The use of guns is not the problem. The lack of consciousness and IQ is. That is the very reason why there is a state. If we all had an IQ over 150 and Buddhist intention then there would be no need for Stefan Molyneux's stories at all. Fact is, state society found a solutions for life threats.
So basically Molyneux says that the use of violence is harmfull, but doesn't have practical solutions how to live with people who don't have a clue about the value of the none initiation of force.
your point about future technology is great. except that the feds are now talking about governing the cell phone signals in the event of emergencies because, after 9/11, they discovered that the radio communications systems of the various fire and police personnel from different jurisdictions did not work together which hindered rescue efforts. in order to improve on that, the feds propose various fire and police department all use wireless broadband to communicate instead of local radio waves.
@gottogochild He didn't make a single cogent argument for privatised fire departments. He just says "who knows what the future holds!!! it's crazy!!! i don't even know what to say!!! Government Propaganda!!! can u tell me who's going to win at the races tomorrow?!?!? can u tell me which stocks I should invest in?!! Back slowly away!!!"
It's dumbfounding that derision gets mistaken for lucid argument
@BOZ11 So, if I understand your comment correctly, you are deriding my praise because the fact that people mistake derision for cogent argument has deprived you of speech?
in the movie Eagle Eye i was hoping the computer system would assassinate the corrupt and callous presidential cabinet but, sadly, i remembered i was watching a propagandistic statist film...
I am a little curious. I have been a fan of the videos for not all that long having discovered them relatively recently. What I want to know is what is your position on weapon ownership? I would like to think that I know already, but you have voiced a positive opinion concerning Chomsky so I am not fully sure.
"Gangs of New York" the movie is based on the early 20th-century book written by Herbert Asbury, who detailed the problems with the fire departments. It's not just made up by Scorcese.
We can know that anarcho-capitalism won't work for the same reason you know that Communism would not work--by reasoning from first principles!
Think about it. What if one person hired a court to arbitrate and another hired a private army? What if the claimant hired competing courts? (If there was some protocol for disputes between courts, there would be a cartel--in effect, a state--rather competition!) Not to mention, a wealthy person could buy better justice on the market than a poor person.
@john1230 The wealthy would be satisfied with bearing arms personally as opposed to bearing arms at the head of an army, just like the wealthy (i.e. lords) did in the Middle Ages!
Like others have said.. your "failure" scenario exists right now. Yet, you would not argue that the current system won't work? Is that because you prefer the current evil over the seemingly imperfect system of the anarcho-capitalism or do you actually believe the current system is working? Just look at family courts and what goes on in there... talk about cartels!
And to say this is arguing from first principles is Glenn Beck style stupidity.
@utubehayter Changing things takes a lot of work. So you want something better, not just the same thing that we have now.
Actually anarcho-capitalism would be WORSE. There would be an initial period in which the competition gets ironed out through warfare. Then there would be a return to a territorial monopoly on authorized force. And even after that, it would be STILL be worse because instead of electing the politicians, the politicians would be the oligarchy of security service businessmen.
Do you really think you are an original thinker to present this argument? How did the various an-cap folks.. (please specify names)... handle this question thus far? Did you care to find out, read, understand what you are trying to refute and then refute it?
@utubehayter No ancap thinker has adequately addresses the dichotomy inherent in anarcho-capitalism: either the private security forces compete creating war or cooperate creating a new state!
@utubehayter - You see, there's nothing wrong with the current justice system. You just have to spend all of your life reading government legalies you'll never understand, lobbying congress men you'll never be able to afford to lobby, obey ever more oppressive taxes and regulations, and vote for some scumbag who has no incentive to actually do what he promised to do. Also, in ancapstan, widespread war is more profitable than solving disputes peacefully... somehow.
Of course! Did you not know that anarchy means people killing each other on the streets for barely any reason at all? Somehow, the same people under a state become benevolent agents of hope, peace and change. It seems to me that these people generally believe that their fellow men are covert hyenas who barely control their bloodlust due to the fear of the tax-funded policeforce coming up and getting them.
I specifically asked for names... It is practically impossible to consider ALL an-cap thinkers on this one issue.. let alone being sure that they are all "inadequate". If you want to dwell in your own bubble - please do so.. but there is no need to argue with folks who have studied the issue. It is a waste of time - and beyond getting folks to think that you are one ignorant person, achieves nothing.
If you want to argue, you have to study and not make ludicrous claims.
@utubehayter It doesn't look like you want to convince people about the correctness of an-cap. Do you really think that everyone is gonna research every obscure an-cap thinker? Do you reject Communism without researching every obscure Communist thinker?
Why should I "want" to convince you of the correctness of an-cap? If you are a not going to be convinced by any an-cap thinkers, of which there are a good number that are highly convincing. If you don't find them good enough, then I am happy that you are not convinced of an-cap. Be whatever you want to be.
"a system of anarchy"? Why would I do that? It could be that you are finding it difficult to understand what anarchy is... Try and think of it as a totally voluntary society and not as "a system to replace the state".
@utubehayter What if we combined the best of every -ism today, and created something entirely new? Try looking at the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.
I feel no need to combine anything. But you are welcome to try whatever you want. As long as you respect the life and property of other people, you can do whatever you want on what you own. As far as the Zeitgeist movement is concerned - it is the exact opposite of appealing to someone who knows how collectivist and anti-capitalist schemes work.
@utubehayter Yeah, that would be the source of it all. The invention of "property". How can you own anything, coming and leaving this world naked? The native indians never understood how the white man can "own" land. The idea of "propery" is the source of all human inequality and misery. Shared everything, given access to everything, would bring peace and true civilization to Earth. Time to upgrade: Earth 2.0
Time to upgrade? No thanks. Abandoning the very good component in a flawed systems that has enabled flawed human beings to out compete all other living beings and survive non-living dangers, is not an upgrade. It is giving up on the very essence of humanity and adopting that of inconsequential beings like ants or bees.
I would hate to fight another human being for scarce food and to consider every live person a danger to my well being, so I better stay a free capitalist man.
@utubehayter Thats ok. I wouldn´t want to fight for survival either. But in a capitalist system we all fight eachother, for money, for jobs, for cheapest prices, deals, profitt, land, resources etc. How can you be free in a system that wage-slave all but the wealthiest? Every day you come to work, you clock in in a dictatorship, being a mundane slave for 7 hours or so, for a boss or "owners", where they earn more on you than you earn yourself. That´s not freedom.
@utubehayter Freedom is having your basic needs given to you unconditionally. Clean air, fresh water, housing, food and clothing. If you can imagine such a world, then we´re one step closer to it, because such a world is possible.
I do not believe in labor theory of value and I heartily accept every teaching of the Austrian School of Economics. Your equating of competition with fighting.. only tells me that you never had to fight for anything. I have nothing against any employer of mine, past or present. In fact, they were all the best people I ever met in my life and treated and paid me to my satisfaction (or else I would have quit).
As to the definition of freedom - I do not want your commie junk.
@utubehayter As we start to see all as one, all as small parts of a bigger organism and ecosystem called Earth, we will start to function for the greater good, instead of our own self-interest like cancer-cells in the body. It´s not communism I advocate. It´s a no-ism, or a one-ism if you need labeling. All money in the world could not buy the luxury we all would share in a Resource Based Economy.
Removing the name communism does not make it "no-ism" or "one-ism". Communism is communism, regardless of what you call it - it is totalitarianism. The "oneness" of all mankind, people acting without self-interest for the "greater good". Try distinguishing your ideal system from what is called communism and you will see they are identical. Economically the system is unviable - will cause mass starvation, deprivation and poverty. Morally it is bankrupt and tyrannical.
@utubehayter Yes, I totally agree with you. Communism *within* a monetary system will be totalitarianism. Because what we get is a wealthy "elite" who will exert political or military power. Every tried -ism has been within a monetary system. Moneytarism if you will. Right now USA have fascism, the merging of corporate and state power. But what if we abolished the monetary system and with it, it´s inequality? That way there would be no elite, and no totalitarianism.
So now you want to talk about monetary system. Okay, I will after you tell me the solution to the 3 major "one" economy problems. The incentive problem, the knowledge problem and the calculation problem. Not all totalitarianism needs an elite. Democracy is an brilliant example of totalitarianism of the masses.
Also, I consider myself to be a natural elite, not one of the masses.
