This is why minarchists are epistemically WRONG to ask us to explain how defense services would be provided.
If you know economics, you know how these things work IN PRINCIPLE. If you don't know economics you need to shut up, because you have no right to any opinion on politics or social organization.
@jeffiek The group I'm talking about is society. Cooperation is at the heart of soceity. It's hard to cooperate with people you've never met or will meet, and that's why government is a smart idea. If you don't like the idea of being punished by jailtime for not paying taxes you can still find government moral.
@leafwatch At least not yet. The question of whether socialism, as I find it in common use, is tenable relies on whether or not the resources demanded will be used properly. It's at this exact point where I can use stefan's own argument and say that it'll just be painted in the future somehow someway. I hope you don't think providing for the losers of the market is an odd argument. It doesn't seem odd to feed someone who's starving in the name of the group.
@WithANameLike "It doesn't seem odd to feed someone who's starving in the name of the group."
Absolutely. There are plenty of organizations out there doing just that. I support them wholeheartedly. They manage to do a lot of good without having to resort to threats of violence, without being bullies.
The group YOU are talking about, government (the one that taxes), is the monopoly on force in a geographic area. That's the definition.
@leafwatch I'd say most countries are in varying degrees socialistic. I'm not using socialism in a purist sense. I'm using it in colloquial sense, and for that I could appologize if that's where the oddness or misunderstanding is. My main point is how his argument can be skewed into use for any political/economic ideology and so it's meaningless. Socialism, as I see it in common use, pretty much stands for taxing to provide basic human needs. I don't think historical arguments are necessary.
your closing words ring true and if you ever wish one to look another in the eye when they start speaking 'we need another war, boost the economy', send them my way .lived under the flight path of the bombers on their nightly airraid missions . . 180 bombers in on platoon. . . skimming over the roof tops of our houses. . left shell shock and terror struck and know it must be 10 times worse for those who caused the carnage . for one does not honour the dead by learning how to fight.
Stefan, I feel I am the one you are speaking off, grown . . well old would be stretching it, and the cateract operation got postponed. too busy to wait for the big break like you spoke of. . . some one to give us a listen to. so far, they can't take us serious. I do totally believe the knowledge I have gleaned . . .will pop the bubble on trouble on earth. . .
Try leisse faire capitalism: if the market was completely unregulated,how would the aggregation of capital to a small group of people be stopped? We'll offer them teleports if they let the money trickle down.The point in these two examples isn't that the argument is completely invalid.Any political system can work given the right circumstances, it's the systems which can stand the most turmoil that should be built. You build a building for the worst conditions, and socialism seems damn strong.
@WithANameLike What an odd comment. If socialism is so strong, you should be able to point to numerous succeses among the many socialist nations that have come and gone over the last century or so.
Almost all nations today on the brink of bankruptcy and deeply in debt are various degrees of socialistic, (Keynesian version.) the few that have remained true to Marxism are in even worse shape. With the entire central bank/planning economies all shaking and trembling, your statement is puzzling
@WithANameLike Since government began in America, a small group of people have steadily aggregated a staggering amount of capital. AFTER "government" was created, not before. Government IS an aggregation of capital at gunpoint, by definition.
These analogies could be said about any political system with minor changes. Try socialism: If we provide that big a safety net for the losers of the market, why would anyone want to work? Well people are going to want to work because they'll all get teleporters if they work. We've never seen a humanity solving problems together without fear of starving, that creativity will dwarf the sun.
@WithANameLike Only on the day you get to socialism as a voluntary cultural choice. Until that day the issue is the very real Gun that Molyneaux talks about: politics as war by all on all, each faction trying to grab and exert power over the others who disagree and prefer a different system. So long as people are forced, they will not create the wonderful cornucopia of teleporting gadgets for the masses; only for the military since that is the key to keeping power. No goodies for serfs.
@WithANameLike Except in socialism that market would be bogged down with regulations of all sorts to satisfy unions of all kinds to pay for public-sector health services of minimal variety and so forth. The analogy does not stand with socialism, because all socialism stands for is big government by throwing crumbs to the subjects.
@xxxxAXIxxxx Being bogged down doesn't really bother me as a problem. Being bogged down is great compared to unrestrained capitalism which destroys society or maintains it by throwing crumbs to the subjects.
@WithANameLike Even the super poor in the United States is better off than 99% of people on earth. Capitalism drives innovation and achievement while also bringing down costs allowing new technologies to spread rapidly. Looks at computers, cell phones, the internet, TV's, cars, food, anything you want it gets cheaper, more varied, and better over time.
He is nearly at a resource based economy. Nurturing the kind of behaviour that is condusive to life functions. Sounds like sense. The problem with anarchism is anarchy. I fear what humans do in a scarcity, self orientated incentive system. Time to get rid of the money. Technology will do it anyway. Not to mention the waste of resources.
Everything is scarce. That's why you don't buy a new car every time one is released. Scarcity is reality.
We had, largely, a self-oriented incentive system during early American history. What happened? Wages, standards of living, and average lifespan steadily improved--and at an astonishing rate compared most of human history.
Without money, the only way to trade is by bartering. There will always be money, son. Money is right up there with fire and the wheel.
Also, the effect of free and voluntary exchange is to reduce scarcity. Whenever you have a scarce product (that people want), people are greatly incentivized to figure out ways to make it less scarce. And, within a few short decades (or years), suddenly it is available cheaply to everyone. (E.g., computers, cell phones, antibiotics, et al.)
@twk373 You can never properly address scarcity in a monetary system. It is built into the pycology of the model itself. Planned and intrinsic obsolecence shows this idea of creating an abundence of a 'wanted' good. Advertising and our groth economic system see's to it that peoples 'wants' are contrived to sell more shit and waste it. It still does nothing to address technilogical unemployment and lacks a physical refferent to the only law that really matters on this planet. Natural law.
You might not like this, Stefan...but I'm gonna say it....HALLELUJAH!!!!! If you don't make it as a philosopher, a future in stand up comedy awaits! Really inspiring stuff, mate. The kind of stuff that resonates with your soul, allows you to exhale and smile because you know that people out ther do get it. Thanks again!
Doesn't someone who says they want you "caged or shot" if you disagree with them assume that you have agreed to be caged or shot if you disagree and disobey because you have contracted with the state? Meaning, you have a number provided by the state, or the state owns you, through your birth.
Because you are a "citizen" of the governmental entity, isn't that why they say yes, you should to be caged or shot?
@jeffiek Well, if you can't get rid of the number provided, that would be endorsing slavery. But assuming you can get rid of it, then don't they have a fair argument? Are you not to abide by the contract, which just so happens to be ever changing, and you do not make the terms of it, and interpretation of it falls on the discretion of those who hold it, created it, and apply it)?
@jeffiek I guess the question is, can you not be a US citizen and get rid of the Social Security Number (not sure for other countries)? If I'm not mistaken, yes. There's a process, not easy and not quick. Also will make life more difficult in the short term (depends on how you set yourself up for afterwards).
Not sure people can keep complaining about the policies and the moral standing of the corporation that they themselves have chosen to be or stay part of, or rather, to be owned by.
