Oh and Stef, there is such a thing as a collective good, there are proven better alternatives than the social darwinist system you promote, and what you promote would inevitably crush the poor into such desperation that a violent revolution would be inevitable (which would be bad for you and me Stef), you're like the aristocrats in France wondering why the paupers were so angry, you just don't get it, or you pretend not to.
Stefan Molyneux you, my friend, pretty much have to be a sociopath, either that or your ideology has corrupted your humanity, or you have such profound intergroup bias and greed that you simply don't care whether the out group lives or dies.
It could be any of the above.
Stef maybe the problem is you've never had to do without anything and simply aren't aware that people have basic survival needs, and that those needs are more coercive than any gun to their heads.
I hope you enjoy dying in the gutter when you get old.
Why weren't you just richer? You should have been rich enough to afford all the medical bills and still keep your home and to eat after your body got so worn down you couldn't work anymore.
Well, at least maybe some church will be charitable, of course they'll be poor since the elderly on welfare make up most of their funding
But surly nothing could go wrong with social darwinism. Kill the weak!
StefBot I'm going to propose that you are a sociopath.
I am a sociopath, I do not propose that as a slight or insult.
But as a sociopath you have, in your youthful privileged position, been disconnected entirely from the plight of the poor, the elderly, and the infirmed.
You promote social darwinism as liberty, and ignore all forms of force and coercion except for physical violence.
Hunger is as coercive as a gun to your head. What you advocate creates a permanent under caste.
I agree with what stefan is saying from a moral standpoint. But concerning the military, a purely libertarian government philosophy wouldn't work. We are surrounded by states, some of which are hostile, therefore a military is necessarily. Unfortunately it is a necessary evil in the time we live in. With that said, I do think we can limit it by not forming alliances and not forming coalitions. Just let the other countries do what they want, as long as they don't hurt us.
@LasagnaIsGood Also with regards to foreign economic issues, It would be essential to limit free trade between countries that do not practice free trade. How could we trade with a country get gains it's capital by immoral means? Isn't that the equivocal of trading stolen goods knowingly?
If any of you Libertarians are really looking for the "fly in the ointment"- Stefan's Snake Oil Ointment that is- around 35:00 he alludes to goverment creating 1,000 jobs at the expense of 5,000 jobs which the private sector would've created had gov't not interfered.... Yeah right Stef. As we speak the private sector has recorded record profits and is sitting on the capital, absolutely disinterested in job-creating investment.
@holographicsentience It is not possible for the government to be the guarantor of property rights when it violates these rights constantly through taxation.
@jeffsandychelsea ; It is not possible for any other entity to be the guarantor of private property rights other than The State ...if you dont like that fact ...then thats tough ...
@holographicsentience The only person capable of guaranteeing your property rights is you. Sorry to say, but rights simply cannot be absolutely guaranteed. You think that the government does this, but you fail to realize that it violates the very rights it claims to protect by taking people's money away against their will: taxation.
Ayn Rand, who I believe wasn´t very bright, and Murray Rothbard, who was the founder of modern libertarianism and probably the best economist that ever existed, are NOT cases of philosophers that defended liberty and the free market merely by effect, as Molyneux says. QUITE THE CONTRARY: Rothbard was, in opposition to his mentor Ludwig von Mises, a defender of natural law and Hoppe´s argumentation ethics. His Ethics of Liberty is a monument of libertarian morality. A true ¨line in the sand¨.
(2) The 1909 John Spargo article of which I've mentioned talks about private property, which, of course exists in a socialist state, as anyone knowing even the basics is aware, as well as those who are considered to be parasites. Unfortunately for some here, the parasites recognized as such LONG ago are simply NOT those who are being accused of it today. But like all good propaganda, to assert the opposite of the truth and then pound it home has made an unfortunate difference. Read it!
I just finished reading a paper entitled 'Private Property and Personal Liberty in the Socialist State' from The Noth AMerican Review, Vol. 189, No. 643 (Jun., 1909), pp. 844-856. Yes, that's right! 1909. I highly recommend trying to get hold of this if you can. (I got it through JSTOR) It's quite entertaining to her how folks speak of democracy, or even socialism, nowadays, and how far off base they've been in their notions about what either of these ideologies even consist of. This article..
@MasonicMouse Thank you for the well wishes, although, I'm not sure your god would like a gay atheist. Then again, he doesn't like those bastard shellfish eaters, but you never see Red Lobster being destroyed by 42 lightning strikes.
Stefan, I'm very pleased to hear your thoughts - I think your positions are very close to reality. A thought of my own: if we consider a sort of "bell curve" that seems to reflect general "competence", and if that curve also implies that a majority of people will benefit from a system that doesn't reward true ethical positioning, can we expect that advocating a system that is "fair" in the sense of reflecting ethical position/behavior to be met with acceptance by any other than a minority ?
It seems to me that convincing people to reject the current government is a tall order, but simply illuminating the death throws of the current state and asking them to imagine what they will do once the government is gone is an interesting conversation.
Molyneux never seems to grow tired of contraditing himself:
Speaking to a military person, refusing to talk to someone because they endorsed violence, saying no-one would be austrocised in Libertarianism, then saying he believes in violence for self defence, this man is a shamless hypocrit.
@republicofsandles Obviously you've never seen his videos on the non-aggression principal, nor do you show working knowledge of the non-aggression principal. If you did, you'd know that self-defense is a valid form of violence/aggression when force is initiated on you.
@Dirge987 I disagree with the non-aggression principle, which might I add is very possible as not everyone is required to agree with what ever Molyneux says.
@republicofsandles It's one thing to disagree with what he's talking about, it's another thing entirely to call him a hypocrite based on your own inaccurate conceptions of what the non-aggression principal is.
I never said you couldn't disagree. But if you're going to disagree with something, or someone, make sure it's their actual stance and not an imaginary one.
@Dirge987 I'm still very confident he's contrading himself and more then that, you have not explained how he is not contradicting himself, or how I misunderstood the non-aggression principle.
@republicofsandles "you have not explained how he is not contradicting himself"
You made the positive claim, you produce the evidence, but don't shift the burden of proof onto me.
"how I misunderstood the non-aggression principle."
By going back to your original comment and calling Molyneux, who accepts the NAP, a hypocrite for accepting violence as self-defense, when the NAP allows for self-defense.
But please, show my where he contradicts himself. The burden of proof is on YOU.
@republicofsandles It's not that your evidence is unclear, it's that you provide no evidence. I've been watching the video and I don't hear these contradictions you speak of.
I loved your presentation and I agree with almost everything that you say, but to have a free society you need to remove government. That utopian society is wonderful, but how do you defend it. History shows and I have personal experience that if a society can’t defend itself it will be invaded by another country. Once that happens, all civilized ideals mean nothing. The only thing that matters is survival.
@fishndoc11 Self defense via gun ownership, tanks, nukes and whatever else money can buy can be done by free people in search of profit better than a one-size fits all monopoly called government. The very same weapons manufactures may exist - they just won't be funded via stolen money.
@MillerOutdoors1 I would love to believe that, but I don't think that a military can be controlled by a governmentless society. I can't think of one example of that happening without one of two things happening. 1. They are defeated by a larger more organized army controled by a foreign government 2. the military takes control. Both lead to a worse situation than controlling your own government. We are fast losing that control, but I think it is still possible to regain it.
@fishndoc11 That's just the point - a military needn't be controlled by a government-less society. A society with no government doesn't need a military as there's no reason for anyone to invade. There would be no central tax collecting apparatus to take over. Nothing to take control of. Are they going to go house to house to pillage? Like that would be cost efficient...
