Hey Stefan, how did you come up with this 3.5 Trillion Canadian Debt figure? I just want to know what makes up that figure? Did you possibly make a calculation error? I just want to know the truth because as far as I know the actual debt is 1/3 of that 3.5 Trillion dollar figure. I am here for the truth and expect only the truth and not made up numbers. Please substantiate where you got these numbers from unless you made an error. Thanks!
Part 2: Unless you are buying in TO , Ottawa or Montreal ; then average
housing price of 175,000 in Canada is about right.
I would be more worried over long term issues ; like this debt number if true ; and more concerned if prices - housing and other goods TOO - start dropping... which means incomes start dropping and taxes going up... nasty.
Time to buy an island and give gov't the finger.
BTW Stefan how did you arrive at your numbers??? All rational people want to know. Thx!
Hmmm... his debts amounts are 3 times higher than what is reported by gov't - gov't stats - 1 trillion or s0.If what he says is correct ; about gov't backed mortgages; then it will be a mess ; in terms of bail outs for banks ; just like US.
Which means higher taxes & more fees at banks.
It would be interesting to known which banks have these exposures.
If the average family income is 50,000 ; then houses cost 350,000 - 7x income. This is not a true number.US ; is around 175,000 on average.
Stephan believes in what he says concerning intellectual property, all of his material is free, and if you feel like donating your free to do so, but not obliged to. In fact many software applications do it as well it's a free market solution to the state. I'm not saying it's the best only that it came about without coersion and does seem to benifit society and still have incentive for the individual to be productive.
I admire Stefan Molyneux, but I do disagree with his solution to Max's question of how to provide incentives to Wall street (last minutes of the clip) after the debacle we've witnessed. Stefan said we need to stop putting so much money into Wall Street. I think we should simply have the government stop bailing out anyone. By that I mean Wall Street firms who lost money should have gone bankrupt. We would now be on the road to recovery. Rewarding bad decisions insures their repetition.
@freethinker1943 nice dream, but our or "the system" is not geared up for real capitalism for the big boys. They write and influence the regulations for their own needs to prop up a giant ponsi sceam, that is sold to us as capitalism .... "the big boys are in a kind of socialism, while the normal workinf people take the full blows of capitalism in day to day life.
The more you shout for regulatins and Govts, the more your gonna get riped off at gun point the moment you disagree
@LastReplaySC it's allways the same game, Govt steals out of my pocket to give the big poys a soft landing, while they pay themselves fantastic bonuses, backed by law they wrote and lobbyed for. If I land hard and go broke, I'm left to be, while the Book get thrown at me, if I dissagree, the gun comes out! If they fail, they getbailouts and govt subventions, paid for by counterfeiting the currency of money yet to be earn 3 Generations on from me .... It's Coperatocracy going facist
@LastReplaySC the only way to feight them at their own game is to boycot the top 500, while buying shit local with local non govt run currencies.
We can all give a pice of paper some kind of Local value, indipendant from a state.
keep the wealth, the scills and the worktime/energy local, instead of diverting it over govts to global markets, while hoping it would miracously trickle back to you
i threw away my TV years ago, but was visiting my mum's a couple of days ago and saw this on russia today. i was amazed to see some truth coming out of that hypnosis box, great work max and stefan.
For credibility's sake, stefbot should do a retraction on this or find someone who can, there are waaaay too many inaccuracies to ignore. If this was the first time I saw Molyneux in action, I would have a hard time believing anything else he said.
@Galicia1981 Well for starters, we don't have sub prime mortgages in Canada, which basically blows his whole premise out of the water. We also treat real estate and lending differently here. Go through the thread, I already posted a few things, so did Clichyabarbes22, daviscali and a few others.
Maybe Stephan thinks that Max Keisers audience is a little bit retarded. Everything he says he repeats twice or even triples. I would rather he heart some more arguments and explanation. Stock markets are usually seen as the evidence of a free economy. Of course the government should stay out of that, but max audience are not jet all anarchists, so they need more arguments...
Hmm, I tought the mortgage industry in Canada didn't go all out cowboy. I've seen this statistic saying 5% of mortgages in Canada were subprime, as opposed to 25% in the US. That would make sense, IMO, as Bank of Canada doesn't hold the world's reserve currency, unlike the US's Fed so less leeway for cowboyish acrobacies.
Stefan, love your show, but isn't Russia Today owned by the Russian Government? I agree with a lot that you say and I'm the first person to be critical of the US government but doesn't it seem like that show is participating in statist-owned informational warfare against the US? Doesn't sit well with me having Russia piggy-back off of the freedom movement in order to weaken public opinion of the west. Max Keiser also hosts a show "On the Edge", owned by Iran.
@Clichyabarbes22 look at the way things actually are, and not what you've been told to believe in or wish them to be.... it's simple! SM just gets back to basics and calls things by their real name.
There are no real finacial experts, Stocks & dows is not a "Hard Science" like you and me we'rte tought through MSM and School. It's a soft science like .... psychology .... forget the maths, the volumes and the fake values
@LastReplaySC I understand u, but from a microeconomic point of view Canada's mortgage market is definitely healthier than most mth markets in the western world & this did not come out in the interview & SM seems to suggest that we're doing as poorly as the US which is not so. From a macro POV, the whole financial structure is unstable, a house of cards, & any sense of wellbeing that we may have is illusory as is our wealth & when the system collapses u'll find Canada in the rubble also.
I didn't know we had sub prime mortgages in Canada. I don't know of anyone who has a subprime mortgage. I 've subscribed to SM & he seems to make sense, but this report makes no sense at all. As far as securitization of our mortgages. It's a safe bet there's no junk or sub prime in them. The one good point he makes though is that our real estate is still too expensive. Worrisome & correct esp. compared to US prices, but then we're not overbuilt. Strange report.
No, really, Mises stopped short on several different points from the logical extremes of his ideas. So "Mises was not a Misessian" is not as silly a phrase as it seems at first glance.
Correction, what the Canadian Government's balance sheet would look like if ever was properly accounted for goes down proportionately. The accounts will of course never be accounted for by the same standards a private business would have to use.
1.He is up his own ass on patent protection. Intellectual property is property too you dumb fuck.
2.How he assumes that every single law is imposed by the state on the people, when in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community. (This excludes monstrosities like Obamacare and Social Security, which WERE imposed on the people.)
@fluff125 sure, it's property like everything else...but the thing is...just like every other type of property, it doesn't mean that u can't copy it. Ie. i can copy the design of your house for my own if i like yours...and same with ideas...i can copy one of your ideas if i like it (unless of course, we had some prior agreement that i wouldn't do so).
@atrickpay11 Ok, lets look at the result of the stripping away of patent protection. First of all, companies that spend billions of dollars on product research will no have no incentive to do so, after all why spend money developing something when your competitor can just get it for free by copying it from you?
Nobody will have any incentive to invent ANYthing. Why would anybody write a book if, the minute it was published it could be stolen and reprinted word for word by someone else?
@fluff125 Look back in history and see how things were done before intellectual property. Your arguments are all of a pedestrian level, please look at the anti-IP arguments before putting yours forward, which have been refuted again and again.
Copying research isn't quite as easy as you'd somehow like to think. Reverse engineering has a cost, as for books, that is the most retarded point you have made. People wrote books way before IP existed, please think through before speaking.
@ExquisiteDoom Things were invented before IP by guilds, wealthy people with free time, and religious zealots. Guilds were protected by the king/state, and most innovations were requested by the king in order to one-up his military rivals. The slow plodding advance of technology back then is nothing compared to the miraculous exponential growth of innovation today.
In the past it was insanely expensive to hand copy books, so only the rich could print them, this is not the case today.
@fluff125 Everything you have said i agree with, i fail to see how this has any relevancy insofar IP defense. All you have basically said is that before IP was known as such, it was being protected by the state under monarchic rule. There was still an IP. I think you are trying to link exponential growth to the fact that IP exists as opposed to a freer economy. It's very clear how IP could be used to crush competitors and has recurred consistently, see IMB, microsoft for example.
@fluff125 that is a separate issue of course from the notion that there is nothing inherent in the concept of property that states that it shouldn't be copied.
It is something for entrepreneurs to resolve. Patent protection is a monopoly. grant to a company. And competition in goods and services tends to always produce better results than monopoly. And I trust it will do the same thing here.
