I think all religions (and I consider statism as one of the major branches of this mental illness) formed as a result of the anxiety that came about when humans first become cognizant of their own mortality. The fear combined with visions of dead people in dreams and waking life led to the creation of the afterlife dimension. This is at the root of all dualistic philosophies.
Governments are an offchute of religions in that governments and political ideologies have one basic thing in common with religion across the board, and that is a promise of a form of immortality. Be it a literal form of immortality as we see in theocracies or some transhumanists imagine, or a poetic form of immortality in the form of living on through the survival of the state/party/troop.
I believe that the priest and the politician have essentially the same job which is to take on the moral absolutes of a higher-being (be it a god or a flag) in order to be gods themselves and then impose these edicts which people already foolishly believe in through generational brain-washing as if they originated them. They are essentially high-functioning sociopaths. They make the existing power structure their own.
I now know why this video has 50,000 views, and the last video of the series only 2,000 views. It seems that somewhere along the way 48,000 people stopped believing in any way that your hypothetical "non-state" state will work. Why? The more you talk the more it looks like some crude communist environment with only civil laws, and corps enforcing tyranny worse than any US government agency did. Nice try, but you need to take this to the drawing board once again if you want 50k views throughout.
McCane is a piece of shit. He's the one pushing this new bill through the senate that is going to make it legal for the state to arrest anyone that protests and voices disagreement as a "terrorist" and give the state the power to lock up any US citizen for indefinite periods of time.
Hey, can you make a video (or have any information on) perhaps the reason why some people (inherently?) opposed the state/didn't believe the propaganda? Were they perhaps looking to fill the power vacuum themselves? Or perhaps people who evolved more reasoning capabilities (and if so, for what evolutionary purpose at the time? It would seem to be negative for your survival to be kept in line via force/suppressed/killed) Are/were they more 'evolved/different' humans? Thank you<3
@gn0m1k I think it's analogous to being an atheist in the 1700s, except you don't get burned at the stake for being an "anarchist", at least not in the US today.
Can you explain to me why anti-statists are dumbasses? I can't simply understand why they promote tyranny by private corporations, while fearing of state tyranny.
I think you missed a point here. Part of the problem with the state is that people might think that since they want platinum toilet paper, but they can't get it from the market at a reasonable price, it's better if the state provides it.
But what people don't realise is what they're giving up in order to have the platinum toilet paper is probably worth more to them.
I think this is a more important way in which the state is disconnected from the structure of production. It hides costs.
I loved your discription of " the politics of television". Couldn't agree more with that as well as your criticism of atheists who talk endlessly about their atheism.
I appreciate your sentiment, but this just wont work. As soon as human nature gets involved your ideology crumbles
I know what we have now sucks but its the worst system apart from all the others.
the state doesn't have a personality. its just a mechanism that happens to have been misused by corporations and imperialists. Its our fault. WE. as A collective, we share the guilt for allowing these types of people to get in power and mess it up.
Shut up kid! What do you know about wooden pipes in early american plumbing? I'm the pride of the peaches and the prettiest pony in the stable and I'll have you know that you are NOT thorsmitersaw!
Well, you're the only one who has complained about that. So either everyone else is hallucinating there being sound, or the problem is on your end mister happy dan.
@sharperguy Well actually I'm just part of your mind. In fact everyone is. "Youtube" doesn't really exist, all of this is just a long vivid dream to help you cope with the fact that you're in a prison camp in North Korea. The Year is 1949, and the americans are coming. You're about to be freed, and you need to wake up. Wake up.
So what do you suggest? Anarchy? Monarchy? You seem to be so against representative democracy, and yes it is broken as of now and basically being run by corporations save a small amount, but when ran right it is the best system on earth up to this point. Nothing's perfect
You can cut the "corporate ties" with the state to the point where "corporate lobbying" becomes non-existent but the state will still not be accountable to "the people" (or whatever the hell you're trying to insinuate). There are too many incentives for inefficiency within the state (i.e. lifetime pension, long-term elections, "blame game", and on and on) for an reduction of "cut corporate ties" to be made.
Ha, there's no point debating economics. If anything you should be getting ready to accept being taken over by China. And if you think your little patriots, and "brave americans" your wrong. China is coming to collect the debt of the U$A and guess what? There's nothing you can do about it and chances are you'll be sent to the firing squad. So wake up to reality and not your little Libertarian fantasy bullshit.
Go fill up the chamber of a revolver and play Russian Roulette. Seriously.
Calling anti-statists patriots is like the equivalent of calling a...fuck it, I can't even think of an analogy to point out how retarded your implication was.
Also, funny how you dismiss a source without substantiation.
I really appreciate what you're saying but as soon as you plug people into the equation everything falls apart.
If everyone thought like you and I we mightn't need a state. I don't think we need one. But, much like in your idealistic of example free markets, I think that, since we currently have a State, "we" must want to have it. Otherwise we would get rid of or change it, right?
I just realized, I'm running out of characters so I'll just say... I wish it were that easy...
@Schnate124 Please don't post comments like this. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what I think, you're straw-manning, and it's not appreciated at all.
@fringeelements I know my comment was very glib but I didn't have time to flesh it out. It seems like your pretty wrapped up in your opinion so I won't bother trying to push matters further. My only point was Not all people poses the same mental faculties or the same moral compass. You are leaving out many variables in the human equation, too many to list here. You don't seem open to anything that may, even slightly, augment your views (even if I agree with you) so... good luck.
Without a state there would be a strong change that religion would take over. It's done so in the past and is constantly trying to do it now. From Finland it seems it has mostly succeeded in America.
Religions are backed by such fanatic support they'd be difficult to oppose if there were no state. Even a too big secular state is better than the smallest amount of religious governance.
@rolandselene Yeah, yeah it's one of the first things I considered. Evidence that this is not the case is found in prior stateless societies that did not become states from within.
But really, I have no idea what you mean by "religion would take over". If the general population is ultra-religious, then they'll just vote those policies in. Democracy amplifies the power of the mob.
@fringeelements True the same threat exists in democrazy but with a difference. What I failed to emphasize previously, is that in a stateless situation a Minority with fanatic supporters is perhaps more likely to gain power over others, than within a state. What do you think?
@Laughingblades I disagree. For example, private property norms are a form of regulation. And what about people dumping sludge into a river that other people use? A firm may save $10 billion, but cost others $50 billion because of their waste. Regulation is needed. But you don't need a state for regulation.
Incentives, supply and demand, polycentric law, class-action lawsuits, remember ancient mesopotamia and britain's population fluctuations. Know what those things are.
“Keep in mind that these early states had retinues, army’s, temples, bureaucracies, and king court, all of which didn’t produce food.” Brilliant I think I know where your going… =]B?}>>
Cartels succeed when the state passes laws that restrict the supply of something, for example licensing laws for doctors that restrict the supply of doctors, causing the cost medical services in the US to skyrocket. Artificial scarcity comes from the state, not the market.
@alpshunter "companies can't make money off abundance"
Right, and so firms throughout history have tried to cartelize to restrict supply all together. This fails on a free market because a cartel has high profits which attracts investors which form new frims to get in on the high profits of the cartelized industry and end up breaking the cartel driving economic profit down to zero (not the same as accounting profit).
I never said VP was a barter system. A barter system would be an improvement.
Scarcity is a fact of reality. Earth is scarce. The only system that "encourages scarcity" is that which discourages production. Technological unemployment is a myth, until demand becomes the limiting factor, there will always be something for people to do. Look to restrictive labor laws that are a more recent phenomenon for explanation of modern high unemployment rates. VP is only fascinating if you're a moron.
The government gets its money from Taxes, Inflation, and Bonds. I think that the larger percentage of the pie chart says borrowing.
Nice video about the first states arising out of cults. I think there is enough evidence to support this idea.
There are millions of Christians who still beleive that God put the state in power, and that it is a sin to rebel against the state. Also, the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement has its fair share of New Age influences. Old habits die hard
Governance always comes from the bottom up...if it did not...when Rome burned down it would not have been replaced but it was.
