Okay, AGAIN, there is nothing inherently statist about Socialism; numerous socialists, including myself, Kevin Carson, and David D'Amato, are also free-market anarchists.
Molyneux here argues "we don't have a good rational basis for social rules", then argues elsewhere that there is "universally preferable behavior", the precepts of which he seems to be the only one to have figured out... allegedly.
Stefbot, I was very impressed with the first few clips I heard from you. Then I began to notice your absolutely compulsive tendency to self-contradict. You sir, are a blowhard. A large vocabulary does not a sound thinker make.
Right. He's asking one of the basic questions atheists receive from religious folk: "how can you be good without God?". For the religious, morality is decreed by a god; for most non-believers, the moral authority is "the people," which translates to a liberal, democratic state. The problem is that both of these are appeals to authority which push the real questions away: "what are morals, where do they originate, and what methodology distinguishes the moral from the immoral?".
yes this is true, I was raised in the Catholic faith, and was a good boy, when I was young, then after high school, I went away from faith and religion altogether and was a good man. So it all depends on the goodness of the person inside, not the stereotyped paradigm you belong to, which is a fallacy to begin with, no-one should have a "label" for label's are the cause of the fighting between people
Love your vids Stefan, just wondering if you have stats to back up this continuum theory? I'd have thought that relgious people are more hierachically minded, more accepting of the status quo, and therefore more Statist in general, especially in non secular parts of the world where national identity seems closely bound up with religious identity.
I have met no Christian anarchists. I HAVE met atheist anarchists. Likewise I have heard from no atheists who think a dictatorship would serve the public interest, but I HAVE heard from Christians who think an expressly Christian dictatorship would be the best possible government system.
Stef, I have to say in vids like this and the ones Anton mentioned in his response, your thinking is very simple.
People are wounded with the fear of death and the unknown. People bleed with the need to belong and to fit in. Religion is an anesthetic yet septic bandage. Where and when will we find true healing?
Dewd philosophy is not going to save people, the world, ect. You've already proven your ethics with logic completely outside of all religions, and no one cares or believes it. It's like there's some bizarre "pixie-dust" force preventing people from just acting logically and morally. This bizarre pixie-dust instinct is spoken of at some length in the philosophical book commonly called Genesis. If you were really an objective person you might bring this up other than just to straw-man religion
Hey Stef, We don't have to find a third rational way. It is truly the first rational way that we must find again. The collectives have taken and/or try to hide these truths about the greatness of the individuals.
ATHEIST USE SCIENCE TO MAKE THEM SELF SMART AND BETTER THEN PEOPLE HOW BELIEVE IN GOD . ATHEISTS IS A BELIEF RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS TOO . NOT TRUE THEY BOTH DO THE SAME THING USE A BELIEF AND CALL IT THE TRUTH IT IS JUST EGO AGAINST EGO. HELL YES THEY BOTH CAN BE WRONG HEY BOTH JUST BELIEVE SOMETHING WITH OUT KNOWING 100% FOR SURE IT STILL A BELIEF OR A GUESS . IT IS A EGO PROBLEM THEY ARE MEN IT IS A SOCIOPATH LIKE BEHAVIOR. SCIENCE IS JUST LIKE A RELIGIONS .SCIENCE THEY HIDE FACT AND COVERUP
@greenearthnazi20204u Well... Atheism is based on belief that your senses and mind can cooperate to capture reality as it is. And if you reject your senses as a tool that is essetial to your survival, in other words giving you knowledge about sorrounding world, than we have nothing to talk about. And if you believe that reality that you experience through your senses and mind is a fact than why do you believe in a being that contradicts this fact.
@MarekNR WHAT DOSE LOVE AND TRUTH AS MORALES HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR STATEMENT? AND SAYING IN REALITY ?Atheism BELIEF THERE IS NO GOD .YOU CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING .YOU TOOK A ENLIGHTENMENT TEACHING AND TUNED IT TO A Atheism BELIEF. WHY YOU BELIEVE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 90% OF IT JUST WHERE YOU ARE BORN AND YOUR PARENTS. WHEN THE MIND DOSE NOT KNOW HOW SOME WORKS IT FEELS IN THE BLANKS WITH BELIEFS . I HAVE NO BELIEFS LIKE GOVERNMENT, RELIGION ,OR LAWS
@greenearthnazi20204u It is obvious that culture and beliefs of people that were important to me (roman catholics mainly) were the basis of my worldwiev and helped me to assimilate. But when it comes to science there is no place for beliefs there is only place for truth and everything else is rejected in time.
MORAL TRUTH .THERE IS ONE LOVE AND TRUTH. IT IS ABSOLUTE. IF YOU KNEW HOW IT REALLY WORK . YOU WOULD KNOW IT IS USED AS A BOND IN BUSINESS .THE LESS TRUTH YOU HAVE AND NO LOVE FOR PEOPLE YOU HAVE A LOT TROUBLE AND GET RIP OFF A LOT.THE SAME FOR FAMILY LITTLE TRUTH NO LOVE IT DOSE NOT LAST LONG. MORE TRUTH AND LOVE THE LONG PEOPLE STAY TOGETHER. .ALL SIN IS SOMETHING THAT BRAKE THE BOND OF LOVE AND TRUTH BETWEEN PEOPLE BUT CHRISTIAN ADD AND TAKE AWAY , TRUN IT IN TO A BELIEF NOT TRUTH OR LOVE
MORAL TRUTH .THERE IS ONE LOVE AND TRUTH. IT IS ABSOLUTE. IF YOU KNEW HOW IT REALLY WORK . YOU WOULD KNOW IT IS USED AS A BOND IN BUSINESS .THE LESS TRUTH YOU HAVE AND NO LOVE FOR PEOPLE YOU HAVE A LOT TROUBLE AND GET RIP OFF A LOT.THE SAME FOR FAMILY LITTLE TRUTH NO LOVE IT DOSE NOT LAST LONG. MORE TRUTH AND LOVE THE LONG PEOPLE STAY TOGETHER. .ALL SIN IS SOMETHING THAT BRAKE THE BOND OF LOVE AND TRUTH BETWEEN PEOPLE BUT CHRISTIAN ADD AND TAKE AWAY , TRUN IT IN TO A BELIEF NOT TRUTH OR LOVE
THERE IS ONLY 1 MORAL RULE LOVE AND TRUTH IS IT. WHEN YOU USE OTHER THING LIKE SEX , HATE, FEAR AND GREED . YOU GET ALL GOVERNMENTS AND ALL RELIGION BUT THEY WILL CALL IT LOVE AND TRUTH BUT THEY USE IT TO KILL STEAL AND ENSLAVE .LOVE AND TRUTH IS A BOND. IT IS USED TO HOLD PEOPLE TOGETHER . YOU CAN NOT USE LOVE AND TRUTH TO JUDGE PEOPLE BY. IT IS USED TO HELP PEOPLE. BELIEF SEPARATE PEOPLE LIKE ATHEIST,GOVERNMENTS, RELIGION,LAWS,COPS, GOOD OR BAD, PREJUDICES,SKIN COLOR , POOR OR,RICH.
I disagree completely with your thesis. In my experience I have found the complete opposite to be true. The more religious you are the more likely you are to be pro-state. Horrible video !!!
In my experience at least 7/10 atheists are democrats.
I do think it is true tho that religious people, particularly evangelicals, tend to be pro-state just in different ways (big on militarism and big on government legislating (biblical) 'morality')
I understand your option - UPB, but I believe that no morality exsists in reality. individual is the only creator of values. He is bund only by his genes so I would call your thought Genetically Preferable Behavior. Wolves ussually don't kill wolves.
I'm libertarian because it's a step towards anarchy and I'm not religious. I have no idea where this notion that the non religious are more strongly statist is coming from. It was my rejection of a divine authority which led me to question authority and deem it illegitimate in all personal instances.