@MillerOutdoors1 Resources are a reason. Oil, natural gas, coal even people are a resource. If you have it, someone else wants it, if you can’t protect it they will take it.
@fishndoc11 Protecting your resources can be done without insisting that an immoral state must exist to direct a military. Using problems such as this to justify the existence of a violent monopoly is evil.
@MillerOutdoors1 The founding fathers gave us self rule through the republic and wrote the constitution to limit government power. If this government is immoral and evil then it is our fault for letting it get that way and we need to get it under control again. History shows us that a group without central control has never been able to defend against an organized army. Anarchy worked out well for the Roman's thirst for empire, they only slowed down when they met an organized army.
@TSMPimpDaddyPain I don't know what country you are from, but I am from America. You know the most powerful country in the world with an all VOLUNTARY Military.
@fishndoc11 voluntary my ass. Billions of dollars are extracted each year by force from taxpayers to fund this "voluntary" military that you speak of.
That's not even getting into the fact we've had drafts, once you join you can't change your mind and leave, etc.
@TSMPimpDaddyPain The military is voluntary. There has been no draft since Viet Nam and the force is stronger for it. Yes, taxes are the only way I can think of to pay for a modern military, but as I pointed out previously without the military you become slave to a foreign power that wants your recourses.
Once you sign a contract of course you can’t change it. If you contract for 4 years you are expected to keep your end of the bargain. Do you expect any different from your contracts?
@fishndoc11 thats like if I stole your money at gun point and then paid someone to murder your mother and then you classifying the chain of events as "voluntary" just because the person who forced violence on your mother at the expense of violence against you did it without primary force lol.
@fishndoc11 did you know the average life expectancy of people in somalia has grown since the implosion of their government? it's getting better, just extremely slowly
@allwittynamestaken The only thing that has grown in Somalia that I am aware of is piracy. I guess that some people do have a longer life span. That is because they kill everyone that competes with them. I know people that have been there, it’s run by war lords that murder everyone that does not bow to them. If that is what you want it will be a hard fight and it doesn’t sound like the Utopia that anarchist normally preach
@fishndoc11 so you say its run by warlords....authoritarian warlords....so your saying there's an authority? then it doesn't seem to be anarchist at all you silly fuck!
@allwittynamestaken No, what I am saying is, in the absence of organized defense things get taken over by militias that tend to be run by the most ruthless war lord in the area. Don’t get me wrong, I love militias. They are the best counter to government there is, but it remove one from the equation and the other gets greedy at the peoples expense. BTW if you can’t be civil don’t bother to reply.
@fishndoc11 so your saying a failed Anarchist state is one in which the biggest gang has taken over? seems alot like today, doesn't it? that is why the "military" action should be kept at a community level through neighborhood watch programs where everyone can be involved and linked through confederations of NWP's
@allwittynamestaken First, an “anarchist state” is an oxymoron. In a perfect world I would agree with you, military action from a community is the best. Unfortunately never in history has that ever worked when a country with a standing military invaded. If I am wrong please set me straight.
@fishndoc11 just about every Insurrection proves that it can work. In fact, during the beginning of the American revolutionary war all militias were local and were connected via the Sons of Liberty. but if you truly believe that community action cannot fight a good war then I would like to point out that I consider Anarchists inability to wage effective war a good thing. War is a terrible thing, why not have a society where its impossible to do so?
@fishndoc11 The force isn't strong, it's spread completely thin and this country is broke. You make assumptions that we'll all be slaves to a foreign power without a military that none of us know to be true. We do know that we're already a slave to a foreign power anyway, so what do we have to lose?
@TSMPimpDaddyPain Our armed forces are still the strongest in the world even spread as thin as they are and If our government turned on us completely not all the military would follow them. Google Oath Keepers. My only point in this discussion is that you can’t get away from government so why not whittle the one we have back to a bare constitutional one? And I agree with you, this country is broken, but not beyond repair.
@fishndoc11 Look, I'd be all over that with you. I just feel like the likelihood of no government and dramatically smaller government are about the same.
And if you listen to some of stef's videos, he argues that the massive wealth created by small government actually swells it up to a big government....which unfortunately we can't really argue with yet at this point. We've gone from the smallest government in the world to the biggest in a little over 200 years.
@TSMPimpDaddyPain I have already addressed that point to MillerOutdoors1. This has become a circular argument and I am still waiting to hear of an example of successful anarchy. I believe government is a necessary evil and if we can’t even control one that we were put in control of how can anyone believe that we control the chaotic forces that anarchy will bring?
@fishndoc11 it seems humanity was successful with anarchy for thousands of years....obviously we figured out how to survive without statism.
This chaos you speak of is also pure speculation....even if it was true, which would you prefer? A little "chaos" here and there or utter global dominance and control by a couple thousand people?
@TSMPimpDaddyPain You are right, anarchy worked well until the discovery of government. Then governments began to take over, thus began the age of empires. That is my point.
I have been to places with that “little chaos” you speak of and I prefer something in the middle of the extremes. I am prepared to fight against either.
@fishndoc11 as long as it is voluntary I have no problem with it....you are clearly showing that you consent to a middle ground. The whole moral argument against statism is that it isn't voluntary, rather forced through violence and coercion. I would have no problem with small communities/tribes creating some sort of voluntary law and order that they all agreed upon.
@TSMPimpDaddyPain Yes, I would love nothing better than to go back to that. My problem is I don't believe it can work in todays world. Government is like nukes or any other weapon. Once the great and powerful genie has been let out of the bottle you can't get it back in. See my comments to allwittynamestaken.
@jarvy251 From 874 to 930 I would consider that an anarchy, then a constitution was drafted and a parliament (Althing) was created to interpret it so that would make them a constitutional republic. Regardless, this just proves my point. Anarchy can’t exist for long. It will either be conquered from outside or evolve into some form of government from within.
And governments will inevitably turn tyrannical. Should we simply submit?
That anarchy will eventually turn into a government is not an argument against anarchy.
(I made the exact same argument in my statist days.)
What state did they have from 930-1262? They had "tribes" but they basically acted as dispute resolution organizations, and you could join and leave them as you wished. No taxes, and you didn't have to change where you lived.
@jarvy251 I could argue the definition of government, but I think we are on the same side here. What I am saying is that government is inevitable so we need to continuously hold them accountable because the only legitimate reason for government is to serve the people and defend their rights. In history there are many perfectly balanced societies, anarchy is not one and neither is what we have today. If only there was a reset button that we could push every time it gets out of balance.
"What I am saying is that government is inevitable so we need to continuously hold them accountable"
I used to think so too, but the fact of the matter is that until taxes become voluntary somehow, government is completely unaccountable. I'm sure politicians would be very keen to keep their promises if we could stop paying their salaries at will. But if we could do that, why have government at all?
@jarvy251 It sounds like you have a problem with taxes not government. I agree with you, we should be able to fire them as soon as they start working for themselves and not the people. They should also all be held to one term only and there should be no retirement so the career politicians disappear. I believe some form of Government/taxes are inevitable. Even most hunter/gathers had to contribute to the group or be banished.
How do we decide that they are not working for the people? All a politician needs to do in convince that 50% plus one person, and they are untouchable. If a politician passed an unjust law that made slightly over half of the people happy but oppressed the rest, and 49% of the population simply stopped their funding, the bad law would disappear instantly or the government would collapse. Its better than voting.
