Stefan, you're awesome and I'm so glad you took a 75% paycut. However, I hope you get it back one day. You will I believe and don't take offense to this comment but I believe God knows everyone's heart and yours is made of gold.
there seems to be less child abuse now then has ever been observd in previous generations. "Rule of Thumb" is no longer accepted child rearing and wife discipline behavior but a sure fire way to a jail cell. Wet nursing was more abusive than day school.There is no more basturds begging on the street for food. No more child labor. Child sacrafices have went the way of the do-do bird. Grandmothers are more loving and involved now. There are no more 13 year olds in Kingston Pen.
@dumb14wanker Users of drugs aren't necessarily abusers fool. I use ganja all day every day and I'm fine too. I can still function just as well as anybody else. Which means I'm not abusing it. I take it you are a fellow user. Not an abuser
Ok. Let's assume that everything you said is correct. Let's assume that voting is "bad" and that all evil comes from child abuse and that, according to what you said in the last few minutes, before there were child abuse LAWS all parents were child abusers. I hope you see the self contradiction. If child abuse is the root problem and if there was 100% child abuse before such laws then aren't you really advocating for more laws?
Hi Stef, you need to do a full video explaining what you said at 1:10 to 1:20 and how that works. It is that understanding that is holding us back from the truth.
you're so wrong, It makes me think that you were abused as a child and now you hold some diluted illusion that you make sense. Your ideas are just plain stupid. Your wrong from a to z. Go luck pushing this crap.
t/y stefan, you are filled with logic, truly, soon, logic will reign and rain as well, many within the many will see the emperor (fiat money/material) has no clothes and the bureaucrats, have no morals nor brains. chopping down fruit tree to make room for plastic plant factories so that debt slaves can work and make money to buy apples and plastic oranges too.
God knows I have spent years trying to speak the words uttered by my heart but I couldn't. You sir made me hear them spoken to me. Now I know I am not crazy. Thank you.
Whenever I hear "human nature," I always feel like I'm in the realm of pop psychology. No one has figured out human nature. All we do know is that people are incredibly adaptable to their surroundings.
i honestly get sick and tired of people attacking capitalism. it is simply the free exchange of resources. and in order for me to do some work and trade with others, I need a (profit) with which i can feed my family. any atempt to squelch that system of free trade has got to be imposed through violence, because that is exactly what human beings will naturally do undisturbed.
@princejerome2008 its pretty shocking sometimes to see how people do not understand the fundemental ideas of capitalism. I just don't know haha, sometimes I gotta come watch stef's videos just to realize that my concerns about our country are real
@princejerome2008 "Capitalism" is just a word that has accumulated a lot of stuff. I shy away from it because it could be used to describe the current system, whereas "free-market economy" does not describe the current system.
I agree with Premises, I disagree with your conclusion. In the debate of legalizing pot, the question is not do we let a greedy, soulless, power hungry, profit driven monster control it. Any person, group or organization that is able to will be this monster. The question is witch monster should we give this power to Gangs or Government. I say government is the lesser of two evils.
I have explored the deception behind the the current form of democracy. The way I see it is that people just want to be Free, to be protected by the Law(common) , to be respected and to be with their families and enjoy life. Then we have this big wave of bureaucratic crap that gets in the way, formed by what we call our Government. It isn't OUR Government any more. We are human cattle be used for the benefits of the few and when we understand that we can start to live as was meant to be...FREE
I totally agree about the alcohol and voting. It's nothing more than propaganda to benefit a few at the cost of others. Even when I was younger, I always saw it for what it was, so I never participated.
The only person I would ever vote for is Ron Paul as he is a doctor who has always stood up against corruption and works hard to restrain government. But of course, the voting game is rigged and he would be assasinated if he got anywhere anyway.
Stef, I actually think they might start rolling out decriminalisation of weed. It would certainly help distract and stultify many of those who might otherwise "wake up" to the truth
Watching this while filling my state ballot right now.
You make a lot of interesting points, but it's how the world works, you can sit out of the system and be useless or deal with it and do your best to make it better.
@nirvanadude007 Damn good point. I was invited to a gang bang the other day, and almost said no. But that would be sitting out of the system and it would have been useless to not advocate it by not participating, so I took your advice and did! Unless your argument is flawed nonsense, in which case, I didn't take it!
The fact of the matter is; other people are going to vote.
People dumber than you are going to vote for stupid shit that DOES effect you.
Conceding and just letting it do it's thing is moronic and lazy, you lose your right to complain when you refuse to attempt to change the system. That is how a democracy works, if you want something done, vote for it, complaining about how shitty the system is (which it is) without trying to change it is hypocritical and lazy.
You hit on just about the only two 'fundamental' American rights remaining:
The right to vote and the right to complain! LMAO!!!
I got out-voted by dumb people for 18 years...I've finally learned my lesson!
Remember when the Obamatons were gonna "change" the system...? Or the "Revolution of 1994"? The "Reagan Revolution"? Now we have a "Tea Party Revolution"...no, being lazy is refusing to recognize reality.
@nirvanadude007 Ok, just to see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that it is moral for me to rape as part of a group so long as people are willing to rape me and others? And if I understood the rest of your moronic assertions correctly, to call out the rape as bad is "lazy", and you can only "change" the system by participating. I'd love to see the results of you applying these claims in your real life and not in just ticking a piece of paper! Cause that doesn't change anything.
No, to use your rape example, I like to think of it as a beautiful girl getting raped by a bunch of thugs right in front of you. You can jump in and rape her with them, or you can try to pull them off the girl.
@nirvanadude007 And your response is to jump in and rape her with them? That's not much of an argument friend. Unless you're pretending voting for people who make promises is the same as helping the girl.. that's absurd, you're acting in the restraints of the rapists system. All you're doing is repeatedly advocating the rape at the promise it will end, and continuing even when it continues, you never pull off. I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling people, don't help the rapists, you're joining in.
There are 100's of MILLIONS of good people who've thought the SAME way as you over the courst of many decades...and them voting to "make the world a better place" has utterly failed.
The way "the world works" is that you cast a vote and NOTHING CHANGES.
I've been voting my whole life and its been completely "useless"...
No, the way democracy works (the world works in many different ways) is that you cast a vote, it is then tallied along with everyone elses vote and the winning choice is put into play. Yes, the system is fundamentally flawed, however that doesn't mean you should just sit out of it and let it go rampant in front of your eyes. Note voting isn't "sticking it to the man" it is giving up and letting others make important choices without your say, it is conceding your rights to others.
Or, should I resign myself to "lesser-of-two-evils" voting?
No, voting/democracy is the illusion of freedom: I have the freedom to vote, and the freedom to be out-voted...and the freedom to do as the govt says...
The more I listen to the attack on Pharmaceutical companies the more shrill and leftist this sounds. The profit motive is not some dangerous feature of business, it is the life blood of any business. We take for granted what took literally thousands of years of improvement in medicine and pharmacological therapy; the majority during the era of modern business and profit.
I don't buy the rest of your position on our voting rights, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy.
"a Representative Republic" IS democracy; issues are, ultimately, decided by MAJORITY VOTE, be it in state referendums, congressional votes, supreme court decisions, and presidential signings/vetoings of legislation.
No, you're wrong. A Democracy is majority rule IF it's a pure Democracy. Polybius in The Rise of the Roman Empire, written around 170 BC spends much of his early discussion on the types of governments that existed.
The Founders were intimately familiar with the Classics, and attempted, via a Representative Republic to ameliorate the issues associated with a pure democracy.
Your description of the Founders as "elitists" is just so much nonsense.
A simple majority of congress, a yeah or nay from the president, and a simple majority of the supreme court.
That's it.
And, you're very uniformed if you think the so-called "Founders" (as if one monolithic group existed...ever heard of the Federalists VS Anti-Federalists?) were anything BUT the political elitists of the time.
Also, Stef isn't railing against profit itself, he's railing against govt-enforced/sanctioned MONOPOLISTIC profits gained due to govt-created cartels/markets which gives legal advantages to the legal fictions known as "corporations", and regs and taxes which kill competition.
Stef makes a partial point. His main point is that a Democracy and voting is nonsense. He uses the Pharmaceutical companies as his foil. He's right about the government, he's wrong about the corporations.
Corporations are legal entities that serve a Capitalistic Structure to the economy. Now, if they are forced to deal with the Gov't, their behavior will be impacted, just as ours is as individuals. I agree with PART of his solution: a LOT less government.
You keep arguing semantics with me. A corporation is a legal entity that is a function of a capitalist economic system. You got a problem with this? I don't give a shit. I'm not sure what bug is up your ass, but if you think you can design a better government, or economic structure, or be an anarchist, be my guest. Lose the attitude.
"Fascistic?" what the fuck is wrong with you? How did you get this skewed view of the world? What disease do you suffer from? You have an attitude. And now, I'm starting to think you're just some stupid fuck.
Thomas Jefferson also [correctly] believed the Louisiana Purchase to be an unconstitutional act...yet he went along w/it anyways.