What we should strive for is a governance based on a meritocracy (rule by best) mixed with technocracy (rule by scientist/intellectuals) that are isolated from outside corruption of big businesses and ethnic or religious influence, which are allowed to govern with the best possible results for the nation as a whole...and incorporating the principles of a social republic where individual freedoms and commerce is allowed to flourish (regulating market sectors to safeguard against monopolies)
along with perks such as a health care system that is second to none, care for retirement and elderly, as well as technology advancements in green energy that eventually becomes free, free education that educates (not the crap we have now), infrastructure upkeep..etc...a happy marriage of the left and right ideologies that give us a government that is a well oiled machine that is intelligent and solves problems in the best possible way...and completely transparent allowing public sayso..
@erdal0 Cancer or the mob..are not particularly apt metaphors for the State...The state is a metaphor itself..for a social group that attempt to organize the rest of society..simple. Some people think violence towards others..or threats therof, is the best method to organise Soc,..some don't..I'm one of the "don't" crowd!
In my opinion, Dr. Minarchist sees the cancer in your arm (I don't know if there's such a thing as arm cancer) and cut 95% of it out, leaving your arm operational, provided you manage the cancer properly with occasional treatments.
Dr. Anarchist just chops the whole arm off. Cancer gone, but so is your arm.
It is the Hobbesian point of view (unthinkingly agreed with by most) that society is 'not' the natural state of man, but rather that society is 'imposed' upon the individual by virtue of the state. Anarchy to them is literally "dog eat dog". It is not irrational, just wrong. When we talk about doing away with the state, to them we are arguing doing away with all that keeps us from each other's throats. We ask them to weigh our moral argument against life itself.
Slavery was considered the natural state of man, with liberty the contrived effort based on social and political belief. The failure to maintain the agreement of preserving liberty restores the slavery as natural state paradigm and gratifies the vast majority. The individual goes eyeball to eyeball with the eye on the Federal Reserve note without blinking, or he becomes enslaved.
Most certainly true. It is and always WAS the mass-person, and their granting of moral legitimacy to the State, and only that which ultimately allows the State to exist...even in a dictatorship this is true.
Every "argument" seems to be desperation in order to maintain the status quo (or simply a tweaked version of the status quo). The abject irrational fear is that the State will no longer exist.
It's not slaves that pick cotton it's children in Pakistan under force by parents 90 % of all cotton comes from forced children labor , very sad a resource based economy is the only solution stef
@redeath420 "It's not slaves that pick cotton it's children in Pakistan under force by parents 90 % of all cotton comes from forced children labor ..."
Perhaps it's better for them than starvation??? Just a thought...
What a crock of drivel...I want my 35 minute back...his logic is very poor and he just proved himself wrong with his pretentious diatribe.."we can't fathom the great and wonderous future but the state has been AND ALWAYS WILL BE EVIL" He's a typical crony conservative that doesn't realize that the lack of governmental regulation allows the monopolistic mega corporations to grow so large that they become the true ruler of a nation. It's the people in power that's the problem and how they govern.
@phstrat "the lack of governmental regulation allows the monopolistic mega corporations to grow so large that they become the true ruler of a nation."
Just the opposite is true. It is only through government regulations that corporations can even exist. The "problem" is that "people" can even be "in power" to begin with. A voluntary society is the solution.
John Adams once said, "If Humans were angels, we wouldn't need government." Libertarian Philosophy depends on people in the society being responsible adults. From where I am sitting currently, Human beings are hardly being responsible as a whole.
It is GOVERNMENT which vests the monopoly of coercion into an institution made up of people. Those people ARE NOT SAINTS, which is why corruption flows where power concentrates.
Libertarian Philosophy is nothing more than distributed power, preventing the corrupt from having the power to enforce their will upon others.
You really need to read some actual Libertarian writings to realize that most of it is how to deal with people who harm others.
@CurtHowland Let's say for a moment it can be applied into what you speak of. btw, I have read Rothbard's the Ethics of Liberty. The Ethics in which he is speaking of depends on people being responsible for their own actions. Which, I do not see, meaning, it allows for those (government) to do what they please. Lets take for example, Child Protection Services here in The United States. If all parents were angles we wouldn't have CPS in place removing kids.
@acousticfreeze1 I also suggest the YouTube by Roderick Long, "An Informal Talk On Anarchy"
/watch?v=y42xiptJgbQ
CPS? As if they are all angels? As if all the families they destroy are guilty? As if there aren't abusive parents which avoid CPS attention?
What makes you think that interested people cannot bring suit against an abusive parent for harm they cause a child? Just because it isn't a govt agency doesn't mean people who care can't take action. Just that they would have to have proof.
@CurtHowland How would they obtain this proof? How many people in this society would really care enough to actually bring a lawsuit? How many people out there do you really think would take the time and effort to file suit? What makes me think that interested people won't do so, is the reality, people here won't do so. During my days of the childhood Indoctrination center. Most parents could care less about their kids and left the school system to babysit them.
Seriously, one of the sources of corruption and abuse is that CPS acts on suspicion, which results in parents having to prove a negative, that they "did not" do whatever.
"Most parents could care less about their kids and left the school system to babysit them."
Since you consider most people bad, how can you trust those same people with the monopoly of coercion? That would be insane.
@stefbot I have read your book "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion" The part in which you refer to parents having a contractual relationship with their children, "In the same way that when you buy a dog, you're obligated to feed it." Isn't this why the government took over the role of parenting? Since, if a parent who gave birth to that child abandons it, What costs does the tax payer accrue for irrespnosibility?
@acousticfreeze1 "What costs does the tax payer accrue for irrespnosibility?
What costs accrue now for the endless wars, the abuses of power, the bureaucratic overhead and self-destruction of paying for the very system which oppresses them?
I want a government that protects me from force thats domestic and foreign. As well as one that enforces contracts... because i defiantly dont want to have to resort to enforcing them myself.
@deshaebeasley How about only contracting with people and businesses that have voluntarily subjected themselves to contractual insurance, complete with oversight and policing, as a forinstance? You don't have to enforce it yourself. In a free market you don't have t make your own clothes yourself. Free market solutions will arise wherever there is a need, as those needs are opportunities for entrepreneurs.
@Panpiper good luck with that.. out of an anarchy ALWAYS comes some form of government that will take over whether it be democracy, monarchy or dictatorship. I know for a fact that people break contracts now even with enforcement behind them... stop living in a dream world my friend.
@deshaebeasley How can you say that when there has never been a principled anarchy? There have been occasional power vacuums in a people ready to accept a functioning state, but never has there been a people organized amongst themselves to function without a state. Your assumption that such a 'structured' anarchy would disintegrate in such a manner as to give rise to a state is simply that, an assumption.
@Panpiper i think Greenland had one and mid-evil ireland did as well in the since of an anarchy where they actually over throw an existing government. before EVERY government of any kind there is an anarchy... wouldnt you agree?
@deshaebeasley Technically those were tribal hierarchies, not anarchies. And the mere absence of government such as what 'might' exist in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of an existing state is not the same thing as an anarchy with an established social organization designed to function as an anarchy. And no, such a social organization is 'not' a government, I am referring to an ecology of businesses and contracts that fulfill similar needs but through entirely voluntary means.
While im on a rare pro government rant I should ad that mankinds true power comes from unity. Unity requries a small sacrafice of freedom. But alone we are weak. Given time the weak will be enslaved by the strong(I.E. all of human history) . Anarchism is unsistainable until man wants for nothing. I'd say we got a century to go as long as we dont mess it up by listening to our imaginary friends ( The invisible hand, god, stefans magic future wand). Dont beLIEve anyone that has all the answers!