@jarvy251 I agree with you. Now you just need a way to ensure everyone pays their share or does not benefit. Let’s say the country is being invaded by a totalitarian regime and everyone needs to fund the defense. What do we do with those that don’t want to pay? Deport them to the invading state or allow them to live in freedom while their neighbors pay?
I was in the army for eight years, so I see this a little differently.
If we were worried about free riders, why don't we have a draft anymore? As any volunteer soldier will tell you, a conscript's will to fight is unreliable. Conscripts generally feel resentful because they are essentially "slave soldiers." This makes them untrustworthy.
You cannot force people to value freedom. If they value it, they will fight for it without being asked.
@jarvy251 I was in the Air Force for 26 yrs so I can see that perspective too and yes, you are correct about conscripts. I just wanted to know what you would do with the freeloaders. There will always be some people that don’t want to pay their way in any society. This anarcho-capitalist world you are talking about only works when there are consequences to your actions…or inactions.
Instead of a system of punishment, we want a system of incentives. Obviously, if you are being invaded and you value your freedom, there is incentive to join a militia, or help fund a militia, or start thinking of innovative new weapons, prepare themselves for a guerrilla war, etc. The people who don't are content in being conquered, and that is their right. It will decide itself.
"Even most hunter/gathers had to contribute to the group or be banished."
Basic capitalism. If you are incapable or unwilling to hunt, then you must offer up some other skill of value to convince the hunters to give you a share of the meat. If you do not, you must rely on their charity.
Bartering actually CAN be taxed, so it doesn't matter if you use currency or a bartering system, both are taxable. Look up the IRS policy and the policy of your Nation and I'm sure they all have Barter Taxes, I know United States has one for sure.
@Tenatiouz Is that right??? Please go watch a documentary by AARON RUSSO called AMERICA FREEDOM TO FASCISM. I know for sure that they cant tax income but they still do.
@akscldn Oh they for sure can, and they do. Doesn't matter what Aaron Russon says, the fact of the matter is laws are written on pieces of paper and nothing more. They will tax whatever they want, when they want, and to whomever they want to. They have the weapons, they have the scientists, they have the technology, they have the religious orders, they have everything...What the fuck are you gonna do about it except cry on the internet? Nothing, you can't do anything.
When I ask people, "Can I disagree with you and act on it without being imprisoned?" They say something like, "If you don't like that fact, change the political system through the electoral process."
I dont think he is correct about our education system, if he is basing his argument on student score. Canada ranks as one of the top nations in the world.
Why do you say that? Understand and respect are different. I'm pretty sure all people understand the non-aggression principle, i mean what's not to understand?
As much as I love playing devil's advocate, disagreeing with Libertarians, and just generally trolling youtube wherever I go (especially conspiracy theorists), 1/10 too obvious.
@daggors I mean, full of shit he may be, but you can't just say that and leave it at that. It's like walking into a room, saying "you people are dumb", and then walking out again.
Economics, Stefan, is doing what you want: Or as much of it as you can.
Also, if we can show that most people benefit from freedom, why won't that be enough to win in an election? Is it a subjectivity of time preference thing?
Brilliant as usual Stefan. if i may disagree on one point though. The argument that rational thinking is something that must be taught, like language, is questionable at least. What do you base this on?
I know from my own experience that rationality is inert, atleast in some people.
@xxCrazySmooth I noticed this too. I myself am a self taught rationalist but I learned it from reading novels from authors like Thoreau and Emerson. Eventually, I read Rand and Jefferson. I then started learning what it means to think rationally.
Although, rationality is something that is exactly what you stated: inert. It needs to be tapped and moved for it to function. It needs to become ignited like a flame by another rational thought and or argument. Ever tried arguing w/ a thug?
@pSychOAtDawn Rationality, even dogs have it to some degree. I agree that arguments and ideas can be taught of course, but i'm sceptical to the argument that rationality must be taught. What about thugs? Do they respect the non-aggression principle?
@pSychOAtDawn Why do you say that? Understand and respect are different. I'm pretty sure all people understand the non-aggression principle, i mean what's not to understand?
@xxCrazySmooth No. A free society has thugs, murderers, psychopaths. We’ve them now too, and so they are in the government too. Nice.
If I look at the quantified facts of police and the department of justice I see a disproportional result, if I take the public money that’s involved into account too, for these services. Plus that u have the right to defend yourself and your property. If train Kenpo for this purpose.I noticed this alone causes none initiation of force.It works homeopathic.
@xxCrazySmooth “I train …” … sorry about that. Anyway, I noticed for my self that to interact with played violence, or to train my body for self defense that’s in self interest, it sort of makes the threshold to apply violence higher. While it is good to be able to defend your self, until the level of breaking spines, and all that. It is also good exercise. So to enter the free domain is obviously hard work, but certainly it is worth it.
Women were liberated to generate more tax revenue, consumerism and economic growth. End result, more money, more power to the elite. Nothing is permitted in society unless it is to benefit the ruling class. They love you to believe humanity won out over the status quo.
It's always easy for people who have enough time, money, and resources to be self-sufficient, to believe that everyone should be able to do it on their own. But some people need help. People get sick. People get stuck in negative patterns - poverty, violence, etc. We've all had help. We need each other, for companionship, for boundaries, for perspective, for opportunities, for learning. "Leave me alone" might be free, but it's not fulfilling let alone helpful. Thoughts Stef?
@donotfret Youtube are monitoring the amount of views certain videos get... See Alex Jone's recent upload for more details. The truth is though, there are FAR more free thinking and loving people out there than the system wants us to know about. Peace be with you. x
I'm really pleased to see you're leaning towards home schooling Stef. Some people make the charge against you that you rarely admit to changing your mind or being wrong about something so a podcast with you talking about what's shifted your mind on this topic would be very interesting to people. I definitely recall a podcast a year or so ago when you seemed to be quite against the idea.
But some people DO use force. Some people do rob a store at gun point. And those people will always exist in any society. And because they exist, there must be laws for society to punish such people.
Yes, live the ideal lifestyle you promote. I've found that minimalism leads to the highest standard of living per unit of exertion. Minimize your sentimentality, maximize the tangibles.
I've always liked the argument that taxes should be paid with voluntary line item-style choices. Without the coercion factor, we would feel so much more responsible for, and so much more grateful for the things that "government" institutions do -- and those who chose to opt out would take responsibility for doing things or building institutions on their own.
The trickiest part of the morality argument is that opting out can easily be selfishness masquerading as freedom. Thoughts Stef?
@peterstoltzman What business of anyone's why someone would choose to opt out (if it were possible), whether it be selfishness or liberty or any other reason or combination?
@1911emp Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you -- you mean, it's nobody's business, basically, right? I get that point. But in terms of me choosing to identify with some kind of movement (be it Zeitgeist, anti-war, sovereign citizen, etc.) or "party" (be it Libertarian, Democratic, Green, Republican, etc.), I want to have my values represented as fully as possible. And one of my core values is service to others. The "tough shit" ethic that blames victims, builds walls and hoards, repulses me.
@peterstoltzman Then serve others, in whatever way you think best, and encourage others to do so. But it's not moral to force others to serve in the ways you think best, any more than it is to own a slave and donate his labor to another person.
@1911emp I hear that. But it gets tricky, right? Like, what about slaves? When we had "freedom" in that regard, people could own slaves. Slave owners had their freedom restricted by government. And they fought that loss of freedom to the death. Was it immoral to force people to give up their slaves? I don't have an answer, but I know that selfishness is hard to relinquish, and it's our right to be selfish, yet at some point there must be boundaries enforced. Not with violence though...
