I don't like the statement that morality goes out the window as soon as there's a gun in the room. Of course there is morality when you're at gunpoint and someone asks you where your wife is. If say you have two choises, lie or tell the truth. Telling the truth will probably get your wife killed and to lie would save her. However lying is as said immoral but killing is also immoral. The moral superior choice is the one that leads to saving as many lives as possible, meaning morality is to lie.
@onaqui If there's no morality there then the person at gunpoint would do an equally moral choice to tell the murderer where his wife is, inflicting death upon her. Morality is in the consequences and saving her life is the moral superior choice. If there is no moral issue (and he can choose freely between two bads) then very weird things follow. Ex a captain on a sinking ship has a lifeboat he's the only one able to drive. It can hold 10 people but there are 11 on the ship.
@onaqui Stefans argument here says that he can choose freely between going alone, taking as many people as possible, not go at all or somewhere in between. The obvious moral choice here is to take as many as possible, because morality still applies and you're bound to save as many as possible.
The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"and found people naïve enough to believe him,that man was the true founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars,and murders,from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind,by pulling up the stakes,or filling up the ditch,and crying to his fellows:Beware of listening to this impostor;you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all,and the earth itself to nobody.
@bozolazic So that computer you're typing on right now doesn't belong to you specifically, it belongs to everyone? Since everyone includes me, I'm going to come take it from you. I'll live in your house --- oops, I mean, my house --- while I'm at it.
@RKAddict101 My reason teaches me that land cannot be sold. The Great Spirit gave it to his children to live upon and cultivate as far as necessary for their subsistence, and so long as they occupy and cultivate it they have the right to the soil, but if they voluntarily leave it then any other people have the right to settle on it. Nothing can be sold, except things that can be carried away.
@bozolazic You start off talking about reason and then speak of "The Great Spirit." Also, land can be carried away, it's just a little more difficult. Also, thanks for letting me use it, that's really nice of you.
@Deadwind002 Some of our chiefs make the claim that the land belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told me. He told me that the lands belong to Him, that no people owns the land; that I was not to forget to tell this to the white people when I met them in council.
@bozolazic. In a spiritual sense, no one owns anything. As for surviving, we need property rights to protect the land that we USE, not OWN, that is justly acquired in order to protect other rights, like life and surviving.
@Deadwind002 You have no rights.Rights are make believe.Does this apply to poor people? Where I live the so-called free land is called Crown land, based upon theft with very little voluntary exchange.So at least we agree that nobody owns the land.
I think the points made in the article about potential real aggression being committed under the guise of the 'non-aggression principle' are valid. There's no such thing as a perfect system really. That's why real solutions to our problems may be more personal than systematic which you mentioned in the Ron Paul vid. Market anarchism seems to to be the most just 'system' but it's conceivable that injustice could go down within it if people act like jerks.
However the person who wrote this critique probably favors another system with just as much or more potential for violence and injustice which he or she is blind to.
I think the main red flag that socialists (both individualistic and communist) see in anarcho-capitalist private property rights theory is that it allows massive accumulation by certain individual(s) which will result in a skewing of bargaining power in favor of the owners of (for example) land. This being the case, mega-owners will have the ability to act as a defacto state imposing brutal conditions of work upon the masses... do you have a strong rebuttal to this argument?
@laskji If the problem we're worried about is "massive accumulation of capital by certain individuals resulting in the skewing of bargaining power in favor of owners", then the last thing you should do is grant a monopoly on the initiation of force to a certain group, because they will use it to accumulate massive amounts of capital which will skew the bargaining power in favor of those owners of capital. Economic inequality is a problem for any society, but it's exacerbated by the state.
@purebacon Thanks for the response, I didn't make it clear, but I was referring to the opinions of anarcho-socialists, both communistic and individualistic in the style of (for example) Emma Goldman, or Benjamin Tucker. I was not referring to statist -socialists. They argue that even without the state, such accumulation will be possible through the free market... the result being corruption brought about by concentration of money and power in one organ etc. etc.
@purebacon Not saying I agree or do not agree with this idea, but the anarcho-socialists do have a legitimate point that inequality does not seem very appealing as it gives rise to an ability to exploit others - for example starvation wages etc. I think this is where an-caps need to work, they need to show that private property rights (as distinguished from use and possession rights) won't give rise to the same exploitative results we now see in state-capitalism.
@laskji It's already been shown that free markets lead to prosperity which raise the standard of living for everybody. Just look at the Americans who live with earnings below "poverty" level compared to the truly poor in other countries. It got that way because of freedom. The exploitation that happens today isn't because of "capitalism" which doesn't even truly exist. It's because of corporatism where the big money-makers use the influence of cash to control the government.
@purebacon Not saying I agree or do not agree with this idea, but the anarcho-socialists do have a legitimate point that inequality does not seem very appealing as it gives rise to an ability to exploit others - for example starvation wages etc. I think this is where an-caps need to work, they need to show that private property rights (as distinguished from use and possession rights) won't give rise to the same exploitative results we now see in state-capitalism.
Stef, "people don't really do this" is an unsatisfying response to the objection you're trying to answer. When you step on my sidewalk to walk toward my door, you're acting on a reasonable expectation of my intent. You don't have my explicit permission to do this, but you can reasonably expect to have my implicit consent. If I don't want people stepping on my sidewalk, I need to differentiate myself from the norm in my expression of this intent for my property, perhaps by building a wall.
Q: In a stateLESS society, will we not have the formation of an oligarchy? My basis for this conclusion is basically what some learned from the exciting books "Lord of The Flies" and "Battle Royal"-That is, there are weak and strong, so the strong rise and shelter the weak for their alms, and eventually end up farming them forcefully. Statelike??
@biblioarbitrage NAP makes no judgement about guns, which are neutral tools, like knives. The user of the tool is the moral factor. A stateless society will only work efficiently if people feel safe and respected. A cultural acceptance of the NAP is the best safeguard of community good will and cooperation. Guns, like knives, can facilitate cooperativeness where the NAP is not consistently honored.
I have a question about property rights regarding land rights.
Lets take a look in Africa with a particular "land grab" problem. There Corporations (for example NFC) bully people away from there homes, remove the houses and plant farms of their own there. Leaving the families uncompensated. How would a society deal with this problem?
the purpose of this is entertainment and hypothesis. ultimately it fails to accurately describe human interaction. it is based on moral premises that are just idealized models of reality. it's a utopian pipe dream with an almost religious fervor constructed to appeal to those with a collectivist sense of values and justice. there is another way to see the world... recognize the brutality in human nature. accept violence and aggression as part of life.
You look like Jack Bauer in this video. What with the scruffy beard and wavin all those imaginary guns around! Ha! Seriously though, great video. The last 3 minutes were really important. Thanks.
