The only problem is that a coal plant explosion is significantly more harmful than any nuclear accident short of a Chernobyl style meltdown (which isn't close to remotely possible with western safety systems, even more so with modern reactor technology.) The chance of explosion is next to nothing when properly built (which Chernobyl was not), and when you built a nuclear reactor in a common sense area (not in the freaking ring of fire) it's perfectly safe. Would't exist without gov't though.
I have trouble accepting the testimony before congress of the Westinghouse Executive on the cost of a nuclear power plant. What else would he say, other than that these subsidies are absolutely indispensable for the development of nuclear power.
I would say that under fascism, major corporations and their owners do far better for themselves than they would in the free market. It's win-win for government and corporations (and, to a lesser extent, for bureaucratic, AFL-CIO-esque unions). The people who lose out, of course, are workers, small businesses, and decentralized unions (i.e.- the 99%).
If we ignore nuclear power now, we are going to have a serious power deficit in the very short future. Newer designes are ever more efficient and safe. Stefan i agree with you on a lot of issues but on this you are dead wrong. Leave the philosophy behind on this one and let the scientists continue to caress us in the warm embrace of the 21st century.
@ShoutingQuietly yeah right - they said chernobyl was safe, they said fukushima was safe - if we are going to have an incident of disaster magnitude 7 or above every 25 years - thats 4 per century - even the 2 mega-disasters we have had have probably already caused millions of cancer deaths all around the northern hemisphere.
You may be right that the alternative is an energy deficiency - so be it - thats preferable to radioactive carcinogens flaoting around the ecosphere until the end of time!
@BiggerThinking1 Ok, you really need to research before making comments. Total number of deaths from Chernobyl, 2,222, Total deaths from Fukashima 0, predicted deaths, 0. You cant use "probably" when your making a case to not use something that has caused "millions" of deaths.
So I guess your happier using coal. Mining industry around the work kills hundreds of people directly every year. and many more from mining related disease. Good work proving my point that nuclear is safer.
Why should private interests want to take on the costs of decommissioning inefficient plants that were constructed by the government or take on responsibility for disasters that are caused by old and outdated plants constructed by government? This has nothing to do with the feasibility of nuclear energy in the free market. Incidentally, it is flat out wrong to compare a nuclear plant with a nuclear weapon. You might as well compare an internal combustion engine with a petrol bomb. It's nonsense.
@LordZentei The key point he is making is valid - that nuclear industry is uninsurable in the free market - ie the risk-cost is TOO BIG - when nuke goes wrong it goes wrong BIG! - nuke poisoning is forever! And its so toxic that a big enough excursion could kill a majority of people on the planet not just now but all future generations.
INFINITE COST = UNVIABLE (unless risk is ZERO - which it can never be)
The nuclear industry is not insurable in practice, because of something called the Price-Anderson act. While the anti-nuclear lobby claims that this provides undue favoritism for the nuclear industry, the truth is actually quite the opposite in practice. The idea that the nuclear industry is uninsurable in a free market is simply a meme - it's complete nonsense.
the company in charge of fukushima npp calculated if it's cheaper to save or to abandon the reactor. that's why they didn't do anything to minimize radiation and all they did is cool it down in order to restart it later. they didn't care about the radiation and pollution. all they cared about is minimal loss of money.
private companies act like governments. of course they do. stef would never talk about it because ignoring that fact is what makes his stateless social model kinda work in theory.
Projects, like the nuclear and space programs often might seem like giant money sinks but there aren't. The reality is that programs that large need to be developed by the public sector. Because the private sector makes what is profitable, not what is needed. Business, and working in a free market to make things and provide services is a good thing. But let's be real. The only things that will be made, are things that are profitable. So, the space program, while not profitable, still is needed.
Facts and reason,are useless to religionists, like Statist, and Christians, they do not believe because its rational, but because it fits the herd mentality, and the fact that its a popular cult to belong to, even thought its destructive. Faith, is what they desire, not science, or logic. Its is a major reason why the statist church the Public Indoctrinating System, emphasizes 'secular mysticism', as truth, such as the typical teenage fixation on New Age/ Postmodernism thinking.
Statism is a crazy religion indeed. The disciples of statism, do not even realize they are following the most dangerous god of our time, the government. Statism, has its it sects, the military, Department of War AKA Department of Defense, Environmental Destruction Agency AKA EPA, and magical thinking, like the social contract (similar to original sin, you're born into this mystical nature and responsible),'equality,' violence as a virtue, its commandments, the constitution, and so on.
so what about the difference between the free market and corporations, i mean the free market doesn't have to be make of corporations it hasn't always been right?
@simonkism A free market would have NO corporations, because a corporation, by its very definition, requires government intervention in the creation of a corporate charter, and government's grant of limited liability under the law.
Well, I don't find it inconceivable that we can reuse the nuclear waste to the point of it having extremely little radiation left and better safety precautions in the near future. But what do I know, I'm not a physicist. I just don't think that nuclear power should ruled out as a potential source of energy in the future.
About the Apollo program, I like the idea of space exploration. I don't like the idea of govt run programs. I really don't like a man using a penis analysis (Freudian) to condemn other men. It's pretty fuckin gay.
The appearance of rockets has nothing to do with what penis looks like, but it has something to do with aerodynamics. Try to make a rocket looks like a box, you will see what I mean. :D
@nonaCbarC I thought that virgin Air using it's own space spaceship managed it into lower orbit withour using up a billion + and without killing astronauts in the proces. the test pilot of friendship-1 was over 60
@lysergicgirll. Zeitgeist, is just a modern day version of the Marxist religion, with a catchy film to get you in the cult. Just enough facts, to subvert the rational conclusion of Free-market Anarchism.
This actually helps me understand Ron Paul's position and why he skips over antitrust prosecution. We have a Cost/Profit Risk/Benefit model that is being manipulated. The size and control of the corporation wouldn't matter if businesses had to way the true real world costs and risks of their endeavors.
Well put, and probably good for many to hear. My two cents of thought is to go a couple of more steps and use the gordian knot and look at even more fundamental courses, like thezeitgeistmovement com is doing, getting a picture of the whole is always nice! Thanks for good video!
@makemorelove69 Zeitgeist movement is not philosophical, that is, its not based on reason and evidence. As Stefan Molyneux himself has said, Zeitgeist is just Marxism with robots.
Interesting video. Really good to know! I'm not a supporter of the free market ideas, but all your videos are informative and useful in shifting my paradigm. Keep up the good work!
In a properly run nuclear power plant, there is so little risk of major disaster its laughable. A nuclear reactor is NOT the same thing as a nuclear weapon. This type of power is relatively cheap, safe and efficient. In a free society, I do believe a board of investors would agree to fund a nuclear power facility simply because it is likely the most efficient way to generate power. Im a fan of wind and solar energy, but they alone are not enough to meet energy demands.
And while I'm educating you, remember the year is 2011, not 1953. The nuclear industry doesn't receive subsidies anymore--under Bush and Obama they're received tax breaks and LOANS. That's L-O-A-N-S! Things that must be paid back!
Saying they're 'stealing our tax dollars' to build nuclear plants is further proof of either your ignorance or outright dishonesty.
Subsidies are for free-market washouts that don't generate enough electricity to cover their costs, such as wind and solar power.
6:25 - "Build a nuclear weapon but contain it inside a building."
That is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard. Typical liberal arts major trying to understand science! A nuclear power plant operates with uranium enriched at 3% purity. A nuclear weapon operates using uranium at 90% purity. As any child can see, that's a HUGE difference. Due to a little thing called the laws of physics, enriching uranium to 90% doesn't happen "spontaneously" inside commercial nuclear reactors.
The Nietzsche quote is apt in a world with no variation. In reality, the origin of nuclear power IS irrelevant. Nuclear power originated in the need to develop highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Today, those outdated reactors just generate energy. The old way of doing nuclear power is obsolete, but people still need electricity--new nuclear is needed!
The solution isn't to scrap nuclear power and create an energy crisis, but to move to safer thorium-based reactors.
You say violent thugs like all people who work for the government are straight out of a gangster movie. I want to live where people pull together to meet the needs of me and my community as a whole, not in some selfish society where everyone just takes care of themselves so they can remove this invisible gun from their heads. I don't like violence but I accept that making taxation compulsory is the only way to do that.
@Brushles83 I don't care how pretty a dress you put on the pig. It's still a pig.
Bush, Obama, Cameron, Ahmadinejad, Mubarak, et al. will ALL swear they're doing good.
I don't care what people THINK they're doing. I care what they actually do.
All of the above will happily have someone point a gun at you and march you of to jail if you disagree with any of their wishes (laws). All of their supporters enable them.
@Brushles83 I don't care how pretty a dress you put on the pig. It's still a pig.
Bush, Obama, Cameron, Ahmadinejad, Mubarak, et al. will ALL swear they're doing good.
I don't care what people THINK they're doing. I care what they actually do.
All of the above will happily have someone point a gun at you and march you of to jail if you disagree with any of their wishes (laws). All of their supporters enable them.
@GuerrillaFighter12 The eminently well-researched Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto claims this statistic for pre-compulsory American citizens. I've read it myself. It's a great, visceral book and free online - just Google the title and a Pdf site will roll up. Read even one of the initial short chapters and feel the electricity of suppressed info hit you.
Do you think it would be better if the exploration of space was privatised? every night we'de be abled to see "Enjoy Diet Coke" in fairy lights on the face of the moon.