From the very start the fedgovt began undermining and ignoring the constitution (which DRAMATICALLY enlarged govt power to begin with)--and these were the people who had direct input in CREATING it!
They typical American became LESS free w/the advent of the fedgovt.
Again, what do things like this say about the founding politicians?
That's Thomas Jefferson, and the purchase seemed to overstep the bounds of the Fed Gov't, but it did not result in the loss of Personal Rights that were incorporated within the Constitution.
I'm not arguing the efficacy of big gov't, I'm arguing that Stef isn't smarter than our Founders, who certainly knew history at least as well as he does. Furthermore, they recognized that Anarchy was no way to form a society, we're not a tribe.
Bottom line: the SAME "founders" you're going on about ignored the SAME constitution THEY created...you can make excuses for why they did and claim it didn't "result in the loss of Personal Rights" (who do you think was forced to pay the TAXES to fund the Louisiana Purchase genius?)--its the SAME kinds of excuses Bushites and Obamatons make...
The FACT is that the "founders" weren't the heroes you're making them out to be, but merely the elitists of the time.
Again, you've got a bug up your ass. The whole point of the structure of the government was/is that the Founders compromised to the best form of government they could create.
You're perspective is the same as any other complainer who says, they were "elitists." Again, I say, bullshit. You really have no other point, in your mind they were elites, and so they were illegitimate.
@ashane77 The way I think of it, corporations in a free, non-governmental country would be an entirely different thing. As things are now, you are mostly right. Corporations can't help but exist in collusion with the state that pulls strings for them.
Certainly corporations wouldn't have the govt around to shield them from the consequences of their own actions and competitors in a free society.
Nor would they be unnecessarily overburdened w/taxes and regs--however, I don't think they particularly mind this, now, as taxes/regs serve as barriers to the marketplace--which cuts down on competition.
To call modern-day corporations a manifestation of the free-market (like captain is doing) is patently false.
@captaindiesalot If by "Founders" you mean signers of the Declaration of Independence or participants in the debates on the Constitution, then yes, they were elites. They were almost universally affluent landowners. I think that it's mostly irrelevant, though, because they concocted a binding government that no-one ever consented to. That's why I believe they were unethical. It doesn't really matter if they were only doing it for their own economic interests; they did it.
This is just more horseshit. The Founders were sent to Philadelphia by their respect state governments. They represented their various state interests. You want to damn them, because they were "elites?" That's your problem.
The FACT is gov't is a necessary evil, our Founders recognized this, but they also recognized that anarchy is bullshit, and leads to tyranny. Utopia will never exist in the real world.
This statement proves you have never read why the Founders did what they did. You'd rather say they were elites, so they were illegitimate. Nonsense. The Founders designed a VERY limited government, for the past 100 years we've watched the gov't break the Constitution to become what it has, who's fault is that? Ours.
And you'll find if you do research them, that the Founders attempted to balance the two extremes of Gov't tyranny, and non-gov't chaos.
"...I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy...I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond..."
"...whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
@ashane77 "Listen, I used to be like you--I deified the founders/constitution--but the truth is they were elitists."
I know what you mean. I never really though about it, though, I just picked up "founders" as a buzzword. After a while you just start to understand that you cannot be for absolute freedom and having a state simultaneously. This is why I think the "founders" didn't care for it at all, they were just appealing to it because it sounded nice and logical, too, at the time.
We are in complete agreement. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that NO gov't is better than small gov't in reality. I don't think you can have utopia while we are alive. We need to have a gov't to judge contracts, to defend against outside attack, and to make treaties with other gov't entities. That's it. You want more, we all do, however, the world is not some innocent place waiting for some anarchist solution to our issues.
OK, and your alternative is? Not that I agree with your analysis regarding the Founders, nor the nature of our government, nor how you ignore the thinking of the Founders regarding the various forms of government, and their weaknesses.
We ARE to blame, because we voted people into office who didn't give a damn about the Constitution.
While I live in the South, they were wrong to start a Civil War with Slavery as a part of it's economic system; indefensible.
The war wasn't about slavery. It was about consolodating power. The Anti-Federalists predicted this would happen before the constitution was ratified. The Colonies were slavery friendly when they fought the English--were they wrong too?
No, don't blame yourself. Events/actions over which we had ZERO control led to today's mess.
Once the fedgovt defeated the Southern States it was inevitable.
@captaindiesalot "The Founders were sent to Philadelphia by their respect state governments." At no point did anyone other than those being sent to Philadelphia and those sending to Philadelphia ever become bound by the decision to send representatives to Philadelphia, by the delegation in Philadelphia, or to any ruling stemming from local governments or the delegation in Philadelphia. And, this select group of people were elites. The Founders realized that anarchy would subvert their new power.
You know enoch, you are those like you, are completely full of shit. I can find copious amounts of footnoted documentation backing my positions regarding both the Founders and the Constitution.
You enjoy your bullshit beliefs, I'm done arguing with you. Should you choose to start some sort of violent revolution, as the "anarchists" have in Europe, I'll enjoy being part of the force that cracks your heads.
meet me in a street with your body and face covered by black...act out the fantasies of anarchists we see in London, Paris, Athens, Toronto, et. al. and see how I act. Attempt to destroy my property, and see how I act.
I do worship the Constitution, and I abhor politicians who have trashed it for 100 years. There will always be government, whether you choose to believe it or not. Utopia will never exist.
Why would I be in the street painted in black trying to destroy your--or anyone else's--property? You're not gonna do jack shit anyways. That is an ignorant and laughable stereo-type. The folks who're mainly responsible for death and destruction are those in GOVT, if you hadn't noticed, genius.
Well, if you worship the Constitution then, by extension, you worship the POLITICIANS who created it. Your faith in this useless and irrelevant piece of paper doesn't matter.
I don't like politicians, however, I do appreciate what the Founders did here. Perhaps you'd like to move to some other place; you don't like it, you're free to leave.
What a fucking laugh you are. Jefferson attacked the Acts as Unconstitutional. Am I now to conclude that because he did this, he wasn't an "elite" in your cretinous mind? The Republic has had and will continue to have on ongoing argument regarding the limits of government; this is a part of the Structure of our gov't.
Except where people like you enter the picture and attempt to condemn the entire system, because of your jaded perspective. This isn't a perverse competition, fool.
What a fucking laugh you are. Jefferson attacked the Acts as Unconstitutional. Am I now to conclude that because he did this, he wasn't an "elite" in your cretinous mind? The Republic has had, and will continue to have on ongoing argument regarding the limits of government; this is a part of the Structure of our gov't.
Except when people like you enter the picture and attempt to condemn the entire system, because of your jaded perspective. This isn't a perverse competition, fool.
Ahhh...yeah, Jefferson DID attack the Alien/Sedition Acts, and after he was elected...used the SAME FRIGGIN ACTS to harrass HIS political opponents!
Another self-ownage on your part! Ha, ha ,ha!
Man you're a dunce!
Oh, and no comment on the LP, eh? Typical!
Yeah, we've seen what the "ongoing argument regarding the limits of government" has led to, eh? Pretty much a ONE-WAY 'argument' that has led to massive govt!
You, YOURSELF, made pathetic excuses for the LP!!!
You never did comment on the FACT that the very EARLIEST 'founders' passed legislation (Alien & Sedition Acts) which DIRECTLY conflicted w/the so-called "Bill Of Rights"--specifically the 1st amendment which 'guaranteed' freedom of speech. People were charged, tried, and convicted due to criticizing the federal govt. And, as I told you earlier, even Jefferson went along with something (Louisianan Purchase) that he, HIMSELF, believed to be unconstitutional.
You're an asshole. If you think that your view of No Government is the way to go, that's your opinion. If you think the Founders who created the Constitution turned around and simply violated the thing, you're incorrect. There is NO provision in the Constitution regarding land acquisition, there was an argument, but no clear language prevented the purchase.
You need to learn some more...you clearly have very little knowledge of early American history. Thomans Jefferson, HIMSELF, believed the LP to be unconstitutional and went along w/it ANYWAYS. Your assertion about land acquisition demonstrates exactly why constitutions fail: they are conveniently interpreted to justify ANYTHING. "Well it doesn't say the FedGovt CAN'T buy land"...LOL...you obviously know very little about the constitution you worship!
Fuck off ashane. Ignorant asshole, you stupid fool. The fundamental structure of the United States was an attempt at the BALANCE between complete Anarchy, and chaos, and Absolute Tyranny, or slavery.
You stupid fuck, you think I BELEIVE IN UTOPIA? when here is a spokesman for Anarchy, who thinks that NO government will work? Sure, who believe in utopia? Not me, you jerk off.
The Founders attempted with a defined small government the attempt to maximum freedom w/out anarchy.
Hey, you stupid fuck, I have said only one thing, minimal gov't.
You're an arrogant prick.
As long as you don't wear a mask on your face and break my property, no problem, but as soon as you try to act like a black shirt, and get in my face, you better have a gun.
Fact is, you're probably a prick, because you don't get laid all that often. Now, I'm done with you, go back to your video games.
ashane SCHOOLED you...you should be THANKING him/her!