@stefbot: In sight that you are addressing your critics, It would be awesome if you could respond to these two stronger criticisms of self-ownership and the NAP:
Happy BDay Stef! FreedomainRadio changed my life, after few years of intellectual laziness in my life I've started to use my brain again! Indeed, you're providing the best philosophical discussion on the web. Best wishes for U and your family!
@MyDormantSoul i don't need a government, nor do i want one. you might, and that is fine with me, as long as i am free to choose to not have one. you may what you want with your body, your mind, your property. please extend the same ideological courtesy to me.
@MyDormantSoul 'Abolish' is an interesting term. It implies an entity with the authority to restrict the participation in an activity. There won't be any such thing. 'The State' is a chimera. The individuals who agree that it exists give it artificial life and authority. The story of our need for it is a toxic meme. A voluntary, open-source infrastructure will replace it, because it (The State) is outdated, inefficient, and counter to the progress of humans in evolutionary terms. (cont'd)
@MyDormantSoul I came at this from different position from Stefan - based in a non-religious, non-dogmatic, yet spiritual understanding of the evolution of consciousness. It is apparent to me that developing a self-governing character structure (ala Reich) is the work of each individual human, in psycho-spiritual terms. The more people who engage in the process of reaching maturity, or self-accountability, the more our reality will reflect that. It is happening. The chimera disintegrates.
what about when someones ownership of property affects the rest of the "free society" negatively
In Glasgow we have a place which is really scenic and this company is putting up big appartments beside it which no one likes and everyone is petitioning to have it stopped, but by all rights THEY own the property , they bought it and can do what they like with it, and everyone else cna go hang
what if your "wee shortcut" saved you (and everyone) 4 hours would you have to buy that tract?
you cannot win with codified law. you recognise common sense within law, equity, law of reason, law of God beyond any codified rights stautes or acts.
If you cant do this, if you cant just call a spade a spade you remain backwards.
If you agress against someone in a free society, I think that your insurance company and your victim's insurance company would carry out thorough investigations and hold some serious discussions with you. If found guilty of serious wrongdoing, you may find yourself bankrupt, without a bank account, without legal protection, etc. The punishment would be ostracism from mainstream society, and the transter of your assets to your vicim (via insurance policies).
Non-aggression isn't universally proffered behavior because clearly there are people who prefer aggression to the lack of it, and aggressive people don't have any obligation to respect other people's property. There's no universal morality only egoist interests of the individuals, that's why property rights arise and are needed, so we can defend our egoist interests. Not because they're 'moral'.
@GompCelticPL It is universally preferred for individuals. No one wants to be aggressed AGAINST - that is what is universal. A thief STILL believes in property rights, just only his own.
@YJohannM But some people prefer to agrees against other people, and they don't have any reason not to do it except for their interest (being arrested, shot, having bad feelings about it etc.) so no, lack of aggression isn't universally proffered. The will to not be subjected to other people's aggression is simple egoism, and that is what's universal.
Not EVERYBODY wants to agress against others, but EVERYONE wants people not to agress against them. Aggression against others is not universally preferable. Not becoming a victim of aggression IS universally preferable. In order for nobody to become a victim, nobody else must aggress. No matter how you try to justify holding on to your belief that there is no universal morality that excludes violence, you are just fooling yourself.
@tridentmovies The reason your use of the word "egoism" is faulty is because it is completely vague and generalistic. Not wanting to be aggressed against is universal, but "egoism" is a generalistic term for many behaviors, most of which are NOT universal. Therefor you are committing the fallacy of generalization by claiming not being agressed against is "egoist" and "egoism" is universal. It is also begging the question as well as a non-sequitur.
@tridentmovies Never mind...I just read you next reply. Still though, how about you? Do you think the species will gain "virtue" as those that accept reason and evidence have? I don't want to sound elitist, but I actually DO believe that "our" brains (those of us that accept the NAP) are actually biologically different and somewhat unique in terms of mass-humanity. That's why we see truth that others cannot and will not.
@tridentmovies I agree with you as well... Jeeeeeeezzzzz...I'm confused. I did think that his use of "egoism" was spot on, though. Can you please explain where he is wrong?
@GompCelticPL "The will to not be subjected to other people's aggression is simple egoism, and that is what's universal."
That is an amazing point, which I have not considered. I believe you are absolutely correct! That is the way it is in reality. Thank YOU! How do you suppose "we" will evolve from this egoism, and into true virtue as a species? I hope it happens. Though I'm sure it won't in our lifetimes...
@YJohannM I don't think it's logically possible to evolve out of egoism. I recommend you a book called The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner. There are some parts of it on youtube.
/watch?v=lNiyxnxId_4
A truly virtues specie is an egoist one, one that fulfills his ego by doing good to people.
@GompCelticPL Thank you very much. I would also recommend this book by psychologist Julian Jaynes - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
That may actually give you some hope about the possibility of human physical brain evolution. We come from animals after all. The further away in biological time we get, the better off we will be.
@GompCelticPL I have checked out your profile. I think we are very similar in views. Actually I think the vast majority of us here that are drawn to Stef are similar. This is exciting discovery, is it not? Almost makes me "buy into" a "Free State Project". I feel we truly must get away from the mass-man, who will never change in our lifetimes.
@GompCelticPL I think Ayn Rand was just from a different time. Much like Jefferson, and the Anti-Federalists. If they were alive today perhaps they would support NAP completely. Same with Ayn...however, she was a little flaky in her personal relationships; and having actual "worshipers" at your feet is sure to go to one's head. LOL
@GompCelticPL Stef is not saying that some people don't want to be aggressive against other people. This is not what the non-aggression principle states. The non-aggression principle states "the initiation of the use of force is wrong". The reason the initiation of the use of force is wrong, is because it is not preferred by anyone to have force initiated against them. This is because in order for something to be "force", it, by definition is not preferable.
@GiANtTWiNkY This is just retarded non sequitur Sir. What is wrong and good is purely subjective, and if I want to initiate force than to me it's 'good'. The fact that no one wants force to be initiated on him doesn't in any way prove that people don't want to initiate force on others. Any if there are those who do want to do it, and it's profitable to then then NAP isn't in no way universal, as it does not apply to every human being. There is also no universal definition of 'wrong'.
@GompCelticPL Stef is not saying that some people don't want to be aggressive against other people. This is not what the non-aggression principle states. The non-aggression principle states "the initiation of the use of force is wrong". The reason the initiation of the use of force is wrong, is because it is not preferred by anyone to have force initiated against them. This is because in order for something to be "force", it, by definition is not preferable.
@DaveElectric Yes, I see your point here. But the thief may believe in property rights in that he now claims that his stolen loot belongs to him, and to him alone. In the mind of the thief, he would want his "property" protected. Would you agree?
@GompCelticPL Yes, there are people who prefer to initiate force against other people, but there isn’t a single person who would prefer to have force initiated against them.
