no guns in an anarchy ? forget that i will be growing a Mohawk cutting off my hands and attaching machine guns to the stumps and making fashion wear out of old tires. who is with me?
I prefer for no one to tell anyone that they cannot own something that they have the right to own. If the government has the right to show up at my door with guns drawn, I should have the same right.
In the last couple decades a huge number of states have adopted concealed carry and more and more non gun types have started buying guns, including millions of hand guns
And what has happened overall in the US?
Murder rates have DROPPED !
IF guns WERE actually ANY sort of problem then as gun sales increased and CCW came into being murder rates SHOULD have INCREASED dramatically.
@p4h10oso lol they are just good at tests and you really dont want to go through the living hell of their schools trust me ive been there i know many chinese peoples they are just drilled with the answers for tests all day long all pavlov style and are turned into pretty much ultra slaves but on the plus side great food and grandmas
@DanteMcSparda Who is this "Whitey" you speak of? Is that a persons last name or the personification of your racist views against Caucasians?
If you don't think Islam is dangerous then you either are not paying attention or your just stupid. They are dangerous, and easily dealt with, if anyone has the spine for it. Europe was conquered in the first place by muslims because no one took them seriously. They were pushed back by young knights who stopped listening to the naivety of their fathers.
@DanteMcSparda Most people hate the barbaric religion of islam, not Arabs. I highly doubt Arab Christians get the same flack (unless people get them confused for being muslims).
Does hating Nazis mean you don't like Germans? Of course not. Islam is a plague, like fascism and communism used to be. However instead of being just a political system it incorporates elements of religion as well.
@DanteMcSparda Since I live in a country that was taken over by muslims (that were pushed back out thankfully) I am dead serious. Anyone who doesn't think that islam is dangerous is not paying attention, or naive. No offense intended.
I'm amused by gun control. Having a gun is empowerment. Like all power it can be used constructively and/or destructively (see govt). That's all.
The idea that many people are SHOCKED and ALARMED at the idea of fellow citizens being anything but COMPLETELY DISempowered is.....VERY scary and depressing. It's like the cows who want to staff the slaughterhouse.
@patsfanczar : I mean that I'm amused that anyone can think of gun control as anything but authoritarian control and disempowerment of citizens--though apparently many do; they see it as a "sensible restraint" on...."people."
To respond to your post: Who are these free people you speak of?
@GetMeThere1 Once you take their guns, they would be what I call formerly free people. The only reason why people by the "no guns" = "safer place" idea is because they who accept this idea are fruitcakes buying into what power-hungry politicians know they can feed them.
turkish government begins ethnic cleansing of turkish armenian population. armenians r easily disarmed due to laws requiring gun registration. 1500000 r killed
ussr, 1930s
Josef Stalin confiscates grain from ukrainian farmers. due to gun control, farmers had no guns. any who resist r kiled or sent to labor camps. as many as 10000000 r killed
china, 1935-present
chinese citizens r forbiden to own weapons. 100000000 r killed
german holocaust,Pol Pot,Idi Amin,U.S. slavery,gun control
What army would invade an anarchist society where they know that after they destroyed the army, to keep the land, the soldiers must defend themselves at every streetcorner against women and men with guns? Wouldnt that be a more powerfull society in terms of defense?
Guns are not bad, however getting shot with guns is bad. Criminals will always have guns, and they will always want to use them against others. That is why private citizens need guns, to prevent other people from shooting them.
Unfortunately, in a democracy you only need to convince 51% of the people to give up their rights, the rest will lose them by default.
Make it so ONLY THE POLICE has a master list of who owns what gun, tracked by serial number. Make the list 100% confidentiality, deny anyone trying to gain info on the list.
Violent Crime would drop in record numbers. Other counties and guerrilla armies, terrorist, suicide bombers, insurgents would think twice before launching an urban ground assault on the USA
@blotto85 its called gun registration and guess what when the government who are the police want to know whos guns they have to take away then they can do it and how would that affect violent crime AT ALL those guns are already illegal and also serial numbers are stratched off so that wont work at all and we already made the japanese think twice about invading due to our gun ownership but that idea is bad very bad watch red dawn the form they got is from the police of registered guns
Make it law that every sane, law abiding citizen above the age of 21 be issued an assault rifle and a side arm, go through a week long course on gun safety, target shooting, how and when to use deadly force, speed reloading, weapon malfunctions, transitioning to a sidearm. How to store ammo and guns safely, gun transportation, and gun history. Issue counselled carry cards to these citizens, no questions.
i think that in a free society there would be a demand for certain restrictions, so the value of houses with healthy regulations would likely increase. if a person wants to live in a community without guns and rely on a private defense source for protection, its a viable option. furthermore, in communities where regulations (or lack there of) lead to very functional and safe conditions, families will be drawn to pursue them; hence the progress of innovation in communal security.
