Socrates, Moral Hit Man

[vtran31]

hmm........ I never knew Socrates was a totalitarian nazi. thanks for the tip (I fel no pity that he poisoned himself now)

I think ur not giving plato enough credit . he was actually morally opposed to slavery in his time. in The Republic, he said the master was prisoner to the slaves, because at a moments notice they could and would slit his throat without a thought and take his property (including their own personhood)

[Copper4head]

Quote by Socrates: No matter how corrupt the government, every citizen's life is rooted in the community.

True or false? Please explain your reasoning.

[ChristophDollis]

Stefan argues from first principles and he makes many stunning psychological and philosophical insights, which really have the power to improve a person's life.

At the same time, his arguments from first principles often gives short shrift to biology. We -- unfortunately -- live in an aggressive, violent world (Heinlein got this right).

Even EATING is violent, the immune system is violent, and so is swatting a fly.

I'm glad we're loving, social, warm-blooded MAMMALS... in this harsh world.

[ChristophDollis]

You say you're an empiricist, but you miss the fact we are apes.

Aggressive, warlike & often warm social primates.

In what community of any size is the person-to-person homicide rate 0?

Violence isn't caused by the state, although the state can acerbate it. Often the state is an attempt to limit violence upon its community members, by defending its community against others who would conquer/destroy/enslave it ... and by ensuring criminals who prey on the weak and vulnerable are locked up.

[yuvisingh]

Socrates lived 2500 years ago. Stop taking everything he said so literally. If you are gonna take one and only one thing from the works of Socrates is that every person absolutely must and without fail think for themselves. Times have changed and so have people views towards military states. Unlike the two it takes to tango, it takes only one to make war. Only the strong can enforce the peace. Its called the philosophy of deterrence, even monks understand that. And p.s. stop rambling.

[arlancius]

i might be wrong, but i believe what Socrates is stating is basically the modern idea of civil disobedience, which in his case, led to his death.

[1981z28camaro]

The Rothschilds own the US Corporation, and they lend money to the US through the "Federal Reserve" and people have to pay taxes to pay off the interest on the borrowed money, people tend to think that their taxes go to fixing pot holes and whatnot, but really, it's going directly into the bank accounts of this family, who will fund operations such as 9/11 as an excuse to invade a country to to expand their power and build a Central Bank in the countries that don't have their bank..

[Emil246]

@1981z28camaro Why doesn't rothchild run for president?

[1981z28camaro]

@Emil246 because they'd much rather keep in the dark, and control every president regardless of which one is elected. They like the secrecy.

[MinnowBelcher]

"And if it leads you out to war, to be wounded or killed, you must comply, it is just that it should be so" It sounds more like Socrates was a Stoic. You are trying too hard, and I believe you missed the point. No disrespect meant.

[Randomambusher]

There's no tax prison in Canada, man.

[siggyboss]

Although I have never read any of Socrates' works, this video is quite revealing.

[ChristophDollis]

@siggyboss

No it isn't. It's one guy's opinion on someone whose work you've made no effort to understand.

It MIGHT be "revealing" if you had a few different opinions to choose from after thinking about it... but as it is?

No.

[siggyboss]

@ChristophDollis Are you actually arguing about what is revealing to me? Maybe you're arguing there is an objective criteria for what is revealing? How do you know how many opinions I have to choose from? I'm more so amused you bothered to type your comment. lol

[ChristophDollis]

@siggyboss

Okay, that's a fair reply. Objectively I can't say you're wrong on any of your points.

However, I did find it kind of amusing that someone would take a rant against the most esteemed (possibly undeserved, but that's the question) philosopher in human history as "revealing" without ever having studies any of the philosopher's work or even other people's opinions on that philosopher.

Gaining any new perspective is revealing, but if the ONLY perspective one gains is a criticism...

[siggyboss]

Although I have never read any of Socrates' works, it's very revealing.

[Majenius]

I have waited wanting to hear TRUTH. Having heard, I sovereignly swear, NEVER to KILL for a LIE.

[stefbot]

That is a very powerful commitment - congratulations, and thank you for sharing it! :)

[Majenius]

I have been on the other side and know the lie.

[chris3443]

You rock!

[DuxAngeliux]

ANARQUIA

[Adipatus]

It seems that Socrates believed that the individual should always do the just thing, regardless of the circumstances. But it seemed to him that the State was not under the same duty toward its citizens.

[detriplea]

obedience?