@utubehayter Please elaborate on the 3 major "one" economy problems.
There has never been a democracy. As long as the monetary system exists, the only candidates are those sponsored heavily enough to run a gigantic campaign, and hence those candidates are closely tied to corporate or financial interests.
If you are a natural elite, you probably understand the exponential power of two or more. Two guitars playing the same tones have exponential higher volume. As do people if we work together.
Thank god, there has never been a pure democracy. There is elaborate description of all 3 problems on-line. Look it up. It is quite evident that if you don't know of the 3 major (and there are whole lot of minor problems) with "one"-ism aka totalitarianism, that you don't know much about the system you are advocating.
Were you just swayed by the poetic descriptions or rosy pictures? Or even less than that?
@utubehayter I tried looking up what you refer to, but could not find anything concrete and relative to our discussion. Please send links if you wish me to read. For now, I will assume. Incentive - Albert Einstein was never fueled by profit incentive. In fact, great people and minds are rarely fueled by any economic incentive. The argument against, is that without the incentive, people will be lazy. Not true, we are all driven by some kind of passion, and with the right holistic education
@utubehayter that passion can be used to elevate us all through our search of happiness and beauty through arts, science and craft. Knowledge - The scientific method of testing and ARRIVING at conclusions and decisions, is true knowledge. Plus adding the ingredient that everything is changing and in motion, and that many physical laws has been broken before, and could easily be broken again. Also, that we are in a symbiosis with the Universe and eachother, and that we are an emergent society.
Do you know what you are talking anymore? I cannot believe someone is this ignorant about the famous incentive problem, the calculation problem and the knowledge problem. Have you heard the name of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard? How about Bakunin?
@utubehayter Thank you. Now we can all get a little less ignorant. First off, these guys are all dead, and their ideas was made early 1900. How could they possibly take into accord the super advent of technology and computers? If you study the Venus Project, you´ll see that all of these "problems" are solved. YouTube comment field is not big enough for me to explain the details of the solutions. Go research it ;)
Alright, You convinced me to look it up. But it suffers the same drawbacks of socialism. Indeed it is socialism and states its goal to make people less individualistic. Also note that there are unsubstantiated claims of higher relative efficiency in non-profit based system - something that is a blatant lie. The ideas are pure fiction and a bad theory at best. If you want to follow it- that is your choice. This is not the first time something like this has been tried.
@utubehayter I enjoyed reading about the guys you suggested I should read. Particularly liked that they promoted anarchy too. I would be so bold as to state once more that RBE (Resource Based Economy) has not been tried. I understand and see the links to socialism, as you do, but without a monetary system and the inequality it creates, it is still untried. It is also anarchy as you have no government and all the manufacturing is automated. Let me comment your remarks about efficiency...
And you think monetary unit has not been abolished in former socialist communes? What if they have tried that too? Will you give up this advocacy? lol! Did you ever consider that pure communism also has no monetary system?
Learn your history before repeating the same thing over and over again. The inherent fallacies are overwhelming. It is scientific socialism, all over again, this time with more talk of science and blatant lying about the profit system.
@utubehayter Please refrain from attacking my person. It only shows lack of arguements. If you can argue against the profit motive with facts, I´ll listen.
Why would I argue against the profit motive? Pretty much every commune.. for example look up "Christiania" - abolishes money. This "new idea" is as new as "the amazing new cow that has four legs" or "the benefits of dihydrogenmonoxide to human body". It is hard not to mock someone who thinks this is a radical new idea. Please spend the time to study the history of communalism and communism, so you can realize on your own that this is same old dog poop in a new wrapping.
@utubehayter Could you tell me more about where and when scientific socialism was tried before? And communisme without money? I am not out to "arrest" you, I wish to learn...
You have a lot to learn, at least you got that part. Good on you. Communism isn't just arresting dissenters. Just try this - compare the intentions of your venus project with that of early socialist advocacy, starting with Charles Fourier. These folks at venus project are simply rebranding his ideas, and like every communist experiment, they claim to have a "new idea", something that has not been tried before. And as expected, people unaware of communist history buy into it.
@utubehayter Thx. I looked through Fourier, and although similarities exists between his and Venus Project (VP), there are so many dis-similarities as well. Again, this is a man who died early 1800, and he was very hateful towards jews. I would again remind that VP is without inequality, be it value, race, belief etc., and that VP advocates that the technology we have today can set us free from labour. I cannot find that Scientific Socialism has been tried out before.
Again - try finding out the Socialist Calculation problem, the incentive problem and the knowledge problem. These are up to date are unsolved after close to a 100 years. The implications of these problems on any non-profit, non-private property society are huge and devastating. Failure of the VP is guaranteed! They may solve the incentive problem by robotization, but the other two problem factors will draw so many resources to build robots that the whole thing will sink.
@utubehayter The calculation problem is simply put, the problem of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. VP advocates a centralized computersystem that monitors and distributes resources to where they are needed through a highly efficient and automated distributing system. Resources that depletes will be replaced by synthetical, or the resource usage problem will be addressed. Mises problem of calculation can be solved through this.
You still do not get the point of these issues. I guess, I will have to let you either read human action, and then do some scientific research.. say to provide synthetically produced gold or even copper. Hey, if they can do that, why would they be collecting donations? Couldn't they just sell synthetic gold? After all if the theory is rock solid, then they ought to deliver
The easiest cure for people who think socialism can work - this way or that - is to let them try it.
@utubehayter The knowledge problem is simply put, the problem of knowing what and how resources should be used and generated/extracted. Hayek argued that the price mechanism would itself guide society to knowledge and prosperity. And it has, to its´ maximum extent, but now is obsolete. It no longer works. A central computersystem that monitors these things will serve as a solution to this problem also. It seems technology is the emancipation of human kind.
How do you know that price mechanism has guided society to its maximum extent? Do you really believe that computers are capable of telling the future? Or do you believe computers care if human beings live or die? It seems to me that your faith in computers is so naive as to imagine the "computer" as some sort of Oracle .. which it is not, has never been and probably will never be. Just throwing "computers" at fundamental economic problems does not solve them.
@utubehayter The Profit motive includes planned obsolescence (repairs and breakdown makes for better profit), withholding of technology and progress (yeah, we´re still using oil and fuel, el-cars not profitable enough yet), scarcity (lets dump this food to keep prices high), problems (contaminated tap-water increases sales on bottled-water) and the upholding of status quo. As long as a problem is profitable, it will not be solved, and if the solution is not profitable, it will not be solved.
I think this has gone on long enough. You want me to believe this VP has any science behind it... send me a 1 kilogram of gold - I don't care how they make it, as long as it is gold. It will be proof enough that the claims your are making have any science behind it.
@utubehayter I did not mean "to make gold". I meant to replace either the resource with something else, or the project using resources into something else that used other resources. You can keep trying to make a fool of me, but it´s only yourself you´re fooling. What I speak of is beyond isms and the current belief system and indoctrination, and if you don´t understand it, it doesn´t matter. Evolution will happen regardless.
No you are not beyond "isms".. no matter how many times you repeat that to yourself and others! I pointed out that what you are trying is "scientific" socialism or "scientific" collectivism if you want to be accurate. Of course you are not as blatantly stupid to believe they can create matter..which is good news. For your own sake, please do not put any of your own money into this.. you will loose it all. Other than that, your commune fails.
@utubehayter Calculation - If this is not a self-explanatory mathematical expression, it could be Trends Forcasting as well. If you look at how earlier economic models have failed and collapsed, it should be obvious that this one is going the same direction. Free marked would only lead to what you fear, a totalitarianism by corporate monopoly. We are heading there really fast now. Other than that, calculation is easy. 1+1=3. Always.
@utubehayter I was swayed by cold and hard scientific facts that the path we´re on now is suicide, by one way or another. Going back to find an old model of things "how it used to work", is no longer working. We have to find a new, sustainable way of living on Earth. We need to address the root causes of dis-ease and distress in our society, and inequality is responsible for over 95% of crimes. We need peace and equality for the first time in Earths history, or it´s finito.
Where "the People" are the ultimate authority, then anything the majority of the people want must become law. A problematic side-effect of this view is that lynch mobs are then examples of properly functioning democratic bodies as no limits are placed on the scope of the decisions being made.
So..is the argument that since we can't predict the future...it will just work on its own? I believe in free economy, but must have missed the arguement.
