but this video is unnecessarily arrogant. e.g. the use of the word "fools" at the end, and the same general attitude that comes through at a few points will only make people defensive and antagonize you and your valid position.
i would welcome if you could create one after thinking about this for a while, because if you don't want to convince the other "fools", then why make this video?
statists piss me off also, but arguments in this style are just time wasted...
plese note that this man is not human he is a shapeshifter reptoid , please watch this video full screen paused frame by frame and you will note the following anamolies -- hexagonal angular irides occasional slit pupil , his eyes change between 2 different types of blues as well as significant teeth morphing pause at 1:21 to see the slit pupil in left eye as well as his eyes being 2 different colors .. these hidden ones are everywhere . this person is most def one of them , love and light
Even animals live in a soceiety, you are dumber than an animal, life/soceity isnt perfect but i seriously doubt you could do any better... you are the defenition of a fool.
@brokenbeforetime Can you point to an animal that lives in a voluntary society that pays some sort of tithing or tax to a leadership caste to impose order? Can you point to an animal that will imprison its own kind for 'its own good'? Can you point to an animal that will torture for fun?
Voluntaryism is entirely workable. As is anarcho-capitalism. People like you simply won't allow it, because for you, under it life gets much harder, and you don't value freedom at all.
@HavocGunStar Freedom comes at a price, ants bring food to the queen all day (like a tax) anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay taxes is a greedy retard, if hippies ruled the world we would either be extinct or still living in caves. I cant stand all these ignorant retard hippes, grow up already!
@brokenbeforetime If ants had the ability to reason I doubt they would bring food to the queen, but then again there are a lot of humans that dont have that ability either.
@clintcastle i belive they would...because they would realize that if they didnt thier speices would go extinct...to bad most human beings dnt realize that
I agree with just about everything you've said. Statism is evil. But capitalism is inevitably tied to statism. Capitalism requires private property, which requires a government. The only way to abolish government is to concurrently abolish capitalism, towards some sort of anarcho-socialism (such as Mutualism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, parecon, etc.)
@QuatFax What makes you think that private property requires government? Don't you own your own body and what you do with it? How do you need a government for that?
@beautifulheadache You fail to distinguish between property and possession. Possession occurs in any society; if I occupy something or have it on my person, I possess it. But property, the concept that I own something regardless of wether I possess it, is a rather unique concept. It requires a power structure to recognize that something belongs to me even if I'm not currently occupying or carrying it.
@QuatFax It has been said that there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than "possession", and I'm inclined to agree. If you are not your own property, then whose property are you? When slavery was legal, slaves were considered property, not possessions.
@beautifulheadache It's fairly simple, actually. You possess what you occupy and what you have on your person. Of course, no one else can occupy your body except for you (except when Scotty screws up the teleporter).
Slaves were their own possessions, but someone else's property. And it should be pointed out that the government was required to protect the slaves' status as property.
@beautifulheadache For example, say I own a house but don't live in it. In what sense is it mine? If someone else starts living in it, how do I make that person leave? If there is a government recognizing that the house is mine, it can use the threat of force to secure it for me. But what if there is no government?
@QuatFax Say you own a car but aren't using it. Does that mean someone can just steal it? Of course not, what a idiotic argument. Private institutions could just as easily help one recover stolen property and they would likely be far better at it. A government monopoly on the legal use of force is not necessary for resolving such problems.
@beautifulheadache Yes, someone can. The reason people don't constantly steal cars is that there is a coercive power structure (the government) that forbids it.
If you're talking about private defence agencies, they would almost certainly form cartels. The cartels would monopolize the use of force, thus becoming governments themselves.
@QuatFax So if the worst case scenario for a stateless society is that we eventually end up with government, how is it not worth trying? Arguing that the reason to not do something is because we might end up where we started is pretty weak. Humanity would never progress if everyone thought that way.
@beautifulheadache I'm not arguing against a stateless society. I'm an anarchist; I support a stateless society. I'm arguing against a stateless capitalist society. The traditional anarchist movement was always socialist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is an abberation.
You can have a stateless socialist society, because socialist economics are based on use and possession, not property. You cannot have a stateless capitalist society, because capitalism is based on property, which requires a state.
@QuatFax "say I own a house but don't live in it. In what sense is it mine?" It's yours because you either gathered the resources and built it, or you traded something of value to someone else so that they would gather the resources and build it. That kind of process is going to happen with or without the state.
@beautifulheadache But a house doesn't have to just be built and bought. It has to be maintained. If I'm not living in the house, I'm not maintainint it. I'm not keeping it clean, not taking care of its appliances, not preventing mildew from destroying it, etc. If someone else comes to live in it, they have to do all of that. So how can I say the house is still mine if I'm not the one maintaining it?
@QuatFax You're proposing a rule which says "one must maintain property in order to remain the owner". This is a ridiculous proposition which immediately falls apart as soon as you try to apply the rule to other common types of property. If your bike is looking a little rusty I can steal it. My neighbor's car up on blocks in his yard is fair game, etc, etc. It sounds like you're just rationalizing theft.
@beautifulheadache The point is that there is more to an object than its creation. If I build a house but don't maintain it, it falls apart. So what if someone else maintains the house in my absence. Should it still be my house? I may be responsible for the house's creation, but the maintainer is responsible for its existence. So why do I deserve sole ownership?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You do realize that coercion would exist even in anarcho capitalism right? If someone has a choice between working for $0.75 an hour at a power plant, $0.50 an hour in a coal mine, or $1 an hour in a meat packing factory, can you really say they have the freedom to work for whatever wage they want? The options then are to work below what you require to support yourself, or to die a horrible death due to starvation. How is that form of coercion any better?
@MusicianMX These are never the only choices in a free society. He could move, or start his own business, or borrow money to upgrade his skills, etc etc etc...
@stefbot History has proven that in so called "free societies" it is very easy for people to get placed in situations like this. Read into early-industrial england, and early 20th century America. Wages were uniform pretty much across the board due to huge oversaturation of the labor market. Both starting a business, and upgrading ones skills required money, and nobody would loan to someone with no collateral. The ones who did were usually predators. Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
@stefbot Not just that, but any business that wants the best workers is gonna pay them a fair wage. These people aren't stupid, they know the best way to get the best workers is to pay them a decent wage. Government involvement is what caused monopolies to arise and prices of goods to get so high.
@stefbot the coercion in @MuscianMX's example is the system of property rights he is forced to live under. For example, he must respect Joe's fence line or be shot. This system takes away his ability to live free since the land, game, vegetation and natural resources are owned by the most powerful (those who define property rights). There is no way to avoid this; force is inherent in the use of resources.
@MusicianMX - this seems very unreasonable. In those kinds of conditions revolts and strikes happen. Moreover, I believe a truly free society would be near impossible as long people find their salvation in the fulfillment of their desires. You don't think people work for those wages now? The dollar has lost 97% of its value. Real wages have gone down dramatically.
@MusicianMX But you miss the whole point! NO ONE is faced with those three choices! Every single person, living in a free society, has hundreds and thousands of choices they can make! They can join a hippy commune, they can do odd jobs, they can start a small business, they can move to another city/country, they can buy and sell things, they can fix cars, they can study a skill that is useful to the community, etc. etc. etc.!
It is only political situations that limits these choices.
You know I look at that lamp behind you and I try to imagine it "made" without government (or regulation) of some sort. To make a lamp (more than one) regulation is needed, laws are necessary to keep the workers safe, etc. I'm confused. Because there are so many of us working together we need an agreed upon system don't we? What is the alternative?