@peterstoltzman Slaves would come under "it's not moral to force others to serve" :). Actually, slaves had their freedom restricted by government; without the support of the state, slavery would have been difficult or impossible. It was immoral for their so-called "owners" to infringe on their right to liberty and self-ownership. It is not immoral to fight to defend yourself or others from infringement on rights.
If it takes one adult male and one adult female to create a baby and as babies we are completely helpless and dependent on adult care givers, who were our original baby sitters –how is this explained?
@BlankVellum can you explain this it doesn’t make sense to me? We still need two adults to make a baby and as babies we are totally helpless – we don’t start as babies and just evolve into adults on our own – and you must be adult first in order to create a baby- but you can’t get to adulthood without first being a baby - something must have created the first babies then nurtured us until adulthood, then our process is as it is today
@ehpl You would have to go right back to the beginning of life, to the first self-replicating molecules. With every generation there were mutations and changes, branchings and variety, which became the first prokaryotic cells (bacteria), which then became the first eukaryotic cells (most complex life, including us), This is a gross over simplification, but basically there was never a situation of a fully former ancestral baby being born that did not have two parents.
@BlankVellum I can understand how things may have developed gradually over time – but where we are now just makes no sense to me – surely we would not require two adults to create rather some internal mechanism would have developed to self generate – it just seems that life must have had some other care giver until the various species were old enough to look after themselves.
@ehpl I do not understand what you mean by 'care giver until the various species were old enough to look after themselves'? Survival comes in many shapes and forms. All that was required was enough of one type of organism reproducing faster than the others, and better able to survive to the next generation, than other organisms. Even the simplest life forms like protozoa get by perfectly well without a 'care giver'.
Great great great lecture, I've learned more from you in the past year than in the last 5 years on my own, just when I think I know enough you come in and break everything down in a beatiful simple way that I think anyone can relate to.
When the Woman said, 'The Surge Be,' the 'Surg,' 'was' and 'is.' She creates it. You Stef, may not undo her creation, without her Authority, only she can will it.
To maintain your soverenty without need for violence, simply disagree to grant consent for that reality to violate your peace reality or physically harm you. Those are Universal Laws, and they work throughout the Universe you exist in. The Creator is always listening and knows everything.
I was debating my girlfriend's father on this subject and a question he posed came up that I was too ignorant to answer and I thought maybe you'd be able to shed some light on it.
he asked "we need more laws, not less. what happens if a large coal plant opens in a small town without adhering to environmental standards? what do you do about the hundreds of people who get lung cancer, as well as the overall environmental damage the factory does?"
The answer was what the man said. To prevent yourself from getting headaches arguing with people about the difference in point of view, which Stef is kindly wearing himself to into the ground for our benifit, (thanks Stef) showing us what does not work.
They simply need your agreement, you simply decline. Then your in a place of balanced exchange and therein lies the Power you've all been looking for peeps.
Social Darwinism is not Freedom
It's survival of the economically fittest
Desperate bondage for everyone else.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
Oh and Stef, there is such a thing as a collective good, there are proven better alternatives than the social darwinist system you promote, and what you promote would inevitably crush the poor into such desperation that a violent revolution would be inevitable (which would be bad for you and me Stef), you're like the aristocrats in France wondering why the paupers were so angry, you just don't get it, or you pretend not to.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
Stefan Molyneux you, my friend, pretty much have to be a sociopath, either that or your ideology has corrupted your humanity, or you have such profound intergroup bias and greed that you simply don't care whether the out group lives or dies.
It could be any of the above.
Stef maybe the problem is you've never had to do without anything and simply aren't aware that people have basic survival needs, and that those needs are more coercive than any gun to their heads.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
17:00 He starts calling for social darwinism
I hope you enjoy dying in the gutter when you get old.
Why weren't you just richer? You should have been rich enough to afford all the medical bills and still keep your home and to eat after your body got so worn down you couldn't work anymore.
Well, at least maybe some church will be charitable, of course they'll be poor since the elderly on welfare make up most of their funding
But surly nothing could go wrong with social darwinism. Kill the weak!
Laughingblades 1 month ago
Wait Stef, are you related to Peter Molyneux?
*grin* it must run in your family.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
StefBot I'm going to propose that you are a sociopath.
I am a sociopath, I do not propose that as a slight or insult.
But as a sociopath you have, in your youthful privileged position, been disconnected entirely from the plight of the poor, the elderly, and the infirmed.
You promote social darwinism as liberty, and ignore all forms of force and coercion except for physical violence.
Hunger is as coercive as a gun to your head. What you advocate creates a permanent under caste.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
I agree with what stefan is saying from a moral standpoint. But concerning the military, a purely libertarian government philosophy wouldn't work. We are surrounded by states, some of which are hostile, therefore a military is necessarily. Unfortunately it is a necessary evil in the time we live in. With that said, I do think we can limit it by not forming alliances and not forming coalitions. Just let the other countries do what they want, as long as they don't hurt us.
LasagnaIsGood 3 months ago
@LasagnaIsGood Also with regards to foreign economic issues, It would be essential to limit free trade between countries that do not practice free trade. How could we trade with a country get gains it's capital by immoral means? Isn't that the equivocal of trading stolen goods knowingly?
LasagnaIsGood 3 months ago
If any of you Libertarians are really looking for the "fly in the ointment"- Stefan's Snake Oil Ointment that is- around 35:00 he alludes to goverment creating 1,000 jobs at the expense of 5,000 jobs which the private sector would've created had gov't not interfered.... Yeah right Stef. As we speak the private sector has recorded record profits and is sitting on the capital, absolutely disinterested in job-creating investment.
Government is not the enemy folks.
rusedorange 3 months ago
@rusedorange Do you know what a job is?
fergus247 2 months ago
@rusedorange ; Lol dont expect this lot to wake up . Government is the guarantor of property rights ....
holographicsentience 2 months ago
@holographicsentience It is not possible for the government to be the guarantor of property rights when it violates these rights constantly through taxation.
jeffsandychelsea 2 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea ; It is not possible for any other entity to be the guarantor of private property rights other than The State ...if you dont like that fact ...then thats tough ...
holographicsentience 2 months ago
@holographicsentience The State isn't the guarantor of property rights. If you don't like or understand that, then that's tough.
jeffsandychelsea 2 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea ; Ok then dufus ...according to you its not the State ...who is it then ? : )
holographicsentience 2 months ago
@holographicsentience The only person capable of guaranteeing your property rights is you. Sorry to say, but rights simply cannot be absolutely guaranteed. You think that the government does this, but you fail to realize that it violates the very rights it claims to protect by taking people's money away against their will: taxation.
jeffsandychelsea 2 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea ; Bollocks : )
holographicsentience 2 months ago
@holographicsentience Well, it's plain to see that you're utterly worthless. Bye.
jeffsandychelsea 2 months ago
Steph, I want to know your thoughts on private and intellectual property.
Alenthas 3 months ago
Ayn Rand, who I believe wasn´t very bright, and Murray Rothbard, who was the founder of modern libertarianism and probably the best economist that ever existed, are NOT cases of philosophers that defended liberty and the free market merely by effect, as Molyneux says. QUITE THE CONTRARY: Rothbard was, in opposition to his mentor Ludwig von Mises, a defender of natural law and Hoppe´s argumentation ethics. His Ethics of Liberty is a monument of libertarian morality. A true ¨line in the sand¨.
kaihansen665 3 months ago in playlist Stefan Molyneux
(2) The 1909 John Spargo article of which I've mentioned talks about private property, which, of course exists in a socialist state, as anyone knowing even the basics is aware, as well as those who are considered to be parasites. Unfortunately for some here, the parasites recognized as such LONG ago are simply NOT those who are being accused of it today. But like all good propaganda, to assert the opposite of the truth and then pound it home has made an unfortunate difference. Read it!