Anarchy is simply the rational notion that other people are not your property and that you are nobody's property.
I'm libertarian, extremely anti-government and I'm spiritual (not religious) Christian. I have never met a hardcore religious person who wasn't conservative. Usually fundamentalists want everyone to think like they do, which libertarianism does not encourage.
I've noticed this problem and have griped about it a time or two. It seems that many atheists arent' applying the same skepticism to the state that they do to religion. It may be a sort of growth process. For me, it was natural to ask, "If there is no magic sky daddy that can make people behave, why is it that a stroke of a legislator's pen is expected to make something be?" and then to ask, "So w/o a magic sky daddy, what gives those yahoos perogitive over my life?"
@LiberAnarchy Demorcracy give them prerogative over your life. It allows 51% of the population control the other 49%. And our country was not even founded as a democracy. People are brainwashed
@truthslap Communism is another form of extreme statism not terribly different than Fascism. Communism absolutely demands a dictator, overseer or bureacracy in one way or another to coordinate production no matter what any anarcho-communist would have you believe. They tend to brush off the issue and deny that a "State" exists in the first place, only "Classes" exist, but it's just semantics or word play. Don't be fooled. They believe in the institutionalized initiation of force. i.e. Statism.
I despise governments and religion fairly equally. I don't seem much difference between the two. Both are put in place as systems of control, indifferent to true human desires and well-being.
Stef, the reason for the false dichotomy is actually even simpler than this. Since political power grew out of religious power; the arbiters of the religio-political power in the 19th and early 20th century utilized a very powerful tool: GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. This enabled the powercrats of the day of brand those who strayed from the inanity of the church as Marxists and those embracing inherently altruistic theology as being for liberty.
If the oligarchs could get the christians and atheists to have a war they would be stoked, but not before the christian islam war. Maybe the atheists can help with a war fighting the survivors of the latter war. Christian and Islam vs Atheism. Could an atheist be convinced that they were doing the world a favor by killing off the religious? Their would have to be the propaganda campaign when atheists looked to be under a religious dictatorship first.
The true problem is that most people dont understand the nature of the universe we live in. How can anyone move towards creating a set of ethical standards without first understanding their own place in the universe? no one will listen to someone who doesnt have ALL the answers. Such a problem is appeased in religions by god (the ultimate tyrant). but in the state, we need coercion and violence or the general populace wont obey rules (for the general public are very ignorant).
I really think, if you haven't made a video about it yet Stefan, you should make one responding to common criticisms and about your solutions instead of the usual videos primarily focused on the same message criticizing the government and religion.
I just realized that you repeating your message over and over is the same kind of drilling that's been used in the typical forms of media.
I would say those who would believe in an all powerful entity that cannot be questioned are more susceptible to being a statist, Religion itself is another form of totalitarianism, in-fact there is a well known totalitarian political ideology wrapped in and propelled, justified by superstition its called Islam.
@darkblood626 Indeed, however most Christian governments have historically been totalitarian as well. In fact the Bible does nothing at all to promote human liberty, but instead encourages obedience to the State. I have noticed that most fundamentalist Christians sound rather fascist in their political ideology.
A testament (lol) of the naisance of human civilization. It is the lack of and aversion to concept/idea plurality in society that speaks DIRECTLY to man's aversion to personal responsability in all measures and aspects of being alive. The crusade for ease, comfort, minimal and or no effort, to programme in one's self a narrow context of relatedness to all around him and then to beat one's chest and others in the social darwinian cycle of playing king of the hill in a very large insane asylum.
I simply ignore. Soon many will come to this same conclusion. Laws, especially those under the book of US Code are designed to one one person deliberately do harm to another without provocation all for the benefit of a few under the guise of protection.
The proponents of the State which rules by threat of force... will point the finger at all the droves of violent criminals created by the State and then call your philosophy wishful thinking.
But the problem still remains. How would we deal with violent criminals who would take advantage of everyone else who plays nice?
Stephan, you are missing the fact that there is a particular brand of Christianity, championed by the Reformation, that teaches that salvation is by the Grace of God through faith in the finished work of The Christ. It does not threaten anyone with hell since hell is by defaul pictured as the domain of those who are incapable of belief. The motivation to be moral comes from a deep response of gratitude for what has already been accomplished. As Francis Schaeffer asked "How Then Should We Live?"
Wait, I'm an Atheist and an Anarcho-Capitalist. And it has been my experience that Christians are more Socialistic in their leanings especially when it comes to the state forcing people to contribute to social welfare programs or to live in whatever manner they approve (such as not consuming marijuana vs. consuming) and the like.
I am an atheist and I don't believe that atheist are more stat-ism than other people. Where do you get this opinion? And what is the link between Marxism and atheism? I don't believe there are more atheist dictators than theist dictators. I fact, dictators are often believing that they are god themselves. As I know, atheists tend to be more rational and so they are more pacifist because they are dominated by emotions. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.
@tubetib I thought the same thing, being an Anarcho-capitalist and Atheist. I.e. I believe in the Non-initiation of force doctrine or I believe it is usually called the do no harm principle. My perception has always been that christians are more likely to want to force others into doing what they consider moral through gov. force (prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.) then allowing them to live as they choose provided their actions do no harm.
If you believe in God, and believe that man's purpose is to know and love God, you would follow what God directs you to follow. I would guess that more religious people who serve God are respectful and loyal to their country.
Only through freedom can morality truly evolve, much like genetic freedom allows mutation to push evolution. Man's need to control, including his own nature, by placing artificial boundaries is ultimately doomed to fail as all things natural must break down any such boundaries and only stagnates growth in the meantime.
There is Buddhism in which there is no GOD underpinning everything.
But the real problem of your 2 paths is cultural where people are taught individualism and greed from a young age. It's pushed on TV and in the schools. Competition vs. cooperation, win at any cost, lying and cheating.
That's weird because for me, atheism set up a logical path for me to anti-statism. Rejecting divine authority made it easy for me to question and reject secular authority. I don't understand why it doesn't work that way for all atheists.
@PluralOfEverything My theory is many atheists incorrectly attempt to apply the scientific method to everything, most specifically to areas that involve human behavior (economics, psychology, sociology, etc.). They figure if the scientific method can successfully loosen the grip of the Church, then when applied universally, that must be better. Thus they believe in central planning (leaving the supposedly "smart people" in charge. The idea of spontaneous order scares them.
The fundamental problem that I have seen with regards to statism equals slavery so I will go to a religious enslaver or the other choice religion equals slavery so I will go to a statism enslaver is that the human race is absolutely fucking retarded and enjoys being enslaved. At least our founding fathers in america separated the two so you could choose which enslavement is more conducive to your emotional needs.
I did see the correlation quite a bit in that pro state are inclined to be less religious and anti state more religious, I think it comes down to people attempting to find meaning in life and they're actions (depression), through one medium or the other.
One false idol substituted for another.
Religion and state just happen to be the most "in your face" so they're the most common ones people hold on to.
The way I see it, statism and religious faith are the same thing.
In my opinion, church is statism. People believe in the state because they were born in the state, it is all they know and it does not mater if you are a atheist or not.
I like your material Stefan, but you're dead wrong when it comes to ethics and UPB. If things are preferable that doesn't tell you whether you ought to prefer them. If everyone eats meat and sees it as moral what does that tell you about the ethical truth-value of vegetarianism?
@fab006 He makes some thought provoking points but I thought the same. Traditionally conservatism has strong themes of traditional institutions and the state. But perhaps he's talking about modern trends in the US specifically.
@Neanderthalcouzin Even in the modern US it seems to me that libertarianism is largely just used as a front for conservative statism. See the discrepancy between actual Tea Partiers and many so-called Tea Party republicans (I'd even say the Pauls are to the right of the libertarian Tea Party.)