This guy is missing the point. Coercion isn't inherently wrong - it's only negative insomuch as it negatively effects utility (overall happiness). While taxes certainly are a violation of freedom, there are more important things than freedom, like utility! We happily give up freedom to third parties like the police because we have the understanding that our society would be better if justice was administered in such a way. Libertarians like this fellow suffer from a misunderstanding of morality.
@cam9976 So who gets to decide what makes people happy? And if a justice system is so great, why must the money needed to fund it be forcefully taken? (I do think a voluntary justice system is needed.) However, since you think violence is moral, an argument with you will get nowhere.
@cam9976 In the big picture, nothing is more important to me than my freedom. Although, there are some situations where my life or my loved one's lives are more important, but that is why slavery is possible.
Sadly, there is a logical glitch in Stefen's reasoning. Category: generalisation. When A gives Gov't money, A cannot be responsible for what Gov't do with it (because A doesn't know if it's used for good or bad), or else all ethical systems fall appart, and also individualism, which at least one, Stefen is dependent on. Stefen could argue that everything Gov't does with it's stolen money is bad and well known, but that's simply not true. I suggest Stefen seek to the root: legalized theft.
the government is an organization that takes money at will whether or not people agree with it. this is not at all the same as if a mother had to take money or food to feed her starving children. if the government really had a problem that big and needed money to solve it, it would be more efficient to make people aware of the problem and allow them to voluntarily give. forcing someone to give you money for something is wrong no matter what that money is for. charities don't force you to give.
celticlord, easy to agree to everything you wrote. My concern to the matter was solely the logical glitch where Steåhan should have concentrated himself on the root to the problem, namely legalized theft and not get lost in what activities that follows from legalized theft that can be ethically defended and which cannot.
Stephan also need to learn to understand that transision to his ultra-libertarianism can only happend though violence. Radical system change without violence is impossible.
shepardh1, i accept your analogy. I want that pedo executed regardless what good he has done. Exactly the same for tax. I want rid of it even if it can proven that military is only possible with taxation.
In my entire life, neither I, nor anyone I know, has had a gun pointed at them by government bodies. This might be because I pay my taxes, enjoy a good infastructure balanced with good disposable income, and do not feel the need to be offended by the requirement to pay taxes on the basis of some weak vanguard of absolute personal autonomy which is without favorable precedent or a practical guarantee that a decent standard of living will be supplied. Boy, Im sure missing out on alot...
I would imagine it would be because all of the examples of anarchic society throughout history (spanish anarchic republic is a rather nice one) have resulted (in what I can only presume) with retrospective evidence which your side would rather not record.
I wonder if anarchy is so natural, and everything is so balanced, then how did government ever grow out of it in the first place..why was it needed? And what prevents it from happening again.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language and is enamourated by its systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. Us being reciprocal deterministic beings, the latter distinguishing feature would be innatley subjective and contingent on opinion. So yes, it about opinions.
a party. But for people to vote for you you have to represent the majority. In a democracy the minority is a slave of the majority. Because if people were to decide for themselves for everything, there would be conflicts everyday and on everything, and finally no decision would be made. It is really a trade off. And I do not live in your country. I don't have anything against you, I like new ideas as long as they make sense and are rational,tomeatleast, maybeI am an idiot to see things like this
And another point posting your arguments like in a Q&A session (and a dubious one where the statist is retarded since he cannot think of any worthy arguments) is flawed and misleading. Because in your video you are mentionning at least 12 points to discuss. i.e. Do you agree with Violence? No. Are taxes cohersive? Yes, but your ancestors have voted for it. If you disagree you should vote for a government that represents your opinions. If there is not such a government, you could try to form...
Look Americans have voted between Republicans and Democrats since ever. My question is this if the majority of the population does not like the way Republicans and Democrats are governing why don't they vote a "Practical Anarchy Party". Answer: Because you represent a minority of the population since people are not voting for you. And please don't mention Socrates, he would have considered you a sophist. Not paying taxes means that you are not willing to share your wealth with poor people.
I can promise you that you do not really understand the country that you live in -- you might want to listen to my free audio book Everyday Anarchy for more on this... :)
Taxes subsidize large corporations (bailouts, shithead, which are NOTHING NEW) and farmers owned by multi-millionaires.
Secondly, progressive taxes cause employers to employ LESS. AND, of all the money that is collected for welfare, less than 10% actually goes to the people requiring it. The rest goes to administrative pricks with cushy jobs.
Keep your silly ad hominems to yourself.Canadian huh? You wouldnt be using canada and/or the US as a paradigm economy would you? If so, try poking your head above the ethnocentricity for a moment adn take a look at northern europe, progressive taxation epitomised. These countries (e.g. Sewden) have the best measurable living standards and social equality on the planet.
I would certainly question how much of the high taxes in Europe are actually paid by the very rich. I suggest in practice it would be much the same as in the United States, where middle class wage earners pay most of the taxation burden, while the "elite" (who are cronies of the politicians) are able to circumvent the taxes.
However, even if it did "work" in Europe, you still totally ignore the fundamental moral problem raised in the video. How do you justify any tax in the first place?
Also, tax is justified on the grounds that without them, the state loses its ability to provide essentail services and protect the rights of the individual. Taxes are the foundation of a functional state, the alternatives to state regulation and function having demonstrated themselves as stupid throughout history.
Furthermore, under this progressive taxation regime, only initial tax subsidies are given to corporations to stimulate employment of skilled individuals (to look at abbott for example, the recieve 25k for each skilled technician thay employ, which the reimburse the taxpayer for exponentially. Greater employment occurs as a result.
Also, you might explain what you mean in relation to the bailouts considering that they occured in response to the financial crisis caused by private lending at low rates to developers to take advantage of the construction boom (which promptly failed, leaving public finances in ruin as a result of toxic developer debts). As you can see, a lack of central credit planning led to the problem, and you are only evaluating the states response to a disaster caused predominantly by the private sector.
"The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, "credit cycles") as the inevitable consequence of inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings." (Thorsten Polleit, 13 December 2007.) Looks like you havent read it, since that whole spiel is co-referential with what I wrote here :)
...but, we are not fooled by the distraction of corporate executive's bonuses ... are we? I love how the media and gummint has tried to get us angry at the few drops transferred to executives while ignoring the tons the gummint steals & blows.
That's very true. I'm sure you've heard of how when money from taxes is to fund a local or state program, the federal government (lol gummin) takes its "fair" share in "administrative costs". Sometimes, the state winds up with less than half of the original sum.
It's hard for progressives to grasp the idea that ant-big government/anti-statists want to help the poor... through more than just rhetoric and stealing OTHER people's money!
Maybe to some degreee but there are thousands of government programs doling out billions to due to lobbying efforts by special interest groups who have the money and knowhow to milk the system. And an enormous % funds for social welfare actually go to administering the programs - welfare for teh bureaucrats, who produce nothing.
And BTW, taxation is theft. Taxation is taking a person's property by threat of violence. That is no different than mob extortionists demanding protection money.
Taxation is not theft. You earn this property in a system where the infastructure necessary to allow your workplace, business etc. to survive is provided by the body which is taxing you. Elaborate a little more on your point regarding lobby groups and "welfare for teh bereaucrats".
You have to understand that democracy is the tyranny of the majority. There are many opinions and ideas on how and what things to do politically. However since there are many diverging opinions, no decision can be made. Therefore there has to be a system of decision making. With democracy we have chosen that the majority controls the total population. If you have a different opinion you could try to become a representative of your community and see whether people will follow you or not.
It is the way that taxes are used that can be bad or good.
Therefore the decisions made by our representatives are good or bad.