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
I just finished reading a paper entitled 'Private Property and Personal Liberty in the Socialist State' from The Noth AMerican Review, Vol. 189, No. 643 (Jun., 1909), pp. 844-856. Yes, that's right! 1909. I highly recommend trying to get hold of this if you can. (I got it through JSTOR) It's quite entertaining to her how folks speak of democracy, or even socialism, nowadays, and how far off base they've been in their notions about what either of these ideologies even consist of. This article..
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
This man is a master at NLP and uses it to deceive. See my videos.
ShadeToSun 4 months ago
@MasonicMouse Thank you for the well wishes, although, I'm not sure your god would like a gay atheist. Then again, he doesn't like those bastard shellfish eaters, but you never see Red Lobster being destroyed by 42 lightning strikes.
jeffsandychelsea 4 months ago
@MasonicMouse lol weirdo
jeffsandychelsea 5 months ago
I really like this... Very funny as well...
bjarnet3 5 months ago
Excellence
BagofHay 5 months ago
Libertarians are the parasites. Fuck off and live in a log cabin in Montana if you have an aversion to civilisation.
nilbud 6 months ago
@nilbud I think you confused Libertarians with Liberals.
cory2146 5 months ago
@cory2146 No.
nilbud 5 months ago
@nilbud equating political and moral philosophy with technology? FAIL.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 5 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain Insect.
nilbud 5 months ago
@nilbud 1 word response = conceding debate defeat.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nilbud 1 word response = conceding debate defeat.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 5 months ago
Stefan, I'm very pleased to hear your thoughts - I think your positions are very close to reality. A thought of my own: if we consider a sort of "bell curve" that seems to reflect general "competence", and if that curve also implies that a majority of people will benefit from a system that doesn't reward true ethical positioning, can we expect that advocating a system that is "fair" in the sense of reflecting ethical position/behavior to be met with acceptance by any other than a minority ?
mattsamudio 6 months ago
Great performance as always. So glad you still care.
karlpokus 6 months ago
It seems to me that convincing people to reject the current government is a tall order, but simply illuminating the death throws of the current state and asking them to imagine what they will do once the government is gone is an interesting conversation.
KneelingAtlas 6 months ago
Molyneux never seems to grow tired of contraditing himself:
Speaking to a military person, refusing to talk to someone because they endorsed violence, saying no-one would be austrocised in Libertarianism, then saying he believes in violence for self defence, this man is a shamless hypocrit.
republicofsandles 8 months ago
@republicofsandles Obviously you've never seen his videos on the non-aggression principal, nor do you show working knowledge of the non-aggression principal. If you did, you'd know that self-defense is a valid form of violence/aggression when force is initiated on you.
It's also spelled hypocrite.
Dirge987 7 months ago
@Dirge987 I disagree with the non-aggression principle, which might I add is very possible as not everyone is required to agree with what ever Molyneux says.
republicofsandles 7 months ago
@republicofsandles It's one thing to disagree with what he's talking about, it's another thing entirely to call him a hypocrite based on your own inaccurate conceptions of what the non-aggression principal is.
I never said you couldn't disagree. But if you're going to disagree with something, or someone, make sure it's their actual stance and not an imaginary one.
Dirge987 7 months ago
@Dirge987 I'm still very confident he's contrading himself and more then that, you have not explained how he is not contradicting himself, or how I misunderstood the non-aggression principle.
republicofsandles 7 months ago
@republicofsandles "you have not explained how he is not contradicting himself"
You made the positive claim, you produce the evidence, but don't shift the burden of proof onto me.
"how I misunderstood the non-aggression principle."
By going back to your original comment and calling Molyneux, who accepts the NAP, a hypocrite for accepting violence as self-defense, when the NAP allows for self-defense.
But please, show my where he contradicts himself. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Dirge987 7 months ago
@Dirge987 I'm not shifting the burden of proof.
Please look again at my first comment, and genuinely consider it, rather, and then tell me how it does not make sense so we can discuss it.
Of course the burden of proof is mine, but if don't tell me how my evidence is unclear, my asking you to explain your disagreement is proactive.
republicofsandles 7 months ago
@republicofsandles It's not that your evidence is unclear, it's that you provide no evidence. I've been watching the video and I don't hear these contradictions you speak of.
Dirge987 7 months ago
It would be great if you could reiterate the audience questions so we could know the question as well. Great video. Thanks.
paullie6719 8 months ago
Lam salah BAWK BAWK BAWK!
KingBerk104 9 months ago 2
I loved your presentation and I agree with almost everything that you say, but to have a free society you need to remove government. That utopian society is wonderful, but how do you defend it. History shows and I have personal experience that if a society can’t defend itself it will be invaded by another country. Once that happens, all civilized ideals mean nothing. The only thing that matters is survival.
fishndoc11 9 months ago
@fishndoc11 Self defense via gun ownership, tanks, nukes and whatever else money can buy can be done by free people in search of profit better than a one-size fits all monopoly called government. The very same weapons manufactures may exist - they just won't be funded via stolen money.
MillerOutdoors1 7 months ago
@MillerOutdoors1 I would love to believe that, but I don't think that a military can be controlled by a governmentless society. I can't think of one example of that happening without one of two things happening. 1. They are defeated by a larger more organized army controled by a foreign government 2. the military takes control. Both lead to a worse situation than controlling your own government. We are fast losing that control, but I think it is still possible to regain it.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 That's just the point - a military needn't be controlled by a government-less society. A society with no government doesn't need a military as there's no reason for anyone to invade. There would be no central tax collecting apparatus to take over. Nothing to take control of. Are they going to go house to house to pillage? Like that would be cost efficient...
MillerOutdoors1 7 months ago
@MillerOutdoors1 Resources are a reason. Oil, natural gas, coal even people are a resource. If you have it, someone else wants it, if you can’t protect it they will take it.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 Protecting your resources can be done without insisting that an immoral state must exist to direct a military. Using problems such as this to justify the existence of a violent monopoly is evil.
MillerOutdoors1 7 months ago
@MillerOutdoors1 The founding fathers gave us self rule through the republic and wrote the constitution to limit government power. If this government is immoral and evil then it is our fault for letting it get that way and we need to get it under control again. History shows us that a group without central control has never been able to defend against an organized army. Anarchy worked out well for the Roman's thirst for empire, they only slowed down when they met an organized army.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 so involuntary force is the only way to get an organized army together?
TSMPimpDaddyPain 5 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain I don't know what country you are from, but I am from America. You know the most powerful country in the world with an all VOLUNTARY Military.
fishndoc11 5 months ago
@fishndoc11 voluntary my ass. Billions of dollars are extracted each year by force from taxpayers to fund this "voluntary" military that you speak of.
That's not even getting into the fact we've had drafts, once you join you can't change your mind and leave, etc.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 5 months ago 13
@TSMPimpDaddyPain The military is voluntary. There has been no draft since Viet Nam and the force is stronger for it. Yes, taxes are the only way I can think of to pay for a modern military, but as I pointed out previously without the military you become slave to a foreign power that wants your recourses.