@fluff125 you have already been told here, repeatedly:
ARGUMENTS FROM CONSEQUENCE ARE INVALID.
A statement of the form "if property is does not cover ideas, then catastrophe X will result, therefore property covers ideas" IS AN ARGUMENT FROM CONSEQUENCE.
Property does NOT include ideas solely because you think a catastrophe will happen otherwise, just as gravity does not convert to 0m/s^2 just because your parachute did not open.
Is this clear enough for you, or are you going to continue?
@alique087 The effect of rescinding patent protection would be the complete and total stagnation of all of society. What you are doing is saying, "I don't believe in a state, and if we have patents we must have a state, therefore patents are bad."
You are drawing your conclusions out of your preconceived notions, and your failure to see the blindingly obvious shows how much of a brainwashed unintelligent drone you really are. As I said before, HEAD UP ASS
@fluff125 There are no laws that is agreed upon by every member of a community. If 70% of people in a small community agreed upon rules similar to most laws, they would still have to use force to superimpose it on the other 30%. Moreover, Laws are State creations and by definition, they are "State issued commands backed up by the threat of force". This is the definition we use in Philosophy of Law class. Judges and laws not did evolve separately from States.
@fluff125 Intellectual property isn't property; otherwise it would just be called "Property". You can't own the photons that shine out of your monitor or the concepts that are transferred between minds...
@fluff125 1. While intellectual property may be "property", what makes it legitimate property? If I pay you $1 for the moon is it mine? 2. Most laws are not voted on by the community. Most laws are not even known by the community and are unfavorable to consumers or those who would compete against established large businesses. Even if laws were the direct result of the majority and not a centralized state, why would this legitimize inevitable harm done to unwilling minorities?
@fluff125 "..in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community."
Please use your brain.
This is still one class of people imposing laws on another. The majority versus the minority and those who didn't vote. Except in the extremely rare case that 100% vote yes on something. If 1% vote to have you enslaved it's wrong. If 51% vote to have you enslaved it's wrong. If 99.9% vote to have you enslaved its STILL wrong.
@batmanthe A law against murder is "imposed", I guess, on that 1% of population that are murderers and don't agree with the law. I am saying that aside from a few federal laws and mandates, most laws are within the bounds of the Constitution, and thus are part the rule of law.
Most laws are pretty much agreed upon, coming from the general consensus of the people's morality and pragmaticism. I don't want to use the word "community" or else I sound like a socialist asshole.
No one is depriving you of your idea by copying it. That cannot be said of any other kind of property, where if I take your hammer I deprive you of your use of it.
.
I believe that without copyright/patent statutes, there would still be a demand for attribution, which can be solved with registries.
.
"I.P." does not promote invention, it rewards reproduction and sitting on ones laurels. Without "I.P." the incentive is shifted back to invention.
@fluff125 2) Even if you accept that "in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community," they are still imposed on those who never agreed. The monstrosities are just extreme cases of the same problem.
@KeepGoing11235 Yes, thank you, I understand the problem of democracy. That is why America was founded as a Republic, in order that the laws that are created are done so in a fixed framework so as not to jeopardize the potential violations to peoples fundamental rights.
For example, the government should not have the power to pick winners and losers in the market place.
@RuddODragonFear You no longer have the exclusive use of it. Whoever copied it without your permission has taken the exclusive use of it from you. If you have an idea that you can profit from, and someone else takes it and profits from it without your permission, they have stolen your idea.
@tesla921 Please answer -- if I imitate your idea X, can you still make use of X? Remember: property is *exclusive* in *nature*, so anything non-exclusive is not property, regardless of potential to profit.
"....an idea [...] and someone else takes it and profits from it without your permission, they have stolen your idea."
Wow there skippy, hold your horses. You can't take language ("steal") that alludes to property and use it to refer to something you have not demonstrated is property yet.
@RuddODragonFear If I come up with an original idea. Say, for instance, like Tesla when he came up with alternating current.(when the major physicists of the day said it couldn't be done) I can choose to disclose the idea or not to disclose it. ..It is my intellectual property. I own it because I built it in my mind and I have exclusive control of it. If I choose to disclose it, it does not give you license to take my idea (intellectual property) and profit from it without my permission.
@tesla921 Listen: before you make the claim that copying ideas is stealing, or that anybody needs your permission to copy an idea of yours, you have to make the case that an idea can be property. You have not done that -- all you did was say a bunch of things that *already assume* "ideas are property" is true.
And no, "I came up with the idea" is NOT sufficient reason to say "my idea is my property".
The definition that I think may be right is as follows.
Property is defined as... Your life and all non-procreative derivatives of your life.
Children are not your property but your life is and the tangible things you aquire are, so it seems logical to me that your original thoughts and ideas would be also.
Can you tell me how you define property and show me where I'm wrong?
@tesla921 I do not *define* property. I *discover* what the definition of property is, by looking at reality.
The concept of property arises, along with its associated rules, because resources are scarce, and therefore there needs to be a way to designate and arbitrate them that leads to no conflict. This is no different from the concept of mammals that arises when the need to group animals objectively arises too.
1. Robinson Crusoe has no need to come up with the concept of property because he is a lone man in an island. Thinking that "everything belongs to Robinson" is *vacuous* -- there is no need to make that distinction because there's nobody else in the island who could challenge that thought.
It is only when Friday appears, that the concept of "how are we going to decide who gets to use what?" (**property**) starts to be relevant and can be defined.
2. Let's travel to the magical "ThoughtExperimentLand". Here, every object is replicable by the mere thought or observation of the object. You want a lawnmower? Presto: just observe your neighbor's and the lawnmower you want magically materializes, leaving the original in your neighbor's yard.
In this land, there exists no need to resolve the question of "who gets to use what?" because whatever may be used can be used without conflict.
a) Whenever there is more than one person, humans need rules to decide peacefully who gets / uses things that they want, and to use force to stop those who break the rules.
b) Rules only makes sense IF there can be conflict about who gets to use what. If everybody already *has* or *can get* X without effort ("X is non-scarce / non-rivalrous", economists say), then the rules are moot because there CAN BE NO conflict over X.
In sum: we have a word to describe the collection of things to which these rules apply, and this word is "property". "Property" is, as you can see, defined by mere induction of traits in reality.
You wouldn't say "ducks are mammals" just because. You'd look at ducks and see if "mammal" *fits* a duck, *then* conclude that ducks are not mammals.
So, after inducing "property", deduce: your body and an apple fit "property"; your life (abstract) and an idea (intangible) DO NOT.
@tesla921 Now, to point the problems in your definition of "property".
1. It does not stem from actual observation of reality.
2. The implications of your definition are at odds with reality. E.g., you can't (literally) rent your life, but you *can* (literally) rent your body.
2. Formally, the conclusion (C) "so it seems logical to me that your original thoughts and ideas would be also." is not supported by the premise (P) "property is your life", even if we assume (P) true.
@tesla921 So, I hope I got you to see how your definition of property is not a literal / complete / accurate / true definition of property, and therefore cannot be used to make any deductions about what should be subject to the rules of property.
I like your definition. But it's of no use for deduction. The problem is that your definition is *metaphorical*. To deduce a valid conclusion, it has to be *literal*. I shared a literal definition with you -- I hope you share it with me too.
@RuddODragonFear I'm afraid that your explanation of your 'discovery' of property is a bit too copious for my diminutive comprehension.
You seem to be saying that in your definition of property, intangibles can't be property.
Are you saying that if I have the cure for cancer in my mind, it's not mine? I don't own it? Or is it that it's just not (by your definition) property?
Damn. And I took the time to make it simple, with no big words or complex concepts.
Anyway, yes, intangibles are fundamentally different from tangibles, to which the rules of property *do* apply, so they are not property. The cure for cancer is "yours" in the sense of the word that denotes "invention", but not in the sense of "you own it".
Moreover, if you were to apply the rules of property to intangibles, you'd end up with the DESTRUCTION of the rules of property. Lemme explain.
@tesla921 To enforce the rules of property on intangibles, you would have to butcher the property rights of use. For example, you'd have to prohibit people from singing a song in public, even though that is part of the property rights of use of your body. You'd have to prohibit people from using their computers for duplicating ideas, even though that is part of the property rights of use of your computer. And so on and so forth.