This is very interesting information about the recent disaster in Japan. It's bad enough that governments continue to build nuclear power plants alongside earthquake faults but even "properly functioning nuclear power plants" leak hazardous radiation levels (deemed acceptable by the government yet criminally hide and deny rises in several increased cancer rates). The liability cap is disturbing. It basically paves way for crimes against humanity.
Steff can you do a story on Julia GILLARD - Prime Minister of Australia - she pleged no carbon tax 6 days before election. She is trying to put it in place now.
This dude is spot on in all of his videos. I like him and I don't always agree but 99% his is spot on. Especially this education piece. Teachers are for the most part ignorant 'repeaters'.
Your opening reminds me of a John Huston quote from the movie Chinatown: "Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."
@voiceofreason467 First of all, you're lying. I KNOW the hackers that have done this RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME so I know it can be done, with just an IP address.
Knowing a location is UNIMPORTANT, only the IP address.
Second of all, you're chickenshit to raise the precise questions
@voiceofreason467 I know very well once the IP is known I can be knocked off using that IP forever by hackers AND the IP is open for others to try to get through my firewalls and hack my computer directly. The answer is NO and for damn good reason.
@voiceofreason467 and I'm repeatedly telling you that request is denied and is based on a need to dig at my personal information. You know very well what issues I've brought up and you can ask them yourself in less time & less words than your combined replies. Just ask them: #1 why not gold/silver as money #2 why not abolish all central control #3 how can a predictive algorithm exist for any computer for personal need #4 why not a PERSONAL predictive computer, not a central one?
I don't totally agree with your idea of nuclear power coming out of government, but government did push for dangerous forms of nuclear energy in order to produce weapons grade material while pretending to be for civilian use. There's far safer forms of reactors like Thorium based reactors and would provide us with massive power, much more efficient and safer, but because you couldn't develop nuclear weapons out of them, they never became popular for the government.
Stef, nuclear technology can be used quite safely. A cursory examination of events at Chernobyl and Fukushima reveals that the reactor models used in either place were out of date and therefor questionably designed (not to mention poorly positioned, as was the case with the latter). In terms of human and material investment, nuclear power dwarfs alternative fuel sources in effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. The models you're decrying are purposely designed to produce weapons grade materials.
More over, one cannot seriously proclaim about democracy when the people don't have sufficient education so as to apply their "free-will" judiciously (instead of acting like lemmings or being guided solely by their emotions and senses, thus easily prone to manipulation), hence a public school system.
Unfortunately, this guy made a grave error with his stance about public school, demolishing his unrelated view about nuclear power. It's in those countries where the public school system is the most advanced and accessible to all, where the rates of "educated people" are the highest! Go fetch stats and you'll see... FACTS mister, facts, don't just through your Phd on our face it's insulting for our intelligence, we call this "manipulation"...
..And it's not just a question of accessibility or publicly funded school system, it's also a matter of culture. Most countries where the "culture of money" and neoliberalism/neoconservatism is thriving and dominant, have their educational rates relatively lower given the same accessibility to education.
@HawkFest The eminently well-researched Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto claims this statistic for pre-compulsory American citizens. I've read it myself. It's a great, visceral book and free online - just Google the title and a Pdf site will roll up. Read even one of the initial short chapters and feel the electricity of suppressed info hit you.
@not2tees, if the public school system is "defective" it's because of its "tenants" : it's people alongside their own beliefs and culture that are responsible, it's not a matter of some pseudo-universal truth stating that whatever is publicly funded is bad!... Many other countries have such a system, but don't have those problems! In fact, one could assume that the government itself, driven by its own dogmas, could sabotage whatever is publicly funded...
Whatever is publicly funded is **worse**. There are shades of gray. And it is true.
All countries are different. They're not as bad in some fields, worse in others. I here Belgium even has good schools. That doesn't mean they couldn't be better and/or cheaper. Not that I know much about Belgium, but it just might people won't let the government screw up the schools.
6.35, no no no no. Nuclear power plants do not "explode". They meltdown. That's just environmentalist propaganda.
6:50, completely not true. They could just use that hole in Nevada they are building right now to dump all the rods. Why wouldn't the free market be able to dig that?
I read somewhere that the Thorium reactor is safer/cleaner and does not turn out plutonium to make nukes with. The concept of a Thorium reactor is old, but at some point the Uranium reactor was chosen BECAUSE it yielded Plutonium with which you can make bombs. Thanks overlords.
A really sad thing about all this; nuclear power is, possibly, the most efficient form of producing energy--even with the extreme amount of energy that's wasted in the reactors themselves. When I consider that in the free market, funding research in nuclear engineering or nuclear power would be nearly impossible, because of the risks it entails, I'm disappointed; yes, it carries a tremendous danger, but the benefits of research into the atom are irrefutable.
@voiceofreason467 I refused no such thing: what I told you clearly is that I refuse to let my IP be exposed to you or anyone else using a blog site so that I can't be attacked directly by the very untrustworthy people of the Zeitgeist movement who have moved to censor everyone possible with any other opinion than supporting Venus Project. I clearly indicated the best forum for media & protection of my privacy is Youtube and you're an idiot to say otherwise, or perhaps a liar.
@voiceofreason467 Blocking people is censorship. I only block total fuck-tards, which that person was not, and this person also was reasonable and honest, NOT A TROLL. You and him called each other trolls and I said NO-TROLL and didn't block either of you. I recently blocked ONE person for calling Drutter a thief (he is not) and making a threatening video about Drutter, then a comment on my videos. I pointed out factual arguments, you just refuse to face reality.
Look on the News section of the BBC for an article named: "Japan nuclear threat. The tsunami is the bigger tragedy" by David Spiegelhalter (Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, Cambridge University). It pretty much summarizes the real point of view on the nuclear debate.
I would definitely live in the governance structure with sh*tloads of thorium nuclear power. Sorry Stef. I like a secure, stable energy supply or thousands of years.
@Moragauth people don't value long-term investments, not in gold, silver, technology or even cars. People take what's right in front of them & act like nothing else exists. Most people are very bad at investing & space technologies are an investment. For your philosophy to fail, most people need to be bad investors on everything from time to money to inventions - they are.
@ytgv3fc7 You're making generalisations that are purely born out of anecdotal evidence, if that. And no, "my" philosophy requires nothing of the sort. It doesn't require" most" people to be good investors. Where are you pulling this crap from?
@voiceofreason467 Your support of the Venus project, some time ago, had a lot of fallacies. You stopped replying to the videos I put up about it, did you change your mind on some key issues?
@Moragauth how about "I respect the suicide you are committing despite there being no gain whatsoever for you or your family by returning to the melt-downs to try to stop them, probably without any hope of success"
@ytgv3fc7 "how about "I respect the suicide you are committing despite there being no gain whatsoever for you or your family by returning to the melt-downs to try to stop them, probably without any hope of success""
How about... no. You still perform these actions because the alternative is, to you, less palatable, i.e. the aversion of psychic losses and/or a risk made to gain psychic profits. So sorry, this doesn't work.
@Moragauth actually no, there are some people whose motive is precisely the opposite of gain by any manner - emotional, rational, financial. I observe this behaviour. I'm at a loss to explain it but I see it frequently.
@ytgv3fc7 You say you "observe" it. So you have no idea what the person is thinking. If the action was not in line with their preferences, they would not perform it (their performance of their action is demonstration of the preference; barring the ability to delve into their mind, you have no way of second-guessing this.) Simple as that. And it need not be for gain but also for aversion of psychic losses. So you don't "see" anything of the sort.
@chotaboy66 the principle and interest are multiplied by banks and laundered INTO circulation, not the other way around. To be laundered out of circulation then all loans from all banks would have to stop and be forever banished.
@ytgv3fc7 NO NO NO Principal & Interest is borrowed back into circulation AFTER Is laundered OUT of circulation by the VERY obfuscation of a borrowers promissory obligation ,Principal is exchanged & loaned+interest ,banks dont retire money when its re payed THEY KEEP IT,Interest is NEVER created to begin with so it depletes circulation also,Fractional Multiplication X DOWN to ZERO,UNLESS new money is created by a borrowers promissory note,FM is NOT creation its expansion,secondary to creation.
@ytgv3fc7 To be laundered out of circulation then all loans from all banks would have to stop and be forever banished.
-
Why stop laundering circulation when theres a fed & CRIMINAL gov regulating all theft by deception? more to Consolidate YES?,we keep creating money & wealth & its robbed from us on conception BY COMMERCIAL BANKS, via the obfuscation a borrowers promissory obligation thus its multiplied further through terminal national debt in an attempt to keep circulation vital of course.
@ytgv3fc7 Until you see WHO is a true creditor & WHO creates money you will be forever lost seeking solution in symptoms thats presented to us people falsly claiming banks create money,Banks dont loan/create there own money THEY CHANGE our money into theres by fraud caliming to be creditors when the true creditor is payed from existing circulation & denyed terminal interst ,banks risk zip,theives that intervene on our commerce publishing ONLY EVIDENCE of our promissory obligations to each other
@chotaboy66 I do see who is a true creditor and who creates money. I have told you more than once and we can all see it. You are completely ignoring reality. Banks create debt notes and always do so. Gold is money, silver is money, debt is not. Once you understand this you are free of their machine. There is no terminal interest: this always ends in HYPERINFLATION. Hyperinflation is the last gasp at trying to steal the most from enslaving wages into debt notes until people quit buying stuff.
