I'm a big fan, Stefan, but I think you're wrong on something: economics _is_ power. At least, if you treat biological necessities as property like most others. If land is property, then a subset of people will own all the land and be able to prevent those who don't own it from obtaining the resources they need to eat and/or sleep. This is power, and the only way to satisfy our biological imperative in this kind of capitalist society is to become a wage slave (for most people, anyway).
@stefbot Starbucks? No. Wrong liquid. Multinational oil corporations? Of course. The cleptocratic government IS bought and paid for by big oil and big banks that greedily feed upon the public's addictive dependency on their infrastructure. Following the money trail still holds true. The bailout wasn't charity; it was ransom. Now, who's really in charge? Police and the armed forces are just the trained thugs of The Corporate States of America.
@jeffreykbedrick "Now, who's really in charge? Police and the armed forces are just the trained thugs of The Corporate States of America."
So the government trains the thugs and the government holds the guns and the government creates the conditions were corporations have to pay them in order to compete and the government are the reason corporations exist in the first place but it's the OIL CORPORATIONS that are in control?
The only reason this video depresses me so much is because throughout the video I became more and more aware of how right Stef is. It became increasingly undeniable that the government is perhaps most responsible for all of the suffering and inequalities experienced world wide.. at first I figured we place all of our blame on corporations.. but it's very apparent that corporations are beneficiaries of the corrupt and sick system. And it seems as if reforming the state is harder than corporations
@Keziabar Government creates class. We are social animals that don't like people to be above us. government has always been the reason of Major corruption.
You are an idiot! All the OWS participants are idiots. Good luck protesting when you get what you want. Most Communist and Socialist countries do a lot more to protesters than the police in America do, have fun in your re-education camps!
@bethadw Yup. Everything that does not follow the status quo is idiotic, communistic, and socialist. Nice labels. It's too bad that labels are the province of closed minded sheep with little intellect. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
How am I arguing that the state doesn't use force? I used /specifically/ that word. The state persuades its constituent parts (people) to obey; a state isn't a physical being. It cannot excercise force except by persuading people to use their own on its behalf. If you persuade some people, e.g. the police, that they are obliged to enforce your laws and decrees, they can use their force to coerce others.
You've confused coercion with persuasion. One involves force, the other doesn't. You imply that the state doesn't use force, but then immediately afterward go, "It persuades people that they should, or must, obey." All you've done is switched out the appropriate word (forces) with "persuades," thereby allowing you to make a mindfucked argument that the state doesn't force people to do things, like pay taxes, but rather "talks them into it" or some stupid shit like that.
And how you can argue that the state doesn't use force when you yourself used the phrase, "or must, obey" is, again, totally retarded. Yes, the state "persuades" people into feeling that they "must obey," but somehow no force has been utilized. Let's do an experiment: make taxes a choice and let's see if it's been the government's "powers of persuasion" all along that has kept people paying... or maybe it was the threat of imprisonment? Hm, I wonder.
I got through this with a promise to myself to give it as fair of a shot as I could, but it was very VERY hard. Please, when you make videos trying to convince people, do not make them horribly patronizing, calling your audience stupid. It makes it harder for anyone to hear what you are saying, and not just ignore you as an asshole or nutcase.
@Kazagistar One person's confidence is a commie Borg-collective drone's arrogance. Ad-hom, shadowcasting, etc. - been there and seen that a million times before. Address the arguments or enjoy forever running in place in the baron wasteland called Irrelevance.
@Norbertotube I dont think you watched the video. They are not "One". The State could very easily stop the corporations withone big sweep. the corporations cant do the same with the State. The State is not more a part of the corporations than the clothes on your body are. you could throw your clothes off at any moment.
@cloffff He didnt say any of that. In the end the government has initiated all of those imbalances and wars. He even says multiple times that corporations will try to control those in power through donations and other forms of political support.
Dont be mad at stef because you forgot to tune in half the time.
@taylort123 I was responding exactly to what he said, and Im not "angry" at him. Im just pointing out that he is doing exactly what he mentioned in the beginning: Asking the wrong question.
There is one historical statement that rings true to this day, and it is credited to the oppressor: "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century.
Ultimately, the "state" that you are focused on is supposed to be the people - it needs to be taken back under the control of the people. At the same time, private banking institutions must be stopped from creating currency.
I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist but as Jefferson once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." I'd take anarchy over what we have today.
@bustaballs Anarchy is the only true sustainable way. Any system that is built on the foundation of force will sooner fail. If you're a libertarian, and love Jefferson...you must put 2 and 2 together - the smallest, most limited government ever devised by man is now the largest, most oppressive government in history. Returning to the constitution will just lead to this happening all over again.
It is easy to lash out at the status quo. Far more difficult to implement a solution. Libertarianism is too ideological to be applied. The occupy wallstreet masses should not let the libertarians become their mouthpiece.
look the government are puppets of the bank!!! they are taking orders... if an elected official upsets the apple cart yes the bank do have him killed, yes the bank do have thier own armed police force & yes any president who stands up to them does end up like jfk. please understand who the real governing body is, its not somebody you can elect. it is a shadow government made up of special interest groups, banks and corporations. the illuminati stefan!!!
@pauloscum Corps. have no support from the public while politicians (i.e. the govt.) have all of it. Nor do corps. receive directly tax money, which is primarily what perpetuates the state in the first place. A corp. can't maneuver to take control of law enforcement / the military bcuz they've no direct power over any such thing; only the govt. can execute this bcuz it's only they who've the aforementioned support Without govt. protection corps. couldn't be what they are in the first place.
@regresseur my dear fellow yes ofcourse otcourse yes the bank does have its own private armed police force. they also do have control of the police force because they own the government!!!! they give orders that the police force follow. that is what is relevant here the rest is semantics. i hope this helps.
stefan i IMPLORE YOU!!!! you MUST try to see the bigger picture here!!! i agree with you on a lot of things BUT when the bank have baught the government then IT gives the orders & it IS the state!!! they become one & the same!!!! do you see stefan?you are working on the assumption that our elected oficials give the orders to the state police. no they simply repeat orders to the state police. its a horrible regurgative process.
@munkyusm well the bank obviously cant be seen to be the state!!!! they obv arent supposed to be and if everybody realises they are there are big problems both with common law and angry mobs, as we are starting to see, notice how obama has to be seen to be the 99% to some extent, so we acomplish things by very publicly asking for matters rectified to the interests of the people who do technically hold more lawful power than the president much to the banks annoyance
@munkyusm obv there wont be a perminant solution but however the admiralty the keepers of the statute`who serve the corperations were beaten last time in the courts by common law under the treaty of magna carta, every1 basically became a lawyer and tied them up in knots which infuriated them!!! this is how america gained independence for a few decades, they will always try to come back though, they always do!!!
I love this video and the simplicity of the solution. Put down the guns! Beautifully said. Unfortunately, because people are stuck inside their own construct of reality they can't imagine that people can be peaceful without them. But when you think about it you see the irony of the situation and ultimately, that is the true answer.
@Tonya229 The sad truth is that if we all "put down the guns", one person is going to pick them up, and then we are all done for. Understand that I am a pacifist and wish that this could be the solution, but it reminds me of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine...
by the way, the "key to social change is the middle word of the holy trinity...ready, aim..." the middle word of the holy trinity? WTF did you get that from?
I will definitely check Rothbard and beautiful freedom. But still I wonder who will take care of the violent and criminal elements (which will always exist, or at the very least the threat of it will) in a society without a police/government of any kind. You can't just abolish the immorality of the state - the "state" is just people, and we all share the same human nature. Abolish it in one form, it will rise up in another.
@hulltroy by abolishing the state as a whole, you abolish the immorality of the state.
In its place, private contracts take the place of the coercive nature of (insert state function here ---> ________). Neighborhoods band together to pay for private armed security protection of their streets. Other neighborhoods do the same. This set up would be more akin to a monthly "insurance premium" paid to a security protection firm of our choosing ....
@hulltroy As an example, A private company offers to give a "block" or "street" police protection. (ie- $35 per month will get you protection from 6 pm - 6 am, $45 per month gets you protection for 24 hours, and so forth). If the protection service is inept, cancel the contract and go with a different company.