I, for one, never knew about TJ and the Sedition-Alien legislation abuses...or how he violated the constitution and his own conscience in the name of political expediency in the Louisiana purchase.
The folks in masks and black shirts you SHOULD be worried about are the GOVT aholes you love so much--who are FAR more likely than anyone else to rob/kill you!
I hit captainturdinhispants with inconvenient FACTS about his bible and gods and he goes off on a tangent about "black shirt and mask-wearing" goons ( wonder if he's heard of BATF, FBI, SWAT, Spec-Ops, Mercenaries/Contractors, etc?)...telling me I'm a prick who better bring a gun w/me when I "get in his face"...I don't "get laid" enough...I'm "arrogant"...this is what I LOVE about anarchy--it reduces statists to raving morons who can't argue a simple point or deal w/reality!
And I stand by what i said, your arrogance is evidence of a large ego, that can't be backed up by any physical attributes. What anarchy does is argue an absolute, and then claim that EVERYTHING ELSE is illegitimate.
I've asked you to define the type of political system you think would work, and you've ignored the question, and miscast my position. If you were to call me a Statist to my face, you'd need to be able to back-up those fighting words; I don't think you can.
Really? is this why the Articles of Confederation, arguably the ONLY anarchist gov't to EVER exist, failed? Look, I live in Sarasota, Florida, you near me? come and visit.
Articles of Confed was better than the constitution, for sure, but it was NOT anarchical being that state govts and a crude central govt still existed. I always LOL when turds say the Article's "failed"...yeah, they were given all of 7 years or so to work...right after the VERY expensive and upheaving Revolutionary War! All the problems of the times are attributed to the Articles (not politicians)...but the Constitution failing for 220+ YEARS is the fault of politicians.
The constitution was created to restrain govt, but...it was new so no one really knew what it meant...so they just made laws up as they went along in order to "discover" what the limitations on govt power were or weren't...how idiotic can you get?!
You just proved MY point AGAIN tard! A constitution that has no specific/firm meaning is pretty damned worthless isn't it? It (and restrictions on govt) may as well not even exist, right?
This is obvious: You've never read any of the papers, books, journals of the men who sat down and argued the merits and problems of a new form of government, nor the objectives thereof. Their recognition of ancient history, progressive economic thought (Adam Smith), or the change that occurred with the Scottish and English Enlightenment.
The Constitution has Absolute Meaning, the Supremacy Clause grants the type of power to the Fed Gov't that the Confederacy lacked. Anarchy FAILED.
you're just a pussy. a little jerk off, who thinks he can say whatever he wants without the responsibility of being able to back up a big mouth. You know, I work at being prepared for what Anarchy Means; The Law of the Jungle. Survival of the Fittest, Strongest, Fastest, Smartest. You'd never survive in the world you think would be Utopian, it would chew you up, and spit you out.
Stop being an arrogant asshole. You haven't answered the two "simple" questions I've asked you...give us the gov't/political/social structure that is superior to the attempt at minimal gov't that was the original idea of the United States?
Tell us how anarchy controls the natural inclination of people me to cave in the heads of narcissists like you. How would you prevent me from beating the shit out of you? Who arbitrates? Who incarcerates? Who pays those who do? No gov't? Sure.
You and the other arrogant fuck need to read a few more history books, specifically on the Founding of the Republic, and the arguments of the types of gov't we should live under.
If you think Anarchy was not discussed as a possible model, you're both suffering from ignorance. To use ONE example, The Louisiana Purchase, and claim that it was a Constitutional violation is simplistic. There was an argument, however, you won't find land acquisition dealt with in the Constitution.
One more time since you seem to be slow: Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF didn't believe the fedgovt had the authority to purchase land!
He went along w/the LP ANYWAYS.
Can you understand what that means?
What do you say about TJ using the Alien/Sedition Acts to harrass his political opponents? MORE people were tried/convicted under HIS admin than his predecessor's even!
There's this thing called "google"...I suggest you use it so as not to look like a fool!
Once more, you're proving you're an arrogant ass. Jefferson's OPINION, was one of many. The whole structure of the gov't, at the time, was a NEW institution, NEVER TRIED BEFORE. Hello? Are you simply fucking dense? Or just such a Know It All that you really don't give a damn what really happened? One guy doesn't make a trend, the formation was argued about, and continues to be argued about, to this day.
You better never hope we see each other you arrogant fuck.
@captaindiesalot You're hilarious! If TJ thought the LP was unconstitutional WHY THE HECK did he give his sanction to it? Why didn't he veto it--isn't that one of the president's main duties/responsibilities w/i the system of checks-and-balances? Why did he campaign against the Alien/Sedition Acts but--after he won--use the SAME DANGED acts to arrest/imprison people?The idea of a constitution that no one can ascertain the meaning of because its "new" is a pretty asinine one don't you think?
Articles "fail"--after being given less than a decade to "work" right after a fight against the superpower of the time (England); every problem facing the states is due to the Articles being deficient, not because they weren't followed by politicians.
Constitution fails to restrain govt for 220+ years, but its not because its deficient, no, its because politicians refuse to abide by it. No problems can ever be attributed to it either.LOL!
No, the Confederation failed, because it could NOT deal with the myriad of needs that a large group of people, NOT a TRIBE, require. The Constitution WORKED for a significant period of time, granted with compromise. The great failing of the Founders was slavery. However, for the times, MOST of the world employed slavery, in fact, there were more European Slaves within the islamist nations than in the western world.
I don't think so, I think you're all a bunch of losers, who like to break windows. You all talk a good story, like Stefbot here, but when someone points out your deficiencies you claim that their "statists." When I challenge you, personally, you back down. See, you're not safe without the blackfaced crowd behind your cowardly ass.
You never answered a single one of my questions, and you're just another coward. Laughable.
No. It never dawned on me. I agree with the vast majority of the positions he presents. However, I think he misses the point of the American structure of government, and I don't understand why.
SS100, I love how captainstickuphisass is playing dumb (or maybe he isn't playing?) about my Thomas Jefferston points, don't you? I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the LP, but pointing out that TJ thought is wasn't--but he went along with it ANYWAYS.
Also there's the matter of the Alien-Sedition Acts that captaincrapsalot has also totally ignored.
Typical statist ass-clown who doesn't know how to argue...what a douche w/his internet tough-guy act too!
I've not misinterpreted anything you said, and I'm not gonna get into a constitutional debate with you. There are any variety of turds like yourself who rationalize ANYTHING the fedgovt does...and can find constitutional approval for ANYTHING: social security, medicare, undeclared wars, fiat money, and other wealth transfer programs, and stuff like the Louisiana Purchase. The constitution is an irrelevant and worthless piece of paper--just ask the fed govt!
I have no desire to "get in your face" either you e-tough guy you! LMFAOAROTFL :)
Sorry if you feel butthurt...but I just hit your ass w/some FACTS...
Your "minimal govt" talk consisted of defending violations against YOUR holy constitution by YOUR founder-gods! Ha, ha, ha! Self-friggin-pwnage at its best!
Please, don't take MY word for what I told you--the info is mere seconds away and at your fingertips!
No, what you do is preach from an arrogant perspective. You make statements about specific events with simplistic conclusions based upon your preconceived notions.
You've made specific claims against gov't leaders based upon your own defined parameters, and ALL I've said, is that the Founders, DESIGNED a gov't that was an attempt at minimal gov't, without the threat that No Gov't represented.
You're an arrogant fuck. You and sugar deserve each other.
So voting supports the statist system? Yet you replied to the young guy that emailed you that it was okay for him to take benefits from the state - an action that can only support the system, and even moreso if it contributes to him making enough of a success of himself (via that benefit) to become independent of state help, because it's obstensibly exactly the intention of such help and supports the notion that it's a good system. Is there some logic to this inconsistency that I'm not seeing?
I see you had a lot of negative things to say about Zeitgeist Addendum ... I am referring specifically to the part where you point out Zeitgeists' talk about social engineering...
"If you eradicate the conditions you eradicate the behavior. There is no human nature only behavior"
But then you turn around 360 in this video, regarding the emails you get from people regarding human nature....
You use the exact same Zeitgeists argument...
So I am left scratching my head on this flip-flop?
@batfly Venus Project is not only against the shallow biases called "human nature", it's also against some fundamental realities of the world, e.g. scarcity, individuality, market price mechanism, etc.
@Alard1649 As long as Venus Project people respect my property rights and right to use money (any medium of trade) voluntarily with others, then I'm happy for them to live in your voluntary commune.
"criminality stems from child abuse" - what about people who were born crazy or psychotic or just plain evil? what about those people who are "the black sheep in the family"?
Stef, I love your work. But you really MUST relax and expand your understanding of "self-medication". No doubt many drug users are trying to cope with the effects of childhood abuse. But it's ridiculous to say that ALL of them are. You leave out, for example, people who test the boundaries of "normal" consciousness deliberately, scientifically, and spiritually, as well as those trying to get beyond the mundanity and ennui of modern life - a sane response to an insane and arbitrary culture.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic...established by a relatively few elitists 220+ years ago in secret meetings...where the meaning of the constitution is determined by simple majority vote of politicians and their appointees (Supreme Court).