[ravercanada]

thanx again, i've again enjoyed.

[directedchaos]

"democracy is the suggestion box for slaves, which is never open"

random quack quote of the day. :)

[hugesinker]

"Society in every state is a blessing, but gov't even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to this same miseries by a gov't, which we might expect in a country without gov't, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Gov't... is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise."

-Thomas Payne (Common Sense)

[DearDiggers023]

Interesting, but when you talk about obedience to parents, the state, some principle (capitalism, communis, socialism, etc)

You're still talking about an abstraction, the world is always simply the world, we can give it 50 different names or organize society differently and give it a label but it is still the world.

The truth is all human philosophies are based on the flawed structure of our neurology and our powerlessness over nature as organisms,

think if we had the power of gods...

[psusac]

We are a tribal species that is living in a world that has evolved WAY beyond the evolutionary equipment we have been born with to work out moral problems. I think this is all the explanation you need for the "scar tissue" you seem to dwell on. You seem to bring up rape alot. Have you ever considered counseling (not a wise crack - you seem really wounded to me).

Anyway, a very intelligent rant. I can't say I agree with most of it, but you have some good ideas in there.

[stefbot]

Rape is the least ambiguous moral crime, since is not muddied by self-defense. According to your observations, then, I have not been to counseling, is that right?

[psusac]

I'm sure that I wouldn't know if you have been to counseling or not. I'm just saying you seem a little emotionally raw to me.

[stefbot]

Right, I see. I am not saving my passion and outrage for some more important topic... :)

[DearDiggers023]

But in an amoral world, there is no crime.

[vtran31]

@psusac have you heard of raping the land? rape isnt just sexual conquest - it's monetary, occupational, etc etc

[vtran31]

Respond to this video... stefan, I think you have a misperception of a typical american soldier. most soliers volunteer to be owned by the military out of guilt - they want to "protect their families" and make sure their friends and neighbors dont have to go in their place

is the military industrial complex corrupt? of course. but to lay the blame at people who choose to kill because they believe that is the only choice to protect their loved ones doesnt make them paid mercenaries

[psusac]

And yet the per-capita incidence of death by violence has consistantly deminished over history, even with the advent of world wars taken into account. I would like to refer you to a video by Steven Pinker called a brief history of violence.

I'm sorry, but your arguement simply is not consistant with the facts. Civilization (i.e "the state") results in LESS violence not more.

[stefbot]

Actually, life expectancy has increased as the state has gotten smaller and less powerful. Also, would you compare ancient Carthage to the religous wars of the 16-18th centuries? It is far from linear.

[psusac]

Well, I'm hardly an expert on the history of violence, but I consider Steven Pinker a highly credible source. You might want to give that video a look-see.

[guitarrob1966]

We need to murder or enemies before they murder us. Unless you are a neutered liberal that likes your enemy to give it to you up the Ass.

[threebobs]

In your paradigm, you're right. But your paradigm, sadly, is wrong.

[ultimategoobah]

well how 'bout we take it up the ass for a change. willingly. wouldn't that be quite a sight? just imagine it. the first people on earth who don't fight back. who let themselves be slaughtered without so much as raising an eyebrow. in fact, we'll offer them tea while they're doing it. Imagine what we would do to the world.

[Finites]

5*****!!

Thanks for sharing, 2bbgunsup.

[asdaarg]

First, I would like to point out that most dictionaries do not equate killing with murder. The two senses that occurs in almost all are a) unlawful malicious killing and b) barbarous, brutal or inhuman killing.

The first sense is legal while the second is ethical. The first sense cannot be applied outside the state where there is no court. The second can be applied in war, but it also does not suppose killing is wrong in itself, but refers to a form of killing that is wrong.

[asdaarg]

My question is, do you equate the terms, or do you make the positive claim that war cannot be waged without murder (in which case, what is mean't by the term?)?

[asdaarg]

My question is, do you equate the terms, or do you make the positive claim that war cannot be waged without murder (in which case, what is mean't by the term?)?

[gerry2345]

great vid.

[PvtSchlock]

I think the long dead german says it well when he speaks of the demon of power. Without recognition of the drive to exercise power over another, how can we avoid it? That is the drive to be "good", by exercising power over those who are "evil". Does not a father beat his son for stealing, so that others will not eventually slay the lad?

[kimuraftw]

another 5 stars... keep it up!

[SloterMFmeyer]

I agree that the state is a kind of mafia-organisation and that soldiers are murderers and that this is key in discussing war.