What are our options now? Well, if there's inept service (or corruption, etc.), we can call Internal Affairs, send letters to our Congressmen, or post videos on Youtube .....
@hulltroy none of these solutions provided by the state eradicate the ineptidude of "police protection" that may exist, and worse, still, more abuses may ensue as the protests, letters, and Youtube videos keep piling up.
Private companies who treat their clients this way would have the swift hand of the market to place private police companies out of business, and rightfully so.
That's the abridged version. You will find much more depth with Rothbard and Molyneux, if you are interested.
I hear what you're saying, but my question still stands. In a free society, who is to police the potential violence or thuggery of it's members? Or is it better to just let everyone defend themselves?
@hulltroy the theoretical framework underlies your first question, while your second questions almost answers itself. Murray Rothbard's seminal "For A New Liberty" in 1973, which is considered by many to be the classic manifesto for a free society. Chapters 4, 11, and 12 deal with these problems and solutions (which cannot be espoused here on a Youtube post.
@hulltroy Or, if Rothbard is something you would prefer not to read, then Stefan does an admirable job giving this theoretical framework here: search youtube for "Stefbot Beautiful Freedom"
The answer may shock you: "It really doesn't matter how this would be addressed. It only matters that the immorality of the state is abolished as quickly as possible"
Exactly! Organized crime wishes it had the power the state has...good thing they don't, and good thing the state exists to keep things like organized crime in check, right? sort of kind of playing devils advocate here, but still, what's the proposal? What's the alternative?
@hulltroy Actually, it was the state that created organized crime through prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. They have also created the gang wars over prohibition of drugs in our current setting. Without the catalyst (the state) first setting off the spark (outlawing a substance the state does not like) that created this environment (mafia, gand wars), none of it would exist. Guns to the head of non-violent citizens has no place in a free society.
Some good points, a little self-assured though, and "put down the guns" is about as much of a solution as "everybody get along" is, except the latter is only three words. You make this big distinction between corporations and the state, but they are both intertwined, in fact all of society is intertwined, where one entity begins and the other ends is often completely indistinguishable. Put down the guns? what happens if a few crazies decide to pick up knives and start murdering people?
you took that literally. Put down the guns = don't use force to get what you want from other human beings. What group uses more force than the state? organized crime wishes it had the kind of racket the state sets up.
i've been saying since 2008 that when the protests come the streets will the thronged with people demanding more government control and crack down on freedom.
these people don't understand that corporations are created and sustained by governments, they're striking out at the rotten branches instead of focusing on the root.
as stefan says, the corporations didn't bail themselves out, the corporations do not have police forces cracking skulls, they don't start the wars.
you occupy wallstreet guys should be in front of the fed banks. Wallstreet didnt steal that money, the Fed gave it to them. Some of the banks didnt even want TARP loans but were forced to take them by law.
Im not sayign wallstreet is innocent, but cmon, if you take down JPmorgan and Goldman theres 50 more investment banks waiting to take their place.
There's quite a bit of confusion here in your attributions of power balances. They are fluid depending on a given set of circumstances. In some instances, the corporate 'person' (e.g., a bank or high-street merchant chain) has the leverage; in others it is the regional or local_area 'government'. The relationship is, of course, a sick and diseased one, infecting the individual, and the carriers of the disease do not show the same symptoms as the vast_majority who are exposed to the illness.
@WeedPeaceSerenity Monsanto, actually, is responding to a Supreme Court decision (U.S. vs. Chakarbaty, 1981) that declared "life can be patented". Monsanto's existence is fully backed by this government decision, as this had Monsanto run out and "patent" seeds. Absence this governmental decree, Monsanto, in its current form of poisoning and lawsuits, would cease to exist.
i can't really agree with his analysis. there is nothing inherently wrong with th creation of a State. Any inherent "threat" or danger comes from the wielders of the state's power, not in the State itself. The State is simply the population as a whole deciding to live as one group. Any form of government, as long as it is run by the right men/women, can be successful and just.
@zBlackKnight789z see, i despise people like you the most. you recognize the state is the instigator of all violence in society, but you still support the state. do you think the governments wouldnt misuse the power if you were in charge, or people like yourselves? its the same argument for communism. communism didnt fail, the people just went about it wrong. but if you listen to me it will work. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. i think that describes people like yourself best
His base argument is that systems like ours are fundamentally grounded in and thrive upon the initiation of the use of force or the threat thereof, and that that is immoral and that immoral systems can only lead to problems in the long run. The morality of, specifically, the creation of a state, is more nuanced and something I don't recall him ever talking about.
"The State is simply the population as a whole deciding to live as one group." No one gets to choose where they're born. And besides, no one thinks like this or makes such decisions, ever. Except maybe you. To your last point: again, the religion of Statism at work. "If we just get some perfect little angels in here who can resist abusing a virtually unlimited money supply, monopoly on force and the most powerful military ever everything will work out of just fine."
The problem is when you use coercion, deceit and manipulative psychology to get people to buy things they don't need. When major corporations have used their financial influence over the government to get what they want, then yes, the corporation is the root of the problem. In such an instance the government is merely a tool for corporate interest. Most of this talk is conjecture and oversimplification.
Impeach this puppet O B O M B M A , leave the White House O B O M B M A, just GTFO don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Take down the federal reserve. It is not federal! and has no reserve! They want you to focus on Wall Street. Keep the pressure up there also, but really hit out at the feds If you doubt about what is happening watch this.
I guess I'll have to finally find out how things would run under anarchy without the state using guns to defend its laws. I know you have books that might explain it, and I'm very curious, but all that research to figure it out seems like a lot of work, since the idea is not inherently self evident, or I would understand it already, and wouldn't need someone else to explain it.
@js7un Actually, it is self-evident. But when people have a false idea shoved down their throats from the birth, they grow up believing it's true, and the truth becomes a lie.
To me, the simplest example is religion. No matter what you believe, the OTHER religion is clearly false. Why do they believe it? They had it shoved down their throats from birth.
It takes a brave, mature adult to outgrow it. When you get to the other side it is just unbelievably obvious.
@js7un I was in the same boat as you not long ago. I found anarchism to sound insane until I really had to read ALOT of stuff to understand how this type of world would actually work. It's the greatest thing I ever did. Once you understand how fundamentally different the world would be, you quickly realize how insane the world we live in is. I urge you, educate yourself! Stick with setfbot's youtube page for starters.
Whatever you, do not visit a site like corpwatch[dot]org to learn about the extent of multi-national corporate malfeasance and corruption of both federal and state governments.
See also: The Independent (UK), "Making a killing: how private armies became a $120bn global industry" By Daniel Howden and Leonard Doyle in Washington to refute this guy's blatant misinformation about corporations not raising or directing private militias. See also: "Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws" By Alison Fitzgerald - Jul 20, 2011, on this video's claim that corporations do not direct policy. So easy to debunk this rant, he must take us all for idiots.
@aoiwarai Corporations certainly do write legislation up (sometimes word for word), but it's the State that must pass it into law. It's the State that must enforce the law through their monopoly of violence. It's the regulations that arise out of that backdoor dealing with government that cripple competitors and give rise to monolithic corporations. It's the State courts where the corporate lawyers will drag you into if you cross them. It's the State who created corporations in the first place!
You're lying outright that corporations do not have private armies. Search “Mercenary Armies & Mineral Wealth,” Date: Fall 1997, No. 62, Author: Pratap Chatterjee; MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, Title: “Guarding the Multinationals,” Date: March 1998, Author: Pratap Chatterjee
@aoiwarai Ignorance is not a crime. Not knowing something and drawing conclusions in spite of that does not necessarily equate to malicious intent. But in your spiteful and indoctrinated mind you automatically draw that conclusion. Your point also doesn't address any argument he makes... that people can pay other people to get them to do what they want is not some sort of revelation. It doesn't change the fact that corporations pay government to police and change law to their benefit.
@aoiwarai If your rants come from a sincere belief in the beneficence of government compared to corporations, how do you explain military empires that always belong to governments -- whether Soviet, Nazi, Fascist, China, or U.S.? How do you explain Democide of multi-millions by governments in the last century alone? In all types of economies including those that had no corporations. I don't like corporate special privileges from gov. and cronyism; governments jail and control us, not them
Gen. Smedley Butler once said, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service ... In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys ... I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street." Why point out corporate agendas behind war if they do not direct government policy?