And, American republicanism (representational democracy) IS a form of democracy--a very poor one at that.
They were selected individuals sent by their respective state elected bodies. Again, I find your simplistic explanation of our Constitution to be without merit, let alone, documented study. Granted, by becoming one of the Founders, they became American Elite from a historical perspective, but most were NOT men capable of exerting themselves for short-sighted gain, as our politicians today are.
The winning political faction (Federalists--the ones who wanted a fedgovt and got the constitution passed) at the time of the "founding" passed a law (Alien Sedition Act) which made criticizing the govt a crime (despite the 1st amendment)--people were arrested and jailed for doing this. Jefferson ran on a platform critical of this act and after he won the presidency...used the same act to jail HIS political opponents.
This is an inane argument. The whole reason the gov't was structured as it is, was because these men recognized that they were imperfect human beings. There is no such thing as a perfect gov't.
You keep attacking these men, and I'm arguing that you're the fool to think that there's a better form of democratic structure.
Please, profit margins of 15% to 18% are not that large or outrageous. They're within the margins of the overall market of publicly traded firms. These same margins are what drive further research into newer drugs to deal with illness. The profit motive of legal companies does not drive new addicts.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is not scientific, addiction may be caused by "abuse," but it's not the only cause.
It is fairly large. It is certainly in the Top 10 in terms of profit margins from what I remember. The Government also significantly subsidises the research for the Pharmaceutical Industry.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I'm in the investment business, I manage money for a living...Gross Margins in this industry aren't all that great for mature companies.
For all of the reasons you identify and more, I don't vote. But I would vote for pot decriminalization in California. I don't want marijuana controlled, regulated, and taxed any more than you do, but the war on marijuana in the US is an abomination, wrecking hundreds of thousands of lives each year and literally killing people. No, I don't like how alcohol is regulated in the US, but it is far preferable to the way marijuana is regulated.
Well said, my last vote I 'scored or ruined' the ballot paper. I have kinda been on the fence about tactical voting, but you are right the whole system needs to go away.
Whats your reply to someone who says we can't have anarchy because people will just steal form others, houses, property etc?
Stefan another reason drugs will never be legalized is because several federal agencies would lobby heavily against it because they are involved in the sale of these drugs to supplement their budgets.
ever seen Rob Ager's Analysis to the movie A ClockWork Orange? (google it)
It's an extensive voyage on the mind of Alex, an abuser. Through the movie analysis we learn that he was also abused as a child and how he's lust for power can be found an portrayed in the movie on every layer of society, great read, I hope you give it a look, Im a Huge fan of yours by the way...
your claims of moral righteousness are meaningless, you support the capitalist system which denies sick and dying people health care, it denies people food if they cannot afford it, you are already scum in so many other ways you might as well support child molestation
god dammit molyneaux, again you take a good video and interject your child abuse theories into it. NOT EVERYONE IS ABUSED AS A CHILD! Jesus man, I think your insistence that everyone was abused is a result of you being abused or something...
@OntologicalQuandary how about he's spot on accurate and you're just unwilling to recognize it? Did you consider that? maybe you are a child abuser and feeling squirmy in your chair? maybe you don't know love because you never were loved, and your only avenue is to point fingers at Stefan with a non sequitur quasi-ironic-quantum-entanglement-theory hoping that it sticks.
Stefan, you're awesome and I'm so glad you took a 75% paycut. However, I hope you get it back one day. You will I believe and don't take offense to this comment but I believe God knows everyone's heart and yours is made of gold.
openupandsmile4me 2 months ago
there seems to be less child abuse now then has ever been observd in previous generations. "Rule of Thumb" is no longer accepted child rearing and wife discipline behavior but a sure fire way to a jail cell. Wet nursing was more abusive than day school.There is no more basturds begging on the street for food. No more child labor. Child sacrafices have went the way of the do-do bird. Grandmothers are more loving and involved now. There are no more 13 year olds in Kingston Pen.
bigtarrose 3 months ago
I smoke marijuana and drink, yet I have not been abused. I think you may be a bit off on that last part Stef.
dumb14wanker 1 year ago
@dumb14wanker Users of drugs aren't necessarily abusers fool. I use ganja all day every day and I'm fine too. I can still function just as well as anybody else. Which means I'm not abusing it. I take it you are a fellow user. Not an abuser
Digali 1 year ago
Ok. Let's assume that everything you said is correct. Let's assume that voting is "bad" and that all evil comes from child abuse and that, according to what you said in the last few minutes, before there were child abuse LAWS all parents were child abusers. I hope you see the self contradiction. If child abuse is the root problem and if there was 100% child abuse before such laws then aren't you really advocating for more laws?
libertyvidz 1 year ago
@libertyvidz Go back and listen again, he using "current law" as a description of behavior.
He is NOT making the claim that laws caused a change in behavior.
You're making the classical post hoc logic error.
jeffiek 7 months ago
Hi Stef, you need to do a full video explaining what you said at 1:10 to 1:20 and how that works. It is that understanding that is holding us back from the truth.
sundancekid122 1 year ago
Thank you
Nebbyker 1 year ago
Free evil? Freevil? Where did I hear "freevil" before? Please help.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago 3
you're so wrong, It makes me think that you were abused as a child and now you hold some diluted illusion that you make sense. Your ideas are just plain stupid. Your wrong from a to z. Go luck pushing this crap.
RadioRogue 1 year ago
t/y stefan, you are filled with logic, truly, soon, logic will reign and rain as well, many within the many will see the emperor (fiat money/material) has no clothes and the bureaucrats, have no morals nor brains. chopping down fruit tree to make room for plastic plant factories so that debt slaves can work and make money to buy apples and plastic oranges too.
BankofSpirit 1 year ago
Thumbs up to Stefan, as usual
MrDorkusMaximus 1 year ago
God knows I have spent years trying to speak the words uttered by my heart but I couldn't. You sir made me hear them spoken to me. Now I know I am not crazy. Thank you.
houalakhor 1 year ago
Whenever I hear "human nature," I always feel like I'm in the realm of pop psychology. No one has figured out human nature. All we do know is that people are incredibly adaptable to their surroundings.
esalian9 1 year ago
What a nice End! Ohhh As usual Stef - terrific!
Thanks Stef!
TY
apothekede 1 year ago
i honestly get sick and tired of people attacking capitalism. it is simply the free exchange of resources. and in order for me to do some work and trade with others, I need a (profit) with which i can feed my family. any atempt to squelch that system of free trade has got to be imposed through violence, because that is exactly what human beings will naturally do undisturbed.
princejerome2008 1 year ago 7
@princejerome2008 its pretty shocking sometimes to see how people do not understand the fundemental ideas of capitalism. I just don't know haha, sometimes I gotta come watch stef's videos just to realize that my concerns about our country are real
fps0chris 1 year ago
@princejerome2008 who's attacking capitalism?
IgnoredBunion 1 year ago
@princejerome2008 "Capitalism" is just a word that has accumulated a lot of stuff. I shy away from it because it could be used to describe the current system, whereas "free-market economy" does not describe the current system.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@princejerome2008
What's always shocking to me is when "conservatives" who claim to support free-markets, come out in full force against free trade.
The hypocrisy is profound. You can't have free markets without free trade and vice versa.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
@TheCapitalistdog
Yeah, "conservatives" are even more confused than "liberals".
ashane77 1 year ago
I agree with Premises, I disagree with your conclusion. In the debate of legalizing pot, the question is not do we let a greedy, soulless, power hungry, profit driven monster control it. Any person, group or organization that is able to will be this monster. The question is witch monster should we give this power to Gangs or Government. I say government is the lesser of two evils.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
I have explored the deception behind the the current form of democracy. The way I see it is that people just want to be Free, to be protected by the Law(common) , to be respected and to be with their families and enjoy life. Then we have this big wave of bureaucratic crap that gets in the way, formed by what we call our Government. It isn't OUR Government any more. We are human cattle be used for the benefits of the few and when we understand that we can start to live as was meant to be...FREE
Veloce3 1 year ago
Hi Stefan - thanks for expanding the debate on these topics - enriching!!
DragonYearJoji 1 year ago
I totally agree about the alcohol and voting. It's nothing more than propaganda to benefit a few at the cost of others. Even when I was younger, I always saw it for what it was, so I never participated.
The only person I would ever vote for is Ron Paul as he is a doctor who has always stood up against corruption and works hard to restrain government. But of course, the voting game is rigged and he would be assasinated if he got anywhere anyway.
Bristecom 1 year ago
Stef, I actually think they might start rolling out decriminalisation of weed. It would certainly help distract and stultify many of those who might otherwise "wake up" to the truth
BenettFreeman 1 year ago
Watching this while filling my state ballot right now.
You make a lot of interesting points, but it's how the world works, you can sit out of the system and be useless or deal with it and do your best to make it better.