And that is indeed what has happened in society...
@tesla921 In sum, the rule of property that says "You can use your property in any way that does not violate other people's use of their property" is suddenly broken if you pretend that intangibles are property.
Moreover, it's a contradiction to apply property rules to intangibles.
I am now going to refer you to the work by Stephan Kinsella, called "Against Intellectual Property". In his book (freely available) he explains all of this in more detail. I hope you enjoy it.
@RuddODragonFear I have read Kinsella. He's a lawyer. Too many twists and turns. Hard for a typical Boobus like me to understand. However his friend, J. Tucker explained it like this.
Caruso gets the idea to pick berries and eat them. No problem until Friday shows up and starts to copy him. Caruso could claim IP rights but that would be wrong. We all live by watching and copying and emulating others. Problem solved.
More of a problem for innovators to disclose. But I get the point. Thanks.
@tesla921 Kinsella has some good ideas on how innovators can disclose their ideas without losing the potential money they could make, and without relying on intellectual monopolies. I liked that very much.
@RuddODragonFear Thanks for the info. I'd like to read about different ways to disclose. Ways to protect potential profits.
Hopefully you won't mind my asking but what are intellectual monopolies? I will hunt them up in Kinsella's book but are there other places that explain them?
Nice to converse with a fellow freedom lover. I'm an avid reader of LRC and STR . You too?
@tesla921 when people talk about copyrights, patents, trademarks, et cetera, they are talking about intellectual monopolies ("only one person gets to make / profit from X activity").
Of course, the name of the game is to control the language. So lawyers don't use this *correct* term -- nobody would agree to "protecting" monopolies -- so they pervert the language by calling them "intellectual property".
I think about it like this: I want the greatest abundance of human life possible in the universe. If we don't have intellectual property, we won't have inventions and furthermore the entire concept that a man owns the product of his own intellectual efforts will be short circuited. Society will stagnate. Therefore I am for intellectual property
I take my philosophy directly out of the bosom of natures laws, not bland, academic, ivory tower nonsense. Remember, for the philosopher, nature is king
"I think about it like this: I want the greatest abundance [...]"
Listen, dude. The concept of property is INDUCED FROM REALITY. This means what is or isn't property does not change on what you find convenient or laudable.
"If we don't have intellectual property, we won't have inventions"
You ALREADY DON'T HAVE intellectual property. You have LAWS, orders backed by actual threats and physical violence, that declare "ideas are property". That DOES NOT CONVERT ideas into property.
@fluff125 Now, you asked me to show you how you were wrong. I already defined property for you, and demonstrated how the VALID concept of property does NOT COVER IDEAS. If your reply to this polite, thoughtful response of mine is a bunch of insults, then you have demonstrated hostility to reality, to logic and to reasoned argument, and I have NOTHING else to say to you. Just like I don't try to teach math to an orangutan -- because it's FUTILE.
@RuddODragonFear If I invent a hovercraft in my backyard, and suddenly the next day GM starts pumping out millions of hovercrafts, that's fucking theft.
People will not engage in an activity unless they are rewarded for doing it. Nobody will invent anything if they do not have ownership over their creations.
Fuck your crazy theories, I draw my arguments directly from the laws of nature and the human spirit, not idealized overgeneralized nonsense like the concept of "nonviolence." Pure BS.
Oh no. Do people really think the Constitution was written to protect them still? & if they do, can't they see that it failed & why do they want to "go back" to it?
@LoverOfTruth2010 Govt. is a dynamic & diverse idea? If you break down the way they deal with any complex social issue to its skeletal outline, it involves employing more mafia minions & pointing more guns. How is "the solution" of expanding their violent monopoly diverse? There is diversity in the groups of people over the world that they brainwashed into believing that they are the superior moral entity that you need to put your trust & fork half your paycheck to or else. THINKING REVOLUTION!
@CurtHowland If by "institution" you mean idea than I could agree with you...(I think anarchists can be naive when attempting to abolish/abandon the govt. system, since govt. is merely an idea and ideas are eternal....it is like attempting to rewrite human nature...but anarchists simply view govt. as a human condition, which is not all together true)
@LoverOfTruth2010 "If by "institution" you mean idea than I could agree with you."
.
It's no less an institution than a library is, or the Kiwanis Club.
.
Maybe I could phrase it that "government" is the idea that initiation of force by "this group" is legitimate, while the initiation of force by "that group" is illegitimate.
.
Anarchy is when no one claims such a monopoly on legitimate coercion, coercion is always wrong.
@CurtHowland Right, and I would whole heartedly agree with you, however the practicality of anarchy is limited. The initiation of force is inevitable in any society, and therefore the world is divided so that we can have some semblance of peace. (Humanity has created a govt. with the right of force, to prevent another govt. right of force) - think early city states of Mesopotamia.
@LoverOfTruth2010 (Inorder for anarchy to fully work even temporarily, ALL governments must be abolished, not just a few. And still even in this system their would be little to no preventive measures against another government coming into fruition. (If their were such preventive measures they would not be adequate enough given the fact that they are attempting to stop a institution with a monopoly of force)
@LoverOfTruth2010 - And if the preventive measures were capable enough to defend the people from tyranny, they would have enough power to become the said tyranny.
Great idea of eliminating the incentives to funnel cash into the stock market. It's terrible what inflation forces us to do to maintain our purchasing power over time.
Seriously Stephan, it is inspiring how you are able to be succinct in explaining what for most of us are heady and complex concepts. I guess there is something to be said for analysis from principle. Keep the principle in mind, and the words become simple I suppose.
Canada was not hit so hard financially partly because of our immigration policies giving our government less leveraged bonds because we keep gaining future income taxes with children and immigrants. Canada has been engaging in this action since it became a corporation.
i have a beef with Stefan saying our government started borrowing against the future 30 years ago. that is simply not true. our government is a corporation and borrows against your future income as soon as you are registered at birth. all birth certificates and citizenship cards are evidence of a bond secured by our "government"to trade and borrow against. continued>>>>>>
@kimdaviscali Require that all borrowers meet the standards for a five-year fixed rate mortgage even if they choose a mortgage with a lower interest rate and shorter term.
Lower the maximum amount Canadians can withdraw in refinancing their mortgages to 90 per cent from 95 per cent of the value of their homes. This will help ensure home ownership is a more effective way to save.
Require a minimum down payment of 20 per cent for government-backed mortgage insurance
@kimdaviscali and the original US bailout consisted of Paulson threatening Congress with martial law to get $3/4 trillion to buy toxic assets. When he got that money, he turned around and basically gave it all to his buddies on Wall Street. And I won't even get in to that ridiculously light slap on the wrist that Goldman Sachs got today for yet another ripoff of the American public
You ALSO failed to mention the tighter lending practices that were just implemented a few months back making sure that someone who took an adjustable rate mortgage could afford the higher rate if it went up etc... there were huge changes made just a few months ago to ensure we don't use our homes as bank machines and you completely ignored mentioning of those (I guess you're realized only gloom and doom sells stuff eh)...
@kimdaviscali I usually get a kick out of some of stefbot's stuff (ie. history, culture, politics) but he really missed the boat on a few things here. The mortgages that the Canadian government bought during our bailout (which wasn't a bailout) were all low risk and up to date so, not only are we insuring ourselves by owning our own debt, we actually stand to MAKE money on the transaction providing there isn't a monumental collapse in the real estate market.
@Frankenpalin I suspect that, when interest rates return to a more realistic level, there's a correction coming in the real estate market especially here on the west coast . And if the bottom was going to drop out like it has in the US, we would have seen more evidence already. Personally I've got my eye on some fertile undeveloped land in the Thompson/Okanagan region, prices have been steadily dropping for a couple years now, albeit very slowly
@OntologicalQuandary Figure it out, shit for brains, they're not the same "subprime mortgages" that you idiots used to blow up your housing market, they have much more stringent loan requirements than the horseshit NINJA loans that you clowns pumped out, they're up to date and the foreclosure rate is negigible, bankruptcies are actually down here.
@egokick I'm questioning your English skills but I'll take a shot; the government owns the mortgage, if the mortgage stays up to date, it's an interest paying asset in nominal terms. Counterfeiting or letting the banks inflate the money supply through private debt is a whole other can of worms. And from what I understand, the banks took most of the money they got and went on a spending spree in the US, Brazil and Europe.