Consequently if we want better decisions taken by our representatives, we should choose our representatives more carefully and in a way that reflects our moral beliefs.
Unless you voluntarily give the government money as a gift or donation--it could even be okay to make a payment whenever you use their services--taxes are theft. Theft is wrong.
In a court of law, for instance, it doesn't matter why a person stole something or what they used it for. What matters is that they took something that they did not have the right to take.
This leads to the point, that any forced gov. must, by nature, hold a double standard. One to itself. One to you and me.
Taxes are necessary to (among many, many other things) provide for the weak, infirmed members of society who cannot earn enough to avail of these services you speak of. They are not theft, they are there to redress social inequalities and inadequacies which could not be resolved by the private sector alone. Failure of the allotment of taxation is not a failure of the state ideology, but merely the structures which hold governments to account to the electorate.
On voting: Instead of having some sort of forced "representative" system, why doesn't every man just represent himself? If you want better decisions to be made (& people can disagree drastically on what is a better decision/Not to mention, in reality, while one decision may be good for your neighbor, it may not be good for you) why don't you just change your behavior? This would be the most effective efficient way of doing things.
No, because when each person represents himself, there is no way to cohesivley guarantee peoples fundamental rights, simply you acting on your own perogative, which can and will conflict with that of others.
In the other paragraph he was pointing out that many people can only be beneficial to society (or their own future) when forced to. If there are many of such people in a group/country, it might be beneficial for the society to force laws upon them. This is certainly anti-humanist, still quite true.
with that line of thought you go to a restaurant, eat, refuse to pay the bill, refuse any sort of punishment....and when faced with the last resort which is violence, you whine because its violence?!! i dont get the point...
Uh, no. When you go to a restaurant and eat, you are exchanging consideration for consideration, that is a CONTRACT (a special form of a contract, at any rate) and you are honoring it. With that line of thought, eating in restaurants is NO PROBLEM.
when you pay taxes you're also exchanging consideration for consideration....you pay your taxes and you have roads to give you freedom to travel, you have an emergency room if you get badly injured, you get unemployment or welfare if you have no other source of income(at least in Canada you do)....with that line of thought, paying taxes is no problem.
Uh, NO. There is no exchange of consideration in taxation -- you get not what you want, but what the rulers "graciously" decided you should get, minus what they skim off the top. Contracts are VOLUNTARY, taxation is ENFORCED.
But what am I doing wasting my time arguing with you? The video already responded to this non-argument of yours.
yeah....responded in a ridiculously flawed way...he said : "it is true i use government services, but that is irrelevant to...(the point hes trying to make)".....followed by flawed analogies...i.e. you pay, they build roads, you drive on them...you pay, you get what you paid for and you use it....how can you compare that to robbing your neighborhood??
ok......we all stop paying taxes right now.....whose gonna take care of the garbage?? whose gonna defend you and your family when some other country decides to attack your country for some reason and you dont have armed forces? whose gonna take care of you when you have a sudden appendicitis attack?? who you gonna call when someone breaks into your house while your not there and robs everything you have without leaving tracks??
It's not my fault you choose to remain ignorant as to the very good alternatives that exist to the problems you pose. Chill out, and understand that the anger you feel lies within you and is your fault, not mine.
To be honest man, you are in no position to condescend or speak platitudinally like that. In the north of europe, socialist mixed economies do indeed provide relief to the circumstances outlined by sbichao (ill direct your attention to Sweden, providing exemplary standards of living for its citizens with progressive taxation and social policies. I'd much rather that than an interdependant model based on human selfishness.
do you sign a contract when you go eat in a restaurant? do you really think the restaurant owner wouldnt try to kick your ass if you didnt pay the bill?? or a taxi driver, you think he wouldnt try to kick the crap out of you if you dont pay the fare?
its real easy to criticize the system, and come up with arguments to show its not good enough....but if you dont come up with a better solution those arguments wont change anything....they'll only serve the purpose of upsetting ppl.
There is an implicit contract when you go into the restaurant. What you eat, you pay. And if you don't pay what you eat, well, I can see the restauranteur making you pay.
> they'll only serve the purpose of upsetting ppl.
As for that, the only one insecure and upset is you, here, because your mythology is being challenged. Too bad that despite the answers being RIGHT HERE IN YOUTUBE, you refuse to let them seep into your brain.
oh...and furthermore...i didnt see that part of "what the rulers decided you should get"...
so you dont think you need an army, to defend your country?...or police to maintain order...can you even begin to imagine what it would be like if the police didnt exist?
if a little kid was given the freedom of eating chocolate and drink pop for breakfast, lunch and dinner he probably would....although thats what he wanted, doesnt mean that its what would be best for him...
"... OR one is presented a choice for a portfolio of good and bad and he weighs them to accept the portfolio." In this sense the government actions are the portfolio and many people find the benefits outweighing the cost.
The fundamental difference between a child abuse organization and the government - the latter is complex to analyze. Is having a big government better or worse - it's inconclusive.
People don't like to take risks when they feel relatively good as they are. They will be hesitative when you want them to take a drastic decision. It should be a lot easier if you went against smaller parts of the government. There are no projects too big if you divide them.
If I offer a dog to be beaten, you probably won't accept it, as it is moral evil. If I offer a disabled man being healed while a dog being beaten, you'll have to think about it. Many people will choose the latter deal and will not feel like they've chosen evil at all. Draw the parallels with the war and whatever people believe government does good to them.
Correct. I do have to say, though, that beating a dog is not immoral. It is generally regardes as aesthetically unpleasant, but it's not a moral or immoral act because it does not involve two or more distinct self-aware rational individuals. For the record, I shot a cat once with a BB gun and I immediately understood that I had committed a terrible act.
Many mentally challenged people are not rational as well. Would you find shooting them moral? Even more - it is as difficult to prove their self awareness as it is for cats or dogs.
That said, my point is still valid - the complexity of the government allows hiding bad acts among the good. Pointing out one bad act does not prove the government bad. You must weigh all the acts and propose better alternatives.
You're doing it wrong. Humans, as a class, are self-aware and rational. There are notable exceptions (retarded people, people in coma, children) but they still have the potential to be moral individuals -- that is, individuals who understand the ramifications of their actions. So, to stay on the safe side and avoid pointless classificatory debates, we use humans as a CLASS, instead of adjudicating on a case-by-case basis.
Where do you find the potential? Medicine research? Then I can use the same argument for the morality of dogs.
I'm very disappointed that you feel like we should draw some artificial line of potential rationality - say, all humans. Many people thought that only the white race is rational. The word "rational" is not objective in its definition.
Stefbot, if taxation is theft, therefore property must also be theft. Both property and taxation are enforced regimes that restrict people. They serve different purposes, but both systems are meant to entitle .
So you would argue that your body belonging to you is theft? Theft from who? Doesn't the word "theft" require property being owned by someone in the first place? Saying "property is theft" is a self-contradictory argument. You are validating property rights and invalidating them at the same time.
Now you misundestand me. I said that *if* taxation is theft, property must also be theft according to the same logic. Both property and taxes are artifical, manmade, state imposed regimes that essentially (coercively) restrict some people for the benefit of others. And no, there is no "natural" right to "owning" ones body. If the laws of society demand that you have positive responsibilities, like say, paying taxes or helping people in need, arguing that this is slavery is ridicolous.
Theft is by definition UNLAWFUL taking of another person's property without his or her consent. Notice that there is no mention of moral values, only law.
The point being made here is that there is nothing to define or enforce private ownership without the state. Privatising contract law is asinine, since it necessarily lacks a system to prevent monopoly, which leads to a complete lack of accountability to the people.