In the UK we have life boats that are maned by volunteers. 4500 volunteers. Paid for by donations. We also have volunteer firefighters. If more people would be prepared to give to society instead of take, then the need for government would be diminished. And i do not mean giving money but ones self.
@stefbot "The system as a whole is collapsing." I understand what you mean to a point. But I am not sure it is "collapsing" to the point of collapse or if it is damaged, maimed like a wild animal only to turn more aggressive onto what it sees.
The fact is a significant number of people desire to be ruled by "Guns" and that demand is what got us here...and that demand in the future is what will give impetus for a "supply of Guns pointed at all of us" in the future.
@stefbot You do know that the advancement and improvement of "Guns" will also improve over time and into the future, right? How is that countered: One cannot just keep one-half the equation fixed and think about freedom advancing, improving while not understanding that "Guns" will also advance, improve.
This fire department of the future is a realistic idea, I can see that the private sector has insurance, but the private "insurance collective" could also be something you BUY to protection service.
If they keep competitive and ethical it would certainly work, but right now too much of the private sector does not have to do anything ethical to capture or protect resources it gets, often directly from government.
Corporate and governmental power convergence as they have now, is coercion.
Who would pay the firefighters their salary and for their equipment + gear? Especially in a town with little to no fires going on. If a town has little need for firefighters would their really be a variety of fire services to choose from, and a healthy amount of competition between them?
You and your free society. I love watching these videos just for some laughs.
The government where I live doesn't have enough control, hence why I support a change - not to some lawless 'free society' but to a fascist government.
'Freedom' is a lie, you know that very well, no one is truely free, everyone is enslaved in some way.
Collective delusion combined with strong government is the only way foward.
Look at how happy the 'ethnic' germans were under hitler
@MrWafflesMonster They were happy because he brought them out of the 30's depression, which was caused mainly by governments. Hitler and his government continued on, to start the war and put Germany back into a state of depression. He gave the Ethnic Germans money, wealth, and opportunity at the expense of others (such as Jew's, poles, Russians, and other nationalities).
I could imagine that a free society would work if everybody would be employed and work for 2 hours a day to maintain roads, fire dept. hospitals, construction, agriculture etc...etc... We could have everything practically for free like Phone, Internet, TV, Water, Sewage, Food, electricity and so on if we would only work as much as is needed to maintain abundance and basic necessities for all instead of working for profit. With the remaining time we could spend time with friends and families.
@younitehumanity we wouldn't have to work at all. We could develop robots to develop robots that do all of our "work" and we, as humans, could enjoy all of our time doing things we like to do.
@Travis123086 As of now, we don't have robots to do this but during the transition period we will all have to do the jobs that keep us fed, clothed and sheltered. If everybody pitches in their time to make a free society work, then the less we will have to work. Advertisement, Insurance, banking, crime prevention etc...will for the most part be obsolete.
@lnd3005 If you create a society or world of wisdom, intelligence, security and technological advancement...I can asure you that nobody would want to be lazy and do nothing. If the entire human race has the oportunity to explore space and other planets then people will beg to be part of the galactic comunity.
Well...in fact, todays firefighters are not there to put out fires for the population...they are there to put out fires for the insurance companies. If you knew the how these insurance companies work, then you would now what I mean.
In support of the argument I would point out that all modern government is reactionary government. We didn't build roads because we thought they may be neeeded. We built them because they were already needed. The FAA didn't materialize out of thin air for air travel safety. It was formed in the 20's after a string of disasters. Independant commisions could have fulfilled the same role and patrons would have the options to use only independantly certified airlines... or crash and die.
Your rant was worthless. The only point of note was at the end when you said use of force to control people is bad. Yes, it is bad and it is going to get worse. To expect anything else flies in the face of human history.
stefbot, firestations don't inhibit my personal choice. Firemen don't tell me what politics I am to participate in or what cults to join. Its not a threat to my freedom. People on the left are natural fascist in that they believe everything is in the state which includes your own personal will. There is no separation between state will and personal will in their thinking.
You are forced to pay for monopoly fire protection whether you want it or not. That inhibits your personal choice whether or not you are aware of the fact. I am a professional firefighter. You have no idea how much of your tax dollars are pissed away by the Fire department. I know of captains who drive Ferraris and do four hours work in a 24 hour shift.
@billyjoeallen In that respect yes. You are forced to participate in the monopoly but that monopoly doesn't come to your home and violate your freedom at any time.
I think a reasonable option would be to include it as part of one's home owner's insurance. That provides for an incentive to utilize effective fire prevention (detectors, extinguishers, home monitoring systems, etc), as well as fire crews with proven reliability. That same system could be used to reimburse local non-profit volunteer crews, large corporate crews, or whatever the circumstances may be. Insurance is meant to protect large investments.
The "Stateist" argument isn't that free market fire company's won't be able to work in 200 years. We are saying that they won't work right NOW. We don't want free market fire company's NOW.
Stateists are simply arguing solve problems in the here and now with solutions in the here and now. A stateless society would be great, but in the here and now it would cause more problems than it solves.
@SpamSpamNEggs how do you know it would cause more problems? Are you an all knowing God? We didn't get a chance to try. But what we did get is a chance to try BIG VIOLENT GOVERMENT, and that clearly doesn't work AT ALL.
@MaikUniversum We did have a chance to try free-market volunteerism. Humans created government. It was a choice. Humans existed before government, that is when "we" had our chance. It didn't work very well, so we created governments to help solve the problems. It wasn't a great solution, but it was better than no solution at all.
It took more than 3000 years to abolish chattel slavery and it's still not completely gone. Once problems like wage slavery are completely gone, then gov is next.
It could work now. You should read Stefan's free online book Practical Anarchy. But Stefan is assuming a Voluntaryist society won't arise until 100s of years from now. And I disagree with this...
I'm completely on your side when I say this, stefbot, but your counter argument is empty. There is no argument you are making other than "that will be taken care of by magic technology in the future."
I think what statists are saying when they say "fire fighting is infeasible under anarchy", they literally mean next week, not 50 or 100 years from now.
And there are legitimate answers to "how will we have fire fighters under anarchy next week?" that don't resort to an Argument Ad DeLorean.
Health insurance companies will evolve to incorporate every aspect of civilization to reduce the costs of health care which includes catching sexual predators, murderers, and thieves since Societal Wellness will be covered as part of individual health if the insurance companies want to compete for customers.
Under that system, the payment to these insurance companies would end up being cheaper than current taxes FOR BETTER SERVICE, because of the nature of competition. Individual fire fighters will apply for licenses to be contracted by the insurance companies and fire fighters wont fight with each other because they are all being paid a salary rather than a commission by ALL the competing insurance companies.
Each of these "health insurance" companies will pay a portion of the whole salary, and if they fail to do their job of putting out every fire, no matter who's house it is, these health insurance companies will no longer pay the salaries of the fire fighters. This system doesn't have to be planned from the top-down either. It would be naturally emergent. The system would arrange itself, believe it or not, without bureaucrats or laws.
I'm cringing at the logical fallacy throughout this video. You are essentially arguing that no one can know the future as a red herring to distract from the argument of inductive or deductive reasoning. I'm not saying I disagree with you on private sector stuff... I'm just saying your argument is REALLY horribly formed.
I'm not sure if it's a red herring or a strawman... but it's fallacious either way.
@eagleeye1975 That's not the case at all, because a government fire protection service is a positive and exclusive monopoly, whereas private fire protection is not, it is a free market of open competition for the best solutions, it is an acceptance of ignorance of the future.
@daveyg07 - The local community will ensure that the local roads are good, it will be in their self-interest. Once they no longer have nanny state whom is EXPECTED to take care of your own responsibilities. Roads existed way before the state.
@lnd3005 Denmark is an example of a state which is doing just fine. As is Norway and Finland. And most states in the world, come to think of it. Repeating nonsense such as "All states fail" doesn't make it true.
@lnd3005 I could name over 50 governments/countries that I've personally visited. And very few that no longer exist. States and empires aren't the same thing.
Electric power required a genius like Tesla. English evolved from German. Those questions are really random.
The space program, both USA and USSR required the state. As did the American airline industry. And anything that required large funds without asking for anything in return.
As far as state run education goes, I can see that it has failed you.