@OntologicalQuandary First, you can't get a sub prime mortgage in Canada. The Canadian gov't did buy some mortgages at the beginning of the credit meltdown, not bcuz it had to, but as a stopgap measure to ensure bank liquidity, which they never needed. Mortgages in Canada are insured by the gov't.
@Frankenpalin Might as well go to Vegas and play cards for the first time in your life and believe that you will beat the house without any luck. So yeah, good luck with making money forever on the state's Ponzi scheme.....
You chose to forget one thing, one of the reasons that the cost of a house can be up to 7 times income in markets like Vancouver is the HUGE amount of 'buy your visa" deals going on with Chinese coming and buying HUGE houses... cash. NON MORTGAGE/sub prime.. CASH which artificially raises home prices. That's not such a big deal in the US but here, in Vancouver it's PATHETIC but you didn't mention that little detail eh? tsk tsk, did you move to the USA, you're staring to sound main stream media?
Well its about time RT had on someone who knows the score.
And remember that the Peezident is your servant not your boss. People can sue the corporations through a Notary Public where they are the judge of the facts and write the sum deemed approriate to cure the injury by corporation XYZ.
While I regard Mr. Molyneux as highly intelligent, his adherence to the libertarian model of way less government has me as worried as a completely socialist government would. Without any government regulation and the large vacuume that it will leave will not be filled with free thinkers like you or Mr. Molyneux. It will be filled with large corporations that think nothing of cannablizing their own customers. Our government is a zombie run by corporations.
@Larkinchance If the goverment is a zombie run by corporations, then goverment regulation is not only useless, but it serves this multinational monsters.
true true. but thats why we had a constitution. if it were followed strictly, government would have very little power and coorporations wouldnt be able to do much, as even if they took over the entire constitutionally restrained govt they would have no power.
@tirmen8er "if it were followed strictly, government would have very little power"
.
If everyone smiled and were nice to each other, there wouldn't be any crime, either.
.
Expecting powerful people to "restrain themselves" is as ridiculous as expecting Tinkerbell to get well through clapping. As Lysander Spooner wrote when government was far, far smaller and less abusive then now,
.
"Either the Constitution authorized this abuse, or it was powerless to stop it."
ummm wow... I think I lost a bit of respect there... that tasted weird.... your first opening comment about Canada being a frozen wasteland of Socialism was a bit ummm PHUCKING insulting Stephan... as someone who moved home to Canada after living down south, it's also very insulting, if you don't like our frozen wasteland you're more than welcome to go south.
Wow... never thought I'd see this day.... I guess once you turn "big time" and start getting on the big shows, the American comes out.
Ending the government will end corporations which will end the buffer between reckless short term company decisions and personal responsibility for the consequences.
I think we should also develop free market credit reporting agencies that specialize in reputation ratings so people can be effectively ostracized worldwide if they take advantage of others.
"As long as we view the government as some semi paternal benevolent agency that is there to help and protect us, we're going to keep running to it for solutions".
Incentive;
Dic: "something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity".
My perception is that those who create incentive for others are in effect acting as a form of basic governance over people.
Any canadian embassy opening soon?
alifia23 1 year ago
Hey Stefan, how did you come up with this 3.5 Trillion Canadian Debt figure? I just want to know what makes up that figure? Did you possibly make a calculation error? I just want to know the truth because as far as I know the actual debt is 1/3 of that 3.5 Trillion dollar figure. I am here for the truth and expect only the truth and not made up numbers. Please substantiate where you got these numbers from unless you made an error. Thanks!
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
Part 2: Unless you are buying in TO , Ottawa or Montreal ; then average
housing price of 175,000 in Canada is about right.
I would be more worried over long term issues ; like this debt number if true ; and more concerned if prices - housing and other goods TOO - start dropping... which means incomes start dropping and taxes going up... nasty.
Time to buy an island and give gov't the finger.
BTW Stefan how did you arrive at your numbers??? All rational people want to know. Thx!
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
Hmmm... his debts amounts are 3 times higher than what is reported by gov't - gov't stats - 1 trillion or s0.If what he says is correct ; about gov't backed mortgages; then it will be a mess ; in terms of bail outs for banks ; just like US.
Which means higher taxes & more fees at banks.
It would be interesting to known which banks have these exposures.
If the average family income is 50,000 ; then houses cost 350,000 - 7x income. This is not a true number.US ; is around 175,000 on average.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
Double Bubble. The Stef n Max Show.
LukeCoulson 1 year ago
Double Bubble. The Stef n Max Show.
LukeCoulson 1 year ago
very well said stef. keep up the great work
Decon21 1 year ago
Stephan believes in what he says concerning intellectual property, all of his material is free, and if you feel like donating your free to do so, but not obliged to. In fact many software applications do it as well it's a free market solution to the state. I'm not saying it's the best only that it came about without coersion and does seem to benifit society and still have incentive for the individual to be productive.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
wow
russiantraitor 1 year ago
I admire Stefan Molyneux, but I do disagree with his solution to Max's question of how to provide incentives to Wall street (last minutes of the clip) after the debacle we've witnessed. Stefan said we need to stop putting so much money into Wall Street. I think we should simply have the government stop bailing out anyone. By that I mean Wall Street firms who lost money should have gone bankrupt. We would now be on the road to recovery. Rewarding bad decisions insures their repetition.
freethinker1943 1 year ago
@freethinker1943 nice dream, but our or "the system" is not geared up for real capitalism for the big boys. They write and influence the regulations for their own needs to prop up a giant ponsi sceam, that is sold to us as capitalism .... "the big boys are in a kind of socialism, while the normal workinf people take the full blows of capitalism in day to day life.
The more you shout for regulatins and Govts, the more your gonna get riped off at gun point the moment you disagree
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
@LastReplaySC it's allways the same game, Govt steals out of my pocket to give the big poys a soft landing, while they pay themselves fantastic bonuses, backed by law they wrote and lobbyed for. If I land hard and go broke, I'm left to be, while the Book get thrown at me, if I dissagree, the gun comes out! If they fail, they getbailouts and govt subventions, paid for by counterfeiting the currency of money yet to be earn 3 Generations on from me .... It's Coperatocracy going facist
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
@LastReplaySC the only way to feight them at their own game is to boycot the top 500, while buying shit local with local non govt run currencies.
We can all give a pice of paper some kind of Local value, indipendant from a state.
keep the wealth, the scills and the worktime/energy local, instead of diverting it over govts to global markets, while hoping it would miracously trickle back to you
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
Stefan RULES!!!! Go to his site and see all the content!! Mind expanding, forget about what they told you in school. lol, seriously.
ANd if you can, send him a few dollars.
Iseeyoursoul 1 year ago 2
i threw away my TV years ago, but was visiting my mum's a couple of days ago and saw this on russia today. i was amazed to see some truth coming out of that hypnosis box, great work max and stefan.
uranian23 1 year ago
@uranian23 Yes. This was probably the most condensed truth ever put on television.
qkholster 1 year ago
Dynamite!
boxant 1 year ago
For credibility's sake, stefbot should do a retraction on this or find someone who can, there are waaaay too many inaccuracies to ignore. If this was the first time I saw Molyneux in action, I would have a hard time believing anything else he said.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@Frankenpalin which inaccuracies are u talking about?
Galicia1981 1 year ago
@Galicia1981 Well for starters, we don't have sub prime mortgages in Canada, which basically blows his whole premise out of the water. We also treat real estate and lending differently here. Go through the thread, I already posted a few things, so did Clichyabarbes22, daviscali and a few others.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
Maybe Stephan thinks that Max Keisers audience is a little bit retarded. Everything he says he repeats twice or even triples. I would rather he heart some more arguments and explanation. Stock markets are usually seen as the evidence of a free economy. Of course the government should stay out of that, but max audience are not jet all anarchists, so they need more arguments...
alalelalex 1 year ago
holy hell, I didn't know you went on Max Keiser. Kick ass!
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Mr. honest verbal adroitness himself Stefan Molyneux!
Very well done Stef and Max! I think this is significant near major good exposure for FDR!
RichardDeziel 1 year ago
Anyways, awesome interview Stef!