@ytgv3fc7 If money is backed by gold then the gold is the debt,what makes money worthless is the obfuscation of the borrowers promissory note,if you think interest is not terminal YOU indeed havent a clue on money creation or who the true creditor is,if you did you would know interest is never created ,2 types of inflation.Price inflation which is caused by banks charging interest ,circulatory inflation which never happens because deflation always escalates faster than the circulatory inflation
@chotaboy66 wrong. If money is gold in hand, not backed by gold but IS PHYSICAL ATOMS OF GOLD IN MY HAND, then it is not a debt - it is a value built in. Intrinsic. Debt = zero at all times. There are no notes. None.
Interest is not terminal nor ever has been: hyperinflation is the next stage where maximal slaving is reaped from the populace. This is not terminal interest, this is collapse of society. Everything you claimed was opposite to reality about creating money. Poor track record so far
@chotaboy66 inflation is constantly increasing because currency is constantly being issued by Central banks and credit is constantly issued to an INCREASING amount, non-stop, from banks. This makes terminal interest impossible: $8 in loans is made for every $1 paid off, making deflation IMPOSSIBLE. Circulatory inflation ALWAYS happens, price inflation CAN NEVER happen without it. EVER. Never has in all history. EVER.
@ytgv3fc7 I do see who is a true creditor and who creates money.
--------
Do you now ,,actually you have proved already you don't .Please tell me THEN who is the true creditor and who creates money?
Another question to think about before you spew more factional multiplication fiction bank doctrine at me ,maybe I should re phase the question it in more simpleton terms YES?
If every nation is in debt then who could possibly be the true creditor.?
@ytgv3fc7 Its a myth to claim hyperinflation is caused by printing too much money ,this is simply false because commercial banks launder it out of circulation ( circulatory deflation ) faster than any gov can re borrow it via national debt via the fed attempting to keep circulation vital (circulatory inflation) ,A fed ONLY prints & issues cash thats no more than 3to5% of ALL the money supply, the rest is digits in a computer or ledger thats **CREATED** (NOT ISSUED OR EXPANDED) by WHO & how mate?
@ytgv3fc7 Gold is money, silver is money, debt is not.
--
Sorry All money has a certain amount of debt attached even gold & silver. What YOU fail to understand is debt is not the problem ,the people need personal debt to grow & prosper as a nation YES? only we dont need debt with interest at ANY rate,we dont need banks,ALL BANKS jointly launder ALL principal out of circulation via the obfuscation of the borrowers promissory obligation on its very conception,before issuence or expansion.
Nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel again. However, it's cheaper to buy new fuel then to reprocess. All of U.S plants combined create about 2k pounds of spent fuel annually, which is being stored for potential later use, as reprocessing becomes more efficient. As it stands now, 95% of waste is reusable. That number only stands to improve.
In regards to nuclear power, it has the potential to be safe, but sadly the privatization of nuclear power means that profit is placed in much higher priority than safety.
As for the earthquakes and tsunamis, many people are saying many conflicting statements, and so the event is likely to reach a 9/11 level of obscurity, and the absolute truth will never be openly stated in our lifetimes.
And what's your gripe with space exploration? It's not about flying in big penises, it's about the laws of physics and probing our environment. It's about human knowledge. NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to military budgets. Space exploration and scientific research should NOT be the first thing to get cut. That's one of the few hopes left for humanity. I respect philosophy, but you apparently don't respect science.
@jeffiek Agreed, there's little need for a such a large standing army and so many weapons, no one will invade a country with armed Nukes. The military industrial complex is the worst parasite, next to central banks, however, both have us by the balls, so long as they can continue to lobby/create our rulers.
The correct response is not to get rid of nuclear, but to encourage furthering scientific and technological progress in the field. Other types of energy are good too. There are risks and trade-offs for all these forms of production, and nuclear happens to be one of the overall best. Recent developments are demonstrating higher efficiency, meaning that radioactive waste can be cut down nearly to zero in future designs. Planning and good science is what we need to address these problems.
Getting rid of nuclear is not the solution to anything right now, we WILL need more plants to supply the worlds power needs until a better, higher energy density producing source of power can be found. As the population grows exponentially, so does our need for energy. Solar and other renewables are a waste of materials and production compared to building 1 nuclear plant to a square mile of solar panels. Stay away from the energy debate stef, its not your genre
@Haytearah solar stirling engines are more ideal than nuclear for the power vs risk. All investments have risk, so it's not just the distribution of profits and energy density to keep in mind. It takes a lot of resources to handle nuclear waste, which can't be put to production given the contamination. Thorium, I am investigating (not done) looks to be less wasteful nuclear power, less dangerous, more common than uranium. Our population will stop growing: we have no choice in that
@ytgv3fc7 Thorium, being a much lower level radioactive, also has far less drastic hazards in the case of a catastrophic failure than uranium.
If nuclear firms had to deal with liability for the risks they create, I think uranium reactors would simply be too expensive to insure. In order to cut costs, cutting risks is essential, and thorium cuts those hazards drastically.
It seems sensible to assume that because the free market would never have picked up the idea of nuclear power, it is clearly not mature enough to be viable. If more research had been done, more time spent to let the technology mature, maybe the free market might have eventually picked it up.
The thing is, I feel that nuclear power has potential.. But it seems that to do something as unprofitable as research in something that will only pay off in the far future, it takes a government... It's sad.
@Gredias the free market tends not to look long-term but now that government has helped show us what nuclear power can do, good and bad, the free market can indeed figure out what to do from here. IF it is given a chance. HOWEVER, we need accountability for private waste: corporate nuclear waste, private nuclear waste, requires liability if it poisons others. This liability needs to be something we can count on in materials and cash (not just cash) or we must deny it to exist.
@ytgv3fc7 "the free market can indeed figure out what to do from here."
I believe that nuclear power would have occurred without govt "jumpstarting" the process, just as transcontinental railroads were built privately, and profitably, not long after the immensely wasteful boondoggles that the govt railroads were, and for that matter the very inexpensive private space efforts after the astoundingly expensive govt space programs.
Curie and friends were already investigating radiation and fission.
I hope all the people defending nuclear power are sure it is so safe. From what I have seen, it seems very far from safe when things go wrong. I wonder if the scenario is this:the modern world is committed to massive power consumption with most people having a TV, computer,lights,etc going many hours per day, almost every day.Therefore to provide power, we have to employ nuclear, because its output is so tremendous.So the risks get downplayed.But what if this does turn out to be a Pandora's Box?
oh, and what have you "seen?" All I've seen is major media blowing the whole damned thing out of proportion, with misinformation, reported hype and little or NO science. This is why I get all my news for free off the internet, to pay for propaganda is simply stupid. Mankind harnesses the Atom, and we allow stupid people to prevent us from using it? Meanwhile, they force us to spend hundreds of billions on oil that funds our enemies. I'm TIRED of FUCKING IDIOTS CONTROLLING MY LIFE!
@NYatheist I at least use my computer & lights both for seeing & for heat, for information processing which allows me to figure out what to do for the next 10 years or 20 based on relayed data from other sites. Where I live could get by fine without nuclear power. New York, Vancouver, Las Vegas, that size of city, could not continue to exist without it. Maybe we'd be better off that way.
re: liability and jail for the rest of our lives: well no, in a free market there's no real jails because that requires government intervention so there's no real liability for anyone except to use the market (which has limited effects) or privately funded armies & police (which brings into question accountability). In a society where somehow magically everyone is voluntary and co-operative (not likely) people could figure out an agreement to deeply bury very small reactors designed for
re: liability (2) designed for single-use like a powerful battery or hot-spring. At least then it's already deeply buried & rather than having a small site with concentrated nuclear waste you have many more dispersed, super-deep sites (as deep as oil wells) & then bury each one with concrete ready on-site for dumping. If the concrete can't get down to the reactor then the radiation can't get up to us through the transit holes. Using power induction we can avoid wire drill holes too.
Nuclear power plants account for only 15% of all energy consumption in the world. I believe this to be just another way corporations and lobbyist whores get filthy rich.
Typical. another tough guy on YT. You're very typical of the cretins who think they're so bad. Here are the FACTS, nuclear power is safe, radiation exposure in LARGE DOSES may not be, however, there are a number of studies that show that radiation is not as bad as the pundits would have you believe. You're supposedly Russian, and you won't find causality or higher cancer rates in the Chernobyl area.
Now, you want to continue to insult, go ahead, be a dickhead. It's normal for fools.
Ending with an insult yourself does not help your case. Radiation has a way to kill people years after a disaster happens and it's through a small side effect called 'cancer'. It may not kill you right away, but surely one drops dead sooner or later. By the way "Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated" -Fact
Yeah, I can see that there's an in depth statistical analysis with this headline. This is EXTREMELY TYPICAL of the emotional tripe I see from the Left which BELIEVES in such things as alien visitation and global warming. The FACTS are that there has been NO PROVEN increase in cancer or death in the areas of the two nuclear power plant accidents that have occurred, 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl. Further, new nuclear plant design has made these systems obsolete; nuclear power is safe.
@isoIdier only 15% of energy production? I doubt that very much. Are you splitting that between transport and non-transport uses? If it's not a car or a truck, odds are good it's nuclear power or burning coal, oil or natural gas.
Stefan Molyneux's material on anti-statism is good, his material on public school I agree with 95%, but his materials on global warming, the space program, and nuclear power are so bad that they are *genuinely funny* to watch. Also, his "derivation" of "rational secular ethics" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Molyneux is not a particularly strong philosopher on the whole and should be taken with a grain of salt.