The fire engine of the future may be totally irrelevant as buggy whips and wash boards are today. Heck ! Fire might be outlawed 100 years from now. It'll be the WMD of the future. Them that can afford it will have an Argon Bubble Effuser. (p.s. I haven't invented it yet)
My wife and I (and our 14month old daughter) LOVE listening to your rational arguments and truths. And often we can hardly wait for the next video post. Although, we would prefer you tone down the rants on sunday mornings :) Make it a family day, go easy on the coffee and lets discus libertarian parenting or something more positive than gloom and doom. Just a suggestion :)
philosophy teaches you to be humble??? I don't know??? Clearly you have no clue att all! The state is a form of collective answer to collective problems such as fires, social stability, care for the elder, etc. The problem of freedom is a perceived problem, it doesn't exsist. Freedom is a state of mind, it's a choice. You can be free, anytime you want to be. The problem of statism is in your mind and only in your mind. To argue about politics with politics is thinking within the box.
Clearly, you can still be free with the mafia nosing around your stuff if you keep paying them. "It's all in your mind! I don't even exist! Neither does the fire that will burn your restaurant if you fail to pay!" Jimmy, the protection money collector says.
in indonesia there are still villages with a "fire bell" . believe it or not some parts of the world don't even have roads let alone fire trucks. we don't have to imagine examples they exist right now
1) Things aren't collapsing in Canada or even in most of the US, only in parts of the US such as Detroit and sunbelt states that had construction bubble economies.
2) Most social services started out as volunteer communitie services, even most fire protection, but were taken over by the state because of the breakdown of communities esp. in big cities where people don't even know their neighbours. To go back to voluntary organisation, we would need to re-form true communities.
This was rather poor, and full of inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions. I'm anti-statist, but find little virtue in your arguments. Forced laughter and dersion won't fill the holes in your presentation, but perhaps that's less than relevant if you're simply playing to a fan-base on YT. The internet was a state-sponsored endevour, which you smugly glossed out.. Essential services were almost always creatures of municipal, regional or state governance. Spare me your pious mirror-gazing.
@flyhead2 incorrect. nearly every telephone cable on the planet was laid by a private company. try and use as many multi syllable words as you like it doesn't make you intelligent
@flyhead2 Certain services are essential for which when they were first starting out the government jumped to the front of the newly forming parade. They "usurped" the free market. The victors write the history books. Of course they are going to usurp credit by sponsoring what the free market is already pioneering.
Certain services are essential. It's not essential that government provide those services.
I agree with most of your comment, but I was attacking the speaker's lack of coherence and economy with the truth. This delivery was simply taudry preaching to the converted and basking in the spotlight, an ill-conceived and impotent rant. We deserve better, and the speaker is well capable of providing it, if he takes the effort.
If people knew the future = the world would already be a free, relaxed, open and a caring society - People cant even manage their own future and thoughts if they could there would be hardly any S t r e s s, why? What is stress = NOT KNOWING, think about any stressful situation and it all comes down to not knowing the outcome! Will I have a job next week, will I get paid, will she get better, what will i do if..!, will a big rock fall to earth in 2012, WILL I SURVIVE MY DEATH! Who "knows"?
@lnd3005 Easy, do any amateurish amount of research and you'd find out not much. The MPAA has nothing to do with the state, it's a bunch of wrinkly old men and stuck up mothers making up rules about politeness.
What the FCC does has nothing to do with movies since they're not on any airwaves so try again.
@lnd3005 Yes, it means it has nothing to do with the state. State court does not mean the state runs the parties in the case. That's a level of the judicial system. Please study up on that. It's important to know about.
Again, yes, I don't think filmmakers take tv censorship into account. What would be the point of that?
What about IP? Do you mean internet providers? What are you talking about?
Using state courts is something rarely done by organizations other than corporations, which fund the thugs who run the state. The MPAA is easily an organ of the state.
Correlation is not causation. While the crumbling of the state correlates to the reputation of Paris Hilton. I assure you the two are only slightly corelated and while the state may have caused the reputation of Paris Hilton to falter, vice versa is probably not the case.
I know how the future will look if violence is no longer used to solve problems. Better.
PluralOfEverything 1 month ago
The use of guns is not the problem. The lack of consciousness and IQ is. That is the very reason why there is a state. If we all had an IQ over 150 and Buddhist intention then there would be no need for Stefan Molyneux's stories at all. Fact is, state society found a solutions for life threats.
So basically Molyneux says that the use of violence is harmfull, but doesn't have practical solutions how to live with people who don't have a clue about the value of the none initiation of force.
TerrierBram 5 months ago
your point about future technology is great. except that the feds are now talking about governing the cell phone signals in the event of emergencies because, after 9/11, they discovered that the radio communications systems of the various fire and police personnel from different jurisdictions did not work together which hindered rescue efforts. in order to improve on that, the feds propose various fire and police department all use wireless broadband to communicate instead of local radio waves.
TrishtheDishNY 1 year ago
excellent! i love you!
TrishtheDishNY 1 year ago
@TrishtheDishNY #LOL #CUTE
zxcts 1 year ago
Well in truth men weren't offered a ride on those aforementioned freedom boats off of the titanic.
Xtro2005 1 year ago
This is a great argument, succinctly and passionately presented, with a truly powerful finale. It deserves far wider dissemination
gottogochild 1 year ago
@gottogochild He didn't make a single cogent argument for privatised fire departments. He just says "who knows what the future holds!!! it's crazy!!! i don't even know what to say!!! Government Propaganda!!! can u tell me who's going to win at the races tomorrow?!?!? can u tell me which stocks I should invest in?!! Back slowly away!!!"
It's dumbfounding that derision gets mistaken for lucid argument
BOZ11 1 year ago
@BOZ11 So, if I understand your comment correctly, you are deriding my praise because the fact that people mistake derision for cogent argument has deprived you of speech?
gottogochild 1 year ago
@gottogochild deprived me of speech? but i've spoken! i'm sure u think u have a point to make
BOZ11 1 year ago
in the movie Eagle Eye i was hoping the computer system would assassinate the corrupt and callous presidential cabinet but, sadly, i remembered i was watching a propagandistic statist film...
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
Paris Hilton determines the state of the world's governments, so that's why people care...
Kangarooman38 1 year ago
I am a little curious. I have been a fan of the videos for not all that long having discovered them relatively recently. What I want to know is what is your position on weapon ownership? I would like to think that I know already, but you have voiced a positive opinion concerning Chomsky so I am not fully sure.
steve0281 1 year ago
@steve0281 I'm sure he'll be in favour of owning weapons, as it's a private property issue.
davyjames 1 year ago
@davyjames I suspect that as well. Still, I would like to hear it from the man himself.
steve0281 1 year ago
"Gangs of New York" the movie is based on the early 20th-century book written by Herbert Asbury, who detailed the problems with the fire departments. It's not just made up by Scorcese.
KennyEazle 1 year ago
BRILLIANT AS ALWAYS!
FDRspanish 1 year ago
We can know that anarcho-capitalism won't work for the same reason you know that Communism would not work--by reasoning from first principles!
Think about it. What if one person hired a court to arbitrate and another hired a private army? What if the claimant hired competing courts? (If there was some protocol for disputes between courts, there would be a cartel--in effect, a state--rather competition!) Not to mention, a wealthy person could buy better justice on the market than a poor person.
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
Like hiring a judge, and a jury?
That would be not very fair I think.
There would be no need for an army.
Only governments wage wars.
People would be armed themselves, like Switserland.
john1230 1 year ago
@john1230 The wealthy would be satisfied with bearing arms personally as opposed to bearing arms at the head of an army, just like the wealthy (i.e. lords) did in the Middle Ages!
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
that happens now....
Emil246 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
Like others have said.. your "failure" scenario exists right now. Yet, you would not argue that the current system won't work? Is that because you prefer the current evil over the seemingly imperfect system of the anarcho-capitalism or do you actually believe the current system is working? Just look at family courts and what goes on in there... talk about cartels!
And to say this is arguing from first principles is Glenn Beck style stupidity.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Changing things takes a lot of work. So you want something better, not just the same thing that we have now.
Actually anarcho-capitalism would be WORSE. There would be an initial period in which the competition gets ironed out through warfare. Then there would be a return to a territorial monopoly on authorized force. And even after that, it would be STILL be worse because instead of electing the politicians, the politicians would be the oligarchy of security service businessmen.