But America was formed because of rejection of a previous system that was debilitating to its members...so many members choose to escape debilitation...
The real interesting situation I find...Is what if the founding fathers never ran from England's Tyranny at that time.
But fought its Tyranny?
What if the founders had the internet? Would they have the fighting chance?
Really smart video watched it all, well put, I generally agree.
And the end of the video you propose a system of government from "the bottom up", would this be a truer form of democracy, perhaps a consensus direct democracy?
If so I posted a thread to the RBEF forum to what that might be like after studying the Venus project it became apparent imo that they don't have all the answers yet:
thread title is "possibly the ideal form of democracy" in google
You seem hung up on the word democracy and have a very broad and vague meaning for it. I have a clear meaning for the word: democracy is when you take a vote, and the outcome is violently enforced on those who don't agree or consent to the majority. Anything else - some nebulous group consensus with most people just going along with it and few leaving if the group does something they don't want to do - is not democracy but... nothing at all. And that's what I advocate.
@fringeelements that's an unique way of looking at it. I also see consensus(in it's common political definition) as a better form, maybe the best form of democracy on the scale to dictatorship, but group consensus in practice is more difficult and they generally don't want people to leave if they don't agree, a consensus strives to find mutual understanding and agreement for the good of everyone not just the majority. Some might say, having to leave a group would be an kind of enforcement.
Butt hurt. LMAO!! Very funny. How about letting people know that corrosive chemical compounds are exactly which creates these dissorders in the human brain. Once you change your diet & remove phosphates(fluoride) it all starts to become so much clearer. I know, you want to tell me fluoride is safe, please tell me i'm wrong. LOL. I have to give you credit for having a working diet, which i can observe in your level of intellect. very good video. thank you. i enjoyed it.
You have to realize that the ones that rule over us DO believe these madening esoteric interpretations, as a NWO is , THE PLAN. You can be sane all you want, but these people in power are completely out of their fucking minds. So we can fall into denile & walk our life, or we can oppose this system which is headed for disaster. Do you realy believe that everything is fine in this world??? I dont think you would have ever made this video if you thought everything was OK.
One disagreeance, this schitzophrenic interpretation of madness is too drawn on a desceptive dreamworld & completely out of line. We receive subconscious interpretations that can only be deciphered by the ones of the highest perception, as our dreams in fact do walk us thru our daily turmoils. Its up to the viewer to make these connections, to say that a sleeping interpretation is schitzo is highly innacurate as these false interpretations fall almost complete on your level of compartmental.
You have to remember that not to many people are this smart. I do believe the general public are not at our level of thinking. I can see WE are in agreeance, yet we should be VERY worried about the ones who dont do much thinking, which have become a threat to humanity. These character types wont agree with you, because they do not have the capacity to philosophize or rational beyond their paradigms. Not to mention society does capitalize on career options without conscience. Doctors?
i think you may enjoy this, if you haven't read anything my fa hayek or von mises. keynes is a JOKE! "economics in one lesson" -- great stuff. here's videos and full text of the book on the campaignforliberty site - campaignforliberty(.)com/edu/economics.php it opened my eyes up a lot!
well i admit i have never taken an economics class, so many of the economics theories go over my head but what i am referring to is, if many goods and services become so expensive that the average person can't afford to buy to consume as they used to; money, whether it be paper, gold etc becomes no longer realistic, so growing your own food and hunting become more necessary. in that kind of society besides being in debt what currency would you recommend?
Well in that scenario money would still be useful as a medium of exchange. Again, I can "recommend" anything, but money is just a medium of exchange to deal with the problem of the double-coincidence of wants. That is, a tomato-growing pickle wanter having to be be in contact with a pickle-growing tomato wanter. What usually emerges as the common medium of exchange is precious metals because it is divisible, durable and portable. There is no good reason to be against money.
@oofay789 Well if you don't have what the other person wants, he won't trade. That criticism is not particular to money, it's particular to being able to sell what you have for whatever you want - and that includes infinity, i.e. not selling it at any price. The price can be in terms of things that typically emerge as money on a free market: precious metals, or in terms of the fiat money of the fed, or in terms of cigarette butts.
so that means that your in favor of private property which also creates inequality
why can't we do thing for a society instead of expecting something in return since we can technically create abundance. why not make it so abundant that It would eliminate the need for private ownership
When superabundance comes about, private property will dissolve. Central planning, which is all the venus project is, will not produce abundance. They have nothing that differentiates themselves from other central planners EXCEPT that they will not have money, and they require the conscription of all of the world's resources. The lack of money creates calculation problems, my book explains the calibrating function of prices. "For an Emergent Governance".
In what way does the lack of money create calculation problems
I think In a world of syndicalism with the resources of maybe that region we could still create abundance with a systems approach of managing and distributing those products created
I didn't say circulation problems. Money is a medium of exchange, without it you have to have a double-coincidence of wants to get what you want, as explained in my first video in the "earth to venus" series.
No, "for an emergent governance" is the name of my book, and syndicalism can be one of many arrangements people choose to enter into in the total market.
I am very aware that you didn't say circulation problems that why my question was "In what way does the lack of money create calculation problems?" which is question going off of your statement "The lack of money creates calculation problems" which still isn't answered.
"For an emergent governance" is the name of my book.
Syndicalism works in decentralized groups - see "dunbar's number", but it doesn't create more prosperity than a private property society. I think something like 10% of France's population is employed in syndicalist firms. It works, but it requires a responsible workforce with common interests (so the units have to be small) and is not going to change the world.
@oofay789 "capitalism", as you call it, means me being able to not work much, to defer my consumption to invest in capital resulting in long-term wealth which I can retire on, and I can do this autonomously without any teachers, administrators or lording busybodies.
CALCULATION, I'm sorry, I misread your comment. Okay let me explain:
- Say you're a central planner. What do you produce? Well people can vote on what they want, but what about the costs of inputs. A single burrito has corn, cheese, beans, beef, has to be shipped, has people preparing it. Is all of that "worth" the burrito for society? The only way to tell is if selling the burrito is profitable.
@fringeelements no man. profitability is not the only way to determine "worth" for a society. what about social prosperity or environmental sustainability or social abundance?
If it's profitable, that means society values the burrito more than the inputs. Because who determined input costs? Society. Who determines how much you can sell the burrito for? Society.
A central planner can ask questions, but no individual knows if the whole intricate production process of anything is worth that product de novo, it only gets revealed through the prices of inputs and outputs, and that requires a medium of exchange.
Because anyone will accept whatever is considered money, and so money represents everything else you could have gotten. So the question becomes: is that burrito worth to society more, equal or less than what they could have gotten with a similar level of inputs? And since money represents everything else they could have bought, money represents this opportunity cost.
so as much as i hate to admit, collectively we still need loads more education, because as you mentioned in the video, the state is upheld mostly by our shared belief or concensus of the state being right, the problem with any revolution whether by force or peaceful means is that if the leader of the revolution is more charismatic and/or smarter than his resistance contingent and the leader dies etc, the group falls apart simply because the group was not as smart as the leader in my opinion
lol at your last comment fringeelements made me think of mad max movies etc. ive been pondering about stateless society or just change in society, i think that the marxism v. capitalism debate is a limited debate and very old and outdated. ive been wondering about ideas of new currencies or bartering could be examined but the agreed upon value would probably bring up conflict.
@arunachala1008 No, no it doesn't bring up conflict lol. Gold, silver, or some other similar substance that's durable, portable and divisible become a medium of exchange and used by people without any central authority telling them to. Please learn what money is. What brings up conflict is these wackos who don't know what money is and oppose it completely.
And yes, marxism and all anti-"capitalism" as you call it, is very outdated, as is all pre-STV economics.