The idea that irresponsible fools would shift the troubles of insuring something lethal for thousands of years onto the future unborn, that seems all too conceivable. If you're short sighted enough, and positive enough, the possibility that some future existence might suffer never arises in your little consciousness. Nuclear power might have a great record for 100 years - but that's like saying a business is a success if it's still operating a month after opening.
I would say that insurance itself is evidence enough that we need government. If an accident does happen, who is going to hold a company responsible? The ability of free people to keep free people in check is quite limited - it takes the strong arm of a government to force powerful companies to take some responsibility for their actions. The BP disaster is a perfect example.
@mouthpiece200 Without the strong arm of the governments military corporations would never have been able to get to the point they are today.
BP is a perfect example of nothing, because no one knows the truth of the situation. How can something be a perfect example when the truth is not known?
You have the same problem as the rest of the pro enslavement people! You have no idea how to survive without gov and corps, so your answer is to be a slave, and advocate the enslavement of everyone else!
@bryphi77 Corporations dont need help of gov. to become big and powerful. Some do but most don't. If a private company wants to make a nuclear reactor next door to you, who will stop them? The truth of BP is this, they would never have coughed up money to clean up oil unless the gov. forced them do, and the only reason any oil company takes precautions to avoid spill is because laws make them. And you have the same problem as many anarchists, resorting to personal attacks instead of logic.
@bryphi77 untrue - corporations granted this strong-arm power to the governments, not the other way around. If only we all formed as many corporations as possible to out-perform (in force and in finance) the corporations that today are causing so much harm, we could have stopped some of it. Too late now. Like in prison, first to eat shanks the first to starve.
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the "shooting tincans into space" and "guys sitting inside giant penises" in a future video. Usually I aggree to what you what you have to say, to a moderate extent ofcourse, but these statements just baffled the hell out of me.
Granted that space programs are purely government funded projects, but It's one of the greatest achievements of the human race! Ignoring how the world should be for a second, and look how it is, that's money well spent...
@Darkhorse21x Yea, hes not a bad guy tho, i really liked his trial of Socrate's videos. Anyone who is willing to go to college and spend their time making videos to educate people is a very good person in my eyes. I just get tired of hearing parts of his videos where he is flat out wrong or contradicting to the way he tried to explain philosophy in his other videos. He will just have to realize a better way of running the "state" than getting rid of it and expecting everyone to join hands..
Ok, he probably isn't a bad guy, just misguided. I don't disagree with everything he says but what rubs me is that he is always using a false modesty when he says that he has lots to learn, and is willing to listen, but then when U put evidence in his face, he runs and hides behind some ridiculous and irrelevant allegory and fails to support his position with evidence.
If he did not do this as a business plan where he is set up 4 credit card donations, i might back off a bit.
@Darkhorse21x You're not the only one with complaints against him. Mr Stef is half genius, half madman. But I enjoy watchin', whichever way the video swings.
That is quite true but I take my disdain for his unsupported opinions to a higher level than most in terms of quantity, and imho, quality.
I think that the economic downturn has started to affect his credit card donations and the stress of a shrinking, rather than growing income source is starting to effect his demeanor. When the wife starts harping about "quitting your little hobby cuz it just aint workin out", well; we start to see the stuff he puts out now.
@Darkhorse21x I disagree fundamentally. Statism is quite obviously NOT a company with mere administration and production departments. Your referencing of the SEC Homepage is absolutely RIDICULOUS, and I'm sure the "studies" you've produced are either fictitious or an incredible waste of time. The state is funded via a fiat monopoly on violence via taxation. Stef lives within a state because every square inch of earth is under a state, dipshit.
@Darkhorse21x Was that you on his Sunday radio show the other day? If not, someone stole your script and was making the exact same arguments to Stefan. I instantly recognized them.
IMHO, there is no "Government". Government is just the management, administration and production departments of another company. I keep bringing this up 2 Stef but he is afraid to deal.
I posted evidence using the US SEC home page and he ignores it.
I post evidence of contractual requirements and he ignores it.
I post sourced studies which refute his unsupported opinions and he ignores them.
Stef is a immigrant that CHOSE to live in CANADA. Apparently someone held a gun to his head.
@stefbot Yes stef, send me the bill. If it means the technological advancement of the entire human race. THEN YES, FUCKING SEND ME THE BILL. I could list all the current advancements we gained from the the space program, which we can thank the state for sponsoring, but Im afraid I wouldn't have enough space. Google the benefits for yourself and maybe you will see what the state can do if someone in charge knows where to put the money.
Sure, this is regardless as to to the opportunity cost calculations which NEVER into the equation. The economic fact is that regulation has prevented the private sector from expansion into space, finance, construction, technology, telecommunications, medicine, agriculture...every facet of life imaginable, and you claim the government did us a favor with the space program? No way, when people are allowed to function with minimal gov't, we THRIVE, we OUT PRODUCE, we're SUPERIOR.
@captaindiesalot Regulation has prevented the private sector from going to space? I think your thinking about the enormous cost, not regulation. There are actually quite a few private sector companies that will launch a satellite into space for you... and among other things. And looking at the rest of your post i see you are very delusional, and do not know even know what the private sector is or anything else for that matter.... Happy trolling ; )
If you propose equal land, what of people who wish to manage no land but remain mobile, would you accept trade of this land to others with land already, making ownership unequal, but making individuals a deal they both desire at the time?
@stefbot I think folks like Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace are doing a good job of proving that going into space is something the market wants.
@stefbot Hi.Im annoyed you keep saying "there was a 90% literacy level before public schooling", This is not true and I think you know this and are cheating them. I dont like public schooling endoctrination ,But messing around with facts is stupid. Tell the truth that the 90% youre talking about was in "private" schooling and most poor children could not even spell theyre names.
"their" is the "write" word...back to your private v. public "edukation" arguments...public "skool" produces numerous educated idiots..."welkome" to the "klub."
Hey, did you knew you can support people by clicking "like"?
jusk2ru 1 week ago
what about nuclear waste storage on the moon ? cant be that hard any comments?
whiterchocolate 3 weeks ago
The only problem is that a coal plant explosion is significantly more harmful than any nuclear accident short of a Chernobyl style meltdown (which isn't close to remotely possible with western safety systems, even more so with modern reactor technology.) The chance of explosion is next to nothing when properly built (which Chernobyl was not), and when you built a nuclear reactor in a common sense area (not in the freaking ring of fire) it's perfectly safe. Would't exist without gov't though.
nickdeb2 1 month ago
@nickdeb2 Use self generating magnet motors, problem solved.
SarionFetecuse 2 weeks ago
@nickdeb2 Next to nothing? Great, thanks for setting my mind at ease bro
Chrisi313 1 week ago
@Chrisi313 no problem breh
nickdeb2 1 week ago
I have trouble accepting the testimony before congress of the Westinghouse Executive on the cost of a nuclear power plant. What else would he say, other than that these subsidies are absolutely indispensable for the development of nuclear power.
mbarkhau 1 month ago
I would say that under fascism, major corporations and their owners do far better for themselves than they would in the free market. It's win-win for government and corporations (and, to a lesser extent, for bureaucratic, AFL-CIO-esque unions). The people who lose out, of course, are workers, small businesses, and decentralized unions (i.e.- the 99%).
QuatFax 3 months ago
If you want to know some FACTS, about Nuclear power and it's safety watch this BBC Documentary on it. Search "is nuclear safe" it's the top link.
ShoutingQuietly 4 months ago
If we ignore nuclear power now, we are going to have a serious power deficit in the very short future. Newer designes are ever more efficient and safe. Stefan i agree with you on a lot of issues but on this you are dead wrong. Leave the philosophy behind on this one and let the scientists continue to caress us in the warm embrace of the 21st century.
ShoutingQuietly 5 months ago
@ShoutingQuietly yeah right - they said chernobyl was safe, they said fukushima was safe - if we are going to have an incident of disaster magnitude 7 or above every 25 years - thats 4 per century - even the 2 mega-disasters we have had have probably already caused millions of cancer deaths all around the northern hemisphere.
You may be right that the alternative is an energy deficiency - so be it - thats preferable to radioactive carcinogens flaoting around the ecosphere until the end of time!
BiggerThinking1 4 months ago
@BiggerThinking1 Ok, you really need to research before making comments. Total number of deaths from Chernobyl, 2,222, Total deaths from Fukashima 0, predicted deaths, 0. You cant use "probably" when your making a case to not use something that has caused "millions" of deaths.
So I guess your happier using coal. Mining industry around the work kills hundreds of people directly every year. and many more from mining related disease. Good work proving my point that nuclear is safer.
ShoutingQuietly 4 months ago
Ur so full of S***
TravelerNTime 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Why should private interests want to take on the costs of decommissioning inefficient plants that were constructed by the government or take on responsibility for disasters that are caused by old and outdated plants constructed by government? This has nothing to do with the feasibility of nuclear energy in the free market. Incidentally, it is flat out wrong to compare a nuclear plant with a nuclear weapon. You might as well compare an internal combustion engine with a petrol bomb. It's nonsense.
LordZentei 8 months ago
@LordZentei The key point he is making is valid - that nuclear industry is uninsurable in the free market - ie the risk-cost is TOO BIG - when nuke goes wrong it goes wrong BIG! - nuke poisoning is forever! And its so toxic that a big enough excursion could kill a majority of people on the planet not just now but all future generations.
INFINITE COST = UNVIABLE (unless risk is ZERO - which it can never be)
BiggerThinking1 4 months ago
@BiggerThinking1
The nuclear industry is not insurable in practice, because of something called the Price-Anderson act. While the anti-nuclear lobby claims that this provides undue favoritism for the nuclear industry, the truth is actually quite the opposite in practice. The idea that the nuclear industry is uninsurable in a free market is simply a meme - it's complete nonsense.