But maybe Socrates was talking about 'being killed' instead of 'murder' as an example of an extreme duty. Most people would find it preferable to do the killing themselves (hence the death penalty for deserters). So maybe that description was not a subtile 'side step' (12:04) or piece of propaganda by the SoaB ;-)

[newperve]

Well being sent to war implies that you will kill does it not? The fact that he mentions being killed, but not killing as a sacrifice means that he thinks nothing of killing if told to. He does not say "You must murder if you're told to.", not because it is so insignificant but because it is so significant.

[SloterMFmeyer]

To think that Socrates is trying to mislead by not naming the implied murder in war, is close to paranoia.

I find it highly unlikely that he would judge his listeners as stupid people, that would not realize what war meant if he did not explain it to them.

It is selfevident that murder is preferred over suicide for each living organism (with sometimes an exeption for parents). To make a strong case, it is better to give an example of the extreme sacrifice. And that is all Socrates did.

[newperve]

He took as read that killing was justified in a moral discussion. That simply cannot be done honestly by someone as smart as Plato says Socrates is. It is not "self-evident" that murder is preferable to suicide. Indeed his argument is that whatever the State says is preferable, which in some cases (including his) was suicide. What other purpose could not mentioning killing have but to sidestep the issue?

[SloterMFmeyer]

Maybe I did not use 'self-evident'correctly?

My first interpretation of the text is that, when in war, one must stand by his country and even die for it willingly. The definition of war includes (for a soldier) trying to kill the enemy and maybe get killed yourself. Maybe in our time of buttons and bombrockets this should need more explanation.

[newperve]

You claimed that murder is "self-evidently" preferable to suicide. Someone dying of cancer with only 2 days of excrutiatingly painful existance left would prefer to use a bullet a) to kill himself or b) to kill his beloved only son? Still "self-evident"?

The problem is not what he said but what he did not say. Yes he claimed that being killed was morally right, but he skipped over the killing. Do you imagine he just forgot about it?

[SloterMFmeyer]

The only problem with this text is that Socrates did not anticipate that about 2500 years later humanity would not understand anymore that living is preferable to dying. He should have covered the philosophical holes for new generations that were brought up in a time of slave morality and deathcults. You have got a point there. Apparently Socrates was not thàt smart, but I forgive him.

[newperve]

The problem is that you're trying to make excuse for deliberatly doding the moral question. Living is not universally preferable to dying, my grandfather taught me that lesson. He taught by example. I have looked an armed man in the face as he prepared to try to kill me, but that day was worse.

You are making a coward's excuse.

[SloterMFmeyer]

And you are making a children's argument. I'm sorry I was not aware of the lack of seriousness of your position. But I will try once more, this time more on your level of understanding: -We were discussing a war-situation. Very nice of you to bring in the emotion with your 'cancer' and your 'only son.' Hopefully it will help your moral standing when you are imagining very ill people lying and dying in a hospital bed on the battlefield, trying to lift guns at their family-enemy.

[newperve]

I am making a valid argument by counterexample. You claimed that murder was always preferable to suicide, it is not as I have shown. This has nothing to do with emotion, it has to do with the facts. The fact is that suicide is sometimes the best option and therefore clearly preferable to murder. You are the childish one for dodging the question, again.

[SloterMFmeyer]

The point was about a war situation. By taking the argument out of context, you're defending a different position. The sick and dying on the battlefield usuallt come there when they are healthy. Now I know why you like the word 'dodging' so much.

[newperve]

I did not dodge and I did not take the argument out of context. Your argument was that suicide was universally preferable to murder, it is not. Be a man and admit you were wrong about that or stop calling my arguments childish.

[SloterMFmeyer]

I'm unable to find your bit about the p&j sandwich. You said that it was not valid because the sandwich was not about morality in a warlike situation. I think you made a slip of the tongue there, because I thought you wanted to talk about your poor grandpa instead of war.

[newperve]

I wanted to talk about Socrates dodging of the question. You brought up the sandwich which was entirely unrelated to the subject Socrates was talking about. Therefore his not mentioning it is not "dodging the question". Killing people is highly relevent to his subject so not mentioning is dodging the question.

[SloterMFmeyer]

[2] -Why have you not said anything about Socrates' dodging of the question of making a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich? He skipped the (im)moral act as clear as day, so to not see this hiatus must be truly delusional. -A knife fight is an individual struggle. To choose to die against a professional knifesman for your own greater good is not very good analogy. - I am not trying to make an excuse for Socrates at all. I strongly disagree with him. But that does not matter.