Once you sign a contract of course you can’t change it. If you contract for 4 years you are expected to keep your end of the bargain. Do you expect any different from your contracts?
fishndoc11 5 months ago
@fishndoc11 thats like if I stole your money at gun point and then paid someone to murder your mother and then you classifying the chain of events as "voluntary" just because the person who forced violence on your mother at the expense of violence against you did it without primary force lol.
slickbtk 4 months ago
@slickbtk No one forces you to stay here. You could move to a place that is already without a government. Somalia maybe.
fishndoc11 4 months ago
@fishndoc11 lol such ignorance I dont even know where to start so I wont.
slickbtk 4 months ago 5
@fishndoc11 did you know the average life expectancy of people in somalia has grown since the implosion of their government? it's getting better, just extremely slowly
allwittynamestaken 4 months ago
@allwittynamestaken The only thing that has grown in Somalia that I am aware of is piracy. I guess that some people do have a longer life span. That is because they kill everyone that competes with them. I know people that have been there, it’s run by war lords that murder everyone that does not bow to them. If that is what you want it will be a hard fight and it doesn’t sound like the Utopia that anarchist normally preach
fishndoc11 4 months ago
@fishndoc11 so you say its run by warlords....authoritarian warlords....so your saying there's an authority? then it doesn't seem to be anarchist at all you silly fuck!
allwittynamestaken 4 months ago
@allwittynamestaken No, what I am saying is, in the absence of organized defense things get taken over by militias that tend to be run by the most ruthless war lord in the area. Don’t get me wrong, I love militias. They are the best counter to government there is, but it remove one from the equation and the other gets greedy at the peoples expense. BTW if you can’t be civil don’t bother to reply.
fishndoc11 4 months ago
@fishndoc11 so your saying a failed Anarchist state is one in which the biggest gang has taken over? seems alot like today, doesn't it? that is why the "military" action should be kept at a community level through neighborhood watch programs where everyone can be involved and linked through confederations of NWP's
allwittynamestaken 4 months ago
@allwittynamestaken First, an “anarchist state” is an oxymoron. In a perfect world I would agree with you, military action from a community is the best. Unfortunately never in history has that ever worked when a country with a standing military invaded. If I am wrong please set me straight.
fishndoc11 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fishndoc11 just about every Insurrection proves that it can work. In fact, during the beginning of the American revolutionary war all militias were local and were connected via the Sons of Liberty. but if you truly believe that community action cannot fight a good war then I would like to point out that I consider Anarchists inability to wage effective war a good thing. War is a terrible thing, why not have a society where its impossible to do so?
allwittynamestaken 4 months ago
@fishndoc11 You are an ignoramus!
cabgt 4 months ago
@fishndoc11 The force isn't strong, it's spread completely thin and this country is broke. You make assumptions that we'll all be slaves to a foreign power without a military that none of us know to be true. We do know that we're already a slave to a foreign power anyway, so what do we have to lose?
TSMPimpDaddyPain 4 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain Our armed forces are still the strongest in the world even spread as thin as they are and If our government turned on us completely not all the military would follow them. Google Oath Keepers. My only point in this discussion is that you can’t get away from government so why not whittle the one we have back to a bare constitutional one? And I agree with you, this country is broken, but not beyond repair.
fishndoc11 3 months ago
@fishndoc11 Look, I'd be all over that with you. I just feel like the likelihood of no government and dramatically smaller government are about the same.
And if you listen to some of stef's videos, he argues that the massive wealth created by small government actually swells it up to a big government....which unfortunately we can't really argue with yet at this point. We've gone from the smallest government in the world to the biggest in a little over 200 years.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 3 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain I have already addressed that point to MillerOutdoors1. This has become a circular argument and I am still waiting to hear of an example of successful anarchy. I believe government is a necessary evil and if we can’t even control one that we were put in control of how can anyone believe that we control the chaotic forces that anarchy will bring?
fishndoc11 3 months ago
@fishndoc11 it seems humanity was successful with anarchy for thousands of years....obviously we figured out how to survive without statism.
This chaos you speak of is also pure speculation....even if it was true, which would you prefer? A little "chaos" here and there or utter global dominance and control by a couple thousand people?
TSMPimpDaddyPain 3 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain You are right, anarchy worked well until the discovery of government. Then governments began to take over, thus began the age of empires. That is my point.
I have been to places with that “little chaos” you speak of and I prefer something in the middle of the extremes. I am prepared to fight against either.
fishndoc11 3 months ago
@fishndoc11 as long as it is voluntary I have no problem with it....you are clearly showing that you consent to a middle ground. The whole moral argument against statism is that it isn't voluntary, rather forced through violence and coercion. I would have no problem with small communities/tribes creating some sort of voluntary law and order that they all agreed upon.
TSMPimpDaddyPain 3 months ago
@TSMPimpDaddyPain Yes, I would love nothing better than to go back to that. My problem is I don't believe it can work in todays world. Government is like nukes or any other weapon. Once the great and powerful genie has been let out of the bottle you can't get it back in. See my comments to allwittynamestaken.
fishndoc11 3 months ago
@fishndoc11
"I am still waiting to hear of an example of successful anarchy."
The Icelandic commonwealth had a stateless society very similar in operation to anarchist-capitalism for 300 years.
Iceland still considers itself an "almost-anarchy."
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 From 874 to 930 I would consider that an anarchy, then a constitution was drafted and a parliament (Althing) was created to interpret it so that would make them a constitutional republic. Regardless, this just proves my point. Anarchy can’t exist for long. It will either be conquered from outside or evolve into some form of government from within.
fishndoc11 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
And governments will inevitably turn tyrannical. Should we simply submit?
That anarchy will eventually turn into a government is not an argument against anarchy.
(I made the exact same argument in my statist days.)
What state did they have from 930-1262? They had "tribes" but they basically acted as dispute resolution organizations, and you could join and leave them as you wished. No taxes, and you didn't have to change where you lived.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 I could argue the definition of government, but I think we are on the same side here. What I am saying is that government is inevitable so we need to continuously hold them accountable because the only legitimate reason for government is to serve the people and defend their rights. In history there are many perfectly balanced societies, anarchy is not one and neither is what we have today. If only there was a reset button that we could push every time it gets out of balance.
fishndoc11 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
"What I am saying is that government is inevitable so we need to continuously hold them accountable"
I used to think so too, but the fact of the matter is that until taxes become voluntary somehow, government is completely unaccountable. I'm sure politicians would be very keen to keep their promises if we could stop paying their salaries at will. But if we could do that, why have government at all?
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 It sounds like you have a problem with taxes not government. I agree with you, we should be able to fire them as soon as they start working for themselves and not the people. They should also all be held to one term only and there should be no retirement so the career politicians disappear. I believe some form of Government/taxes are inevitable. Even most hunter/gathers had to contribute to the group or be banished.
fishndoc11 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
How do we decide that they are not working for the people? All a politician needs to do in convince that 50% plus one person, and they are untouchable. If a politician passed an unjust law that made slightly over half of the people happy but oppressed the rest, and 49% of the population simply stopped their funding, the bad law would disappear instantly or the government would collapse. Its better than voting.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 I agree with you. Now you just need a way to ensure everyone pays their share or does not benefit. Let’s say the country is being invaded by a totalitarian regime and everyone needs to fund the defense. What do we do with those that don’t want to pay? Deport them to the invading state or allow them to live in freedom while their neighbors pay?
fishndoc11 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
I was in the army for eight years, so I see this a little differently.
If we were worried about free riders, why don't we have a draft anymore? As any volunteer soldier will tell you, a conscript's will to fight is unreliable. Conscripts generally feel resentful because they are essentially "slave soldiers." This makes them untrustworthy.