LordZentei 4 months ago
the company in charge of fukushima npp calculated if it's cheaper to save or to abandon the reactor. that's why they didn't do anything to minimize radiation and all they did is cool it down in order to restart it later. they didn't care about the radiation and pollution. all they cared about is minimal loss of money.
private companies act like governments. of course they do. stef would never talk about it because ignoring that fact is what makes his stateless social model kinda work in theory.
kmica2008 9 months ago
Projects, like the nuclear and space programs often might seem like giant money sinks but there aren't. The reality is that programs that large need to be developed by the public sector. Because the private sector makes what is profitable, not what is needed. Business, and working in a free market to make things and provide services is a good thing. But let's be real. The only things that will be made, are things that are profitable. So, the space program, while not profitable, still is needed.
ShinEmperor 9 months ago
Facts and reason,are useless to religionists, like Statist, and Christians, they do not believe because its rational, but because it fits the herd mentality, and the fact that its a popular cult to belong to, even thought its destructive. Faith, is what they desire, not science, or logic. Its is a major reason why the statist church the Public Indoctrinating System, emphasizes 'secular mysticism', as truth, such as the typical teenage fixation on New Age/ Postmodernism thinking.
KevZen2000 10 months ago
Statism is a crazy religion indeed. The disciples of statism, do not even realize they are following the most dangerous god of our time, the government. Statism, has its it sects, the military, Department of War AKA Department of Defense, Environmental Destruction Agency AKA EPA, and magical thinking, like the social contract (similar to original sin, you're born into this mystical nature and responsible),'equality,' violence as a virtue, its commandments, the constitution, and so on.
KevZen2000 10 months ago
so what about the difference between the free market and corporations, i mean the free market doesn't have to be make of corporations it hasn't always been right?
simonkism 10 months ago
@simonkism A free market would have NO corporations, because a corporation, by its very definition, requires government intervention in the creation of a corporate charter, and government's grant of limited liability under the law.
Dirge987 10 months ago 2
@Dirge987 Right thats exactly what i thought, thanks great answer!
simonkism 10 months ago
Well, I don't find it inconceivable that we can reuse the nuclear waste to the point of it having extremely little radiation left and better safety precautions in the near future. But what do I know, I'm not a physicist. I just don't think that nuclear power should ruled out as a potential source of energy in the future.
LibertyOfExpression 10 months ago
About the Apollo program, I like the idea of space exploration. I don't like the idea of govt run programs. I really don't like a man using a penis analysis (Freudian) to condemn other men. It's pretty fuckin gay.
The appearance of rockets has nothing to do with what penis looks like, but it has something to do with aerodynamics. Try to make a rocket looks like a box, you will see what I mean. :D
nonaCbarC 10 months ago
@nonaCbarC I thought that virgin Air using it's own space spaceship managed it into lower orbit withour using up a billion + and without killing astronauts in the proces. the test pilot of friendship-1 was over 60
LastReplaySC 9 months ago
@LastReplaySC
:D
Explain, how this can be a reply to my comment.
nonaCbarC 9 months ago
yeah.. i dont really like the zeitgeist movies anymore.
lysergicgirll 10 months ago
@lysergicgirll. Zeitgeist, is just a modern day version of the Marxist religion, with a catchy film to get you in the cult. Just enough facts, to subvert the rational conclusion of Free-market Anarchism.
KevZen2000 10 months ago 2
"History shows again and again
how nature points up the folly of men"
VCADD 10 months ago
This actually helps me understand Ron Paul's position and why he skips over antitrust prosecution. We have a Cost/Profit Risk/Benefit model that is being manipulated. The size and control of the corporation wouldn't matter if businesses had to way the true real world costs and risks of their endeavors.
hiyukenmusic 10 months ago
Well put, and probably good for many to hear. My two cents of thought is to go a couple of more steps and use the gordian knot and look at even more fundamental courses, like thezeitgeistmovement com is doing, getting a picture of the whole is always nice! Thanks for good video!
makemorelove69 10 months ago
@makemorelove69 Zeitgeist movement is not philosophical, that is, its not based on reason and evidence. As Stefan Molyneux himself has said, Zeitgeist is just Marxism with robots.
truevoice08 10 months ago
Interesting video. Really good to know! I'm not a supporter of the free market ideas, but all your videos are informative and useful in shifting my paradigm. Keep up the good work!
xjih78 10 months ago
Dude, you probably need a girl man. I bet you're an English major or something along those lines huh?
llitos 11 months ago
In a properly run nuclear power plant, there is so little risk of major disaster its laughable. A nuclear reactor is NOT the same thing as a nuclear weapon. This type of power is relatively cheap, safe and efficient. In a free society, I do believe a board of investors would agree to fund a nuclear power facility simply because it is likely the most efficient way to generate power. Im a fan of wind and solar energy, but they alone are not enough to meet energy demands.
Rayzersword 11 months ago
And while I'm educating you, remember the year is 2011, not 1953. The nuclear industry doesn't receive subsidies anymore--under Bush and Obama they're received tax breaks and LOANS. That's L-O-A-N-S! Things that must be paid back!
Saying they're 'stealing our tax dollars' to build nuclear plants is further proof of either your ignorance or outright dishonesty.
Subsidies are for free-market washouts that don't generate enough electricity to cover their costs, such as wind and solar power.
DarthCormac 11 months ago
6:25 - "Build a nuclear weapon but contain it inside a building."
That is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard. Typical liberal arts major trying to understand science! A nuclear power plant operates with uranium enriched at 3% purity. A nuclear weapon operates using uranium at 90% purity. As any child can see, that's a HUGE difference. Due to a little thing called the laws of physics, enriching uranium to 90% doesn't happen "spontaneously" inside commercial nuclear reactors.
DarthCormac 11 months ago
The Nietzsche quote is apt in a world with no variation. In reality, the origin of nuclear power IS irrelevant. Nuclear power originated in the need to develop highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Today, those outdated reactors just generate energy. The old way of doing nuclear power is obsolete, but people still need electricity--new nuclear is needed!
The solution isn't to scrap nuclear power and create an energy crisis, but to move to safer thorium-based reactors.
DarthCormac 11 months ago
J.D Rockefeller - "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers
93msinclair 11 months ago
90% literacy? This actually was true at any time in history? Ah, this is the comedy station!
stelligent 11 months ago
You say violent thugs like all people who work for the government are straight out of a gangster movie. I want to live where people pull together to meet the needs of me and my community as a whole, not in some selfish society where everyone just takes care of themselves so they can remove this invisible gun from their heads. I don't like violence but I accept that making taxation compulsory is the only way to do that.
Brushles83 11 months ago
@Brushles83 I don't care how pretty a dress you put on the pig. It's still a pig.
Bush, Obama, Cameron, Ahmadinejad, Mubarak, et al. will ALL swear they're doing good.
I don't care what people THINK they're doing. I care what they actually do.
All of the above will happily have someone point a gun at you and march you of to jail if you disagree with any of their wishes (laws). All of their supporters enable them.
And you're one of them.
Saying "thug" is just easier.
jeffiek 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brushles83 I don't care how pretty a dress you put on the pig. It's still a pig.
Bush, Obama, Cameron, Ahmadinejad, Mubarak, et al. will ALL swear they're doing good.
I don't care what people THINK they're doing. I care what they actually do.
All of the above will happily have someone point a gun at you and march you of to jail if you disagree with any of their wishes (laws). All of their supporters enable them.
And you're one of them.
Saying "thug" is just easier.
jeffiek 11 months ago
@GuerrillaFighter12 The eminently well-researched Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto claims this statistic for pre-compulsory American citizens. I've read it myself. It's a great, visceral book and free online - just Google the title and a Pdf site will roll up. Read even one of the initial short chapters and feel the electricity of suppressed info hit you.
not2tees 11 months ago
just a thought btw I'm with you on most of this
RevolutionaryJam 11 months ago
Do you think it would be better if the exploration of space was privatised? every night we'de be abled to see "Enjoy Diet Coke" in fairy lights on the face of the moon.
RevolutionaryJam 11 months ago
@GuerrillaFighter12 Here is one major source: John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education.
leafwatch 11 months ago
This is very interesting information about the recent disaster in Japan. It's bad enough that governments continue to build nuclear power plants alongside earthquake faults but even "properly functioning nuclear power plants" leak hazardous radiation levels (deemed acceptable by the government yet criminally hide and deny rises in several increased cancer rates). The liability cap is disturbing. It basically paves way for crimes against humanity.
nocoercion 11 months ago
Steff can you do a story on Julia GILLARD - Prime Minister of Australia - she pleged no carbon tax 6 days before election. She is trying to put it in place now.
PlatinumGordon 11 months ago
This dude is spot on in all of his videos. I like him and I don't always agree but 99% his is spot on. Especially this education piece. Teachers are for the most part ignorant 'repeaters'.
ghostrider8955 11 months ago
Zis is abut inshurans.
HCLivess 11 months ago
Your opening reminds me of a John Huston quote from the movie Chinatown: "Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."
GetMeThere1 11 months ago
simply saying to someone who values mankinds knowledge of the solar system 'well you pay for it then' is very stupid indeed!
Brushles83 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 First of all, you're lying. I KNOW the hackers that have done this RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME so I know it can be done, with just an IP address.