[newperve]

Making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich has nothing to do with war so it's not dodging the question to not mention it. Killing does so it is dodging the question not to mention it in the context of his justification for State power.

[SloterMFmeyer]

In the time of Socrates war meant looking another man in the eye while ending his life. I think war is very well understood as legal murder and to imply with this text that Socrates is duping people when he does not explain wat war means, is absurd.

[newperve]

Then why didn't he justify the killing as well as the dying? He's trying to justify war, why does losing a knife-fight need justifying but not winning one? Why is only the deaths of our own worth commenting on morally? He dodges the question massively. You're delusional to claim anything else.

[SloterMFmeyer]

[3] I'm trying to make an excuse for sound interpretation. Nothing in the small piece of text makes it clear that Socrates explicitly does not mention something. He does not mention a lot, but it is impossible to say what he planned on not saying. We, in our modern times and morality, may find it strange that he does not mention the killing. But that does not mean he deliberately did so. There are many other possible reasons. Directly claiming that Socrates is a conman is pure paranoia.

[newperve]

It is entirely clear that he didn't mention justification for killing. You're lying again. What reasons could there be, when discussing the morality of war not to mention the fact that people are killing? It is not paranoia to see that dodging the question is dodging the question.

[SloterMFmeyer]

Calling a sitution 'clear' and showing your lack of imagination for diversity of reasons does not make it so. The 'dodging the question' you see, is your own interpretation. You can call it 'dodging the question' even three times and still it is you interpreting something which has not (!) been said as a deliberate attempt at masking the true goal of the text. That is what I call paranoia. I'm sorry if you can only express yourself in circle-arguments (i.e. 'dodging=dodging=dodging=dodgi­ng').

[newperve]

But he justifies being sent to war, which includes killing people. If killing people is not justified then going to war is not justified. He specifically says it is. Therefore he specifically justifies killing people without seeming to. It's a side step, plain as day.

[SloterMFmeyer]

[4] If I were you, I would be very grateful to my suicidal grandfather. First for having children and second for taking the time to wait all those years to meet you, before finally choosing to enter the better part of existence, before the eyes of his own grandson.

[newperve]

I never had a suicidal grandfather. My grandfather refrained from suicide despite his last years being an obscene parody of his life. Eventually he was reduced to not recognising a single person even his wife of many decades. Such a fate is definitely NOT preferable to death.

[SloterMFmeyer]

It is not preferable for you. Maybe he would think otherwise. In any way it's a different situation than choosing death when a person is healthy and young.

[newperve]

He might well have thought otherwise, were he capable of thinking at that stage, but that leaves my point undiminished, suicide is not universally preferable to murder and you claimed it is.

[deigond]

You're assuming (5:27) that "clearly Plato (thru Socrates)" accepts the argument presented by the Laws in Socrates' speech. What Plato makes Socrates say in the _Apology_ about disobedience suggests that Socrates - and maybe Plato "thru Socrates" - didn't accept the Laws' argument.

[slavophile1]

Nietszche's critique of Socrates was my favorite piece of his work ever. Its true that the Sophists had his number.

[Stevehtegreatgr]

I violently :) disagree there. Sophists AND Nietzsche were populists, they were by far more impressive than Socrates ever was but their methods could rarely make you more virtuous, they would only make you appear so. It's true that Socrates' derived -from his method- ethics may frequently were off but what does it bother you? I mean what the hell? Epicurus, the Stoics and the Cynics made their own schools -also- making important observations- w/t following to the least ....

[Stevehtegreatgr]

...the Socratic ethics but (by) ALWAYS following the Socratic type of thinking (logical inquiry by means of the Socratic method and/OR otherwise). If you disagree with Socratic ethics then make your own, but that's no base to criticise the search of truth by rational means as nonsense like Nietzsche did or the Sophists before him. I'm sorry to say but if Nietzsche was living in ancient Greece (he) would be considered a demagogue, not much of a philosopher, a sophist in other words....

[qtronman]

I'm curious: Is there some underlying psychological motive (i.e., an avoidance of something) driving your continual condemnation of the "violence of the state"? I've heard you say multiple times that you haven't killed anyone for money, but that in itself is not a meal ticket to goodness or virtue.

[stefbot]

It's not psychological. It's moral. Violence is evil.

