input some of this in my book later on if that's all right with you.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 3
That's fine, GaurdofLiberty. Nobody owns truth, so go ahead and put it in yout book.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
It's not very often that I subscribe to person based on only one video. Good job.
hurrrrrrrrrrr 2 years ago
Thanks you, made this a few weeks ago I think and I'm glad people are finally seeing it.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
This is a great video. I never thought about turning the 'war of all against all' thing back on people, that's a good way of putting it.
TheAtheistRising 2 years ago
Wow, I can't believe I haven't seen this channel before!
ChristianScherwin 2 years ago