@all4LOVE4all Yes, social creatures gain strength from 'unity', or working together. But to assume that that 'unity' needs to be imposed upon people with violence is simply wrong. Libertopia happened because people worked together, they were unified in their effort to make it happen, and nowhere was any coercion used. You assume that in anarchism, no one would work together. I have to wonder why you think that in the absence of government guns, people would stop all economic activity.
The reason for our democracy is because power cannot remain unchecked. Dont Throw in the towel. that whole invisible hand of the free market shit is such a BS copout that corporations just love to spread. The problem starts with the market getting involved in polotics. the inverse is just the result. Lets get off our asses and get in the fight. Take your government back. reighn it in but dont destroy it Because that small pretense of justice is the only thing between us and walmart land. Fix it!
@all4LOVE4all "Power cannot remain unchecked." You said it yourself, and Stefan agrees with you. Your solution is to suggest that people somehow seize the reins of power. But if power cannot remain unchecked, how is that a solution, as inevitably the power will be unchecked? The anarchist position is that the only solution is to remove power from the equation altogether.
At 15:00 he mentions the technology of Oil based machines that really replaced slavery. I hate to say this Stefan but Peak Oil, is going to reverse that and Slavery will be back with a vengence.
@valhala56 There is no such thing as peak oil. There is such a thing as more expensive oil, even a lot more, but as oil get more expensive, alternatives become viable. It is simply not true that energy will get 'so' expensive, that slavery will be economically more viable than alternatives.
@Panpiper I can see you know little about Petroleum and Energy Physics. No point in arguing with you but I will say one thing, Get ya some solar panels and see how much energy you get out of them, the reality is not much. And don't think I am against alternative energy, I'm not. I am in the middle of installing solar panels on my house. but you my friend are seriosuly uninformed and not knowledgeable about alternative energy.
@undeadpresident again, you misunderstand me. I'm done with the vast majority of our history which has been for the most part, unenlightened. I'm sick of things that are old; I want things that are new. Our past pretty much represents what NOT to do. How can anyone rational think otherwise?
What is your opinion on the chemtrails and Ron Pauls refusal to address this issue or even acknowledge their existence. I mean, my god! all you have to do is look up, anywhere in the world (on YT see "What in the World are they Spraying"?)
"The future grinds up problems for breakfast." Great tweet. In the past we improved when only a few had a vision. In the future most of us will have vision. How might that multiply progress?
@antoniyo1234 On the smallest most impractical (in modern sized societies) scale yes. Other than that it's corporations instead of people, many of these corporations would be pretending to represent people (like they do now.) Unlike most Anarchist I'm not entirely against Anarcho-capitalism/ Free Market Anarchism. But again like most Anarchists I'm anti-capitalism (along with ALL involuntary governing systems.) I have doubts about Anarcho-capitalism and Market Anarchism.
its basically the argument that when property is public it is more in the individuals interest to abuse it and exploit it because if he doesnt, someone else will. Why take care of the property when a bunch of other jackasses are going to just come pillage it, you might as well pillage it yourself. Thats the tragedy of the commons.
@HorrorHiro In essence, it's the tragedy that when something is publicly owned by the commons (or owned by no one) no one gives a shit about it. However when something is privately owned, someone has a very good incentive to look after it. This can be seen in many instances with publicly/privately owned parks and housing developments for example.
@cincofone That's a very modern capitalistic view point though. I guess you could say I'm looking at it from an Anarcho-communists point of view (although I'm not an Anarchist communist) although my views on practical Anarchy have no doubt been influenced by Anarcho-communism.
@HorrorHiro It may be a capitalistic view, but it's the realists view. Unless you can find a way to change everyone's human nature behaviour, the tragedy of the commons will always exist.
@cincofone Ah the 2 magic words "human nature" what your talking about is far less "human nature" and much more the societal norm. From the standard Anarcho-communist view, those in a functioning anarchist communist society would be take only what they need and give back to common by whatever means they do so. It really just the fact that this (like most if not all modern capitalist societies) society has been RE-built and RE-founded on greed and simply self-preservation instead.
@HorrorHiro Anarcho-communism has been tried before in France, where they made the death penalty the punishment for having private property, and the result was mass starvation of thousands and thousands of people.
Look up other communist regimes, and mass starvation is a pretty telling fingerprint.
Acting in one's self interest is not necessarily greed. In a free market every transaction benefits BOTH parties, it's mutually beneficial.
@cincofone My thing when it comes to Anarcho-capitalism is, how would it not degrade into the same cancerous capitalism we have now? I think it would work...for a time. Then 1 super corporation would come along and take over by eliminating the competition. And wasn't Spain's time of Anarchy communistic? I'm not sure that is a real question.
@HorrorHiro Spain was anarcho-syndicalist IIRC, the problem is there is one thing that enables the cancerous capitalism we have now - the state. If you look at industrialization in Hong Kong, where they have a much free-er, less regulated economy, small business thrived and you didn't really see the emergence of large corporations like you do more regulated nations. The only way really big business can survive is with government help.
@cincofone I'd be lying if I said that didn't make sense. But isn't there that whole mafia/mob critique of Anarcho-capitalism? That 1 group could essentially come along and either distribute what everyone else but for cheaper, or take other peoples businesses by force. What/who keeps them from taking power?
@HorrorHiro Law would still be necessary to punish those who try to initiate force - this is a problem present in every form of anarchism, and can be solved just fine with polycentric law.
If one group comes and naturally takes out the competition by providing higher qulity products cheaper, this is a good thing for everyone. If they ever tried to jack up their prices/lower their quality, there's nothing to stop a fresh competitor coming into the market (unlike now with state regulations).
@cincofone I believe it rather naive to think walmart would let a "fresh competitor" take away any of thier business if there were no regulations. Corporations of that size have massive controll over products down to the farm. but why use economic pressure as they must now. why not just physically not allow it. walmart has more resources then most countries. There will be One store. buy or starve. and guess what. u work there for an unlivable wage. corperate integrity lol. lets look outside guys
@all4LOVE4all Actually think about what you are saying for a second a reason through it. Let's say walmart has way more resources than anyone else (they got those resources through government privilege, but we'll ignore that) and they want to rape and pillage their customers. If they provide the cheapest prices and outprice the competition, that's not bad for the consumer. If once their competitors have less marketshare, they raise their prices, how are they going to stop another competitor?
@cincofone I believe it rather naive to think walmart would let a "fresh competitor" take away any of thier business if there were no regulations. Corporations of that size have massive controll over products down to the farm. but why use economic pressure as they must now. why not just physically not allow it. walmart has more resources then most countries. There will be One store. buy or starve. and guess what. u work there for an unlivable wage. we did this whole democracy thing for a reason!
@cincofone the state has nothing to do with "enabling capitalism." the the state claims all property by force. a free market is a market free of state coercion. free market capitalism is anarchy.. statelessness.. "a big business" is different than "big business" as in corporatism, which is not free market capitalism.
@tr00ths33k3r It enables "cancerous capitalism" i.e. corporatism, the elite leeching off the lower classes. The state enables this by allowing corporate interests to legally use force in the market.
@MyDormantSoul Oil becomes more scarce, more expensive, so other energy sources become comparitively cheaper and everyone switches to those - peak oil isn't a problem, there are plenty of other energy sources, it just so happens that oil is the most economically viable now while it's abundant.