Another Excellent Vid....this should be featured on Youtube's Frontpage!
Bit of a devil's advocate type question for you here; Do you pay your taxes? You may have answered this in another vid...I am slowly getting round to watching them. Bear in mind you are competing with all the hot chick videos on here (only joking).
Sorry, but these arguments are very poor. I'm not even sure if you could call these arguements since it was more of a little conversation with yourself. And what the heck is with the idea of calling anyone who isn't a radical libertarian a statist?
Obviously you're not too bright... the person posting this video is not the person IN the video. Secondly, anybody who supports a governing force or the monopoly of justice and law over another person condones coercion against that person. You are essentially advocating mass indefinite indentured servitude when you advocate a "social contract". Taxation is not voluntary because it required by governments. People, which precede governments, provide for such institutions, not the other way around.
everytime i watch a video such as this or make arguments such as the ones presented by stefbot, i am always disappointed to discover that no statist actually provides any refutations. why? because there are none.
Overall, I like the debate that you have posed. I have on many occasions been in that similar debate and both ends were covered well. However, I was unable to sway the political supporter to reasons why they shouldn't vote and why you shouldn't pay taxes and support the system. How do you live under the system without supporting it? Do you become homeless?
"you" ask all the questions hence direct the debate with this imaginary statist, hence you will always reach the logical conclusion you sought in the first place.
I know you didn't invent this technique but I assume you see the flaws in your usage of it, it follows from that assumption that you don't care about the flaws, which hints at a disdain for the intellect of your audience and a Machiavellian "means to and end" mindset. Good luck finding a volunteer to debate with you.
By implying that his logic was based on very narrow observations of reality I believe I did refute him, and hence I do not feel the need to debate any further.
bassless accusations do nothing to refute the basic premise that goverments corrupts society's. It's only your opinon your calling reasoning. Hence, your intellectually lazy, short-sighted, and close minded. Wasting time talking with you is like collecting pond scum for a high school biology lab, you never expect results but its fun to watch.
True, but why is his argument flawed? I still haven't seen any argument! You can't just say 'it's flawed' and it magically becomes so without explanation. That's how argument (or discussion) works.
I don`t care if what poeple do is immoral. I want you to create a time-machine and show me if I like what I see in it. Since you don`t have a time-machine, every flaw I can find is valid and show how delusional you are.
every flaw you find is valid? All that statment shows is how delusional you are. You might as well say, I'm right becuase i want to be. You would have to be if you think that the world will be any better with people like you not "caring" if what people in goverment do is immoral.
gratex: So essentially you still have no argument but you just kind of er... just assume there is one out there... somewhere! Wow. Specifics - which flaws? Oh that's right you don't know, but 'they're out there somewhere!'.
But... You are placed in real (as bad & wrong as it gets) world Stef. In your discussions you don't take this into consideration. As I understand you, you would like to delete world rules and rewrite them. I find this problematic. There is no gradual evolution in this theory, so you are talking about revolution in all its glory (as bloody as it gets).
Brilliant!!
bestiaccia 1 week ago
i like your reasoning Stef.
but this video is unnecessarily arrogant. e.g. the use of the word "fools" at the end, and the same general attitude that comes through at a few points will only make people defensive and antagonize you and your valid position.
i would welcome if you could create one after thinking about this for a while, because if you don't want to convince the other "fools", then why make this video?
statists piss me off also, but arguments in this style are just time wasted...
AttilaLendvai 1 week ago 2
You have the choice now to repent or not for your speaking ill of the holy spirit.
astrolifter 5 months ago
Your joking, I'm going to guess and hope. @astrolifter
TimothyADonaghue 1 week ago
@blapgat, don't feed the trolls. brokenbeforetime is not an individual with a high capacity to empathize
wood9670 6 months ago
I'm just gonna avoid people who talk like that damn statist.
Struckgold 7 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 7 months ago
Hi Stef great logic as ususal...acting in the furure?
4swzb 10 months ago 2
Stef, funny thing is, that's exactly the voice the statist always uses!
alistairproductions 1 year ago
also pause at 4:38 and 4:49 bottom timer and look at his slit pupils and more 2 different eyecolor
pnd51010 1 year ago
plese note that this man is not human he is a shapeshifter reptoid , please watch this video full screen paused frame by frame and you will note the following anamolies -- hexagonal angular irides occasional slit pupil , his eyes change between 2 different types of blues as well as significant teeth morphing pause at 1:21 to see the slit pupil in left eye as well as his eyes being 2 different colors .. these hidden ones are everywhere . this person is most def one of them , love and light
pnd51010 1 year ago
@pnd51010 I looked and didn't see anything. Please realize that you might be crazy.
arterex 11 months ago
Even animals live in a soceiety, you are dumber than an animal, life/soceity isnt perfect but i seriously doubt you could do any better... you are the defenition of a fool.
brokenbeforetime 1 year ago
@brokenbeforetime Can you point to an animal that lives in a voluntary society that pays some sort of tithing or tax to a leadership caste to impose order? Can you point to an animal that will imprison its own kind for 'its own good'? Can you point to an animal that will torture for fun?
Voluntaryism is entirely workable. As is anarcho-capitalism. People like you simply won't allow it, because for you, under it life gets much harder, and you don't value freedom at all.
HavocGunStar 1 year ago
@HavocGunStar Freedom comes at a price, ants bring food to the queen all day (like a tax) anyone who thinks we shouldn't pay taxes is a greedy retard, if hippies ruled the world we would either be extinct or still living in caves. I cant stand all these ignorant retard hippes, grow up already!
brokenbeforetime 8 months ago
@brokenbeforetime If ants had the ability to reason I doubt they would bring food to the queen, but then again there are a lot of humans that dont have that ability either.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle i belive they would...because they would realize that if they didnt thier speices would go extinct...to bad most human beings dnt realize that
brokenbeforetime 2 months ago
@brokenbeforetime assertion
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
I cant stand hippies, especially when there also atheists.
brokenbeforetime 1 year ago
I agree with just about everything you've said. Statism is evil. But capitalism is inevitably tied to statism. Capitalism requires private property, which requires a government. The only way to abolish government is to concurrently abolish capitalism, towards some sort of anarcho-socialism (such as Mutualism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, parecon, etc.)
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax What makes you think that private property requires government? Don't you own your own body and what you do with it? How do you need a government for that?
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache You fail to distinguish between property and possession. Possession occurs in any society; if I occupy something or have it on my person, I possess it. But property, the concept that I own something regardless of wether I possess it, is a rather unique concept. It requires a power structure to recognize that something belongs to me even if I'm not currently occupying or carrying it.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax It has been said that there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than "possession", and I'm inclined to agree. If you are not your own property, then whose property are you? When slavery was legal, slaves were considered property, not possessions.
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache It's fairly simple, actually. You possess what you occupy and what you have on your person. Of course, no one else can occupy your body except for you (except when Scotty screws up the teleporter).
Slaves were their own possessions, but someone else's property. And it should be pointed out that the government was required to protect the slaves' status as property.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache For example, say I own a house but don't live in it. In what sense is it mine? If someone else starts living in it, how do I make that person leave? If there is a government recognizing that the house is mine, it can use the threat of force to secure it for me. But what if there is no government?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Say you own a car but aren't using it. Does that mean someone can just steal it? Of course not, what a idiotic argument. Private institutions could just as easily help one recover stolen property and they would likely be far better at it. A government monopoly on the legal use of force is not necessary for resolving such problems.