@aoiwarai Furthermore, if the relationship between corporations and government and corporations and law enforcement was known to the public at large, and if it were legal for anyone to pay law enforcement, etc., to serve them, then corporations' influence over said sector of society would be over with in a matter of months; w/ corporation's fascistic interests running in complete contrast to the public's they would be seen as enemies, they wouldn't be the highest bidder & their bus. wld go undr
"The beneficiaries, not the source." Corporations are just appeasing the Great Beast of the State, lest they feel its wrath for scorning its flattery and gifts. General Electric, Halliburton, BP, Exxon, Google, Citigroup, Bank of America, every other corp. bank doesn't write legislation and threaten congress with billions. Right. Ask Rumsfeld and Cheney about "the revolving door", and stop deliberately misunderstanding the critique of the protesters so your rant can have a convenient. straw man.
yup, Stefan is correct once again, i know i know some want to disagree with him because of the scumbaggery that resides within the corporations... but that is why people need to wise up and boycott them.. it is the government that educates you, it is the government that puts chemicals in your water... the government is the proxy for all the bad things.
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature." James Garfield, the 20th president of the United States, 1877
But I actually agree with Stefan - eliminate the state and you eliminate the corporation.
The OWS crowd have been driven into a totally scripted, psychologically manufactured frenzy. I have watched this unfold over the last couple of years, I've noticed the escalating rhetoric, and have wondered why it wasn't happening sooner, it was just so predictable. The US military stationed troops here (for 'civil unrest') and made an agreement w/Canada to bring troops here should we need them. Obvious.
A chicken-egg argument... corporations have been in symbiotic relationship with governments for a very long time. Certainly corporations are a creation of government, in that government provides the sanction for an LLC... But corporations also comprise government - it really is one behemoth structure (the US government IS a corporation and so are the CITIZENS or PERSONS who consent to be governed - knowingly or not)...we'll never be able to separate the two. Both are contrary to natural law.
Corporations are the linchpin. They call the shots the politicians they own put into law. They are served by the courts their puppets install. So I've wasted 3:31 listening to this guy. If he goes on to blame a 'new world order' .... I'm sorry there is nothing 'new' about this world order idea. The feudal lords were a world order because they controlled an economy. Does an army march to the orders of some hidden powerful elite? No, they go where the oil based economy needs them to go.
This guy is totally missing the point! i'm not going to even get into the details of how his dismissive and short-sighted attitude is totally wrong on all counts.
@passerby26 I Listened to the man, it was hard to get through this video. I disagree with far 2 much of what he said 2 even start a rebuttal in such a small space. Suffice to say that the examples he sights are erroneous and the hypothetical rhetoric is even more misleading. Nice attempt at obfuscation though. The premise of the protest is simple, total removal of corporate influence from government and regulation of the financial industry. Neither r difficult 2 accomplish, if motivated properly
@Endostatic I again find it ironic that you are critical of him "obfuscating" while not defining or explaining any of your criticisms. How about just one criticism?
As for the protests, so the protestors are upset because the corporations "own" the government. In turn, they demand the violence of the State to stop it. So the solution is to give the people "owned" by Wall Street the ability to regulate their "owners"? I don't think it takes a lot of brain power to see how that will turn out.
c,mon stefan. youre right, but...its a brave new world my friend. weve no longer a line between the state and the corporations. they exchange workers like shifts at a factory. the state has privatized soldiers, police and prisons, etc. corps build the weapons, feed the troops, provide security in war zones and give the orders to federal state and local police in emergencies, eg GOM oil spill. your logic is sound but your aim is off in this ultimate bank-led national socialist oligarchy
The state ultimately enforces legislation like I said, but I must concede that corporations merely influence legislation through a perverse mode of concensus formation where force and "justice" itself is put up for bargain.
Also, Stefan focuses perhaps too much on force and not enough on fraud. It is clear that, for example, much of mortgage contracting and derivatives markets involved a degree of fraud that does not directly tie to government coercion.
Perhaps a more controversial yet fundamental point that Stefan and Occupy Wallstreet overlooks is that corporations are inherently a violation of market principles; the creation of the limited liability corporation was a legal fiction without basis in property and contract.
Stefan has addressed this many times. Perhaps not in this video ( I can't remember specifically and don't have a half hour to watch it over ), but certainly in other videos.
I don't understand why Stefan objects to the idea that corporations control government. Why must libertarians disagree with Occupy Wallstreet on that point? Sure, government ultimately enforces legislation, but if legislation is controlled by corporations, then indeed enforcement is in many instances controlled by corporations. Blaming everything on the state just sounds ideological and undermines Stefan's otherwise coherent points.
I generally like listening to you. But I am not impressed with the need to promote lies in order to promote your own ideology. I quit listening to this video just after you claimed there was no inflation before the Federal Reserve. I am one of the largest advocates for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and state corporate control, but I am not going to advocated it by falsely representing the issues. There was tons of inflation before the Fed.
The STATE does not control corporations! It is the CORPORATIONS that control our government. We vote between a giant douche and turd sandwich. The CORPORATIONS work together investing 100s of millions in making us think the government is responsible.
REMEMBER! JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD, not the State. So the corporations are arresting.
Both the government and the corporations live and die on money and the supply of money is controlled by the central banking system. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. . – Thomas Jefferson (1809) A little more research
What a flip flop. One video bashes the protesters and then this one is with them. Your metaphorical shark stef, is the Federal Reserve. All money going into our economy is created out of debt from their ability to make money out of nothing and charge interest on loaning out that money to the government. They can create inflation and deflation at will. Those who control the money have the real power. Corporations and the State are still major problems that swim around that large shark.stopfoolin
"I find his ego beyond measure. Zero humility. Absolute certainty is no one’s privilege. He talks with such arrogance, it might impress some college kids, but anyone with a modicum common sense can smell this guy’s bullshit a mile off."
I 100% agree. These protests are not just about the government, corporations - it is about the climate, wars, etc. INJUSTICE.
And, Stefan, to say that climate change doesn't exist - well, you're a god damn idiot.
@pmachwkful He's never said climate change doesn't occur. That you think any1 thinks that makes u the "god damn idiot." And if the protests r about virtually everything, then they're ultimately about nothing at all. Protesting over numerous unrelated issues turns the message into a shit storm of irrelevant nonsense. And ppl like u interpret his eloquence and confidence as arrogance becuz u r ideologically inebriated, thus preemptively disliking him, and avoid the arguments and turn to ad hominem
Stefan, have a few questions for you, hopefully you might address these issues in your next episodes.
Poor area in Africa suddenly discovers a large oilfield. People who live in this area don't have enough capital to extract oil and take advantage of it. So some corporation has to come in and invest. However, the corporation is sending all the profits abroad after paying local workers just a tiny bit of revenue in wages. Is this ok? How do we get fair use of finite resources w/o government?
If discrimination is systemic (as it is against transsexuals) then every organization is excluding that work force and there is no general harm to the companies, but great harm to those marginalized people. Your style of speech is, in general, condescending and, frankly, insulting. This is not a good way to bring people over to your views.
I find his ego beyond measure. Zero humility. Absolute certainty is no one’s privilege. He talks with such arrogance, it might impress some college kids, but anyone with a modicum common sense can smell this guy’s bullshit a mile off.
The thing about discrimination is that the state often makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds that would actually make sense such as ability to perform the job. Price and wage controls are another example. So when there is scarcity with no economic means of rationing people find other ways of deciding who gets what.
The government is just a bank slate that is carved by the will of the powerful corporations.
You could neuter the government, thus dis-motivating the wealth from investing into it. But then, the wealth could just control directly. Even without the government's "gun", they would still be at an advantage, and fight as hard as they can to game the system in their favor.
Your argument is fatally flawed because unlike politicians (the government) corporations don't have any support or trust from the general population. This is one of the primary reasons why corporations haven't just taken over everything, directly, already, a long time ago. Instead they all operate through the same proxy (the government) who has no allegiance to anyone but the highest bidders.