Knowing a location is UNIMPORTANT, only the IP address.
Second of all, you're chickenshit to raise the precise questions
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 to the Zeitgeist forums I mentioned in a SINGLE 500 CHARACTER MESSAGE.
Third, if you're too lazy to copy that message NOW then you're too lazy to build anything for any Venus Project. It's 500 characters
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 I know very well once the IP is known I can be knocked off using that IP forever by hackers AND the IP is open for others to try to get through my firewalls and hack my computer directly. The answer is NO and for damn good reason.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 and I'm repeatedly telling you that request is denied and is based on a need to dig at my personal information. You know very well what issues I've brought up and you can ask them yourself in less time & less words than your combined replies. Just ask them: #1 why not gold/silver as money #2 why not abolish all central control #3 how can a predictive algorithm exist for any computer for personal need #4 why not a PERSONAL predictive computer, not a central one?
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
I don't totally agree with your idea of nuclear power coming out of government, but government did push for dangerous forms of nuclear energy in order to produce weapons grade material while pretending to be for civilian use. There's far safer forms of reactors like Thorium based reactors and would provide us with massive power, much more efficient and safer, but because you couldn't develop nuclear weapons out of them, they never became popular for the government.
MrFluShot 11 months ago
Stef, nuclear technology can be used quite safely. A cursory examination of events at Chernobyl and Fukushima reveals that the reactor models used in either place were out of date and therefor questionably designed (not to mention poorly positioned, as was the case with the latter). In terms of human and material investment, nuclear power dwarfs alternative fuel sources in effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. The models you're decrying are purposely designed to produce weapons grade materials.
MabusZero 11 months ago
Stef, you are my hero.
scharpilienne 11 months ago
How do you explain Iceland and Japan? They have strict state-schools, more so than we do.
LiberalCast 11 months ago
woah...close-up!
LiberalCast 11 months ago
More over, one cannot seriously proclaim about democracy when the people don't have sufficient education so as to apply their "free-will" judiciously (instead of acting like lemmings or being guided solely by their emotions and senses, thus easily prone to manipulation), hence a public school system.
HawkFest 11 months ago 2
Unfortunately, this guy made a grave error with his stance about public school, demolishing his unrelated view about nuclear power. It's in those countries where the public school system is the most advanced and accessible to all, where the rates of "educated people" are the highest! Go fetch stats and you'll see... FACTS mister, facts, don't just through your Phd on our face it's insulting for our intelligence, we call this "manipulation"...
HawkFest 11 months ago 2
..And it's not just a question of accessibility or publicly funded school system, it's also a matter of culture. Most countries where the "culture of money" and neoliberalism/neoconservatism is thriving and dominant, have their educational rates relatively lower given the same accessibility to education.
HawkFest 11 months ago
@HawkFest The eminently well-researched Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto claims this statistic for pre-compulsory American citizens. I've read it myself. It's a great, visceral book and free online - just Google the title and a Pdf site will roll up. Read even one of the initial short chapters and feel the electricity of suppressed info hit you.
not2tees 11 months ago
@not2tees, if the public school system is "defective" it's because of its "tenants" : it's people alongside their own beliefs and culture that are responsible, it's not a matter of some pseudo-universal truth stating that whatever is publicly funded is bad!... Many other countries have such a system, but don't have those problems! In fact, one could assume that the government itself, driven by its own dogmas, could sabotage whatever is publicly funded...
HawkFest 11 months ago
@HawkFest "whatever is publicly funded is bad"
Whatever is publicly funded is **worse**. There are shades of gray. And it is true.
All countries are different. They're not as bad in some fields, worse in others. I here Belgium even has good schools. That doesn't mean they couldn't be better and/or cheaper. Not that I know much about Belgium, but it just might people won't let the government screw up the schools.
jeffiek 11 months ago
@HawkFest You actually did not, at all, listen to the point he was making.
FUZZYisBIG 11 months ago
- en * wikipedia * org slash wiki slash Molten_salt_reactor
- en * wikipedia * org slash wiki slash Pebble_bed_reactor
batmanthe 11 months ago
One of the only videos I have disagreed with.
sirachman 11 months ago
@sirachman I'm curious as to which part/parts you disagree with.
andrewh817 11 months ago
8:30 What government is going to be around for 20,000 years?
Killedkennyagain 11 months ago
6.35, no no no no. Nuclear power plants do not "explode". They meltdown. That's just environmentalist propaganda.
6:50, completely not true. They could just use that hole in Nevada they are building right now to dump all the rods. Why wouldn't the free market be able to dig that?
DaveElectric 11 months ago
Great vid, very educational
Jclewell3d 11 months ago
There can't be a true market system.
TheBigKiller 11 months ago
I read somewhere that the Thorium reactor is safer/cleaner and does not turn out plutonium to make nukes with. The concept of a Thorium reactor is old, but at some point the Uranium reactor was chosen BECAUSE it yielded Plutonium with which you can make bombs. Thanks overlords.
modelmark 11 months ago
A really sad thing about all this; nuclear power is, possibly, the most efficient form of producing energy--even with the extreme amount of energy that's wasted in the reactors themselves. When I consider that in the free market, funding research in nuclear engineering or nuclear power would be nearly impossible, because of the risks it entails, I'm disappointed; yes, it carries a tremendous danger, but the benefits of research into the atom are irrefutable.
Doodsrsly 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Everyone who's ever called me paranoid has always been wrong.
Some have been liars, some have been fools.
I do not make mistakes on this & I know hackers who precisely exploit what you are asking me to exploit.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 I refused no such thing: what I told you clearly is that I refuse to let my IP be exposed to you or anyone else using a blog site so that I can't be attacked directly by the very untrustworthy people of the Zeitgeist movement who have moved to censor everyone possible with any other opinion than supporting Venus Project. I clearly indicated the best forum for media & protection of my privacy is Youtube and you're an idiot to say otherwise, or perhaps a liar.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Blocking people is censorship. I only block total fuck-tards, which that person was not, and this person also was reasonable and honest, NOT A TROLL. You and him called each other trolls and I said NO-TROLL and didn't block either of you. I recently blocked ONE person for calling Drutter a thief (he is not) and making a threatening video about Drutter, then a comment on my videos. I pointed out factual arguments, you just refuse to face reality.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
Look on the News section of the BBC for an article named: "Japan nuclear threat. The tsunami is the bigger tragedy" by David Spiegelhalter (Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, Cambridge University). It pretty much summarizes the real point of view on the nuclear debate.
chrissamoila 11 months ago
I would definitely live in the governance structure with sh*tloads of thorium nuclear power. Sorry Stef. I like a secure, stable energy supply or thousands of years.
podrag 11 months ago
@podrag Try solar...a great supply for millions of years.
rlgdestroyu 11 months ago
i have serious concerns for the mental stability of the governments. the more i hear, the more i think they are suffering from sociopathy.
healmyhome 11 months ago
@Moragauth people don't value long-term investments, not in gold, silver, technology or even cars. People take what's right in front of them & act like nothing else exists. Most people are very bad at investing & space technologies are an investment. For your philosophy to fail, most people need to be bad investors on everything from time to money to inventions - they are.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 You're making generalisations that are purely born out of anecdotal evidence, if that. And no, "my" philosophy requires nothing of the sort. It doesn't require" most" people to be good investors. Where are you pulling this crap from?
Moragauth 11 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Your support of the Venus project, some time ago, had a lot of fallacies. You stopped replying to the videos I put up about it, did you change your mind on some key issues?
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@Moragauth how about "I respect the suicide you are committing despite there being no gain whatsoever for you or your family by returning to the melt-downs to try to stop them, probably without any hope of success"
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytgv3fc7 "how about "I respect the suicide you are committing despite there being no gain whatsoever for you or your family by returning to the melt-downs to try to stop them, probably without any hope of success""
How about... no. You still perform these actions because the alternative is, to you, less palatable, i.e. the aversion of psychic losses and/or a risk made to gain psychic profits. So sorry, this doesn't work.
Moragauth 11 months ago
@Moragauth actually no, there are some people whose motive is precisely the opposite of gain by any manner - emotional, rational, financial. I observe this behaviour. I'm at a loss to explain it but I see it frequently.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 You say you "observe" it. So you have no idea what the person is thinking. If the action was not in line with their preferences, they would not perform it (their performance of their action is demonstration of the preference; barring the ability to delve into their mind, you have no way of second-guessing this.) Simple as that. And it need not be for gain but also for aversion of psychic losses. So you don't "see" anything of the sort.
Moragauth 11 months ago
@chotaboy66 the principle and interest are multiplied by banks and laundered INTO circulation, not the other way around. To be laundered out of circulation then all loans from all banks would have to stop and be forever banished.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 NO NO NO Principal & Interest is borrowed back into circulation AFTER Is laundered OUT of circulation by the VERY obfuscation of a borrowers promissory obligation ,Principal is exchanged & loaned+interest ,banks dont retire money when its re payed THEY KEEP IT,Interest is NEVER created to begin with so it depletes circulation also,Fractional Multiplication X DOWN to ZERO,UNLESS new money is created by a borrowers promissory note,FM is NOT creation its expansion,secondary to creation.
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 To be laundered out of circulation then all loans from all banks would have to stop and be forever banished.
-
Why stop laundering circulation when theres a fed & CRIMINAL gov regulating all theft by deception? more to Consolidate YES?,we keep creating money & wealth & its robbed from us on conception BY COMMERCIAL BANKS, via the obfuscation a borrowers promissory obligation thus its multiplied further through terminal national debt in an attempt to keep circulation vital of course.