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache Yes, someone can. The reason people don't constantly steal cars is that there is a coercive power structure (the government) that forbids it.
If you're talking about private defence agencies, they would almost certainly form cartels. The cartels would monopolize the use of force, thus becoming governments themselves.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax So if the worst case scenario for a stateless society is that we eventually end up with government, how is it not worth trying? Arguing that the reason to not do something is because we might end up where we started is pretty weak. Humanity would never progress if everyone thought that way.
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache I'm not arguing against a stateless society. I'm an anarchist; I support a stateless society. I'm arguing against a stateless capitalist society. The traditional anarchist movement was always socialist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is an abberation.
You can have a stateless socialist society, because socialist economics are based on use and possession, not property. You cannot have a stateless capitalist society, because capitalism is based on property, which requires a state.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax "say I own a house but don't live in it. In what sense is it mine?" It's yours because you either gathered the resources and built it, or you traded something of value to someone else so that they would gather the resources and build it. That kind of process is going to happen with or without the state.
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache But a house doesn't have to just be built and bought. It has to be maintained. If I'm not living in the house, I'm not maintainint it. I'm not keeping it clean, not taking care of its appliances, not preventing mildew from destroying it, etc. If someone else comes to live in it, they have to do all of that. So how can I say the house is still mine if I'm not the one maintaining it?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax You're proposing a rule which says "one must maintain property in order to remain the owner". This is a ridiculous proposition which immediately falls apart as soon as you try to apply the rule to other common types of property. If your bike is looking a little rusty I can steal it. My neighbor's car up on blocks in his yard is fair game, etc, etc. It sounds like you're just rationalizing theft.
beautifulheadache 1 year ago
@beautifulheadache The point is that there is more to an object than its creation. If I build a house but don't maintain it, it falls apart. So what if someone else maintains the house in my absence. Should it still be my house? I may be responsible for the house's creation, but the maintainer is responsible for its existence. So why do I deserve sole ownership?
QuatFax 1 year ago
i dont know how I missed this one. awesome video.
Wesker1982 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You do realize that coercion would exist even in anarcho capitalism right? If someone has a choice between working for $0.75 an hour at a power plant, $0.50 an hour in a coal mine, or $1 an hour in a meat packing factory, can you really say they have the freedom to work for whatever wage they want? The options then are to work below what you require to support yourself, or to die a horrible death due to starvation. How is that form of coercion any better?
MusicianMX 1 year ago
@MusicianMX These are never the only choices in a free society. He could move, or start his own business, or borrow money to upgrade his skills, etc etc etc...
stefbot 1 year ago 18
@stefbot History has proven that in so called "free societies" it is very easy for people to get placed in situations like this. Read into early-industrial england, and early 20th century America. Wages were uniform pretty much across the board due to huge oversaturation of the labor market. Both starting a business, and upgrading ones skills required money, and nobody would loan to someone with no collateral. The ones who did were usually predators. Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
MusicianMX 1 year ago
@MusicianMX but both of your examples are not of "free societies"
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago 3
@stefbot Not just that, but any business that wants the best workers is gonna pay them a fair wage. These people aren't stupid, they know the best way to get the best workers is to pay them a decent wage. Government involvement is what caused monopolies to arise and prices of goods to get so high.
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago 2
@stefbot the coercion in @MuscianMX's example is the system of property rights he is forced to live under. For example, he must respect Joe's fence line or be shot. This system takes away his ability to live free since the land, game, vegetation and natural resources are owned by the most powerful (those who define property rights). There is no way to avoid this; force is inherent in the use of resources.
jamosmithlol 1 week ago
@MusicianMX - this seems very unreasonable. In those kinds of conditions revolts and strikes happen. Moreover, I believe a truly free society would be near impossible as long people find their salvation in the fulfillment of their desires. You don't think people work for those wages now? The dollar has lost 97% of its value. Real wages have gone down dramatically.
RamandoDMag 1 year ago
@RamandoDMag "as long as people find their salvation in the fulfillment of their desires"
That is truth (or reality as I perceive it)...
This truth is an important part of our search here it seems...
Allisa4757 1 year ago
@MusicianMX That coercion is a fault of reality, not capitalism. What you want is utopia which is a leftist fantasy.
truevoice08 1 year ago 2
@MusicianMX So coersion is wrong, therefore we need a coercive state?
fps0chris 1 year ago
@MusicianMX But you miss the whole point! NO ONE is faced with those three choices! Every single person, living in a free society, has hundreds and thousands of choices they can make! They can join a hippy commune, they can do odd jobs, they can start a small business, they can move to another city/country, they can buy and sell things, they can fix cars, they can study a skill that is useful to the community, etc. etc. etc.!
It is only political situations that limits these choices.
zyodei 1 year ago
Fantastic.
immayhem 1 year ago
You know I look at that lamp behind you and I try to imagine it "made" without government (or regulation) of some sort. To make a lamp (more than one) regulation is needed, laws are necessary to keep the workers safe, etc. I'm confused. Because there are so many of us working together we need an agreed upon system don't we? What is the alternative?
Allisa4757 1 year ago
@Allisa4757 The alternative is freedom.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
This guy is missing the point. Coercion isn't inherently wrong - it's only negative insomuch as it negatively effects utility (overall happiness). While taxes certainly are a violation of freedom, there are more important things than freedom, like utility! We happily give up freedom to third parties like the police because we have the understanding that our society would be better if justice was administered in such a way. Libertarians like this fellow suffer from a misunderstanding of morality.
cam9976 1 year ago
@cam9976 So who gets to decide what makes people happy? And if a justice system is so great, why must the money needed to fund it be forcefully taken? (I do think a voluntary justice system is needed.) However, since you think violence is moral, an argument with you will get nowhere.
Lilbalitzu 1 year ago 2
@cam9976 In the big picture, nothing is more important to me than my freedom. Although, there are some situations where my life or my loved one's lives are more important, but that is why slavery is possible.
fnuzzoiv 1 year ago
That statist sounds alot like Deek. >_>
amafuji 1 year ago
Sadly, there is a logical glitch in Stefen's reasoning. Category: generalisation. When A gives Gov't money, A cannot be responsible for what Gov't do with it (because A doesn't know if it's used for good or bad), or else all ethical systems fall appart, and also individualism, which at least one, Stefen is dependent on. Stefen could argue that everything Gov't does with it's stolen money is bad and well known, but that's simply not true. I suggest Stefen seek to the root: legalized theft.
Sopranelsker 2 years ago
the government is an organization that takes money at will whether or not people agree with it. this is not at all the same as if a mother had to take money or food to feed her starving children. if the government really had a problem that big and needed money to solve it, it would be more efficient to make people aware of the problem and allow them to voluntarily give. forcing someone to give you money for something is wrong no matter what that money is for. charities don't force you to give.
celticlord88 2 years ago
celticlord, easy to agree to everything you wrote. My concern to the matter was solely the logical glitch where Steåhan should have concentrated himself on the root to the problem, namely legalized theft and not get lost in what activities that follows from legalized theft that can be ethically defended and which cannot.
Stephan also need to learn to understand that transision to his ultra-libertarianism can only happend though violence. Radical system change without violence is impossible.
Sopranelsker 2 years ago
@Sopranelsker
I don't understand the glitch?
We don't like child molesters.
A child molester does something good (maybe smiles as he walks past someone).
This does not change his other bad behavior.
shepardh1 1 year ago
shepardh1, i accept your analogy. I want that pedo executed regardless what good he has done. Exactly the same for tax. I want rid of it even if it can proven that military is only possible with taxation.