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
Hmm, I tought the mortgage industry in Canada didn't go all out cowboy. I've seen this statistic saying 5% of mortgages in Canada were subprime, as opposed to 25% in the US. That would make sense, IMO, as Bank of Canada doesn't hold the world's reserve currency, unlike the US's Fed so less leeway for cowboyish acrobacies.
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
Excellent video Stefan!
order9066 1 year ago
I wish you were one of my teachers at the university
ManoharChannel 1 year ago
Great interview Stefan...almost made me forget you're from Canada :) Keep up the good work!
oevzA1oL 1 year ago
Glad to see you getting this kind of exposure!
landofthefreemyass 1 year ago
is this big? is this mainstream media ???
erdal0 1 year ago
Stefan IS THE man very good
fisherman1955 1 year ago
Stephan is the forceps of my brain.
blackphonetic1 1 year ago
Keiser actually has ancap on his show? I might start to watch im again...
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
141 likes, 1 dislike :D
CyModernWorldHistory 1 year ago
Stef was so clear, concise, and convincing that Max couldn't even muster up some of his socialist crazy-pants rhetoric.
ignostic1 1 year ago 4
Stefan, love your show, but isn't Russia Today owned by the Russian Government? I agree with a lot that you say and I'm the first person to be critical of the US government but doesn't it seem like that show is participating in statist-owned informational warfare against the US? Doesn't sit well with me having Russia piggy-back off of the freedom movement in order to weaken public opinion of the west. Max Keiser also hosts a show "On the Edge", owned by Iran.
chadyo99 1 year ago
Stefan Molyneux is very articulate,,,
rich232399 1 year ago 25
Zero down 35-40 year mortgages were available and backed by Canada ' s Housing and Mortgage Corporation for about 2 years I recall.
But liar loans were never the norm. Damage, yes, mortal, no.
Great to see Steph here.
CheekyMonkey888 1 year ago
Great to see Stef getting in front of a wider audience :-)
nanciqwerty 1 year ago
I made a comment and they are not showing up...
alique087 1 year ago
I thin SM is getting in slightly over his head when he posits himself as a financial expert. It's an ill fitting shoe.
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
@Clichyabarbes22 look at the way things actually are, and not what you've been told to believe in or wish them to be.... it's simple! SM just gets back to basics and calls things by their real name.
There are no real finacial experts, Stocks & dows is not a "Hard Science" like you and me we'rte tought through MSM and School. It's a soft science like .... psychology .... forget the maths, the volumes and the fake values
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
@LastReplaySC I understand u, but from a microeconomic point of view Canada's mortgage market is definitely healthier than most mth markets in the western world & this did not come out in the interview & SM seems to suggest that we're doing as poorly as the US which is not so. From a macro POV, the whole financial structure is unstable, a house of cards, & any sense of wellbeing that we may have is illusory as is our wealth & when the system collapses u'll find Canada in the rubble also.
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
Comment removed
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
You can get Mortgage backed securities in Canada but the issuers are not banks but rather a gov't mortgage agency - NHA (National Housing Assoc).
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
I didn't know we had sub prime mortgages in Canada. I don't know of anyone who has a subprime mortgage. I 've subscribed to SM & he seems to make sense, but this report makes no sense at all. As far as securitization of our mortgages. It's a safe bet there's no junk or sub prime in them. The one good point he makes though is that our real estate is still too expensive. Worrisome & correct esp. compared to US prices, but then we're not overbuilt. Strange report.
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
Thank you max keiser, and thank you Stefan for so persisently telling the truth
fergus247 1 year ago
Gold has intrinsic value? Mises disagrees.
darklord220 1 year ago
@darklord220 Mises was not a Misessian.
.
No, really, Mises stopped short on several different points from the logical extremes of his ideas. So "Mises was not a Misessian" is not as silly a phrase as it seems at first glance.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Correction, what the Canadian Government's balance sheet would look like if ever was properly accounted for goes down proportionately. The accounts will of course never be accounted for by the same standards a private business would have to use.
newperve 1 year ago
haha, stef on RT. I get this channel with my cable package.
atrickpay11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like Stephan, except for two things,
1.He is up his own ass on patent protection. Intellectual property is property too you dumb fuck.
2.How he assumes that every single law is imposed by the state on the people, when in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community. (This excludes monstrosities like Obamacare and Social Security, which WERE imposed on the people.)
Other than that, you do all right Molyneux.
fluff125 1 year ago 32
@fluff125 sure, it's property like everything else...but the thing is...just like every other type of property, it doesn't mean that u can't copy it. Ie. i can copy the design of your house for my own if i like yours...and same with ideas...i can copy one of your ideas if i like it (unless of course, we had some prior agreement that i wouldn't do so).
atrickpay11 1 year ago 3
@atrickpay11 Ok, lets look at the result of the stripping away of patent protection. First of all, companies that spend billions of dollars on product research will no have no incentive to do so, after all why spend money developing something when your competitor can just get it for free by copying it from you?
Nobody will have any incentive to invent ANYthing. Why would anybody write a book if, the minute it was published it could be stolen and reprinted word for word by someone else?
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 Look back in history and see how things were done before intellectual property. Your arguments are all of a pedestrian level, please look at the anti-IP arguments before putting yours forward, which have been refuted again and again.
Copying research isn't quite as easy as you'd somehow like to think. Reverse engineering has a cost, as for books, that is the most retarded point you have made. People wrote books way before IP existed, please think through before speaking.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom Things were invented before IP by guilds, wealthy people with free time, and religious zealots. Guilds were protected by the king/state, and most innovations were requested by the king in order to one-up his military rivals. The slow plodding advance of technology back then is nothing compared to the miraculous exponential growth of innovation today.
In the past it was insanely expensive to hand copy books, so only the rich could print them, this is not the case today.
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 Everything you have said i agree with, i fail to see how this has any relevancy insofar IP defense. All you have basically said is that before IP was known as such, it was being protected by the state under monarchic rule. There was still an IP. I think you are trying to link exponential growth to the fact that IP exists as opposed to a freer economy. It's very clear how IP could be used to crush competitors and has recurred consistently, see IMB, microsoft for example.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom IBM*
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@fluff125 that is a separate issue of course from the notion that there is nothing inherent in the concept of property that states that it shouldn't be copied.
It is something for entrepreneurs to resolve. Patent protection is a monopoly. grant to a company. And competition in goods and services tends to always produce better results than monopoly. And I trust it will do the same thing here.
atrickpay11 1 year ago
@fluff125 you have already been told here, repeatedly:
ARGUMENTS FROM CONSEQUENCE ARE INVALID.
A statement of the form "if property is does not cover ideas, then catastrophe X will result, therefore property covers ideas" IS AN ARGUMENT FROM CONSEQUENCE.
Property does NOT include ideas solely because you think a catastrophe will happen otherwise, just as gravity does not convert to 0m/s^2 just because your parachute did not open.
Is this clear enough for you, or are you going to continue?
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@fluff125 Intellectual property does not exist.
alique087 1 year ago 4
@alique087 The effect of rescinding patent protection would be the complete and total stagnation of all of society. What you are doing is saying, "I don't believe in a state, and if we have patents we must have a state, therefore patents are bad."
You are drawing your conclusions out of your preconceived notions, and your failure to see the blindingly obvious shows how much of a brainwashed unintelligent drone you really are. As I said before, HEAD UP ASS
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 You answered to the wrong person? I never mentioned patents.
alique087 1 year ago
@fluff125 do you not notice that you've insulted pretty much everywhere who has interacted with you?
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
Comment removed
alique087 1 year ago
Comment removed
alique087 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fluff125 There are no laws that is agreed upon by every member of a community. If 70% of people in a small community agreed upon rules similar to most laws, they would still have to use force to superimpose it on the other 30%. Moreover, Laws are State creations and by definition, they are "State issued commands backed up by the threat of force". This is the definition we use in Philosophy of Law class. Judges and laws not did evolve separately from States.
alique087 1 year ago
Comment removed
zuiprax 1 year ago
@zuiprax Thank you for pointing out fluff125's blatant contradictory mess of an argument.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
@nocturnalc yw, but I removed the comment because I have better things to do than responding to aggressive trolls
zuiprax 1 year ago
@fluff125 Any chance you could be more polite in your disagreements? Also, spell his name right if you are going to call him out on inaccuracies.
chris3443 1 year ago
@fluff125 intellectual property is oxmymoron and not a property at all. It's always a privilege granted by the state. No state - no IP.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@fluff125 Intellectual property isn't property; otherwise it would just be called "Property". You can't own the photons that shine out of your monitor or the concepts that are transferred between minds...
chitchcott 1 year ago
@fluff125 1. While intellectual property may be "property", what makes it legitimate property? If I pay you $1 for the moon is it mine? 2. Most laws are not voted on by the community. Most laws are not even known by the community and are unfavorable to consumers or those who would compete against established large businesses. Even if laws were the direct result of the majority and not a centralized state, why would this legitimize inevitable harm done to unwilling minorities?
hasatum 1 year ago
@fluff125 "..in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community."