Some problems if corps. tried a direct takeover via bribery, in the absence of govt.:
Many of these ppl would be their own friends & family members - Hm, slight problem there. 2) Massive backlash by the whole of society, overwhelming them through sheer numbers. Corps. are businesses - these business would be robbed and burnt to the ground in short order. "Best" case result: competing corps. for influence over general pop. - this is better than we have now. Countless more problems.
To put it simply. The goverment is a division of the corporations. It's the assault group of the corporations. Most of the politicians within the goverment are representatives of corporations. Not the representatives of the voters. Just look
at the background of the politicians. Where did they came from? Cheney (Haliburton, etc.), Rumsfeld (Monsanto, etc.), Geithner (Goldman Sachs, etc.) and so on.
Stefbot, nice presentation yet your view is unfortunately is wrong, your examples are lame, and the relationship of such are dissonant. . . One may agree with with some points, yet the overall this is complete rubbish.
@fynnab Here i go dear friend. . . Corporations are not pilot fish, they are the shark itself. Corporations have the power not to arrest you,but to influence the government to provide the conditions were a peaceful demonstrations can be stopped. This is not a problem from 10 0r 8 years ago. The Federal Reserve was mastermind by mayor banking corporations (J.P Morgan, and Rockefeller.. etc) The Banking system produced the 30's Great depression. Now a days, Lobbyists buy politicians -continues..
@rifephotos Now a days, Lobbyists buy politicians, not only in the federal government but in local, and state government. Why, well that's simple to pursuit state or local preference, or to obtain government contracts. Now a days public servants are/ or were members of large corporations. . . making the government susceptible to comply with corporate demand. Milton Friedman and his policy of Deregulation have seen the light not only un USA but in some other countries of Latin America -continues
@rifephotos What if there were no State to bribe to pass your legislation, to raise taxes and create regulations to destroy your competitors, to arrest people when they infringe on "your territory"? What power would any of these corporations have? None. People simply wouldn't do business with them. It's the State, forever and always, violently and forcefully interfering in the free market and then "educating" people in their public schools that it's the evil corporations behind every injustice.
@rifephotos Ahh I hear you, but here's the catch 22; these corporations could never have this power today if it weren't for the government. In a true free market it just wouldn't happen.
I'm a big fan, Stefan, but I think you're wrong on something: economics _is_ power. At least, if you treat biological necessities as property like most others. If land is property, then a subset of people will own all the land and be able to prevent those who don't own it from obtaining the resources they need to eat and/or sleep. This is power, and the only way to satisfy our biological imperative in this kind of capitalist society is to become a wage slave (for most people, anyway).
ultramerton 4 days ago
@stefbot Starbucks? No. Wrong liquid. Multinational oil corporations? Of course. The cleptocratic government IS bought and paid for by big oil and big banks that greedily feed upon the public's addictive dependency on their infrastructure. Following the money trail still holds true. The bailout wasn't charity; it was ransom. Now, who's really in charge? Police and the armed forces are just the trained thugs of The Corporate States of America.
jeffreykbedrick 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffreykbedrick "Now, who's really in charge? Police and the armed forces are just the trained thugs of The Corporate States of America."
So the government trains the thugs and the government holds the guns and the government creates the conditions were corporations have to pay them in order to compete and the government are the reason corporations exist in the first place but it's the OIL CORPORATIONS that are in control?
shlockofgod 1 week ago
Where is jhon Galt?
Zeta2103 4 weeks ago
fuck our government and the cops,we the people should go a little bit further,look at at greece protesters, they got more balls then the americans
TheBC2683 2 months ago
id love a good french revolution
allright715 3 months ago
The only reason this video depresses me so much is because throughout the video I became more and more aware of how right Stef is. It became increasingly undeniable that the government is perhaps most responsible for all of the suffering and inequalities experienced world wide.. at first I figured we place all of our blame on corporations.. but it's very apparent that corporations are beneficiaries of the corrupt and sick system. And it seems as if reforming the state is harder than corporations
SevenFootPelican 3 months ago
In other words, OWS is barking up the wrong tree. Attacking the symptom rather than the cause.
libervisco 3 months ago
I agree with most of the things you said, but the ending gives the impression that you want to cancel goverment entirely.
Even in a free society goverment is essential.
Keziabar 4 months ago
@Keziabar
Essential for what?
Illyrien 3 months ago in playlist Misc Political
@Illyrien Why is government essential? You're kidding right? Read a book....
44mst 3 months ago
@44mst
You must have read me wrong. Anyways, that was a pretty crappy argument. Seriously, it can be do much better
Illyrien 3 months ago
@Illyrien So you agree that government is essential? Or do you think it isn't needed?
44mst 3 months ago
@Keziabar
You should watch his other videos, it would help.
tybash 3 months ago
@Keziabar Government creates class. We are social animals that don't like people to be above us. government has always been the reason of Major corruption.
bobthechipmonk 3 months ago
Great video stefan as always =)
hipsi337 4 months ago
6:26 - i love this quote so much i don't know why! lol such a good video
underage4page 4 months ago
You are an idiot! All the OWS participants are idiots. Good luck protesting when you get what you want. Most Communist and Socialist countries do a lot more to protesters than the police in America do, have fun in your re-education camps!
bethadw 4 months ago
@bethadw Yup. Everything that does not follow the status quo is idiotic, communistic, and socialist. Nice labels. It's too bad that labels are the province of closed minded sheep with little intellect. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
SuperAeternal 4 months ago
What's up with the sound? It's kind of cool.
mattpolofka 4 months ago
thezeitgeistmovement com ressource based ökonomie rulez ;)
Frieker89 4 months ago
@Frieker89 lolz...stefan kind of destroys the zeitgeist movement if you feel like looking into his posts on it.
munkyusm 3 months ago
How am I arguing that the state doesn't use force? I used /specifically/ that word. The state persuades its constituent parts (people) to obey; a state isn't a physical being. It cannot excercise force except by persuading people to use their own on its behalf. If you persuade some people, e.g. the police, that they are obliged to enforce your laws and decrees, they can use their force to coerce others.
P.S. Barren, not baron.
kkavekk 4 months ago
How does the state wield force, save through persuasion? It persuades people that they should, or must, obey. How do corporations wield force?...
Even at this most superficial understanding of violence, your argument falls apart.
kkavekk 4 months ago
@kkavekk
1.
You've confused coercion with persuasion. One involves force, the other doesn't. You imply that the state doesn't use force, but then immediately afterward go, "It persuades people that they should, or must, obey." All you've done is switched out the appropriate word (forces) with "persuades," thereby allowing you to make a mindfucked argument that the state doesn't force people to do things, like pay taxes, but rather "talks them into it" or some stupid shit like that.
regresseur 4 months ago
@kkavekk
2.
And how you can argue that the state doesn't use force when you yourself used the phrase, "or must, obey" is, again, totally retarded. Yes, the state "persuades" people into feeling that they "must obey," but somehow no force has been utilized. Let's do an experiment: make taxes a choice and let's see if it's been the government's "powers of persuasion" all along that has kept people paying... or maybe it was the threat of imprisonment? Hm, I wonder.
regresseur 4 months ago
@kkavekk
3.
Playing games with euphemisms will not make your flawed arguments valid. It's up to you if you want to keep living the lie.
regresseur 4 months ago
I got through this with a promise to myself to give it as fair of a shot as I could, but it was very VERY hard. Please, when you make videos trying to convince people, do not make them horribly patronizing, calling your audience stupid. It makes it harder for anyone to hear what you are saying, and not just ignore you as an asshole or nutcase.
Kazagistar 4 months ago
@Kazagistar One person's confidence is a commie Borg-collective drone's arrogance. Ad-hom, shadowcasting, etc. - been there and seen that a million times before. Address the arguments or enjoy forever running in place in the baron wasteland called Irrelevance.
regresseur 4 months ago
Corporatism is a distraction. Wake up sheeple!!!
physicalgenius 4 months ago
Oh! You miss the point...
There's no separation between state and corporation. State and corporation are "One" The system needs to be updated completely...