@pornsterwoot In a totalitarian state one of the things they will do is stamp out religion(the Soviet Union is a good example),because if people believe in something they perceive as higher than your authority they tend not to fear you as much as you need them to.
It is also possible to reject morality altogether, and accept that social rules come from people's preferences and actions, and morality was just a way for religions and states to convince people do to their bidding.
@sharperguy Indeed anything can be rejected. (Biology, logic, the weather etc.) even if one puts forth a rational argument for these things they can be rejected.
Atheist are more statist? Really? Not in my experience.
Granted that's not a very big sample but still, seems counterintuitive to me, why would they emancipate themselves from obedience to one imaginary authority to switch it for one that is a little more palpable.
@S0chan I think the proper description would be that all the LOUD atheists are normally statists - communists and socialists mainly. It seems the talking monkey needs a jack boot on it's throat one way or another.
I think this is a false distinction: who was it who said that European Fascism was little more than the militant right wing of the catholic church? The most religious person I know is also nauseatingly nationalistic--I think he sees a continuity from a totalitarian state to a totalitation religion. He's into totalitarianism--a great, powerful, paternal force that must be obeyed and does your thinking for you. Or have I mssed your point?
im an anarchist and an atheist :/ and emma goldman is my idol
“Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” Emma Goldman
I'm a Libertarian and an Atheist, and it is pretty lonely on this side of the fence. My channel's content is based on these principles though, and I try to endorse ideas that elevate humanity above the notion that only through authority (religious or state) can humanity realise its full potential.
I believe that a community which individuals are evil and unmoral will die soon or later other hand community where people are nice and caring will surviving even bad disasters so no philosophy needed just time and evolution
The fact that the state as it exists now doesn't work properly is blatant proof that a libertarian state will NEVER work properly.
If people would work in a libertarian state, then they would be able to work in ANY kind of state.
Anytime I have to give money to someone for some kind of service is JUST like if I'm a slave to the ones that I get my money of AND the ones I give my money to. A libertarian state would just "switch" what you'd call slavery from the state to corporations.
@TemporalOnline Agreed. Big business is not my friend just like big government isn't my friend. Big business has NOT provided me with a job; they hired illegals and indians overseas. Due to this fact, I'm a freelancer, and I pay higher taxes as a self-employed individual.
@TemporalOnline Man, that was a huuuge stretch. What you are saying is that working for anything is slavery. But nobody has to work! You can grow a garden and feed yourself without working. People work because they WANT a certain lifestyle - even if it is pissing teir life away for trinkets - it's what they choose to do.
@grumpone And in the past was just like that, but then came the industrial revolution and then the industry owners became greedy forcing people to work almost forever alongside with their children and then people revolted and forced the state to do something that was then good for everybody.
And yes, I have seen the explanation by stefbot that said that the industrial rev. was what made it possible to people to work less, and I say half true.
@grumpone By need I say people have a need to get together by its nature and need in the sense that there's a meteor comeing to earth in 2036 and we NEED to figure out how to stop it before too late (for instance).
@TemporalOnline You're missing the fact that without a monopoly on violence there would be no state,unless you voluntarily enter into it. I would suggest reading Chaos Theory by Dr. Robert Murphy to get a good idea of what a Libertarian society would look like in modern times.
@dirtbagstatus And you ever think that in a place without a "state" the corporations wouldn't figure out another way of enforcing just like the estate does now, but with almost NO possible way for normal people to have a say? How would you reason with a corp, without a state? As I said, if you say that people should combine among themselves, it would work far better NOW. If it isn't working NOW, it will NOT work in a libertarian state.
@BrainInSkull I have to buy things from someone if I pretend to live in a society like this one. Doesn't matter if it is wall mart or best buy or whatever. I HAVE to buy from some of them.
@BrainInSkull I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to say is that, the same way the state today "slave" me to pay in order to keep the society and protect me, I'll turn myself a slave of Wall Mart and Best Buy.
What if they are the only ones that I can buy from, and then they make a cartel? Then I'll just turn myself a slave to them. They will of course have their ways of enforcing my payments to them. And if you say that eople would get together and fight, (cont)
@BrainInSkull if it was true, it would happen, and make everything right, NOW, in THIS society, were it is far most likely to happen. The proof that we "still" (to say the least) need a state is that people are NOT getting together to fix the problems, and that we still need the few good people to fix things that we still can elect.
@TemporalOnline Why would they be the only ones to buy from? I think maybe other people would start other businesses to compete with them. The only way a government/corporation stays in power is by convincing the people that they are needed. Even a brutal dictator needs people to believe in him other wise he's just one person throwing a silly tantrum.
@BrainInSkull And they would be crushed by the big ones before too late, or bought without a government ruled by PEOPLE to stop them. In a "no state" state, there would be noone to stop them from doing it.
@TemporalOnline Physically crushed? If they choose to be bought that is their decision. I'm a freelance actor competing with Gary Oldman, Denzel Washington and Paul Giomatti. That's my choice. Should I round up a group of people to force them to stop taking work from me?
@dirtbagstatus I have not seen in the book the distinction and the "how will cancel out" the problem of there being conscientious beings in the system that would twist/tweak/dope the system, that, differently from a "truly" chaotic system, would just render a state based in "full" chaotic system a big corporatocracy.
I have not seen in it explained in the book, about how the "flow" would force the corporations/people to not dope the system into a corporatocracy.
@dirtbagstatus Another problem is that the laws are for people to bind together for a big goal. In a libertarian state, the achievements of a group of people may and would not be gotten by other group of people. And they would be ephemeral. In fact, it would be heaven to lawyers, that would turn into negotiators.
And it counts on people getting together for that. As I said, if it would work on a libertarian state, it SHOULD work right NOW. If I don't see it now, wont see then.
@TemporalOnline BTW, just to clarify, I said that lawyers would turn into negotiators because that's what they are in the end, AND because there would be no "true law".
@dirtbagstatus And there's the problem of will the corporation as they exist NOW continue? If yes, forget it, it should start from 0, but to do that is almost impossible by all means.
And there's the problem that a system like that would encourage people to communicate LESS and not MORE with other people, what is driving us, now.
And I want to state that I'm here mostly because stef talked about atheism and statism and etc. Usually I would just listen and see if any of my bias was challenged.
@TemporalOnline Theres a good question,and the short answer is no. Corporations can not grow to the size that some of them are without state imposed hurdles to upstart companies that would take a share of their market. Stefan has explained this before. Also if you are interested Roderick Long(a left leaning Libertarian) briefly mentions this topic in his video about reaching the left. /watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M&feature=feedu
Disregard that compass, it is a fraud. I had a big discussion about it with about 20 people who we all knew our political and philosophical positions of because we have had years of fierce debates. That test is biased and will skew most people to the left and down.
I've since decided that a much better political spectrum is a simple one line. Full tilt left is any kind of totalitarian system & full tilt right is anarchy.
I agree with your scale, but I have found that it is easier to have a conversation with someone who believes in totalitarian systems if you do not place such systems on the scale. My full tilt left represents zero individual liberty, while full tilt right represents 100% individual liberty.
I'm nearly half a century old and have been an atheist since just entering my teen years. At this point in my life I despise the state because I see that the people who are running it are mostly liars and frauds. I consider what we were supposed to have (a federal govt), dead. What we have now is an unconstitutional & unprincipled national govt.
I have also come to determine that family destroying Cultural Marxism is largely the culprit for our condition. I'm probably not your avg atheist.
