The human is deterministic, just like the rest of nature. The way to create a monster is deterministic, the way to create a tax slave is deterministic. It only fails in rare circumstances, but this is not because of free will, but because there was something different in the causes that went into the tax slave to be.
No intervention in my case. Of course why would there be? I am being subjected to a Eugenics program, forced into poverty, and cruel and unusual treatment, undue hardship, pain, and mental torment. Traumatized, terrorized, tormented, and tortured I call it. Victim of fraud, theft, slander, and neglect. Who am I? Just another injured worker who accepted workers comp. Ha! The government run Eugenics program takes my rights away so I can't defend myself. Hopelessness, depression, rage and anger.
Having re-read my post, I recognise the "grape and garland" remark was infantile. Given the path of present governments, it appears we will soon have examples of all kinds of alternatives. Personally, I would rather live in Pleasantville than Mogadishu, but history does not support the likelihood of the former. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
a fine example of NURTURE, or rather it's antithesis, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that a free market would solve this problem is laughably naive. You want some sort of actual progress in this sort of thing, petition law makers to make parental responsibility a fact, and/or reform (add to budgets, ect) to child protection agencies.
Hi Stefan. I don't know if you are familiar with hockey, but please check out tsn dot com and the videos on the act of Tim Thomas (Goaltender of Stanley Cup Champ boston Bruins)
He alone as the ONLY US citizen on the team refused to come to the reception at the white house and meet with Obama on the grounds of moral and common sense. Please read his statement. Since it is so rare that somebody from sports actually try to make a difference, maybe you could respond with a video? Best regards, C
It's interesting, in premodern China, parents and relatives of people who committed serious crimes could be punished along with the perpetrators themselves, although generally to a lesser degree (and parents would be held more responsible than say, older brother, who was also more responsible than say, first cousin...) The theory being that for someone to commit murder say, the parents must have done something wrong. We might think this is barbaric and unfair, but does make sense on some level.
The kind of Rand-like "Pleasantville" you describe; where folks pay for protection and are thus motivated to intervene to pay for services, is such religiousity. This is a religion you are describing. In many indigenous societies, people are killed when the safety of the tribe is compromised by an aberrant. Really Stefan, next you'll be sporting a toga and garland while a hired person holds grapes. You need to shovel the driveway and get out more.
@takwira my morality is the same as someone in a tribe? because that's the only way to draw that kind of conclusion. i don't see people hanging from trees here anymore, or decapitations in the public square. morality changes in a positive direction when people are free, independent and not desperate. this is why those things stopped happening, because people stop feeling desperate, function more independently, leaving behind the tribe / war mentality. well, some of us, anyway.
The feeling I got in my culture (Germany) is that no-one cares too much for others in general. Except for people with status, money, an 'important' function and so on. The point I'm trying to make is: no-one seems to care for the human that I am. Do I really have to be succesful in the modern day matrix, so that people give a fuck?
There is this book "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Liedloff. Summarised in one sentence: western parents have lost their natural instincts, how to nurture a child in the way the child needs it to be healthy. Western have lost the ability to read the signals their child is giving.
I'm glad that you see this the same way, so maybe a time is dawning where the individual human is more important than approved patterns of how one has to be in order to be officially okay.
I think that's what freedom means.
And I believe that human nature is peaceful by default.
@MagasVolar I would agree with that wholeheartedly. More than ever we are living in a world in which most people are making up their own rules. The reality is that for ideal results certain things need to be done in certain ways. Aspects of child rearing is one of those things. Only about 17% of women nurse their children beyond the first year. Women today seldom receive the moral and practical support to properly raise children, and are often even ostracized / attacked for doing so.
A woman who's been in Africa as development aid worker told me, that African women carry their babies on their body for years until the child itself wants to stand on its own feet. The child decides, not the mother / parents. And since these people live in tribes, at least in a big family, there's always someone to take of the child, so that the parents won't be eaten by stress. Their babies / childrens are calm. Without medication btw.
@MagasVolar That's interesting. I think that's how it should be, ideally, like with nursing, which some women do in fact say should be done this way. I think one of the biggest problems with couples today is that they don't plan on or understand that in reality parenting (doing it well) requires dedication and a whole different shift in lifestyle. They try to maintain the same life they had before, which is understandable, but IMO this is very bad for the child and totally unnatural.
I agree. Jean Liedloff explains that the children are with someone the whole time. Be it at the work they have to do, be it while sleeping and so on. There is no loss of contact. That would be the reason why these children are calm. They feel that the whole world is alright, just as evolution meant the world to be for children at that age. Besides of this I'd say e.g. a smoky bar environment is not suitable for a child. Parents who are aware would change lifestyle imo
@MagasVolar If they recive so much better uppbringing then westerners, then why do Africans kill, rape and murder eachother more often then any other group of people on earth? Not to difficult to answer from a politically correct perspective now is it.
One possible answer might be, that not all African parents are raising their kids the same way. Another answer might be Western politics and trade behavior in Africa that solidifies poverty and a third one the role of Islam.
As for the book by Jean Liedloff: she visited the tribe of the Yequana-Indians in the jungle of Venezuela.
@Isleifur90 because when people are in desperate situations they devolve to primitive tribalistic behavior. note how actual tribes that still exist that remain in seclusion are relatively peaceful despite being primitive. it is because they are not desperate. and the people you are thinking of are not the people this woman visited, she visited an actual tribe, presumably off in a jungle somewhere. the ppl u refer to often don't even have parents, let alone bad ones.
@regresseur045 You make fairly good points, I however think the reason why Africa is the way it is today is because they were given technology they weren't ready for. If they needed guns and advanced agriculture, evoloution would makes sure they would develop the mentality and skill needed to create those things. Just like if we would give bears fishing nets then all the fish would dissapear, the bears would multiply many times over and ultimately suffer mass starvation.
I believe you. I hope the people there find a way.
Stefan, did you know, that good missionary Christians like Reinhard Bonnke go to Africa with the intent to convert the poorest Africans by the thousands? I mean, isn't he possibly stirring up religious war with the Islam terrorists in Africa?
This does not apply to all of you only some (you know who you are). I seriously want to know why you get so upset? It's annoying to the rest of us who like to learn from each other without all the dramatics. If even smart people are stupid we will never get anywhere. Remember that you are talking to each other and each of you has feelings. As a curtesy, try to repect others opinions, even if you dont like them.
"If even smart people are stupid we will never get anywhere." - I think you're sentence nails it. What's the use of intellectual smartness, when you're emotionally dumb or impoverished? It is one big misconception imo, that booksmartness is all it takes to make the world better. It also takes empathy and compassion.
I like what Stef says, I agree with the points made, the kid enviroment fucked him up. Bad No doubt about that.. But I do not believe that some individuals are not prone to violence before comprimise. Our brain is personal. What I mean is, everyone learns differently. Our brain create individual pathways, personal to you. It's been shown that the chemistry of the brain can have a strong bearing on personality disorders, etc.
And genetic variation can cause "deviant behavior". Yay. Nueroscience
@DefinitionIsGone Everyone is prone to violence. I don't think Stefan nor anyone else for that matter has asserted that some people are immune to developing violent tendencies.
Ahh. No problem. I hope I don't misconstrue his last few statements but he did say, "Violence can be cured, it easy" But not practical, scary etc. When he says this he encompasses all developmental stages and says, you can learn to be good. Enviroment. Enviroment. Enviroment. Thats what stuck out to me. I can sincerely say, from my opinion, his context. Points to he believes everyone has a twinkle of goodness in their eyes no matter what. Thats what I got atleast.
@DefinitionIsGone Ignore first sentence since that is not what I meant to express. Rather, everyone can become violent. But in any case only the second part of my comment really matters. Sorry about that.
@meadowsirl wrote, "Stefs very reasonable mental health concerns do not match up with this libertarian non-sense." BINGO! That's it exactly. Very nicely put.
Stef- my heart cries for that poor soul- the suffering!!! humans are dehumanized today- and we don't have the guts or the grace to look at ourselves i tne mirror and see how or why we inflict suffering on others- our children, our animals, our bodies, our planet.
Why are people thinking this is somehow conclusive poof, and that this story somehow makes the effects of abuse a universal objective inevitability? "Oh not all people who are abused become killers" No shit Shurlock. This is just one story about one person and someone's opinion about it. It's not a scientific study ffs.
there's a new film out called "we need to talk about kevin" which deals with some of these issues, although the film itself is a bit vague and ambiguous as to the causes of the childs behavior there are some hints at the causes, it's worth watching.
I've nerver quite understood how the law system places blame on people. Some people are born with the warrior gene and have been abused, when this evidence is presented to a jury it can mean the accused has a reduced sentence. You can't quanitify free will, its an abstract concept, it doesn't exist saying some one has more free will than another person is just stupid. If some one is dangerous then preventing them from harming others is the price of free society, but taking revenge pointless.
(cont'd) but I paused for a moment while I had him pinned down and was about to land the first blow. I realized that I would be just like him if I gave him the ass-whipping he so dearly earned. At that moment I made a promise to myself to not use physical violence against anyone, ever, unless in self-defense. Many other victims of serious childhood abuse do not become violent animals either. There are many factors, including individual choice. Violence is always available as a course of action.