Norbertotube 4 months ago
@Norbertotube I dont think you watched the video. They are not "One". The State could very easily stop the corporations withone big sweep. the corporations cant do the same with the State. The State is not more a part of the corporations than the clothes on your body are. you could throw your clothes off at any moment.
alCIAdadidit 4 months ago 2
Probably my favorite video Stef
blapgatify 4 months ago in playlist Videos from stefbot 10
Well said, Stefan!
DoctorSparklesMusic 4 months ago 2
Right on Stefan.
js7un 4 months ago
JP Morgan gave $4.6 million to the NYPD. Why?
Monsanto owns Blackwater. Why? You honestly think these corporations dont own physical power?
You honestly think that Raytheon and Lockheed Martin had no role in initiating the Iraq war?
You, my friend, are smart but still naive. You pretend a clean separation between government and private power exists. But it does not.
If I put a glove on my hand and punch you, its still my fist that hurt your face, see?
cloffff 4 months ago
@cloffff He didnt say any of that. In the end the government has initiated all of those imbalances and wars. He even says multiple times that corporations will try to control those in power through donations and other forms of political support.
Dont be mad at stef because you forgot to tune in half the time.
taylort123 4 months ago
@taylort123 I was responding exactly to what he said, and Im not "angry" at him. Im just pointing out that he is doing exactly what he mentioned in the beginning: Asking the wrong question.
cloffff 4 months ago
@cloffff
your glove metaphor is great, however the fist is the state not the glove.
The glove (blackwater) trying to invade a country without the fist (the state) would be about as effective as a glove slap.
Equity213 4 months ago
Over 4 million dollars given to the Police fund at this time seems a wee bit like buying a police force - don't you think?
DonnTarris 4 months ago
@DonnTarris But if there were no police force, how could you buy police force?
munkyusm 3 months ago
There is one historical statement that rings true to this day, and it is credited to the oppressor: "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century.
Ultimately, the "state" that you are focused on is supposed to be the people - it needs to be taken back under the control of the people. At the same time, private banking institutions must be stopped from creating currency.
DonnTarris 4 months ago
I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist but as Jefferson once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." I'd take anarchy over what we have today.
bustaballs 4 months ago
@bustaballs Anarchy is the only true sustainable way. Any system that is built on the foundation of force will sooner fail. If you're a libertarian, and love Jefferson...you must put 2 and 2 together - the smallest, most limited government ever devised by man is now the largest, most oppressive government in history. Returning to the constitution will just lead to this happening all over again.
munkyusm 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is one of my contributions to the movement.... so far. Pass it along.
/watch?v=h6xrMZwnS-o
Worth watching... subscribe if you like it.
/user/MrParkerEast
MrParkerEast 4 months ago
It is easy to lash out at the status quo. Far more difficult to implement a solution. Libertarianism is too ideological to be applied. The occupy wallstreet masses should not let the libertarians become their mouthpiece.
drdali138 4 months ago
@drdali138 Because it's in direct opposition to your solution - and that is demanding that government assumes more power.
munkyusm 3 months ago
look the government are puppets of the bank!!! they are taking orders... if an elected official upsets the apple cart yes the bank do have him killed, yes the bank do have thier own armed police force & yes any president who stands up to them does end up like jfk. please understand who the real governing body is, its not somebody you can elect. it is a shadow government made up of special interest groups, banks and corporations. the illuminati stefan!!!
pauloscum 4 months ago
@pauloscum Corps. have no support from the public while politicians (i.e. the govt.) have all of it. Nor do corps. receive directly tax money, which is primarily what perpetuates the state in the first place. A corp. can't maneuver to take control of law enforcement / the military bcuz they've no direct power over any such thing; only the govt. can execute this bcuz it's only they who've the aforementioned support Without govt. protection corps. couldn't be what they are in the first place.
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur my dear fellow yes ofcourse otcourse yes the bank does have its own private armed police force. they also do have control of the police force because they own the government!!!! they give orders that the police force follow. that is what is relevant here the rest is semantics. i hope this helps.
pauloscum 4 months ago
stefan i IMPLORE YOU!!!! you MUST try to see the bigger picture here!!! i agree with you on a lot of things BUT when the bank have baught the government then IT gives the orders & it IS the state!!! they become one & the same!!!! do you see stefan?you are working on the assumption that our elected oficials give the orders to the state police. no they simply repeat orders to the state police. its a horrible regurgative process.
pauloscum 4 months ago
@pauloscum So, if the bank IS the state as you say...then how are you going to ask the state (the banks) to solve the problem?
munkyusm 3 months ago
@munkyusm well the bank obviously cant be seen to be the state!!!! they obv arent supposed to be and if everybody realises they are there are big problems both with common law and angry mobs, as we are starting to see, notice how obama has to be seen to be the 99% to some extent, so we acomplish things by very publicly asking for matters rectified to the interests of the people who do technically hold more lawful power than the president much to the banks annoyance
pauloscum 3 months ago
@munkyusm obv there wont be a perminant solution but however the admiralty the keepers of the statute`who serve the corperations were beaten last time in the courts by common law under the treaty of magna carta, every1 basically became a lawyer and tied them up in knots which infuriated them!!! this is how america gained independence for a few decades, they will always try to come back though, they always do!!!
pauloscum 3 months ago
I love this video and the simplicity of the solution. Put down the guns! Beautifully said. Unfortunately, because people are stuck inside their own construct of reality they can't imagine that people can be peaceful without them. But when you think about it you see the irony of the situation and ultimately, that is the true answer.
Tonya229 4 months ago 10
@Tonya229 The sad truth is that if we all "put down the guns", one person is going to pick them up, and then we are all done for. Understand that I am a pacifist and wish that this could be the solution, but it reminds me of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine...
MidnightOilFilms 4 months ago
@MidnightOilFilms "The sad truth is that if we all "put down the guns", one person is going to pick them up, and then we are all done for."
That's not the truth.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
Comment removed
hulltroy 4 months ago
Comment removed
hulltroy 4 months ago
by the way, the "key to social change is the middle word of the holy trinity...ready, aim..." the middle word of the holy trinity? WTF did you get that from?
hulltroy 4 months ago
I will definitely check Rothbard and beautiful freedom. But still I wonder who will take care of the violent and criminal elements (which will always exist, or at the very least the threat of it will) in a society without a police/government of any kind. You can't just abolish the immorality of the state - the "state" is just people, and we all share the same human nature. Abolish it in one form, it will rise up in another.
hulltroy 4 months ago
@hulltroy by abolishing the state as a whole, you abolish the immorality of the state.
In its place, private contracts take the place of the coercive nature of (insert state function here ---> ________). Neighborhoods band together to pay for private armed security protection of their streets. Other neighborhoods do the same. This set up would be more akin to a monthly "insurance premium" paid to a security protection firm of our choosing ....
ianmkeogh 4 months ago
@hulltroy As an example, A private company offers to give a "block" or "street" police protection. (ie- $35 per month will get you protection from 6 pm - 6 am, $45 per month gets you protection for 24 hours, and so forth). If the protection service is inept, cancel the contract and go with a different company.
What are our options now? Well, if there's inept service (or corruption, etc.), we can call Internal Affairs, send letters to our Congressmen, or post videos on Youtube .....
ianmkeogh 4 months ago
@hulltroy none of these solutions provided by the state eradicate the ineptidude of "police protection" that may exist, and worse, still, more abuses may ensue as the protests, letters, and Youtube videos keep piling up.
Private companies who treat their clients this way would have the swift hand of the market to place private police companies out of business, and rightfully so.