Sopranelsker 1 year ago 3
Sounds good & makes good sense. Thanks for thinking with reason! :)
shepardh1 1 year ago
You actually mean to tell me that you have had a gun pointed at you by the feds? This is a libertarian tall tale that I just have to hear..
pagancornflake 2 years ago
Try not paying taxes.
yoshimaroka 2 years ago 15
Try coming up with a new platitudinous trivialization of the issue.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
@yoshimaroka Do they let you do YouTube videos from jail?
ghilliemaster 11 months ago
@yoshimaroka They will send a letter and bash you afterwards if you're ignoring it
Motherlandpluto 7 months ago in playlist Stefbot
In my entire life, neither I, nor anyone I know, has had a gun pointed at them by government bodies. This might be because I pay my taxes, enjoy a good infastructure balanced with good disposable income, and do not feel the need to be offended by the requirement to pay taxes on the basis of some weak vanguard of absolute personal autonomy which is without favorable precedent or a practical guarantee that a decent standard of living will be supplied. Boy, Im sure missing out on alot...
pagancornflake 2 years ago
I would imagine it would be because all of the examples of anarchic society throughout history (spanish anarchic republic is a rather nice one) have resulted (in what I can only presume) with retrospective evidence which your side would rather not record.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
I wonder if anarchy is so natural, and everything is so balanced, then how did government ever grow out of it in the first place..why was it needed? And what prevents it from happening again.
DoctorFist 2 years ago
Statism grew out of tribalism, which was even worse... :o
stefbot 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
..In your opinion
pagancornflake 2 years ago
Actually, philosophy is not about opinions :)
stefbot 2 years ago 5
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language and is enamourated by its systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. Us being reciprocal deterministic beings, the latter distinguishing feature would be innatley subjective and contingent on opinion. So yes, it about opinions.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
try and elaborate a little more in future, wont you?
:)
pagancornflake 2 years ago
@stefbot Hmmm, it's sounding quite nice about now.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
stefbot should make his speeches in schools and try to educate poor kids. Then we hopefully will see a stateless society in the near future
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
a party. But for people to vote for you you have to represent the majority. In a democracy the minority is a slave of the majority. Because if people were to decide for themselves for everything, there would be conflicts everyday and on everything, and finally no decision would be made. It is really a trade off. And I do not live in your country. I don't have anything against you, I like new ideas as long as they make sense and are rational,tomeatleast, maybeI am an idiot to see things like this
andypapast82 2 years ago
And another point posting your arguments like in a Q&A session (and a dubious one where the statist is retarded since he cannot think of any worthy arguments) is flawed and misleading. Because in your video you are mentionning at least 12 points to discuss. i.e. Do you agree with Violence? No. Are taxes cohersive? Yes, but your ancestors have voted for it. If you disagree you should vote for a government that represents your opinions. If there is not such a government, you could try to form...
andypapast82 2 years ago
Look Americans have voted between Republicans and Democrats since ever. My question is this if the majority of the population does not like the way Republicans and Democrats are governing why don't they vote a "Practical Anarchy Party". Answer: Because you represent a minority of the population since people are not voting for you. And please don't mention Socrates, he would have considered you a sophist. Not paying taxes means that you are not willing to share your wealth with poor people.
andypapast82 2 years ago
I can promise you that you do not really understand the country that you live in -- you might want to listen to my free audio book Everyday Anarchy for more on this... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Our taxes go to the rich though. No one has a right to the fruits of someone else's labour unless it's given voluntary.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 2
Taxes go to the rich.. elaborate?
pagancornflake 2 years ago
No, your taxes go towards essential services and social welfare for the infirmed.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
... oh Christ....
Taxes subsidize large corporations (bailouts, shithead, which are NOTHING NEW) and farmers owned by multi-millionaires.
Secondly, progressive taxes cause employers to employ LESS. AND, of all the money that is collected for welfare, less than 10% actually goes to the people requiring it. The rest goes to administrative pricks with cushy jobs.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 3
Keep your silly ad hominems to yourself.Canadian huh? You wouldnt be using canada and/or the US as a paradigm economy would you? If so, try poking your head above the ethnocentricity for a moment adn take a look at northern europe, progressive taxation epitomised. These countries (e.g. Sewden) have the best measurable living standards and social equality on the planet.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
I would certainly question how much of the high taxes in Europe are actually paid by the very rich. I suggest in practice it would be much the same as in the United States, where middle class wage earners pay most of the taxation burden, while the "elite" (who are cronies of the politicians) are able to circumvent the taxes.
However, even if it did "work" in Europe, you still totally ignore the fundamental moral problem raised in the video. How do you justify any tax in the first place?
zimmerman8k 2 years ago
What basis do you have for questioning it that? Links, articles please..
pagancornflake 2 years ago
Also, tax is justified on the grounds that without them, the state loses its ability to provide essentail services and protect the rights of the individual. Taxes are the foundation of a functional state, the alternatives to state regulation and function having demonstrated themselves as stupid throughout history.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
Furthermore, under this progressive taxation regime, only initial tax subsidies are given to corporations to stimulate employment of skilled individuals (to look at abbott for example, the recieve 25k for each skilled technician thay employ, which the reimburse the taxpayer for exponentially. Greater employment occurs as a result.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
Also, you might explain what you mean in relation to the bailouts considering that they occured in response to the financial crisis caused by private lending at low rates to developers to take advantage of the construction boom (which promptly failed, leaving public finances in ruin as a result of toxic developer debts). As you can see, a lack of central credit planning led to the problem, and you are only evaluating the states response to a disaster caused predominantly by the private sector.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
lol, please read Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
"The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, "credit cycles") as the inevitable consequence of inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings." (Thorsten Polleit, 13 December 2007.) Looks like you havent read it, since that whole spiel is co-referential with what I wrote here :)
pagancornflake 2 years ago
...but, we are not fooled by the distraction of corporate executive's bonuses ... are we? I love how the media and gummint has tried to get us angry at the few drops transferred to executives while ignoring the tons the gummint steals & blows.
shepardh1 1 year ago
That's very true. I'm sure you've heard of how when money from taxes is to fund a local or state program, the federal government (lol gummin) takes its "fair" share in "administrative costs". Sometimes, the state winds up with less than half of the original sum.
It's hard for progressives to grasp the idea that ant-big government/anti-statists want to help the poor... through more than just rhetoric and stealing OTHER people's money!
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
Maybe to some degreee but there are thousands of government programs doling out billions to due to lobbying efforts by special interest groups who have the money and knowhow to milk the system. And an enormous % funds for social welfare actually go to administering the programs - welfare for teh bureaucrats, who produce nothing.
And BTW, taxation is theft. Taxation is taking a person's property by threat of violence. That is no different than mob extortionists demanding protection money.
Mosier2 2 years ago
Taxation is not theft. You earn this property in a system where the infastructure necessary to allow your workplace, business etc. to survive is provided by the body which is taxing you. Elaborate a little more on your point regarding lobby groups and "welfare for teh bereaucrats".
pagancornflake 2 years ago
You have to understand that democracy is the tyranny of the majority. There are many opinions and ideas on how and what things to do politically. However since there are many diverging opinions, no decision can be made. Therefore there has to be a system of decision making. With democracy we have chosen that the majority controls the total population. If you have a different opinion you could try to become a representative of your community and see whether people will follow you or not.
andypapast82 2 years ago
yes, but... if we tried it, we would be shot.. By majority (government and it's supporters).
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Taxes are neither bad nor good.
It is the way that taxes are used that can be bad or good.
Therefore the decisions made by our representatives are good or bad.