I think there are some very good ideas here. While I am an avid athiest, I do believe there is a comon thread linking us - a 'Universal Spirit'. In this sense, I consider us each potential prime movers in creation and evolution. I also agree with your summary of government and governing principals. However, I seriously doubt there will be a ground up reformation; the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Imo, we are on a path towards imminent self destruction as a species.
To play Devil's Advocate here, Hobbes' Leviathan is a bottom-up politico-economic theory for the emergence of the state which is widely accepted, even if not widely (or profoundly) understood.
Perhaps you should pay Hobbes and his "solitary nasty brutish and short" FUD some attention?
Well I don't have much to say. Hobbes description of pre-state life has been found to be wrong, and no state has ever been recorded or appears to have come about the way Hobbes said. Maybe I should do a video on that, it is a rather open and shut issue.
@fringeelements I think it would be cool to explore the emergence of street gangs in the forsaken neighborhoods as a counterpoint to Leviathan. I think at this level, politics boils down to Anthropology.
@aphor No, that doesn't make sense at all. What makes more sense is looking at how actual, functional stateless societies that aren't a result of some state's policies functioned. Like the Western US territories (the mild west), Ireland and Iceland, or even Somalia and how they had improved while stateless. Or we can look at non-state legal systems like the Law Merchant, or how disputes between people from different states are managed and law harmonized.
@fringeelements I think maybe you missed the point of my suggestion. It seems that street gangs emerge in the way Hobbes describes the emergence of the state, but that isn't representative of the modern state (well, in some ways it is..), however mutually beneficial arrangements can (and do) arise in other ways. To bring it down the mountain, maybe clip the "Words of Life and Death" scene from Outlaw Josey Wales. Imagine trust emerging from threat of violence.
I'm sorry, but this issue has actually been studied, there have been stateless societies, I go over them in my book, they're not street gangs, and movies are not good sources of truth. Please, I've already dealt with this, you're wrong, you don't know the first thing of you're talking about. Google "For an Emergent Governance".
I'm really interested in your videos...i'm just kind of clueless. i would love seeing more visual aids to expand on your thoughts. but very interesting nonetheless.
You sounded juvenile and discredit yourself when you basically said Atheists are losers. Here are a few current, notable atheists: Bill Gates, Lance Armstrong, Bill Maher, Jack Nicholson, Linus Torvalds, Joe Rogan, Howard Stern.
@alpineace2003 Didn't say atheists are losers, I said what I said in this video. Also I'm an atheist. You're going to have to step up your listening skills if you want to understand this stuff.
I can't comment on your latest tumblr post. But here's my question: you mentioned that people with a specific agenda like socialism could geographically cluster around legal systems that allow them to do what they want. Well, what about your example of child sex? Isn't it conceivable that pedophiles could do the same?
@fringeelements So, like in the case of public goods, a pedophile community's theoretical victims would be dependent on a 70% majority to agree to help (from the outside at that)? Or are you talking about hit & miss vigilante style consequences? This is where you start to lose me. I'm not entirely sure that a majority would always agree to help in such a situation. Personal comfort or safety might override principles, and instead of Utopia you get the blackest hell...sanctioned.
@schmotzypotz Well then you should oppose having separate states.even more, because with states even if the population wants to intervene, the state they live under could prevent it because of some deals they got. A third world dictator can bribe a few politicians who then prevents any intervention because the politician is in control of the fantasy structure of the state.
I don't know what you mean by "vigilante". They would be cops enforcing the common law.
@fringeelements It seems to me that an emergent government (or governments) would become small and tribal really quickly, and in that case, why bother with what other people are doing as long as your community is doing fine. I don't trust human nature, in general. Do you?
@schmotzypotz No, it really doesn't seem that way at all, no more than companies are "tribal" or any other activity where people can choose is "tribal". I dunno, why do people bother to do anything to help others outside or the US?
The state is made up of people, all dumb allusions to "human nature" applies to the state as well, stop wasting my time. These "objections" are not appreciated, they're old as fuck and just irritating at this point. Stop it, learn before opining.
@fringeelements I'm sorry to annoy you. I am trying to learn. You are extremely prolific, and I offer my deepest apologies that I haven't gone through everything you've ever written or said.
@schmotzypotz Nowhere did I demand you go through everything I have posted, I simply demand you understand what you opine on before opining. Trying to learn a real position is an extended process that takes at least a week.
There is a level at which questions are appropriate, but right now your objections are completely stock, and so warrant a stock response - introductory books.
@fringeelements and for the record, I have read quite a bit of your stuff. It's hard to wrap your mind around something that has never been done before. Especially when you insist on framing everything in terms of economics. So suggest a book.
I think the 43 percent figure is total government spending, and so State spending is also taken into consideration. However it is probably more instructive to look at Government spending per capita rather than as a percentage of GDP.
And of course, no one is better than the US at overstating GDP numbers.
How did get my account name to send me an out of the blue blind friend invite? You opened your video here with a blanket insult. You also provided links to info on the GDP of other countries but nothing to back up what countries spend against it. The only reason I checked your sources is because I know Japan's debt isn't public information to even their citizens. I couldn't find Japan's debt or what their govt. spends in your link, where are you getting your info for the 39%?
Japan has government spending, which is known, and they have GDP, which is roughly known, and I don't know why you say Japanese national debt is not known. Just do a google search for "Japanese National Debt" and you'll find it's roughly twice their GDP.
@fringeelements Seriously. Japanese national debt: 7.47 Trillion. India : 2.88 trillion, Germany: 1.79 trillion, UK : 1.05 trillion. It's like pounding your head against the wall. Telling people to google shit is getting about as bad that stupid "but, what about the roads ?" question. GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND, PEOPLE.
6:50 Its not a zero sum game. First, the "firm" made a product more valuable than the sum of its resources. That created wealth that wasn't there initially. And the profit that goes back to the "Firm" doesn't just sit there. It is reinvested, either to stock holders or infrastructure. Where ever it goes, the firm is worth more than when it started. Not zero sum, it creates wealth, unlike gov't.
Also statism is the traditional position, statism envisions some entity "outside of the market" - the state, and the origins of states were religious. Even though the consolidations were by force, they involved the conquest of other states and the co-opting or other religious fantasy structures, thus avoiding guerilla war. See my video on defense for more explication if you care.
So no, all arrows point to statism being the old unjustified dogma.
1. The author deals with all government debt as though it were unsecured personal debt.
2. The author makes national debt the basic barometer of American economic and social health. Both are faulty assumptions.
But that is just the start. The point is that I determined early on that the author was ill informed and not committed to standard rules of discourse. So know I did not provide an argument, only a criticism.
1. even if you accept that a nation can be colateralized like livestock, the political impossibility [largely] of budget cuts/tax increases coupled with future debt obligations will relatively shortly yield a debt that excedes a Nation's productive capacity to fund it.
I don't even think Ryan STATED that the debt could not be paid, only that it WOULD NOT be.
2. I never recall saying that, Ryan simply mentioned it along side other problems 'The US' faces.
Ofcourse the state has many flaws and so has democracy. dispite that is has proven to be the best system so far. I do not see how our "system" would be the better social and economic plan.
But maybe you could explain me in great detail how your "system" would be an improvement to todays sociaty :)
Although I've only really watched this one video out of the five. Your basically saying that the State is a product of old civilization priest-king like societies that changed slightly through history into the modern state? And that everyones so called dependence and devotion to the State comes from familiarity with the system itself? Makes sense in a way, I read somewhere that "governments" or "kingdoms" in a loose sense of the word didnt really start forming until after man became agricultural
@fringeelements - I wouldn't say that people who spend a 'significant portion' debating for atheism are losers. It depends on whether or not it has philosophical, scientific or comedic merit. I would say that some people who emphasise atheism too much seem arrogant and dickish, namely those who use it to justify economic views, those who wear dickish shirts that are neither funny nor intelligent, and those who are idiots but think they are geniuses.
I think you're reasoning is based on several false premises. Thinking over this video in the past few weeks, I think your reasoning is fine, but you assume a lot on behavioral outcomes.