(cont'd) where there is none. Essentially, I overreact. Depression and anxiety, PTSD (which I've been diagnosed with finally) can result in suicidal urges (been there, done that) and once you can consider killing yourself as as a serious option, killing others seems possible too. However, it's not as straight a line as Stefan paints. In my case, I had a physical showdown with my main abuser, my father, at age 17 in which I overpowered him and was about to beat him to death perhaps (cont'd)
(cont'd) the state a monopoly on the legal use of violence in circumstances other than protecting oneself, others and one's property, hence the average person in a western society has much less need for violence. That is a much better view on the use of violence than something called "human nature" which is a fiction. As for abuse leading one to be violent, I have personal experience with it. What happens is that due to my twisted identity and emotional state, I perceive physical danger (cont'd)
(cont'd) assuming there is something called "human nature" at all. Violence is available to most living things as a possible course of action in any given situation. Culture has a great effect on this, some cultures are 'warrior cultures' and some are more peaceful. In a survival situation, every human has the ability to resort to violence, and in fact, in certain circumstances, violence may be the most moral action one can take. Modern society has adapted a state system that gives (cont'd)
As a victim of horrendous childhood abuse myself, as well as other childhood traumas (death of mother, abandoned by father), I absolutely agree with Stefan, as far as it goes. But see, what Stefan does is take a good observation and turn it into some kind of over-arching philosophy, when no such leap is warranted. Fyi, I've done massive therapy as an adult and finally, at 49 am at peace. Violence is neither inherent or exogenous to "human nature". The real problem with his argument is (cont'd).
It's pride, narcissism, and lack of compassion which brings trauma. The parents who are abusive assholes have their stories too and cause of their ugly behaviour. I think the government and people should feel responsible for each others well being and what will become of children. Children aren't parents pride/toy properies in a good society. We should have big more published guides how to treat each other to avoid traumatic events to happen. Care for one another.
The people who spent years halv assedly trying to bring him back to his parent didn't know what they where doing. They didn't have the goal to aid him to a good life it seems. Just get rid of the case of a homeless person in their misleading system. Didn't even take the effort to analyze the parents. I suffer from PDST and I say the internet is what helped me a lot. That and cognition. It's hard o open up to pople who seem so ignorant but it's possible to find understanding people here.
Some people I think are born more or less born monsters but the monste needs to b put out off them. Since there are so many monsters already, since monsters create monter parents like in this case create monster children. Trauma is caused by the actions of the PTSD child which might be part of a chain reaction which leads to more similar famelies some generations ahead. Cognition skils and compassion and understanding from others is the key. But people are so damn selfish and unsentimental.
Argument by anecdote? Really? This is so wrong-headed - and at variance with observable reality in so many respects - I'm baffled as to how someone who believes such nonsense could be set straight.
This is really a vast oversimplification of the problem. You use one *extreme* example, demonstrating how wretched parenting lead one young man into homicidal behavior. Then use the emotional kick-back from the audience to lay the blame for all violence at the feet of poor parenting. There is no doubt that violence from parents will rub off on the child, but it is not the sole reason for every instance of anti-social behavior.
@DuskTredder wrote, "This is really a vast oversimplification of the problem. You use one *extreme* example..." I agree with you completely. You got it exactly right.
@DuskTredder right, it is not the sole reason... the complete apathy, lack of interest and compassion from peers and others around you probably adds greatly to the mix.
I think the parents should be held responsible for that child. and i disagree with your pet analogy; people should be responsible for their pets and children.
See Stanford prison experiment and Derren Brown the experiment "the Gameshow". Human behavior is no mystery and is very predictable. All "evil" behavior has to do with power, not abuse; otherwise only the abused would do evil acts. Although one may find ways to criticize scientific conclusions, one cannot ignore the raw data, and it in no way supports this premise. People are easily led to commit heinous acts given the right circumstances and fear. See the Milgram experiment.
@Mahoivlich This is always true. Even this idea of abuse suffers from the question of the first individual to abuse someone - someone who had never been abused, and yet abused others to start the chain reaction. People may not be violent by nature - but they are, and always have been, hungry for power and willing to bow to apparent power. The murders, rapists, etc. are generally just more of the former than the latter - working to exert physical power over their fellow man.
@mtanousable human beings possess learned behaviors. WE learn from the culture that surrounds us ... the culture we see around us now (worldwide) is one of dominion which hasn't been around that long.... 10k? ... and this accepted 'human nature' is responsible for just about every major problem we face... It IS THE SOURCE... dominion.... eliminate the source of our problems and we eliminate the problems.
@TheBerserker50 If this were the case, the State would never have arisen. Yes, behaviors are learned, but SOMEONE has to start them - at some point in history, a group of humans, likely most of them, were inherently violent (going against the supposed strain of peaceful harmony of man). This idea of people learning these abhorrent behaviors fails to answer that problem - and is such, a useless and incomplete theory of human behavior (at best).
@mtanousable that's not true. poor / destructive behavior can be in-born. it can result from boredom, lack of sleep, starvation, infection, etc. i've heard people say that the biggest culprit in the problems with violence in black neighborhoods is, quite simply, boredom; that these people (who are mostly young) just don't know what to do with themselves (e.g. no vision, aspirations), so they take the easy road to finding purpose in their lives, which is always the negative
@regresseur That is another explanation entirely, and one that, while I personally think it is also lacking, only makes my point that individuals aren't just naturally good and only turned bad by abuse/learning it from others.
@mtanousable Power and violence may have had evolutionary benefits many thousands of years ago. It didn't matter if people were unhappy so long as they survived and the side effects of their abuse were useful in a primitive tribal structure. Privacy now allows the abuse to be better hidden, and a larger more advanced society allows the destructive effects of this abuse to run unchecked and form governments etc. The only human nature involved is a tendency to absorb and repeat learned behaviour.
@slissone Well, there you go. Humans evolved to naturally use violence and seek to set up power structures as a survival tool. Necessary for that, at least one individual had to start naturally born with tendencies towards violence and seeking power, pass on those traits, and have his lineage be as good/better at surviving compared to other humans. That pretty much proves my point. Anyone else want to inanely try to argue that I am wrong by starting with the hypothesis that I am right?
@mtanousable I'm saying that our ancestors, like many higher apes, probably already did have genetically programmed instincts for violence and domination, but that the more intelligent humans became and the more variable our environments became, the more risky it is for humans to have any rigid instincts of any kind. We are evolved to be adaptable to our present, fluctuating environment. I'd suggest that human violence or submissiveness is inactive until triggered by a traumatic childhood.
@slissone That's a more plausible theory, but I'd suggest that it has holes, if we examine the behavior of children.Young children, even without abuse, are known to get into fights over toys and such - and those same children often grow up to be "model citizens". That would seem to indicate that the absence of violent behavior is what is truly the learned behavior - and abuse only serves to increase it, instead of teaching suppression of that instinct out of respect for the humanity of others.
@mtanousable Neglect is still abuse. So a parent who inadequately shows their child empathy or doesn't give them enough attention/moral reasoning and boundaries etc may still activate the violence and domination strategy in the child. Children experiment and push boundaries to try and see what strategies work. If they end up getting away with bad stuff and their empathy is not as developed then it's like a way of detecting neglect and scarcity and a need to adapt to get resources at all costs.
@Mahoivlich The StefFanBoys will never allow themselves to see through Molyneux's sophistry. And folks, in case you don't realize it, he's just as pseudo-intellectual on economics and political philosophy. He's counting on the ignorance of his audience, as real students of the topics he prattles on about will find many of his "positions" and analysis laughable. But hey, keep worshiping him - people need idols and he plays the cult-leader role to a tee.
Your anecdotal "evidence" ignores the fact that there are plenty of similarly abused people who never entertain suicidal or homicidal impulses. Likewise, there are plenty of children of loving, compassionate, secure and wholesome households who grow up to commit the most evil of crimes. Compassion is a zero-sum game. Compassion reserved for a mass murderer is withheld from his victims and their families. Are you selling a Utopian vision, Stef? If so, forget it. It's a dangerous pipe dream.
@stuntbaby63 THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE plenty of those who don't turn to killers become self destructive alcoholic drug addict, chronic depression and many many other negative things abuse can even turn to some forms of physical illness like cancer. and those who really comes from loving parents don't turn criminals if it's the case it's because we don't look very well at their childhood to see what kind of education they had abuse can be psychological
@stuntbaby63 Fact? Could you please give sources/links to the studies that support this? There are plenty of these anomalies in Hollywood movies and media, but does science support the theory that you can abuse a child severely and still have it turn out ok? I believe studies have showed quite the opposite, that there's a strong correlation between child abuse and violence.
@Zerafinel wrote, "Could you please give sources/links to the studies that support this?" This is what happens when people surrender to "studies". They cease to use their own eyes, their own minds and their own common sense. It reminds me of an old "New Yorker" cartoon where a half-dead wretch, crawling through the desert, comes across a group of snobbish intellectuals sitting at a table. Joyously he shouts, "Thank God! A panel of experts!" Trust me. You don't need studies.
@stuntbaby63 I thought that if we were talking about facts, we're talking about something verifiable. If you want me to give you my subjective view/experience based on my common sense, then my view is that you cannot abuse a child and have it turn out fine, unscarred. Ever. I think it's a vicious lie put out there by the media, created by the guilty conscious of parents. But we really need to be right about this since so much is at stake, so we should look at studies, I think.
@Zerafinel wrote, "my view is that you cannot abuse a child and have it turn out fine..." I agree. But I never suggested otherwise. My view is that abused children are individuals who cope with abuse in different ways. Some become monsters. Some don't. Some become angels who do great good. Loved children are individuals, too. Some become angels. Some don't. Some become monsters who do great evil. Isn't all of this common sense? Isn't it self-evident? Who needs a "study" to prove it?
@stuntbaby63 Because, if what you're saying is correct, then it's a completely random process who turns out good or evil. This is important to know because it means we can't do anything about it. So we do need to study this because there is hope to actually do something about this human suffering. It turns out that what we intuitively know about dogs, also seems to be true for humans - you abuse a dog, it becomes violent. It means it's not random and we can do something about it.