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
Do you really think you are an original thinker to present this argument? How did the various an-cap folks.. (please specify names)... handle this question thus far? Did you care to find out, read, understand what you are trying to refute and then refute it?
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter No ancap thinker has adequately addresses the dichotomy inherent in anarcho-capitalism: either the private security forces compete creating war or cooperate creating a new state!
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@utubehayter - You see, there's nothing wrong with the current justice system. You just have to spend all of your life reading government legalies you'll never understand, lobbying congress men you'll never be able to afford to lobby, obey ever more oppressive taxes and regulations, and vote for some scumbag who has no incentive to actually do what he promised to do. Also, in ancapstan, widespread war is more profitable than solving disputes peacefully... somehow.
Shezmu 1 year ago
@Shezmu
Of course! Did you not know that anarchy means people killing each other on the streets for barely any reason at all? Somehow, the same people under a state become benevolent agents of hope, peace and change. It seems to me that these people generally believe that their fellow men are covert hyenas who barely control their bloodlust due to the fear of the tax-funded policeforce coming up and getting them.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
I specifically asked for names... It is practically impossible to consider ALL an-cap thinkers on this one issue.. let alone being sure that they are all "inadequate". If you want to dwell in your own bubble - please do so.. but there is no need to argue with folks who have studied the issue. It is a waste of time - and beyond getting folks to think that you are one ignorant person, achieves nothing.
If you want to argue, you have to study and not make ludicrous claims.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter It doesn't look like you want to convince people about the correctness of an-cap. Do you really think that everyone is gonna research every obscure an-cap thinker? Do you reject Communism without researching every obscure Communist thinker?
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
Why should I "want" to convince you of the correctness of an-cap? If you are a not going to be convinced by any an-cap thinkers, of which there are a good number that are highly convincing. If you don't find them good enough, then I am happy that you are not convinced of an-cap. Be whatever you want to be.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Good luck with your revolution then!
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
What revolution?
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter You know. Replacing the state with a system of anarchy.
HiddenAuthor 1 year ago
@HiddenAuthor
"a system of anarchy"? Why would I do that? It could be that you are finding it difficult to understand what anarchy is... Try and think of it as a totally voluntary society and not as "a system to replace the state".
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter What if we combined the best of every -ism today, and created something entirely new? Try looking at the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
I feel no need to combine anything. But you are welcome to try whatever you want. As long as you respect the life and property of other people, you can do whatever you want on what you own. As far as the Zeitgeist movement is concerned - it is the exact opposite of appealing to someone who knows how collectivist and anti-capitalist schemes work.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Yeah, that would be the source of it all. The invention of "property". How can you own anything, coming and leaving this world naked? The native indians never understood how the white man can "own" land. The idea of "propery" is the source of all human inequality and misery. Shared everything, given access to everything, would bring peace and true civilization to Earth. Time to upgrade: Earth 2.0
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Time to upgrade? No thanks. Abandoning the very good component in a flawed systems that has enabled flawed human beings to out compete all other living beings and survive non-living dangers, is not an upgrade. It is giving up on the very essence of humanity and adopting that of inconsequential beings like ants or bees.
I would hate to fight another human being for scarce food and to consider every live person a danger to my well being, so I better stay a free capitalist man.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Thats ok. I wouldn´t want to fight for survival either. But in a capitalist system we all fight eachother, for money, for jobs, for cheapest prices, deals, profitt, land, resources etc. How can you be free in a system that wage-slave all but the wealthiest? Every day you come to work, you clock in in a dictatorship, being a mundane slave for 7 hours or so, for a boss or "owners", where they earn more on you than you earn yourself. That´s not freedom.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@utubehayter Freedom is having your basic needs given to you unconditionally. Clean air, fresh water, housing, food and clothing. If you can imagine such a world, then we´re one step closer to it, because such a world is possible.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
I do not believe in labor theory of value and I heartily accept every teaching of the Austrian School of Economics. Your equating of competition with fighting.. only tells me that you never had to fight for anything. I have nothing against any employer of mine, past or present. In fact, they were all the best people I ever met in my life and treated and paid me to my satisfaction (or else I would have quit).
As to the definition of freedom - I do not want your commie junk.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter As we start to see all as one, all as small parts of a bigger organism and ecosystem called Earth, we will start to function for the greater good, instead of our own self-interest like cancer-cells in the body. It´s not communism I advocate. It´s a no-ism, or a one-ism if you need labeling. All money in the world could not buy the luxury we all would share in a Resource Based Economy.
thevenusproject dot kom
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Removing the name communism does not make it "no-ism" or "one-ism". Communism is communism, regardless of what you call it - it is totalitarianism. The "oneness" of all mankind, people acting without self-interest for the "greater good". Try distinguishing your ideal system from what is called communism and you will see they are identical. Economically the system is unviable - will cause mass starvation, deprivation and poverty. Morally it is bankrupt and tyrannical.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Yes, I totally agree with you. Communism *within* a monetary system will be totalitarianism. Because what we get is a wealthy "elite" who will exert political or military power. Every tried -ism has been within a monetary system. Moneytarism if you will. Right now USA have fascism, the merging of corporate and state power. But what if we abolished the monetary system and with it, it´s inequality? That way there would be no elite, and no totalitarianism.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
So now you want to talk about monetary system. Okay, I will after you tell me the solution to the 3 major "one" economy problems. The incentive problem, the knowledge problem and the calculation problem. Not all totalitarianism needs an elite. Democracy is an brilliant example of totalitarianism of the masses.
Also, I consider myself to be a natural elite, not one of the masses.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Please elaborate on the 3 major "one" economy problems.
There has never been a democracy. As long as the monetary system exists, the only candidates are those sponsored heavily enough to run a gigantic campaign, and hence those candidates are closely tied to corporate or financial interests.
If you are a natural elite, you probably understand the exponential power of two or more. Two guitars playing the same tones have exponential higher volume. As do people if we work together.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Thank god, there has never been a pure democracy. There is elaborate description of all 3 problems on-line. Look it up. It is quite evident that if you don't know of the 3 major (and there are whole lot of minor problems) with "one"-ism aka totalitarianism, that you don't know much about the system you are advocating.
Were you just swayed by the poetic descriptions or rosy pictures? Or even less than that?
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter I tried looking up what you refer to, but could not find anything concrete and relative to our discussion. Please send links if you wish me to read. For now, I will assume. Incentive - Albert Einstein was never fueled by profit incentive. In fact, great people and minds are rarely fueled by any economic incentive. The argument against, is that without the incentive, people will be lazy. Not true, we are all driven by some kind of passion, and with the right holistic education
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@utubehayter that passion can be used to elevate us all through our search of happiness and beauty through arts, science and craft. Knowledge - The scientific method of testing and ARRIVING at conclusions and decisions, is true knowledge. Plus adding the ingredient that everything is changing and in motion, and that many physical laws has been broken before, and could easily be broken again. Also, that we are in a symbiosis with the Universe and eachother, and that we are an emergent society.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Do you know what you are talking anymore? I cannot believe someone is this ignorant about the famous incentive problem, the calculation problem and the knowledge problem. Have you heard the name of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard? How about Bakunin?
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Thank you. Now we can all get a little less ignorant. First off, these guys are all dead, and their ideas was made early 1900. How could they possibly take into accord the super advent of technology and computers? If you study the Venus Project, you´ll see that all of these "problems" are solved. YouTube comment field is not big enough for me to explain the details of the solutions. Go research it ;)
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Alright, You convinced me to look it up. But it suffers the same drawbacks of socialism. Indeed it is socialism and states its goal to make people less individualistic. Also note that there are unsubstantiated claims of higher relative efficiency in non-profit based system - something that is a blatant lie. The ideas are pure fiction and a bad theory at best. If you want to follow it- that is your choice. This is not the first time something like this has been tried.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter I enjoyed reading about the guys you suggested I should read. Particularly liked that they promoted anarchy too. I would be so bold as to state once more that RBE (Resource Based Economy) has not been tried. I understand and see the links to socialism, as you do, but without a monetary system and the inequality it creates, it is still untried. It is also anarchy as you have no government and all the manufacturing is automated. Let me comment your remarks about efficiency...
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
And you think monetary unit has not been abolished in former socialist communes? What if they have tried that too? Will you give up this advocacy? lol! Did you ever consider that pure communism also has no monetary system?