No, I don't. I really don't. The only thing I really go out on a limb on is the defense-due, and even that has a near-precedent of positive laws in stateless ireland.
Everything else is as proven as can be reasonably expected.
Of course they're my opinions. In this series, I explain why they are correct. Stop posting irritating and inane comments.
I would be more interested to watch (yes I watched all of this) another version of this vid in which you drop the prolific question begging and frequesnt straw-man building. That is not to say I disagree with you but I find it hard to trust your opinion in a cloud of bad argument techniques.
If taking something to an extreme is bad it doesn't mean any amount of it is bad.
Agreeing with a state doesn't constitute belief in "the state".
Try applying your critical thinking scepticism to this work.
This is just part 1 of a 5 part series. You've watched nothing so far, you have no understanding of any of my positions. If you don't want to, fine, but don't pretend that you've heard my arguments. You've heard an introduction. Even this series is an abbreviated version of my book "for an emergent governance".
You believe in the necessity and / or legitimacy of a state and you hold it apart from other firms. Don't know why you put the state in quotes, it's not something I made up.
@fringeelements Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Please reread my comment. I do not question or claim to even appreciate your position, but your argument techniques I find at fault. You build straw men and beg the question a lot in this video and I feel it weakens the persuasiveness of your view.
You, however, claim to know my beliefs, why?
I should probably have started the quotes before the word belief, you claim that people believe in the state and act on the belief, I question this conclusion.
Lets try again. I was not making an all-or-nothing fallacy because in parts 2 through 5 since I actually argue it.
"You're straw-manning, you're begging the question!" - I don't think I was, so you're going to have to actually point them out. So far all you have so much as attempted to show is that I made logical fallacies, which failed.
You support a democratic state with your personal arbitrary limits that nobody cares about. I know this because that's what dipshits support nowadays.
@duffry If you arent going to make who and what you are known: don't get pissed when people make assumptions about you. You question his conclusion:
People stand to sing national anthems, like hymns in churches. People face a symbol when doing this: like in church, people expect what this symbol represents to take care of them, then complain when it doesnt: like in church. Seems like a simple comparison, and logical conclusion.
"Just because chopping off all your fingers is bad doesn't mean chopping off one is bad!" - While this statement is true, I still contend that chopping off one is bad.
I'm saying Police, fire protection, law, defense, schools, roads, and provision of these services to the destitute do not require a state. I'm making the case that yes, any amount is bad.
Skepticism! See, there are a few loose ends with atheism, atheists can't explain everything, so until then, I'm going to default to bronze-age mythologies. Similarly, free marketers can't explain everything, so until then I'm going to default to these bronze-age states. Don't straw-man me, it's not quite as brutal as ancient greece, nor are the new christians as brutal as the old christians.
Just looked through your subs. Basically a who's who from stupid town, so probably not much hope 4 u.
Constructive Critique - You make some good points, but in some areas you make definitive sweeping comments in areas that are your opinion and you define them as "true". Avoid superlatives. "Everyone" cannot understand this as there are politicians and commentators who are saying that there is no debt problem. When you use such superlatives and get out of your expertise you damage your own credibility. Still a pretty good video.
Sorry man, I don't care for the ideas expressed through this series. Well presented, while I disagree with What you have to say, I feel that I should be complementing you on how you say it.
I think all religions (and I consider statism as one of the major branches of this mental illness) formed as a result of the anxiety that came about when humans first become cognizant of their own mortality. The fear combined with visions of dead people in dreams and waking life led to the creation of the afterlife dimension. This is at the root of all dualistic philosophies.
DeimosSaturn 1 day ago
Governments are an offchute of religions in that governments and political ideologies have one basic thing in common with religion across the board, and that is a promise of a form of immortality. Be it a literal form of immortality as we see in theocracies or some transhumanists imagine, or a poetic form of immortality in the form of living on through the survival of the state/party/troop.
DeimosSaturn 1 day ago
I believe that the priest and the politician have essentially the same job which is to take on the moral absolutes of a higher-being (be it a god or a flag) in order to be gods themselves and then impose these edicts which people already foolishly believe in through generational brain-washing as if they originated them. They are essentially high-functioning sociopaths. They make the existing power structure their own.
DeimosSaturn 1 day ago
Comment removed
xcvsdxvsx 3 days ago
The video stopped at 8:22 and I can't play it anymore.
SoulFire289 2 weeks ago
I now know why this video has 50,000 views, and the last video of the series only 2,000 views. It seems that somewhere along the way 48,000 people stopped believing in any way that your hypothetical "non-state" state will work. Why? The more you talk the more it looks like some crude communist environment with only civil laws, and corps enforcing tyranny worse than any US government agency did. Nice try, but you need to take this to the drawing board once again if you want 50k views throughout.
hydeparkbarry 1 month ago in playlist More videos from fringeelements
I can't believe this video has over 50,000 views. Congrats!
Americaleb 2 months ago
Heh, looks like you're right: pSWN6Qj98Iw
Gorboduc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
McCane is a piece of shit. He's the one pushing this new bill through the senate that is going to make it legal for the state to arrest anyone that protests and voices disagreement as a "terrorist" and give the state the power to lock up any US citizen for indefinite periods of time.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
Hey, can you make a video (or have any information on) perhaps the reason why some people (inherently?) opposed the state/didn't believe the propaganda? Were they perhaps looking to fill the power vacuum themselves? Or perhaps people who evolved more reasoning capabilities (and if so, for what evolutionary purpose at the time? It would seem to be negative for your survival to be kept in line via force/suppressed/killed) Are/were they more 'evolved/different' humans? Thank you<3
gn0m1k 4 months ago
@gn0m1k I think it's analogous to being an atheist in the 1700s, except you don't get burned at the stake for being an "anarchist", at least not in the US today.
fringeelements 4 months ago
Can you explain to me why anti-statists are dumbasses? I can't simply understand why they promote tyranny by private corporations, while fearing of state tyranny.
Pseudologic 4 months ago
@Pseudologic Tyranny comes from the state and private firms using the state. The state is force multiplication for the rich.
fringeelements 4 months ago 3
I think you missed a point here. Part of the problem with the state is that people might think that since they want platinum toilet paper, but they can't get it from the market at a reasonable price, it's better if the state provides it.
But what people don't realise is what they're giving up in order to have the platinum toilet paper is probably worth more to them.
I think this is a more important way in which the state is disconnected from the structure of production. It hides costs.
sharperguy 5 months ago
why did you deleted half of you videos?
marketanarchist2011 5 months ago
51k views dwindle to one twentieth of that by the end of the series for good reason. It's yet more rambling pointless bosh.
AshtonPhoto 5 months ago
Perhaps because I featured this video and not the others.
fringeelements 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AshtonPhoto Because most lack critical thinking skills you mean?
Luigi84289 3 months ago
I think I will enjoy watching this series. Thou it might take quite some time.
desuMaKun 6 months ago
Awesome to see 51k views!
I loved your discription of " the politics of television". Couldn't agree more with that as well as your criticism of atheists who talk endlessly about their atheism.
Well done.
landofthefreemyass 6 months ago
i enjoyed watching this video so much. very informative. thank you!
gmaballet 7 months ago
I appreciate your sentiment, but this just wont work. As soon as human nature gets involved your ideology crumbles
I know what we have now sucks but its the worst system apart from all the others.
the state doesn't have a personality. its just a mechanism that happens to have been misused by corporations and imperialists. Its our fault. WE. as A collective, we share the guilt for allowing these types of people to get in power and mess it up.
Its up to us to work together to fix it!
Agreed?