@ColinN16 While those who can't afford private protection are on their own and barred out side of your safe communities. Proof that socialisim is how you wish other people should live.
Monopoly monopoly evil satanLIBERALSmonopoly monopoly ......privatization freemarketPATRIOTISM bill of rightsNRAJESUS....
Followed by a droning, barely sensical, and irrelevent meandering that's so boring and needlessly long that all of your regular audience just decides they agree with you stops listening at approximately the third minute in. It's like Dennis Miller if Dennis MIller had Asperger's Syndrome...jesus.
Or if you don't want guns or violent crime in your neighbourhood.. you could just move to England, embrace certain values & principles, then live happily in a socialist/capitalist hybrid state.
Instead of the covert "elite own everything one way or another; money is a pyramid scheme, pay in then go fend for yourself" communism dressed as ultra "free" capitalism-on-steroids American model, which seems to infect Canada with its gloomy inbuilt disadvantaged, them against us, dog eat dog stance.
@CrypticalK Your being sarcastic right? England is in the midst of a major crime wave largely involving illegal firearms. Crime with firearms has steadily risen since they banned guns.
Not only that, their economy is in worse trouble than the US, UK health services are collapsing, and they are being over run by islamo-fascists.
The UK is in serious trouble, its future is very bleak.
Perfect. I want gun free neighborhoods!!!! That would be perfect!!!!
Then the criminals would go over there and leave my neighborhood alone. That would also be a wonderfull way to demonstrate that criminals prefer unarmed neighborhoods.
This guys seems to be confusing his ownership of a house and the right to keep whatever he wants inside it - if he cannot keep a gun in the house then he "doesn't really own the house then". But we are all restricted to what we can keep in a house - high explosive, radioactive materials, certain chemicals, etc. And I don't think anybody has a problem with these restrictions.
So what he's saying he wants to live in a place where a single body enforces rules in a "neighborhood" with property law and leasing. I have this idea where we start a company called the U.S. Government, and it owns all the property, and we lease it from them indefinitely, with things called title and deeds issued by the company. Oh, wait.... we have that now.
sounds like a fair solution, the only thing I would point out is that neighborhood would be a target of roberies unless you had armed guards. Wouldnt armed guards contradict the idea though.
if guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUNS SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law. When it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will be a criminal.
I think that actually *is* an accurate analogy, with the whale-sized caveat that we did not, generally speaking, enter into those agreements with government *willingly*, which of course, makes all the difference.
If there's something else I've missed, please, make the follow up video you spoke of.. unless you already have, in which case I'll be to it shortly. :)
Why not prevent the conditions (i.e. poverty) which cause people to commit crimes against one another?
I understand you are expressing your opinion from that of a US styled libertarian, but I am curios as to why you haven't addressed the reasons why violent crimes exist in the first place?
probably because people who are in poverty are not even trying to get out of it...they are relying on the government to help them instead of acting in a responsible manner. People who dont have jobs create a higher crime rate. Less jobs were created in fear of insane taxes for buisnesses. UT is already prepairing for a cut off from stimulus by raising its tuition next semester. Citizens without weapons are victims for those who dont care about law.
Eliminate classes? So what you are saying is that noone has the right to work hard to make more money? Elimination of classes would also make education needless, because there would be no hope for a better future for an individual. Thats exactly what we need (sarcasm).
Classes have no bearing on how hard people work. Most higher classes are a result of illegal activity. Just because you work harder does not mean you will ascend to that much higher of a class. Some people are just born with money. That has nothing to do with work ethics, or education. These people, i.e. Most government families, Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's, and so many more, never had to work for anything in their lives.
I am simply saying that where theres a will, theres a way. I dont buy the 'poor me, im poor' thing. I currently dont even have a job, im trying to find one (or hopefuly two) part-time jobs, while going to college, so I can get a better paying job. Is that not work?
If I make 70k after a period of suffering, I could live off of a lot less and give carity.
Before I was laid off, I was workin 90 hrs a week and made 45k that year. 7k was tax. Thats rediculous. FAIR TAX
The only way to "eliminate classes" is by repugnant forms of government coercions and we've all seen the wonderful experiments, in that regard, of the 20th century. In no truly free society can it be avoided that there is an inequality of "outcome" that will shape different classes. There will always be people more stupid or lazy than others, unfortunately.
You'll have to learn to live with the fact that there will ALWAYS be poverty, no matter which system or lack of you apply to a society.
well for one thing, the conditions you speak of are not always tangible. Some people are just bad people. You can't legislate those people. Some people just simply to do others harm. Whether crazy or just evil. As far as this type of neighborhood is that the second criminals find that neighborhood, let the fun begin. (for criminals) The best thing to keep a society civil is parenting. MTV and P-diddy can't teach the youth to be up standing people. Only fathers and mothers can do that.