I know which I am choosing.
nirvanadude007 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007 Damn good point. I was invited to a gang bang the other day, and almost said no. But that would be sitting out of the system and it would have been useless to not advocate it by not participating, so I took your advice and did! Unless your argument is flawed nonsense, in which case, I didn't take it!
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@DreadLaw2
The fact of the matter is; other people are going to vote.
People dumber than you are going to vote for stupid shit that DOES effect you.
Conceding and just letting it do it's thing is moronic and lazy, you lose your right to complain when you refuse to attempt to change the system. That is how a democracy works, if you want something done, vote for it, complaining about how shitty the system is (which it is) without trying to change it is hypocritical and lazy.
nirvanadude007 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007
You hit on just about the only two 'fundamental' American rights remaining:
The right to vote and the right to complain! LMAO!!!
I got out-voted by dumb people for 18 years...I've finally learned my lesson!
Remember when the Obamatons were gonna "change" the system...? Or the "Revolution of 1994"? The "Reagan Revolution"? Now we have a "Tea Party Revolution"...no, being lazy is refusing to recognize reality.
ashane77 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007 Ok, just to see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that it is moral for me to rape as part of a group so long as people are willing to rape me and others? And if I understood the rest of your moronic assertions correctly, to call out the rape as bad is "lazy", and you can only "change" the system by participating. I'd love to see the results of you applying these claims in your real life and not in just ticking a piece of paper! Cause that doesn't change anything.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@DreadLaw2
No, to use your rape example, I like to think of it as a beautiful girl getting raped by a bunch of thugs right in front of you. You can jump in and rape her with them, or you can try to pull them off the girl.
Or you can do what you are doing, and ignore it.
@ashane77
So the lesson you've learned is to give into stupidity? That sucks.
nirvanadude007 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007 And your response is to jump in and rape her with them? That's not much of an argument friend. Unless you're pretending voting for people who make promises is the same as helping the girl.. that's absurd, you're acting in the restraints of the rapists system. All you're doing is repeatedly advocating the rape at the promise it will end, and continuing even when it continues, you never pull off. I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling people, don't help the rapists, you're joining in.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007
So the lesson you've learned is to give into stupidity? That sucks.
ashane77 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007
There are 100's of MILLIONS of good people who've thought the SAME way as you over the courst of many decades...and them voting to "make the world a better place" has utterly failed.
The way "the world works" is that you cast a vote and NOTHING CHANGES.
I've been voting my whole life and its been completely "useless"...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
No, the way democracy works (the world works in many different ways) is that you cast a vote, it is then tallied along with everyone elses vote and the winning choice is put into play. Yes, the system is fundamentally flawed, however that doesn't mean you should just sit out of it and let it go rampant in front of your eyes. Note voting isn't "sticking it to the man" it is giving up and letting others make important choices without your say, it is conceding your rights to others.
nirvanadude007 1 year ago
@nirvanadude007
What...should I continue voting Libertarian...?
Or, should I resign myself to "lesser-of-two-evils" voting?
No, voting/democracy is the illusion of freedom: I have the freedom to vote, and the freedom to be out-voted...and the freedom to do as the govt says...
Nah...its pointless.
ashane77 1 year ago
The more I listen to the attack on Pharmaceutical companies the more shrill and leftist this sounds. The profit motive is not some dangerous feature of business, it is the life blood of any business. We take for granted what took literally thousands of years of improvement in medicine and pharmacological therapy; the majority during the era of modern business and profit.
I don't buy the rest of your position on our voting rights, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
"a Representative Republic" IS democracy; issues are, ultimately, decided by MAJORITY VOTE, be it in state referendums, congressional votes, supreme court decisions, and presidential signings/vetoings of legislation.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
No, you're wrong. A Democracy is majority rule IF it's a pure Democracy. Polybius in The Rise of the Roman Empire, written around 170 BC spends much of his early discussion on the types of governments that existed.
The Founders were intimately familiar with the Classics, and attempted, via a Representative Republic to ameliorate the issues associated with a pure democracy.
Your description of the Founders as "elitists" is just so much nonsense.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Who decides what the constitution means?
A simple majority of congress, a yeah or nay from the president, and a simple majority of the supreme court.
That's it.
And, you're very uniformed if you think the so-called "Founders" (as if one monolithic group existed...ever heard of the Federalists VS Anti-Federalists?) were anything BUT the political elitists of the time.
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Also, Stef isn't railing against profit itself, he's railing against govt-enforced/sanctioned MONOPOLISTIC profits gained due to govt-created cartels/markets which gives legal advantages to the legal fictions known as "corporations", and regs and taxes which kill competition.
How you can call him "leftist" is beyond me.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Stef makes a partial point. His main point is that a Democracy and voting is nonsense. He uses the Pharmaceutical companies as his foil. He's right about the government, he's wrong about the corporations.
Corporations are legal entities that serve a Capitalistic Structure to the economy. Now, if they are forced to deal with the Gov't, their behavior will be impacted, just as ours is as individuals. I agree with PART of his solution: a LOT less government.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Corporations are legal FICTIONS created by the govt and its court system.
That is FACT.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
You keep arguing semantics with me. A corporation is a legal entity that is a function of a capitalist economic system. You got a problem with this? I don't give a shit. I'm not sure what bug is up your ass, but if you think you can design a better government, or economic structure, or be an anarchist, be my guest. Lose the attitude.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
A corporation is a fascistic, govt-created and santioned LEGAL FICTION granted legal priveleges and protections.
Corporations are NOT free-market entities, but quasi-extensions of GOVT.
Don't like this FACT?
TOUGH SHIT...you aren't entitled to make up facts or ignore ones you don't like.
YOU "lose the attitude"...if you want me to educate you!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
"Fascistic?" what the fuck is wrong with you? How did you get this skewed view of the world? What disease do you suffer from? You have an attitude. And now, I'm starting to think you're just some stupid fuck.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Thomas Jefferson also [correctly] believed the Louisiana Purchase to be an unconstitutional act...yet he went along w/it anyways.
From the very start the fedgovt began undermining and ignoring the constitution (which DRAMATICALLY enlarged govt power to begin with)--and these were the people who had direct input in CREATING it!
They typical American became LESS free w/the advent of the fedgovt.
Again, what do things like this say about the founding politicians?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
That's Thomas Jefferson, and the purchase seemed to overstep the bounds of the Fed Gov't, but it did not result in the loss of Personal Rights that were incorporated within the Constitution.
I'm not arguing the efficacy of big gov't, I'm arguing that Stef isn't smarter than our Founders, who certainly knew history at least as well as he does. Furthermore, they recognized that Anarchy was no way to form a society, we're not a tribe.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Bottom line: the SAME "founders" you're going on about ignored the SAME constitution THEY created...you can make excuses for why they did and claim it didn't "result in the loss of Personal Rights" (who do you think was forced to pay the TAXES to fund the Louisiana Purchase genius?)--its the SAME kinds of excuses Bushites and Obamatons make...
The FACT is that the "founders" weren't the heroes you're making them out to be, but merely the elitists of the time.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Again, you've got a bug up your ass. The whole point of the structure of the government was/is that the Founders compromised to the best form of government they could create.
You're perspective is the same as any other complainer who says, they were "elitists." Again, I say, bullshit. You really have no other point, in your mind they were elites, and so they were illegitimate.
I disagree, strongly.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You can disagree w/reality all you want and defend strangers from 220+ years ago all you want...reality remains.
You're just spewing now...if you can't understand how corporations are fascistic (created and regulated by govt) then you need to study up!
Now bugger off...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 The way I think of it, corporations in a free, non-governmental country would be an entirely different thing. As things are now, you are mostly right. Corporations can't help but exist in collusion with the state that pulls strings for them.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@EnochEmery251
Certainly corporations wouldn't have the govt around to shield them from the consequences of their own actions and competitors in a free society.
Nor would they be unnecessarily overburdened w/taxes and regs--however, I don't think they particularly mind this, now, as taxes/regs serve as barriers to the marketplace--which cuts down on competition.
To call modern-day corporations a manifestation of the free-market (like captain is doing) is patently false.
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot If by "Founders" you mean signers of the Declaration of Independence or participants in the debates on the Constitution, then yes, they were elites. They were almost universally affluent landowners. I think that it's mostly irrelevant, though, because they concocted a binding government that no-one ever consented to. That's why I believe they were unethical. It doesn't really matter if they were only doing it for their own economic interests; they did it.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@EnochEmery251
This is just more horseshit. The Founders were sent to Philadelphia by their respect state governments. They represented their various state interests. You want to damn them, because they were "elites?" That's your problem.
The FACT is gov't is a necessary evil, our Founders recognized this, but they also recognized that anarchy is bullshit, and leads to tyranny. Utopia will never exist in the real world.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
No, GOVT leads to tyranny.
Anarchists understand FAR BETTER than statists that GOVT is an attempt at utopia.
The "Founders" solution to the alleged problems of the time was to create MORE and BIGGER govt...not a very good idea, was it?