Learn your history before repeating the same thing over and over again. The inherent fallacies are overwhelming. It is scientific socialism, all over again, this time with more talk of science and blatant lying about the profit system.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Please refrain from attacking my person. It only shows lack of arguements. If you can argue against the profit motive with facts, I´ll listen.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Why would I argue against the profit motive? Pretty much every commune.. for example look up "Christiania" - abolishes money. This "new idea" is as new as "the amazing new cow that has four legs" or "the benefits of dihydrogenmonoxide to human body". It is hard not to mock someone who thinks this is a radical new idea. Please spend the time to study the history of communalism and communism, so you can realize on your own that this is same old dog poop in a new wrapping.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Could you tell me more about where and when scientific socialism was tried before? And communisme without money? I am not out to "arrest" you, I wish to learn...
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
You have a lot to learn, at least you got that part. Good on you. Communism isn't just arresting dissenters. Just try this - compare the intentions of your venus project with that of early socialist advocacy, starting with Charles Fourier. These folks at venus project are simply rebranding his ideas, and like every communist experiment, they claim to have a "new idea", something that has not been tried before. And as expected, people unaware of communist history buy into it.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Thx. I looked through Fourier, and although similarities exists between his and Venus Project (VP), there are so many dis-similarities as well. Again, this is a man who died early 1800, and he was very hateful towards jews. I would again remind that VP is without inequality, be it value, race, belief etc., and that VP advocates that the technology we have today can set us free from labour. I cannot find that Scientific Socialism has been tried out before.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
Again - try finding out the Socialist Calculation problem, the incentive problem and the knowledge problem. These are up to date are unsolved after close to a 100 years. The implications of these problems on any non-profit, non-private property society are huge and devastating. Failure of the VP is guaranteed! They may solve the incentive problem by robotization, but the other two problem factors will draw so many resources to build robots that the whole thing will sink.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Ok. If you insist so strongly, I will do my very best to understand these problems. Write you later. ;)
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@utubehayter The calculation problem is simply put, the problem of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. VP advocates a centralized computersystem that monitors and distributes resources to where they are needed through a highly efficient and automated distributing system. Resources that depletes will be replaced by synthetical, or the resource usage problem will be addressed. Mises problem of calculation can be solved through this.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
You still do not get the point of these issues. I guess, I will have to let you either read human action, and then do some scientific research.. say to provide synthetically produced gold or even copper. Hey, if they can do that, why would they be collecting donations? Couldn't they just sell synthetic gold? After all if the theory is rock solid, then they ought to deliver
The easiest cure for people who think socialism can work - this way or that - is to let them try it.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter The knowledge problem is simply put, the problem of knowing what and how resources should be used and generated/extracted. Hayek argued that the price mechanism would itself guide society to knowledge and prosperity. And it has, to its´ maximum extent, but now is obsolete. It no longer works. A central computersystem that monitors these things will serve as a solution to this problem also. It seems technology is the emancipation of human kind.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
How do you know that price mechanism has guided society to its maximum extent? Do you really believe that computers are capable of telling the future? Or do you believe computers care if human beings live or die? It seems to me that your faith in computers is so naive as to imagine the "computer" as some sort of Oracle .. which it is not, has never been and probably will never be. Just throwing "computers" at fundamental economic problems does not solve them.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter The Profit motive includes planned obsolescence (repairs and breakdown makes for better profit), withholding of technology and progress (yeah, we´re still using oil and fuel, el-cars not profitable enough yet), scarcity (lets dump this food to keep prices high), problems (contaminated tap-water increases sales on bottled-water) and the upholding of status quo. As long as a problem is profitable, it will not be solved, and if the solution is not profitable, it will not be solved.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
I think this has gone on long enough. You want me to believe this VP has any science behind it... send me a 1 kilogram of gold - I don't care how they make it, as long as it is gold. It will be proof enough that the claims your are making have any science behind it.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter I did not mean "to make gold". I meant to replace either the resource with something else, or the project using resources into something else that used other resources. You can keep trying to make a fool of me, but it´s only yourself you´re fooling. What I speak of is beyond isms and the current belief system and indoctrination, and if you don´t understand it, it doesn´t matter. Evolution will happen regardless.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@BaldersHymn
No you are not beyond "isms".. no matter how many times you repeat that to yourself and others! I pointed out that what you are trying is "scientific" socialism or "scientific" collectivism if you want to be accurate. Of course you are not as blatantly stupid to believe they can create matter..which is good news. For your own sake, please do not put any of your own money into this.. you will loose it all. Other than that, your commune fails.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter I would humbly suggest a video that can explain this much better than I.
h t t p : / / vimeo. c o m /7857584
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@utubehayter Calculation - If this is not a self-explanatory mathematical expression, it could be Trends Forcasting as well. If you look at how earlier economic models have failed and collapsed, it should be obvious that this one is going the same direction. Free marked would only lead to what you fear, a totalitarianism by corporate monopoly. We are heading there really fast now. Other than that, calculation is easy. 1+1=3. Always.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
@utubehayter I was swayed by cold and hard scientific facts that the path we´re on now is suicide, by one way or another. Going back to find an old model of things "how it used to work", is no longer working. We have to find a new, sustainable way of living on Earth. We need to address the root causes of dis-ease and distress in our society, and inequality is responsible for over 95% of crimes. We need peace and equality for the first time in Earths history, or it´s finito.
BaldersHymn 1 year ago
Where "the People" are the ultimate authority, then anything the majority of the people want must become law. A problematic side-effect of this view is that lynch mobs are then examples of properly functioning democratic bodies as no limits are placed on the scope of the decisions being made.
shannoncal 1 year ago
It would be necessary for people to enter into a morality contract and find someone to enforce the moral contract.
shannoncal 1 year ago
So..is the argument that since we can't predict the future...it will just work on its own? I believe in free economy, but must have missed the arguement.
MrHappy702 1 year ago
In the UK we have life boats that are maned by volunteers. 4500 volunteers. Paid for by donations. We also have volunteer firefighters. If more people would be prepared to give to society instead of take, then the need for government would be diminished. And i do not mean giving money but ones self.
lendusaquid 1 year ago
"fire protection is collapsing all over the country"
Any source for that claim?
"Every movie...is made with goverment controlled and protected labor unions"
inaccurate, tinfoil-hatted paranoid claptrap.
"you have to look at the biases of the people who are presenting the information"
damn straight Stefan, damn straight.
billburns2 1 year ago
@stefbot "The system as a whole is collapsing." I understand what you mean to a point. But I am not sure it is "collapsing" to the point of collapse or if it is damaged, maimed like a wild animal only to turn more aggressive onto what it sees.
The fact is a significant number of people desire to be ruled by "Guns" and that demand is what got us here...and that demand in the future is what will give impetus for a "supply of Guns pointed at all of us" in the future.
qncsc 1 year ago
I like looking at what happened through the 1800s.
From bleeding to anesthetic, antiseptics and X-rays.
Flintlocks to machineguns, wooden ships to steel battleships and the Titanic.
Hot air balloons were just invented, to the edge of powered flight.
Clickity toy railroads on wooden rails to 100mph super engines traveling the globe.
Static electric spark toys to electric power for entire cities.
Pretend to know what will be impossible in 100 years? Absurd!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@stefbot You do know that the advancement and improvement of "Guns" will also improve over time and into the future, right? How is that countered: One cannot just keep one-half the equation fixed and think about freedom advancing, improving while not understanding that "Guns" will also advance, improve.
qncsc 1 year ago
Fire protection in the private sector might look a little bit like an ADT or Brinks Home Security service.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
Just because this is all we know does not mean it is all there is too know. We have to stop defending a broken system.
motorolarules 1 year ago
This fire department of the future is a realistic idea, I can see that the private sector has insurance, but the private "insurance collective" could also be something you BUY to protection service.
If they keep competitive and ethical it would certainly work, but right now too much of the private sector does not have to do anything ethical to capture or protect resources it gets, often directly from government.
Corporate and governmental power convergence as they have now, is coercion.
AlterEgoTrip 1 year ago
Do you have any evidence to back up the opinion that all states fail?
daryl74 1 year ago
Who would pay the firefighters their salary and for their equipment + gear? Especially in a town with little to no fires going on. If a town has little need for firefighters would their really be a variety of fire services to choose from, and a healthy amount of competition between them?