@Zerafinel wrote, if what you're saying is correct, then it's a completely random process...we can't do anything about it." No, I'm not saying that. Of course, when people abuse children, there are horrible consequences. No one in their right mind would ever dismiss child abuse as a non-issue that should be ignored or accepted. I simply don't understand what Stef's point is. He's both stating the obvious (child abuse is bad) and ignoring the obvious (humanity can never be pacified). See?
@stuntbaby63 Well, I think his position is that it is possible to pacify humanity. That by changing the way we raise kids, we can change the world. That human beings naturally gravitate towards peaceful interaction based on voluntary exchange/trade, if they're not abused. That is my position anyway. That is what I think we are aiming for here. And why settle for less than trying to eradicate evil. If there's a cause, we can do something about it.
@Zerafinel wrote, "I think his position is that it is possible to pacify humanity." I think you're right. That's why I think his video is nonsense. It's a beautiful idea, sure. And child abuse is evil, no doubt. But how is it possible for 7 billion unique individuals to fall in lock-step behind HIS terms and definitions? For example, some would say that raising children to reject God and religion is a form of child abuse. Who would be able to say with certainty that they were wrong? Him?
@Zerafinel wrote, "we should look at studies, I think." Fair point. Sorry for my snarky reply. It's just that the allure of academic authority has become so powerful that it seems folks have forfeited their own brains and their own perspectives. It has gotten to be so noticeable and so ridiculous that it's almost as if they need a daily "peer-reviewed study" to tell them what clothes to wear and what foods to eat. "I think, therefore I am," has morphed into "I read studies, therefore I am".
@stuntbaby63 Oh no problem. I can deviate in comments from how I want to talk sometimes too so, I hope I didn't do that here. It's a very important discussion and I'm so glad these videos stimulate us all to think and talk about it. Thank you so much for the chat.
@stuntbaby63 'that there are plenty of similarly abused people who never entertain suicidal or homicidal impulses.' Don't be foolish. There are differant threshold points for differant people, and this kid was clearly pushed beyond his. Maybe some are more prone to going psycho than others, but the key is to NOT PUSH THEM THERE.
'Compassion reserved for a mass murderer.' And the punk never got any compassion BEFORE he became a mass murderer, which is the point, so your statement is worthless.
@TheJamesrocket wrote, "your statement is worthless." My statement was NOT about this one tragic life. It was about the tricky nature of compassion. It can't be given to everybody, right? For example, the compassion Scotland had for the Lockerbie bomber was heartless cruelty against the victims' families. Anyway, Stef's example does not prove anything. One anecdote can be negated by a contrary one. ex. Jeffrey Dahmer, by all accounts, had loving parents and a pretty normal life.
@stuntbaby63 Are you arguing for a universal portrait for criminal minds. now? Jeffery dahmer, as I have said, was one of those people who was more prone to violence (much more prone, in fact). Unlike a normal person, it didn't take massive abuse to awaken his dark side, just an opportunity to carry through with his sick fantasys.
@TheJamesrocket wrote, "Are you arguing for a universal portrait for criminal minds?" I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm simply questioning the logic and the point of Stef's video. And I don't see how your question relates to anything I wrote. The main point I was trying to make was that human individuality trumps universality. So even if Stef could miraculously rid the world of child abuse, some among us would STILL develop sick and violent fantasies that compel them to abuse children.
@stuntbaby63 Wait wait wait a minute. You wrote "evidence" between quotes, like it didn't count... But where is *your* evidence, stuntbaby? Especially for this claim "there are plenty of children of loving, compassionate, secure and wholesome households who grow up to commit the most evil of crimes". That is simply your opinion until you give evidence.
Of course there will be criminals with good childhoods but raising a child in a positive environment is paramount to avoid psycho behavior.
@elchafa wrote, "You wrote 'evidence' between quotes, like it didn't count." It counts? Really? Why? If he's arguing that horribly abusive parents can turn children into monsters then he's arguing a point that is so obvious that it doesn't NEED any evidence. But if he's arguing that humanity can be pacified by the rejection of child abuse or that we can somehow create a Utopia by being loving and compassionate, then his anecdote is not evidence...it's a John Lennon pop song.
We all have a sinful human nature. Violence is not an issue in a well-balanced upbringing. However, who is raised in a well-balanced home? Not the majority. Killers were around well before medication.
Sorry, but violence is part of humanity. It will never go away.
Violence is not human nature, but sin is. There are varying types of sin (murder, lying, cheating etc), and EVERYONE SINS, but not everyone is violent.
@flahr1 Get out of here. We don't need your schizo fantasy absurdities. Sin is a conceptual crime against the human spirit. There is no such demon as sin. Grow up.
I mean I think that the type of groups we're talking about that would work with these problems, would consist to a large degree of teams of therapists, not some armed squat teams. The armed people would only be used in the rare events when something has gone terribly wrong with all the other measures. That's how I picture it anyway.
@Z Maybe:) It'll take conscious awareness, a shift in perception from illusion & projection to relating to the reality of the world we all have to share. It'll take equality in the embodiment of the rights of man; The right to think be & express firmly framed with personal & collective responsibility No one persons rights can take president over the next. Fortunately grasping the basics is NOT IQ dependent. It's a process & will take time to reverse engineer the quagmire we are faced with today.
@Zerafinel What would happen if the parents met the team of therapists at the door and said, "No, thanks. Now, get the fuck off my property!" And, who would be paying for the team of therapists?
The government itself rarely uses force unless one first refuses to comply with their rules. If you comply, no force. How does your libertarian society differ from the statist system in this particular instance of interference in the case of child abuse?
@1140Cecile I can't give you details about every possible kind of situation, it's impossible. All I know is that problems have to be solved without initiation of violence or they won't be solved at all. Who would pay? I would pay. I would pay a certain sum each month for this company to keep me and my children safe. And I would also pay for them to help dysfunctional families free of charge. How would it differ? The incentives to actually solve problems, instead of perpetuating them in infinity.
@Zerafinel I obviously know that you can't give details about every possible situation...that's why we're talking about this "particular" situation. You say, "all I know is that problems have to be solved without initiation of violence or they won't be solved at all." Well, you really don't "know" that, you're simply "asserting" that. Would you pay to help all the dysfunctional families if only you and a few others had to pick up the entire tab, say $2,000 per month?
@1140Cecile So, you could say, "Well, I'm sure there'd be more than a few people who would chip in to pay to help all the dysfunctional families, so it wouldn't cost me $2,000 per month." In a statist society we all share in the cost so it only costs us perhaps $25 per month for such a service. Yes, that charge levied by the government, included in our taxes, is a charge that is enforced by the use of force if we don't pay our taxes.
@1140Cecile Well, what we're arguing about fundamentally here is the difference between a voluntary relationship and an involuntary one. What is the difference between a forced marriage and a voluntary one, if you live together and share house hold chores in both?
Does it matter at all that you can't chose somebody else to marry because you'll get thrown into prison if you try?
What is the difference between you donating money and getting robbed? Etc..
@Zerafinel Wow! What a total misrepresentation of my position! You are putting up a totalitarian position versus the libertarian position. My position, in reality, is that a community can come together (government) to accomplish goals that are designed to service the desires of majority of the community. This position is considered as an anathema to libertarians who seem to say that such coming together should only happen in small groups. How big would you allow the groups to become?
@1140Cecile ? I would allow them to be huge. I love parties. Seriously though, what? I have no problem with what you just said. The notion of allowing or disallowing gatherings is not libertarian at all.
@Zerafinel Well, governments are simply "huge" groups. Libertarians, from what I understand, do not want community groups to come together to develop joint goals for the entire community when there are ANY people within that community who disagree with those joint goals of the majority. The libertarian position seems to be that those who don't agree should both not be subject to participating or paying their share in the accomplishment of those goals.
@1140Cecile Well, ok. No, I do not support the use of force against anyone who is not attacking anyone. So yeah. If somebody does not want to be a part of the group, or wants to form a different group, it is immoral to try to force them. That being said, I don't see why a group of volunteers can't get together and agree on goals and work towards them for themselves.
@1140Cecile It's 5 in the morning here so please excuse me if I'm "not getting it" :) But I'm not. You were arguing for government, which is a group that has a monopoly on using violence. I don't think that is what you want though when you're talking about getting the community together to try to solve problems, or? Are you going to force me to participate or comply? That is the fundamental question. If not, then get together all you want. If it's all voluntary, there's no problem.
We are not looking at a future where the police force would be replaced by something exactly the same but private. We're looking at a future that is very different in many ways. It would put most of it's efforts on prevention instead of damage control. So in order to catch glimpses of it, we must think differently from what we're accustomed to.
It seems a lot of people believe that you have to use violence to prevent child abuse. I don't believe this is true. Any type of abuse thrives in silence. To make the abuse visible is more than half the work of stopping it. The problem is the silence. The problems is when we know something is wrong and we don't ask, and we let this go on for years. It may be difficult to imagine, since we're so used to violent conflict resolution, to imagine anything else. But problems CAN be solved peacefully.
@Zerafinel I don't know what part of the world you live in, Zerafinel, but, in my experience, most conflict resolution is handled by courts of law. This is certainly not the case in disputes involving recreational drugs because those in conflict cannot utilize the courts due to the drugs being illegal in the first place. And, why would people remain silent in a statist society but speak up in a libertarian society?
Steph is totally correct with this. If you read about some of the worst killers and psychopaths, they usually have stories similar to this, rampant abuse from an early age, etc. . . As a parent, I realize just how innocent and impressionable a child is. You have to really concentrate on teaching them constructively, and providing them with a positive home environment. With that said, psychotropic drugs are also quite a bad thing, esp for people who had such turbulent childhoods.