You cannot force people to value freedom. If they value it, they will fight for it without being asked.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 I was in the Air Force for 26 yrs so I can see that perspective too and yes, you are correct about conscripts. I just wanted to know what you would do with the freeloaders. There will always be some people that don’t want to pay their way in any society. This anarcho-capitalist world you are talking about only works when there are consequences to your actions…or inactions.
fishndoc11 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
Instead of a system of punishment, we want a system of incentives. Obviously, if you are being invaded and you value your freedom, there is incentive to join a militia, or help fund a militia, or start thinking of innovative new weapons, prepare themselves for a guerrilla war, etc. The people who don't are content in being conquered, and that is their right. It will decide itself.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@fishndoc11 Some people can't pay. Free-riding is beneficial to those individuals.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@fishndoc11
"Even most hunter/gathers had to contribute to the group or be banished."
Basic capitalism. If you are incapable or unwilling to hunt, then you must offer up some other skill of value to convince the hunters to give you a share of the meat. If you do not, you must rely on their charity.
jarvy251 1 month ago
Bartering actually CAN be taxed, so it doesn't matter if you use currency or a bartering system, both are taxable. Look up the IRS policy and the policy of your Nation and I'm sure they all have Barter Taxes, I know United States has one for sure.
Tenatiouz 10 months ago
@Tenatiouz Is that right??? Please go watch a documentary by AARON RUSSO called AMERICA FREEDOM TO FASCISM. I know for sure that they cant tax income but they still do.
akscldn 9 months ago
@akscldn Oh they for sure can, and they do. Doesn't matter what Aaron Russon says, the fact of the matter is laws are written on pieces of paper and nothing more. They will tax whatever they want, when they want, and to whomever they want to. They have the weapons, they have the scientists, they have the technology, they have the religious orders, they have everything...What the fuck are you gonna do about it except cry on the internet? Nothing, you can't do anything.
Tenatiouz 9 months ago
RON PAUL IS THE LIBERTARIAN HOPE FOR THE US, GOT ONE IN CANADA
jjvescovi11 10 months ago
Stefan, I tried to like this video ten thousand times but it only registered once.
;)
mynameaborat993 10 months ago 19
@mynameaborat993 haha thanks!
stefbot 10 months ago 3
Is this guy a libertarian or not? He criticizes libertarianism on one video.
LogicalFlawDetector 11 months ago
This has to be one of your best videos Stefan, well done!
RationalActivist 11 months ago
"Or yell about philosophy on the internet, like myself..."
Sorry, Stefan, but as you say you have to stay poor even after we win the revolution.
MabusZero 11 months ago
When I ask people, "Can I disagree with you and act on it without being imprisoned?" They say something like, "If you don't like that fact, change the political system through the electoral process."
qtutoringhelps 11 months ago
I dont think he is correct about our education system, if he is basing his argument on student score. Canada ranks as one of the top nations in the world.
Scolopacid 11 months ago
Why do you say that? Understand and respect are different. I'm pretty sure all people understand the non-aggression principle, i mean what's not to understand?
xxCrazySmooth 1 year ago
Join the conversation at HumanitoriumDOTcom and let's spread the message of Freedom
HumanitoriumDOTcom 1 year ago
slavery was never abolished, it was just 'outsourced' to overseas.. there are more slaves now than ever before at any time in history.
AbattoirDream 1 year ago
this man is definitely not full of shit
MegaTrumpy 1 year ago
I wish my philo prof made references to Sid Vicious.
oldstyleliberal 1 year ago
This man is full of shit.
daggors 1 year ago
@daggors
As much as I love playing devil's advocate, disagreeing with Libertarians, and just generally trolling youtube wherever I go (especially conspiracy theorists), 1/10 too obvious.
3Gyro 1 year ago
@daggors I mean, full of shit he may be, but you can't just say that and leave it at that. It's like walking into a room, saying "you people are dumb", and then walking out again.
3Gyro 1 year ago
@daggors Yeah and you're chock full of knowledge.
oldstyleliberal 1 year ago
Economics, Stefan, is doing what you want: Or as much of it as you can.
Also, if we can show that most people benefit from freedom, why won't that be enough to win in an election? Is it a subjectivity of time preference thing?
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Economics, Stefan, is doing what you want: Or as much of it as you can.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Brilliant as usual Stefan. if i may disagree on one point though. The argument that rational thinking is something that must be taught, like language, is questionable at least. What do you base this on?
I know from my own experience that rationality is inert, atleast in some people.
xxCrazySmooth 1 year ago
@xxCrazySmooth I noticed this too. I myself am a self taught rationalist but I learned it from reading novels from authors like Thoreau and Emerson. Eventually, I read Rand and Jefferson. I then started learning what it means to think rationally.
Although, rationality is something that is exactly what you stated: inert. It needs to be tapped and moved for it to function. It needs to become ignited like a flame by another rational thought and or argument. Ever tried arguing w/ a thug?
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
@pSychOAtDawn Rationality, even dogs have it to some degree. I agree that arguments and ideas can be taught of course, but i'm sceptical to the argument that rationality must be taught. What about thugs? Do they respect the non-aggression principle?
xxCrazySmooth 1 year ago
@xxCrazySmooth That's my point. Thugs typically don't understand the non-aggression principle.
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn Why do you say that? Understand and respect are different. I'm pretty sure all people understand the non-aggression principle, i mean what's not to understand?
xxCrazySmooth 1 year ago
@xxCrazySmooth No. A free society has thugs, murderers, psychopaths. We’ve them now too, and so they are in the government too. Nice.
If I look at the quantified facts of police and the department of justice I see a disproportional result, if I take the public money that’s involved into account too, for these services. Plus that u have the right to defend yourself and your property. If train Kenpo for this purpose.I noticed this alone causes none initiation of force.It works homeopathic.
TerrierBram 11 months ago
@TerrierBram ? What are you saying here? If train kenpo for this purpose?
xxCrazySmooth 11 months ago
@xxCrazySmooth “I train …” … sorry about that. Anyway, I noticed for my self that to interact with played violence, or to train my body for self defense that’s in self interest, it sort of makes the threshold to apply violence higher. While it is good to be able to defend your self, until the level of breaking spines, and all that. It is also good exercise. So to enter the free domain is obviously hard work, but certainly it is worth it.
TerrierBram 11 months ago
Women were liberated to generate more tax revenue, consumerism and economic growth. End result, more money, more power to the elite. Nothing is permitted in society unless it is to benefit the ruling class. They love you to believe humanity won out over the status quo.
The same applies to the emancipation of blacks.
stevelatinner 1 year ago 22
@stevelatinner History has shown that freedom is not given, its taken, thus the current state of my people(blacks).
SuperPhdiva 7 months ago
When you dont archieve your goals, you fail.
TeunisD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great talk Stef, definitely one of your best videos. Great arguements entertainingly presented. Keep up the great work ...
Derek,
Ireland
derekocathain1 1 year ago
great talk Stef, for sure one of your best videos, great arguements entertainingly presented..... keep up the great work.
Derek,
Ireland
derekocathain1 1 year ago
I wish we could patent Stephans brain for speed and clarity. We'd make billions.
Spencerianism 1 year ago 2
It's always easy for people who have enough time, money, and resources to be self-sufficient, to believe that everyone should be able to do it on their own. But some people need help. People get sick. People get stuck in negative patterns - poverty, violence, etc. We've all had help. We need each other, for companionship, for boundaries, for perspective, for opportunities, for learning. "Leave me alone" might be free, but it's not fulfilling let alone helpful. Thoughts Stef?
peterstoltzman 1 year ago
It's a sorry ass world that this video has only 4.4k views.