@kmg501 I too am nearly half a century old and been an atheist since birth. I've come to dislike capitalism, libertarians, conservatives, religions, finance, business, culture, civilizations, myth, and beliefs. I concluded long ago that almost every aspect of our world is dictated by oppressive rulers who have been subjugating the citizenry for so long, the citizens now defend the mechanisms of oppression. Capitalism caused this mess. A new economic mode is the way forward, not Capitalism.
@kmg501 The point is, if we can find a way to satisfy most of your needs and wants, then exchange would not need to be as beneficial to you as it currently does. I propose a society aimed towards production of surplus by automation, to eliminate the condition of surplus value, and to liberate people to more personal interests. If you were comfortable, would you not consider giving away your creation, freely? Must you profit off someone in every exchange, in every type of society?
Well I'm a Christian and I was not threatened to be one. I chose to live by God's morals because I think they are good. True Christians come to God based on love for what He has done for us and the desire to be righteous; not because they want to go to heaven and are scared of hell. But of course most Christians don't even follow Christ or obey God because they get confused by neocons in the church who tell them we need to be bombing people in the middle east and support Israel at all costs.
@Bristecom What are some of God's morals? If you answer "don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, love your neighbor," how would you respond if I were to show you God admitting to breaking these commandments?
@El3ctricPenguin Ah, but god can break his own rules just like presidents and people in fancy hats can because they made them. So we can't question god or our leaders because they are mysteriously better than us.
its a very difficult world for an anti-stateist atheist. I think most hardcore libertarians (like myself) share this world, but its stacked against us on both sides. to (most) 'conservatives' we could really use your help. put all religion aside in any/all economic or political involvement., and it will make trhe argument more.... creditable.
The reason atheists are attracted to statism is because the Democratic party (U.S political party) is the only viable party to vote for that protects secular liberties.
I believe that most people are afraid of the implications of individual liberty, and that because of this they latch on to life-controlling organizations. I think that is why most people fall on the line between state and religion.
I also think that this is true largely because these organizations work to make it so, through propaganda, incentives, and social consequences.
If we accept that survival/success/life is good, then all moral rules which promote that are justified. Of course success is subjective, and so is the thing which you ascribe the desire for success. Only yourself? Your close friends and family? Your society? All of humanity? All of life? The solution is to create a hierarchy of importance, from yourself to all of life, but it's not really justified so much as it is convenient and intuitive.
I never see "morality", I see logical "business" spirited reasons for doing things like help my neighbor and the like; it just makes sense in a pragmatic "karma" kind of way.
@b3rtne but atheists should know better, No? well by looking at the results i guess not, atheist are quite dumb, Yeah that includes Hitchens and Sam Harris.
MOST people are dumb. Whether it be relying on Government or God. You seem to be reasonably intelligent. Sad thing is, there aren't many of us around. Personally I don't know any Atheist/Statists.
Most of the Atheists I know typically lean toward Anarchist views.
Okay, AGAIN, there is nothing inherently statist about Socialism; numerous socialists, including myself, Kevin Carson, and David D'Amato, are also free-market anarchists.
QuatFax 3 months ago
I've never met a religious libertarian. I've seen them on TV, however.
paulekko 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Molyneux here argues "we don't have a good rational basis for social rules", then argues elsewhere that there is "universally preferable behavior", the precepts of which he seems to be the only one to have figured out... allegedly.
Stefbot, I was very impressed with the first few clips I heard from you. Then I began to notice your absolutely compulsive tendency to self-contradict. You sir, are a blowhard. A large vocabulary does not a sound thinker make.
1776Matthew 8 months ago
@1776Matthew I think he's saying that society isn't following a good rational basis for social rules, not that such a thing doesn't exist.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax
Right. He's asking one of the basic questions atheists receive from religious folk: "how can you be good without God?". For the religious, morality is decreed by a god; for most non-believers, the moral authority is "the people," which translates to a liberal, democratic state. The problem is that both of these are appeals to authority which push the real questions away: "what are morals, where do they originate, and what methodology distinguishes the moral from the immoral?".
ultramerton 1 month ago
yes this is true, I was raised in the Catholic faith, and was a good boy, when I was young, then after high school, I went away from faith and religion altogether and was a good man. So it all depends on the goodness of the person inside, not the stereotyped paradigm you belong to, which is a fallacy to begin with, no-one should have a "label" for label's are the cause of the fighting between people
SuperBigbadman 9 months ago
Love your vids Stefan, just wondering if you have stats to back up this continuum theory? I'd have thought that relgious people are more hierachically minded, more accepting of the status quo, and therefore more Statist in general, especially in non secular parts of the world where national identity seems closely bound up with religious identity.
favabank 9 months ago
What film is that clip from? I nearly cry'd laughing
dimebag690 9 months ago
@dimebag690 History of the World part 1
Farf420 9 months ago
i do not think i have seen a video with so many false dichotomy in one video lol
kainniak1 9 months ago
LOL at "kidnapping", dont hear that often..
JaxxBat 9 months ago
I have met no Christian anarchists. I HAVE met atheist anarchists. Likewise I have heard from no atheists who think a dictatorship would serve the public interest, but I HAVE heard from Christians who think an expressly Christian dictatorship would be the best possible government system.
Stef, I have to say in vids like this and the ones Anton mentioned in his response, your thinking is very simple.
cecinestpasunename 10 months ago
@cecinestpasunename Tolstoy was christian anarchist. But yeah, your right, most Christians aren't anarchists.
natedaug1 9 months ago
People are wounded with the fear of death and the unknown. People bleed with the need to belong and to fit in. Religion is an anesthetic yet septic bandage. Where and when will we find true healing?
batfly 10 months ago
I have a good rational basis for morals I discovered.
thinktothemax 10 months ago
So you suggesting that libertarian atheist don't have representation? Ummm...... have you ever visited this site website called 'youtube'???
brokennarcissist 10 months ago
@Pina206
Standards like:
Stoning women to death that aren't virgins on the wedding night.
Stoning children to death that talk back.
Stoning people to death that work on sunday.
The subjugation of women and children.
Child slavery.
Are these the standards you speak of? Just curious.
viehe69 10 months ago
Dewd philosophy is not going to save people, the world, ect. You've already proven your ethics with logic completely outside of all religions, and no one cares or believes it. It's like there's some bizarre "pixie-dust" force preventing people from just acting logically and morally. This bizarre pixie-dust instinct is spoken of at some length in the philosophical book commonly called Genesis. If you were really an objective person you might bring this up other than just to straw-man religion
XanatharEye 10 months ago
This is pretty cynical, even for you, Freedomain.
XanatharEye 10 months ago
Hey Stef, We don't have to find a third rational way. It is truly the first rational way that we must find again. The collectives have taken and/or try to hide these truths about the greatness of the individuals.
guinnessman1970 10 months ago
I am a religious libertarian
BagofHay 10 months ago
I agree we need some form of moral that works.
klikkasame1 10 months ago
ATHEIST USE SCIENCE TO MAKE THEM SELF SMART AND BETTER THEN PEOPLE HOW BELIEVE IN GOD . ATHEISTS IS A BELIEF RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS TOO . NOT TRUE THEY BOTH DO THE SAME THING USE A BELIEF AND CALL IT THE TRUTH IT IS JUST EGO AGAINST EGO. HELL YES THEY BOTH CAN BE WRONG HEY BOTH JUST BELIEVE SOMETHING WITH OUT KNOWING 100% FOR SURE IT STILL A BELIEF OR A GUESS . IT IS A EGO PROBLEM THEY ARE MEN IT IS A SOCIOPATH LIKE BEHAVIOR. SCIENCE IS JUST LIKE A RELIGIONS .SCIENCE THEY HIDE FACT AND COVERUP
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
@greenearthnazi20204u Well... Atheism is based on belief that your senses and mind can cooperate to capture reality as it is. And if you reject your senses as a tool that is essetial to your survival, in other words giving you knowledge about sorrounding world, than we have nothing to talk about. And if you believe that reality that you experience through your senses and mind is a fact than why do you believe in a being that contradicts this fact.