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
Shut up kid! What do you know about wooden pipes in early american plumbing? I'm the pride of the peaches and the prettiest pony in the stable and I'll have you know that you are NOT thorsmitersaw!
fringeelements 7 months ago
@fringeelements
wat
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
@fringeelements
I miss thorsmitersaw, thanks for reminding me. Now I'm depressed. :(
fountainherz 7 months ago
Comment removed
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
You just changed my mind about state and made me subscribe
Gliese0 7 months ago
No sound = thumbs down.
solinoure 7 months ago
Well, you're the only one who has complained about that. So either everyone else is hallucinating there being sound, or the problem is on your end mister happy dan.
fringeelements 7 months ago
@fringeelements Oh yeah! Well... you suck! lol
solinoure 7 months ago
@fringeelements Shit maybe you've just been my inner voice all this time. Maybe the schizofrenia of ancient times hasn't left us yet!
sharperguy 5 months ago
@sharperguy Well actually I'm just part of your mind. In fact everyone is. "Youtube" doesn't really exist, all of this is just a long vivid dream to help you cope with the fact that you're in a prison camp in North Korea. The Year is 1949, and the americans are coming. You're about to be freed, and you need to wake up. Wake up.
fringeelements 4 months ago 3
So what do you suggest? Anarchy? Monarchy? You seem to be so against representative democracy, and yes it is broken as of now and basically being run by corporations save a small amount, but when ran right it is the best system on earth up to this point. Nothing's perfect
inthecards21 7 months ago
@inthecards21 This is a long series, my position is explained.
fringeelements 7 months ago
@fringeelements I'll be sure to check out the rest
inthecards21 7 months ago
@inthecards21
You can cut the "corporate ties" with the state to the point where "corporate lobbying" becomes non-existent but the state will still not be accountable to "the people" (or whatever the hell you're trying to insinuate). There are too many incentives for inefficiency within the state (i.e. lifetime pension, long-term elections, "blame game", and on and on) for an reduction of "cut corporate ties" to be made.
"Nothing's perfect"
Cool, I'll settle for less too. Like rape.
fountainherz 7 months ago
Also, funny how you use the Corrupt Imperialist Agressors (CIA) as a source. Pathetic.
RedMusicSinging 8 months ago
Ha, there's no point debating economics. If anything you should be getting ready to accept being taken over by China. And if you think your little patriots, and "brave americans" your wrong. China is coming to collect the debt of the U$A and guess what? There's nothing you can do about it and chances are you'll be sent to the firing squad. So wake up to reality and not your little Libertarian fantasy bullshit.
RedMusicSinging 8 months ago
@RedMusicSinging
Go fill up the chamber of a revolver and play Russian Roulette. Seriously.
Calling anti-statists patriots is like the equivalent of calling a...fuck it, I can't even think of an analogy to point out how retarded your implication was.
Also, funny how you dismiss a source without substantiation.
Pathetic.
johnbenimblef 7 months ago
@RedMusicSinging
You just went full retard, bro.
Breaker242 7 months ago
@Breaker242 I'm full realistic idiot
RedMusicSinging 7 months ago
@RedMusicSinging
no, you are a full retard bro. equating patriotards with anti statists like fringeelements is laughably dumb.
SecularNumanist 7 months ago 8
I really appreciate what you're saying but as soon as you plug people into the equation everything falls apart.
If everyone thought like you and I we mightn't need a state. I don't think we need one. But, much like in your idealistic of example free markets, I think that, since we currently have a State, "we" must want to have it. Otherwise we would get rid of or change it, right?
I just realized, I'm running out of characters so I'll just say... I wish it were that easy...
Schnate124 8 months ago
@Schnate124 Please don't post comments like this. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what I think, you're straw-manning, and it's not appreciated at all.
fringeelements 8 months ago
@fringeelements I know my comment was very glib but I didn't have time to flesh it out. It seems like your pretty wrapped up in your opinion so I won't bother trying to push matters further. My only point was Not all people poses the same mental faculties or the same moral compass. You are leaving out many variables in the human equation, too many to list here. You don't seem open to anything that may, even slightly, augment your views (even if I agree with you) so... good luck.
Schnate124 8 months ago
@HistoryReparte I shouldn't even be dignifying this with a comment, but by whose standards are you imposing "correctness in pronunciation"?
th3giv3r 8 months ago
you should debate inmendham on stikam
Gethamine 8 months ago
Without a state there would be a strong change that religion would take over. It's done so in the past and is constantly trying to do it now. From Finland it seems it has mostly succeeded in America.
Religions are backed by such fanatic support they'd be difficult to oppose if there were no state. Even a too big secular state is better than the smallest amount of religious governance.
Just a thought to consider.
rolandselene 9 months ago
@rolandselene Yeah, yeah it's one of the first things I considered. Evidence that this is not the case is found in prior stateless societies that did not become states from within.
But really, I have no idea what you mean by "religion would take over". If the general population is ultra-religious, then they'll just vote those policies in. Democracy amplifies the power of the mob.
fringeelements 9 months ago 13
@fringeelements True the same threat exists in democrazy but with a difference. What I failed to emphasize previously, is that in a stateless situation a Minority with fanatic supporters is perhaps more likely to gain power over others, than within a state. What do you think?
rolandselene 9 months ago
Governments aren't supposed to spend money, and regulation is evil!
Laughingblades 9 months ago
@Laughingblades Not against governance (plural), not against regulation.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements But the role of government should never be to regulate or spend money.
Laughingblades 9 months ago
@Laughingblades You're not making any sense.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements It's best that there is no regulation, everything should be privatized.
Laughingblades 9 months ago
@Laughingblades I disagree. For example, private property norms are a form of regulation. And what about people dumping sludge into a river that other people use? A firm may save $10 billion, but cost others $50 billion because of their waste. Regulation is needed. But you don't need a state for regulation.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements The private sector would take care of it, if someone's dumping toxic sludge into a river it would impact other people's property.
Laughingblades 9 months ago
Incentives, supply and demand, polycentric law, class-action lawsuits, remember ancient mesopotamia and britain's population fluctuations. Know what those things are.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements Damn immigrants took our jobs.
Laughingblades 9 months ago
“Keep in mind that these early states had retinues, army’s, temples, bureaucracies, and king court, all of which didn’t produce food.” Brilliant I think I know where your going… =]B?}>>
dancingrizz 9 months ago
Cartels succeed when the state passes laws that restrict the supply of something, for example licensing laws for doctors that restrict the supply of doctors, causing the cost medical services in the US to skyrocket. Artificial scarcity comes from the state, not the market.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@alpshunter "companies can't make money off abundance"
Right, and so firms throughout history have tried to cartelize to restrict supply all together. This fails on a free market because a cartel has high profits which attracts investors which form new frims to get in on the high profits of the cartelized industry and end up breaking the cartel driving economic profit down to zero (not the same as accounting profit).
fringeelements 9 months ago
I never said VP was a barter system. A barter system would be an improvement.
Scarcity is a fact of reality. Earth is scarce. The only system that "encourages scarcity" is that which discourages production. Technological unemployment is a myth, until demand becomes the limiting factor, there will always be something for people to do. Look to restrictive labor laws that are a more recent phenomenon for explanation of modern high unemployment rates. VP is only fascinating if you're a moron.
fringeelements 9 months ago
It seems fringeelements is impressed with me.
MrGuvnah 9 months ago
The government gets its money from Taxes, Inflation, and Bonds. I think that the larger percentage of the pie chart says borrowing.
Nice video about the first states arising out of cults. I think there is enough evidence to support this idea.
There are millions of Christians who still beleive that God put the state in power, and that it is a sin to rebel against the state. Also, the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement has its fair share of New Age influences. Old habits die hard
JasonDamisch 9 months ago
Governance always comes from the bottom up...if it did not...when Rome burned down it would not have been replaced but it was.
But America was formed because of rejection of a previous system that was debilitating to its members...so many members choose to escape debilitation...
The real interesting situation I find...Is what if the founding fathers never ran from England's Tyranny at that time.
But fought its Tyranny?
What if the founders had the internet? Would they have the fighting chance?
TheAmericanArm 9 months ago
Really interesting vid my friend. I enjoyed listening- new sub!