@TryYellowSnowCone that depends on what you mean by psychotropic drugs. Mushroom with psilocybin have been proven to improve people's personality . LSD the same in some experiment, but in the right condition . All psycahdelics can help a lot if given under shamanistic guiding.
Few arguments infuriate me more than "People are inherrently violent." It's such lazy and sloppy thinking. When people say that, what they're really saying is "I don't care enough about the problem to actually start thinking of how to solve it so I'll just write it off as unsolvable and feel like I accomplished something without any real effort."
@lordthawkeye Exactly, one thing that separates us as humans, specifically,is that we have the ability to work voluntarily and peacefully to further our species. We weren't very physically strong in our early evolution, so we compensated for that It is human to understand a way out of situations other than violence, but unfortunately some people are products of their environments and don't carry the torch of their own humanity. This is what causes all of the atrocities in history, not humanity.
our behavior is 99.999% modeled behavior... we simply accumulate more data with time and seem unique as we display and communicate different combination of what we know through our accumulated experiences
with that in mind, it blows my mind what this boy must have seen by the time he was three to have acted as he did...
@4lifejackhammer I fail to see what your intended point is. But if it's something like private interest good , public interest bad , then I disagree with you. I want an economic system that does not favour the rich over the poor. A fairer world, where we don't watch millions starve to death each year whilst other nations destroy food. The redistribution of wealth. The removal of money from politics. A level playing field. I'll try Socialism.
@HelmetBlissta what is fair? Is it fair that one who contributes greatly to society not receive a greater portion of what society can offer? That power is equal among humans; everyone must serve their fellow man before they are fed? Go ahead and try socialism, but the only successful experiment I have seen is sects of amish who hold no pretense of trying to improve technology. Go ahead and try your socialism, but do not try to force others into it.
@4lifejackhammer Capitalism sees the concentration of wealth into fewrer and fewer hands , this is one of the major concerns today . If you are happy with that arrangement then I have little left to say to you. I stand with the workers and not the bosses.
@HelmetBlissta so what happens if the workers become "the bosses?" What about the "bosses" who claim to work for the people, such as the congressmen here or the dictators Stalin and Mao? your arguments are straight from their propaganda books. I stand with each individuals right to seek their own ambitions without the use of violence. And Stefan makes an excellent point on how bad childreaering can be the cause for additional violence.
@4lifejackhammer if the workers own the means of production it would be a fairer system. I too stand with the rights of individuals to pursue their dreams. i don't wish for big government , but in the face of big corporations we need a big government to stand the greedy capitalists down. I favour Socialism as demonstrated by the"Bolvarian Revolution" in Latin America, which has undoubtedly improved the lives of the many at the acceptable cost of the luxuries from the few.
@HelmetBlissta I think you don't use the same definition of capitalism as most people here. What we have today is not what they mean when they say capitalism. Most libertarians use the Austrian definition of a totally free market where all exchanges are voluntary. That does not concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands, I'm sure you would agree with me on that.
@jrgenkratz We can talk definitions all you like . I'd like to start with libertarian, in Europe a libertarian is not a right-winger, in the US it means something like 'pure' capitalist. Chomsky calls himself a 'libertarian socialist'. I disagree with you and feel my time here is wasted. I see socialism as the way to a fairer world and the market can only lead us further into the corporate dungeon, you see different, ok. Bye.
Aren't you agruing for a government organization or some form of authority, that might use force, to take the child away from the parents? And won't there be a bureacracy to determine what is considered abuse to the child? That could be a very subjective as to what is consider by one person or another, as abusing a child.
I think capitalism is the source of the violence that plagues the world today but even if capitalism was abolished it would not be the end of ALL violence. A government of some kind would still be necessary to deal with the dangerous people.
@sewbuttns If by "capitalism" you mean crony capitalism and big corps buying influence with politicians, then I agree. But if by "capitalism" you mean "the free market" I totally disagree with you. The free market is voluntary, uncoerced and peaceful. Crony capitalism or mercantilism is really a form of fascism, which is a style of socialism. I think the anarchists would reply that there are voluntary security agreements that could deal with dangerous people better than govts.
@freesk8 There is no such thing as a free market. The market relies on the government to enforce contracts and property rights and to jail theives and so on, and whoever performed those functions would still be the government, even if it was a private business. So really it is impossible to abolish the government and there is no such thing as a market without coercion or force.
@sewbuttns Be careful now you will be labelled a communist non-believer.! Don't attack the fundamental premises they make, that's not allowed, you are only allowed to discuss the logical deductions, The fundamental truths are not for debate the freemarket is infallible and we are only motivated by self-interest. Anything else is evil communist propaganda. Praise the invisible hand!
@sewbuttns OK, so if I write a book, and lots of people buy it, and I earn lots of money as a result, then what coercion or force have I employed? Please show me exactly how I have done something immoral in this example?
@freesk8 What you have described is not capitalism though. Capitalism is a mode of production in which capitalists make money off their money, as opposed to working. In a capitalist business the owner doesn't work. He just lives off the wealth that is produces by the workers.
@freesk8 Well nothings wrong with it, it's just not free of force or coercion. It relies on the government making laws and backing them up with force, to prevent things like theft or copyright infringement.
@sewbuttns I don't support laws that make copyright infringement illegal. And it is possible for me to enter in to non-governmental, voluntary security arrangements. If someone breaks in to my warehouse and steals my books, I can hire someone to arrest them. They have made the first use of force, so my retaliation is justified. The key thing here is that I made no first use of force merely by writing and selling my book to willing buyers. So your argument doesn't hold up.
@freesk8 You may think in that situation that your retaliation would be justified but who made you the one who decides what's justified or not? Making laws and forcing people to live by them is not anarchy it is a dictatorship.
@sewbuttns Each of us has a natural right to self defense. That right extends to using appropriate levels of force to defend our families and our properties as well. It is usually not very complex. You can bring up examples where it is difficult to see what is just, but these cases are the exception, not the rule. Forcing people to respect your rights is not dictatorship, it is simple survival, and justified self defense. Govt sucks at defending the people.
@freesk8 I doubt there would be any consensus on such things, which means it would all come down to brute force. The person with the most weapons would get to say what constitutes property, what constitutes theft etc. He might assert these things in the name of self defense but one man with a gun telling five other people what to do is still the government for all intents and purposes, just on a very small scale.
The human is deterministic, just like the rest of nature. The way to create a monster is deterministic, the way to create a tax slave is deterministic. It only fails in rare circumstances, but this is not because of free will, but because there was something different in the causes that went into the tax slave to be.
modelmark 1 week ago
No intervention in my case. Of course why would there be? I am being subjected to a Eugenics program, forced into poverty, and cruel and unusual treatment, undue hardship, pain, and mental torment. Traumatized, terrorized, tormented, and tortured I call it. Victim of fraud, theft, slander, and neglect. Who am I? Just another injured worker who accepted workers comp. Ha! The government run Eugenics program takes my rights away so I can't defend myself. Hopelessness, depression, rage and anger.
SuperNewf1 2 weeks ago
Hey stefbot are you going to PORC Fest this year in New Hampshire?
911nomad 1 month ago
No single example is going to trump the overall trend in humanity... We kill, pretty much everyone and everything.
The individual is more often good then bad, as a whole were fucking vile.
RedGrobo 1 month ago
good video until you somehow said that the free market would cure this, wouldn't work THAT way imo
TheEthanwashere 1 month ago
RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Oocephalus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who needs a child when you have the BBC with its endless subtle abuse..
h t t p : / / tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2011/05/tv-licensing-truly-despicable-mailshot.html
CO2TROL 1 month ago
of course it has to be the parent fault shrinks
rickw2354 1 month ago
Having re-read my post, I recognise the "grape and garland" remark was infantile. Given the path of present governments, it appears we will soon have examples of all kinds of alternatives. Personally, I would rather live in Pleasantville than Mogadishu, but history does not support the likelihood of the former. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
takwira 1 month ago
a fine example of NURTURE, or rather it's antithesis, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that a free market would solve this problem is laughably naive. You want some sort of actual progress in this sort of thing, petition law makers to make parental responsibility a fact, and/or reform (add to budgets, ect) to child protection agencies.
genghisdon1 1 month ago
All I can say is your awsome , always makin me look at different percpectives .
ConvictedTerrorism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi Stefan. I don't know if you are familiar with hockey, but please check out tsn dot com and the videos on the act of Tim Thomas (Goaltender of Stanley Cup Champ boston Bruins)
He alone as the ONLY US citizen on the team refused to come to the reception at the white house and meet with Obama on the grounds of moral and common sense. Please read his statement. Since it is so rare that somebody from sports actually try to make a difference, maybe you could respond with a video? Best regards, C
carinum 1 month ago
Comment removed
carinum 1 month ago
This shows our elected leaders have failed in the job and have done for a long time
topgunexcel 1 month ago
It's interesting, in premodern China, parents and relatives of people who committed serious crimes could be punished along with the perpetrators themselves, although generally to a lesser degree (and parents would be held more responsible than say, older brother, who was also more responsible than say, first cousin...) The theory being that for someone to commit murder say, the parents must have done something wrong. We might think this is barbaric and unfair, but does make sense on some level.
onyomi 1 month ago
I find it pathetic that a system lets a person become so abuse....shows how much they care.