Please use your brain.
This is still one class of people imposing laws on another. The majority versus the minority and those who didn't vote. Except in the extremely rare case that 100% vote yes on something. If 1% vote to have you enslaved it's wrong. If 51% vote to have you enslaved it's wrong. If 99.9% vote to have you enslaved its STILL wrong.
batmanthe 1 year ago
@batmanthe A law against murder is "imposed", I guess, on that 1% of population that are murderers and don't agree with the law. I am saying that aside from a few federal laws and mandates, most laws are within the bounds of the Constitution, and thus are part the rule of law.
Most laws are pretty much agreed upon, coming from the general consensus of the people's morality and pragmaticism. I don't want to use the word "community" or else I sound like a socialist asshole.
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 "Intellectual property is property too"
.
No one is depriving you of your idea by copying it. That cannot be said of any other kind of property, where if I take your hammer I deprive you of your use of it.
.
I believe that without copyright/patent statutes, there would still be a demand for attribution, which can be solved with registries.
.
"I.P." does not promote invention, it rewards reproduction and sitting on ones laurels. Without "I.P." the incentive is shifted back to invention.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@fluff125 Just because two wolves decide the lamb is for dinner does not make that "law" just or a good society make.
stratvic 1 year ago
@fluff125 Intellectual property is only your property until you sell it. You. Dumb. Fuck. I bet you work for the RIAA.
blue46gt 1 year ago
@fluff125 2) Even if you accept that "in most cases laws are voted on and generally agreed upon by members of the community," they are still imposed on those who never agreed. The monstrosities are just extreme cases of the same problem.
KeepGoing11235 1 year ago
@KeepGoing11235 Yes, thank you, I understand the problem of democracy. That is why America was founded as a Republic, in order that the laws that are created are done so in a fixed framework so as not to jeopardize the potential violations to peoples fundamental rights.
For example, the government should not have the power to pick winners and losers in the market place.
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 "Intellectual property is property too you dumb fuck."
Really? So if I copy an idea of yours, you suddenly do not have it anymore?
Cuz that's the distinguishing feature of property, you know.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear You no longer have the exclusive use of it. Whoever copied it without your permission has taken the exclusive use of it from you. If you have an idea that you can profit from, and someone else takes it and profits from it without your permission, they have stolen your idea.
tesla921 1 year ago
@tesla921 Please answer -- if I imitate your idea X, can you still make use of X? Remember: property is *exclusive* in *nature*, so anything non-exclusive is not property, regardless of potential to profit.
"....an idea [...] and someone else takes it and profits from it without your permission, they have stolen your idea."
Wow there skippy, hold your horses. You can't take language ("steal") that alludes to property and use it to refer to something you have not demonstrated is property yet.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear If I come up with an original idea. Say, for instance, like Tesla when he came up with alternating current.(when the major physicists of the day said it couldn't be done) I can choose to disclose the idea or not to disclose it. ..It is my intellectual property. I own it because I built it in my mind and I have exclusive control of it. If I choose to disclose it, it does not give you license to take my idea (intellectual property) and profit from it without my permission.
tesla921 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tesla921 Dude, is this how it's going to be? Me asking questions and you evading answering? Answer already!
".It is my intellectual property. I own it."
We already know you believe that You need to explain *why* you believe that.
"If I choose to disclose it, it does not give you license to take my idea (intellectual property) and profit from it without my permission. ?"
I would agree with that, if you had proven that ideas are property.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 Listen: before you make the claim that copying ideas is stealing, or that anybody needs your permission to copy an idea of yours, you have to make the case that an idea can be property. You have not done that -- all you did was say a bunch of things that *already assume* "ideas are property" is true.
And no, "I came up with the idea" is NOT sufficient reason to say "my idea is my property".
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear Okay, How do you define property?
The definition that I think may be right is as follows.
Property is defined as... Your life and all non-procreative derivatives of your life.
Children are not your property but your life is and the tangible things you aquire are, so it seems logical to me that your original thoughts and ideas would be also.
Can you tell me how you define property and show me where I'm wrong?
tesla921 1 year ago
@tesla921 I do not *define* property. I *discover* what the definition of property is, by looking at reality.
The concept of property arises, along with its associated rules, because resources are scarce, and therefore there needs to be a way to designate and arbitrate them that leads to no conflict. This is no different from the concept of mammals that arises when the need to group animals objectively arises too.
Let me explain with examples...
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921
1. Robinson Crusoe has no need to come up with the concept of property because he is a lone man in an island. Thinking that "everything belongs to Robinson" is *vacuous* -- there is no need to make that distinction because there's nobody else in the island who could challenge that thought.
It is only when Friday appears, that the concept of "how are we going to decide who gets to use what?" (**property**) starts to be relevant and can be defined.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921
2. Let's travel to the magical "ThoughtExperimentLand". Here, every object is replicable by the mere thought or observation of the object. You want a lawnmower? Presto: just observe your neighbor's and the lawnmower you want magically materializes, leaving the original in your neighbor's yard.
In this land, there exists no need to resolve the question of "who gets to use what?" because whatever may be used can be used without conflict.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 ERGO:
a) Whenever there is more than one person, humans need rules to decide peacefully who gets / uses things that they want, and to use force to stop those who break the rules.
b) Rules only makes sense IF there can be conflict about who gets to use what. If everybody already *has* or *can get* X without effort ("X is non-scarce / non-rivalrous", economists say), then the rules are moot because there CAN BE NO conflict over X.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921
In sum: we have a word to describe the collection of things to which these rules apply, and this word is "property". "Property" is, as you can see, defined by mere induction of traits in reality.
You wouldn't say "ducks are mammals" just because. You'd look at ducks and see if "mammal" *fits* a duck, *then* conclude that ducks are not mammals.
So, after inducing "property", deduce: your body and an apple fit "property"; your life (abstract) and an idea (intangible) DO NOT.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 Now, to point the problems in your definition of "property".
1. It does not stem from actual observation of reality.
2. The implications of your definition are at odds with reality. E.g., you can't (literally) rent your life, but you *can* (literally) rent your body.
2. Formally, the conclusion (C) "so it seems logical to me that your original thoughts and ideas would be also." is not supported by the premise (P) "property is your life", even if we assume (P) true.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 So, I hope I got you to see how your definition of property is not a literal / complete / accurate / true definition of property, and therefore cannot be used to make any deductions about what should be subject to the rules of property.
I like your definition. But it's of no use for deduction. The problem is that your definition is *metaphorical*. To deduce a valid conclusion, it has to be *literal*. I shared a literal definition with you -- I hope you share it with me too.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear I'm afraid that your explanation of your 'discovery' of property is a bit too copious for my diminutive comprehension.
You seem to be saying that in your definition of property, intangibles can't be property.
Are you saying that if I have the cure for cancer in my mind, it's not mine? I don't own it? Or is it that it's just not (by your definition) property?
If it's not property, what would you call it?
Thanks for your effort.
tesla921 1 year ago
@tesla921
Damn. And I took the time to make it simple, with no big words or complex concepts.
Anyway, yes, intangibles are fundamentally different from tangibles, to which the rules of property *do* apply, so they are not property. The cure for cancer is "yours" in the sense of the word that denotes "invention", but not in the sense of "you own it".
Moreover, if you were to apply the rules of property to intangibles, you'd end up with the DESTRUCTION of the rules of property. Lemme explain.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 To enforce the rules of property on intangibles, you would have to butcher the property rights of use. For example, you'd have to prohibit people from singing a song in public, even though that is part of the property rights of use of your body. You'd have to prohibit people from using their computers for duplicating ideas, even though that is part of the property rights of use of your computer. And so on and so forth.