That's the abridged version. You will find much more depth with Rothbard and Molyneux, if you are interested.
ianmkeogh 4 months ago
I hear what you're saying, but my question still stands. In a free society, who is to police the potential violence or thuggery of it's members? Or is it better to just let everyone defend themselves?
hulltroy 4 months ago
@hulltroy the theoretical framework underlies your first question, while your second questions almost answers itself. Murray Rothbard's seminal "For A New Liberty" in 1973, which is considered by many to be the classic manifesto for a free society. Chapters 4, 11, and 12 deal with these problems and solutions (which cannot be espoused here on a Youtube post.
mysocalledknife07 4 months ago
@hulltroy Or, if Rothbard is something you would prefer not to read, then Stefan does an admirable job giving this theoretical framework here: search youtube for "Stefbot Beautiful Freedom"
The answer may shock you: "It really doesn't matter how this would be addressed. It only matters that the immorality of the state is abolished as quickly as possible"
Happy viewing/reading! :-)
mysocalledknife07 4 months ago
Exactly! Organized crime wishes it had the power the state has...good thing they don't, and good thing the state exists to keep things like organized crime in check, right? sort of kind of playing devils advocate here, but still, what's the proposal? What's the alternative?
hulltroy 4 months ago
@hulltroy Actually, it was the state that created organized crime through prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. They have also created the gang wars over prohibition of drugs in our current setting. Without the catalyst (the state) first setting off the spark (outlawing a substance the state does not like) that created this environment (mafia, gand wars), none of it would exist. Guns to the head of non-violent citizens has no place in a free society.
mysocalledknife07 4 months ago
Some good points, a little self-assured though, and "put down the guns" is about as much of a solution as "everybody get along" is, except the latter is only three words. You make this big distinction between corporations and the state, but they are both intertwined, in fact all of society is intertwined, where one entity begins and the other ends is often completely indistinguishable. Put down the guns? what happens if a few crazies decide to pick up knives and start murdering people?
hulltroy 4 months ago
@hulltroy
you took that literally. Put down the guns = don't use force to get what you want from other human beings. What group uses more force than the state? organized crime wishes it had the kind of racket the state sets up.
doodofdoods 4 months ago
This issue is bigger than just discussing semantics...
sob82 4 months ago
i've been saying since 2008 that when the protests come the streets will the thronged with people demanding more government control and crack down on freedom.
these people don't understand that corporations are created and sustained by governments, they're striking out at the rotten branches instead of focusing on the root.
as stefan says, the corporations didn't bail themselves out, the corporations do not have police forces cracking skulls, they don't start the wars.
HuxleyWasRight 4 months ago
States and corporations are the reflections of ourselves! More love and freedom will arise when our hearts and minds will be prepared for it!
alauc 4 months ago
@alauc Totally agree...and that's Stefan's standpoint. It's not overthrowing the state, but rather educating people and outgrowing the need for one.
munkyusm 3 months ago
Get rid of the fed first then work on the corporations.
Adacus79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you occupy wallstreet guys should be in front of the fed banks. Wallstreet didnt steal that money, the Fed gave it to them. Some of the banks didnt even want TARP loans but were forced to take them by law.
Im not sayign wallstreet is innocent, but cmon, if you take down JPmorgan and Goldman theres 50 more investment banks waiting to take their place.
Go after the cause, not the effect.
Equity213 5 months ago
There's quite a bit of confusion here in your attributions of power balances. They are fluid depending on a given set of circumstances. In some instances, the corporate 'person' (e.g., a bank or high-street merchant chain) has the leverage; in others it is the regional or local_area 'government'. The relationship is, of course, a sick and diseased one, infecting the individual, and the carriers of the disease do not show the same symptoms as the vast_majority who are exposed to the illness.
LivingIsEmpathy 5 months ago
but governments ARE the corporations!!!!!!
WeedPeaceSerenity 5 months ago
The corporations are not out there arresting people....they are suing them & killing them....
WeedPeaceSerenity 5 months ago
@WeedPeaceSerenity
killing them? really? link plz...
And lets say a corporation sues you, but theres no cops and no courts, then what? Nothing, thats what.
Equity213 5 months ago
@Equity213
Yeah why dont you go out & do some research in monsanto & their business practices.
They kill & sue people for a living.
THAT'S WHAT.
WeedPeaceSerenity 5 months ago
@WeedPeaceSerenity
I asked for a link to a real source, not more assertions
Equity213 5 months ago
@WeedPeaceSerenity
I know all about Monsanto buddy, terminator seeds? that kinda stuff?
Been there done that. Ive seen all the little documentarys you have.
You dont have some special info that the rest of us havent heard.
Equity213 5 months ago
@WeedPeaceSerenity Monsanto, actually, is responding to a Supreme Court decision (U.S. vs. Chakarbaty, 1981) that declared "life can be patented". Monsanto's existence is fully backed by this government decision, as this had Monsanto run out and "patent" seeds. Absence this governmental decree, Monsanto, in its current form of poisoning and lawsuits, would cease to exist.
mysocalledknife07 4 months ago
I got a headahce! What kind of crap???
chicha1964 5 months ago
I got a headahce!
chicha1964 5 months ago
i can't really agree with his analysis. there is nothing inherently wrong with th creation of a State. Any inherent "threat" or danger comes from the wielders of the state's power, not in the State itself. The State is simply the population as a whole deciding to live as one group. Any form of government, as long as it is run by the right men/women, can be successful and just.
zBlackKnight789z 5 months ago
@zBlackKnight789z see, i despise people like you the most. you recognize the state is the instigator of all violence in society, but you still support the state. do you think the governments wouldnt misuse the power if you were in charge, or people like yourselves? its the same argument for communism. communism didnt fail, the people just went about it wrong. but if you listen to me it will work. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. i think that describes people like yourself best
Slayer8957 5 months ago 2
@zBlackKnight789z
1.
His base argument is that systems like ours are fundamentally grounded in and thrive upon the initiation of the use of force or the threat thereof, and that that is immoral and that immoral systems can only lead to problems in the long run. The morality of, specifically, the creation of a state, is more nuanced and something I don't recall him ever talking about.
regresseur 5 months ago
@zBlackKnight789z
3.
"The State is simply the population as a whole deciding to live as one group." No one gets to choose where they're born. And besides, no one thinks like this or makes such decisions, ever. Except maybe you. To your last point: again, the religion of Statism at work. "If we just get some perfect little angels in here who can resist abusing a virtually unlimited money supply, monopoly on force and the most powerful military ever everything will work out of just fine."
regresseur 5 months ago
Politicians are employees of the corporations
4HITMAN7 5 months ago
The problem is when you use coercion, deceit and manipulative psychology to get people to buy things they don't need. When major corporations have used their financial influence over the government to get what they want, then yes, the corporation is the root of the problem. In such an instance the government is merely a tool for corporate interest. Most of this talk is conjecture and oversimplification.
piecemaster2000 5 months ago
@piecemaster2000 Please tell me you've actually been brainwashed by "manipulative psychology" to buy things....
munkyusm 3 months ago
@munkyusm I have been brainwashed by manipulative psychology to buy things that I don't need. Happy?
piecemaster2000 3 months ago
@piecemaster2000 Did you learn from it? Or are you still brainwashed all the time?
munkyusm 3 months ago
How sad is it that you have to explain that voluntary trade is mutually beneficial.
NATESOR 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Impeach this puppet O B O M B M A , leave the White House O B O M B M A, just GTFO don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Take down the federal reserve. It is not federal! and has no reserve! They want you to focus on Wall Street. Keep the pressure up there also, but really hit out at the feds If you doubt about what is happening watch this.
Mind blowing speech Robert Welch 1958
Go Ron Go
johnnycmajor 5 months ago
so much... vulgar.
SpectacularNumanist 5 months ago
I guess I'll have to finally find out how things would run under anarchy without the state using guns to defend its laws. I know you have books that might explain it, and I'm very curious, but all that research to figure it out seems like a lot of work, since the idea is not inherently self evident, or I would understand it already, and wouldn't need someone else to explain it.
js7un 5 months ago
@js7un Actually, it is self-evident. But when people have a false idea shoved down their throats from the birth, they grow up believing it's true, and the truth becomes a lie.
To me, the simplest example is religion. No matter what you believe, the OTHER religion is clearly false. Why do they believe it? They had it shoved down their throats from birth.