[qtronman]

Why is violence always evil?

[qtronman]

I can think of many examples (e.g., consentual love making, a boxing match, a hockey game, etc.) involving perfectly moral violence.

I can also think of many examples of non-violence that are far more immoral than certain immoral violent actions (e.g., the works of David Hume).

Do you regard violence as axiomatically immoral?

[picapauengracado]

Good point. We are entering in the realm of semantics, but sure, I guess you could define those examples as violence, even though they are voluntary. Coercion is probably a better term for what Stefan means.

[qtronman]

"Violence" names a particular form of force, force that is swift, intense, rough, and/or accompanied by fury.

[qtronman]

Do you exclude other forms of immoral force? A wild-eyed hit man brandishing a machine gun is immoral, in your view, but a prim little bureaucrat with his weapons on call but discreetly out of sight is not?

[qtronman]

Is the rule of brutality is moral if carried out decorously, with the niceties of the electoral process observed, the right documents filled in, and the agony of the victims kept out of the newspapers?

[neutrinoide]

You seem to forget a little thing. It was about None voluntary violence. The initiation of violence.

[neutrinoide]

I found it interesting that you saw it was about only violence. That is a very interestinf underlying pshychological motive.

[newperve]

No but it's a good start. Someone who has killed for money is very unlikely to be more moral than someone who has not. The underlying motive for continual condemnation of "the violence of the State" is that the violence of the State is both morally wrong and harmful. Is that not sufficent motive? Isn't avoiding the billions of lives cut short a sufficent motive to condemn something?

[Jville445]

Stef what book and where in the text are you reading from?

[Stevehtegreatgr]

Although I do understand and accept many of your points I can't get your ad hominem attack to the Socratic method. Even if Socrates was the worst criminal in the face of this earth does not discourage his notion of logical inquiry to be true.

[stefbot]

I do not say that, and I quite agree.

[Stevehtegreatgr]

In the same vein I have to say that it is true that most of humanity's despicable crimes were based on the ethical guidelines of certain philosophers, (Plato's Republic for example) but it doesn't mean that philosophers should not be studied. In fact I think although many of their derived ethics are useless, their way of thinking outside the influences they may had at that times are gold and not only should be taught in schools but also must become a role model of a thinking process.

[Stevehtegreatgr]

Then and only then it's up to us to derive better ethics, not from an "arcane mage" who "knew the truths of this world" but from our logical process added to most updated influences that we may have in this era derived from the fact the we are evolved (Darwinian evolution) or psychology. We want their "magic sauce" NOT their "magic".

[newperve]

He did not attack the Socratic method, he attacks "Socrates's" logic and theory. The only reason he attacked Socrates was for his deliberate attempts to hide the fact that he was a murderer. That attempt was the core of Plato's explanation of Socrates and is the fundamental flaw in it. That's why it was attacked. If Socrates had behaved perfectly morally his theory would be just as flawed if it justified murder as it did. The reason it did is he did not behave morally, he was a murderer.

[Stevehtegreatgr]

Sure, but ethics are being understood as a regional and "epochal" effect. I'm not saying that this is the truth (i.e. that there is no universal morality), all I'm saying is that it would be quite of a leap already for Socrates, already having abandoned most of his tradition's verdicts, to abandon one more, which was thought to be so basic.

Having said that I would rather support Stefan's positions, too, rather than Socrates's as they are more modern and IMO closer to universal morality.

[kulza23]

Great insights!

[NeonKnight88]

Aha. I forgot that. I remember asking my sunday school teacher whether the commandment forbidding murder made war illegal.

[NeonKnight88]

If there is no government and no hitmen a tyrant will rise and try to institute one

[newperve]

And how will he do so? Without someone to make us pay his hitmen, how will he pay them? Without someone to convince us to pay his hitmen how will he pay his propagandists? Anyone can arise and seek to impose slavery on us. We shoot him and that's the end of it. Only justification as given by those like Plato and the alleged Socrates can make us ignore the threat.

[lukeev]

Great video Mr.Molyneux! :-)

[Questionablescum]

Just watched this... one of your best vides. I recently read Crito and had very similar thoughts.

[isjoeythere]

He covers a wide variety of topics, LimpLoser. If this isn't your thing, he covers more interesting stuff in his podcasts. Check out Podcasts #1-3 on Freedomain Radio dot com.