Antdog5 1 month ago
How to make a monster. Send them to a public school.
xenomorph1997 1 month ago
The kind of Rand-like "Pleasantville" you describe; where folks pay for protection and are thus motivated to intervene to pay for services, is such religiousity. This is a religion you are describing. In many indigenous societies, people are killed when the safety of the tribe is compromised by an aberrant. Really Stefan, next you'll be sporting a toga and garland while a hired person holds grapes. You need to shovel the driveway and get out more.
takwira 1 month ago
@takwira my morality is the same as someone in a tribe? because that's the only way to draw that kind of conclusion. i don't see people hanging from trees here anymore, or decapitations in the public square. morality changes in a positive direction when people are free, independent and not desperate. this is why those things stopped happening, because people stop feeling desperate, function more independently, leaving behind the tribe / war mentality. well, some of us, anyway.
regresseur 1 month ago
The feeling I got in my culture (Germany) is that no-one cares too much for others in general. Except for people with status, money, an 'important' function and so on. The point I'm trying to make is: no-one seems to care for the human that I am. Do I really have to be succesful in the modern day matrix, so that people give a fuck?
MagasVolar 1 month ago
There is this book "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Liedloff. Summarised in one sentence: western parents have lost their natural instincts, how to nurture a child in the way the child needs it to be healthy. Western have lost the ability to read the signals their child is giving.
MagasVolar 1 month ago 10
@MagasVolar I agree to that!! (from the Netherlands)
Cat99Harina 1 month ago
@Cat99Harina
I'm glad that you see this the same way, so maybe a time is dawning where the individual human is more important than approved patterns of how one has to be in order to be officially okay.
I think that's what freedom means.
And I believe that human nature is peaceful by default.
MagasVolar 1 month ago
@MagasVolar I would agree with that wholeheartedly. More than ever we are living in a world in which most people are making up their own rules. The reality is that for ideal results certain things need to be done in certain ways. Aspects of child rearing is one of those things. Only about 17% of women nurse their children beyond the first year. Women today seldom receive the moral and practical support to properly raise children, and are often even ostracized / attacked for doing so.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur
A woman who's been in Africa as development aid worker told me, that African women carry their babies on their body for years until the child itself wants to stand on its own feet. The child decides, not the mother / parents. And since these people live in tribes, at least in a big family, there's always someone to take of the child, so that the parents won't be eaten by stress. Their babies / childrens are calm. Without medication btw.
MagasVolar 1 month ago 13
@MagasVolar That's interesting. I think that's how it should be, ideally, like with nursing, which some women do in fact say should be done this way. I think one of the biggest problems with couples today is that they don't plan on or understand that in reality parenting (doing it well) requires dedication and a whole different shift in lifestyle. They try to maintain the same life they had before, which is understandable, but IMO this is very bad for the child and totally unnatural.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur
I agree. Jean Liedloff explains that the children are with someone the whole time. Be it at the work they have to do, be it while sleeping and so on. There is no loss of contact. That would be the reason why these children are calm. They feel that the whole world is alright, just as evolution meant the world to be for children at that age. Besides of this I'd say e.g. a smoky bar environment is not suitable for a child. Parents who are aware would change lifestyle imo
MagasVolar 1 month ago
@MagasVolar If they recive so much better uppbringing then westerners, then why do Africans kill, rape and murder eachother more often then any other group of people on earth? Not to difficult to answer from a politically correct perspective now is it.
Isleifur90 1 month ago
@Isleifur90
One possible answer might be, that not all African parents are raising their kids the same way. Another answer might be Western politics and trade behavior in Africa that solidifies poverty and a third one the role of Islam.
As for the book by Jean Liedloff: she visited the tribe of the Yequana-Indians in the jungle of Venezuela.
MagasVolar 1 month ago
@Isleifur90 because when people are in desperate situations they devolve to primitive tribalistic behavior. note how actual tribes that still exist that remain in seclusion are relatively peaceful despite being primitive. it is because they are not desperate. and the people you are thinking of are not the people this woman visited, she visited an actual tribe, presumably off in a jungle somewhere. the ppl u refer to often don't even have parents, let alone bad ones.
regresseur045 1 month ago
@regresseur045 You make fairly good points, I however think the reason why Africa is the way it is today is because they were given technology they weren't ready for. If they needed guns and advanced agriculture, evoloution would makes sure they would develop the mentality and skill needed to create those things. Just like if we would give bears fishing nets then all the fish would dissapear, the bears would multiply many times over and ultimately suffer mass starvation.
Isleifur90 1 month ago
@MagasVolar I like what you are saying and love the intent...but having been in Africa perhaps that's not the best example of a peaceful...place.
TheCannonballrun 1 month ago
@TheCannonballrun
I believe you. I hope the people there find a way.
Stefan, did you know, that good missionary Christians like Reinhard Bonnke go to Africa with the intent to convert the poorest Africans by the thousands? I mean, isn't he possibly stirring up religious war with the Islam terrorists in Africa?
MagasVolar 1 month ago
This does not apply to all of you only some (you know who you are). I seriously want to know why you get so upset? It's annoying to the rest of us who like to learn from each other without all the dramatics. If even smart people are stupid we will never get anywhere. Remember that you are talking to each other and each of you has feelings. As a curtesy, try to repect others opinions, even if you dont like them.
missamacgre 1 month ago
@missamacgre
"If even smart people are stupid we will never get anywhere." - I think you're sentence nails it. What's the use of intellectual smartness, when you're emotionally dumb or impoverished? It is one big misconception imo, that booksmartness is all it takes to make the world better. It also takes empathy and compassion.
MagasVolar 1 month ago
I like what Stef says, I agree with the points made, the kid enviroment fucked him up. Bad No doubt about that.. But I do not believe that some individuals are not prone to violence before comprimise. Our brain is personal. What I mean is, everyone learns differently. Our brain create individual pathways, personal to you. It's been shown that the chemistry of the brain can have a strong bearing on personality disorders, etc.
And genetic variation can cause "deviant behavior". Yay. Nueroscience
DefinitionIsGone 1 month ago
@DefinitionIsGone Everyone is prone to violence. I don't think Stefan nor anyone else for that matter has asserted that some people are immune to developing violent tendencies.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur
Ahh. No problem. I hope I don't misconstrue his last few statements but he did say, "Violence can be cured, it easy" But not practical, scary etc. When he says this he encompasses all developmental stages and says, you can learn to be good. Enviroment. Enviroment. Enviroment. Thats what stuck out to me. I can sincerely say, from my opinion, his context. Points to he believes everyone has a twinkle of goodness in their eyes no matter what. Thats what I got atleast.
DefinitionIsGone 1 month ago
@DefinitionIsGone Ignore first sentence since that is not what I meant to express. Rather, everyone can become violent. But in any case only the second part of my comment really matters. Sorry about that.
regresseur 1 month ago
Everything that comes out of stephans mouth is factual and based on reason. It is a refreshing change from the tv.
QCREIGN 1 month ago
what a crock of shit
Who is going to pay for his rehabilitation in the "(nothing for) Free Market".
It would have to be some sort of government institution or Charity.
Is Stefs idea, after the shooting, sue the parents? as a warning to other shit parents?
Stefs very reasonable mental health concerns do not match up with this libertarian non-sense.
meadowsirl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meadowsirl wrote, "Stefs very reasonable mental health concerns do not match up with this libertarian non-sense." BINGO! That's it exactly. Very nicely put.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
Stef- my heart cries for that poor soul- the suffering!!! humans are dehumanized today- and we don't have the guts or the grace to look at ourselves i tne mirror and see how or why we inflict suffering on others- our children, our animals, our bodies, our planet.
fndngnvrlnd 1 month ago
Why are people thinking this is somehow conclusive poof, and that this story somehow makes the effects of abuse a universal objective inevitability? "Oh not all people who are abused become killers" No shit Shurlock. This is just one story about one person and someone's opinion about it. It's not a scientific study ffs.
drogden 1 month ago
there's a new film out called "we need to talk about kevin" which deals with some of these issues, although the film itself is a bit vague and ambiguous as to the causes of the childs behavior there are some hints at the causes, it's worth watching.
HuxleyWasRight 1 month ago
I thought this was coming from one of my photoshop tutorial channels... :D
OhMyGoog 1 month ago
I've nerver quite understood how the law system places blame on people. Some people are born with the warrior gene and have been abused, when this evidence is presented to a jury it can mean the accused has a reduced sentence. You can't quanitify free will, its an abstract concept, it doesn't exist saying some one has more free will than another person is just stupid. If some one is dangerous then preventing them from harming others is the price of free society, but taking revenge pointless.
MatthewMitch23051992 1 month ago
In a free society someone would of been armed and able to stop this nut from killing other people.
cchessmaster 1 month ago
(cont'd) but I paused for a moment while I had him pinned down and was about to land the first blow. I realized that I would be just like him if I gave him the ass-whipping he so dearly earned. At that moment I made a promise to myself to not use physical violence against anyone, ever, unless in self-defense. Many other victims of serious childhood abuse do not become violent animals either. There are many factors, including individual choice. Violence is always available as a course of action.
glennd7962 1 month ago
(cont'd) where there is none. Essentially, I overreact. Depression and anxiety, PTSD (which I've been diagnosed with finally) can result in suicidal urges (been there, done that) and once you can consider killing yourself as as a serious option, killing others seems possible too. However, it's not as straight a line as Stefan paints. In my case, I had a physical showdown with my main abuser, my father, at age 17 in which I overpowered him and was about to beat him to death perhaps (cont'd)
glennd7962 1 month ago
(cont'd) the state a monopoly on the legal use of violence in circumstances other than protecting oneself, others and one's property, hence the average person in a western society has much less need for violence. That is a much better view on the use of violence than something called "human nature" which is a fiction. As for abuse leading one to be violent, I have personal experience with it. What happens is that due to my twisted identity and emotional state, I perceive physical danger (cont'd)
glennd7962 1 month ago
(cont'd) assuming there is something called "human nature" at all. Violence is available to most living things as a possible course of action in any given situation. Culture has a great effect on this, some cultures are 'warrior cultures' and some are more peaceful. In a survival situation, every human has the ability to resort to violence, and in fact, in certain circumstances, violence may be the most moral action one can take. Modern society has adapted a state system that gives (cont'd)
glennd7962 1 month ago
As a victim of horrendous childhood abuse myself, as well as other childhood traumas (death of mother, abandoned by father), I absolutely agree with Stefan, as far as it goes. But see, what Stefan does is take a good observation and turn it into some kind of over-arching philosophy, when no such leap is warranted. Fyi, I've done massive therapy as an adult and finally, at 49 am at peace. Violence is neither inherent or exogenous to "human nature". The real problem with his argument is (cont'd).