Take theft as an example. Say somebody wants (would prefer) someone else to take their belongings. If somebody takes their belongings, this is not theft, it is charity. Only when somebody does not want (would not prefer) somebody else to take their belongings, and someone does take their belongings does this become theft.
@GiANtTWiNkY This is why you can’t say that theft is universally preferred behaviour... because in order for theft to be theft, it by definition has to be non-preferable. The same goes for having “force” initiated against you. For something to be force, it has to be resisted, i.e. not preferred... therefore it can’t be preferable.
@GiANtTWiNkY You and I are on the same wavelength here. Good to see one's own views and understanding shared.
Boy, there are some very intelligent folks that post here. Aside from the occasional Marxist trying to "challenge us all" (LOL), you folks are top-notch in terms of critical thinking.
I'm not saying theft is universally preferred behavior it'd be just as retarded as to say lack of aggression is universally preferred. There's no universally preferred behavior, because people have different ideas of good and wrong. And there's no morality because there's no reason or obligation to accept any except for the interest of one's own ego.
@GompCelticPL Actually Stefan tries to make the case that Non-aggression is universally PREFERABLE not that is is in fact universally preferred. Those are two completely different things.
I will agree though that property rights arise from the egoism of the masses to some extent. The egoism of the masses is also how property rights are undermined.
@DaveElectric Universally preferable means preferable for everyone, and it's not. Otherwise you say it's 'universally' preferable because it produces best outcomes for most people but this is simple utilitarianism, and of course something that's best for most (not everybody) isn't universal. And besides there's absolutely no reason why anyone would accept any 'morality' universal or not, except to please his/her ego by not being arrested or simply feeling 'moral'.
@GompCelticPL "Universally preferable means preferable for everyone, and it's not. Otherwise you say it's 'universally' preferable because it produces best outcomes for most people but this is simple utilitarianism, and of course something that's best for most (not everybody) isn't universal."
This is very difficult, I agree. I don't believe that the "is-ought problem" has a solution. What is your take on the matter? As I've just now begun to "dig into" egoism...
@YJohannM It's not a problem to me at all. It happens that natural, liberty and so on bring about the most prosperity and peace, and for some egoist reason I value those things. Egoism is man's nature but part of it, is also some sense of compassion. So there's no need to contemplate on something that nature has already solved. There is no universal morality, only egoism and out of a psychological or psychical need people accept or make 'morals'. So do I for my self interest.
@GompCelticPL I continue to be amazed at the level of discourse here. I must tell you, that I encounter no one in my daily life even approaching this level of depth and understanding. The internet is great, isn't it?
Perhaps egoism will affect more in the same way it has affected us. That they would seek to use it for self-control, rather than the control of others. Certainly self-control is much more "preferable"? At least to us it is...LOL
@GompCelticPL You said non-aggression wasn't universally PREFERRED. That's not the same thing as being universally PREFERABLE. Two completely different things.
@GompCelticPL You said non-aggression wasn't universally PREFERRED. That's not the same thing as being universally PREFERABLE. Two completely different things.
You people seem to forget that we are mammals, and that so long as we are mammals we will compete, and as long as we compete there will be violence, for that is the way of mother nature. your ideal that we are somehow better than what we actually are is ludicrous - denial at best. Although it has been argued much I still have not seen anyone WILL themselves out of being a mammal.
How do these ideas work in a society where a small minority of psychopaths historically rise to the top and manipulate the rest – Hitler,Bush,Cameron, Blair etc are just individuals carefully selecting top down psychopath underlings that ultimately manipulate the ignorant poor masses to kill other poor folk.
imo ownership can but lead to a greed based society of negative enforcement, by either threats of violence or deprivation of necessities of life.
You can only have others to agree to not do something like trespass, through a contract for instance... but you can't impose said obligations of not trespassing on someone who hasn't consented, without voiding the principle of non-initiation of force.
Anyway, ownership is a inseparable fiction of the state,
@qui3tude No, ownership is an inseparable fiction of the law.
Every society is based on either threats of violence or deprivation of the necessities of life (even the U.S.S.R had to punish the loafers somehow). Those that are criminal and/or unproductive need to be dealt with no matter what society you live in.
Obviously the NAP is useless without a more advanced moral framework.
Sorry but I have to ask (he says with a tremble in his voice) ... what do you think of the view that 'property rights' must ultimately derive from an act of violence/aggression, and that the idea of a 'self' is the greatest, most seductive and dangerous illusion?
@bicyclethief2nd All property rights...all laws period are derived from violence. So what? Pointing out the violence of property rights is pure selective outrage.
@DaveElectric So ... we are destined to perpetuate violence forever as long as 'property rights' exist. Therefore, non-aggressive behaviour is impossible. I don't think focusing on them is selective at all, they are a, if not the, fundamental basis of our society. As I said though, it is the idea of 'self-hood' that is even more destructive.
@bicyclethief2nd No no no, we are destined to perpetuate violence forever as long as we LIVE.
If non-aggressive behavior is impossible then clearly it is intellectually dishonest to criticize property rights on the basis that they involve aggression. A person smart enough to understand that all laws includng property norms are based on violence is smart enough to understand that is would be pure hypocrisy to criticize property rights on the basis that they are violent.
@bicyclethief2nd One achieves the greatest happiness by first succumbing to the greatest sorrow my friend. I do not expect you to accept such a negative view of the world quickly. It took me about 2 years (even to the point of getting depressed over the meaning of life) to accept such a view.
Moral nihilism is not a sea to be avoided, but a sea to be conquered. Our job is to craft a better morality despite moral nihilism being true.
@DaveElectric "One achieves the greatest happiness by first succumbing to the greatest sorrow my friend. I do not expect you to accept such a negative view of the world quickly. It took me about 2 years (even to the point of getting depressed over the meaning of life) to accept such a view.
Moral nihilism is not a sea to be avoided, but a sea to be conquered. Our job is to craft a better morality despite moral nihilism being true."
in 68 minutes PST . . . Happy Birthday! though as I write this I realize that it is already past midnight where you are in Canada . . . so how is life 2-3? hours in the future?
why cant someone take a short cut? as a kid I did it all the time? I dont mind if people take a short cut across my property.. as long as I know them.. if it is a person known to myself who is not in my part of the world that may hurt or cause harm of my fellow Nieghbors! Luv thy nieghbor!
when I say your ideas are not half bad.. that is a way a Southern man says.. "You are right and I may be wrong" without admiting any fault. LOL!! I am from the deep south so I can say that without it being a bad thing.
Thanks for adressing this. These are the only coherent arguments ive heard yet against anarcho-capitalism. I think you did a good job of disproving them.
I like Stef but I don't think he's factored in abundance issues that will be the real paradigm once this energy scarcity manipulation is overcome. I don't blame him for not dealing with the likely as opposed to the existing but he's ahead of his time just before being behind his time. History will show this.