@cincofone its absolutely not as simple as that at all. The transition will be crippling. Capitalism has only been able to produce a high quality of life through oil consumption and central banking/debt monetization. A capitalist economy revolving around solar and wind energy will be brutal, expensive, and oligarchical, because within the market system such costly and slow pace energy sources require heavy investment. Take away the loaning power of central banks and you get a neo-feudal society
@MyDormantSoul Dude, learn some econ. Pick up some Mises and Hayek and you'll come to a better understanding of how economies actually work. I'd go into more detail, but too busy ripping into AGW activists :)
@cincofone so your just going to completely ignore my argument and tell me to "learn some econ." You dont know my level of education on economics, so dont insult my intelligence. Peak oil leaves no room for a smooth transition, dont think Austrian economics is going to change that. Capitalism was based on the flawed science of 18th century worldviews that saw resources as infinite and oil as the lifeblood of industry. green energy does not produce wealth like oil, it is far, far more expensive.
@MyDormantSoul It is capitalism with its pricing mechanism which work to wean us off of resources which are non-renewable. Tell me how would your system do better? Do you have a way to recycle crude oil? You are placing a property of resources (scarcity) and declaring it is caused by capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism, and we all shared the resources, then it would all be gone within a year.
@MyDormantSoul Also, how can you be referancing peak oil? It is capitalism which allows us to determine prices and therefore peaks in prices. Without capitalism, you would be clueless as to when and where a peak was.
@MirageScience so because we can see the flaws within a flawed system, BY MEANS of a flawed system, that same flawed system is justified? Dont. Make. Me. Laugh. Capitalism was a historically limited economic model that was based on flawed science of the 1700s that saw resources as infinite and oil as the lifeblood of industry. Check out the works of Dmitry Orlov.
@MyDormantSoul I'm sorry, are you making the claim that capitalism holds that resources are infinite? There are plenty of people which contend exactly the opposite, that capitalism holds that resources are not only finite but scarce. It's so strange for someone to say what you are, because most people argue against capitalism for the exact opposite reason. Isn't the whole point of a pricing system to allocate resources towards satisfying the greatest marginal utility, because they are finite?
@MirageScience capitalism does not see resources as finite. Theres a difference between scarcity, which is based on class, nationalism, and economic size and finite resource. Capitalism MUST hold resources as infinite because economies MUST keep growing in order to create wealth. In order for economic growth to be maintained, resources must be consumed more and more, that is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Pricing just means those with money will be the ones to consume a finite resource
@MyDormantSoul capitalism does not require growth, wtf are you talking about? You don't need to grow to create wealth, you need to grow to create MORE wealth. Capitalism doesn't dictate to people that they must desire more. Capitalism puts resources in private hands so that they will be protected and maintained. How much since would it make for instance for a lake owner to allow all the fish in his lake to be fished out? It wouldn't and it is he as a capitalist which maintains the resource.
@MyDormantSoul "scarcity" is an economic term that means nothing more than finite. I have no idea why they chose that word. I can only assume "finiticity" didn't go over well.
Scarcity has NOTHING to do with class or nationalism.
This is why minarchists are epistemically WRONG to ask us to explain how defense services would be provided.
If you know economics, you know how these things work IN PRINCIPLE. If you don't know economics you need to shut up, because you have no right to any opinion on politics or social organization.
ThisMachineKillsReds 2 months ago
vanity.self.deceit.insincerity.
those sound about right.
telemetry9 3 months ago
Whats he doing up there on the podium?
BigLittleAdventure 3 months ago
@jeffiek The group I'm talking about is society. Cooperation is at the heart of soceity. It's hard to cooperate with people you've never met or will meet, and that's why government is a smart idea. If you don't like the idea of being punished by jailtime for not paying taxes you can still find government moral.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
@leafwatch You seem to be forgetting that you are in part holding the gun.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
@leafwatch At least not yet. The question of whether socialism, as I find it in common use, is tenable relies on whether or not the resources demanded will be used properly. It's at this exact point where I can use stefan's own argument and say that it'll just be painted in the future somehow someway. I hope you don't think providing for the losers of the market is an odd argument. It doesn't seem odd to feed someone who's starving in the name of the group.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
@WithANameLike "It doesn't seem odd to feed someone who's starving in the name of the group."
Absolutely. There are plenty of organizations out there doing just that. I support them wholeheartedly. They manage to do a lot of good without having to resort to threats of violence, without being bullies.
The group YOU are talking about, government (the one that taxes), is the monopoly on force in a geographic area. That's the definition.
jeffiek 3 months ago
@leafwatch I'd say most countries are in varying degrees socialistic. I'm not using socialism in a purist sense. I'm using it in colloquial sense, and for that I could appologize if that's where the oddness or misunderstanding is. My main point is how his argument can be skewed into use for any political/economic ideology and so it's meaningless. Socialism, as I see it in common use, pretty much stands for taxing to provide basic human needs. I don't think historical arguments are necessary.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
your closing words ring true and if you ever wish one to look another in the eye when they start speaking 'we need another war, boost the economy', send them my way .lived under the flight path of the bombers on their nightly airraid missions . . 180 bombers in on platoon. . . skimming over the roof tops of our houses. . left shell shock and terror struck and know it must be 10 times worse for those who caused the carnage . for one does not honour the dead by learning how to fight.
HamOnCan 3 months ago
Stefan, I feel I am the one you are speaking off, grown . . well old would be stretching it, and the cateract operation got postponed. too busy to wait for the big break like you spoke of. . . some one to give us a listen to. so far, they can't take us serious. I do totally believe the knowledge I have gleaned . . .will pop the bubble on trouble on earth. . .
HamOnCan 3 months ago
Try leisse faire capitalism: if the market was completely unregulated,how would the aggregation of capital to a small group of people be stopped? We'll offer them teleports if they let the money trickle down.The point in these two examples isn't that the argument is completely invalid.Any political system can work given the right circumstances, it's the systems which can stand the most turmoil that should be built. You build a building for the worst conditions, and socialism seems damn strong.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
@WithANameLike What an odd comment. If socialism is so strong, you should be able to point to numerous succeses among the many socialist nations that have come and gone over the last century or so.
Almost all nations today on the brink of bankruptcy and deeply in debt are various degrees of socialistic, (Keynesian version.) the few that have remained true to Marxism are in even worse shape. With the entire central bank/planning economies all shaking and trembling, your statement is puzzling
leafwatch 3 months ago
@WithANameLike Since government began in America, a small group of people have steadily aggregated a staggering amount of capital. AFTER "government" was created, not before. Government IS an aggregation of capital at gunpoint, by definition.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 3 months ago
These analogies could be said about any political system with minor changes. Try socialism: If we provide that big a safety net for the losers of the market, why would anyone want to work? Well people are going to want to work because they'll all get teleporters if they work. We've never seen a humanity solving problems together without fear of starving, that creativity will dwarf the sun.
WithANameLike 3 months ago
@WithANameLike Only on the day you get to socialism as a voluntary cultural choice. Until that day the issue is the very real Gun that Molyneaux talks about: politics as war by all on all, each faction trying to grab and exert power over the others who disagree and prefer a different system. So long as people are forced, they will not create the wonderful cornucopia of teleporting gadgets for the masses; only for the military since that is the key to keeping power. No goodies for serfs.
leafwatch 3 months ago
@leafwatch Charity is a vice, bro. Voluntary or otherwise.
Some people should just not reproduce. Sorry to tell ya.