AlvinSawdust 9 months ago
Really smart video watched it all, well put, I generally agree.
And the end of the video you propose a system of government from "the bottom up", would this be a truer form of democracy, perhaps a consensus direct democracy?
If so I posted a thread to the RBEF forum to what that might be like after studying the Venus project it became apparent imo that they don't have all the answers yet:
thread title is "possibly the ideal form of democracy" in google
Jammieg001 10 months ago
You seem hung up on the word democracy and have a very broad and vague meaning for it. I have a clear meaning for the word: democracy is when you take a vote, and the outcome is violently enforced on those who don't agree or consent to the majority. Anything else - some nebulous group consensus with most people just going along with it and few leaving if the group does something they don't want to do - is not democracy but... nothing at all. And that's what I advocate.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements that's an unique way of looking at it. I also see consensus(in it's common political definition) as a better form, maybe the best form of democracy on the scale to dictatorship, but group consensus in practice is more difficult and they generally don't want people to leave if they don't agree, a consensus strives to find mutual understanding and agreement for the good of everyone not just the majority. Some might say, having to leave a group would be an kind of enforcement.
Jammieg001 10 months ago
@fringeelements you have no frame of reference for sustainable behavior.
dillsapldorf 9 months ago
@dillsapldorf The earth will eventually burn into an ember, and has finite resources. None of it is sustainable.
fringeelements 9 months ago
Butt hurt. LMAO!! Very funny. How about letting people know that corrosive chemical compounds are exactly which creates these dissorders in the human brain. Once you change your diet & remove phosphates(fluoride) it all starts to become so much clearer. I know, you want to tell me fluoride is safe, please tell me i'm wrong. LOL. I have to give you credit for having a working diet, which i can observe in your level of intellect. very good video. thank you. i enjoyed it.
LendMeYourHand 10 months ago
You have to realize that the ones that rule over us DO believe these madening esoteric interpretations, as a NWO is , THE PLAN. You can be sane all you want, but these people in power are completely out of their fucking minds. So we can fall into denile & walk our life, or we can oppose this system which is headed for disaster. Do you realy believe that everything is fine in this world??? I dont think you would have ever made this video if you thought everything was OK.
LendMeYourHand 10 months ago
One disagreeance, this schitzophrenic interpretation of madness is too drawn on a desceptive dreamworld & completely out of line. We receive subconscious interpretations that can only be deciphered by the ones of the highest perception, as our dreams in fact do walk us thru our daily turmoils. Its up to the viewer to make these connections, to say that a sleeping interpretation is schitzo is highly innacurate as these false interpretations fall almost complete on your level of compartmental.
LendMeYourHand 10 months ago
You have to remember that not to many people are this smart. I do believe the general public are not at our level of thinking. I can see WE are in agreeance, yet we should be VERY worried about the ones who dont do much thinking, which have become a threat to humanity. These character types wont agree with you, because they do not have the capacity to philosophize or rational beyond their paradigms. Not to mention society does capitalize on career options without conscience. Doctors?
LendMeYourHand 10 months ago
i think you may enjoy this, if you haven't read anything my fa hayek or von mises. keynes is a JOKE! "economics in one lesson" -- great stuff. here's videos and full text of the book on the campaignforliberty site - campaignforliberty(.)com/edu/economics.php it opened my eyes up a lot!
runningoil 10 months ago
F.A Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises ftw
runningoil 10 months ago
well i admit i have never taken an economics class, so many of the economics theories go over my head but what i am referring to is, if many goods and services become so expensive that the average person can't afford to buy to consume as they used to; money, whether it be paper, gold etc becomes no longer realistic, so growing your own food and hunting become more necessary. in that kind of society besides being in debt what currency would you recommend?
arunachala1008 10 months ago
Well in that scenario money would still be useful as a medium of exchange. Again, I can "recommend" anything, but money is just a medium of exchange to deal with the problem of the double-coincidence of wants. That is, a tomato-growing pickle wanter having to be be in contact with a pickle-growing tomato wanter. What usually emerges as the common medium of exchange is precious metals because it is divisible, durable and portable. There is no good reason to be against money.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements
"There is no good reason to be against money."
I would think a good reason to be against money would be inequality
for if you don't have the asking price of tomatoes for the pickle you don't
get the pickle
oofay789 9 months ago
@oofay789 Well if you don't have what the other person wants, he won't trade. That criticism is not particular to money, it's particular to being able to sell what you have for whatever you want - and that includes infinity, i.e. not selling it at any price. The price can be in terms of things that typically emerge as money on a free market: precious metals, or in terms of the fiat money of the fed, or in terms of cigarette butts.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements
so that means that your in favor of private property which also creates inequality
why can't we do thing for a society instead of expecting something in return since we can technically create abundance. why not make it so abundant that It would eliminate the need for private ownership
oofay789 9 months ago
When superabundance comes about, private property will dissolve. Central planning, which is all the venus project is, will not produce abundance. They have nothing that differentiates themselves from other central planners EXCEPT that they will not have money, and they require the conscription of all of the world's resources. The lack of money creates calculation problems, my book explains the calibrating function of prices. "For an Emergent Governance".
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements
In what way does the lack of money create calculation problems
I think In a world of syndicalism with the resources of maybe that region we could still create abundance with a systems approach of managing and distributing those products created
and we would still be emergent from governance
oofay789 9 months ago
I didn't say circulation problems. Money is a medium of exchange, without it you have to have a double-coincidence of wants to get what you want, as explained in my first video in the "earth to venus" series.
No, "for an emergent governance" is the name of my book, and syndicalism can be one of many arrangements people choose to enter into in the total market.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements
I am very aware that you didn't say circulation problems that why my question was "In what way does the lack of money create calculation problems?" which is question going off of your statement "The lack of money creates calculation problems" which still isn't answered.
oofay789 9 months ago
"For an emergent governance" is the name of my book.
Syndicalism works in decentralized groups - see "dunbar's number", but it doesn't create more prosperity than a private property society. I think something like 10% of France's population is employed in syndicalist firms. It works, but it requires a responsible workforce with common interests (so the units have to be small) and is not going to change the world.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements
syndicalism works with no state which is why really I question if it can be emergent
fuck if anything that goes against the state for that matter
and why do you want capitalism anyway It's just awful
oofay789 9 months ago
@oofay789 "capitalism", as you call it, means me being able to not work much, to defer my consumption to invest in capital resulting in long-term wealth which I can retire on, and I can do this autonomously without any teachers, administrators or lording busybodies.
fringeelements 9 months ago
CALCULATION, I'm sorry, I misread your comment. Okay let me explain:
- Say you're a central planner. What do you produce? Well people can vote on what they want, but what about the costs of inputs. A single burrito has corn, cheese, beans, beef, has to be shipped, has people preparing it. Is all of that "worth" the burrito for society? The only way to tell is if selling the burrito is profitable.
fringeelements 9 months ago
@fringeelements
oops sorry I didn't scroll far enough that's why you should direct your comments with my name in them
but why sell why not just produce for the greater good? capitalism creates inequality and pollution
oofay789 9 months ago
@fringeelements no man. profitability is not the only way to determine "worth" for a society. what about social prosperity or environmental sustainability or social abundance?
dillsapldorf 9 months ago
If it's profitable, that means society values the burrito more than the inputs. Because who determined input costs? Society. Who determines how much you can sell the burrito for? Society.
A central planner can ask questions, but no individual knows if the whole intricate production process of anything is worth that product de novo, it only gets revealed through the prices of inputs and outputs, and that requires a medium of exchange.
fringeelements 9 months ago
Because anyone will accept whatever is considered money, and so money represents everything else you could have gotten. So the question becomes: is that burrito worth to society more, equal or less than what they could have gotten with a similar level of inputs? And since money represents everything else they could have bought, money represents this opportunity cost.
fringeelements 9 months ago
Thank you for your videos, the last time I watched your videos was when you had the confederalsocialist account.
arthuCduggan 10 months ago
Great video!!