An armed society is a polite society. I work as a peace officer, and I presume everyone I deal with is armed. If you want to own firearms you should be able to excersice your 2nd Amendment Right and own firearms. Perhaps with the stipulations of being at least 18 years of age and not having a felony conviction for a violent crime. If you don't want to own a firearm...move to England.
You're more than welcome. I also wish more Police Officers (and everyone for that matter) felt the same way. Keep fighting the good fight! Amen, brother, and pass the ammunition!
Where do you live? Here, nobody I ever met owns a gun to protect the house, and none of them got robbed or shot. My dad owns guns, but they are just for hunting, and safely locked away all the time, if he´s not out hunting.
The state doesnt do anything, people do things. If people are inherently corruptible than wouldnt they be just as corrupt with or without a state. What if a neighborhood decided that they dont want any atheists living in their neighborhood? In a free society they would have every right to do this but would it be the right thing to do? And dont tell me that houses in Christian neighborhoods would be devalued because there are restrictions on them, they wouldnt.
There are plenty of people in the US that would love pay more to live in a white, straight, Christian neighborhood. We know from the civil rights movement that separate but equal is never truly equal, so if we start creating segregated neighborhoods someone is going to get the short end of the stick. What if a DRO decided to charge more to insure a black man than a white man? Would that be a free society?
I will admit that our current system of government is not perfect, but it does do some things well. I just happen to think that we are more likely to succeed if we try to change it for the better than to try to get ride of it and replace it with something new that may or may not turn out to be any better than the system we have.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your political philosophy would be great if people were absolutely rational....In reality, these are all just pie in the eye schemes, and without agreed on laws as administered by the state there are no solutions to these problems. These solutions are not the best, but they can perhaps balance all competing interests.
how bout we just stop talking about gun control, and then we stop trying to take people's rights away. there will always be people who dont obey the law, and that isnt justification to remove the rights from the rest of the population
ill go little off topic here stef but bear with me.
Do you know Robert-Arthur:Menard who has gotten the status of freeman on the land? i think hes arguments about the law and how to use them for you shield against government abuse are interesting! Here is his presentation!
"Some oversight" in many cases is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I have read so many stories where an officer what put on paid leave during an investigation into wrongdoing that was very real, but few are actually fired.
A house is almost never an investment, since nominal price may increase, but this is usually due to inflation, and no real increase in value. A house is not an asset (unless you happen to be a landlord), because assets are monetary flows that put money into your pocket, and actually are more likely to be liabilities, which are monetary flows that take money out of your pocket (for repairs, mortgage payments, etc.).
Well then I guess we will have to disarm all militaries and police forces. Until then speaking about gun control is silly since militaries and police forces kill more than all gangs combined. Additionally, guns equalize the balance of power. A weaker and more elderly person can more easily defend their self.
I live in Norway, and here police don't need to wear weapons because the population does not have any neither. Yes, it will be a great day when we can disarm both police and military, but we need to start with people not having guns in their houses.
Yes I saw your profile. The state would need to be disarmed first because otherwise you will have a weakened subjugated population. Weapons are the balance of power. Guns themselves do nothing. It is the mindset of the people that have them that should be the concern.
I live in Montana, and although I don't own a firearm, many law-abiding citizens here do own guns, which they use to harvest wild meat. And the rate of murder by guns here is nil compared with other places where people do not hunt for meat. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. If I wanted to kill you, I don't need a gun, I can think of a hundred other ways to get the job done.
I would have to see the stats on that but that would still be denying someone else the liberty to defend themselves if they could manage it. Also, old people are just one category. Anyone that is weaker than another can equal their defense with a gun. The mindset of the person is what is important, not a gun that can do nothing on its own.
I have to quote a very smart man here "I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion, so screw you!" :)
Oh, rights are a very sensible area, very sensible indeed. There will always be people who want to abuse their rights but does that mean we have to take those rights away? Where do we start banning rights, from guns on, or from explosives, bio-weapons, or already from knives on? This we will never agree on, people.
Anyone who wants to can create things and call them money. If other people act like the things are money then they are money. Typically people or organisations will create money out of rare metals for instance silver and gold, but there are dozens of different alternatives that have been tried. In Vermont they used alcoholic beverages, an idea I thought was uniquely Australian but isn't even originally Australian.
but that is a barter economy because there is no standard medium of exchange, it fluctuates from transaction to transaction. Who is to say what purity the gold or alcohol is to be etc etc....unless there is a government which regulates its value.
What generally happens is that people generally agree on a medium of exchange, my bet it will be gold but I'd prefer a basket of commodities, e.g. a multidollar can be exchanged for 1/60 oz. of gold plus 1/12 oz. of sliver and 1/2 oz. of copper. Seems more stable to me. Private firms are just as capable of delivering standard purities as government (and historically have been more reliable at doing so). Anyone delivering less than promised is guilty of fraud.