ThisMachineKillsReds 2 months ago
@WithANameLike Except in socialism that market would be bogged down with regulations of all sorts to satisfy unions of all kinds to pay for public-sector health services of minimal variety and so forth. The analogy does not stand with socialism, because all socialism stands for is big government by throwing crumbs to the subjects.
xxxxAXIxxxx 1 month ago
@xxxxAXIxxxx Being bogged down doesn't really bother me as a problem. Being bogged down is great compared to unrestrained capitalism which destroys society or maintains it by throwing crumbs to the subjects.
WithANameLike 1 month ago
@WithANameLike Even the super poor in the United States is better off than 99% of people on earth. Capitalism drives innovation and achievement while also bringing down costs allowing new technologies to spread rapidly. Looks at computers, cell phones, the internet, TV's, cars, food, anything you want it gets cheaper, more varied, and better over time.
metzger90 1 week ago
"The State is a fantasy that is kept aloft by the aggressive delusions of the slaves."
YJohannM 3 months ago 2
excellent video stefbotkeep up the good work
Tethloach1 3 months ago
Stefan you are great, I enjoy your work very much - good on you and power to you. Much love from Glasgow.
RichardPears 3 months ago
Excellent talk. I needed something positive today.
landofthefreemyass 3 months ago
Brilliant to hear the positivity and the empowering information.
The difficulty is, it is so simple to change our ways.
musarman 3 months ago
He is nearly at a resource based economy. Nurturing the kind of behaviour that is condusive to life functions. Sounds like sense. The problem with anarchism is anarchy. I fear what humans do in a scarcity, self orientated incentive system. Time to get rid of the money. Technology will do it anyway. Not to mention the waste of resources.
fibbsabaddy 3 months ago
@fibbsabaddy
Everything is scarce. That's why you don't buy a new car every time one is released. Scarcity is reality.
We had, largely, a self-oriented incentive system during early American history. What happened? Wages, standards of living, and average lifespan steadily improved--and at an astonishing rate compared most of human history.
Without money, the only way to trade is by bartering. There will always be money, son. Money is right up there with fire and the wheel.
twk373 3 months ago
@fibbsabaddy
Also, the effect of free and voluntary exchange is to reduce scarcity. Whenever you have a scarce product (that people want), people are greatly incentivized to figure out ways to make it less scarce. And, within a few short decades (or years), suddenly it is available cheaply to everyone. (E.g., computers, cell phones, antibiotics, et al.)
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 You can never properly address scarcity in a monetary system. It is built into the pycology of the model itself. Planned and intrinsic obsolecence shows this idea of creating an abundence of a 'wanted' good. Advertising and our groth economic system see's to it that peoples 'wants' are contrived to sell more shit and waste it. It still does nothing to address technilogical unemployment and lacks a physical refferent to the only law that really matters on this planet. Natural law.
fibbsabaddy 3 months ago
~if you want to skip the long winded but funny & good intro goto 5:35
EX0MATRlXTV 3 months ago
Like the Porcupine Free State Project shirt Stef :D
Vessol 3 months ago
HAIL ME
SuperMisterowl 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
First and only person I asked about using violence against me said "yes". Haven't spoken to him since.
KushinLos 3 months ago
You might not like this, Stefan...but I'm gonna say it....HALLELUJAH!!!!! If you don't make it as a philosopher, a future in stand up comedy awaits! Really inspiring stuff, mate. The kind of stuff that resonates with your soul, allows you to exhale and smile because you know that people out ther do get it. Thanks again!
anafael1 3 months ago
Doesn't someone who says they want you "caged or shot" if you disagree with them assume that you have agreed to be caged or shot if you disagree and disobey because you have contracted with the state? Meaning, you have a number provided by the state, or the state owns you, through your birth.
Because you are a "citizen" of the governmental entity, isn't that why they say yes, you should to be caged or shot?
moktail 3 months ago
@moktail "or the state owns you"
Then they're just as wrong. They believe in slavery.
jeffiek 3 months ago
@jeffiek Well, if you can't get rid of the number provided, that would be endorsing slavery. But assuming you can get rid of it, then don't they have a fair argument? Are you not to abide by the contract, which just so happens to be ever changing, and you do not make the terms of it, and interpretation of it falls on the discretion of those who hold it, created it, and apply it)?
moktail 3 months ago
@moktail Well, we could assume anything, even that the moon is made of green cheese.
Thanks, but I'll go to the movies if I want fantasy.
jeffiek 3 months ago
@jeffiek I guess the question is, can you not be a US citizen and get rid of the Social Security Number (not sure for other countries)? If I'm not mistaken, yes. There's a process, not easy and not quick. Also will make life more difficult in the short term (depends on how you set yourself up for afterwards).
Not sure people can keep complaining about the policies and the moral standing of the corporation that they themselves have chosen to be or stay part of, or rather, to be owned by.
moktail 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moktail "If I'm not mistaken, yes."
Well, you're the only one that thinks so. Prove it.
"...chosen to ... be owned ...."
Take your pick. You can't have both.
jeffiek 3 months ago
I can't stand the comment system on youtube!!! flip flop the last two posts..
phstrat 3 months ago
What we should strive for is a governance based on a meritocracy (rule by best) mixed with technocracy (rule by scientist/intellectuals) that are isolated from outside corruption of big businesses and ethnic or religious influence, which are allowed to govern with the best possible results for the nation as a whole...and incorporating the principles of a social republic where individual freedoms and commerce is allowed to flourish (regulating market sectors to safeguard against monopolies)
phstrat 3 months ago
Comment removed
phstrat 3 months ago
along with perks such as a health care system that is second to none, care for retirement and elderly, as well as technology advancements in green energy that eventually becomes free, free education that educates (not the crap we have now), infrastructure upkeep..etc...a happy marriage of the left and right ideologies that give us a government that is a well oiled machine that is intelligent and solves problems in the best possible way...and completely transparent allowing public sayso..
phstrat 3 months ago
What about Islamists that will kill those that do not submit ?
inabluemoon1 3 months ago
orange looks better then black or grey....(you should know...)
peace&love
eprisable 3 months ago
Today we have 7 billion people!
anyone care to comment?
wize11 3 months ago
I'm converting to Islam and learning marshal arts
floatingcompassmedia 3 months ago
Really? The Democrats and the Republicans have been in power in America since before I was born over 50 years ago.
plalelal 3 months ago
Comment removed
erdal0 3 months ago
@erdal0 Cancer or the mob..are not particularly apt metaphors for the State...The state is a metaphor itself..for a social group that attempt to organize the rest of society..simple. Some people think violence towards others..or threats therof, is the best method to organise Soc,..some don't..I'm one of the "don't" crowd!
DecassyJake 3 months ago
In my opinion, Dr. Minarchist sees the cancer in your arm (I don't know if there's such a thing as arm cancer) and cut 95% of it out, leaving your arm operational, provided you manage the cancer properly with occasional treatments.
Dr. Anarchist just chops the whole arm off. Cancer gone, but so is your arm.
shamgar001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What is right and what is wrong? A short sword and a long." -- Robert Burns
sharperguy 3 months ago
Awesome speech!
nextdimensions 3 months ago
It is the Hobbesian point of view (unthinkingly agreed with by most) that society is 'not' the natural state of man, but rather that society is 'imposed' upon the individual by virtue of the state. Anarchy to them is literally "dog eat dog". It is not irrational, just wrong. When we talk about doing away with the state, to them we are arguing doing away with all that keeps us from each other's throats. We ask them to weigh our moral argument against life itself.