[LimpLoser]

stefbot . i have tried to find you interesting i really have..........................­.....i dont get your choice of subject matter. its fucking dull dude. it is its fucking dull.

[stefbot]

No problemo, if truth, war and philosophy is not to your taste, there are lots of cats playing piano to entertain you instead... ;)

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

Philosophy was another area where the acceptance of homosexuality was obvious, and seemed to be representative of the thoughts of many people (or at least male thought) of the time. Most of the early philosophers seemed to thoroughly understand and discuss the actions pederasty and homosexuality, and Socrates, considered the first philosopher, even described himself as being "experienced in the pursuit of men."

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

According to the dialogues of Plato -- a student of Socrates - pederasty and homosexuality were a part of everyday life, at least for aristocrats. Two of Plato' s works, The Phaedrus and The Symposium, paint a brilliant picture of what the attitude toward pederasty was at the time. In the opening pages of The Phaedrus, Phaedrus and Socrates are discussing a speech that Lysias -- a popular orator of the day - has written; a speech that was "...designed to win the favor of a handsome boy...."

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

Socrates seems to understand why one would write a speech on this subject, and even states that man "cannot have a less desirable protector or companion than the man who is in love with him." The Symposium goes into even greater detail about pederasty.

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

The setting is a symposium -- a type of dinner party that only included males as guests, and had entertainment, wine, and discussion of politics and philosophy -- in which several men are gathered and all give speeches about why a love of boys is a good thing. Phaedrus - the first to give his speech - states, For I can't say that there is a greater blessing right from boyhood than a good lover or a greater blessing for a lover than a darling [young boy].

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

What people who intend to lead their lives in a noble and beautiful manner need is not provided by family, public honors, wealth, or anything else, so well as by love. Pausanias - the second speaker - adds even more to this argument when he states Aphrodite only inspires love among men for young boys, and not women. Those inspired by Aphrodite are naturally drawn to the male because he is a stronger and more intelligent creature.

[esfisher]

How dare you insult the great Bowango!? Ye shall perish in a lake of pudding!

[stefbot]

mmm, pudding... :)

[esfisher]

Did I mention.... it's tapioca!

[sonata1992]

*bows head in respect for the pudding*

[adorianvlad]

Federal law

[Halothewynd]

I think the connection you draw between the state and the family is somewhat suspect. Families and states are far more dissimiliar than you make out. Some states are accountible to an electorate. In WW2 our fathers voluntarily fought against the fascists and the re-introduction of brutal torture and slavery. They fought against the death camps and the murder of the "unfit". A fascist victory then would have resulted not in a discussion of our differences but in centuries of forced silence!

[stefbot]

And the result was socialism at home, a tenfold increase in the size and power of the state, massive deficits and the 'war on terror.'

If WWII was fought for freedom, we lost. Badly.

[Halothewynd]

God forbid that American business should experience any kind of "socialism at home" God forbid that people should be protected from exploitative wages or free health care at the point of need. What would happen to our brave, shark infested, insurance companies then. That said, you still can't compare the evil of the Third Reich with the limitations of western democracies. When using such a broad brush you're likely to lose sight of the details and,as you know, "the devil is in the details"

[stefbot]

The US government has grown tenfold over the oast 50 years, crushing earnings and starting wars, and you think the people are protected?

The same type of people that you fear in corporations are also in governments.

Power always corrupts.

[IItothe222345helomot]

Actually the allies knew nothing about the concentration camps until the war was basically over. What your using is ex post facto reasoning.

[adorianvlad]

Wow! The allies knew nothing about the concentration camps;millions and millions of deaths.

Now that's a way to keep a secret! What kind of a genius was behind this? (evil genius, of course); and we thought gossip travels fast...

[IItothe222345helomot]

So what, instead of actually looking into this for yourself your just going to argue that it sounds outrageous, and that it could never happen? Yes it is true, even when the allies got to the concentration camps they still couldn't believe that people were really sent to gas chambers there. Furthermore how could gossip travel? The people taken there were either killed or imprisoned and the guards were of the most loyal of the Nazi.

[adorianvlad]

The allies knew but they didn't bomb the rails where the trains were carrying along those people on their way to the concentration camps.

Why they didn't do it, I don't know.

[stefbot]

Hitler started putting people into concentration camps in the early 30s, it was well known...

[sabot96]

You face jail, but not murder for not paying your taxes.

[stefbot]

If you resist arrest, what happens?