I like when people say anarchy is chaos. I blankly nod and agree then say just like the golf course. Total mayhem. People use self imposed etiquette. Sure John Daly gets a little worked up and takes off his shirt sometimes but for the most part the complete chaos is quite mundane.
@utubehayter Land has been improved, but never produced. One way to think about this is to note that to drain a swamp one must first always *take a swamp* and further, to do anything of this nature one would first have to find a suitable place and that place is always an area – or land. You can never introduce land where there is none, but you can make improvements to land’s status and usefulness. To help clarify an idea I'm explaining badly, take a look at the economic definition of land.
In that case, no material is produced either. It is only improved.
For example, steel is not produced but simply improved iron ore. Wheat is not produced but improved arrangements of nitrogen, carbon and other atoms and molecules. Surely, the farmer is not producing the atoms and molecules, only managing a rearrangement to a form that is more desirable.
Going by that logic, nothing can be owned.
Besides even that particular objection - human beings have created land out of oceans
@utubehayter The material in steel is not produced, but the seller of steel doesn't get any payment for the natural-status material itself. The ownership of steel can’t reduce to the ability to take someone to a seam of iron, ask that they collect the iron using their tools, turn it into steel with their work and still ask for a payment for the iron used to make the steel. Land can reduce to precisely this, because land puts a fence around this no produced opportunity to compete.
Are there any hot female anarcho-communists out there who reject the concept of self-ownership? I'm horny, and you don't have the right to say no.
theredscourge 1 day ago
I don't like the statement that morality goes out the window as soon as there's a gun in the room. Of course there is morality when you're at gunpoint and someone asks you where your wife is. If say you have two choises, lie or tell the truth. Telling the truth will probably get your wife killed and to lie would save her. However lying is as said immoral but killing is also immoral. The moral superior choice is the one that leads to saving as many lives as possible, meaning morality is to lie.
onaqui 2 months ago
@onaqui If there's no morality there then the person at gunpoint would do an equally moral choice to tell the murderer where his wife is, inflicting death upon her. Morality is in the consequences and saving her life is the moral superior choice. If there is no moral issue (and he can choose freely between two bads) then very weird things follow. Ex a captain on a sinking ship has a lifeboat he's the only one able to drive. It can hold 10 people but there are 11 on the ship.
onaqui 2 months ago
@onaqui Stefans argument here says that he can choose freely between going alone, taking as many people as possible, not go at all or somewhere in between. The obvious moral choice here is to take as many as possible, because morality still applies and you're bound to save as many as possible.
onaqui 2 months ago
"There is no compulsion in belief/ way of life" Quran 2:256.
Outstanding vid!
Teddy3inDC 3 months ago
The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"and found people naïve enough to believe him,that man was the true founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars,and murders,from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind,by pulling up the stakes,or filling up the ditch,and crying to his fellows:Beware of listening to this impostor;you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all,and the earth itself to nobody.
bozolazic 3 months ago
@bozolazic So that computer you're typing on right now doesn't belong to you specifically, it belongs to everyone? Since everyone includes me, I'm going to come take it from you. I'll live in your house --- oops, I mean, my house --- while I'm at it.
RKAddict101 3 months ago
@RKAddict101 You are free to use it anytime you like.
bozolazic 3 months ago
@bozolazic Oops, I meant our house, sorry it gets confusing sometimes =/
RKAddict101 3 months ago
@RKAddict101 My reason teaches me that land cannot be sold. The Great Spirit gave it to his children to live upon and cultivate as far as necessary for their subsistence, and so long as they occupy and cultivate it they have the right to the soil, but if they voluntarily leave it then any other people have the right to settle on it. Nothing can be sold, except things that can be carried away.
Black Hawk - Sauk
bozolazic 3 months ago
@bozolazic You start off talking about reason and then speak of "The Great Spirit." Also, land can be carried away, it's just a little more difficult. Also, thanks for letting me use it, that's really nice of you.
RKAddict101 3 months ago
@RKAddict101 Yes, The Great Spirit which is part of the bigger whole called The Great Mystery.
bozolazic 3 months ago
@bozolazic: Yeah dumbass, voluntary exchange. Man are you seriously this hopeless.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 Some of our chiefs make the claim that the land belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told me. He told me that the lands belong to Him, that no people owns the land; that I was not to forget to tell this to the white people when I met them in council.
---Kanekuk - Kickapoo prophet
Nobody owns the land.Simple.
bozolazic 1 month ago
@bozolazic. In a spiritual sense, no one owns anything. As for surviving, we need property rights to protect the land that we USE, not OWN, that is justly acquired in order to protect other rights, like life and surviving.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 You have no rights.Rights are make believe.Does this apply to poor people? Where I live the so-called free land is called Crown land, based upon theft with very little voluntary exchange.So at least we agree that nobody owns the land.
bozolazic 1 month ago
I think the points made in the article about potential real aggression being committed under the guise of the 'non-aggression principle' are valid. There's no such thing as a perfect system really. That's why real solutions to our problems may be more personal than systematic which you mentioned in the Ron Paul vid. Market anarchism seems to to be the most just 'system' but it's conceivable that injustice could go down within it if people act like jerks.
dubified89 4 months ago
However the person who wrote this critique probably favors another system with just as much or more potential for violence and injustice which he or she is blind to.
dubified89 4 months ago
Unwanted force is universally accepted. Unless you're an emo. Lol
pansophia93 4 months ago
The ending is total masterpiece. Loved it.
MaikUniversum 4 months ago
I think the main red flag that socialists (both individualistic and communist) see in anarcho-capitalist private property rights theory is that it allows massive accumulation by certain individual(s) which will result in a skewing of bargaining power in favor of the owners of (for example) land. This being the case, mega-owners will have the ability to act as a defacto state imposing brutal conditions of work upon the masses... do you have a strong rebuttal to this argument?
laskji 4 months ago
@laskji If the problem we're worried about is "massive accumulation of capital by certain individuals resulting in the skewing of bargaining power in favor of owners", then the last thing you should do is grant a monopoly on the initiation of force to a certain group, because they will use it to accumulate massive amounts of capital which will skew the bargaining power in favor of those owners of capital. Economic inequality is a problem for any society, but it's exacerbated by the state.
purebacon 4 months ago
@purebacon Thanks for the response, I didn't make it clear, but I was referring to the opinions of anarcho-socialists, both communistic and individualistic in the style of (for example) Emma Goldman, or Benjamin Tucker. I was not referring to statist -socialists. They argue that even without the state, such accumulation will be possible through the free market... the result being corruption brought about by concentration of money and power in one organ etc. etc.
laskji 4 months ago
@purebacon Not saying I agree or do not agree with this idea, but the anarcho-socialists do have a legitimate point that inequality does not seem very appealing as it gives rise to an ability to exploit others - for example starvation wages etc. I think this is where an-caps need to work, they need to show that private property rights (as distinguished from use and possession rights) won't give rise to the same exploitative results we now see in state-capitalism.
laskji 4 months ago
@laskji It's already been shown that free markets lead to prosperity which raise the standard of living for everybody. Just look at the Americans who live with earnings below "poverty" level compared to the truly poor in other countries. It got that way because of freedom. The exploitation that happens today isn't because of "capitalism" which doesn't even truly exist. It's because of corporatism where the big money-makers use the influence of cash to control the government.
mormonmind 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@purebacon Not saying I agree or do not agree with this idea, but the anarcho-socialists do have a legitimate point that inequality does not seem very appealing as it gives rise to an ability to exploit others - for example starvation wages etc. I think this is where an-caps need to work, they need to show that private property rights (as distinguished from use and possession rights) won't give rise to the same exploitative results we now see in state-capitalism.
laskji 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+8000 pledges so far! (Official page&Facebook!)