Panpiper 3 months ago
Slavery was considered the natural state of man, with liberty the contrived effort based on social and political belief. The failure to maintain the agreement of preserving liberty restores the slavery as natural state paradigm and gratifies the vast majority. The individual goes eyeball to eyeball with the eye on the Federal Reserve note without blinking, or he becomes enslaved.
33115566 3 months ago
Most certainly true. It is and always WAS the mass-person, and their granting of moral legitimacy to the State, and only that which ultimately allows the State to exist...even in a dictatorship this is true.
Every "argument" seems to be desperation in order to maintain the status quo (or simply a tweaked version of the status quo). The abject irrational fear is that the State will no longer exist.
YJohannM 3 months ago
unsubscribed. got board. reminds me of church
KoreaForeigner 3 months ago
It's not slaves that pick cotton it's children in Pakistan under force by parents 90 % of all cotton comes from forced children labor , very sad a resource based economy is the only solution stef
redeath420 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redeath420 "It's not slaves that pick cotton it's children in Pakistan under force by parents 90 % of all cotton comes from forced children labor ..."
Perhaps it's better for them than starvation??? Just a thought...
YJohannM 3 months ago 2
future is ALWAYS nothing like the past... since beginning of time...
...so whats with the drama?
georgemargaris 3 months ago
What a crock of drivel...I want my 35 minute back...his logic is very poor and he just proved himself wrong with his pretentious diatribe.."we can't fathom the great and wonderous future but the state has been AND ALWAYS WILL BE EVIL" He's a typical crony conservative that doesn't realize that the lack of governmental regulation allows the monopolistic mega corporations to grow so large that they become the true ruler of a nation. It's the people in power that's the problem and how they govern.
phstrat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phstrat "the lack of governmental regulation allows the monopolistic mega corporations to grow so large that they become the true ruler of a nation."
Just the opposite is true. It is only through government regulations that corporations can even exist. The "problem" is that "people" can even be "in power" to begin with. A voluntary society is the solution.
YJohannM 3 months ago 2
@phstrat The gulf of ignorance you possess must truly be staggering if you think that Stefan is a "typical crony conservative".
Panpiper 3 months ago
John Adams once said, "If Humans were angels, we wouldn't need government." Libertarian Philosophy depends on people in the society being responsible adults. From where I am sitting currently, Human beings are hardly being responsible as a whole.
acousticfreeze1 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 exactly why you don't want the evil ones to gain hold of government power.
WorthlessCurrency 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 What kind of drugs are you on?
It is GOVERNMENT which vests the monopoly of coercion into an institution made up of people. Those people ARE NOT SAINTS, which is why corruption flows where power concentrates.
Libertarian Philosophy is nothing more than distributed power, preventing the corrupt from having the power to enforce their will upon others.
You really need to read some actual Libertarian writings to realize that most of it is how to deal with people who harm others.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Let's say for a moment it can be applied into what you speak of. btw, I have read Rothbard's the Ethics of Liberty. The Ethics in which he is speaking of depends on people being responsible for their own actions. Which, I do not see, meaning, it allows for those (government) to do what they please. Lets take for example, Child Protection Services here in The United States. If all parents were angles we wouldn't have CPS in place removing kids.
acousticfreeze1 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 I also suggest the YouTube by Roderick Long, "An Informal Talk On Anarchy"
/watch?v=y42xiptJgbQ
CPS? As if they are all angels? As if all the families they destroy are guilty? As if there aren't abusive parents which avoid CPS attention?
What makes you think that interested people cannot bring suit against an abusive parent for harm they cause a child? Just because it isn't a govt agency doesn't mean people who care can't take action. Just that they would have to have proof.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland How would they obtain this proof? How many people in this society would really care enough to actually bring a lawsuit? How many people out there do you really think would take the time and effort to file suit? What makes me think that interested people won't do so, is the reality, people here won't do so. During my days of the childhood Indoctrination center. Most parents could care less about their kids and left the school system to babysit them.
acousticfreeze1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acousticfreeze1 "How would they obtain this proof?"
How does CPS?
Seriously, one of the sources of corruption and abuse is that CPS acts on suspicion, which results in parents having to prove a negative, that they "did not" do whatever.
"Most parents could care less about their kids and left the school system to babysit them."
Since you consider most people bad, how can you trust those same people with the monopoly of coercion? That would be insane.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland Thank you for the youtube suggestion, I will certainly watch it.
acousticfreeze1 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 "I will certainly watch it."
I appreciate that. Thank you.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 CPS is actually an excellent example of good intentions being used to justify coercive means.
And if they fail, they get more money and more staff, they very definition of bureaucratic success.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@stefbot I have read your book "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion" The part in which you refer to parents having a contractual relationship with their children, "In the same way that when you buy a dog, you're obligated to feed it." Isn't this why the government took over the role of parenting? Since, if a parent who gave birth to that child abandons it, What costs does the tax payer accrue for irrespnosibility?
acousticfreeze1 3 months ago
@acousticfreeze1 "What costs does the tax payer accrue for irrespnosibility?
What costs accrue now for the endless wars, the abuses of power, the bureaucratic overhead and self-destruction of paying for the very system which oppresses them?
Without taxation it costs the "taxpayer" nothing.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
I want a government that protects me from force thats domestic and foreign. As well as one that enforces contracts... because i defiantly dont want to have to resort to enforcing them myself.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley How about only contracting with people and businesses that have voluntarily subjected themselves to contractual insurance, complete with oversight and policing, as a forinstance? You don't have to enforce it yourself. In a free market you don't have t make your own clothes yourself. Free market solutions will arise wherever there is a need, as those needs are opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper good luck with that.. out of an anarchy ALWAYS comes some form of government that will take over whether it be democracy, monarchy or dictatorship. I know for a fact that people break contracts now even with enforcement behind them... stop living in a dream world my friend.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley How can you say that when there has never been a principled anarchy? There have been occasional power vacuums in a people ready to accept a functioning state, but never has there been a people organized amongst themselves to function without a state. Your assumption that such a 'structured' anarchy would disintegrate in such a manner as to give rise to a state is simply that, an assumption.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper i think Greenland had one and mid-evil ireland did as well in the since of an anarchy where they actually over throw an existing government. before EVERY government of any kind there is an anarchy... wouldnt you agree?
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley Technically those were tribal hierarchies, not anarchies. And the mere absence of government such as what 'might' exist in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of an existing state is not the same thing as an anarchy with an established social organization designed to function as an anarchy. And no, such a social organization is 'not' a government, I am referring to an ecology of businesses and contracts that fulfill similar needs but through entirely voluntary means.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper well it looks like you will always "technically" have those problems ;)
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
While im on a rare pro government rant I should ad that mankinds true power comes from unity. Unity requries a small sacrafice of freedom. But alone we are weak. Given time the weak will be enslaved by the strong(I.E. all of human history) . Anarchism is unsistainable until man wants for nothing. I'd say we got a century to go as long as we dont mess it up by listening to our imaginary friends ( The invisible hand, god, stefans magic future wand). Dont beLIEve anyone that has all the answers!
all4LOVE4all 3 months ago
@all4LOVE4all Yes, social creatures gain strength from 'unity', or working together. But to assume that that 'unity' needs to be imposed upon people with violence is simply wrong. Libertopia happened because people worked together, they were unified in their effort to make it happen, and nowhere was any coercion used. You assume that in anarchism, no one would work together. I have to wonder why you think that in the absence of government guns, people would stop all economic activity.