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 Until you see WHO is a true creditor & WHO creates money you will be forever lost seeking solution in symptoms thats presented to us people falsly claiming banks create money,Banks dont loan/create there own money THEY CHANGE our money into theres by fraud caliming to be creditors when the true creditor is payed from existing circulation & denyed terminal interst ,banks risk zip,theives that intervene on our commerce publishing ONLY EVIDENCE of our promissory obligations to each other
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@chotaboy66 I do see who is a true creditor and who creates money. I have told you more than once and we can all see it. You are completely ignoring reality. Banks create debt notes and always do so. Gold is money, silver is money, debt is not. Once you understand this you are free of their machine. There is no terminal interest: this always ends in HYPERINFLATION. Hyperinflation is the last gasp at trying to steal the most from enslaving wages into debt notes until people quit buying stuff.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 If money is backed by gold then the gold is the debt,what makes money worthless is the obfuscation of the borrowers promissory note,if you think interest is not terminal YOU indeed havent a clue on money creation or who the true creditor is,if you did you would know interest is never created ,2 types of inflation.Price inflation which is caused by banks charging interest ,circulatory inflation which never happens because deflation always escalates faster than the circulatory inflation
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@chotaboy66 wrong. If money is gold in hand, not backed by gold but IS PHYSICAL ATOMS OF GOLD IN MY HAND, then it is not a debt - it is a value built in. Intrinsic. Debt = zero at all times. There are no notes. None.
Interest is not terminal nor ever has been: hyperinflation is the next stage where maximal slaving is reaped from the populace. This is not terminal interest, this is collapse of society. Everything you claimed was opposite to reality about creating money. Poor track record so far
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@chotaboy66 inflation is constantly increasing because currency is constantly being issued by Central banks and credit is constantly issued to an INCREASING amount, non-stop, from banks. This makes terminal interest impossible: $8 in loans is made for every $1 paid off, making deflation IMPOSSIBLE. Circulatory inflation ALWAYS happens, price inflation CAN NEVER happen without it. EVER. Never has in all history. EVER.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 I do see who is a true creditor and who creates money.
--------
Do you now ,,actually you have proved already you don't .Please tell me THEN who is the true creditor and who creates money?
Another question to think about before you spew more factional multiplication fiction bank doctrine at me ,maybe I should re phase the question it in more simpleton terms YES?
If every nation is in debt then who could possibly be the true creditor.?
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 Its a myth to claim hyperinflation is caused by printing too much money ,this is simply false because commercial banks launder it out of circulation ( circulatory deflation ) faster than any gov can re borrow it via national debt via the fed attempting to keep circulation vital (circulatory inflation) ,A fed ONLY prints & issues cash thats no more than 3to5% of ALL the money supply, the rest is digits in a computer or ledger thats **CREATED** (NOT ISSUED OR EXPANDED) by WHO & how mate?
chotaboy66 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 Gold is money, silver is money, debt is not.
--
Sorry All money has a certain amount of debt attached even gold & silver. What YOU fail to understand is debt is not the problem ,the people need personal debt to grow & prosper as a nation YES? only we dont need debt with interest at ANY rate,we dont need banks,ALL BANKS jointly launder ALL principal out of circulation via the obfuscation of the borrowers promissory obligation on its very conception,before issuence or expansion.
chotaboy66 11 months ago
Nuclear waste can be recycled into fuel again. However, it's cheaper to buy new fuel then to reprocess. All of U.S plants combined create about 2k pounds of spent fuel annually, which is being stored for potential later use, as reprocessing becomes more efficient. As it stands now, 95% of waste is reusable. That number only stands to improve.
noctisiminicus 11 months ago
Steph, stop filming in this room, not only is your sound horrible, the colour is nasty, you might as well put a black and white filter on.
GtheMVP 11 months ago
Glad to see a new upload. Its been a long time.
In regards to nuclear power, it has the potential to be safe, but sadly the privatization of nuclear power means that profit is placed in much higher priority than safety.
As for the earthquakes and tsunamis, many people are saying many conflicting statements, and so the event is likely to reach a 9/11 level of obscurity, and the absolute truth will never be openly stated in our lifetimes.
Thanks Stef. Its been a while since we heard you.
CoronaMage 11 months ago
i prefer john galt's machine
TheVibratory 11 months ago 2
And what's your gripe with space exploration? It's not about flying in big penises, it's about the laws of physics and probing our environment. It's about human knowledge. NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to military budgets. Space exploration and scientific research should NOT be the first thing to get cut. That's one of the few hopes left for humanity. I respect philosophy, but you apparently don't respect science.
empbac 11 months ago
@empbac "NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to military budgets."
I agree completely, and if the only choice is sequential elimination, then the military clearly must go first.
There are quite likely a few other items ahead of NASA if we restrict ourselves to sequential processing.
I just think that parallel processing is far superior.
jeffiek 11 months ago
@jeffiek Agreed, there's little need for a such a large standing army and so many weapons, no one will invade a country with armed Nukes. The military industrial complex is the worst parasite, next to central banks, however, both have us by the balls, so long as they can continue to lobby/create our rulers.
GtheMVP 11 months ago
The correct response is not to get rid of nuclear, but to encourage furthering scientific and technological progress in the field. Other types of energy are good too. There are risks and trade-offs for all these forms of production, and nuclear happens to be one of the overall best. Recent developments are demonstrating higher efficiency, meaning that radioactive waste can be cut down nearly to zero in future designs. Planning and good science is what we need to address these problems.
empbac 11 months ago
Thanks, always appreciate listening to you.
stillwaterwhispers 11 months ago
Getting rid of nuclear is not the solution to anything right now, we WILL need more plants to supply the worlds power needs until a better, higher energy density producing source of power can be found. As the population grows exponentially, so does our need for energy. Solar and other renewables are a waste of materials and production compared to building 1 nuclear plant to a square mile of solar panels. Stay away from the energy debate stef, its not your genre
Haytearah 11 months ago
@Haytearah solar stirling engines are more ideal than nuclear for the power vs risk. All investments have risk, so it's not just the distribution of profits and energy density to keep in mind. It takes a lot of resources to handle nuclear waste, which can't be put to production given the contamination. Thorium, I am investigating (not done) looks to be less wasteful nuclear power, less dangerous, more common than uranium. Our population will stop growing: we have no choice in that
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 Thorium, being a much lower level radioactive, also has far less drastic hazards in the case of a catastrophic failure than uranium.
If nuclear firms had to deal with liability for the risks they create, I think uranium reactors would simply be too expensive to insure. In order to cut costs, cutting risks is essential, and thorium cuts those hazards drastically.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
It seems sensible to assume that because the free market would never have picked up the idea of nuclear power, it is clearly not mature enough to be viable. If more research had been done, more time spent to let the technology mature, maybe the free market might have eventually picked it up.
The thing is, I feel that nuclear power has potential.. But it seems that to do something as unprofitable as research in something that will only pay off in the far future, it takes a government... It's sad.
Gredias 11 months ago
@Gredias the free market tends not to look long-term but now that government has helped show us what nuclear power can do, good and bad, the free market can indeed figure out what to do from here. IF it is given a chance. HOWEVER, we need accountability for private waste: corporate nuclear waste, private nuclear waste, requires liability if it poisons others. This liability needs to be something we can count on in materials and cash (not just cash) or we must deny it to exist.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "the free market can indeed figure out what to do from here."
I believe that nuclear power would have occurred without govt "jumpstarting" the process, just as transcontinental railroads were built privately, and profitably, not long after the immensely wasteful boondoggles that the govt railroads were, and for that matter the very inexpensive private space efforts after the astoundingly expensive govt space programs.
Curie and friends were already investigating radiation and fission.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
I hope all the people defending nuclear power are sure it is so safe. From what I have seen, it seems very far from safe when things go wrong. I wonder if the scenario is this:the modern world is committed to massive power consumption with most people having a TV, computer,lights,etc going many hours per day, almost every day.Therefore to provide power, we have to employ nuclear, because its output is so tremendous.So the risks get downplayed.But what if this does turn out to be a Pandora's Box?
NYatheist 11 months ago
@NYatheist
oh, and what have you "seen?" All I've seen is major media blowing the whole damned thing out of proportion, with misinformation, reported hype and little or NO science. This is why I get all my news for free off the internet, to pay for propaganda is simply stupid. Mankind harnesses the Atom, and we allow stupid people to prevent us from using it? Meanwhile, they force us to spend hundreds of billions on oil that funds our enemies. I'm TIRED of FUCKING IDIOTS CONTROLLING MY LIFE!
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
Comment removed
IrishPrideChannel 11 months ago
@NYatheist I at least use my computer & lights both for seeing & for heat, for information processing which allows me to figure out what to do for the next 10 years or 20 based on relayed data from other sites. Where I live could get by fine without nuclear power. New York, Vancouver, Las Vegas, that size of city, could not continue to exist without it. Maybe we'd be better off that way.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
re: liability and jail for the rest of our lives: well no, in a free market there's no real jails because that requires government intervention so there's no real liability for anyone except to use the market (which has limited effects) or privately funded armies & police (which brings into question accountability). In a society where somehow magically everyone is voluntary and co-operative (not likely) people could figure out an agreement to deeply bury very small reactors designed for
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "deeply bury very small reactors"
hyperionpowergeneration(dot)com
The human spirit really is irrepressible.
jeffiek 11 months ago
re: liability (2) designed for single-use like a powerful battery or hot-spring. At least then it's already deeply buried & rather than having a small site with concentrated nuclear waste you have many more dispersed, super-deep sites (as deep as oil wells) & then bury each one with concrete ready on-site for dumping. If the concrete can't get down to the reactor then the radiation can't get up to us through the transit holes. Using power induction we can avoid wire drill holes too.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
Nuclear power plants account for only 15% of all energy consumption in the world. I believe this to be just another way corporations and lobbyist whores get filthy rich.
isoIdier 11 months ago
@isoIdier
that's because you're another fucking idiot...