MarekNR 10 months ago
@MarekNR WHAT DOSE LOVE AND TRUTH AS MORALES HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR STATEMENT? AND SAYING IN REALITY ?Atheism BELIEF THERE IS NO GOD .YOU CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING .YOU TOOK A ENLIGHTENMENT TEACHING AND TUNED IT TO A Atheism BELIEF. WHY YOU BELIEVE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 90% OF IT JUST WHERE YOU ARE BORN AND YOUR PARENTS. WHEN THE MIND DOSE NOT KNOW HOW SOME WORKS IT FEELS IN THE BLANKS WITH BELIEFS . I HAVE NO BELIEFS LIKE GOVERNMENT, RELIGION ,OR LAWS
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
@greenearthnazi20204u It is obvious that culture and beliefs of people that were important to me (roman catholics mainly) were the basis of my worldwiev and helped me to assimilate. But when it comes to science there is no place for beliefs there is only place for truth and everything else is rejected in time.
PS. There is no such thing as morality.
MarekNR 10 months ago
MORAL TRUTH .THERE IS ONE LOVE AND TRUTH. IT IS ABSOLUTE. IF YOU KNEW HOW IT REALLY WORK . YOU WOULD KNOW IT IS USED AS A BOND IN BUSINESS .THE LESS TRUTH YOU HAVE AND NO LOVE FOR PEOPLE YOU HAVE A LOT TROUBLE AND GET RIP OFF A LOT.THE SAME FOR FAMILY LITTLE TRUTH NO LOVE IT DOSE NOT LAST LONG. MORE TRUTH AND LOVE THE LONG PEOPLE STAY TOGETHER. .ALL SIN IS SOMETHING THAT BRAKE THE BOND OF LOVE AND TRUTH BETWEEN PEOPLE BUT CHRISTIAN ADD AND TAKE AWAY , TRUN IT IN TO A BELIEF NOT TRUTH OR LOVE
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MORAL TRUTH .THERE IS ONE LOVE AND TRUTH. IT IS ABSOLUTE. IF YOU KNEW HOW IT REALLY WORK . YOU WOULD KNOW IT IS USED AS A BOND IN BUSINESS .THE LESS TRUTH YOU HAVE AND NO LOVE FOR PEOPLE YOU HAVE A LOT TROUBLE AND GET RIP OFF A LOT.THE SAME FOR FAMILY LITTLE TRUTH NO LOVE IT DOSE NOT LAST LONG. MORE TRUTH AND LOVE THE LONG PEOPLE STAY TOGETHER. .ALL SIN IS SOMETHING THAT BRAKE THE BOND OF LOVE AND TRUTH BETWEEN PEOPLE BUT CHRISTIAN ADD AND TAKE AWAY , TRUN IT IN TO A BELIEF NOT TRUTH OR LOVE
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
THERE IS ONLY 1 MORAL RULE LOVE AND TRUTH IS IT. WHEN YOU USE OTHER THING LIKE SEX , HATE, FEAR AND GREED . YOU GET ALL GOVERNMENTS AND ALL RELIGION BUT THEY WILL CALL IT LOVE AND TRUTH BUT THEY USE IT TO KILL STEAL AND ENSLAVE .LOVE AND TRUTH IS A BOND. IT IS USED TO HOLD PEOPLE TOGETHER . YOU CAN NOT USE LOVE AND TRUTH TO JUDGE PEOPLE BY. IT IS USED TO HELP PEOPLE. BELIEF SEPARATE PEOPLE LIKE ATHEIST,GOVERNMENTS, RELIGION,LAWS,COPS, GOOD OR BAD, PREJUDICES,SKIN COLOR , POOR OR,RICH.
greenearthnazi20204u 10 months ago
I think this is so great...I want to share it but somehow my computer wont let me...why is that?
Cardywhite111 10 months ago
Stefan, I love all your videos, but this one has got to be one of my favorites. You took the words out of my mouth. Excellent.
veganmikey 10 months ago
I'm an atheist but that picture of sexy jesus has given me reason to reconsider.
shamz0rz 10 months ago
I disagree completely with your thesis. In my experience I have found the complete opposite to be true. The more religious you are the more likely you are to be pro-state. Horrible video !!!
twn5858 10 months ago
@twn5858
In my experience at least 7/10 atheists are democrats.
I do think it is true tho that religious people, particularly evangelicals, tend to be pro-state just in different ways (big on militarism and big on government legislating (biblical) 'morality')
RPFS2008 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are all lost.
primoknoxville 10 months ago
@svanarchei Thanks.
menonfire12 10 months ago
I understand your option - UPB, but I believe that no morality exsists in reality. individual is the only creator of values. He is bund only by his genes so I would call your thought Genetically Preferable Behavior. Wolves ussually don't kill wolves.
MarekNR 10 months ago
@MarekNR
By believing that no morality exists you have just proved universally preferable behavior.
ProDCloud 10 months ago
@ProDCloud Please explain...
MarekNR 10 months ago
LOL What movie is that, at 0:45 ??
menonfire12 10 months ago
@menonfire12 -- Mel Gibson's "History of the World, Part I" IIRC.
OneWingedShark 10 months ago
@OneWingedShark: Haha Mel GIBSON? I hope you mean Mel Brooks ;)
andyissemicool 10 months ago
I'm libertarian because it's a step towards anarchy and I'm not religious. I have no idea where this notion that the non religious are more strongly statist is coming from. It was my rejection of a divine authority which led me to question authority and deem it illegitimate in all personal instances.
Anarchy is simply the rational notion that other people are not your property and that you are nobody's property.
ihaterobbie123 10 months ago
I'm libertarian, extremely anti-government and I'm spiritual (not religious) Christian. I have never met a hardcore religious person who wasn't conservative. Usually fundamentalists want everyone to think like they do, which libertarianism does not encourage.
kittycatcarley 10 months ago
I've noticed this problem and have griped about it a time or two. It seems that many atheists arent' applying the same skepticism to the state that they do to religion. It may be a sort of growth process. For me, it was natural to ask, "If there is no magic sky daddy that can make people behave, why is it that a stroke of a legislator's pen is expected to make something be?" and then to ask, "So w/o a magic sky daddy, what gives those yahoos perogitive over my life?"
LiberAnarchy 10 months ago 5
@LiberAnarchy Demorcracy give them prerogative over your life. It allows 51% of the population control the other 49%. And our country was not even founded as a democracy. People are brainwashed
smokescreen767 10 months ago
I remember when I told my religious parents that I was an athiest they went on about communism as if I was advocating that.
dothackerkiko 10 months ago 2
@dothackerkiko thats the part where you have to interrupt them by any means necessary. You are right, They are wrong.
sonofagunM357 10 months ago
Most libertarians are non-religious in my experience.
jdenicholls 10 months ago 34
@jdenicholls agreed!
MrDemonshalo 10 months ago
@jdenicholls Yeah, Ayn Rand, was an atheist. Also she was not a very good philosopher.
natedaug1 9 months ago
Since when are Communists necessarily pro-State? This video is built on shaky premises to say the least.
truthslap 10 months ago 3
@truthslap Communism is another form of extreme statism not terribly different than Fascism. Communism absolutely demands a dictator, overseer or bureacracy in one way or another to coordinate production no matter what any anarcho-communist would have you believe. They tend to brush off the issue and deny that a "State" exists in the first place, only "Classes" exist, but it's just semantics or word play. Don't be fooled. They believe in the institutionalized initiation of force. i.e. Statism.
0rthogonal 10 months ago
@stefbot That quote at 1:25 is great! Where is it from? Is that a Stefbot original?