FreeMarketAnarchy 10 months ago
12:25 ... Fuck.
slowflowheat 10 months ago
so as much as i hate to admit, collectively we still need loads more education, because as you mentioned in the video, the state is upheld mostly by our shared belief or concensus of the state being right, the problem with any revolution whether by force or peaceful means is that if the leader of the revolution is more charismatic and/or smarter than his resistance contingent and the leader dies etc, the group falls apart simply because the group was not as smart as the leader in my opinion
arunachala1008 10 months ago
lol at your last comment fringeelements made me think of mad max movies etc. ive been pondering about stateless society or just change in society, i think that the marxism v. capitalism debate is a limited debate and very old and outdated. ive been wondering about ideas of new currencies or bartering could be examined but the agreed upon value would probably bring up conflict.
arunachala1008 10 months ago
@arunachala1008 No, no it doesn't bring up conflict lol. Gold, silver, or some other similar substance that's durable, portable and divisible become a medium of exchange and used by people without any central authority telling them to. Please learn what money is. What brings up conflict is these wackos who don't know what money is and oppose it completely.
And yes, marxism and all anti-"capitalism" as you call it, is very outdated, as is all pre-STV economics.
fringeelements 10 months ago
I think there are some very good ideas here. While I am an avid athiest, I do believe there is a comon thread linking us - a 'Universal Spirit'. In this sense, I consider us each potential prime movers in creation and evolution. I also agree with your summary of government and governing principals. However, I seriously doubt there will be a ground up reformation; the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Imo, we are on a path towards imminent self destruction as a species.
123decoeli 10 months ago
How would "Game theory" be avoided in a stateless society?
wikipedia -> "Prisoners Dilemma"
Carnei 10 months ago
Yes I know about game theory. The idea is that there would be law, and past examples have had law.
fringeelements 10 months ago
Yea, thanks.
Some douche said a stateless society would not function because of GT.
However he gave the answer to it himself, not realizing he did though.
Carnei 10 months ago
To play Devil's Advocate here, Hobbes' Leviathan is a bottom-up politico-economic theory for the emergence of the state which is widely accepted, even if not widely (or profoundly) understood.
Perhaps you should pay Hobbes and his "solitary nasty brutish and short" FUD some attention?
aphor 10 months ago
Well I don't have much to say. Hobbes description of pre-state life has been found to be wrong, and no state has ever been recorded or appears to have come about the way Hobbes said. Maybe I should do a video on that, it is a rather open and shut issue.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements I think it would be cool to explore the emergence of street gangs in the forsaken neighborhoods as a counterpoint to Leviathan. I think at this level, politics boils down to Anthropology.
aphor 10 months ago
@aphor No, that doesn't make sense at all. What makes more sense is looking at how actual, functional stateless societies that aren't a result of some state's policies functioned. Like the Western US territories (the mild west), Ireland and Iceland, or even Somalia and how they had improved while stateless. Or we can look at non-state legal systems like the Law Merchant, or how disputes between people from different states are managed and law harmonized.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements I think maybe you missed the point of my suggestion. It seems that street gangs emerge in the way Hobbes describes the emergence of the state, but that isn't representative of the modern state (well, in some ways it is..), however mutually beneficial arrangements can (and do) arise in other ways. To bring it down the mountain, maybe clip the "Words of Life and Death" scene from Outlaw Josey Wales. Imagine trust emerging from threat of violence.
aphor 10 months ago
I'm sorry, but this issue has actually been studied, there have been stateless societies, I go over them in my book, they're not street gangs, and movies are not good sources of truth. Please, I've already dealt with this, you're wrong, you don't know the first thing of you're talking about. Google "For an Emergent Governance".
fringeelements 10 months ago
I'm really interested in your videos...i'm just kind of clueless. i would love seeing more visual aids to expand on your thoughts. but very interesting nonetheless.
KnurdShogun 10 months ago
You sounded juvenile and discredit yourself when you basically said Atheists are losers. Here are a few current, notable atheists: Bill Gates, Lance Armstrong, Bill Maher, Jack Nicholson, Linus Torvalds, Joe Rogan, Howard Stern.
Are these losers?!
I DON'T THINK SO!
alpineace2003 10 months ago
@alpineace2003 Didn't say atheists are losers, I said what I said in this video. Also I'm an atheist. You're going to have to step up your listening skills if you want to understand this stuff.
fringeelements 10 months ago
I can't comment on your latest tumblr post. But here's my question: you mentioned that people with a specific agenda like socialism could geographically cluster around legal systems that allow them to do what they want. Well, what about your example of child sex? Isn't it conceivable that pedophiles could do the same?
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
@schmotzypotz They could, but would probably face repercussions of some sort from the people around them.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements So, like in the case of public goods, a pedophile community's theoretical victims would be dependent on a 70% majority to agree to help (from the outside at that)? Or are you talking about hit & miss vigilante style consequences? This is where you start to lose me. I'm not entirely sure that a majority would always agree to help in such a situation. Personal comfort or safety might override principles, and instead of Utopia you get the blackest hell...sanctioned.
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
@schmotzypotz Well then you should oppose having separate states.even more, because with states even if the population wants to intervene, the state they live under could prevent it because of some deals they got. A third world dictator can bribe a few politicians who then prevents any intervention because the politician is in control of the fantasy structure of the state.
I don't know what you mean by "vigilante". They would be cops enforcing the common law.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements It seems to me that an emergent government (or governments) would become small and tribal really quickly, and in that case, why bother with what other people are doing as long as your community is doing fine. I don't trust human nature, in general. Do you?
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
@schmotzypotz No, it really doesn't seem that way at all, no more than companies are "tribal" or any other activity where people can choose is "tribal". I dunno, why do people bother to do anything to help others outside or the US?
The state is made up of people, all dumb allusions to "human nature" applies to the state as well, stop wasting my time. These "objections" are not appreciated, they're old as fuck and just irritating at this point. Stop it, learn before opining.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements I'm sorry to annoy you. I am trying to learn. You are extremely prolific, and I offer my deepest apologies that I haven't gone through everything you've ever written or said.
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
@schmotzypotz Nowhere did I demand you go through everything I have posted, I simply demand you understand what you opine on before opining. Trying to learn a real position is an extended process that takes at least a week.
There is a level at which questions are appropriate, but right now your objections are completely stock, and so warrant a stock response - introductory books.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements Then give me a stock repsonse instead of insulting me.
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
@fringeelements and for the record, I have read quite a bit of your stuff. It's hard to wrap your mind around something that has never been done before. Especially when you insist on framing everything in terms of economics. So suggest a book.
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
Comment removed
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
Comment removed
schmotzypotz 10 months ago
thanks random user ^_^
ValisHD 10 months ago
I think the 43 percent figure is total government spending, and so State spending is also taken into consideration. However it is probably more instructive to look at Government spending per capita rather than as a percentage of GDP.
And of course, no one is better than the US at overstating GDP numbers.
Worldslargestipod 10 months ago
How did get my account name to send me an out of the blue blind friend invite? You opened your video here with a blanket insult. You also provided links to info on the GDP of other countries but nothing to back up what countries spend against it. The only reason I checked your sources is because I know Japan's debt isn't public information to even their citizens. I couldn't find Japan's debt or what their govt. spends in your link, where are you getting your info for the 39%?
Vlaxitov 10 months ago
Japan has government spending, which is known, and they have GDP, which is roughly known, and I don't know why you say Japanese national debt is not known. Just do a google search for "Japanese National Debt" and you'll find it's roughly twice their GDP.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements Its speculated. Please provide your sources for the solid numbers. Thanks in advance.