By thier OWN ACTIONS, the 'Founders' showed their utter lack of respect for the constitution and people they claimed to represent.
Listen, I used to be like you--I deified the founders/constitution--but the truth is they were elitists.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
This statement proves you have never read why the Founders did what they did. You'd rather say they were elites, so they were illegitimate. Nonsense. The Founders designed a VERY limited government, for the past 100 years we've watched the gov't break the Constitution to become what it has, who's fault is that? Ours.
And you'll find if you do research them, that the Founders attempted to balance the two extremes of Gov't tyranny, and non-gov't chaos.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot The Acton-Lee Correspondence
"...I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy...I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond..."
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot CONT'D (Lee)
"...whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 "Listen, I used to be like you--I deified the founders/constitution--but the truth is they were elitists."
I know what you mean. I never really though about it, though, I just picked up "founders" as a buzzword. After a while you just start to understand that you cannot be for absolute freedom and having a state simultaneously. This is why I think the "founders" didn't care for it at all, they were just appealing to it because it sounded nice and logical, too, at the time.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@EnochEmery251
Truly, the constitution is the bible to people like captain and the 'founders' are like biblical prophets...if not a group of Jesus's!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Govt is no more "a necessary evil" than slavery was.
There is NOTHING which govt provides that can't be provided by the free-market.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Well said. There really is no such thing as a "necessary evil", as far as i'm concerned. Evil should always be subverted.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
@ashane77
We are in complete agreement. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that NO gov't is better than small gov't in reality. I don't think you can have utopia while we are alive. We need to have a gov't to judge contracts, to defend against outside attack, and to make treaties with other gov't entities. That's it. You want more, we all do, however, the world is not some innocent place waiting for some anarchist solution to our issues.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot You don't need govt to do any of the things you listed. Its not naive to realize that "small govt" is an impossible oxymoron.
I've READ much of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, so believe me, I have a decent grasp of the men involved.
It is not "our fault" the constitution has become irrelevant and was doomed from the start. It is the NATURE OF GOVT to expand.
Any semblance of limited const. govt vanished w/the so-called "Civil War" ( failed 2nd American Revolution).
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
OK, and your alternative is? Not that I agree with your analysis regarding the Founders, nor the nature of our government, nor how you ignore the thinking of the Founders regarding the various forms of government, and their weaknesses.
We ARE to blame, because we voted people into office who didn't give a damn about the Constitution.
While I live in the South, they were wrong to start a Civil War with Slavery as a part of it's economic system; indefensible.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Alternative = freedom.
The war wasn't about slavery. It was about consolodating power. The Anti-Federalists predicted this would happen before the constitution was ratified. The Colonies were slavery friendly when they fought the English--were they wrong too?
No, don't blame yourself. Events/actions over which we had ZERO control led to today's mess.
Once the fedgovt defeated the Southern States it was inevitable.
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Again, there were no "Founders"...there were two main groups of political combatants:
Federalists (pro-constitution)
Anti-Federalists (anti-constitution)
The Federalists basically claimed the central govt was necessary, beneficial, and could never grow large enough to threaten the States' sovereignty.
The Anti-Federalists basically said it was a naked power grab which would result in the abolition of the States' sovereignty.
I guess we now know who was right, eh?
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Is being porno-scanned and/or molested by TSA agents at the airport a necessary evil too?
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
No, it's an illustration of gov't stupidity, and a reason to shrink the damn thing. The Homeland Security Agency should have never happened.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot "The Founders were sent to Philadelphia by their respect state governments." At no point did anyone other than those being sent to Philadelphia and those sending to Philadelphia ever become bound by the decision to send representatives to Philadelphia, by the delegation in Philadelphia, or to any ruling stemming from local governments or the delegation in Philadelphia. And, this select group of people were elites. The Founders realized that anarchy would subvert their new power.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@EnochEmery251
You know enoch, you are those like you, are completely full of shit. I can find copious amounts of footnoted documentation backing my positions regarding both the Founders and the Constitution.
You enjoy your bullshit beliefs, I'm done arguing with you. Should you choose to start some sort of violent revolution, as the "anarchists" have in Europe, I'll enjoy being part of the force that cracks your heads.
In the meantime, either Vote, or Fuck off.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Why are you getting so upset?
Why are you so intent on defending STRANGERS from 200+ years ago?
You're not gonna crack anyone's head, so drop the tough-guy act.
Vote to your heart's content...it won't change anything.
Keep waiting for the FedGovt to abide by your holy document the constitution...odds are they'll just ignore it like they have for 200+ years.
Keep on worshipping the 'founders' like they were gods...see how much good it does.
Now run along child...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
meet me in a street with your body and face covered by black...act out the fantasies of anarchists we see in London, Paris, Athens, Toronto, et. al. and see how I act. Attempt to destroy my property, and see how I act.
I do worship the Constitution, and I abhor politicians who have trashed it for 100 years. There will always be government, whether you choose to believe it or not. Utopia will never exist.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Why would I be in the street painted in black trying to destroy your--or anyone else's--property? You're not gonna do jack shit anyways. That is an ignorant and laughable stereo-type. The folks who're mainly responsible for death and destruction are those in GOVT, if you hadn't noticed, genius.
Well, if you worship the Constitution then, by extension, you worship the POLITICIANS who created it. Your faith in this useless and irrelevant piece of paper doesn't matter.
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You've completely dodged the debate too and ignored inconvenient facts that didn't fit in w/your fairytale beliefs...typical.
Take care, and keep on worshipping politicians...I'm sure they'll lead us to Utopia eventually, eh?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
I don't like politicians, however, I do appreciate what the Founders did here. Perhaps you'd like to move to some other place; you don't like it, you're free to leave.
I don't believe in utopia, that's the point.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
The 'founders' WERE POLITICIANS genius.
LOL...the old "if you don't like it leave" non-argument...you're obviously out of gas!
And, no, I'm not "free to leave" dummy.
And, no comment on the Alien/Sedition Acts eh?
Inconvenient truths are a biatch, huh?
Game, set, match--YOU LOSE!!!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
What a fucking laugh you are. Jefferson attacked the Acts as Unconstitutional. Am I now to conclude that because he did this, he wasn't an "elite" in your cretinous mind? The Republic has had and will continue to have on ongoing argument regarding the limits of government; this is a part of the Structure of our gov't.
Except where people like you enter the picture and attempt to condemn the entire system, because of your jaded perspective. This isn't a perverse competition, fool.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@ashane77
What a fucking laugh you are. Jefferson attacked the Acts as Unconstitutional. Am I now to conclude that because he did this, he wasn't an "elite" in your cretinous mind? The Republic has had, and will continue to have on ongoing argument regarding the limits of government; this is a part of the Structure of our gov't.
Except when people like you enter the picture and attempt to condemn the entire system, because of your jaded perspective. This isn't a perverse competition, fool.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Ahhh...yeah, Jefferson DID attack the Alien/Sedition Acts, and after he was elected...used the SAME FRIGGIN ACTS to harrass HIS political opponents!
Another self-ownage on your part! Ha, ha ,ha!
Man you're a dunce!
Oh, and no comment on the LP, eh? Typical!
Yeah, we've seen what the "ongoing argument regarding the limits of government" has led to, eh? Pretty much a ONE-WAY 'argument' that has led to massive govt!
You, YOURSELF, made pathetic excuses for the LP!!!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
And, yes, you DO believe in Utopia since you think giving politicians power over us will lead to a just and prosperous society.
Look around asshole...and pull your head out of your ass...
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You never did comment on the FACT that the very EARLIEST 'founders' passed legislation (Alien & Sedition Acts) which DIRECTLY conflicted w/the so-called "Bill Of Rights"--specifically the 1st amendment which 'guaranteed' freedom of speech. People were charged, tried, and convicted due to criticizing the federal govt. And, as I told you earlier, even Jefferson went along with something (Louisianan Purchase) that he, HIMSELF, believed to be unconstitutional.
UBenPwn'd!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
You're an asshole. If you think that your view of No Government is the way to go, that's your opinion. If you think the Founders who created the Constitution turned around and simply violated the thing, you're incorrect. There is NO provision in the Constitution regarding land acquisition, there was an argument, but no clear language prevented the purchase.
Pull your head out of your ass.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You need to learn some more...you clearly have very little knowledge of early American history. Thomans Jefferson, HIMSELF, believed the LP to be unconstitutional and went along w/it ANYWAYS. Your assertion about land acquisition demonstrates exactly why constitutions fail: they are conveniently interpreted to justify ANYTHING. "Well it doesn't say the FedGovt CAN'T buy land"...LOL...you obviously know very little about the constitution you worship!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
captaindumalot got majorly owned!
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
Yeah, this dipshit doesn't even understand the document that HE'S defending...where do all of these ignorant fucks come from?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Fuck off ashane. Ignorant asshole, you stupid fool. The fundamental structure of the United States was an attempt at the BALANCE between complete Anarchy, and chaos, and Absolute Tyranny, or slavery.