MetalsPlague 1 year ago
@MetalsPlague
Who knows?
lnd3005 1 year ago
Paris Hilton Bashing ftw!
diaverde09 1 year ago
I must be the only fascist who watches these videos.
MrWafflesMonster 1 year ago
You and your free society. I love watching these videos just for some laughs.
The government where I live doesn't have enough control, hence why I support a change - not to some lawless 'free society' but to a fascist government.
'Freedom' is a lie, you know that very well, no one is truely free, everyone is enslaved in some way.
Collective delusion combined with strong government is the only way foward.
Look at how happy the 'ethnic' germans were under hitler
(not that i sipport jew killing)
MrWafflesMonster 1 year ago
@MrWafflesMonster Heil Hitler!
younitehumanity 1 year ago
@younitehumanity Haha I wouldn't bring hitler back only his propaganda machine and the people responsible for his popular policy
MrWafflesMonster 1 year ago
@MrWafflesMonster They were happy because he brought them out of the 30's depression, which was caused mainly by governments. Hitler and his government continued on, to start the war and put Germany back into a state of depression. He gave the Ethnic Germans money, wealth, and opportunity at the expense of others (such as Jew's, poles, Russians, and other nationalities).
MetalsPlague 1 year ago
It's a good argument but it seems like a total cop-out, so it's useless.
KraljevicPavle 1 year ago
I could imagine that a free society would work if everybody would be employed and work for 2 hours a day to maintain roads, fire dept. hospitals, construction, agriculture etc...etc... We could have everything practically for free like Phone, Internet, TV, Water, Sewage, Food, electricity and so on if we would only work as much as is needed to maintain abundance and basic necessities for all instead of working for profit. With the remaining time we could spend time with friends and families.
younitehumanity 1 year ago
@younitehumanity we wouldn't have to work at all. We could develop robots to develop robots that do all of our "work" and we, as humans, could enjoy all of our time doing things we like to do.
Travis123086 1 year ago
@Travis123086 As of now, we don't have robots to do this but during the transition period we will all have to do the jobs that keep us fed, clothed and sheltered. If everybody pitches in their time to make a free society work, then the less we will have to work. Advertisement, Insurance, banking, crime prevention etc...will for the most part be obsolete.
younitehumanity 1 year ago
@younitehumanity
What if someone doesn't want to work for the common good?
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 If you create a society or world of wisdom, intelligence, security and technological advancement...I can asure you that nobody would want to be lazy and do nothing. If the entire human race has the oportunity to explore space and other planets then people will beg to be part of the galactic comunity.
younitehumanity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@younitehumanity
You didn't answer my question.
lnd3005 1 year ago
Well...in fact, todays firefighters are not there to put out fires for the population...they are there to put out fires for the insurance companies. If you knew the how these insurance companies work, then you would now what I mean.
younitehumanity 1 year ago
Hopfully robots will be able to put out the fires.
dodododa 1 year ago
In support of the argument I would point out that all modern government is reactionary government. We didn't build roads because we thought they may be neeeded. We built them because they were already needed. The FAA didn't materialize out of thin air for air travel safety. It was formed in the 20's after a string of disasters. Independant commisions could have fulfilled the same role and patrons would have the options to use only independantly certified airlines... or crash and die.
MisterAvis 1 year ago
I am a professional firefighter. My station has been close eight times so far this year. Stef is right.
billyjoeallen 1 year ago
A WILDMAN I tell ya!
hamletundone 1 year ago
Your rant was worthless. The only point of note was at the end when you said use of force to control people is bad. Yes, it is bad and it is going to get worse. To expect anything else flies in the face of human history.
tuubydude 1 year ago
@tuubydude
History is an ascent.
lnd3005 1 year ago
stefbot, firestations don't inhibit my personal choice. Firemen don't tell me what politics I am to participate in or what cults to join. Its not a threat to my freedom. People on the left are natural fascist in that they believe everything is in the state which includes your own personal will. There is no separation between state will and personal will in their thinking.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
You are forced to pay for monopoly fire protection whether you want it or not. That inhibits your personal choice whether or not you are aware of the fact. I am a professional firefighter. You have no idea how much of your tax dollars are pissed away by the Fire department. I know of captains who drive Ferraris and do four hours work in a 24 hour shift.
billyjoeallen 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen In that respect yes. You are forced to participate in the monopoly but that monopoly doesn't come to your home and violate your freedom at any time.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn only it violates your freedom, because you are forced to pay. Otherwise you get shot in a head for not paying taxes.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@MaikUniversum Its not the same as other government programs like Obamacare and other programs that are designed to control people.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
I think a reasonable option would be to include it as part of one's home owner's insurance. That provides for an incentive to utilize effective fire prevention (detectors, extinguishers, home monitoring systems, etc), as well as fire crews with proven reliability. That same system could be used to reimburse local non-profit volunteer crews, large corporate crews, or whatever the circumstances may be. Insurance is meant to protect large investments.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
The "Stateist" argument isn't that free market fire company's won't be able to work in 200 years. We are saying that they won't work right NOW. We don't want free market fire company's NOW.
Stateists are simply arguing solve problems in the here and now with solutions in the here and now. A stateless society would be great, but in the here and now it would cause more problems than it solves.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs how do you know it would cause more problems? Are you an all knowing God? We didn't get a chance to try. But what we did get is a chance to try BIG VIOLENT GOVERMENT, and that clearly doesn't work AT ALL.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@MaikUniversum We did have a chance to try free-market volunteerism. Humans created government. It was a choice. Humans existed before government, that is when "we" had our chance. It didn't work very well, so we created governments to help solve the problems. It wasn't a great solution, but it was better than no solution at all.
It took more than 3000 years to abolish chattel slavery and it's still not completely gone. Once problems like wage slavery are completely gone, then gov is next.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
It could work now. You should read Stefan's free online book Practical Anarchy. But Stefan is assuming a Voluntaryist society won't arise until 100s of years from now. And I disagree with this...
FlashVirus 1 year ago
I'm completely on your side when I say this, stefbot, but your counter argument is empty. There is no argument you are making other than "that will be taken care of by magic technology in the future."
I think what statists are saying when they say "fire fighting is infeasible under anarchy", they literally mean next week, not 50 or 100 years from now.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
And there are legitimate answers to "how will we have fire fighters under anarchy next week?" that don't resort to an Argument Ad DeLorean.
Health insurance companies will evolve to incorporate every aspect of civilization to reduce the costs of health care which includes catching sexual predators, murderers, and thieves since Societal Wellness will be covered as part of individual health if the insurance companies want to compete for customers.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
Under that system, the payment to these insurance companies would end up being cheaper than current taxes FOR BETTER SERVICE, because of the nature of competition. Individual fire fighters will apply for licenses to be contracted by the insurance companies and fire fighters wont fight with each other because they are all being paid a salary rather than a commission by ALL the competing insurance companies.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
Each of these "health insurance" companies will pay a portion of the whole salary, and if they fail to do their job of putting out every fire, no matter who's house it is, these health insurance companies will no longer pay the salaries of the fire fighters. This system doesn't have to be planned from the top-down either. It would be naturally emergent. The system would arrange itself, believe it or not, without bureaucrats or laws.
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
I'm cringing at the logical fallacy throughout this video. You are essentially arguing that no one can know the future as a red herring to distract from the argument of inductive or deductive reasoning. I'm not saying I disagree with you on private sector stuff... I'm just saying your argument is REALLY horribly formed.
I'm not sure if it's a red herring or a strawman... but it's fallacious either way.
eagleeye1975 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975 So your position is that people who claim that something will be impossible 100 years from now are right?
stefbot 1 year ago
@stefbot Another strawman. I am not claiming that at all.
To illustrate the problem with your argument...
They say "You can't know that private fire protection could work in 100 years!"
I say "You can't know that government fire protection could work in 100 years!"
Both are true statements, on opposite sides of the argument, thus the argument is pretty much void.
eagleeye1975 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975 That's not the case at all, because a government fire protection service is a positive and exclusive monopoly, whereas private fire protection is not, it is a free market of open competition for the best solutions, it is an acceptance of ignorance of the future.
stefbot 1 year ago 4
@stefbot In that case, make THAT argument instead...
eagleeye1975 1 year ago
Another great video, Stef, but you need to shave your stubble :P
TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 year ago
All I have to say is... who will build the roads?
daveyg07 1 year ago
@daveyg07 the firemen of course! ;)
stefbot 1 year ago
@daveyg07 - The local community will ensure that the local roads are good, it will be in their self-interest. Once they no longer have nanny state whom is EXPECTED to take care of your own responsibilities. Roads existed way before the state.