glennd7962 1 month ago
Seems like you're trying to use anecdotal evidence. What about people whose brains lack a center of empathy?
crcaccounts 1 month ago
Psychology and trauma should be elementary education in school ince it sems people who haven't suffered from real traumatic events don't understand.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 month ago
It's pride, narcissism, and lack of compassion which brings trauma. The parents who are abusive assholes have their stories too and cause of their ugly behaviour. I think the government and people should feel responsible for each others well being and what will become of children. Children aren't parents pride/toy properies in a good society. We should have big more published guides how to treat each other to avoid traumatic events to happen. Care for one another.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 month ago
The people who spent years halv assedly trying to bring him back to his parent didn't know what they where doing. They didn't have the goal to aid him to a good life it seems. Just get rid of the case of a homeless person in their misleading system. Didn't even take the effort to analyze the parents. I suffer from PDST and I say the internet is what helped me a lot. That and cognition. It's hard o open up to pople who seem so ignorant but it's possible to find understanding people here.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 month ago
Some people I think are born more or less born monsters but the monste needs to b put out off them. Since there are so many monsters already, since monsters create monter parents like in this case create monster children. Trauma is caused by the actions of the PTSD child which might be part of a chain reaction which leads to more similar famelies some generations ahead. Cognition skils and compassion and understanding from others is the key. But people are so damn selfish and unsentimental.
SaerdnaOoOoo 1 month ago
Argument by anecdote? Really? This is so wrong-headed - and at variance with observable reality in so many respects - I'm baffled as to how someone who believes such nonsense could be set straight.
kalliste23 1 month ago
This is really a vast oversimplification of the problem. You use one *extreme* example, demonstrating how wretched parenting lead one young man into homicidal behavior. Then use the emotional kick-back from the audience to lay the blame for all violence at the feet of poor parenting. There is no doubt that violence from parents will rub off on the child, but it is not the sole reason for every instance of anti-social behavior.
DuskTredder 1 month ago
@DuskTredder I don't say this much, but word.
AngryRantingNerd 1 month ago
@DuskTredder wrote, "This is really a vast oversimplification of the problem. You use one *extreme* example..." I agree with you completely. You got it exactly right.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@DuskTredder right, it is not the sole reason... the complete apathy, lack of interest and compassion from peers and others around you probably adds greatly to the mix.
Sivels 1 month ago
Thanks for posting Stef, I was having difficulty explaining this to someone who was curious about my anarchist philosophy.
MeanderingBeing 1 month ago
I think the parents should be held responsible for that child. and i disagree with your pet analogy; people should be responsible for their pets and children.
CropDuster33 1 month ago
See Stanford prison experiment and Derren Brown the experiment "the Gameshow". Human behavior is no mystery and is very predictable. All "evil" behavior has to do with power, not abuse; otherwise only the abused would do evil acts. Although one may find ways to criticize scientific conclusions, one cannot ignore the raw data, and it in no way supports this premise. People are easily led to commit heinous acts given the right circumstances and fear. See the Milgram experiment.
Mahoivlich 1 month ago
@Mahoivlich This is always true. Even this idea of abuse suffers from the question of the first individual to abuse someone - someone who had never been abused, and yet abused others to start the chain reaction. People may not be violent by nature - but they are, and always have been, hungry for power and willing to bow to apparent power. The murders, rapists, etc. are generally just more of the former than the latter - working to exert physical power over their fellow man.
mtanousable 1 month ago 5
@mtanousable human beings possess learned behaviors. WE learn from the culture that surrounds us ... the culture we see around us now (worldwide) is one of dominion which hasn't been around that long.... 10k? ... and this accepted 'human nature' is responsible for just about every major problem we face... It IS THE SOURCE... dominion.... eliminate the source of our problems and we eliminate the problems.
TheBerserker50 1 month ago
@TheBerserker50 If this were the case, the State would never have arisen. Yes, behaviors are learned, but SOMEONE has to start them - at some point in history, a group of humans, likely most of them, were inherently violent (going against the supposed strain of peaceful harmony of man). This idea of people learning these abhorrent behaviors fails to answer that problem - and is such, a useless and incomplete theory of human behavior (at best).
mtanousable 1 month ago
@mtanousable that's not true. poor / destructive behavior can be in-born. it can result from boredom, lack of sleep, starvation, infection, etc. i've heard people say that the biggest culprit in the problems with violence in black neighborhoods is, quite simply, boredom; that these people (who are mostly young) just don't know what to do with themselves (e.g. no vision, aspirations), so they take the easy road to finding purpose in their lives, which is always the negative
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur That is another explanation entirely, and one that, while I personally think it is also lacking, only makes my point that individuals aren't just naturally good and only turned bad by abuse/learning it from others.
mtanousable 1 month ago
@mtanousable Power and violence may have had evolutionary benefits many thousands of years ago. It didn't matter if people were unhappy so long as they survived and the side effects of their abuse were useful in a primitive tribal structure. Privacy now allows the abuse to be better hidden, and a larger more advanced society allows the destructive effects of this abuse to run unchecked and form governments etc. The only human nature involved is a tendency to absorb and repeat learned behaviour.
slissone 1 month ago
@slissone Well, there you go. Humans evolved to naturally use violence and seek to set up power structures as a survival tool. Necessary for that, at least one individual had to start naturally born with tendencies towards violence and seeking power, pass on those traits, and have his lineage be as good/better at surviving compared to other humans. That pretty much proves my point. Anyone else want to inanely try to argue that I am wrong by starting with the hypothesis that I am right?
mtanousable 1 month ago
@mtanousable I'm saying that our ancestors, like many higher apes, probably already did have genetically programmed instincts for violence and domination, but that the more intelligent humans became and the more variable our environments became, the more risky it is for humans to have any rigid instincts of any kind. We are evolved to be adaptable to our present, fluctuating environment. I'd suggest that human violence or submissiveness is inactive until triggered by a traumatic childhood.
slissone 1 month ago
@slissone That's a more plausible theory, but I'd suggest that it has holes, if we examine the behavior of children.Young children, even without abuse, are known to get into fights over toys and such - and those same children often grow up to be "model citizens". That would seem to indicate that the absence of violent behavior is what is truly the learned behavior - and abuse only serves to increase it, instead of teaching suppression of that instinct out of respect for the humanity of others.
mtanousable 1 month ago
@mtanousable Neglect is still abuse. So a parent who inadequately shows their child empathy or doesn't give them enough attention/moral reasoning and boundaries etc may still activate the violence and domination strategy in the child. Children experiment and push boundaries to try and see what strategies work. If they end up getting away with bad stuff and their empathy is not as developed then it's like a way of detecting neglect and scarcity and a need to adapt to get resources at all costs.
slissone 3 weeks ago
@Mahoivlich yeah sure, if you lack any moral compass or love and respect for your fellow human beings.
Sivels 1 month ago
@Mahoivlich The StefFanBoys will never allow themselves to see through Molyneux's sophistry. And folks, in case you don't realize it, he's just as pseudo-intellectual on economics and political philosophy. He's counting on the ignorance of his audience, as real students of the topics he prattles on about will find many of his "positions" and analysis laughable. But hey, keep worshiping him - people need idols and he plays the cult-leader role to a tee.
glennd7962 1 month ago
Your anecdotal "evidence" ignores the fact that there are plenty of similarly abused people who never entertain suicidal or homicidal impulses. Likewise, there are plenty of children of loving, compassionate, secure and wholesome households who grow up to commit the most evil of crimes. Compassion is a zero-sum game. Compassion reserved for a mass murderer is withheld from his victims and their families. Are you selling a Utopian vision, Stef? If so, forget it. It's a dangerous pipe dream.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE plenty of those who don't turn to killers become self destructive alcoholic drug addict, chronic depression and many many other negative things abuse can even turn to some forms of physical illness like cancer. and those who really comes from loving parents don't turn criminals if it's the case it's because we don't look very well at their childhood to see what kind of education they had abuse can be psychological
dumdum5 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Fact? Could you please give sources/links to the studies that support this? There are plenty of these anomalies in Hollywood movies and media, but does science support the theory that you can abuse a child severely and still have it turn out ok? I believe studies have showed quite the opposite, that there's a strong correlation between child abuse and violence.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel wrote, "Could you please give sources/links to the studies that support this?" This is what happens when people surrender to "studies". They cease to use their own eyes, their own minds and their own common sense. It reminds me of an old "New Yorker" cartoon where a half-dead wretch, crawling through the desert, comes across a group of snobbish intellectuals sitting at a table. Joyously he shouts, "Thank God! A panel of experts!" Trust me. You don't need studies.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 I thought that if we were talking about facts, we're talking about something verifiable. If you want me to give you my subjective view/experience based on my common sense, then my view is that you cannot abuse a child and have it turn out fine, unscarred. Ever. I think it's a vicious lie put out there by the media, created by the guilty conscious of parents. But we really need to be right about this since so much is at stake, so we should look at studies, I think.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel wrote, "my view is that you cannot abuse a child and have it turn out fine..." I agree. But I never suggested otherwise. My view is that abused children are individuals who cope with abuse in different ways. Some become monsters. Some don't. Some become angels who do great good. Loved children are individuals, too. Some become angels. Some don't. Some become monsters who do great evil. Isn't all of this common sense? Isn't it self-evident? Who needs a "study" to prove it?