Marchije 10 months ago
Hurm... I have to write a paper about "Why we should choose moral behavior" for my philosophy class... if I weren't so lazy I'd take a look at UPB.
linkdead14 10 months ago
I despise governments and religion fairly equally. I don't seem much difference between the two. Both are put in place as systems of control, indifferent to true human desires and well-being.
jasonlajoie 10 months ago
Stef, the reason for the false dichotomy is actually even simpler than this. Since political power grew out of religious power; the arbiters of the religio-political power in the 19th and early 20th century utilized a very powerful tool: GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. This enabled the powercrats of the day of brand those who strayed from the inanity of the church as Marxists and those embracing inherently altruistic theology as being for liberty.
It has continually proven to be quite effective.
physicalgenius 10 months ago
If the oligarchs could get the christians and atheists to have a war they would be stoked, but not before the christian islam war. Maybe the atheists can help with a war fighting the survivors of the latter war. Christian and Islam vs Atheism. Could an atheist be convinced that they were doing the world a favor by killing off the religious? Their would have to be the propaganda campaign when atheists looked to be under a religious dictatorship first.
aghoranathi 10 months ago
The true problem is that most people dont understand the nature of the universe we live in. How can anyone move towards creating a set of ethical standards without first understanding their own place in the universe? no one will listen to someone who doesnt have ALL the answers. Such a problem is appeased in religions by god (the ultimate tyrant). but in the state, we need coercion and violence or the general populace wont obey rules (for the general public are very ignorant).
enfomy 10 months ago
I really think, if you haven't made a video about it yet Stefan, you should make one responding to common criticisms and about your solutions instead of the usual videos primarily focused on the same message criticizing the government and religion.
I just realized that you repeating your message over and over is the same kind of drilling that's been used in the typical forms of media.
slaughtz 10 months ago
I would say those who would believe in an all powerful entity that cannot be questioned are more susceptible to being a statist, Religion itself is another form of totalitarianism, in-fact there is a well known totalitarian political ideology wrapped in and propelled, justified by superstition its called Islam.
darkblood626 10 months ago
@darkblood626 Indeed, however most Christian governments have historically been totalitarian as well. In fact the Bible does nothing at all to promote human liberty, but instead encourages obedience to the State. I have noticed that most fundamentalist Christians sound rather fascist in their political ideology.
Griffon201 10 months ago
@Griffon201 Correct hence why I said religion itself And pointed out Islam as a well know instead of saying The only one or more than.
darkblood626 10 months ago
@darkblood626 True, hadn't quite caught that
Griffon201 10 months ago
Thank you Stef for providing transcript and yes I will continue, and share, a lot.
AngryHateMusic 10 months ago
A testament (lol) of the naisance of human civilization. It is the lack of and aversion to concept/idea plurality in society that speaks DIRECTLY to man's aversion to personal responsability in all measures and aspects of being alive. The crusade for ease, comfort, minimal and or no effort, to programme in one's self a narrow context of relatedness to all around him and then to beat one's chest and others in the social darwinian cycle of playing king of the hill in a very large insane asylum.
SlingSalsa 10 months ago
I simply ignore. Soon many will come to this same conclusion. Laws, especially those under the book of US Code are designed to one one person deliberately do harm to another without provocation all for the benefit of a few under the guise of protection.
Anothercoilgun 10 months ago
The ironic inevitability is...
The proponents of the State which rules by threat of force... will point the finger at all the droves of violent criminals created by the State and then call your philosophy wishful thinking.
But the problem still remains. How would we deal with violent criminals who would take advantage of everyone else who plays nice?
batfly 10 months ago
Stephan, you are missing the fact that there is a particular brand of Christianity, championed by the Reformation, that teaches that salvation is by the Grace of God through faith in the finished work of The Christ. It does not threaten anyone with hell since hell is by defaul pictured as the domain of those who are incapable of belief. The motivation to be moral comes from a deep response of gratitude for what has already been accomplished. As Francis Schaeffer asked "How Then Should We Live?"
247websolutions 10 months ago
@Pina206 Perhaps our definition of love isn't the same...
Deuteronomy 17:12 Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
Wait, I'm an Atheist and an Anarcho-Capitalist. And it has been my experience that Christians are more Socialistic in their leanings especially when it comes to the state forcing people to contribute to social welfare programs or to live in whatever manner they approve (such as not consuming marijuana vs. consuming) and the like.
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
I am an atheist and I don't believe that atheist are more stat-ism than other people. Where do you get this opinion? And what is the link between Marxism and atheism? I don't believe there are more atheist dictators than theist dictators. I fact, dictators are often believing that they are god themselves. As I know, atheists tend to be more rational and so they are more pacifist because they are dominated by emotions. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.
tubetib 10 months ago
@tubetib I thought the same thing, being an Anarcho-capitalist and Atheist. I.e. I believe in the Non-initiation of force doctrine or I believe it is usually called the do no harm principle. My perception has always been that christians are more likely to want to force others into doing what they consider moral through gov. force (prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.) then allowing them to live as they choose provided their actions do no harm.
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
If you believe in God, and believe that man's purpose is to know and love God, you would follow what God directs you to follow. I would guess that more religious people who serve God are respectful and loyal to their country.
idahodad1 10 months ago
Only through freedom can morality truly evolve, much like genetic freedom allows mutation to push evolution. Man's need to control, including his own nature, by placing artificial boundaries is ultimately doomed to fail as all things natural must break down any such boundaries and only stagnates growth in the meantime.
whitechocolatespace 10 months ago
There is Buddhism in which there is no GOD underpinning everything.
But the real problem of your 2 paths is cultural where people are taught individualism and greed from a young age. It's pushed on TV and in the schools. Competition vs. cooperation, win at any cost, lying and cheating.
sokol 10 months ago
That's weird because for me, atheism set up a logical path for me to anti-statism. Rejecting divine authority made it easy for me to question and reject secular authority. I don't understand why it doesn't work that way for all atheists.
PluralOfEverything 10 months ago
@PluralOfEverything My theory is many atheists incorrectly attempt to apply the scientific method to everything, most specifically to areas that involve human behavior (economics, psychology, sociology, etc.). They figure if the scientific method can successfully loosen the grip of the Church, then when applied universally, that must be better. Thus they believe in central planning (leaving the supposedly "smart people" in charge. The idea of spontaneous order scares them.
whitechocolatespace 10 months ago
The fundamental problem that I have seen with regards to statism equals slavery so I will go to a religious enslaver or the other choice religion equals slavery so I will go to a statism enslaver is that the human race is absolutely fucking retarded and enjoys being enslaved. At least our founding fathers in america separated the two so you could choose which enslavement is more conducive to your emotional needs.
kroovyandcal 10 months ago
I did see the correlation quite a bit in that pro state are inclined to be less religious and anti state more religious, I think it comes down to people attempting to find meaning in life and they're actions (depression), through one medium or the other.
One false idol substituted for another.
Religion and state just happen to be the most "in your face" so they're the most common ones people hold on to.
The way I see it, statism and religious faith are the same thing.
Paralyt1c 10 months ago
Christianity:33%
Islam:21%
Hinduism:14%
Chinese traditional religion:6%
Buddhism:6%
.
.
.
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist:16%
In my opinion, church is statism. People believe in the state because they were born in the state, it is all they know and it does not mater if you are a atheist or not.
4HITMAN7 10 months ago 2
I think many of you have completely missed the point that Stef was trying to make
daizee106 10 months ago
I like your material Stefan, but you're dead wrong when it comes to ethics and UPB. If things are preferable that doesn't tell you whether you ought to prefer them. If everyone eats meat and sees it as moral what does that tell you about the ethical truth-value of vegetarianism?