It takes a brave, mature adult to outgrow it. When you get to the other side it is just unbelievably obvious.
jeffiek 5 months ago
@js7un I was in the same boat as you not long ago. I found anarchism to sound insane until I really had to read ALOT of stuff to understand how this type of world would actually work. It's the greatest thing I ever did. Once you understand how fundamentally different the world would be, you quickly realize how insane the world we live in is. I urge you, educate yourself! Stick with setfbot's youtube page for starters.
munkyusm 3 months ago
Whatever you, do not visit a site like corpwatch[dot]org to learn about the extent of multi-national corporate malfeasance and corruption of both federal and state governments.
aoiwarai 5 months ago
See also: The Independent (UK), "Making a killing: how private armies became a $120bn global industry" By Daniel Howden and Leonard Doyle in Washington to refute this guy's blatant misinformation about corporations not raising or directing private militias. See also: "Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws" By Alison Fitzgerald - Jul 20, 2011, on this video's claim that corporations do not direct policy. So easy to debunk this rant, he must take us all for idiots.
aoiwarai 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aoiwarai "Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws"
In between the eyes and ears of a politician ( where the lobbying goes in ), and the fingers that create a law, is something called a brain.
It is accepted science that the brain controls the fingers, not the eyes and ears.
Are you claiming that they point a gun to the politicians head and say "either your brains or your signature will be on this law"?
jeffiek 5 months ago
@aoiwarai Corporations certainly do write legislation up (sometimes word for word), but it's the State that must pass it into law. It's the State that must enforce the law through their monopoly of violence. It's the regulations that arise out of that backdoor dealing with government that cripple competitors and give rise to monolithic corporations. It's the State courts where the corporate lawyers will drag you into if you cross them. It's the State who created corporations in the first place!
passerby26 5 months ago
You're lying outright that corporations do not have private armies. Search “Mercenary Armies & Mineral Wealth,” Date: Fall 1997, No. 62, Author: Pratap Chatterjee; MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, Title: “Guarding the Multinationals,” Date: March 1998, Author: Pratap Chatterjee
aoiwarai 5 months ago
@aoiwarai Ignorance is not a crime. Not knowing something and drawing conclusions in spite of that does not necessarily equate to malicious intent. But in your spiteful and indoctrinated mind you automatically draw that conclusion. Your point also doesn't address any argument he makes... that people can pay other people to get them to do what they want is not some sort of revelation. It doesn't change the fact that corporations pay government to police and change law to their benefit.
regresseur 5 months ago
@aoiwarai If your rants come from a sincere belief in the beneficence of government compared to corporations, how do you explain military empires that always belong to governments -- whether Soviet, Nazi, Fascist, China, or U.S.? How do you explain Democide of multi-millions by governments in the last century alone? In all types of economies including those that had no corporations. I don't like corporate special privileges from gov. and cronyism; governments jail and control us, not them
leafwatch 5 months ago
Gen. Smedley Butler once said, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service ... In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys ... I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street." Why point out corporate agendas behind war if they do not direct government policy?
aoiwarai 5 months ago
@aoiwarai Furthermore, if the relationship between corporations and government and corporations and law enforcement was known to the public at large, and if it were legal for anyone to pay law enforcement, etc., to serve them, then corporations' influence over said sector of society would be over with in a matter of months; w/ corporation's fascistic interests running in complete contrast to the public's they would be seen as enemies, they wouldn't be the highest bidder & their bus. wld go undr
regresseur 5 months ago
"The beneficiaries, not the source." Corporations are just appeasing the Great Beast of the State, lest they feel its wrath for scorning its flattery and gifts. General Electric, Halliburton, BP, Exxon, Google, Citigroup, Bank of America, every other corp. bank doesn't write legislation and threaten congress with billions. Right. Ask Rumsfeld and Cheney about "the revolving door", and stop deliberately misunderstanding the critique of the protesters so your rant can have a convenient. straw man.
aoiwarai 5 months ago
yup, Stefan is correct once again, i know i know some want to disagree with him because of the scumbaggery that resides within the corporations... but that is why people need to wise up and boycott them.. it is the government that educates you, it is the government that puts chemicals in your water... the government is the proxy for all the bad things.
spacelordmfkr 5 months ago
@wyknot100
Who is the puppet? The guys with their fingers on the triggers or the guys who pay them off so they don't get shot?
NativeNewMexican 5 months ago
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature." James Garfield, the 20th president of the United States, 1877
ctp050149 5 months ago
But I actually agree with Stefan - eliminate the state and you eliminate the corporation.
The OWS crowd have been driven into a totally scripted, psychologically manufactured frenzy. I have watched this unfold over the last couple of years, I've noticed the escalating rhetoric, and have wondered why it wasn't happening sooner, it was just so predictable. The US military stationed troops here (for 'civil unrest') and made an agreement w/Canada to bring troops here should we need them. Obvious.
immayhem 5 months ago
A chicken-egg argument... corporations have been in symbiotic relationship with governments for a very long time. Certainly corporations are a creation of government, in that government provides the sanction for an LLC... But corporations also comprise government - it really is one behemoth structure (the US government IS a corporation and so are the CITIZENS or PERSONS who consent to be governed - knowingly or not)...we'll never be able to separate the two. Both are contrary to natural law.
immayhem 5 months ago
Corporations are the linchpin. They call the shots the politicians they own put into law. They are served by the courts their puppets install. So I've wasted 3:31 listening to this guy. If he goes on to blame a 'new world order' .... I'm sorry there is nothing 'new' about this world order idea. The feudal lords were a world order because they controlled an economy. Does an army march to the orders of some hidden powerful elite? No, they go where the oil based economy needs them to go.
recubejim1 5 months ago
This guy is totally missing the point! i'm not going to even get into the details of how his dismissive and short-sighted attitude is totally wrong on all counts.
Endostatic 5 months ago
Comment removed
passerby26 5 months ago
@Endostatic So you are dismissing Stefan because he's too dismissive, while not putting forth even one argument? Do you see any irony in that?
passerby26 5 months ago
@passerby26 I Listened to the man, it was hard to get through this video. I disagree with far 2 much of what he said 2 even start a rebuttal in such a small space. Suffice to say that the examples he sights are erroneous and the hypothetical rhetoric is even more misleading. Nice attempt at obfuscation though. The premise of the protest is simple, total removal of corporate influence from government and regulation of the financial industry. Neither r difficult 2 accomplish, if motivated properly
Endostatic 5 months ago
@Endostatic I again find it ironic that you are critical of him "obfuscating" while not defining or explaining any of your criticisms. How about just one criticism?
As for the protests, so the protestors are upset because the corporations "own" the government. In turn, they demand the violence of the State to stop it. So the solution is to give the people "owned" by Wall Street the ability to regulate their "owners"? I don't think it takes a lot of brain power to see how that will turn out.
passerby26 5 months ago
You have it all wrong, the system is corrupt at every level. Monetary system= fail system. ALWAYS.
sfgox10 5 months ago
c,mon stefan. youre right, but...its a brave new world my friend. weve no longer a line between the state and the corporations. they exchange workers like shifts at a factory. the state has privatized soldiers, police and prisons, etc. corps build the weapons, feed the troops, provide security in war zones and give the orders to federal state and local police in emergencies, eg GOM oil spill. your logic is sound but your aim is off in this ultimate bank-led national socialist oligarchy
organicstevewilson 5 months ago
The state ultimately enforces legislation like I said, but I must concede that corporations merely influence legislation through a perverse mode of concensus formation where force and "justice" itself is put up for bargain.
noteagod 5 months ago
Also, Stefan focuses perhaps too much on force and not enough on fraud. It is clear that, for example, much of mortgage contracting and derivatives markets involved a degree of fraud that does not directly tie to government coercion.
noteagod 5 months ago
Perhaps a more controversial yet fundamental point that Stefan and Occupy Wallstreet overlooks is that corporations are inherently a violation of market principles; the creation of the limited liability corporation was a legal fiction without basis in property and contract.
noteagod 5 months ago
@noteagod "...overlooks is that corporations..."
Stefan has addressed this many times. Perhaps not in this video ( I can't remember specifically and don't have a half hour to watch it over ), but certainly in other videos.
jeffiek 5 months ago
I don't understand why Stefan objects to the idea that corporations control government. Why must libertarians disagree with Occupy Wallstreet on that point? Sure, government ultimately enforces legislation, but if legislation is controlled by corporations, then indeed enforcement is in many instances controlled by corporations. Blaming everything on the state just sounds ideological and undermines Stefan's otherwise coherent points.
noteagod 5 months ago
@noteagod "if legislation is controlled by corporations"
In between the eyes and ears of a politician ( where the lobbying goes in ), and the fingers that create a law, is something called a brain.