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Because, if what you're saying is correct, then it's a completely random process who turns out good or evil. This is important to know because it means we can't do anything about it. So we do need to study this because there is hope to actually do something about this human suffering. It turns out that what we intuitively know about dogs, also seems to be true for humans - you abuse a dog, it becomes violent. It means it's not random and we can do something about it.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel wrote, if what you're saying is correct, then it's a completely random process...we can't do anything about it." No, I'm not saying that. Of course, when people abuse children, there are horrible consequences. No one in their right mind would ever dismiss child abuse as a non-issue that should be ignored or accepted. I simply don't understand what Stef's point is. He's both stating the obvious (child abuse is bad) and ignoring the obvious (humanity can never be pacified). See?
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Well, I think his position is that it is possible to pacify humanity. That by changing the way we raise kids, we can change the world. That human beings naturally gravitate towards peaceful interaction based on voluntary exchange/trade, if they're not abused. That is my position anyway. That is what I think we are aiming for here. And why settle for less than trying to eradicate evil. If there's a cause, we can do something about it.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel wrote, "I think his position is that it is possible to pacify humanity." I think you're right. That's why I think his video is nonsense. It's a beautiful idea, sure. And child abuse is evil, no doubt. But how is it possible for 7 billion unique individuals to fall in lock-step behind HIS terms and definitions? For example, some would say that raising children to reject God and religion is a form of child abuse. Who would be able to say with certainty that they were wrong? Him?
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@Zerafinel wrote, "we should look at studies, I think." Fair point. Sorry for my snarky reply. It's just that the allure of academic authority has become so powerful that it seems folks have forfeited their own brains and their own perspectives. It has gotten to be so noticeable and so ridiculous that it's almost as if they need a daily "peer-reviewed study" to tell them what clothes to wear and what foods to eat. "I think, therefore I am," has morphed into "I read studies, therefore I am".
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Oh no problem. I can deviate in comments from how I want to talk sometimes too so, I hope I didn't do that here. It's a very important discussion and I'm so glad these videos stimulate us all to think and talk about it. Thank you so much for the chat.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel It's wonderful to share ideas with a class act. I appreciate your comments very much. Take care!
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 'that there are plenty of similarly abused people who never entertain suicidal or homicidal impulses.' Don't be foolish. There are differant threshold points for differant people, and this kid was clearly pushed beyond his. Maybe some are more prone to going psycho than others, but the key is to NOT PUSH THEM THERE.
'Compassion reserved for a mass murderer.' And the punk never got any compassion BEFORE he became a mass murderer, which is the point, so your statement is worthless.
TheJamesrocket 1 month ago 12
@TheJamesrocket wrote, "your statement is worthless." My statement was NOT about this one tragic life. It was about the tricky nature of compassion. It can't be given to everybody, right? For example, the compassion Scotland had for the Lockerbie bomber was heartless cruelty against the victims' families. Anyway, Stef's example does not prove anything. One anecdote can be negated by a contrary one. ex. Jeffrey Dahmer, by all accounts, had loving parents and a pretty normal life.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Are you arguing for a universal portrait for criminal minds. now? Jeffery dahmer, as I have said, was one of those people who was more prone to violence (much more prone, in fact). Unlike a normal person, it didn't take massive abuse to awaken his dark side, just an opportunity to carry through with his sick fantasys.
TheJamesrocket 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket wrote, "Are you arguing for a universal portrait for criminal minds?" I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm simply questioning the logic and the point of Stef's video. And I don't see how your question relates to anything I wrote. The main point I was trying to make was that human individuality trumps universality. So even if Stef could miraculously rid the world of child abuse, some among us would STILL develop sick and violent fantasies that compel them to abuse children.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
@TheJamesrocket nice
TheBerserker50 1 month ago
@stuntbaby63 Wait wait wait a minute. You wrote "evidence" between quotes, like it didn't count... But where is *your* evidence, stuntbaby? Especially for this claim "there are plenty of children of loving, compassionate, secure and wholesome households who grow up to commit the most evil of crimes". That is simply your opinion until you give evidence.
Of course there will be criminals with good childhoods but raising a child in a positive environment is paramount to avoid psycho behavior.
elchafa 1 month ago
@elchafa wrote, "You wrote 'evidence' between quotes, like it didn't count." It counts? Really? Why? If he's arguing that horribly abusive parents can turn children into monsters then he's arguing a point that is so obvious that it doesn't NEED any evidence. But if he's arguing that humanity can be pacified by the rejection of child abuse or that we can somehow create a Utopia by being loving and compassionate, then his anecdote is not evidence...it's a John Lennon pop song.
stuntbaby63 1 month ago
Sounds like an MKUltra Operation
kroovyandcal 1 month ago
Where can I find the thumbnail picture?
CatzDaLegit 1 month ago
We all have a sinful human nature. Violence is not an issue in a well-balanced upbringing. However, who is raised in a well-balanced home? Not the majority. Killers were around well before medication.
Sorry, but violence is part of humanity. It will never go away.
Violence is not human nature, but sin is. There are varying types of sin (murder, lying, cheating etc), and EVERYONE SINS, but not everyone is violent.
flahr1 1 month ago
@flahr1 Get out of here. We don't need your schizo fantasy absurdities. Sin is a conceptual crime against the human spirit. There is no such demon as sin. Grow up.
N7a7v7i 1 month ago
@N7a7v7i Sorry that you have so much anger and hate. Maybe one day you will understand the truth
flahr1 1 month ago
is suicidality a real word?
Chriznak 1 month ago
@Chriznak You're already on the internet. A quick Google search will give you your answer.
AshleyKScott 1 month ago
There is no gene for the human spirit! - v=cnV4RnWcmWo
ostralopithicus 1 month ago
I mean I think that the type of groups we're talking about that would work with these problems, would consist to a large degree of teams of therapists, not some armed squat teams. The armed people would only be used in the rare events when something has gone terribly wrong with all the other measures. That's how I picture it anyway.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Z Maybe:) It'll take conscious awareness, a shift in perception from illusion & projection to relating to the reality of the world we all have to share. It'll take equality in the embodiment of the rights of man; The right to think be & express firmly framed with personal & collective responsibility No one persons rights can take president over the next. Fortunately grasping the basics is NOT IQ dependent. It's a process & will take time to reverse engineer the quagmire we are faced with today.
Kinkspace 1 month ago
@Zerafinel What would happen if the parents met the team of therapists at the door and said, "No, thanks. Now, get the fuck off my property!" And, who would be paying for the team of therapists?
The government itself rarely uses force unless one first refuses to comply with their rules. If you comply, no force. How does your libertarian society differ from the statist system in this particular instance of interference in the case of child abuse?
1140Cecile 1 month ago
@1140Cecile I can't give you details about every possible kind of situation, it's impossible. All I know is that problems have to be solved without initiation of violence or they won't be solved at all. Who would pay? I would pay. I would pay a certain sum each month for this company to keep me and my children safe. And I would also pay for them to help dysfunctional families free of charge. How would it differ? The incentives to actually solve problems, instead of perpetuating them in infinity.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel I obviously know that you can't give details about every possible situation...that's why we're talking about this "particular" situation. You say, "all I know is that problems have to be solved without initiation of violence or they won't be solved at all." Well, you really don't "know" that, you're simply "asserting" that. Would you pay to help all the dysfunctional families if only you and a few others had to pick up the entire tab, say $2,000 per month?
1140Cecile 1 month ago
@1140Cecile So, you could say, "Well, I'm sure there'd be more than a few people who would chip in to pay to help all the dysfunctional families, so it wouldn't cost me $2,000 per month." In a statist society we all share in the cost so it only costs us perhaps $25 per month for such a service. Yes, that charge levied by the government, included in our taxes, is a charge that is enforced by the use of force if we don't pay our taxes.
1140Cecile 1 month ago
@1140Cecile Well, what we're arguing about fundamentally here is the difference between a voluntary relationship and an involuntary one. What is the difference between a forced marriage and a voluntary one, if you live together and share house hold chores in both?
Does it matter at all that you can't chose somebody else to marry because you'll get thrown into prison if you try?
What is the difference between you donating money and getting robbed? Etc..
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel Wow! What a total misrepresentation of my position! You are putting up a totalitarian position versus the libertarian position. My position, in reality, is that a community can come together (government) to accomplish goals that are designed to service the desires of majority of the community. This position is considered as an anathema to libertarians who seem to say that such coming together should only happen in small groups. How big would you allow the groups to become?
1140Cecile 1 month ago
@1140Cecile ? I would allow them to be huge. I love parties. Seriously though, what? I have no problem with what you just said. The notion of allowing or disallowing gatherings is not libertarian at all.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel Well, governments are simply "huge" groups. Libertarians, from what I understand, do not want community groups to come together to develop joint goals for the entire community when there are ANY people within that community who disagree with those joint goals of the majority. The libertarian position seems to be that those who don't agree should both not be subject to participating or paying their share in the accomplishment of those goals.
1140Cecile 1 month ago
@1140Cecile Well, ok. No, I do not support the use of force against anyone who is not attacking anyone. So yeah. If somebody does not want to be a part of the group, or wants to form a different group, it is immoral to try to force them. That being said, I don't see why a group of volunteers can't get together and agree on goals and work towards them for themselves.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@1140Cecile "or paying their share"
If someone disagrees with the groups goals, if someone doesn't want them, they have NO share.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@1140Cecile It's 5 in the morning here so please excuse me if I'm "not getting it" :) But I'm not. You were arguing for government, which is a group that has a monopoly on using violence. I don't think that is what you want though when you're talking about getting the community together to try to solve problems, or? Are you going to force me to participate or comply? That is the fundamental question. If not, then get together all you want. If it's all voluntary, there's no problem.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel Should have said "initiating violence" not "using".