Consequently if we want better decisions taken by our representatives, we should choose our representatives more carefully and in a way that reflects our moral beliefs.
We can do this by voting with conscience.
andypapast82 2 years ago
Unless you voluntarily give the government money as a gift or donation--it could even be okay to make a payment whenever you use their services--taxes are theft. Theft is wrong.
In a court of law, for instance, it doesn't matter why a person stole something or what they used it for. What matters is that they took something that they did not have the right to take.
This leads to the point, that any forced gov. must, by nature, hold a double standard. One to itself. One to you and me.
TransmorgifyX 2 years ago 2
Taxes are necessary to (among many, many other things) provide for the weak, infirmed members of society who cannot earn enough to avail of these services you speak of. They are not theft, they are there to redress social inequalities and inadequacies which could not be resolved by the private sector alone. Failure of the allotment of taxation is not a failure of the state ideology, but merely the structures which hold governments to account to the electorate.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
On voting: Instead of having some sort of forced "representative" system, why doesn't every man just represent himself? If you want better decisions to be made (& people can disagree drastically on what is a better decision/Not to mention, in reality, while one decision may be good for your neighbor, it may not be good for you) why don't you just change your behavior? This would be the most effective efficient way of doing things.
TransmorgifyX 2 years ago 2
No, because when each person represents himself, there is no way to cohesivley guarantee peoples fundamental rights, simply you acting on your own perogative, which can and will conflict with that of others.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
only VOLUNTARY taxes are good. :) When a people are FORCED to pay taxes, it will ALWAYS BE WRONG (and bad)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Voluntary taxes are self-contradictory... :)
A voluntary "tax" is actually a donation = you CHOOSE to give support to a worthy cause.
ks100001 2 years ago
yes, thanks for correcting :)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
you are a genius man, i liked your video on free range livestock "statism is dead". hey could you do one on the reality of the school system.
sycbeamon 3 years ago
In the other paragraph he was pointing out that many people can only be beneficial to society (or their own future) when forced to. If there are many of such people in a group/country, it might be beneficial for the society to force laws upon them. This is certainly anti-humanist, still quite true.
edgedg 3 years ago
with that line of thought you go to a restaurant, eat, refuse to pay the bill, refuse any sort of punishment....and when faced with the last resort which is violence, you whine because its violence?!! i dont get the point...
sbichao 3 years ago
Uh, no. When you go to a restaurant and eat, you are exchanging consideration for consideration, that is a CONTRACT (a special form of a contract, at any rate) and you are honoring it. With that line of thought, eating in restaurants is NO PROBLEM.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
when you pay taxes you're also exchanging consideration for consideration....you pay your taxes and you have roads to give you freedom to travel, you have an emergency room if you get badly injured, you get unemployment or welfare if you have no other source of income(at least in Canada you do)....with that line of thought, paying taxes is no problem.
sbichao 3 years ago
Uh, NO. There is no exchange of consideration in taxation -- you get not what you want, but what the rulers "graciously" decided you should get, minus what they skim off the top. Contracts are VOLUNTARY, taxation is ENFORCED.
But what am I doing wasting my time arguing with you? The video already responded to this non-argument of yours.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
yeah....responded in a ridiculously flawed way...he said : "it is true i use government services, but that is irrelevant to...(the point hes trying to make)".....followed by flawed analogies...i.e. you pay, they build roads, you drive on them...you pay, you get what you paid for and you use it....how can you compare that to robbing your neighborhood??
sbichao 3 years ago
Because the comparison to robbery is not the building of roads but the forced excision of tax. Tax is exactly the same as mafia protection money.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
my mythology?!! lol
ok......we all stop paying taxes right now.....whose gonna take care of the garbage?? whose gonna defend you and your family when some other country decides to attack your country for some reason and you dont have armed forces? whose gonna take care of you when you have a sudden appendicitis attack?? who you gonna call when someone breaks into your house while your not there and robs everything you have without leaving tracks??
sbichao 3 years ago
It's not my fault you choose to remain ignorant as to the very good alternatives that exist to the problems you pose. Chill out, and understand that the anger you feel lies within you and is your fault, not mine.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
To be honest man, you are in no position to condescend or speak platitudinally like that. In the north of europe, socialist mixed economies do indeed provide relief to the circumstances outlined by sbichao (ill direct your attention to Sweden, providing exemplary standards of living for its citizens with progressive taxation and social policies. I'd much rather that than an interdependant model based on human selfishness.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
do you sign a contract when you go eat in a restaurant? do you really think the restaurant owner wouldnt try to kick your ass if you didnt pay the bill?? or a taxi driver, you think he wouldnt try to kick the crap out of you if you dont pay the fare?
its real easy to criticize the system, and come up with arguments to show its not good enough....but if you dont come up with a better solution those arguments wont change anything....they'll only serve the purpose of upsetting ppl.
sbichao 3 years ago
There is an implicit contract when you go into the restaurant. What you eat, you pay. And if you don't pay what you eat, well, I can see the restauranteur making you pay.
> they'll only serve the purpose of upsetting ppl.
As for that, the only one insecure and upset is you, here, because your mythology is being challenged. Too bad that despite the answers being RIGHT HERE IN YOUTUBE, you refuse to let them seep into your brain.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
oh...and furthermore...i didnt see that part of "what the rulers decided you should get"...
so you dont think you need an army, to defend your country?...or police to maintain order...can you even begin to imagine what it would be like if the police didnt exist?
if a little kid was given the freedom of eating chocolate and drink pop for breakfast, lunch and dinner he probably would....although thats what he wanted, doesnt mean that its what would be best for him...
sbichao 3 years ago
I don't think you need COUNTRIES, let alone an army. And order can be maintained through defense organizations, no need for police.
I don't know what you are trying to say with the other paragraph.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
"... OR one is presented a choice for a portfolio of good and bad and he weighs them to accept the portfolio." In this sense the government actions are the portfolio and many people find the benefits outweighing the cost.
The fundamental difference between a child abuse organization and the government - the latter is complex to analyze. Is having a big government better or worse - it's inconclusive.
edgedg 3 years ago
People don't like to take risks when they feel relatively good as they are. They will be hesitative when you want them to take a drastic decision. It should be a lot easier if you went against smaller parts of the government. There are no projects too big if you divide them.
edgedg 3 years ago
The point of that argument was merely to highlight that choosing "the least evil" is not true freedom. Get it now?
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
If I offer a dog to be beaten, you probably won't accept it, as it is moral evil. If I offer a disabled man being healed while a dog being beaten, you'll have to think about it. Many people will choose the latter deal and will not feel like they've chosen evil at all. Draw the parallels with the war and whatever people believe government does good to them.
edgedg 3 years ago
Correct. I do have to say, though, that beating a dog is not immoral. It is generally regardes as aesthetically unpleasant, but it's not a moral or immoral act because it does not involve two or more distinct self-aware rational individuals. For the record, I shot a cat once with a BB gun and I immediately understood that I had committed a terrible act.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
Many mentally challenged people are not rational as well. Would you find shooting them moral? Even more - it is as difficult to prove their self awareness as it is for cats or dogs.
That said, my point is still valid - the complexity of the government allows hiding bad acts among the good. Pointing out one bad act does not prove the government bad. You must weigh all the acts and propose better alternatives.
edgedg 3 years ago
You're doing it wrong. Humans, as a class, are self-aware and rational. There are notable exceptions (retarded people, people in coma, children) but they still have the potential to be moral individuals -- that is, individuals who understand the ramifications of their actions. So, to stay on the safe side and avoid pointless classificatory debates, we use humans as a CLASS, instead of adjudicating on a case-by-case basis.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
Where do you find the potential? Medicine research? Then I can use the same argument for the morality of dogs.