Check my profile for life changing Ron Paul video!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 4 months ago
Stef, "people don't really do this" is an unsatisfying response to the objection you're trying to answer. When you step on my sidewalk to walk toward my door, you're acting on a reasonable expectation of my intent. You don't have my explicit permission to do this, but you can reasonably expect to have my implicit consent. If I don't want people stepping on my sidewalk, I need to differentiate myself from the norm in my expression of this intent for my property, perhaps by building a wall.
trappist33 4 months ago
@SpectacularNumanist
Q: In a stateLESS society, will we not have the formation of an oligarchy? My basis for this conclusion is basically what some learned from the exciting books "Lord of The Flies" and "Battle Royal"-That is, there are weak and strong, so the strong rise and shelter the weak for their alms, and eventually end up farming them forcefully. Statelike??
JpassTheTime 4 months ago
@SpectacularNumanist im an anarchist. guns are great for everyone. NAP is not a consensus among non-statists.
biblioarbitrage 4 months ago
@biblioarbitrage NAP makes no judgement about guns, which are neutral tools, like knives. The user of the tool is the moral factor. A stateless society will only work efficiently if people feel safe and respected. A cultural acceptance of the NAP is the best safeguard of community good will and cooperation. Guns, like knives, can facilitate cooperativeness where the NAP is not consistently honored.
leafwatch 4 months ago
Comment removed
biblioarbitrage 4 months ago
Virtue can only be evaluated in a situation voluntarism
Awesome quote!
Patriot4Liberty1776 4 months ago
He steff, thank you for your great videos.
I have a question about property rights regarding land rights.
Lets take a look in Africa with a particular "land grab" problem. There Corporations (for example NFC) bully people away from there homes, remove the houses and plant farms of their own there. Leaving the families uncompensated. How would a society deal with this problem?
RUPSIEISMYNAME 4 months ago
@RUPSIEISMYNAME
corporations are state granted.
SpectacularNumanist 4 months ago
@SpectacularNumanist How much % are they state granted......
DaveElectric 4 months ago
the purpose of this is entertainment and hypothesis. ultimately it fails to accurately describe human interaction. it is based on moral premises that are just idealized models of reality. it's a utopian pipe dream with an almost religious fervor constructed to appeal to those with a collectivist sense of values and justice. there is another way to see the world... recognize the brutality in human nature. accept violence and aggression as part of life.
biblioarbitrage 4 months ago
@biblioarbitrage
if human nature is this brutal, then why give certain brutal humans the guns?
SpectacularNumanist 4 months ago
You look like Jack Bauer in this video. What with the scruffy beard and wavin all those imaginary guns around! Ha! Seriously though, great video. The last 3 minutes were really important. Thanks.
torq21 5 months ago
Excellent!
rileyphillip 5 months ago
@kristopheraugust Where else but the real world should things happen. Is there some other 'truer world" by which to judge?
hartforest 5 months ago
I'm noticing a lot of DnD references in the last few videos.
Steve83B 5 months ago
@stefbot: In sight that you are addressing your critics, It would be awesome if you could respond to these two stronger criticisms of self-ownership and the NAP:
video: watch?v=hUfh66vZSs8
blog: //mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/01/18/putting-the-nap-in-its-proper-context.aspx
altaris2011 5 months ago
A gun to my neck and all morality goes out the window?
A gun to my neck - am I free to overpower him and torture him to death slowly. he having forfeited any right to a moral response?
My choice to behave morally is my choice It is not given to me nor taken away by anyone else whether he has a gun or not!
if faced with a gun I still have the right and the freedom to choose a moral response- that right cannot "dissipate" into the ether?
deryck
DeryckdeMaineBeaumon 5 months ago
Happy Birthday, Stef.
Thank you. You can never know how much you have changed my life.
vegetta00 5 months ago
love the floating head effect, also happy-bday Stef!
ostralopithicus 5 months ago
any apmex codes ?
polarbeach 5 months ago
If you're in an S&M roleplaying dungeon and you fail your saving throw against hot wax then you get it on both nipples...
OMFG I totally lost it there. Nerd comedy at its finest!
iLostMyUsernameLOL 5 months ago
Happy BDay Stef! FreedomainRadio changed my life, after few years of intellectual laziness in my life I've started to use my brain again! Indeed, you're providing the best philosophical discussion on the web. Best wishes for U and your family!
PixelsAtHand 5 months ago
we need limited government but still a government nonetheless
MyDormantSoul 5 months ago
@MyDormantSoul i don't need a government, nor do i want one. you might, and that is fine with me, as long as i am free to choose to not have one. you may what you want with your body, your mind, your property. please extend the same ideological courtesy to me.
this is the only point.
immayhem 5 months ago
@immayhem Ive been a big fan of Stefan, but please, tell me why government must be completely abolished.
MyDormantSoul 5 months ago
@MyDormantSoul 'Abolish' is an interesting term. It implies an entity with the authority to restrict the participation in an activity. There won't be any such thing. 'The State' is a chimera. The individuals who agree that it exists give it artificial life and authority. The story of our need for it is a toxic meme. A voluntary, open-source infrastructure will replace it, because it (The State) is outdated, inefficient, and counter to the progress of humans in evolutionary terms. (cont'd)
immayhem 5 months ago
@MyDormantSoul I came at this from different position from Stefan - based in a non-religious, non-dogmatic, yet spiritual understanding of the evolution of consciousness. It is apparent to me that developing a self-governing character structure (ala Reich) is the work of each individual human, in psycho-spiritual terms. The more people who engage in the process of reaching maturity, or self-accountability, the more our reality will reflect that. It is happening. The chimera disintegrates.
immayhem 5 months ago
Hbhhvvvv vf2rvvvvvgv
jzenfnmr 5 months ago
so you're a DnD player Stef? Ever try white wolf games?
walkerindarkness 5 months ago
money bomb for stef's bday! do it!