Panpiper 3 months ago
The reason for our democracy is because power cannot remain unchecked. Dont Throw in the towel. that whole invisible hand of the free market shit is such a BS copout that corporations just love to spread. The problem starts with the market getting involved in polotics. the inverse is just the result. Lets get off our asses and get in the fight. Take your government back. reighn it in but dont destroy it Because that small pretense of justice is the only thing between us and walmart land. Fix it!
all4LOVE4all 3 months ago
@all4LOVE4all "Power cannot remain unchecked." You said it yourself, and Stefan agrees with you. Your solution is to suggest that people somehow seize the reins of power. But if power cannot remain unchecked, how is that a solution, as inevitably the power will be unchecked? The anarchist position is that the only solution is to remove power from the equation altogether.
Panpiper 3 months ago
At 15:00 he mentions the technology of Oil based machines that really replaced slavery. I hate to say this Stefan but Peak Oil, is going to reverse that and Slavery will be back with a vengence.
valhala56 3 months ago
@valhala56 cold fusion?
mikedm01 3 months ago
@mikedm01 Cold Fusion? Yeah if they have a producing Reactor. They don't., Might as well be wishing on Dilithium Crystals from Star Trek.
valhala56 3 months ago
@valhala56 watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY
mikedm01 3 months ago
@valhala56 There is no such thing as peak oil. There is such a thing as more expensive oil, even a lot more, but as oil get more expensive, alternatives become viable. It is simply not true that energy will get 'so' expensive, that slavery will be economically more viable than alternatives.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper I can see you know little about Petroleum and Energy Physics. No point in arguing with you but I will say one thing, Get ya some solar panels and see how much energy you get out of them, the reality is not much. And don't think I am against alternative energy, I'm not. I am in the middle of installing solar panels on my house. but you my friend are seriosuly uninformed and not knowledgeable about alternative energy.
valhala56 3 months ago
@valhala56 Au Contraire Mr. Assumption of Ignorance. I have read numerous text books on the subject.
Panpiper 3 months ago
Unfortunately, many people Are OK withe the use of force... They view it as a an alternative to something worse.
limitedgovt999 4 months ago
Powder the pistol!
newjoiseyboy 4 months ago
25:25 "The law is an opinion with a gun."
ericfontainejazz 4 months ago
"LOVE is the eternal rEVOLution"
~~cc
carefulcarpenter 4 months ago
Well, well said...without notes...or a teleprompter!
eggbeater814 4 months ago
that cancer and constitution gag is very clever
cincofone 4 months ago
Dinosaur juice!
Gerstein1 4 months ago
a truly free market truly wants to be free.
gotohellgooglization 4 months ago
Nice T-shirt, Stef!
FreeStateProject(dot)org
dmgoddard 4 months ago
Government, Universities, and History all need to be recognized for the DINOSAURS that they are.
physicalgenius 4 months ago 10
@physicalgenius history?
undeadpresident 4 months ago
@undeadpresident or the Platonistic dominated past; whichever you prefer.
physicalgenius 3 months ago
@physicalgenius you can learn a hell of a lot by studying history. I don't understand why you would think otherwise.
undeadpresident 3 months ago
@undeadpresident again, you misunderstand me. I'm done with the vast majority of our history which has been for the most part, unenlightened. I'm sick of things that are old; I want things that are new. Our past pretty much represents what NOT to do. How can anyone rational think otherwise?
physicalgenius 3 months ago
loti
kroovyandcal 4 months ago
"...drop the metaphors." LOL!
711e47 4 months ago
vaccines are poison.........
jjvallea99 4 months ago
What is your opinion on the chemtrails and Ron Pauls refusal to address this issue or even acknowledge their existence. I mean, my god! all you have to do is look up, anywhere in the world (on YT see "What in the World are they Spraying"?)
johnmcmns199 4 months ago
IQ gets a voice
martialarm 4 months ago
appreciated
Teddy3inDC 4 months ago
I love the definitions of Anarchy here - "The right to disagree without the threat of violence and imprisonment"
PHONEYPOLITICS 4 months ago
"The future grinds up problems for breakfast." Great tweet. In the past we improved when only a few had a vision. In the future most of us will have vision. How might that multiply progress?
Observerx10 4 months ago
so smart great thinker!!!
rich232399 4 months ago
talcum the gun, lol
underage4page 4 months ago
Eloquent. charming, you're a great representative for anarchism! Excellent speech Stef!
GtheMVP 4 months ago
capitalism is unsustainable.
MyDormantSoul 4 months ago
@MyDormantSoul
yes fascism is unsustainable
antoniyo1234 4 months ago
@MyDormantSoul
true capitalism is the answer
antoniyo1234 4 months ago
@antoniyo1234 Anarchy
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro
isn't capitalism voluntary transactions between individuals
antoniyo1234 4 months ago
@antoniyo1234 indeed it is... now government on the other hand...
sniped101 4 months ago
@sniped101
yes, the mafia is compulsory
antoniyo1234 4 months ago
@antoniyo1234 On the smallest most impractical (in modern sized societies) scale yes. Other than that it's corporations instead of people, many of these corporations would be pretending to represent people (like they do now.) Unlike most Anarchist I'm not entirely against Anarcho-capitalism/ Free Market Anarchism. But again like most Anarchists I'm anti-capitalism (along with ALL involuntary governing systems.) I have doubts about Anarcho-capitalism and Market Anarchism.
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@MyDormantSoul it is capitalism which eliminates the tragedy of the commons, which makes it sustainable.
MirageScience 4 months ago 12
@MirageScience
Very well stated!
TheCapitalistdog 4 months ago
@TheCapitalistdog ty
MirageScience 4 months ago
@MirageScience elaborate please.
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@MirageScience What exactly is the "tragedy of the commons"?
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro Watch walter blocks video series on the environment. He gives a good example.
mattamiller 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro
its basically the argument that when property is public it is more in the individuals interest to abuse it and exploit it because if he doesnt, someone else will. Why take care of the property when a bunch of other jackasses are going to just come pillage it, you might as well pillage it yourself. Thats the tragedy of the commons.
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 Your making it sound like this tragedy is bound to happen no matter what. Is that what your saying?
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro Just Google it - "What is the tragedy of the comments?" There is a large Wikipedia article on it.
regresseur 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro In essence, it's the tragedy that when something is publicly owned by the commons (or owned by no one) no one gives a shit about it. However when something is privately owned, someone has a very good incentive to look after it. This can be seen in many instances with publicly/privately owned parks and housing developments for example.
cincofone 4 months ago
@cincofone That's a very modern capitalistic view point though. I guess you could say I'm looking at it from an Anarcho-communists point of view (although I'm not an Anarchist communist) although my views on practical Anarchy have no doubt been influenced by Anarcho-communism.
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro It may be a capitalistic view, but it's the realists view. Unless you can find a way to change everyone's human nature behaviour, the tragedy of the commons will always exist.
cincofone 4 months ago
@cincofone Ah the 2 magic words "human nature" what your talking about is far less "human nature" and much more the societal norm. From the standard Anarcho-communist view, those in a functioning anarchist communist society would be take only what they need and give back to common by whatever means they do so. It really just the fact that this (like most if not all modern capitalist societies) society has been RE-built and RE-founded on greed and simply self-preservation instead.