I'm very disappointed that you feel like we should draw some artificial line of potential rationality - say, all humans. Many people thought that only the white race is rational. The word "rational" is not objective in its definition.
edgedg 3 years ago
Stefbot, if taxation is theft, therefore property must also be theft. Both property and taxation are enforced regimes that restrict people. They serve different purposes, but both systems are meant to entitle .
Bellator656 3 years ago
Bellator656...
So you would argue that your body belonging to you is theft? Theft from who? Doesn't the word "theft" require property being owned by someone in the first place? Saying "property is theft" is a self-contradictory argument. You are validating property rights and invalidating them at the same time.
PhilosophyWatch 3 years ago
Now you misundestand me. I said that *if* taxation is theft, property must also be theft according to the same logic. Both property and taxes are artifical, manmade, state imposed regimes that essentially (coercively) restrict some people for the benefit of others. And no, there is no "natural" right to "owning" ones body. If the laws of society demand that you have positive responsibilities, like say, paying taxes or helping people in need, arguing that this is slavery is ridicolous.
Bellator656 3 years ago
No. Why?
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
Theft is by definition UNLAWFUL taking of another person's property without his or her consent. Notice that there is no mention of moral values, only law.
Bellator656 3 years ago
The point being made here is that there is nothing to define or enforce private ownership without the state. Privatising contract law is asinine, since it necessarily lacks a system to prevent monopoly, which leads to a complete lack of accountability to the people.
pagancornflake 2 years ago
No. I am familiar with Tucker's writings. He's mistaken.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
I have watched this repeatedly and shown it to others. Without a doubt, one of your best videos!
Sepero1 3 years ago
Thanks! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Another Excellent Vid....this should be featured on Youtube's Frontpage!
Bit of a devil's advocate type question for you here; Do you pay your taxes? You may have answered this in another vid...I am slowly getting round to watching them. Bear in mind you are competing with all the hot chick videos on here (only joking).
maddohartlepool 4 years ago
I sure do pay my taxes.
stefbot 4 years ago
You stumped me at first...I get it now; UNDER DURESS!
maddohartlepool 4 years ago
Great concetrated deathblow to statist arguments(or lack thereof).
5 Stars!
oo0terminus0oo 4 years ago
Sorry, but these arguments are very poor. I'm not even sure if you could call these arguements since it was more of a little conversation with yourself. And what the heck is with the idea of calling anyone who isn't a radical libertarian a statist?
brackguyTN 4 years ago
Calling an argument 'poor' is a very poor argument...
stefbot 4 years ago
I find your comment ironic. And that's all I have to say.
- A statist
brackguyTN 4 years ago
Obviously you're not too bright... the person posting this video is not the person IN the video. Secondly, anybody who supports a governing force or the monopoly of justice and law over another person condones coercion against that person. You are essentially advocating mass indefinite indentured servitude when you advocate a "social contract". Taxation is not voluntary because it required by governments. People, which precede governments, provide for such institutions, not the other way around.
Vertigopills 4 years ago
oops wait it is the same poster as the guy in the video... D'oh!
Vertigopills 4 years ago
everytime i watch a video such as this or make arguments such as the ones presented by stefbot, i am always disappointed to discover that no statist actually provides any refutations. why? because there are none.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago 3
Well I would say that that's a pretty poor straw man of a statist!!!
parispeter2 4 years ago
Overall, I like the debate that you have posed. I have on many occasions been in that similar debate and both ends were covered well. However, I was unable to sway the political supporter to reasons why they shouldn't vote and why you shouldn't pay taxes and support the system. How do you live under the system without supporting it? Do you become homeless?
manminusblood 4 years ago
Listen to my podcasts, there are wonderful ways to be free in the current system...
stefbot 4 years ago
Oh look, the caveman decided to 'grace' this with a response, no doubt equally stupid as all his other video responses.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
The caveman's reponse was entertaining but indeed it was as dum-witted as usual.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
I always want to comment on the caveman's page, because his views are so ridiculous, but alas I am blocked.
Questionablescum 4 years ago
Meh, I tried that a couple of times. Its crawling with closet fascists who applaud Immendham's every word.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
"you" ask all the questions hence direct the debate with this imaginary statist, hence you will always reach the logical conclusion you sought in the first place.
gratex 4 years ago
Read some Plato, I did not invent this technique. If you know of a statist who would like to debate, just send me a message...
stefbot 4 years ago
I know you didn't invent this technique but I assume you see the flaws in your usage of it, it follows from that assumption that you don't care about the flaws, which hints at a disdain for the intellect of your audience and a Machiavellian "means to and end" mindset. Good luck finding a volunteer to debate with you.
gratex 4 years ago
Flaws exist becuase gratex says so. (Implied)
Becauase flaws exist, and you do not placate a large audience you don't care.
I fail to see however how Machiavellian works even apply here.
He never refutes your logic, so by his, he does't care to debate with you.
Explitiv3 4 years ago 3
By implying that his logic was based on very narrow observations of reality I believe I did refute him, and hence I do not feel the need to debate any further.
gratex 4 years ago
bassless accusations do nothing to refute the basic premise that goverments corrupts society's. It's only your opinon your calling reasoning. Hence, your intellectually lazy, short-sighted, and close minded. Wasting time talking with you is like collecting pond scum for a high school biology lab, you never expect results but its fun to watch.
Explitiv3 4 years ago 2
Baseless accusations like the ones you've made in this comment?
*cough*
bye
gratex 4 years ago
His comments were not baseless, and you have no argument. 'Narrow observations of reality'?! Specifics. How do you justify the state?
lukeev 3 years ago
Did I say I did justify the state in any of this?
gratex 3 years ago
True, but why is his argument flawed? I still haven't seen any argument! You can't just say 'it's flawed' and it magically becomes so without explanation. That's how argument (or discussion) works.
lukeev 3 years ago
Have you ever played 1-player chess? I always win that game.
gratex 3 years ago
Congratulations.
lukeev 3 years ago
I don`t care if what poeple do is immoral. I want you to create a time-machine and show me if I like what I see in it. Since you don`t have a time-machine, every flaw I can find is valid and show how delusional you are.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
every flaw you find is valid? All that statment shows is how delusional you are. You might as well say, I'm right becuase i want to be. You would have to be if you think that the world will be any better with people like you not "caring" if what people in goverment do is immoral.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Hey, it was a joke Explitiv3..hehe
neutrinoide 4 years ago
It was a respond to gratex "GREAT" wisdom and "rationality".
neutrinoide 4 years ago
gratex: So essentially you still have no argument but you just kind of er... just assume there is one out there... somewhere! Wow. Specifics - which flaws? Oh that's right you don't know, but 'they're out there somewhere!'.
lukeev 3 years ago
Nice and even funny video! :)
But... You are placed in real (as bad & wrong as it gets) world Stef. In your discussions you don't take this into consideration. As I understand you, you would like to delete world rules and rewrite them. I find this problematic. There is no gradual evolution in this theory, so you are talking about revolution in all its glory (as bloody as it gets).
marjan15 4 years ago
Thanks - it is usually a good idea to ask thinkers what their solution is, rather than to just tell them - especially when you're wrong.
stefbot 4 years ago
What is your solution, Stef? Have you written a book or done a video on it? I kind of want to look into your books but I am poor and lazy...
TheT113 4 years ago 2
My last comment was directed to creole60 who said "Market anarchy equates segregation. Life is to short to attempt to reverse evolution."
takotheoktopus 4 ye