ZiggleFingers 5 months ago
happy b day stef
Wattster47 5 months ago
what about when someones ownership of property affects the rest of the "free society" negatively
In Glasgow we have a place which is really scenic and this company is putting up big appartments beside it which no one likes and everyone is petitioning to have it stopped, but by all rights THEY own the property , they bought it and can do what they like with it, and everyone else cna go hang
what if your "wee shortcut" saved you (and everyone) 4 hours would you have to buy that tract?
IllichSketchShow 5 months ago
welcome to the 45 club! made the club myself earlier this year and also got my first pair of reading glasses shortly after :P
liljimmylv 5 months ago
Protection from the threat of initiatory force can include the moral and ethical use of lying as a means of self-defense.
zonsb 5 months ago
you cannot win with codified law. you recognise common sense within law, equity, law of reason, law of God beyond any codified rights stautes or acts.
If you cant do this, if you cant just call a spade a spade you remain backwards.
Danster82 5 months ago
'Saving throw against hot wax"
Hahaha.
isair81 5 months ago
If you agress against someone in a free society, I think that your insurance company and your victim's insurance company would carry out thorough investigations and hold some serious discussions with you. If found guilty of serious wrongdoing, you may find yourself bankrupt, without a bank account, without legal protection, etc. The punishment would be ostracism from mainstream society, and the transter of your assets to your vicim (via insurance policies).
libertopian 5 months ago
LOL stef... gotta work on that sarcasm inflection.. unless you were serious >.> haha
WorthlessCurrency 5 months ago
hmmm, you seem to know a lot about hot wax on nipples! Where did you learn this, is there a club?
MrRamraider 5 months ago
Happy Birthday from down under mate, we love ya all over
KraljevicPavle 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef
Johncalabro7 5 months ago
Non-aggression isn't universally proffered behavior because clearly there are people who prefer aggression to the lack of it, and aggressive people don't have any obligation to respect other people's property. There's no universal morality only egoist interests of the individuals, that's why property rights arise and are needed, so we can defend our egoist interests. Not because they're 'moral'.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL It is universally preferred for individuals. No one wants to be aggressed AGAINST - that is what is universal. A thief STILL believes in property rights, just only his own.
YJohannM 5 months ago
@YJohannM But some people prefer to agrees against other people, and they don't have any reason not to do it except for their interest (being arrested, shot, having bad feelings about it etc.) so no, lack of aggression isn't universally proffered. The will to not be subjected to other people's aggression is simple egoism, and that is what's universal.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL
Not EVERYBODY wants to agress against others, but EVERYONE wants people not to agress against them. Aggression against others is not universally preferable. Not becoming a victim of aggression IS universally preferable. In order for nobody to become a victim, nobody else must aggress. No matter how you try to justify holding on to your belief that there is no universal morality that excludes violence, you are just fooling yourself.
Your use of the word egoism is faulty.
tridentmovies 5 months ago
@tridentmovies The reason your use of the word "egoism" is faulty is because it is completely vague and generalistic. Not wanting to be aggressed against is universal, but "egoism" is a generalistic term for many behaviors, most of which are NOT universal. Therefor you are committing the fallacy of generalization by claiming not being agressed against is "egoist" and "egoism" is universal. It is also begging the question as well as a non-sequitur.
tridentmovies 5 months ago
@tridentmovies Never mind...I just read you next reply. Still though, how about you? Do you think the species will gain "virtue" as those that accept reason and evidence have? I don't want to sound elitist, but I actually DO believe that "our" brains (those of us that accept the NAP) are actually biologically different and somewhat unique in terms of mass-humanity. That's why we see truth that others cannot and will not.
YJohannM 5 months ago
@tridentmovies I agree with you as well... Jeeeeeeezzzzz...I'm confused. I did think that his use of "egoism" was spot on, though. Can you please explain where he is wrong?
YJohannM 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL "The will to not be subjected to other people's aggression is simple egoism, and that is what's universal."
That is an amazing point, which I have not considered. I believe you are absolutely correct! That is the way it is in reality. Thank YOU! How do you suppose "we" will evolve from this egoism, and into true virtue as a species? I hope it happens. Though I'm sure it won't in our lifetimes...
YJohannM 5 months ago
@YJohannM I don't think it's logically possible to evolve out of egoism. I recommend you a book called The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner. There are some parts of it on youtube.
/watch?v=lNiyxnxId_4
A truly virtues specie is an egoist one, one that fulfills his ego by doing good to people.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL Thank you very much. I would also recommend this book by psychologist Julian Jaynes - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
That may actually give you some hope about the possibility of human physical brain evolution. We come from animals after all. The further away in biological time we get, the better off we will be.
YJohannM 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL I have checked out your profile. I think we are very similar in views. Actually I think the vast majority of us here that are drawn to Stef are similar. This is exciting discovery, is it not? Almost makes me "buy into" a "Free State Project". I feel we truly must get away from the mass-man, who will never change in our lifetimes.
Ayn had it right in that respect, didn't she??
YJohannM 5 months ago
@YJohannM Yep, I've only seen a few interviews with her but she's alright. I wish she didn't support the idea of a state, and patents.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL I think Ayn Rand was just from a different time. Much like Jefferson, and the Anti-Federalists. If they were alive today perhaps they would support NAP completely. Same with Ayn...however, she was a little flaky in her personal relationships; and having actual "worshipers" at your feet is sure to go to one's head. LOL
YJohannM 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL Stef is not saying that some people don't want to be aggressive against other people. This is not what the non-aggression principle states. The non-aggression principle states "the initiation of the use of force is wrong". The reason the initiation of the use of force is wrong, is because it is not preferred by anyone to have force initiated against them. This is because in order for something to be "force", it, by definition is not preferable.
GiANtTWiNkY 5 months ago
@GiANtTWiNkY This is just retarded non sequitur Sir. What is wrong and good is purely subjective, and if I want to initiate force than to me it's 'good'. The fact that no one wants force to be initiated on him doesn't in any way prove that people don't want to initiate force on others. Any if there are those who do want to do it, and it's profitable to then then NAP isn't in no way universal, as it does not apply to every human being. There is also no universal definition of 'wrong'.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GompCelticPL Stef is not saying that some people don't want to be aggressive against other people. This is not what the non-aggression principle states. The non-aggression principle states "the initiation of the use of force is wrong". The reason the initiation of the use of force is wrong, is because it is not preferred by anyone to have force initiated against them. This is because in order for something to be "force", it, by definition is not preferable.
GiANtTWiNkY 5 months ago
@YJohannM No, actually he does not have to believe in property rights. He only needs to believe that he has the ability to extend his control.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@DaveElectric Yes, I see your point here. But the thief may believe in property rights in that he now claims that his stolen loot belongs to him, and to him alone. In the mind of the thief, he would want his "property" protected. Would you agree?