You stupid fuck, you think I BELEIVE IN UTOPIA? when here is a spokesman for Anarchy, who thinks that NO government will work? Sure, who believe in utopia? Not me, you jerk off.
The Founders attempted with a defined small government the attempt to maximum freedom w/out anarchy.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You know, you're right...if only we can give politicians enough power over our lives they CAN create Utopia!
Let's give money, guns, and power to politicians...what could possibly go wrong?!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Hey, you stupid fuck, I have said only one thing, minimal gov't.
You're an arrogant prick.
As long as you don't wear a mask on your face and break my property, no problem, but as soon as you try to act like a black shirt, and get in my face, you better have a gun.
Fact is, you're probably a prick, because you don't get laid all that often. Now, I'm done with you, go back to your video games.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
What a douche!
ashane SCHOOLED you...you should be THANKING him/her!
I, for one, never knew about TJ and the Sedition-Alien legislation abuses...or how he violated the constitution and his own conscience in the name of political expediency in the Louisiana purchase.
The folks in masks and black shirts you SHOULD be worried about are the GOVT aholes you love so much--who are FAR more likely than anyone else to rob/kill you!
FOAD
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
I hit captainturdinhispants with inconvenient FACTS about his bible and gods and he goes off on a tangent about "black shirt and mask-wearing" goons ( wonder if he's heard of BATF, FBI, SWAT, Spec-Ops, Mercenaries/Contractors, etc?)...telling me I'm a prick who better bring a gun w/me when I "get in his face"...I don't "get laid" enough...I'm "arrogant"...this is what I LOVE about anarchy--it reduces statists to raving morons who can't argue a simple point or deal w/reality!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
And I stand by what i said, your arrogance is evidence of a large ego, that can't be backed up by any physical attributes. What anarchy does is argue an absolute, and then claim that EVERYTHING ELSE is illegitimate.
I've asked you to define the type of political system you think would work, and you've ignored the question, and miscast my position. If you were to call me a Statist to my face, you'd need to be able to back-up those fighting words; I don't think you can.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Dummy...asserting that govt is necessary/inevitable is a STATIST point-of-view!
I can't/won't define "the type of political system I think would work" because I don't think ANY type of statist system is moral or even necessary.
YOU'RE the one who's refused to address the LP and Alien-Sedition acts because they don't fit into your fantasies of the 'founders'.
LOL...more e-tough guy talk too! I love it!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Really? is this why the Articles of Confederation, arguably the ONLY anarchist gov't to EVER exist, failed? Look, I live in Sarasota, Florida, you near me? come and visit.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Articles of Confed was better than the constitution, for sure, but it was NOT anarchical being that state govts and a crude central govt still existed. I always LOL when turds say the Article's "failed"...yeah, they were given all of 7 years or so to work...right after the VERY expensive and upheaving Revolutionary War! All the problems of the times are attributed to the Articles (not politicians)...but the Constitution failing for 220+ YEARS is the fault of politicians.
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot THINK about what YOU said, dummy!
The constitution was created to restrain govt, but...it was new so no one really knew what it meant...so they just made laws up as they went along in order to "discover" what the limitations on govt power were or weren't...how idiotic can you get?!
You just proved MY point AGAIN tard! A constitution that has no specific/firm meaning is pretty damned worthless isn't it? It (and restrictions on govt) may as well not even exist, right?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
This is obvious: You've never read any of the papers, books, journals of the men who sat down and argued the merits and problems of a new form of government, nor the objectives thereof. Their recognition of ancient history, progressive economic thought (Adam Smith), or the change that occurred with the Scottish and English Enlightenment.
The Constitution has Absolute Meaning, the Supremacy Clause grants the type of power to the Fed Gov't that the Confederacy lacked. Anarchy FAILED.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Don't worry about where I live tard...mind your own business. Suffice to say I've got tons more Southern Pride than you do!
Stop talking like a Damnyankee w/your fedgovt worship you Scalawag!
Grow a pair and get some pride you lug!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
you're just a pussy. a little jerk off, who thinks he can say whatever he wants without the responsibility of being able to back up a big mouth. You know, I work at being prepared for what Anarchy Means; The Law of the Jungle. Survival of the Fittest, Strongest, Fastest, Smartest. You'd never survive in the world you think would be Utopian, it would chew you up, and spit you out.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Your beloved holy constitution can objectivly be said to have achieved only ONE THING: it created MORE GOVT in the form of a central/federal govt.
Now YOU may think MORE GOVT was/is the ONLY solution to any and every problem, but some of us don't.
Don't get so damned hot under the collar, either champ, if you're TRULY for less govt YOU TOO have at least some anarchical tendencies.
Open that mind of yours up...you may be suprised at where logic/morality may lead you. Bye
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Stop being an arrogant asshole. You haven't answered the two "simple" questions I've asked you...give us the gov't/political/social structure that is superior to the attempt at minimal gov't that was the original idea of the United States?
Tell us how anarchy controls the natural inclination of people me to cave in the heads of narcissists like you. How would you prevent me from beating the shit out of you? Who arbitrates? Who incarcerates? Who pays those who do? No gov't? Sure.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
You and the other arrogant fuck need to read a few more history books, specifically on the Founding of the Republic, and the arguments of the types of gov't we should live under.
If you think Anarchy was not discussed as a possible model, you're both suffering from ignorance. To use ONE example, The Louisiana Purchase, and claim that it was a Constitutional violation is simplistic. There was an argument, however, you won't find land acquisition dealt with in the Constitution.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
One more time since you seem to be slow: Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF didn't believe the fedgovt had the authority to purchase land!
He went along w/the LP ANYWAYS.
Can you understand what that means?
What do you say about TJ using the Alien/Sedition Acts to harrass his political opponents? MORE people were tried/convicted under HIS admin than his predecessor's even!
There's this thing called "google"...I suggest you use it so as not to look like a fool!
See ya loser!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Once more, you're proving you're an arrogant ass. Jefferson's OPINION, was one of many. The whole structure of the gov't, at the time, was a NEW institution, NEVER TRIED BEFORE. Hello? Are you simply fucking dense? Or just such a Know It All that you really don't give a damn what really happened? One guy doesn't make a trend, the formation was argued about, and continues to be argued about, to this day.
You better never hope we see each other you arrogant fuck.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot You're hilarious! If TJ thought the LP was unconstitutional WHY THE HECK did he give his sanction to it? Why didn't he veto it--isn't that one of the president's main duties/responsibilities w/i the system of checks-and-balances? Why did he campaign against the Alien/Sedition Acts but--after he won--use the SAME DANGED acts to arrest/imprison people?The idea of a constitution that no one can ascertain the meaning of because its "new" is a pretty asinine one don't you think?
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot To recap for the mentally deficient:
Articles "fail"--after being given less than a decade to "work" right after a fight against the superpower of the time (England); every problem facing the states is due to the Articles being deficient, not because they weren't followed by politicians.
Constitution fails to restrain govt for 220+ years, but its not because its deficient, no, its because politicians refuse to abide by it. No problems can ever be attributed to it either.LOL!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
No, the Confederation failed, because it could NOT deal with the myriad of needs that a large group of people, NOT a TRIBE, require. The Constitution WORKED for a significant period of time, granted with compromise. The great failing of the Founders was slavery. However, for the times, MOST of the world employed slavery, in fact, there were more European Slaves within the islamist nations than in the western world.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Shut up you wanna-be e-tough guy...you're only making yourself look more moronic by the post...
shane77 beat your ass hands down!
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
Yeah SS100...I hope I don't get an e-black eye!
captainturdinhispants is one e-badass!
ashane77 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
Fuck off sugar, you're another weak link.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Now why don't you go wrassle a gator, or whatever it is y'all do in Sarasota.
You're clearly uninterested and incapable of rational debate.
In an "Anarchist World" Mr. Smith and Wesson is what would "protect people like me" from assclowns like you.
Maybe you can think of something better to do than challenge internet strangers to a fight, perhaps?
You got beat...deal with it...learn from it...study...and then come back and try again, son!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Good job ashane...you really tore Mr. Internet Badass a HUGE new hole!
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
Yeah, the prick FAILED to address a SINGLE one of my points while I DEMOLISHED all of his weak ones...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
I don't think so, I think you're all a bunch of losers, who like to break windows. You all talk a good story, like Stefbot here, but when someone points out your deficiencies you claim that their "statists." When I challenge you, personally, you back down. See, you're not safe without the blackfaced crowd behind your cowardly ass.
You never answered a single one of my questions, and you're just another coward. Laughable.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Uh-huh, sure champ!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
You = douche
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Funny, coming from a coward.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Hey captain, did you ever call in to stefbots radio show?
Or post your questions about anarchy at the Freedomain Radio.com?
SlipAllCityToy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SlipAllCityToy
No. It never dawned on me. I agree with the vast majority of the positions he presents. However, I think he misses the point of the American structure of government, and I don't understand why.
captaindiesalot 3 months ago
@captaindiesalot
I'm getting out of here...the capitan is e-scaring me!