Vlaxitov 10 months ago
@Vlaxitov No it's not, it's extremely easy to find. Stop wasting my time.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@fringeelements Seriously. Japanese national debt: 7.47 Trillion. India : 2.88 trillion, Germany: 1.79 trillion, UK : 1.05 trillion. It's like pounding your head against the wall. Telling people to google shit is getting about as bad that stupid "but, what about the roads ?" question. GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND, PEOPLE.
nate556 10 months ago
6:50 Its not a zero sum game. First, the "firm" made a product more valuable than the sum of its resources. That created wealth that wasn't there initially. And the profit that goes back to the "Firm" doesn't just sit there. It is reinvested, either to stock holders or infrastructure. Where ever it goes, the firm is worth more than when it started. Not zero sum, it creates wealth, unlike gov't.
gracilism 11 months ago
Thanks for friend add! Good video, way to get the word out about govmt.
charged220 11 months ago
This is amazing. I have always discounted "anarchism," as it was always presented from a Marxist "ends justifies the means" perspective.
THIS, however, has given me a lot to think about. I will be watching more of your videos.
heavens2kadonka 11 months ago
Didn't get to watch the second half. Great so far.
AnarchoCapMonstr 11 months ago
Okay, it's totally long. But, it's worth it. I need to watch again... and not multitask.
taMeggeHp 11 months ago
But.... what about the roads ? *grin*
nate556 11 months ago
This is the best work I have seen since VenomFangX. You do for economics and history what he does for Theology.
SamWiseGingy 11 months ago
Feel free to make a real argument.
Also statism is the traditional position, statism envisions some entity "outside of the market" - the state, and the origins of states were religious. Even though the consolidations were by force, they involved the conquest of other states and the co-opting or other religious fantasy structures, thus avoiding guerilla war. See my video on defense for more explication if you care.
So no, all arrows point to statism being the old unjustified dogma.
fringeelements 11 months ago
@SamWiseGingy A smashing argument
Truly
Worldslargestipod 10 months ago
@Worldslargestipod
1. The author deals with all government debt as though it were unsecured personal debt.
2. The author makes national debt the basic barometer of American economic and social health. Both are faulty assumptions.
But that is just the start. The point is that I determined early on that the author was ill informed and not committed to standard rules of discourse. So know I did not provide an argument, only a criticism.
SamWiseGingy 10 months ago
@SamWiseGingy
1. even if you accept that a nation can be colateralized like livestock, the political impossibility [largely] of budget cuts/tax increases coupled with future debt obligations will relatively shortly yield a debt that excedes a Nation's productive capacity to fund it.
I don't even think Ryan STATED that the debt could not be paid, only that it WOULD NOT be.
2. I never recall saying that, Ryan simply mentioned it along side other problems 'The US' faces.
3. Cop out
Worldslargestipod 10 months ago
Ofcourse the state has many flaws and so has democracy. dispite that is has proven to be the best system so far. I do not see how our "system" would be the better social and economic plan.
But maybe you could explain me in great detail how your "system" would be an improvement to todays sociaty :)
sirilidion 11 months ago
Although I've only really watched this one video out of the five. Your basically saying that the State is a product of old civilization priest-king like societies that changed slightly through history into the modern state? And that everyones so called dependence and devotion to the State comes from familiarity with the system itself? Makes sense in a way, I read somewhere that "governments" or "kingdoms" in a loose sense of the word didnt really start forming until after man became agricultural
callenification 11 months ago
but what is the alternative?
MrNinjaSpartan 11 months ago
19:45-20:09 FUCKING THIS!
KilllaCaleb 11 months ago
@fringeelements - I wouldn't say that people who spend a 'significant portion' debating for atheism are losers. It depends on whether or not it has philosophical, scientific or comedic merit. I would say that some people who emphasise atheism too much seem arrogant and dickish, namely those who use it to justify economic views, those who wear dickish shirts that are neither funny nor intelligent, and those who are idiots but think they are geniuses.
GeneralEAwesome 11 months ago
I think you're reasoning is based on several false premises. Thinking over this video in the past few weeks, I think your reasoning is fine, but you assume a lot on behavioral outcomes.
Ultimately these are your opinions.
IncendiarySolution 1 year ago
No, I don't. I really don't. The only thing I really go out on a limb on is the defense-due, and even that has a near-precedent of positive laws in stateless ireland.
Everything else is as proven as can be reasonably expected.
Of course they're my opinions. In this series, I explain why they are correct. Stop posting irritating and inane comments.
fringeelements 1 year ago
good info, but none of this means a thing until everyone realizes three things...
- capitalism and democracy are diametrically opposed ideals
- the sucess of our economy is based on how fast raw materials get to consumer landfills
- you ARE your brothers keeper
hamhelper 1 year ago
@hamhelper you are depressingly correct!
lndac02 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT you are so smart!!!!!
kowalityjesus 1 year ago
I would be more interested to watch (yes I watched all of this) another version of this vid in which you drop the prolific question begging and frequesnt straw-man building. That is not to say I disagree with you but I find it hard to trust your opinion in a cloud of bad argument techniques.
If taking something to an extreme is bad it doesn't mean any amount of it is bad.
Agreeing with a state doesn't constitute belief in "the state".
Try applying your critical thinking scepticism to this work.
duffry 1 year ago
This is just part 1 of a 5 part series. You've watched nothing so far, you have no understanding of any of my positions. If you don't want to, fine, but don't pretend that you've heard my arguments. You've heard an introduction. Even this series is an abbreviated version of my book "for an emergent governance".
You believe in the necessity and / or legitimacy of a state and you hold it apart from other firms. Don't know why you put the state in quotes, it's not something I made up.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Please reread my comment. I do not question or claim to even appreciate your position, but your argument techniques I find at fault. You build straw men and beg the question a lot in this video and I feel it weakens the persuasiveness of your view.
You, however, claim to know my beliefs, why?
I should probably have started the quotes before the word belief, you claim that people believe in the state and act on the belief, I question this conclusion.
duffry 1 year ago
Lets try again. I was not making an all-or-nothing fallacy because in parts 2 through 5 since I actually argue it.
"You're straw-manning, you're begging the question!" - I don't think I was, so you're going to have to actually point them out. So far all you have so much as attempted to show is that I made logical fallacies, which failed.
You support a democratic state with your personal arbitrary limits that nobody cares about. I know this because that's what dipshits support nowadays.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@duffry If you arent going to make who and what you are known: don't get pissed when people make assumptions about you. You question his conclusion:
People stand to sing national anthems, like hymns in churches. People face a symbol when doing this: like in church, people expect what this symbol represents to take care of them, then complain when it doesnt: like in church. Seems like a simple comparison, and logical conclusion.
nate556 11 months ago
"Just because chopping off all your fingers is bad doesn't mean chopping off one is bad!" - While this statement is true, I still contend that chopping off one is bad.
I'm saying Police, fire protection, law, defense, schools, roads, and provision of these services to the destitute do not require a state. I'm making the case that yes, any amount is bad.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Skepticism! See, there are a few loose ends with atheism, atheists can't explain everything, so until then, I'm going to default to bronze-age mythologies. Similarly, free marketers can't explain everything, so until then I'm going to default to these bronze-age states. Don't straw-man me, it's not quite as brutal as ancient greece, nor are the new christians as brutal as the old christians.
Just looked through your subs. Basically a who's who from stupid town, so probably not much hope 4 u.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Constructive Critique - You make some good points, but in some areas you make definitive sweeping comments in areas that are your opinion and you define them as "true". Avoid superlatives. "Everyone" cannot understand this as there are politicians and commentators who are saying that there is no debt problem. When you use such superlatives and get out of your expertise you damage your own credibility. Still a pretty good video.
TalkerOne 1 year ago
Liked a lot of it, but you lost me when you discussed Schizophrenia... and the state... how did you come up with that?
SmoothDemocrat 1 year ago
From a book that I highly, highly recommend called "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".
fringeelements 1 year ago
Sorry man, I don't care for the ideas expressed through this series. Well presented, while I disagree with What you have to say, I feel that I should be complementing you on how you say it.
IncendiarySolution 1 year ago