Adlasyn 10 months ago
00:40 whahaha what movie is this from? :D I lol'd
MaikUniversum 10 months ago
@MaikUniversum
History of the World, Part I.
asdfers 10 months ago
Those motivation, or maybe de-motivational images crack me up.
MRSketch09 10 months ago
Atheist and Capitalist - it can be done
mchappell13 10 months ago
@Pina206 Is god so concerned about what others will call him?
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
Why do you classify "conservatives" as "less statist"?
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 He makes some thought provoking points but I thought the same. Traditionally conservatism has strong themes of traditional institutions and the state. But perhaps he's talking about modern trends in the US specifically.
Neanderthalcouzin 10 months ago
@Neanderthalcouzin Even in the modern US it seems to me that libertarianism is largely just used as a front for conservative statism. See the discrepancy between actual Tea Partiers and many so-called Tea Party republicans (I'd even say the Pauls are to the right of the libertarian Tea Party.)
fab006 10 months ago
Communists are atheist? Dead wrong.
pornsterwoot 10 months ago
@pornsterwoot In a totalitarian state one of the things they will do is stamp out religion(the Soviet Union is a good example),because if people believe in something they perceive as higher than your authority they tend not to fear you as much as you need them to.
dirtbagstatus 10 months ago
some really great pictures, I love the Government motivational poster :D
karthadastim 10 months ago
It is also possible to reject morality altogether, and accept that social rules come from people's preferences and actions, and morality was just a way for religions and states to convince people do to their bidding.
sharperguy 10 months ago
@sharperguy Indeed anything can be rejected. (Biology, logic, the weather etc.) even if one puts forth a rational argument for these things they can be rejected.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
You are the man Stef
garrethdavis 10 months ago
Atheist are more statist? Really? Not in my experience.
Granted that's not a very big sample but still, seems counterintuitive to me, why would they emancipate themselves from obedience to one imaginary authority to switch it for one that is a little more palpable.
S0chan 10 months ago
@S0chan I think the proper description would be that all the LOUD atheists are normally statists - communists and socialists mainly. It seems the talking monkey needs a jack boot on it's throat one way or another.
grumpone 10 months ago
I think this is a false distinction: who was it who said that European Fascism was little more than the militant right wing of the catholic church? The most religious person I know is also nauseatingly nationalistic--I think he sees a continuity from a totalitarian state to a totalitation religion. He's into totalitarianism--a great, powerful, paternal force that must be obeyed and does your thinking for you. Or have I mssed your point?
CobinRain 10 months ago
shiiieeeet i feel lonely now
im an anarchist and an atheist :/ and emma goldman is my idol
“Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” Emma Goldman
RancidAkuma 10 months ago
I'm a Libertarian and an Atheist, and it is pretty lonely on this side of the fence. My channel's content is based on these principles though, and I try to endorse ideas that elevate humanity above the notion that only through authority (religious or state) can humanity realise its full potential.
RockingMrE 10 months ago
I believe that a community which individuals are evil and unmoral will die soon or later other hand community where people are nice and caring will surviving even bad disasters so no philosophy needed just time and evolution
Engravingsful 10 months ago
God says so, I must obey, or I will burn eternally.
Punishment in the afterlife for my sins.
Reason says so, I must obey, or I will "be a bad person".
Self flagellation in this life for my sins.
I say so, I have no one or no thing to obey, I am free and I choose.
Enjoyment in this life.
I'll take door #3.
buybuydandavis 10 months ago 2
Someone discovered uninspirational posters.
unleashedanarchy 10 months ago
The fact that the state as it exists now doesn't work properly is blatant proof that a libertarian state will NEVER work properly.
If people would work in a libertarian state, then they would be able to work in ANY kind of state.
Anytime I have to give money to someone for some kind of service is JUST like if I'm a slave to the ones that I get my money of AND the ones I give my money to. A libertarian state would just "switch" what you'd call slavery from the state to corporations.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago 3
@TemporalOnline Agreed. Big business is not my friend just like big government isn't my friend. Big business has NOT provided me with a job; they hired illegals and indians overseas. Due to this fact, I'm a freelancer, and I pay higher taxes as a self-employed individual.
GeorgeLRockwell87 10 months ago 3
@TemporalOnline Man, that was a huuuge stretch. What you are saying is that working for anything is slavery. But nobody has to work! You can grow a garden and feed yourself without working. People work because they WANT a certain lifestyle - even if it is pissing teir life away for trinkets - it's what they choose to do.
grumpone 10 months ago
@grumpone And in the past was just like that, but then came the industrial revolution and then the industry owners became greedy forcing people to work almost forever alongside with their children and then people revolted and forced the state to do something that was then good for everybody.
And yes, I have seen the explanation by stefbot that said that the industrial rev. was what made it possible to people to work less, and I say half true.
And people don't "choose", people NEED.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@grumpone By need I say people have a need to get together by its nature and need in the sense that there's a meteor comeing to earth in 2036 and we NEED to figure out how to stop it before too late (for instance).
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline You're missing the fact that without a monopoly on violence there would be no state,unless you voluntarily enter into it. I would suggest reading Chaos Theory by Dr. Robert Murphy to get a good idea of what a Libertarian society would look like in modern times.
dirtbagstatus 10 months ago
@dirtbagstatus And you ever think that in a place without a "state" the corporations wouldn't figure out another way of enforcing just like the estate does now, but with almost NO possible way for normal people to have a say? How would you reason with a corp, without a state? As I said, if you say that people should combine among themselves, it would work far better NOW. If it isn't working NOW, it will NOT work in a libertarian state.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline If Walmart started forcing people to buy their products wouldn't they lose a bunch of customers?
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull I have to buy things from someone if I pretend to live in a society like this one. Doesn't matter if it is wall mart or best buy or whatever. I HAVE to buy from some of them.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline Yes but if Walmart said that "if you buy from anyone else we will hunt you down" do you think they would stay in business?
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to say is that, the same way the state today "slave" me to pay in order to keep the society and protect me, I'll turn myself a slave of Wall Mart and Best Buy.
What if they are the only ones that I can buy from, and then they make a cartel? Then I'll just turn myself a slave to them. They will of course have their ways of enforcing my payments to them. And if you say that eople would get together and fight, (cont)
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull if it was true, it would happen, and make everything right, NOW, in THIS society, were it is far most likely to happen. The proof that we "still" (to say the least) need a state is that people are NOT getting together to fix the problems, and that we still need the few good people to fix things that we still can elect.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline Why would they be the only ones to buy from? I think maybe other people would start other businesses to compete with them. The only way a government/corporation stays in power is by convincing the people that they are needed. Even a brutal dictator needs people to believe in him other wise he's just one person throwing a silly tantrum.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull And they would be crushed by the big ones before too late, or bought without a government ruled by PEOPLE to stop them. In a "no state" state, there would be noone to stop them from doing it.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline Physically crushed? If they choose to be bought that is their decision. I'm a freelance actor competing with Gary Oldman, Denzel Washington and Paul Giomatti. That's my choice. Should I round up a group of people to force them to stop taking work from me?
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull they wouldn't, if there was no alternative shops and people believed, that force is necessary for people to be good.
MaikUniversum 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline Perhaps you also don't see that no government no matter how powerful or tyrannical does not exist without the consent of the people.
The same goes for any company,especially when they need your money which you could easily give to their competition.
This question and more are explained in the short book I suggested in my previous post.Also Stefan has explained this in earlier videos as well.
dirtbagstatus 10 months ago
@dirtbagstatus I have not seen in the book the distinction and the "how will cancel out" the problem of there being conscientious beings in the system that would twist/tweak/dope the system, that, differently from a "truly" chaotic system, would just render a state based in "full" chaotic system a big corporatocracy.
I have not seen in it explained in the book, about how the "flow" would force the corporations/people to not dope the system into a corporatocracy.