28318511 1 year ago
@28318511 haha, I know. I just love when people who can't wrap their heads around these ideas bring up this argument (and similar).
daveyg07 1 year ago
@daveyg07 - No bother mate.
Love it all stef.
28318511 1 year ago
Please look at NoMoreSunset's video: Anarcho-Capitalism Will NOT Work
this rhetoric is not , as Stefan would say, argument.
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime Perhaps you can ask him to drop by my Sunday show and help me understand! :)
stefbot 1 year ago
@stefbot Haha, how sexist! It's a young lady!
The video is only a click away, I think it's kinda summed up there...
: )
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime quite right, thanks for the correction!
stefbot 1 year ago
Yes. The American state is failing. No the state is not failing all around the world. There is a world outside of America.
Wasn't the internet made by the state?
daryl74 1 year ago
@daryl74
Was English? How about electric power?
All states fail. The US is just one example, of thousands.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 Denmark is an example of a state which is doing just fine. As is Norway and Finland. And most states in the world, come to think of it. Repeating nonsense such as "All states fail" doesn't make it true.
All empires fail. States do just fine.
daryl74 1 year ago
@daryl74
States and empires are the same thing, in their essence. Mafia.
For every existing state you name, how many could name that no longer exist?
States do just fine?
"I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would have to say about that."
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 I could name over 50 governments/countries that I've personally visited. And very few that no longer exist. States and empires aren't the same thing.
You're an idiot.
daryl74 1 year ago
@daryl74
So, you can only name a few governments that have failed. And you say my education has failed me. Where were you in history class?
lnd3005 1 year ago
Electric power required a genius like Tesla. English evolved from German. Those questions are really random.
The space program, both USA and USSR required the state. As did the American airline industry. And anything that required large funds without asking for anything in return.
As far as state run education goes, I can see that it has failed you.
daryl74 1 year ago
@daryl74
Any more random than you asking about the internet?
That is funny. You saying state programs ask for nothing in return.
You're right. They don't ask.
Has anyone ever called you dumb, or slow? If so, how did you feel about it?
lnd3005 1 year ago
The fire engine of the future may be totally irrelevant as buggy whips and wash boards are today. Heck ! Fire might be outlawed 100 years from now. It'll be the WMD of the future. Them that can afford it will have an Argon Bubble Effuser. (p.s. I haven't invented it yet)
tenagliac 1 year ago
My wife and I (and our 14month old daughter) LOVE listening to your rational arguments and truths. And often we can hardly wait for the next video post. Although, we would prefer you tone down the rants on sunday mornings :) Make it a family day, go easy on the coffee and lets discus libertarian parenting or something more positive than gloom and doom. Just a suggestion :)
AcupunctureEdu 1 year ago
If we continue to use threats and violence and coercion and Paris Hilton in the future, it'll look bad, yes.
not2tees 1 year ago
When I saw this title I thought you were going to talk about Fahrenheit 451
nhmllr725 1 year ago
@nhmllr725 me to :)
bunsh1ch1 1 year ago
The town I grew up in has always had a voluntary fire department that has always provided competent service.
zonsb 1 year ago
philosophy teaches you to be humble??? I don't know??? Clearly you have no clue att all! The state is a form of collective answer to collective problems such as fires, social stability, care for the elder, etc. The problem of freedom is a perceived problem, it doesn't exsist. Freedom is a state of mind, it's a choice. You can be free, anytime you want to be. The problem of statism is in your mind and only in your mind. To argue about politics with politics is thinking within the box.
sowiesosso 1 year ago
@sowiesosso
Clearly, you can still be free with the mafia nosing around your stuff if you keep paying them. "It's all in your mind! I don't even exist! Neither does the fire that will burn your restaurant if you fail to pay!" Jimmy, the protection money collector says.
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
@sowiesosso While I agree in part, i think the state is capitalism, the state of "whoever gets to print the money".
While Money exists, so does state-ism.
Money makes the inherently dynamic concept of value, static. Or "state-"ic. That's not just a poor pun...
Watch No moresunsets latest video: Anarcho-Capitalism Will NOT Work
It's ggreat : )
natmanprime 1 year ago
in indonesia there are still villages with a "fire bell" . believe it or not some parts of the world don't even have roads let alone fire trucks. we don't have to imagine examples they exist right now
superfuzz 1 year ago
1) Things aren't collapsing in Canada or even in most of the US, only in parts of the US such as Detroit and sunbelt states that had construction bubble economies.
2) Most social services started out as volunteer communitie services, even most fire protection, but were taken over by the state because of the breakdown of communities esp. in big cities where people don't even know their neighbours. To go back to voluntary organisation, we would need to re-form true communities.
Ape65 1 year ago
awesome stuff :D
AderZen 1 year ago
This was rather poor, and full of inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions. I'm anti-statist, but find little virtue in your arguments. Forced laughter and dersion won't fill the holes in your presentation, but perhaps that's less than relevant if you're simply playing to a fan-base on YT. The internet was a state-sponsored endevour, which you smugly glossed out.. Essential services were almost always creatures of municipal, regional or state governance. Spare me your pious mirror-gazing.
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2 incorrect. nearly every telephone cable on the planet was laid by a private company. try and use as many multi syllable words as you like it doesn't make you intelligent
superfuzz 1 year ago
@superfuzz
The internet was developed by the US military. Look it up. It might not make you more intelligent but you may just learn something new.
Sorry for all the syllables.
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2 Certain services are essential for which when they were first starting out the government jumped to the front of the newly forming parade. They "usurped" the free market. The victors write the history books. Of course they are going to usurp credit by sponsoring what the free market is already pioneering.
Certain services are essential. It's not essential that government provide those services.
zonsb 1 year ago
@zonsb
I agree with most of your comment, but I was attacking the speaker's lack of coherence and economy with the truth. This delivery was simply taudry preaching to the converted and basking in the spotlight, an ill-conceived and impotent rant. We deserve better, and the speaker is well capable of providing it, if he takes the effort.
flyhead2 1 year ago
If people knew the future = the world would already be a free, relaxed, open and a caring society - People cant even manage their own future and thoughts if they could there would be hardly any S t r e s s, why? What is stress = NOT KNOWING, think about any stressful situation and it all comes down to not knowing the outcome! Will I have a job next week, will I get paid, will she get better, what will i do if..!, will a big rock fall to earth in 2012, WILL I SURVIVE MY DEATH! Who "knows"?
peace*
TIGDIF 1 year ago
Jules Verne got a lot of it right :-p
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
Films are controlled? Okay, now you've dove off the deep end.
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
@qtzlctl2012
How do you think IP is enforced?
Also, what does the FCC do?
And how in-bed with the state would you guess the MPAA is?
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 Easy, do any amateurish amount of research and you'd find out not much. The MPAA has nothing to do with the state, it's a bunch of wrinkly old men and stuck up mothers making up rules about politeness.
What the FCC does has nothing to do with movies since they're not on any airwaves so try again.
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
@qtzlctl2012
So when the MPAA was suing a bunch of people in state courts, that had nothing to do with the state?
The FCC has nothing to do with movies? Are movies played on television? If so, then do you think the movie industry takes that into account, or not?
I notice you said nothing about IP.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 Yes, it means it has nothing to do with the state. State court does not mean the state runs the parties in the case. That's a level of the judicial system. Please study up on that. It's important to know about.
Again, yes, I don't think filmmakers take tv censorship into account. What would be the point of that?
What about IP? Do you mean internet providers? What are you talking about?
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
@qtzlctl2012
Using state courts is something rarely done by organizations other than corporations, which fund the thugs who run the state. The MPAA is easily an organ of the state.
What is the point of making money?
Intellectual property.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 That's dumb. That would mean everything corporations do is "of the state."
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
Correlation is not causation. While the crumbling of the state correlates to the reputation of Paris Hilton. I assure you the two are only slightly corelated and while the state may have caused the reputation of Paris Hilton to falter, vice versa is probably not the case.
lordmetroid 1 year ago