Well yes, the first paper money was promisory notes/reciepts that could be exchanged at a bank for a specified amount of coinage. Easier to carry than gold and just as good as long as the bank was reputable.
Commercial and professional standards can be formed and enforced by consensus. This happens all the time. What do you think credit scores are, or consumer ratings? In the absence of Federal Reserve notes, people would exchange convenient commodities, and eventually one or two commodities would be valued particularly as a media of exchange. This is how money was created.
An all knowing council of elders did not write a charter establishing money. It was an emergent phenomenon.
Saying the gov't needs to regulate some business or area is equivalent to saying that the adults involved in that area are so evil and/or incompetent they have to be threatened w/ violence to get them to run things properly.
Is that what you think about the currency, or any other area that purportedly needs "regulation?" You think that mommy needs to step in and spank the bad guys? Is that how you see the world, filled w/ recalcitrant children?
The purpose of the government is to incentivize mutually beneficial behavior by attaching individual costs to certain actions, and also providing for "common necessities" like military and police which any individual would be incapable of on their own.
Before you go suggesting these voluntary mini organizations, which are governments in themselves. Consider how this country is voluntary, you can vote by ballot or vote with your feet. MOVE if its bad
There is no reason to think the free market could not produce private security & dispute resolution organizations that could provide contractually all the services currently rendered by the police and courts under state monopoly. The voluntary organizations proposed by various anarchists are not states... b/c they're voluntary. Despite your insistence, states are not.
The state claims & violently enforces a territorial monopoly on the use of violence, its sundry services notwithstanding. Practically speaking it owns all things in the territory, including the people. Citizens do not choose to be ruled. They are made into de facto slaves at the moment they are born in the territory.
Voting w/ my feet, eh? I shouldn't have to leave the territory, just b/c it's filled w/ a bunch of bandits and con artists calling themselves gov't agents. I shouldn't have to be extorted, just b/c the extortionists were born before me. Besides there's no escaping the state; it's everywhere.
Voting w/ the ballot? The ballot is a mechanism for self delusion, a way someone can say to himself "This works," when everyone knows it doesn't. Voting changes nothing. Even if only 10% of the electorate turns out, "none of the above" isn't going to win. Some prick or another is still going to get up behind a podium and talk about his "mandate" & how he plans to use your money better than you could.
What you refer to as "common necessities" are not viewed as such by everyone.
The problem with voting in general is it inherently devalues minorities. Voting at the ballot means nothing if you outnumbered. As for voting with your feet, where are the anarchists supposed to go? It isn't as though the earth is teeming with ungoverned land.
He isn't trying to come up w/ gun control policy. A "policy" is something that enforced by violent coercion. He's explaining how, in a society free of violent coercion, those who dislike guns could form communities w/o guns.
You build a rocket, you get some astronauts and you launch them into space. The laws of physics remain unchanged, even in the absence of a state. :)
As the manager of an aspiring space program, you'd have to rely on trade or donations to acquire money. You could sell rights to the technology you develop to raise money, or else use commercials to make people feel good about donating to your cause.
In essence, so long as people want space programs, there will be space programs.
You ever see any gov't agents supervising the operation of a grocery store, or an electronics outlet, or a car lot, or an oil refinery, or a steel mill?
Should they really be supervising anything at all, given that those places seem to do quite well w/o them?
The guns that are currently in my house are used not for self defense nor crime. They are used for hunting rabbits, squirrels, turkey, deer, and the occasional varmint on the farm. Love your commentary, as usual!
I don't know what happened to the first one, but on that one I said I was okay with possession of a tactical nuclear device. Every little bit helps. :)
Why make a video arguing how people who have the silly, uninformed views that support "gun control" can somehow satisfy their wish in a stateless society (at least in their neck of the woods)? Just to show that anachism provides a big enough tent to please them too? I feel many of them are conceited "progressives" who LIKE the idea of forcibly disarming allegedly backward "gun-nuts" & vicariously imagining their wisdom leading humanity via the state. Anarchism can't appeal to these.
Yes, many of them are conceited "progressives" who like the idea of forcibly disarming others, but not all. Many simply never realized that state control is enforced by gun wielding death dealers.
If I were in this scenario, I'd PAY my neighbors to HAVE guns! Fortunately I don't have to :) The X26 Taser is pretty cool for self defense too, but I'll stick with hollow points
What does 'necessary' mean? Safety is not a defined state that is achievable, it is a spectrum of trade-offs. Each person will take steps where the pros outweigh the cons until they've reached the level of safety they personally desire. Somebody might be really scared and want a tank, but can't afford it, while another isn't worried about safety as a rule, but will pick up some pepper spray since it's only $2. It's based on personal values, like all of our choices.