YJohannM 5 months ago
@YJohannM He doesn't need to believe that it belongs to him. Only that he can maintain control over it.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL Yes, there are people who prefer to initiate force against other people, but there isn’t a single person who would prefer to have force initiated against them.
Take theft as an example. Say somebody wants (would prefer) someone else to take their belongings. If somebody takes their belongings, this is not theft, it is charity. Only when somebody does not want (would not prefer) somebody else to take their belongings, and someone does take their belongings does this become theft.
GiANtTWiNkY 5 months ago
@GiANtTWiNkY This is why you can’t say that theft is universally preferred behaviour... because in order for theft to be theft, it by definition has to be non-preferable. The same goes for having “force” initiated against you. For something to be force, it has to be resisted, i.e. not preferred... therefore it can’t be preferable.
GiANtTWiNkY 5 months ago 3
@GiANtTWiNkY You and I are on the same wavelength here. Good to see one's own views and understanding shared.
Boy, there are some very intelligent folks that post here. Aside from the occasional Marxist trying to "challenge us all" (LOL), you folks are top-notch in terms of critical thinking.
YJohannM 5 months ago
Comment removed
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not saying theft is universally preferred behavior it'd be just as retarded as to say lack of aggression is universally preferred. There's no universally preferred behavior, because people have different ideas of good and wrong. And there's no morality because there's no reason or obligation to accept any except for the interest of one's own ego.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL Actually Stefan tries to make the case that Non-aggression is universally PREFERABLE not that is is in fact universally preferred. Those are two completely different things.
I will agree though that property rights arise from the egoism of the masses to some extent. The egoism of the masses is also how property rights are undermined.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@DaveElectric Universally preferable means preferable for everyone, and it's not. Otherwise you say it's 'universally' preferable because it produces best outcomes for most people but this is simple utilitarianism, and of course something that's best for most (not everybody) isn't universal. And besides there's absolutely no reason why anyone would accept any 'morality' universal or not, except to please his/her ego by not being arrested or simply feeling 'moral'.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL "Universally preferable means preferable for everyone, and it's not. Otherwise you say it's 'universally' preferable because it produces best outcomes for most people but this is simple utilitarianism, and of course something that's best for most (not everybody) isn't universal."
This is very difficult, I agree. I don't believe that the "is-ought problem" has a solution. What is your take on the matter? As I've just now begun to "dig into" egoism...
YJohannM 5 months ago
@YJohannM It's not a problem to me at all. It happens that natural, liberty and so on bring about the most prosperity and peace, and for some egoist reason I value those things. Egoism is man's nature but part of it, is also some sense of compassion. So there's no need to contemplate on something that nature has already solved. There is no universal morality, only egoism and out of a psychological or psychical need people accept or make 'morals'. So do I for my self interest.
GompCelticPL 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL I continue to be amazed at the level of discourse here. I must tell you, that I encounter no one in my daily life even approaching this level of depth and understanding. The internet is great, isn't it?
Perhaps egoism will affect more in the same way it has affected us. That they would seek to use it for self-control, rather than the control of others. Certainly self-control is much more "preferable"? At least to us it is...LOL
That would be wonderful.
YJohannM 5 months ago
@GompCelticPL You said non-aggression wasn't universally PREFERRED. That's not the same thing as being universally PREFERABLE. Two completely different things.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GompCelticPL You said non-aggression wasn't universally PREFERRED. That's not the same thing as being universally PREFERABLE. Two completely different things.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef.
tylerwylie 5 months ago
You people seem to forget that we are mammals, and that so long as we are mammals we will compete, and as long as we compete there will be violence, for that is the way of mother nature. your ideal that we are somehow better than what we actually are is ludicrous - denial at best. Although it has been argued much I still have not seen anyone WILL themselves out of being a mammal.
rising74phoenix 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef!
mikedurland 5 months ago
You are the mothership of light surrounded by darkness!
sandmanFDR 5 months ago
How do these ideas work in a society where a small minority of psychopaths historically rise to the top and manipulate the rest – Hitler,Bush,Cameron, Blair etc are just individuals carefully selecting top down psychopath underlings that ultimately manipulate the ignorant poor masses to kill other poor folk.
ehpl 5 months ago
imo ownership can but lead to a greed based society of negative enforcement, by either threats of violence or deprivation of necessities of life.
You can only have others to agree to not do something like trespass, through a contract for instance... but you can't impose said obligations of not trespassing on someone who hasn't consented, without voiding the principle of non-initiation of force.
Anyway, ownership is a inseparable fiction of the state,
qui3tude 5 months ago
@qui3tude No, ownership is an inseparable fiction of the law.
Every society is based on either threats of violence or deprivation of the necessities of life (even the U.S.S.R had to punish the loafers somehow). Those that are criminal and/or unproductive need to be dealt with no matter what society you live in.
Obviously the NAP is useless without a more advanced moral framework.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
your closer to death then birth....good luck, its all down hill :P
AnarchyEnsues 5 months ago
Sorry but I have to ask (he says with a tremble in his voice) ... what do you think of the view that 'property rights' must ultimately derive from an act of violence/aggression, and that the idea of a 'self' is the greatest, most seductive and dangerous illusion?
bicyclethief2nd 5 months ago
@bicyclethief2nd All property rights...all laws period are derived from violence. So what? Pointing out the violence of property rights is pure selective outrage.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@DaveElectric So ... we are destined to perpetuate violence forever as long as 'property rights' exist. Therefore, non-aggressive behaviour is impossible. I don't think focusing on them is selective at all, they are a, if not the, fundamental basis of our society. As I said though, it is the idea of 'self-hood' that is even more destructive.
bicyclethief2nd 5 months ago
@bicyclethief2nd No no no, we are destined to perpetuate violence forever as long as we LIVE.
If non-aggressive behavior is impossible then clearly it is intellectually dishonest to criticize property rights on the basis that they involve aggression. A person smart enough to understand that all laws includng property norms are based on violence is smart enough to understand that is would be pure hypocrisy to criticize property rights on the basis that they are violent.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@DaveElectric i just cannot accept such a negative view of the world.
bicyclethief2nd 5 months ago
@bicyclethief2nd One achieves the greatest happiness by first succumbing to the greatest sorrow my friend. I do not expect you to accept such a negative view of the world quickly. It took me about 2 years (even to the point of getting depressed over the meaning of life) to accept such a view.
Moral nihilism is not a sea to be avoided, but a sea to be conquered. Our job is to craft a better morality despite moral nihilism being true.
DaveElectric 5 months ago
@DaveElectric "One achieves the greatest happiness by first succumbing to the greatest sorrow my friend. I do not expect you to accept such a negative view of the world quickly. It took me about 2 years (even to the point of getting depressed over the meaning of life) to accept such a view.
Moral nihilism is not a sea to be avoided, but a sea to be conquered. Our job is to craft a better morality despite moral nihilism being true."
Beautiful words here, Dave. So true...