And that is indeed what has happened in society...
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@tesla921 In sum, the rule of property that says "You can use your property in any way that does not violate other people's use of their property" is suddenly broken if you pretend that intangibles are property.
Moreover, it's a contradiction to apply property rules to intangibles.
I am now going to refer you to the work by Stephan Kinsella, called "Against Intellectual Property". In his book (freely available) he explains all of this in more detail. I hope you enjoy it.
Bye!
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear I have read Kinsella. He's a lawyer. Too many twists and turns. Hard for a typical Boobus like me to understand. However his friend, J. Tucker explained it like this.
Caruso gets the idea to pick berries and eat them. No problem until Friday shows up and starts to copy him. Caruso could claim IP rights but that would be wrong. We all live by watching and copying and emulating others. Problem solved.
More of a problem for innovators to disclose. But I get the point. Thanks.
tesla921 1 year ago
@tesla921 Kinsella has some good ideas on how innovators can disclose their ideas without losing the potential money they could make, and without relying on intellectual monopolies. I liked that very much.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear Thanks for the info. I'd like to read about different ways to disclose. Ways to protect potential profits.
Hopefully you won't mind my asking but what are intellectual monopolies? I will hunt them up in Kinsella's book but are there other places that explain them?
Nice to converse with a fellow freedom lover. I'm an avid reader of LRC and STR . You too?
tesla921 1 year ago
@tesla921 when people talk about copyrights, patents, trademarks, et cetera, they are talking about intellectual monopolies ("only one person gets to make / profit from X activity").
Of course, the name of the game is to control the language. So lawyers don't use this *correct* term -- nobody would agree to "protecting" monopolies -- so they pervert the language by calling them "intellectual property".
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
I think about it like this: I want the greatest abundance of human life possible in the universe. If we don't have intellectual property, we won't have inventions and furthermore the entire concept that a man owns the product of his own intellectual efforts will be short circuited. Society will stagnate. Therefore I am for intellectual property
I take my philosophy directly out of the bosom of natures laws, not bland, academic, ivory tower nonsense. Remember, for the philosopher, nature is king
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125
"I think about it like this: I want the greatest abundance [...]"
Listen, dude. The concept of property is INDUCED FROM REALITY. This means what is or isn't property does not change on what you find convenient or laudable.
"If we don't have intellectual property, we won't have inventions"
You ALREADY DON'T HAVE intellectual property. You have LAWS, orders backed by actual threats and physical violence, that declare "ideas are property". That DOES NOT CONVERT ideas into property.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@fluff125 Now, you asked me to show you how you were wrong. I already defined property for you, and demonstrated how the VALID concept of property does NOT COVER IDEAS. If your reply to this polite, thoughtful response of mine is a bunch of insults, then you have demonstrated hostility to reality, to logic and to reasoned argument, and I have NOTHING else to say to you. Just like I don't try to teach math to an orangutan -- because it's FUTILE.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
@RuddODragonFear If I invent a hovercraft in my backyard, and suddenly the next day GM starts pumping out millions of hovercrafts, that's fucking theft.
People will not engage in an activity unless they are rewarded for doing it. Nobody will invent anything if they do not have ownership over their creations.
Fuck your crazy theories, I draw my arguments directly from the laws of nature and the human spirit, not idealized overgeneralized nonsense like the concept of "nonviolence." Pure BS.
fluff125 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fluff125 "suddenly the next day GM starts pumping out millions of hovercrafts, that's fucking theft."
No, it isn't, you have not demonstrated it, and insults do not help you make a case either.
"Nobody will invent anything if they do not have ownership over their creations."
If that were true, you would not have, uh, I dunno, THE WHEEL. Naturally and fortunately, that belief of yours is "BS", as you like to say.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
Why does this guy sound like Norm MacDonald. lol I keep thinking this is an SNL skit.
but glad to see and hear Stef laying it down.
Nexus2Eden 1 year ago
ah and so the hegelian dialectic continues...only now with libertarians and anarchists in opposition
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
Nice job guys!! keep up the good work!! thanks so much for posting and enlightening us folks.
lindabebe835 1 year ago
Anarchist on TV? I see a bright future for the world :D
truevoice08 1 year ago 4
@truevoice08 anarchists are on TV all the time.. but only the violent onces :P
fergus247 1 year ago
Oh no. Do people really think the Constitution was written to protect them still? & if they do, can't they see that it failed & why do they want to "go back" to it?
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago 3
Govt. is not a singular entity, but a dynamic and diverese idea...
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
@LoverOfTruth2010 Govt. is a dynamic & diverse idea? If you break down the way they deal with any complex social issue to its skeletal outline, it involves employing more mafia minions & pointing more guns. How is "the solution" of expanding their violent monopoly diverse? There is diversity in the groups of people over the world that they brainwashed into believing that they are the superior moral entity that you need to put your trust & fork half your paycheck to or else. THINKING REVOLUTION!
nocturnalc 1 year ago 2
@LoverOfTruth2010 "Government" is merely the institution with the monopoly on legitimate initiation of force.
.
It is indeed enacted in dynamic and diverse ways, but the institution remains what it is.
.
But if it is wrong for me to initiate force against another, how did I "delegate" that power to government?
.
Thus the conclusion that government is an external imposition, and can be abolished.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland If by "institution" you mean idea than I could agree with you...(I think anarchists can be naive when attempting to abolish/abandon the govt. system, since govt. is merely an idea and ideas are eternal....it is like attempting to rewrite human nature...but anarchists simply view govt. as a human condition, which is not all together true)
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
@LoverOfTruth2010 "If by "institution" you mean idea than I could agree with you."
.
It's no less an institution than a library is, or the Kiwanis Club.
.
Maybe I could phrase it that "government" is the idea that initiation of force by "this group" is legitimate, while the initiation of force by "that group" is illegitimate.
.
Anarchy is when no one claims such a monopoly on legitimate coercion, coercion is always wrong.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Right, and I would whole heartedly agree with you, however the practicality of anarchy is limited. The initiation of force is inevitable in any society, and therefore the world is divided so that we can have some semblance of peace. (Humanity has created a govt. with the right of force, to prevent another govt. right of force) - think early city states of Mesopotamia.
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
@LoverOfTruth2010 (Inorder for anarchy to fully work even temporarily, ALL governments must be abolished, not just a few. And still even in this system their would be little to no preventive measures against another government coming into fruition. (If their were such preventive measures they would not be adequate enough given the fact that they are attempting to stop a institution with a monopoly of force)
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
@LoverOfTruth2010 - And if the preventive measures were capable enough to defend the people from tyranny, they would have enough power to become the said tyranny.
LoverOfTruth2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoverOfTruth2010 "think early city states of Mesopotamia."
.
I think city states and otherwise "independent" regions inbetween are an excellent idea, actually.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Great idea of eliminating the incentives to funnel cash into the stock market. It's terrible what inflation forces us to do to maintain our purchasing power over time.
AndyMH182 1 year ago
Seriously Stephan, it is inspiring how you are able to be succinct in explaining what for most of us are heady and complex concepts. I guess there is something to be said for analysis from principle. Keep the principle in mind, and the words become simple I suppose.
Panpiper 1 year ago 29
@Panpiper "Keep the principle in mind, and the words become simple I suppose."
.
Indeed, I think you are correct about that.
,
Except, of course, that for Stef the words come both easy, and fast. He's a perfect example of the division of labor, he's doing what he's best at!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
You were really good at summing up your arguments in this.
bjarczyk 1 year ago 2
Good arguments, Stefan. Much more Anarchism than Libertarianism in there -- keep it up!
elimisteve 1 year ago 2
Canada was not hit so hard financially partly because of our immigration policies giving our government less leveraged bonds because we keep gaining future income taxes with children and immigrants. Canada has been engaging in this action since it became a corporation.
ElementCabinet 1 year ago
Great interview on both sides!
FranG1214 1 year ago
Now if only Stef could get on CNN, somehow...