Any bullet would kill someone in the right place. But a shot away from the main organs and arterys from a FMJ bullet wouldn't kill the attacker, but injure them.
A hollow point would expand from point of entry and possibly kill the target.
It sounds good. But what if I want to work as a teacher at M.I.T. But as it turns out there's no demand for a neighborhood without guns within 100 miles of my workplace. I guess I'm just at the whim of the market. The last 4 minutes of the video pretty much answered my questions.
The problem with this, is that it doesn't address how one would enact gun control in a population such as the united states. Are any of those proposals translatable to a large population? "Guns prevent crime" - except if the government is in possession of them? I assume the DROs would need guns to enforce their dispute resolution? (otherwise a group of people with guns could take over a society. if they do carry guns, what would differentiate them from a government?
He's explaining ways for a community in consensus on this issue to achieve its consensus decision, in practice. Since a large population like that of the US is neither a community nor in consensus (if we are to take those terms at all seriously), his solutions aren't applicable to it.
Under a DRO, disputes would be resolved under contract. Those who refuse to abide by contact would not long find themselves under a DRO. Maybe a DRO would have armed security men to protect its customers...
... or maybe it would leave that to the customers themselves. That would depend on the details of the contract.
DRO's could be differentiated from gov'ts b/c they would be voluntary. They would not lay claim to a vast territorial monopoly, like the state does. Their powers of governance would extend only to the property and persons of those who voluntarily contracted their services (and who could break that contract, if need be).
Spike... all of those corrupt people you speak of ARE naturally attracted to being politicians, soldiers, etc. Those people who wield control are inherently corrupt.
You should be trained and arm yourself to the teeth! Govt. should be the only organization NOT allowed to have guns! Cops should be un-armed and scholars of the law...if they need armed back-up they should call on the volunteer militia constituted from the armed civilians...This will eliminate the need for 'pre-emptive' strikes against civilians in remote foreign lands! The 'Army' would be made up of 'Citizens' Trained & armed - supporting the police and part of society!
Oh? Well, how about we just do away w/ the police and gov't all together then? Doesn't sound like they'd be doing much, and if they didn't have any guns, virtually no one would pay taxes any how.
It is interesting to see Steff advocating a 'rental' scenario...what else are property taxes? There will always be criminals so you will always need police - to interpret the law on the streets...but they should not be armed...this should be limilted to the civilian militia...I agree you can do away with the federal govt. but every society has always had a 'council of elders' that 'managed' day to day operations
If by militia you mean strictly voluntary (non-conscripting) organizations that won't shoot at me if I tell them to stay off my property, refuse to pay for their equipment, or form a similar organization myself, then that's great. W/e floats your boat. Of course these hypothetical organizations are nothing like the police or the military, or the state.
Yep, that's exactly what i mean...no armed police, military or any other agency...just armed civilians, doing voluntary service to back up the police if they are impeded in enforceing the law...like the the 'posse' in the old west
As for interpreting the law, judges & lawyers do that, not police. Lawyers usually don't work for the state, and there's no good reason that judges must. The state assumes an unnatural monopoly on justice and law enforcement, and like any unnatural monopoly it renders lacking service at exorbitant prices.
Property taxes have only the faintest resemblance to rent. The former is inherently involuntary, the latter voluntary.
Police do it on the street...and arrest you if they deem you to have broken it...then judges either confirm, vary or dismiss the police's assesment of your crime...so police need legal training.
Council of elders? Sure, elders are often held in high esteem for their experience, but that doesn't mean some council of fogies should have the privilege of killing me should I discard their "advice." That's how Congress works, and state legislatures and county & municipal councils are no different.
Community gatherings led by unassuming old men are one thing, but once violent coercion enters the picture, we aren't talking about gray-hairs, but masters.
Yep, I agree it's not ideal... I prefer every man to be his own govt. but don't trust them to as i've got to know them better...maybe Plato had it right
Oh, yeah. Some people are so stupid and child-like we should delegate a group of super adults who will wave guns in everybody's face. Of course these super adults could never be stupid and child-like themselves, b/c there are other super adults who wave guns at them, and some who wave guns at those, etc.
i think for the same reasons people dont run red ligths. i mean when people obey traffic signals its not because they are afraid of getting a ticket. they are more concerned with the risk of accidents.
i think it would be most likely that a general rule will emerge where killing others is just not accepted.
if people were free to kill others, the random killer would be killed. who want a killer in their neighborhood?
I certainly do understand your concerns, I try to address them in my free audio books Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy, available on my website... :)
I like your thinking. It is very much like my own when it comes to gun ownership. There's an old joke where I grew up in the South. A farmer kept having melons stolen. He put up a sign that said there was a poison melon in the batch. Theft stopped. A week later, someone wrote on his sign "Now there are two!" Not knowing just which house might have a gun serves as much the same deterrent to thugs. I'll take armed neighbors over armed police any day.