In the book it just say it will.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@dirtbagstatus Another problem is that the laws are for people to bind together for a big goal. In a libertarian state, the achievements of a group of people may and would not be gotten by other group of people. And they would be ephemeral. In fact, it would be heaven to lawyers, that would turn into negotiators.
And it counts on people getting together for that. As I said, if it would work on a libertarian state, it SHOULD work right NOW. If I don't see it now, wont see then.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline BTW, just to clarify, I said that lawyers would turn into negotiators because that's what they are in the end, AND because there would be no "true law".
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@dirtbagstatus And there's the problem of will the corporation as they exist NOW continue? If yes, forget it, it should start from 0, but to do that is almost impossible by all means.
And there's the problem that a system like that would encourage people to communicate LESS and not MORE with other people, what is driving us, now.
And I want to state that I'm here mostly because stef talked about atheism and statism and etc. Usually I would just listen and see if any of my bias was challenged.
TemporalOnline 10 months ago
@TemporalOnline Theres a good question,and the short answer is no. Corporations can not grow to the size that some of them are without state imposed hurdles to upstart companies that would take a share of their market. Stefan has explained this before. Also if you are interested Roderick Long(a left leaning Libertarian) briefly mentions this topic in his video about reaching the left. /watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M&feature=feedu
dirtbagstatus 10 months ago
@PositiveAussie
Disregard that compass, it is a fraud. I had a big discussion about it with about 20 people who we all knew our political and philosophical positions of because we have had years of fierce debates. That test is biased and will skew most people to the left and down.
I've since decided that a much better political spectrum is a simple one line. Full tilt left is any kind of totalitarian system & full tilt right is anarchy.
-
kmg501 10 months ago
@kmg501
I agree with your scale, but I have found that it is easier to have a conversation with someone who believes in totalitarian systems if you do not place such systems on the scale. My full tilt left represents zero individual liberty, while full tilt right represents 100% individual liberty.
TashiRogo 10 months ago
@TashiRogo
I like the way you put that, it is inherently less confrontational and yet still gets the point across. Good job.
-
kmg501 10 months ago
I'm nearly half a century old and have been an atheist since just entering my teen years. At this point in my life I despise the state because I see that the people who are running it are mostly liars and frauds. I consider what we were supposed to have (a federal govt), dead. What we have now is an unconstitutional & unprincipled national govt.
I have also come to determine that family destroying Cultural Marxism is largely the culprit for our condition. I'm probably not your avg atheist.
-
kmg501 10 months ago 17
@kmg501 Are you familiar with Austrian economics? I highly recommend that you look in to the Mises institute.
sigatus 10 months ago
@kmg501 I too am nearly half a century old and been an atheist since birth. I've come to dislike capitalism, libertarians, conservatives, religions, finance, business, culture, civilizations, myth, and beliefs. I concluded long ago that almost every aspect of our world is dictated by oppressive rulers who have been subjugating the citizenry for so long, the citizens now defend the mechanisms of oppression. Capitalism caused this mess. A new economic mode is the way forward, not Capitalism.
Ranger4564 10 months ago
@Ranger4564
Oh really? If we can't trade things of mutual use then how do you propose to have any kind of functional society?
-
kmg501 10 months ago
@kmg501 The point is, if we can find a way to satisfy most of your needs and wants, then exchange would not need to be as beneficial to you as it currently does. I propose a society aimed towards production of surplus by automation, to eliminate the condition of surplus value, and to liberate people to more personal interests. If you were comfortable, would you not consider giving away your creation, freely? Must you profit off someone in every exchange, in every type of society?
Ranger4564 10 months ago
@kmg501 Me Too - :)
silverbullx 10 months ago
@kmg501
I'm an Atheist Anarcho-Capitalist. I'm even less average. :P
@Stefbot
So where do I fit in?
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd - I'm also in your shoes. I guess we're right in the middle.
linkdead14 10 months ago
Well I'm a Christian and I was not threatened to be one. I chose to live by God's morals because I think they are good. True Christians come to God based on love for what He has done for us and the desire to be righteous; not because they want to go to heaven and are scared of hell. But of course most Christians don't even follow Christ or obey God because they get confused by neocons in the church who tell them we need to be bombing people in the middle east and support Israel at all costs.
Bristecom 10 months ago
@Bristecom What are some of God's morals? If you answer "don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, love your neighbor," how would you respond if I were to show you God admitting to breaking these commandments?
El3ctricPenguin 10 months ago 11
@El3ctricPenguin Ah, but god can break his own rules just like presidents and people in fancy hats can because they made them. So we can't question god or our leaders because they are mysteriously better than us.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@Bristecom Not a Christian personally, but well-said.
GeorgeLRockwell87 10 months ago
i really really don't like that graph.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 10 months ago 3
@AnarchoCapitalistTV ... but the video still gets a thumbs up cause it is bang on point.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 10 months ago
its a very difficult world for an anti-stateist atheist. I think most hardcore libertarians (like myself) share this world, but its stacked against us on both sides. to (most) 'conservatives' we could really use your help. put all religion aside in any/all economic or political involvement., and it will make trhe argument more.... creditable.
scalp340 10 months ago
@PositiveAussie Appeal to tradition.
DaveElectric 10 months ago
The reason atheists are attracted to statism is because the Democratic party (U.S political party) is the only viable party to vote for that protects secular liberties.
DaveElectric 10 months ago
I believe that most people are afraid of the implications of individual liberty, and that because of this they latch on to life-controlling organizations. I think that is why most people fall on the line between state and religion.
I also think that this is true largely because these organizations work to make it so, through propaganda, incentives, and social consequences.
TashiRogo 10 months ago 2
If we accept that survival/success/life is good, then all moral rules which promote that are justified. Of course success is subjective, and so is the thing which you ascribe the desire for success. Only yourself? Your close friends and family? Your society? All of humanity? All of life? The solution is to create a hierarchy of importance, from yourself to all of life, but it's not really justified so much as it is convenient and intuitive.
KingCrassusII 10 months ago
This explains why I have no friends (other than stefbot).
RodCornholio 10 months ago 2
So true
chriswroads 10 months ago
I never see "morality", I see logical "business" spirited reasons for doing things like help my neighbor and the like; it just makes sense in a pragmatic "karma" kind of way.
desirefirst 10 months ago
Ow, my head. There you go making me think again. Darn philosophy.
creamrising 10 months ago
why are must atheists so dumb?
sonofagunM357 10 months ago
@sonofagunM357 /facepalm
Dan4157 10 months ago
@sonofagunM357
I think the term you're looking for is Statheist.
ProDCloud 10 months ago
@sonofagunM357
Why are must? I'm an atheist and quite intelligent.
b3rtne 10 months ago
@b3rtne did you watch the video? most atheists choose the state
sonofagunM357 10 months ago
@sonofagunM357
Yeah I watched the video. I also read your comment. I commented to you with the assumption that you were on the opposing side of atheism.
b3rtne 10 months ago
@b3rtne as an Anarchist Atheist i ask, why are most atheists so dumb?
sonofagunM357 10 months ago 3
@sonofagunM357
Humans in general are dumb. They're easily manipulated to believe what the people in charge want them to believe.
b3rtne 10 months ago
@b3rtne but atheists should know better, No?
sonofagunM357 10 months ago
@b3rtne but atheists should know better, No? well by looking at the results i guess not, atheist are quite dumb, Yeah that includes Hitchens and Sam Harris.
sonofagunM357 10 months ago
@sonofagunM357
MOST people are dumb. Whether it be relying on Government or God. You seem to be reasonably intelligent. Sad thing is, there aren't many of us around. Personally I don't know any Atheist/Statists.
Most of the Atheists I know typically lean toward Anarchist views.
b3rtne 10 months ago