Sivels 1 year ago
i have a beef with Stefan saying our government started borrowing against the future 30 years ago. that is simply not true. our government is a corporation and borrows against your future income as soon as you are registered at birth. all birth certificates and citizenship cards are evidence of a bond secured by our "government"to trade and borrow against. continued>>>>>>
ElementCabinet 1 year ago 3
There's no such thing as intrinsic value.
alique087 1 year ago
Excellent interview! Well done, Stef!
caltrop69 1 year ago
GREAT INTERVIEW!!
ronpaulspanish 1 year ago
Google "Government of Canada Takes Action to Strengthen Housing Financing" to find out about the info that Stefan DIDN'T tell you....
kimdaviscali 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali Require that all borrowers meet the standards for a five-year fixed rate mortgage even if they choose a mortgage with a lower interest rate and shorter term.
Lower the maximum amount Canadians can withdraw in refinancing their mortgages to 90 per cent from 95 per cent of the value of their homes. This will help ensure home ownership is a more effective way to save.
Require a minimum down payment of 20 per cent for government-backed mortgage insurance
kimdaviscali 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali and the original US bailout consisted of Paulson threatening Congress with martial law to get $3/4 trillion to buy toxic assets. When he got that money, he turned around and basically gave it all to his buddies on Wall Street. And I won't even get in to that ridiculously light slap on the wrist that Goldman Sachs got today for yet another ripoff of the American public
Frankenpalin 1 year ago 2
nice
chinzzzy 1 year ago
You ALSO failed to mention the tighter lending practices that were just implemented a few months back making sure that someone who took an adjustable rate mortgage could afford the higher rate if it went up etc... there were huge changes made just a few months ago to ensure we don't use our homes as bank machines and you completely ignored mentioning of those (I guess you're realized only gloom and doom sells stuff eh)...
kimdaviscali 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali I usually get a kick out of some of stefbot's stuff (ie. history, culture, politics) but he really missed the boat on a few things here. The mortgages that the Canadian government bought during our bailout (which wasn't a bailout) were all low risk and up to date so, not only are we insuring ourselves by owning our own debt, we actually stand to MAKE money on the transaction providing there isn't a monumental collapse in the real estate market.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@Frankenpalin I suspect that, when interest rates return to a more realistic level, there's a correction coming in the real estate market especially here on the west coast . And if the bottom was going to drop out like it has in the US, we would have seen more evidence already. Personally I've got my eye on some fertile undeveloped land in the Thompson/Okanagan region, prices have been steadily dropping for a couple years now, albeit very slowly
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@Frankenpalin
rofl you are some kind of weirdo (probably just canadian) to think you can generate wealth by having your govt buy subprime mortgages
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago
@OntologicalQuandary Figure it out, shit for brains, they're not the same "subprime mortgages" that you idiots used to blow up your housing market, they have much more stringent loan requirements than the horseshit NINJA loans that you clowns pumped out, they're up to date and the foreclosure rate is negigible, bankruptcies are actually down here.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@Frankenpalin dem loans, dem counter fitting + dem stringent requirements + magic = wealth ?
even my doggy is questioning your math skillz.
egokick 1 year ago
@egokick I'm questioning your English skills but I'll take a shot; the government owns the mortgage, if the mortgage stays up to date, it's an interest paying asset in nominal terms. Counterfeiting or letting the banks inflate the money supply through private debt is a whole other can of worms. And from what I understand, the banks took most of the money they got and went on a spending spree in the US, Brazil and Europe.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@OntologicalQuandary First, you can't get a sub prime mortgage in Canada. The Canadian gov't did buy some mortgages at the beginning of the credit meltdown, not bcuz it had to, but as a stopgap measure to ensure bank liquidity, which they never needed. Mortgages in Canada are insured by the gov't.
Clichyabarbes22 1 year ago
@Frankenpalin Might as well go to Vegas and play cards for the first time in your life and believe that you will beat the house without any luck. So yeah, good luck with making money forever on the state's Ponzi scheme.....
nocturnalc 1 year ago 2
@nocturnalc what a garbled nebulous response, try making sense next time.
Frankenpalin 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali Simply get government out of all lending and borrowing, and banks will make good decisions or go out of business.
.
Isn't that simpler than law, after law, after law, bailout after bailout, trying to "fix" what government broke in the first place?
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
You chose to forget one thing, one of the reasons that the cost of a house can be up to 7 times income in markets like Vancouver is the HUGE amount of 'buy your visa" deals going on with Chinese coming and buying HUGE houses... cash. NON MORTGAGE/sub prime.. CASH which artificially raises home prices. That's not such a big deal in the US but here, in Vancouver it's PATHETIC but you didn't mention that little detail eh? tsk tsk, did you move to the USA, you're staring to sound main stream media?
kimdaviscali 1 year ago
Well its about time RT had on someone who knows the score.
And remember that the Peezident is your servant not your boss. People can sue the corporations through a Notary Public where they are the judge of the facts and write the sum deemed approriate to cure the injury by corporation XYZ.
jamerfunk 1 year ago 2
While I regard Mr. Molyneux as highly intelligent, his adherence to the libertarian model of way less government has me as worried as a completely socialist government would. Without any government regulation and the large vacuume that it will leave will not be filled with free thinkers like you or Mr. Molyneux. It will be filled with large corporations that think nothing of cannablizing their own customers. Our government is a zombie run by corporations.
Larkinchance 1 year ago
@Larkinchance If the goverment is a zombie run by corporations, then goverment regulation is not only useless, but it serves this multinational monsters.
D3mi4n 1 year ago 3
@Larkinchance I think you're wrong about that. The conclusion I have come 2 is that true democracy is found in a true free market.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels "true democracy is found in a true free market."
.
Indeed, and Pepsi drinkers don't strafe the villages of Coke drinkers, because that isn't a political choice forced on everyone at gun point.
.
The illusion that must be broken is that of the State, that there are "services" that must be provided at gun point.
.
Contention for those services and their cost is what creates strife in society, while "market" incentives promote peaceful interaction.
.
Abolish the State.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@Larkinchance
"It will be filled with large corporations that think nothing of cannablizing their own customers. Our government is a zombie run by corporations. "
Corporations are a state creation so, right off the bat, that doesn't make sense.
And how could large businesses "cannabalize" their customers when in a truly free market anyone could enter the market and undercut them?
Government will always become a zombie for corporations. It knows which side its bread is buttered.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@RPFS2008 ...
true true. but thats why we had a constitution. if it were followed strictly, government would have very little power and coorporations wouldnt be able to do much, as even if they took over the entire constitutionally restrained govt they would have no power.
tirmen8er 1 year ago
@tirmen8er "if it were followed strictly, government would have very little power"
.
If everyone smiled and were nice to each other, there wouldn't be any crime, either.
.
Expecting powerful people to "restrain themselves" is as ridiculous as expecting Tinkerbell to get well through clapping. As Lysander Spooner wrote when government was far, far smaller and less abusive then now,
.
"Either the Constitution authorized this abuse, or it was powerless to stop it."
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@tirmen8er
Well let me know when those in power decide to restrain themselves. ;)
In the meantime I'm going to research the alleged magical powers of paper.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
ummm wow... I think I lost a bit of respect there... that tasted weird.... your first opening comment about Canada being a frozen wasteland of Socialism was a bit ummm PHUCKING insulting Stephan... as someone who moved home to Canada after living down south, it's also very insulting, if you don't like our frozen wasteland you're more than welcome to go south.
Wow... never thought I'd see this day.... I guess once you turn "big time" and start getting on the big shows, the American comes out.
kimdaviscali 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali thanks for sharing
MOONDOGGIESWTF 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali Yeah, love it or leave it! Fuck yeah!!
Douche.
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali "your first opening comment about Canada being a frozen wasteland of Socialism was a bit ummm PHUCKING insulting Stephan."
.
You mean it isn't?
.
Can you support that assertion?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@kimdaviscali
Is there any way that someone can criticise Canada without you feeling personally insulted?
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@RPFS2008 I guess not, eh.
pretorious700 1 year ago
Two more carrots...
Ending the government will end corporations which will end the buffer between reckless short term company decisions and personal responsibility for the consequences.
I think we should also develop free market credit reporting agencies that specialize in reputation ratings so people can be effectively ostracized worldwide if they take advantage of others.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
Interesting,
"As long as we view the government as some semi paternal benevolent agency that is there to help and protect us, we're going to keep running to it for solutions".
Incentive;
Dic: "something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity".
My perception is that those who create incentive for others are in effect acting as a form of basic governance over people.
NeptunesTrident 1 year ago
excellent
jacobvision 1 year ago