YJohannM 5 months ago
6:23, reponsibility =/= ownership.
Ownership means having the right to deny acess to (a right which can be revoked any time by the owner)
Responsibility means being the cause for some effect (which cannot be revoked by whoever is the cause).
DaveElectric 5 months ago
HAPPY B DAY!!!
tzmnjtrenton 5 months ago 23
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OLD MAN
Teknorat 5 months ago
45 yrs young!!! Happy birthday!
MsCollateralDamage 5 months ago
Happy Birthday, Stef. Always enjoying your content. :)
RaymondLau123 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
in 68 minutes PST . . . Happy Birthday! though as I write this I realize that it is already past midnight where you are in Canada . . . so how is life 2-3? hours in the future?
ArgosSmith2009 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stefan! Hope you have a great day!
hardeez1 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef!!!
KyleSkullz 5 months ago
happy brthday stef.. hope you have many more..
Princetonbeats 5 months ago
Happy Birthday !!!!!!
TakisAthensGr 5 months ago
Happy Birthday!
carriellbee 5 months ago
Happy Birthday, Stef.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
Hey I LOVE HOT WAX ON THE NIPPLES IN THE SUBWAY. You've got rocks in your head Stef! BTW HAPPY BIRTHDAY. P.S I am making my TEXT BIG ON ORDER!
EndTheResistance 5 months ago
Have a happy birthday tomorrow, Stef. Today is my birthday and I am spending it at work listening to this.
RagaDagga 5 months ago
Happy Birthday.You are wise beyond your years
protonhead1 5 months ago
Have a Merry Birthday!
blinddoctorwho 5 months ago
Ooo! I love your explanation of virtue. I'm going to steal it.
shawnesy 5 months ago
why cant someone take a short cut? as a kid I did it all the time? I dont mind if people take a short cut across my property.. as long as I know them.. if it is a person known to myself who is not in my part of the world that may hurt or cause harm of my fellow Nieghbors! Luv thy nieghbor!
JWnFL 5 months ago
"failing a saving throw?" LOL. Stef just outed himself as a former D&D player.
barleyLEGALdotCA 5 months ago
when I say your ideas are not half bad.. that is a way a Southern man says.. "You are right and I may be wrong" without admiting any fault. LOL!! I am from the deep south so I can say that without it being a bad thing.
JWnFL 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef!!
JWnFL 5 months ago
Thanks for adressing this. These are the only coherent arguments ive heard yet against anarcho-capitalism. I think you did a good job of disproving them.
Equity213 5 months ago
we laugh now about land mines and sitting on our porch with our rifles watching our property... but it wont be so funny after the zombie invasion.
boxant 5 months ago
your eyebrows add so much to your conversation. thank you. ALSO thanks for years of life changing videos and helping me to wake up. you are my hero.
cesliwakan 5 months ago
More great stuff. Happy Birthday!!!
1717jbs 5 months ago
I don't want anything BUT hot wax on the nipples from strangers in subways!!! :D
alistairproductions 5 months ago
Btw, Happy Birthday Stef!!!
TreachMarkets 5 months ago
shit I thought you were 30 haha
HFTL666 5 months ago
Great video Stefan; very lucid explanation/arguments.
batmanthe 5 months ago
mall-n-you. common ameributts.
Uberdoppelganger 5 months ago
Was your hot nipple wax example a hint of what you do in your spare time? Don't let Izzy catch you. It will probably scar her for life.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 5 months ago
happy birthday stef!
genghisdon1 5 months ago
I like Stef but I don't think he's factored in abundance issues that will be the real paradigm once this energy scarcity manipulation is overcome. I don't blame him for not dealing with the likely as opposed to the existing but he's ahead of his time just before being behind his time. History will show this.
charlesfrith 5 months ago
I think you guys are forgetting that land was
A. Claimed. IE no one and nothing is here, this land is mine.
B. Land was stolen from others. IE colonies taking indians lands or like how isreal stole palestine land.
C. land was traded,sold,given to someone else. but was acquired via A or B.
alexclaton 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your arguments are so clichee
erdal0 5 months ago
Happy Birthday Stef!!! Your present is in the mail. Are you going for 45 videos in 45 days to celebrate?
not2tees 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like when people say anarchy is chaos. I blankly nod and agree then say just like the golf course. Total mayhem. People use self imposed etiquette. Sure John Daly gets a little worked up and takes off his shirt sometimes but for the most part the complete chaos is quite mundane.
trashboger 5 months ago
Comment removed
trashboger 5 months ago
that black shirt gives you a max headroom disembodied effect
trashboger 5 months ago
What happened to the Red Room?
TreachMarkets 5 months ago
Hi from Arkansas
that's our shootin car
two more payments and it's ours
trashboger 5 months ago
Happy birthday if i dont get a chance to get on a computer tomorrow.
MrMooseheadbeer 5 months ago
My brother will be 41 and my grandmother 93 on the 24th :)
deadman12078 5 months ago
wow Stef is on a roll this week, it's video after video I love it! :)
davorta23 5 months ago 22
writer seems to assume everything is insured so why fight for whats yours. not everyone wants to pay for that scam either..
zazack79 5 months ago
Happy Bday Stef! Maybe you'd like to try out the 30 day primal challenge, to another great 45 years!
emcaub 5 months ago
Comment removed
magrathean0 5 months ago
@magrathean0
Who says land is not produced by human effort? There are many acres that human beings have created.. millions of acres if you look at Florida.
utubehayter 5 months ago
@utubehayter "millions" of acres? hyperbole much?
pretorious700 5 months ago
@pretorious700
Could be...How many acres is Florida that was not land before? I don't know... you tell me.
utubehayter 5 months ago
@utubehayter Land has been improved, but never produced. One way to think about this is to note that to drain a swamp one must first always *take a swamp* and further, to do anything of this nature one would first have to find a suitable place and that place is always an area – or land. You can never introduce land where there is none, but you can make improvements to land’s status and usefulness. To help clarify an idea I'm explaining badly, take a look at the economic definition of land.
magrathean0 5 months ago
@magrathean0
In that case, no material is produced either. It is only improved.
For example, steel is not produced but simply improved iron ore. Wheat is not produced but improved arrangements of nitrogen, carbon and other atoms and molecules. Surely, the farmer is not producing the atoms and molecules, only managing a rearrangement to a form that is more desirable.
Going by that logic, nothing can be owned.
Besides even that particular objection - human beings have created land out of oceans
utubehayter 5 months ago
@utubehayter The material in steel is not produced, but the seller of steel doesn't get any payment for the natural-status material itself. The ownership of steel can’t reduce to the ability to take someone to a seam of iron, ask that they collect the iron using their tools, turn it into steel with their work and still ask for a payment for the iron used to make the steel. Land can reduce to precisely this, because land puts a fence around this no produced opportunity to compete.
magrathean0 5 months ago