[sabot96]

Resisting arrest is what gets you possibly shot but more likely tasered, but not paying your taxes does not get you killed.

[stefbot]

Of course it does. I am allowed to take out a gun and shoot a criminal who tries to take my money - if I try the same with a policemen, he will shoot me. Don't kid yourself about the nature of your society.

[adorianvlad]

how else would you enforce the law, than, Stef? You know, there are straight-jackets, too...

[stefbot]

Haha, you don't need force - have a listen to my first few free podcasts... :)

[adorianvlad]

In order to minimize the tax payments, can't you find a good broker to help you out?

[Censeo]

A robber (not a police robber) who you try to kill would also try to shoot you Stef. The police is not worse in that case. Being robbed by a police is more nice, because they have rules of robbing conduct that you are aware of, and this information can make you avoid bloodbath if you have any brains at all. With another robber, you have no way to predict how he will act, and avoiding death is harder.

[gmgauthi]

If life without violence is impossible, then philosophy is pointless mental masturbation.

If life without violence IS POSSIBLE, then it is  a crime to NOT devote our studies to that end.

[Censeo]

Even if you don't pay and don't threaten the robber, you will not get killed but jailed (robber is the state). You know you will be released from jail... How long imprisonment gives me the right to defend myself by killing the direct threat of imprisonment, which then will get an even bigger threat?

[adorianvlad]

Planet Earth has never been an Utopian place, where idealistic societies live together in peace and prosperity. There was always more hunger, dispair than plentiness and happiness due to limited resources. If we don't kill a few fanatics in the Middle East, unwilling to cooperate, in the long run the Red Chinese, will take over the oil and enslave us.

[wnsyipsp]

This post has officially pushed me over the edge from minarchism to anarchism. I have never heard such a passionate moral justification for dismantling the state.

[atypicalguy]

Isn't the state just a label we apply to humans organising under a social structure? If the system you described were set up, what would you call it?

[newperve]

No, the State is the monopoly of initation of force. It is not simply "humans organising under a social structure" it is humans organising under a structure where some are allowed to initiate force.

[OUND]

Sometimes I find it convenient to refer to the gun in the room as a bullet-launching elephant. It helps some statists picture it easier while they deny that it's being pointed at them.

[Nasikabatrachus]

How has that worked out for you, perchance?

[EntertainedWatcher]

Philosophy as psychological defense.. very interesting.

It can be quite sad to understand reality..

[Daghita]

Stef,

What is your feeling on individual defense by having to use violence against a violent offender? (eg. a person "A" punches person "B", because person "B" attacked person "A")

[stefbot]

Self-defense is a moral right.

[Daghita]

What you consider it individual self-defense if you protected yourself against the state? (eg. you stop paying taxes to stop support of the government, then the government tries to jail you, and you kill a police officer in the process.)

[Elhan2005]

It would be.

[Censeo]

If I get robbed by an armed person and I was sure that he wouldn't kill me if I give the money, then it wouldn't be self defense, would it? It would be a kill for property protection, not life protection. The state don't kill me if I pay taxes, I shouldn't kill to keep my money. I know that is what I have to do if I refuse.

[GabeTheArchAngel]

Actually u don't kill in defense of your property, u kill in defense of your life. Let me explain, person A comes up to you and askes you give up your property, you refuse, person A takes out a gun points it at you to kill you, you draw your gun and kill person A. I am not a Market Anarchist but I a Paleoconservative. Do you understand the concept?

[Censeo]

Doesn't a police most often follow his robbery rules that when you comply you won't be killed afterwards?

(I wasn't familiar with that concept, but I read some in wiki to get a little info on this American movement)

[GabeTheArchAngel]

Yea, but it works the same way with (some) rapists and all slave owners. I do not condemn the state completely like my libertarian friends but it is true that defending your property is identical to defending your self. One can debate is self-defense is even justified though. Thanks for the reply =]

[Naijagalca]

societies evolve. i believe previously in greek history their was a totalitarian government which transformed into democracy. He did not have the concept of an anarchist government. Societies evolve at the time democracy was the best alternative

[GabeTheArchAngel]

What separates us from the animals besides reason?

[Naijagalca]

gabethearchangel

[adorianvlad]

first of all, the ability of humans to record what they learn so it can be passed to others.

The long term elaborate planning.

[Naijagalca]

Market anarchy does not talk about the rights of children directly either. It is only talked about indirectly

[stefbot]

Mine does! It's in my new book on UPB, available at my web site...