It appears the Ass Munching so called "elite" have figured out Americans will never give up their guns so they will make ammo extinct. Time to learn reloading skills.
no guns in an anarchy ? forget that i will be growing a Mohawk cutting off my hands and attaching machine guns to the stumps and making fashion wear out of old tires. who is with me?
whiterchocolate 1 day ago
what are the benefits of gun control in your point of view thanks for anyone who reply to this
PathToFreedom20 2 weeks ago
@PathToFreedom20 you make a great slave lol
whiterchocolate 1 day ago
Those would be the first houses to get robbed.
BATCH420 3 months ago
I prefer for no one to tell anyone that they cannot own something that they have the right to own. If the government has the right to show up at my door with guns drawn, I should have the same right.
SuperPhdiva 6 months ago
In my state a landlord cannot tell you that you cant own a gun by law.
AmericansForGuns0com 7 months ago 2
In the last couple decades a huge number of states have adopted concealed carry and more and more non gun types have started buying guns, including millions of hand guns
And what has happened overall in the US?
Murder rates have DROPPED !
IF guns WERE actually ANY sort of problem then as gun sales increased and CCW came into being murder rates SHOULD have INCREASED dramatically.
But they didnt
End of Debate
AmericansForGuns0com 7 months ago
I wish I was Chinese cuz I would belong to the race with the highest I.Q. and the rising superpower which will eclipse the U.S. ere long.
p4h10oso 11 months ago
@p4h10oso lol they are just good at tests and you really dont want to go through the living hell of their schools trust me ive been there i know many chinese peoples they are just drilled with the answers for tests all day long all pavlov style and are turned into pretty much ultra slaves but on the plus side great food and grandmas
whiterchocolate 1 day ago
@DanteMcSparda Who is this "Whitey" you speak of? Is that a persons last name or the personification of your racist views against Caucasians?
If you don't think Islam is dangerous then you either are not paying attention or your just stupid. They are dangerous, and easily dealt with, if anyone has the spine for it. Europe was conquered in the first place by muslims because no one took them seriously. They were pushed back by young knights who stopped listening to the naivety of their fathers.
XCritonX 11 months ago
@DanteMcSparda Most people hate the barbaric religion of islam, not Arabs. I highly doubt Arab Christians get the same flack (unless people get them confused for being muslims).
Does hating Nazis mean you don't like Germans? Of course not. Islam is a plague, like fascism and communism used to be. However instead of being just a political system it incorporates elements of religion as well.
XCritonX 11 months ago
@DanteMcSparda Since I live in a country that was taken over by muslims (that were pushed back out thankfully) I am dead serious. Anyone who doesn't think that islam is dangerous is not paying attention, or naive. No offense intended.
XCritonX 11 months ago
What good would a gun free neighborhood do? word got out there that would be the go to spot for home invasions.
ACRanger13 11 months ago
I'm amused by gun control. Having a gun is empowerment. Like all power it can be used constructively and/or destructively (see govt). That's all.
The idea that many people are SHOCKED and ALARMED at the idea of fellow citizens being anything but COMPLETELY DISempowered is.....VERY scary and depressing. It's like the cows who want to staff the slaughterhouse.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Though I wouldn't describe the disarming of a free people as amusing...
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar : I mean that I'm amused that anyone can think of gun control as anything but authoritarian control and disempowerment of citizens--though apparently many do; they see it as a "sensible restraint" on...."people."
To respond to your post: Who are these free people you speak of?
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Once you take their guns, they would be what I call formerly free people. The only reason why people by the "no guns" = "safer place" idea is because they who accept this idea are fruitcakes buying into what power-hungry politicians know they can feed them.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
turkey, 1915
turkish government begins ethnic cleansing of turkish armenian population. armenians r easily disarmed due to laws requiring gun registration. 1500000 r killed
ussr, 1930s
Josef Stalin confiscates grain from ukrainian farmers. due to gun control, farmers had no guns. any who resist r kiled or sent to labor camps. as many as 10000000 r killed
china, 1935-present
chinese citizens r forbiden to own weapons. 100000000 r killed
german holocaust,Pol Pot,Idi Amin,U.S. slavery,gun control
CarbineKingClassic 1 year ago
What army would invade an anarchist society where they know that after they destroyed the army, to keep the land, the soldiers must defend themselves at every streetcorner against women and men with guns? Wouldnt that be a more powerfull society in terms of defense?
unclesamfatg 1 year ago
I would be that one person to have at least 1 CCW, 1 self defense, 1 shotgun, and 1 semi-automatic rifle.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
Guns are not bad, however getting shot with guns is bad. Criminals will always have guns, and they will always want to use them against others. That is why private citizens need guns, to prevent other people from shooting them.