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
SS100, I love how captainstickuphisass is playing dumb (or maybe he isn't playing?) about my Thomas Jefferston points, don't you? I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the LP, but pointing out that TJ thought is wasn't--but he went along with it ANYWAYS.
Also there's the matter of the Alien-Sedition Acts that captaincrapsalot has also totally ignored.
Typical statist ass-clown who doesn't know how to argue...what a douche w/his internet tough-guy act too!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Yes, only more govt can solve problems...we hear you!
You're FAILED to address some simple and straighforward Q's...you lose.
Now stfu you e-tough guy, you!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Right. Keep misinterpreting me, and avoiding my questions.
Like I said, Shane, given an Anarchist World, who's going to protect people like you, from people like me? You'll be a victim of your own system.
You know where I live, let's get together and have a personal discussion.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
I've not misinterpreted anything you said, and I'm not gonna get into a constitutional debate with you. There are any variety of turds like yourself who rationalize ANYTHING the fedgovt does...and can find constitutional approval for ANYTHING: social security, medicare, undeclared wars, fiat money, and other wealth transfer programs, and stuff like the Louisiana Purchase. The constitution is an irrelevant and worthless piece of paper--just ask the fed govt!
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
More w/the "mask/black shirt" nonsense! LOL :0
I have no desire to "get in your face" either you e-tough guy you! LMFAOAROTFL :)
Sorry if you feel butthurt...but I just hit your ass w/some FACTS...
Your "minimal govt" talk consisted of defending violations against YOUR holy constitution by YOUR founder-gods! Ha, ha, ha! Self-friggin-pwnage at its best!
Please, don't take MY word for what I told you--the info is mere seconds away and at your fingertips!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
No, what you do is preach from an arrogant perspective. You make statements about specific events with simplistic conclusions based upon your preconceived notions.
You've made specific claims against gov't leaders based upon your own defined parameters, and ALL I've said, is that the Founders, DESIGNED a gov't that was an attempt at minimal gov't, without the threat that No Gov't represented.
You're an arrogant fuck. You and sugar deserve each other.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
So voting supports the statist system? Yet you replied to the young guy that emailed you that it was okay for him to take benefits from the state - an action that can only support the system, and even moreso if it contributes to him making enough of a success of himself (via that benefit) to become independent of state help, because it's obstensibly exactly the intention of such help and supports the notion that it's a good system. Is there some logic to this inconsistency that I'm not seeing?
rivenrock 1 year ago
I see you had a lot of negative things to say about Zeitgeist Addendum ... I am referring specifically to the part where you point out Zeitgeists' talk about social engineering...
"If you eradicate the conditions you eradicate the behavior. There is no human nature only behavior"
But then you turn around 360 in this video, regarding the emails you get from people regarding human nature....
You use the exact same Zeitgeists argument...
So I am left scratching my head on this flip-flop?
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly Venus Project is not only against the shallow biases called "human nature", it's also against some fundamental realities of the world, e.g. scarcity, individuality, market price mechanism, etc.
Alard1649 1 year ago
@Alard1649 As long as Venus Project people respect my property rights and right to use money (any medium of trade) voluntarily with others, then I'm happy for them to live in your voluntary commune.
fnuzzoiv 1 year ago
@Alard1649
OK so?...
Please address why stefbot lumps Zeitgeist's argument about human nature in the same rubbish bin with many other Zeitgeist ideas...
Then a couple years later, in this video, he uses the exact same argument he was previously criticizing?
This is a double standard and flip flop if I ever saw one...
So can I too come to the conclusion that I should throw everything stefbot says into the rubbish bin.
Or can we agree people make mistakes and not throw the baby out?
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
If you're right, this shows the immaturity in the epistemology and logic of his arguments regarding Anarchy.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
nice one stef!
TWISTbeats 1 year ago
"criminality stems from child abuse" - what about people who were born crazy or psychotic or just plain evil? what about those people who are "the black sheep in the family"?
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
Stef, I love your work. But you really MUST relax and expand your understanding of "self-medication". No doubt many drug users are trying to cope with the effects of childhood abuse. But it's ridiculous to say that ALL of them are. You leave out, for example, people who test the boundaries of "normal" consciousness deliberately, scientifically, and spiritually, as well as those trying to get beyond the mundanity and ennui of modern life - a sane response to an insane and arbitrary culture.
3stringovation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No one knows, and I will never admit it to anyone...yes it did take me about 20 years.
Blastfimus777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stef-fans, give me a hell yeah
sonofagunM357 1 year ago
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
The United States is a Constitutional Republic...established by a relatively few elitists 220+ years ago in secret meetings...where the meaning of the constitution is determined by simple majority vote of politicians and their appointees (Supreme Court).
And, American republicanism (representational democracy) IS a form of democracy--a very poor one at that.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
They were selected individuals sent by their respective state elected bodies. Again, I find your simplistic explanation of our Constitution to be without merit, let alone, documented study. Granted, by becoming one of the Founders, they became American Elite from a historical perspective, but most were NOT men capable of exerting themselves for short-sighted gain, as our politicians today are.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Who selected these individuals?
You DO realize that VERY FEW people were allowed to vote back then, right?
It actually YOUR portrayal of the "founding" that is naively simplistic and based on quaint stories taught in school.
The Constitution was, merely, an act that was enforced through majority vote. No different than Obamacare.
Quite a few opposed it (anti-federalists), but were outnumbered by a numerically superior political foe (federalists).
ashane77 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
The winning political faction (Federalists--the ones who wanted a fedgovt and got the constitution passed) at the time of the "founding" passed a law (Alien Sedition Act) which made criticizing the govt a crime (despite the 1st amendment)--people were arrested and jailed for doing this. Jefferson ran on a platform critical of this act and after he won the presidency...used the same act to jail HIS political opponents.
Some men of principle those "founders" were, eh?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
This is an inane argument. The whole reason the gov't was structured as it is, was because these men recognized that they were imperfect human beings. There is no such thing as a perfect gov't.
You keep attacking these men, and I'm arguing that you're the fool to think that there's a better form of democratic structure.
So, stop wasting my time with the Founders.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot
Dude, stop acting like a dick.
I'm pointing out HISTORICAL FACTS...if you don't like them--TOUGH SHIT.
Stop wasting MY time w/your "Founder" worship. They...were...political...elitists...deal with it!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Like I said, you have an attitude. I think, you think, you're some tough guy, who's view of the world is worthy of consideration. It's not.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
Stef:
Please, profit margins of 15% to 18% are not that large or outrageous. They're within the margins of the overall market of publicly traded firms. These same margins are what drive further research into newer drugs to deal with illness. The profit motive of legal companies does not drive new addicts.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is not scientific, addiction may be caused by "abuse," but it's not the only cause.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago 2
@captaindiesalot
It is fairly large. It is certainly in the Top 10 in terms of profit margins from what I remember. The Government also significantly subsidises the research for the Pharmaceutical Industry.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I'm in the investment business, I manage money for a living...Gross Margins in this industry aren't all that great for mature companies.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
I wonder how many of the people who ridicule your child abuse theories,are current child abusers.
VCADD 1 year ago 8
For all of the reasons you identify and more, I don't vote. But I would vote for pot decriminalization in California. I don't want marijuana controlled, regulated, and taxed any more than you do, but the war on marijuana in the US is an abomination, wrecking hundreds of thousands of lives each year and literally killing people. No, I don't like how alcohol is regulated in the US, but it is far preferable to the way marijuana is regulated.
perfectwagnerite 1 year ago
Well said, my last vote I 'scored or ruined' the ballot paper. I have kinda been on the fence about tactical voting, but you are right the whole system needs to go away.
Whats your reply to someone who says we can't have anarchy because people will just steal form others, houses, property etc?
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
Stefan another reason drugs will never be legalized is because several federal agencies would lobby heavily against it because they are involved in the sale of these drugs to supplement their budgets.
bunsh1ch1 1 year ago
another great vid. thanks!
imyourgod2 1 year ago
Dear Stef,
ever seen Rob Ager's Analysis to the movie A ClockWork Orange? (google it)
It's an extensive voyage on the mind of Alex, an abuser. Through the movie analysis we learn that he was also abused as a child and how he's lust for power can be found an portrayed in the movie on every layer of society, great read, I hope you give it a look, Im a Huge fan of yours by the way...
janporra 1 year ago
your claims of moral righteousness are meaningless, you support the capitalist system which denies sick and dying people health care, it denies people food if they cannot afford it, you are already scum in so many other ways you might as well support child molestation
RadicalSockAccount 1 year ago
god dammit molyneaux, again you take a good video and interject your child abuse theories into it. NOT EVERYONE IS ABUSED AS A CHILD! Jesus man, I think your insistence that everyone was abused is a result of you being abused or something...
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago
@OntologicalQuandary how about he's spot on accurate and you're just unwilling to recognize it? Did you consider that? maybe you are a child abuser and feeling squirmy in your chair? maybe you don't know love because you never were loved, and your only avenue is to point fingers at Stefan with a non sequitur quasi-ironic-quantum-entanglement-theory hoping that it sticks.
vutEwa 1 year ago