Note:What does the word legal mean in a world full of loop holes
donotfret 1 year ago 2
It's a sorry ass world that this video has only 4.4k views.
donotfret 1 year ago 19
@donotfret getting better, almost 12k now ;p
Khamila1 8 months ago
@donotfret Youtube are monitoring the amount of views certain videos get... See Alex Jone's recent upload for more details. The truth is though, there are FAR more free thinking and loving people out there than the system wants us to know about. Peace be with you. x
Marronisince1990 7 months ago
It all seems to me like any conclusion that you cone to is bullshit. It's all about the money. And that's what's fucked up.
WyldOrbit 1 year ago
Some very interesting points made here, and some in metafores that the "layman" could grasp..
Well put Stef
HubSwitch 1 year ago 2
Brillant....best Vid yet!
CrooksWithoutBorders 1 year ago
I'm really pleased to see you're leaning towards home schooling Stef. Some people make the charge against you that you rarely admit to changing your mind or being wrong about something so a podcast with you talking about what's shifted your mind on this topic would be very interesting to people. I definitely recall a podcast a year or so ago when you seemed to be quite against the idea.
davyjames 1 year ago
i love how he says 'sorry, it's redundant'. doesnt underestimate the intelligence of his audience.
sparshparimoo 1 year ago
this is like the agora contemporanea
mimiritaferron 1 year ago
I really enjoyed that, thank you very much for speaking. (^_^)
Nolen87 1 year ago
Rothbard made the argument from efficiency? LOL what?! You're going to have to back that one up.... just wow.
AubreyHerbert 1 year ago
Sorry, but couldn't help but notice 21 seconds in he said he was "the" speaker at Libertopia in California.
If he was the keynote speaker, that would be appropriate, but he wasn't. He was one of many speakers.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
But some people DO use force. Some people do rob a store at gun point. And those people will always exist in any society. And because they exist, there must be laws for society to punish such people.
Fig1024 1 year ago
Yes, live the ideal lifestyle you promote. I've found that minimalism leads to the highest standard of living per unit of exertion. Minimize your sentimentality, maximize the tangibles.
hughtub 1 year ago
I've always liked the argument that taxes should be paid with voluntary line item-style choices. Without the coercion factor, we would feel so much more responsible for, and so much more grateful for the things that "government" institutions do -- and those who chose to opt out would take responsibility for doing things or building institutions on their own.
The trickiest part of the morality argument is that opting out can easily be selfishness masquerading as freedom. Thoughts Stef?
peterstoltzman 1 year ago 2
@peterstoltzman What business of anyone's why someone would choose to opt out (if it were possible), whether it be selfishness or liberty or any other reason or combination?
1911emp 1 year ago
@1911emp Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you -- you mean, it's nobody's business, basically, right? I get that point. But in terms of me choosing to identify with some kind of movement (be it Zeitgeist, anti-war, sovereign citizen, etc.) or "party" (be it Libertarian, Democratic, Green, Republican, etc.), I want to have my values represented as fully as possible. And one of my core values is service to others. The "tough shit" ethic that blames victims, builds walls and hoards, repulses me.
peterstoltzman 1 year ago
@peterstoltzman Then serve others, in whatever way you think best, and encourage others to do so. But it's not moral to force others to serve in the ways you think best, any more than it is to own a slave and donate his labor to another person.
1911emp 1 year ago
@1911emp I hear that. But it gets tricky, right? Like, what about slaves? When we had "freedom" in that regard, people could own slaves. Slave owners had their freedom restricted by government. And they fought that loss of freedom to the death. Was it immoral to force people to give up their slaves? I don't have an answer, but I know that selfishness is hard to relinquish, and it's our right to be selfish, yet at some point there must be boundaries enforced. Not with violence though...
peterstoltzman 1 year ago
@peterstoltzman Slaves would come under "it's not moral to force others to serve" :). Actually, slaves had their freedom restricted by government; without the support of the state, slavery would have been difficult or impossible. It was immoral for their so-called "owners" to infringe on their right to liberty and self-ownership. It is not immoral to fight to defend yourself or others from infringement on rights.
1911emp 1 year ago
stef is a good speaker. whether I agree 100% or not, I always watch these.
slipcurve 1 year ago
If it takes one adult male and one adult female to create a baby and as babies we are completely helpless and dependent on adult care givers, who were our original baby sitters –how is this explained?
ehpl 1 year ago
@ehpl Evolution :)
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum can you explain this it doesn’t make sense to me? We still need two adults to make a baby and as babies we are totally helpless – we don’t start as babies and just evolve into adults on our own – and you must be adult first in order to create a baby- but you can’t get to adulthood without first being a baby - something must have created the first babies then nurtured us until adulthood, then our process is as it is today
ehpl 1 year ago
@ehpl You would have to go right back to the beginning of life, to the first self-replicating molecules. With every generation there were mutations and changes, branchings and variety, which became the first prokaryotic cells (bacteria), which then became the first eukaryotic cells (most complex life, including us), This is a gross over simplification, but basically there was never a situation of a fully former ancestral baby being born that did not have two parents.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
@BlankVellum I can understand how things may have developed gradually over time – but where we are now just makes no sense to me – surely we would not require two adults to create rather some internal mechanism would have developed to self generate – it just seems that life must have had some other care giver until the various species were old enough to look after themselves.
ehpl 1 year ago
@ehpl I do not understand what you mean by 'care giver until the various species were old enough to look after themselves'? Survival comes in many shapes and forms. All that was required was enough of one type of organism reproducing faster than the others, and better able to survive to the next generation, than other organisms. Even the simplest life forms like protozoa get by perfectly well without a 'care giver'.
BlankVellum 1 year ago
nice shirt stef :-)
Marcdemesel 1 year ago
Great great great lecture, I've learned more from you in the past year than in the last 5 years on my own, just when I think I know enough you come in and break everything down in a beatiful simple way that I think anyone can relate to.
Keep up the good work!
Paralyt1c 1 year ago
CCC:canadacultconference
erdal0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt 3. In case people missed it.
When the Woman said, 'The Surge Be,' the 'Surg,' 'was' and 'is.' She creates it. You Stef, may not undo her creation, without her Authority, only she can will it.
To maintain your soverenty without need for violence, simply disagree to grant consent for that reality to violate your peace reality or physically harm you. Those are Universal Laws, and they work throughout the Universe you exist in. The Creator is always listening and knows everything.
jamerfunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
jamerfunk 1 year ago
Stiff crowd... he's funny
XanatharEye 1 year ago
You can go claim land apparently from hundreds of years ago.... look at the state of israel.
ChoasTheory2000 1 year ago
I was debating my girlfriend's father on this subject and a question he posed came up that I was too ignorant to answer and I thought maybe you'd be able to shed some light on it.
he asked "we need more laws, not less. what happens if a large coal plant opens in a small town without adhering to environmental standards? what do you do about the hundreds of people who get lung cancer, as well as the overall environmental damage the factory does?"
protipz 1 year ago
Comment removed
jamerfunk 1 year ago
Part 2.
The answer was what the man said. To prevent yourself from getting headaches arguing with people about the difference in point of view, which Stef is kindly wearing himself to into the ground for our benifit, (thanks Stef) showing us what does not work.
They simply need your agreement, you simply decline. Then your in a place of balanced exchange and therein lies the Power you've all been looking for peeps.
Be gental + wise.