Unfortunately, in a democracy you only need to convince 51% of the people to give up their rights, the rest will lose them by default.
XCritonX 1 year ago
Make it so ONLY THE POLICE has a master list of who owns what gun, tracked by serial number. Make the list 100% confidentiality, deny anyone trying to gain info on the list.
Violent Crime would drop in record numbers. Other counties and guerrilla armies, terrorist, suicide bombers, insurgents would think twice before launching an urban ground assault on the USA
blotto85 1 year ago
@blotto85 Police = Government.
Do you really mthink a government intent on taking your guns would not use the police to do it?
wormer104 1 year ago
@blotto85 its called gun registration and guess what when the government who are the police want to know whos guns they have to take away then they can do it and how would that affect violent crime AT ALL those guns are already illegal and also serial numbers are stratched off so that wont work at all and we already made the japanese think twice about invading due to our gun ownership but that idea is bad very bad watch red dawn the form they got is from the police of registered guns
spartanunoob 1 year ago
@blotto85 All dictators have started with a gun registry, it is almost always the first step to gun confiscation and must be resisted at all costs.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@blotto85 I'm not concerned with anyone knowing about gun ownership BUT the government...
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Make it law that every sane, law abiding citizen above the age of 21 be issued an assault rifle and a side arm, go through a week long course on gun safety, target shooting, how and when to use deadly force, speed reloading, weapon malfunctions, transitioning to a sidearm. How to store ammo and guns safely, gun transportation, and gun history. Issue counselled carry cards to these citizens, no questions.
blotto85 1 year ago
It would be like a lease contract. That sounds really sucky, but so does not having guns. ^_^
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
i think that in a free society there would be a demand for certain restrictions, so the value of houses with healthy regulations would likely increase. if a person wants to live in a community without guns and rely on a private defense source for protection, its a viable option. furthermore, in communities where regulations (or lack there of) lead to very functional and safe conditions, families will be drawn to pursue them; hence the progress of innovation in communal security.
ColinN16 1 year ago
@ColinN16 You mean that a free society should demand fewer freedoms in return for security? Ben Franklin had a few scathing remarks about that.
supressorgrid 1 year ago
@supressorgrid Not at all. freedom is not lost in voluntarily choosing to live in a community with gun policies.
ColinN16 1 year ago
@ColinN16 Unless you dont want to give up your guns and there is nowhere else to go.
supressorgrid 1 year ago
@ColinN16 While those who can't afford private protection are on their own and barred out side of your safe communities. Proof that socialisim is how you wish other people should live.
supressorgrid 1 year ago
Holy buzzword abuse and oversimplification, Batman.
Monopoly monopoly evil satanLIBERALSmonopoly monopoly ......privatization freemarketPATRIOTISM bill of rightsNRAJESUS....
Followed by a droning, barely sensical, and irrelevent meandering that's so boring and needlessly long that all of your regular audience just decides they agree with you stops listening at approximately the third minute in. It's like Dennis Miller if Dennis MIller had Asperger's Syndrome...jesus.
Eldeecue 1 year ago
Or if you don't want guns or violent crime in your neighbourhood.. you could just move to England, embrace certain values & principles, then live happily in a socialist/capitalist hybrid state.
Instead of the covert "elite own everything one way or another; money is a pyramid scheme, pay in then go fend for yourself" communism dressed as ultra "free" capitalism-on-steroids American model, which seems to infect Canada with its gloomy inbuilt disadvantaged, them against us, dog eat dog stance.
CrypticalK 1 year ago
@CrypticalK Your being sarcastic right? England is in the midst of a major crime wave largely involving illegal firearms. Crime with firearms has steadily risen since they banned guns.
Not only that, their economy is in worse trouble than the US, UK health services are collapsing, and they are being over run by islamo-fascists.
The UK is in serious trouble, its future is very bleak.
XCritonX 1 year ago 2
Perfect. I want gun free neighborhoods!!!! That would be perfect!!!!
Then the criminals would go over there and leave my neighborhood alone. That would also be a wonderfull way to demonstrate that criminals prefer unarmed neighborhoods.
shananagans5 2 years ago
I think people are missing his point.
He is saying that even in a free society, people can still *choose* to live in a "gun controlled" area if they choose to.
As opposed to a state being able to legislate that control without much recourse.
boxant 2 years ago 4
This guys seems to be confusing his ownership of a house and the right to keep whatever he wants inside it - if he cannot keep a gun in the house then he "doesn't really own the house then". But we are all restricted to what we can keep in a house - high explosive, radioactive materials, certain chemicals, etc. And I don't think anybody has a problem with these restrictions.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
So what he's saying he wants to live in a place where a single body enforces rules in a "neighborhood" with property law and leasing. I have this idea where we start a company called the U.S. Government, and it owns all the property, and we lease it from them indefinitely, with things called title and deeds issued by the company. Oh, wait.... we have that now.
edengard 2 years ago
not a single body, multiple. More akin to if states had more power than the federal government.
dascarletm 1 year ago
anarchy. fuck that.nice idea,just does not work. this is nuts.
cassidy99ful 2 years ago
Interesting ideas.