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro Anarcho-communism has been tried before in France, where they made the death penalty the punishment for having private property, and the result was mass starvation of thousands and thousands of people.
Look up other communist regimes, and mass starvation is a pretty telling fingerprint.
Acting in one's self interest is not necessarily greed. In a free market every transaction benefits BOTH parties, it's mutually beneficial.
cincofone 4 months ago
@cincofone My thing when it comes to Anarcho-capitalism is, how would it not degrade into the same cancerous capitalism we have now? I think it would work...for a time. Then 1 super corporation would come along and take over by eliminating the competition. And wasn't Spain's time of Anarchy communistic? I'm not sure that is a real question.
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro Spain was anarcho-syndicalist IIRC, the problem is there is one thing that enables the cancerous capitalism we have now - the state. If you look at industrialization in Hong Kong, where they have a much free-er, less regulated economy, small business thrived and you didn't really see the emergence of large corporations like you do more regulated nations. The only way really big business can survive is with government help.
cincofone 4 months ago
@cincofone I'd be lying if I said that didn't make sense. But isn't there that whole mafia/mob critique of Anarcho-capitalism? That 1 group could essentially come along and either distribute what everyone else but for cheaper, or take other peoples businesses by force. What/who keeps them from taking power?
HorrorHiro 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro Law would still be necessary to punish those who try to initiate force - this is a problem present in every form of anarchism, and can be solved just fine with polycentric law.
If one group comes and naturally takes out the competition by providing higher qulity products cheaper, this is a good thing for everyone. If they ever tried to jack up their prices/lower their quality, there's nothing to stop a fresh competitor coming into the market (unlike now with state regulations).
cincofone 4 months ago
@cincofone I believe it rather naive to think walmart would let a "fresh competitor" take away any of thier business if there were no regulations. Corporations of that size have massive controll over products down to the farm. but why use economic pressure as they must now. why not just physically not allow it. walmart has more resources then most countries. There will be One store. buy or starve. and guess what. u work there for an unlivable wage. corperate integrity lol. lets look outside guys
all4LOVE4all 3 months ago
@all4LOVE4all Actually think about what you are saying for a second a reason through it. Let's say walmart has way more resources than anyone else (they got those resources through government privilege, but we'll ignore that) and they want to rape and pillage their customers. If they provide the cheapest prices and outprice the competition, that's not bad for the consumer. If once their competitors have less marketshare, they raise their prices, how are they going to stop another competitor?
cincofone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cincofone I believe it rather naive to think walmart would let a "fresh competitor" take away any of thier business if there were no regulations. Corporations of that size have massive controll over products down to the farm. but why use economic pressure as they must now. why not just physically not allow it. walmart has more resources then most countries. There will be One store. buy or starve. and guess what. u work there for an unlivable wage. we did this whole democracy thing for a reason!
all4LOVE4all 3 months ago
@cincofone the state has nothing to do with "enabling capitalism." the the state claims all property by force. a free market is a market free of state coercion. free market capitalism is anarchy.. statelessness.. "a big business" is different than "big business" as in corporatism, which is not free market capitalism.
tr00ths33k3r 4 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r It enables "cancerous capitalism" i.e. corporatism, the elite leeching off the lower classes. The state enables this by allowing corporate interests to legally use force in the market.
cincofone 3 months ago
@HorrorHiro
no, i was simply telling you what the theory is. I try not to debate on youtube ;)
Equity213 4 months ago
@HorrorHiro You can see the process in action. From small, local gangs a single large gang emerges.
German, France, England, et al. form the EU.
How to stop it? Stefan has his ideas. What are yours?
It is certain that the answer is NOT - "do nothing and/or go along"
jeffiek 4 months ago
Comment removed
rcmontecalvo 3 months ago
@MirageScience learn what "peak oil" is. Dont make me laugh.
MyDormantSoul 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul Oil becomes more scarce, more expensive, so other energy sources become comparitively cheaper and everyone switches to those - peak oil isn't a problem, there are plenty of other energy sources, it just so happens that oil is the most economically viable now while it's abundant.
cincofone 3 months ago
@cincofone its absolutely not as simple as that at all. The transition will be crippling. Capitalism has only been able to produce a high quality of life through oil consumption and central banking/debt monetization. A capitalist economy revolving around solar and wind energy will be brutal, expensive, and oligarchical, because within the market system such costly and slow pace energy sources require heavy investment. Take away the loaning power of central banks and you get a neo-feudal society
MyDormantSoul 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul Dude, learn some econ. Pick up some Mises and Hayek and you'll come to a better understanding of how economies actually work. I'd go into more detail, but too busy ripping into AGW activists :)
cincofone 3 months ago
@cincofone so your just going to completely ignore my argument and tell me to "learn some econ." You dont know my level of education on economics, so dont insult my intelligence. Peak oil leaves no room for a smooth transition, dont think Austrian economics is going to change that. Capitalism was based on the flawed science of 18th century worldviews that saw resources as infinite and oil as the lifeblood of industry. green energy does not produce wealth like oil, it is far, far more expensive.
MyDormantSoul 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul Paraphrasing: "Capitalism only works because of central banks..."
LOL!
Panpiper 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul It is capitalism with its pricing mechanism which work to wean us off of resources which are non-renewable. Tell me how would your system do better? Do you have a way to recycle crude oil? You are placing a property of resources (scarcity) and declaring it is caused by capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism, and we all shared the resources, then it would all be gone within a year.
MirageScience 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul Also, how can you be referancing peak oil? It is capitalism which allows us to determine prices and therefore peaks in prices. Without capitalism, you would be clueless as to when and where a peak was.
MirageScience 3 months ago
@MirageScience so because we can see the flaws within a flawed system, BY MEANS of a flawed system, that same flawed system is justified? Dont. Make. Me. Laugh. Capitalism was a historically limited economic model that was based on flawed science of the 1700s that saw resources as infinite and oil as the lifeblood of industry. Check out the works of Dmitry Orlov.
MyDormantSoul 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul I'm sorry, are you making the claim that capitalism holds that resources are infinite? There are plenty of people which contend exactly the opposite, that capitalism holds that resources are not only finite but scarce. It's so strange for someone to say what you are, because most people argue against capitalism for the exact opposite reason. Isn't the whole point of a pricing system to allocate resources towards satisfying the greatest marginal utility, because they are finite?
MirageScience 3 months ago
@MirageScience capitalism does not see resources as finite. Theres a difference between scarcity, which is based on class, nationalism, and economic size and finite resource. Capitalism MUST hold resources as infinite because economies MUST keep growing in order to create wealth. In order for economic growth to be maintained, resources must be consumed more and more, that is the fundamental principle of capitalism. Pricing just means those with money will be the ones to consume a finite resource
MyDormantSoul 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul capitalism does not require growth, wtf are you talking about? You don't need to grow to create wealth, you need to grow to create MORE wealth. Capitalism doesn't dictate to people that they must desire more. Capitalism puts resources in private hands so that they will be protected and maintained. How much since would it make for instance for a lake owner to allow all the fish in his lake to be fished out? It wouldn't and it is he as a capitalist which maintains the resource.
MirageScience 3 months ago
@MyDormantSoul "scarcity" is an economic term that means nothing more than finite. I have no idea why they chose that word. I can only assume "finiticity" didn't go over well.
Scarcity has NOTHING to do with class or nationalism.
jeffiek 3 months ago