It is accepted science that the brain controls the fingers, not the eyes and ears.
Are you claiming that they point a gun to the politicians head and say "either your brains or your signature will be on this law"?
jeffiek 5 months ago
I generally like listening to you. But I am not impressed with the need to promote lies in order to promote your own ideology. I quit listening to this video just after you claimed there was no inflation before the Federal Reserve. I am one of the largest advocates for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and state corporate control, but I am not going to advocated it by falsely representing the issues. There was tons of inflation before the Fed.
MrStempysez27 5 months ago
The STATE does not control corporations! It is the CORPORATIONS that control our government. We vote between a giant douche and turd sandwich. The CORPORATIONS work together investing 100s of millions in making us think the government is responsible.
REMEMBER! JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD, not the State. So the corporations are arresting.
UntilWeTurnBlue 5 months ago
Both the government and the corporations live and die on money and the supply of money is controlled by the central banking system. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. . – Thomas Jefferson (1809) A little more research
dillonmolnar 5 months ago
i'm gonna have to watch this a few times to extract some quotes.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 5 months ago
"Corporations own and control our Government!"
"Ok, so what do you want?"
"We want the Government to police and regulate the Corporations!"
Facepalm, anyone?
WhyteEagle 5 months ago 58
That's right, you bunch of sillies - fight amongst yourselves. This squabbling is one thing the ruling class can depend on.
LonasStart 5 months ago
What a flip flop. One video bashes the protesters and then this one is with them. Your metaphorical shark stef, is the Federal Reserve. All money going into our economy is created out of debt from their ability to make money out of nothing and charge interest on loaning out that money to the government. They can create inflation and deflation at will. Those who control the money have the real power. Corporations and the State are still major problems that swim around that large shark.stopfoolin
BlindPlague 5 months ago
88 Statists.
NefariousBanana 5 months ago 8
Separating the 'owning class' from the 'government' is pure silliness. See how much traction you get from protesting the 'government'.
LonasStart 5 months ago
"I find his ego beyond measure. Zero humility. Absolute certainty is no one’s privilege. He talks with such arrogance, it might impress some college kids, but anyone with a modicum common sense can smell this guy’s bullshit a mile off."
I 100% agree. These protests are not just about the government, corporations - it is about the climate, wars, etc. INJUSTICE.
And, Stefan, to say that climate change doesn't exist - well, you're a god damn idiot.
pmachwkful 5 months ago
@pmachwkful He's never said climate change doesn't occur. That you think any1 thinks that makes u the "god damn idiot." And if the protests r about virtually everything, then they're ultimately about nothing at all. Protesting over numerous unrelated issues turns the message into a shit storm of irrelevant nonsense. And ppl like u interpret his eloquence and confidence as arrogance becuz u r ideologically inebriated, thus preemptively disliking him, and avoid the arguments and turn to ad hominem
regresseur 5 months ago
Stefan, have a few questions for you, hopefully you might address these issues in your next episodes.
Poor area in Africa suddenly discovers a large oilfield. People who live in this area don't have enough capital to extract oil and take advantage of it. So some corporation has to come in and invest. However, the corporation is sending all the profits abroad after paying local workers just a tiny bit of revenue in wages. Is this ok? How do we get fair use of finite resources w/o government?
LocalStorm 5 months ago
If discrimination is systemic (as it is against transsexuals) then every organization is excluding that work force and there is no general harm to the companies, but great harm to those marginalized people. Your style of speech is, in general, condescending and, frankly, insulting. This is not a good way to bring people over to your views.
TheRealGothAlice 5 months ago
So, money isn't a force? Are you kidding me?
TheRealGothAlice 5 months ago
@TheRealGothAlice
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Force_(disambiguation)
Nope. Money not listed.
Had you questioned whether or not money equals power, you would get a different response:
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Power_(philosophy)
jeffiek 5 months ago
I find his ego beyond measure. Zero humility. Absolute certainty is no one’s privilege. He talks with such arrogance, it might impress some college kids, but anyone with a modicum common sense can smell this guy’s bullshit a mile off.
Graveltongue 5 months ago
The thing about discrimination is that the state often makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds that would actually make sense such as ability to perform the job. Price and wage controls are another example. So when there is scarcity with no economic means of rationing people find other ways of deciding who gets what.
sharperguy 5 months ago
The government is just a bank slate that is carved by the will of the powerful corporations.
You could neuter the government, thus dis-motivating the wealth from investing into it. But then, the wealth could just control directly. Even without the government's "gun", they would still be at an advantage, and fight as hard as they can to game the system in their favor.
stratelite 5 months ago in playlist Videos from stefbot
@stratelite What a stupid comment. Did you even listen to the video ?
kebabkungen90007 5 months ago
@stratelite
1.
Your argument is fatally flawed because unlike politicians (the government) corporations don't have any support or trust from the general population. This is one of the primary reasons why corporations haven't just taken over everything, directly, already, a long time ago. Instead they all operate through the same proxy (the government) who has no allegiance to anyone but the highest bidders.
regresseur 5 months ago
@stratelite
2.
Some problems if corps. tried a direct takeover via bribery, in the absence of govt.:
Many of these ppl would be their own friends & family members - Hm, slight problem there. 2) Massive backlash by the whole of society, overwhelming them through sheer numbers. Corps. are businesses - these business would be robbed and burnt to the ground in short order. "Best" case result: competing corps. for influence over general pop. - this is better than we have now. Countless more problems.
regresseur 5 months ago
To put it simply. The goverment is a division of the corporations. It's the assault group of the corporations. Most of the politicians within the goverment are representatives of corporations. Not the representatives of the voters. Just look
at the background of the politicians. Where did they came from? Cheney (Haliburton, etc.), Rumsfeld (Monsanto, etc.), Geithner (Goldman Sachs, etc.) and so on.
occupydenhaag 5 months ago 4
where corporations end and state begins is becoming diffuse.
romulusaugustulus476 5 months ago 2
Well said sir.
iainmac2 5 months ago
Stefbot, nice presentation yet your view is unfortunately is wrong, your examples are lame, and the relationship of such are dissonant. . . One may agree with with some points, yet the overall this is complete rubbish.
rifephotos 5 months ago
@rifephotos
Your comment was nice but it's 100% wrong.
Your writing style is lame, I would agree with a few words here and there but you are unfortunately full of bullshit.
You see how weird it is to state how someone is wrong when you have nothing to back it up with?
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago in playlist Lisää videoita käyttäjältä stefbot
@rifephotos You claim that he's wrong but don't use any examples to back up your view. LOL!
fynnab 5 months ago
@fynnab Here i go dear friend. . . Corporations are not pilot fish, they are the shark itself. Corporations have the power not to arrest you,but to influence the government to provide the conditions were a peaceful demonstrations can be stopped. This is not a problem from 10 0r 8 years ago. The Federal Reserve was mastermind by mayor banking corporations (J.P Morgan, and Rockefeller.. etc) The Banking system produced the 30's Great depression. Now a days, Lobbyists buy politicians -continues..
rifephotos 5 months ago
@rifephotos Now a days, Lobbyists buy politicians, not only in the federal government but in local, and state government. Why, well that's simple to pursuit state or local preference, or to obtain government contracts. Now a days public servants are/ or were members of large corporations. . . making the government susceptible to comply with corporate demand. Milton Friedman and his policy of Deregulation have seen the light not only un USA but in some other countries of Latin America -continues
rifephotos 5 months ago
@rifephotos What if there were no State to bribe to pass your legislation, to raise taxes and create regulations to destroy your competitors, to arrest people when they infringe on "your territory"? What power would any of these corporations have? None. People simply wouldn't do business with them. It's the State, forever and always, violently and forcefully interfering in the free market and then "educating" people in their public schools that it's the evil corporations behind every injustice.
passerby26 5 months ago
@rifephotos Ahh I hear you, but here's the catch 22; these corporations could never have this power today if it weren't for the government. In a true free market it just wouldn't happen.
fynnab 5 months ago
@fynnab Why?
Semordnilaps 5 months ago