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel Go to bed.
1140Cecile 1 month ago
We are not looking at a future where the police force would be replaced by something exactly the same but private. We're looking at a future that is very different in many ways. It would put most of it's efforts on prevention instead of damage control. So in order to catch glimpses of it, we must think differently from what we're accustomed to.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
It seems a lot of people believe that you have to use violence to prevent child abuse. I don't believe this is true. Any type of abuse thrives in silence. To make the abuse visible is more than half the work of stopping it. The problem is the silence. The problems is when we know something is wrong and we don't ask, and we let this go on for years. It may be difficult to imagine, since we're so used to violent conflict resolution, to imagine anything else. But problems CAN be solved peacefully.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
@Zerafinel I don't know what part of the world you live in, Zerafinel, but, in my experience, most conflict resolution is handled by courts of law. This is certainly not the case in disputes involving recreational drugs because those in conflict cannot utilize the courts due to the drugs being illegal in the first place. And, why would people remain silent in a statist society but speak up in a libertarian society?
1140Cecile 1 month ago
Steph is totally correct with this. If you read about some of the worst killers and psychopaths, they usually have stories similar to this, rampant abuse from an early age, etc. . . As a parent, I realize just how innocent and impressionable a child is. You have to really concentrate on teaching them constructively, and providing them with a positive home environment. With that said, psychotropic drugs are also quite a bad thing, esp for people who had such turbulent childhoods.
TryYellowSnowCone 1 month ago 9
@TryYellowSnowCone that depends on what you mean by psychotropic drugs. Mushroom with psilocybin have been proven to improve people's personality . LSD the same in some experiment, but in the right condition . All psycahdelics can help a lot if given under shamanistic guiding.
ugandaplayer 1 month ago
Few arguments infuriate me more than "People are inherrently violent." It's such lazy and sloppy thinking. When people say that, what they're really saying is "I don't care enough about the problem to actually start thinking of how to solve it so I'll just write it off as unsolvable and feel like I accomplished something without any real effort."
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Exactly, one thing that separates us as humans, specifically,is that we have the ability to work voluntarily and peacefully to further our species. We weren't very physically strong in our early evolution, so we compensated for that It is human to understand a way out of situations other than violence, but unfortunately some people are products of their environments and don't carry the torch of their own humanity. This is what causes all of the atrocities in history, not humanity.
TryYellowSnowCone 1 month ago
our behavior is 99.999% modeled behavior... we simply accumulate more data with time and seem unique as we display and communicate different combination of what we know through our accumulated experiences
with that in mind, it blows my mind what this boy must have seen by the time he was three to have acted as he did...
elyaye 1 month ago
Socialism concentrates power in the hands of the anglosphere power elite mercantile banksters.
dd00hli 1 month ago
Thank you for telling the TRUTH and many BlesSings !!!
sacredappleseed 1 month ago
Watch the first 15 seconds in 1/2 speed. His answer to the first question sounds hilarious.
MetalsPlague 1 month ago
Floating head in the darkness, giving advice of light.
RuddODragonFear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4lifejackhammer I fail to see what your intended point is. But if it's something like private interest good , public interest bad , then I disagree with you. I want an economic system that does not favour the rich over the poor. A fairer world, where we don't watch millions starve to death each year whilst other nations destroy food. The redistribution of wealth. The removal of money from politics. A level playing field. I'll try Socialism.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta what is fair? Is it fair that one who contributes greatly to society not receive a greater portion of what society can offer? That power is equal among humans; everyone must serve their fellow man before they are fed? Go ahead and try socialism, but the only successful experiment I have seen is sects of amish who hold no pretense of trying to improve technology. Go ahead and try your socialism, but do not try to force others into it.
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
@4lifejackhammer Capitalism sees the concentration of wealth into fewrer and fewer hands , this is one of the major concerns today . If you are happy with that arrangement then I have little left to say to you. I stand with the workers and not the bosses.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta so what happens if the workers become "the bosses?" What about the "bosses" who claim to work for the people, such as the congressmen here or the dictators Stalin and Mao? your arguments are straight from their propaganda books. I stand with each individuals right to seek their own ambitions without the use of violence. And Stefan makes an excellent point on how bad childreaering can be the cause for additional violence.
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
@4lifejackhammer if the workers own the means of production it would be a fairer system. I too stand with the rights of individuals to pursue their dreams. i don't wish for big government , but in the face of big corporations we need a big government to stand the greedy capitalists down. I favour Socialism as demonstrated by the"Bolvarian Revolution" in Latin America, which has undoubtedly improved the lives of the many at the acceptable cost of the luxuries from the few.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta I think you don't use the same definition of capitalism as most people here. What we have today is not what they mean when they say capitalism. Most libertarians use the Austrian definition of a totally free market where all exchanges are voluntary. That does not concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands, I'm sure you would agree with me on that.
jrgenkratz 1 month ago
@jrgenkratz We can talk definitions all you like . I'd like to start with libertarian, in Europe a libertarian is not a right-winger, in the US it means something like 'pure' capitalist. Chomsky calls himself a 'libertarian socialist'. I disagree with you and feel my time here is wasted. I see socialism as the way to a fairer world and the market can only lead us further into the corporate dungeon, you see different, ok. Bye.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@jrgenkratz I completely disagree with you.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
Comment removed
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
Aren't you agruing for a government organization or some form of authority, that might use force, to take the child away from the parents? And won't there be a bureacracy to determine what is considered abuse to the child? That could be a very subjective as to what is consider by one person or another, as abusing a child.
You have completely lost me on this point.
necrom666 1 month ago
I agree this violent statist preservation of private tyranny controlling our land and resources is not natural at all.
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago 13
@sewbuttns I see what you did there....
(I really hope you're being facetious)
KnownSQASHED 1 month ago
Stef, i believe in another video you said you were pro life, im curious why cuz that doesnt seem like you, a responce would be great
Cortanaisatranny 1 month ago
I think capitalism is the source of the violence that plagues the world today but even if capitalism was abolished it would not be the end of ALL violence. A government of some kind would still be necessary to deal with the dangerous people.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns
You have it all ass backwards... It is government not the free market which has violence at the core of it's moral compass...
Research the Non Aggression Principle and the Anarcho-Capitalism philosophy... :-\
batfly 1 month ago
@sewbuttns If by "capitalism" you mean crony capitalism and big corps buying influence with politicians, then I agree. But if by "capitalism" you mean "the free market" I totally disagree with you. The free market is voluntary, uncoerced and peaceful. Crony capitalism or mercantilism is really a form of fascism, which is a style of socialism. I think the anarchists would reply that there are voluntary security agreements that could deal with dangerous people better than govts.
freesk8 1 month ago
@freesk8 There is no such thing as a free market. The market relies on the government to enforce contracts and property rights and to jail theives and so on, and whoever performed those functions would still be the government, even if it was a private business. So really it is impossible to abolish the government and there is no such thing as a market without coercion or force.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns Be careful now you will be labelled a communist non-believer.! Don't attack the fundamental premises they make, that's not allowed, you are only allowed to discuss the logical deductions, The fundamental truths are not for debate the freemarket is infallible and we are only motivated by self-interest. Anything else is evil communist propaganda. Praise the invisible hand!
MetaReaLizard 1 month ago
Lol so true. Well shame on me for speaking such blasphemy. But you know
how us commies feel about the religion.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns Um...I mean wow. The list of logical fallacies in that response is some what daunting.
SquashDog01 1 month ago
@sewbuttns OK, so if I write a book, and lots of people buy it, and I earn lots of money as a result, then what coercion or force have I employed? Please show me exactly how I have done something immoral in this example?
freesk8 1 month ago
@freesk8 What you have described is not capitalism though. Capitalism is a mode of production in which capitalists make money off their money, as opposed to working. In a capitalist business the owner doesn't work. He just lives off the wealth that is produces by the workers.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns Fine. But what I was describing was "the free market."
freesk8 1 month ago
@freesk8 Well nothings wrong with it, it's just not free of force or coercion. It relies on the government making laws and backing them up with force, to prevent things like theft or copyright infringement.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns I don't support laws that make copyright infringement illegal. And it is possible for me to enter in to non-governmental, voluntary security arrangements. If someone breaks in to my warehouse and steals my books, I can hire someone to arrest them. They have made the first use of force, so my retaliation is justified. The key thing here is that I made no first use of force merely by writing and selling my book to willing buyers. So your argument doesn't hold up.
freesk8 1 month ago
@freesk8 You may think in that situation that your retaliation would be justified but who made you the one who decides what's justified or not? Making laws and forcing people to live by them is not anarchy it is a dictatorship.
sewbuttns 1 month ago
@sewbuttns Each of us has a natural right to self defense. That right extends to using appropriate levels of force to defend our families and our properties as well. It is usually not very complex. You can bring up examples where it is difficult to see what is just, but these cases are the exception, not the rule. Forcing people to respect your rights is not dictatorship, it is simple survival, and justified self defense. Govt sucks at defending the people.
freesk8 1 month ago
@freesk8 I doubt there would be any consensus on such things, which means it would all come down to brute force. The person with the most weapons would get to say what constitutes property, what constitutes theft etc. He might assert these things in the name of self defense but one man with a gun telling five other people what to do is still the government for all intents and purposes, just on a very small scale.
sewbuttns 1 month ago