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@captaindiesalot
Drill baby, drill? Faggot.
isoIdier 11 months ago
@isoIdier
oh, now you hurt my feelings...you're still a fucking idiot.
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@captaindiesalot
You still a fag.
isoIdier 11 months ago
@isoIdier
and you're still a fucking idiot.
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@captaindiesalot
You are repeating yourself now douchebag. What are you? a retard too?
isoIdier 11 months ago
@isoIdier
Typical. another tough guy on YT. You're very typical of the cretins who think they're so bad. Here are the FACTS, nuclear power is safe, radiation exposure in LARGE DOSES may not be, however, there are a number of studies that show that radiation is not as bad as the pundits would have you believe. You're supposedly Russian, and you won't find causality or higher cancer rates in the Chernobyl area.
Now, you want to continue to insult, go ahead, be a dickhead. It's normal for fools.
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@captaindiesalot
Ending with an insult yourself does not help your case. Radiation has a way to kill people years after a disaster happens and it's through a small side effect called 'cancer'. It may not kill you right away, but surely one drops dead sooner or later. By the way "Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated" -Fact
Good day sir.
isoIdier 11 months ago
@isoIdier
Yeah, I can see that there's an in depth statistical analysis with this headline. This is EXTREMELY TYPICAL of the emotional tripe I see from the Left which BELIEVES in such things as alien visitation and global warming. The FACTS are that there has been NO PROVEN increase in cancer or death in the areas of the two nuclear power plant accidents that have occurred, 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl. Further, new nuclear plant design has made these systems obsolete; nuclear power is safe.
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@isoIdier only 15% of energy production? I doubt that very much. Are you splitting that between transport and non-transport uses? If it's not a car or a truck, odds are good it's nuclear power or burning coal, oil or natural gas.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
Stefan Molyneux's material on anti-statism is good, his material on public school I agree with 95%, but his materials on global warming, the space program, and nuclear power are so bad that they are *genuinely funny* to watch. Also, his "derivation" of "rational secular ethics" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Molyneux is not a particularly strong philosopher on the whole and should be taken with a grain of salt.
QuantumMaths 11 months ago
The idea that irresponsible fools would shift the troubles of insuring something lethal for thousands of years onto the future unborn, that seems all too conceivable. If you're short sighted enough, and positive enough, the possibility that some future existence might suffer never arises in your little consciousness. Nuclear power might have a great record for 100 years - but that's like saying a business is a success if it's still operating a month after opening.
not2tees 11 months ago
I would say that insurance itself is evidence enough that we need government. If an accident does happen, who is going to hold a company responsible? The ability of free people to keep free people in check is quite limited - it takes the strong arm of a government to force powerful companies to take some responsibility for their actions. The BP disaster is a perfect example.
mouthpiece200 11 months ago
@mouthpiece200 Without the strong arm of the governments military corporations would never have been able to get to the point they are today.
BP is a perfect example of nothing, because no one knows the truth of the situation. How can something be a perfect example when the truth is not known?
You have the same problem as the rest of the pro enslavement people! You have no idea how to survive without gov and corps, so your answer is to be a slave, and advocate the enslavement of everyone else!
bryphi77 11 months ago
@bryphi77 Corporations dont need help of gov. to become big and powerful. Some do but most don't. If a private company wants to make a nuclear reactor next door to you, who will stop them? The truth of BP is this, they would never have coughed up money to clean up oil unless the gov. forced them do, and the only reason any oil company takes precautions to avoid spill is because laws make them. And you have the same problem as many anarchists, resorting to personal attacks instead of logic.
mouthpiece200 11 months ago
@bryphi77 untrue - corporations granted this strong-arm power to the governments, not the other way around. If only we all formed as many corporations as possible to out-perform (in force and in finance) the corporations that today are causing so much harm, we could have stopped some of it. Too late now. Like in prison, first to eat shanks the first to starve.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the "shooting tincans into space" and "guys sitting inside giant penises" in a future video. Usually I aggree to what you what you have to say, to a moderate extent ofcourse, but these statements just baffled the hell out of me.
Granted that space programs are purely government funded projects, but It's one of the greatest achievements of the human race! Ignoring how the world should be for a second, and look how it is, that's money well spent...
NekaiiOnera 11 months ago
Youtube search --- School is a prison for your mind
TeamLibertyExpress 11 months ago
@Darkhorse21x Yea, hes not a bad guy tho, i really liked his trial of Socrate's videos. Anyone who is willing to go to college and spend their time making videos to educate people is a very good person in my eyes. I just get tired of hearing parts of his videos where he is flat out wrong or contradicting to the way he tried to explain philosophy in his other videos. He will just have to realize a better way of running the "state" than getting rid of it and expecting everyone to join hands..
Haytearah 11 months ago
@Haytearah
Ok, he probably isn't a bad guy, just misguided. I don't disagree with everything he says but what rubs me is that he is always using a false modesty when he says that he has lots to learn, and is willing to listen, but then when U put evidence in his face, he runs and hides behind some ridiculous and irrelevant allegory and fails to support his position with evidence.
If he did not do this as a business plan where he is set up 4 credit card donations, i might back off a bit.
Darkhorse21x 11 months ago
@Darkhorse21x You're not the only one with complaints against him. Mr Stef is half genius, half madman. But I enjoy watchin', whichever way the video swings.
mouthpiece200 11 months ago
@mouthpiece200
That is quite true but I take my disdain for his unsupported opinions to a higher level than most in terms of quantity, and imho, quality.
I think that the economic downturn has started to affect his credit card donations and the stress of a shrinking, rather than growing income source is starting to effect his demeanor. When the wife starts harping about "quitting your little hobby cuz it just aint workin out", well; we start to see the stuff he puts out now.
Darkhorse21x 11 months ago
@Darkhorse21x I disagree fundamentally. Statism is quite obviously NOT a company with mere administration and production departments. Your referencing of the SEC Homepage is absolutely RIDICULOUS, and I'm sure the "studies" you've produced are either fictitious or an incredible waste of time. The state is funded via a fiat monopoly on violence via taxation. Stef lives within a state because every square inch of earth is under a state, dipshit.
QuantumMaths 11 months ago 4
@Darkhorse21x Was that you on his Sunday radio show the other day? If not, someone stole your script and was making the exact same arguments to Stefan. I instantly recognized them.
TreachMarkets 11 months ago
@Haytearah
IMHO, there is no "Government". Government is just the management, administration and production departments of another company. I keep bringing this up 2 Stef but he is afraid to deal.
I posted evidence using the US SEC home page and he ignores it.
I post evidence of contractual requirements and he ignores it.
I post sourced studies which refute his unsupported opinions and he ignores them.
Stef is a immigrant that CHOSE to live in CANADA. Apparently someone held a gun to his head.
Darkhorse21x 11 months ago
I say going into space was a pretty important achievement
JordanKimball 11 months ago 6
@JordanKimball Then we can send you the bill? :)
stefbot 11 months ago 23
@stefbot Yes stef, send me the bill. If it means the technological advancement of the entire human race. THEN YES, FUCKING SEND ME THE BILL. I could list all the current advancements we gained from the the space program, which we can thank the state for sponsoring, but Im afraid I wouldn't have enough space. Google the benefits for yourself and maybe you will see what the state can do if someone in charge knows where to put the money.
Haytearah 11 months ago
@Haytearah
Sure, this is regardless as to to the opportunity cost calculations which NEVER into the equation. The economic fact is that regulation has prevented the private sector from expansion into space, finance, construction, technology, telecommunications, medicine, agriculture...every facet of life imaginable, and you claim the government did us a favor with the space program? No way, when people are allowed to function with minimal gov't, we THRIVE, we OUT PRODUCE, we're SUPERIOR.
captaindiesalot 11 months ago
@captaindiesalot Regulation has prevented the private sector from going to space? I think your thinking about the enormous cost, not regulation. There are actually quite a few private sector companies that will launch a satellite into space for you... and among other things. And looking at the rest of your post i see you are very delusional, and do not know even know what the private sector is or anything else for that matter.... Happy trolling ; )
Haytearah 11 months ago 2
@bryphi77 pt3 why?
What is property of everyone, how much, and why?
If you propose equal land, what of people who wish to manage no land but remain mobile, would you accept trade of this land to others with land already, making ownership unequal, but making individuals a deal they both desire at the time?
As for taxes, yes, I can see we have a problem.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@stefbot I think folks like Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace are doing a good job of proving that going into space is something the market wants.
drewmandan 11 months ago 2
@stefbot Hi.Im annoyed you keep saying "there was a 90% literacy level before public schooling", This is not true and I think you know this and are cheating them. I dont like public schooling endoctrination ,But messing around with facts is stupid. Tell the truth that the 90% youre talking about was in "private" schooling and most poor children could not even spell theyre names.
timHYPERLITE 11 months ago
@timHYPERLITE
"their" is the "write" word...back to your private v. public "edukation" arguments...public "skool" produces numerous educated idiots..."welkome" to the "klub."
captaindiesalot 11 months ago