Not a neighborhood I would want to live in, due to my love of guns :D
boxant 2 years ago 3
Once again, a talking head on the Internet solves everything. I'm so glad. Now, back to actually doing something.
drakulva 2 years ago
There should also be neighborhoods where you are required to have a gun then.
home3363308 2 years ago
sounds like a fair solution, the only thing I would point out is that neighborhood would be a target of roberies unless you had armed guards. Wouldnt armed guards contradict the idea though.
home3363308 2 years ago
if guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUNS SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law. When it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will be a criminal.
stabbyronnie 2 years ago
I would have a gun legal or not. I agree
home3363308 2 years ago
THANK YOU!
Finally, an intelligent & logical monologue, that clearly gives options AND RESULTS.
I myself do not own a gun, but am am a strong believer in the 2nd amendment.
dansal70 2 years ago
I think that actually *is* an accurate analogy, with the whale-sized caveat that we did not, generally speaking, enter into those agreements with government *willingly*, which of course, makes all the difference.
If there's something else I've missed, please, make the follow up video you spoke of.. unless you already have, in which case I'll be to it shortly. :)
contriver 2 years ago
Why not prevent the conditions (i.e. poverty) which cause people to commit crimes against one another?
I understand you are expressing your opinion from that of a US styled libertarian, but I am curios as to why you haven't addressed the reasons why violent crimes exist in the first place?
Love your videos, thanks.
NullSpacio 2 years ago
To answer your question, that's not the subject he's speaking on. He's arguing on a specific debate topic.
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
probably because people who are in poverty are not even trying to get out of it...they are relying on the government to help them instead of acting in a responsible manner. People who dont have jobs create a higher crime rate. Less jobs were created in fear of insane taxes for buisnesses. UT is already prepairing for a cut off from stimulus by raising its tuition next semester. Citizens without weapons are victims for those who dont care about law.
How would you prevent poverty?
neemguy81 2 years ago
Yes, "they" "create" higher crime rate.
Answer to your question: Eliminate classes.
Enjoy you Randian zombies.
NullSpacio 2 years ago
Eliminate classes? So what you are saying is that noone has the right to work hard to make more money? Elimination of classes would also make education needless, because there would be no hope for a better future for an individual. Thats exactly what we need (sarcasm).
neemguy81 2 years ago
Classes have no bearing on how hard people work. Most higher classes are a result of illegal activity. Just because you work harder does not mean you will ascend to that much higher of a class. Some people are just born with money. That has nothing to do with work ethics, or education. These people, i.e. Most government families, Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's, and so many more, never had to work for anything in their lives.
stabbyronnie 2 years ago
I am simply saying that where theres a will, theres a way. I dont buy the 'poor me, im poor' thing. I currently dont even have a job, im trying to find one (or hopefuly two) part-time jobs, while going to college, so I can get a better paying job. Is that not work?
If I make 70k after a period of suffering, I could live off of a lot less and give carity.
Before I was laid off, I was workin 90 hrs a week and made 45k that year. 7k was tax. Thats rediculous. FAIR TAX
neemguy81 2 years ago
Thats a socialist system.
home3363308 2 years ago
The only way to "eliminate classes" is by repugnant forms of government coercions and we've all seen the wonderful experiments, in that regard, of the 20th century. In no truly free society can it be avoided that there is an inequality of "outcome" that will shape different classes. There will always be people more stupid or lazy than others, unfortunately.
You'll have to learn to live with the fact that there will ALWAYS be poverty, no matter which system or lack of you apply to a society.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
well for one thing, the conditions you speak of are not always tangible. Some people are just bad people. You can't legislate those people. Some people just simply to do others harm. Whether crazy or just evil. As far as this type of neighborhood is that the second criminals find that neighborhood, let the fun begin. (for criminals) The best thing to keep a society civil is parenting. MTV and P-diddy can't teach the youth to be up standing people. Only fathers and mothers can do that.
stabbyronnie 2 years ago
An armed society is a polite society. I work as a peace officer, and I presume everyone I deal with is armed. If you want to own firearms you should be able to excersice your 2nd Amendment Right and own firearms. Perhaps with the stipulations of being at least 18 years of age and not having a felony conviction for a violent crime. If you don't want to own a firearm...move to England.
Oniyama13 2 years ago 5
Thank you, I wish all Officer's would feel that way.
SpringfieldCSA 2 years ago
You're more than welcome. I also wish more Police Officers (and everyone for that matter) felt the same way. Keep fighting the good fight! Amen, brother, and pass the ammunition!
Oniyama13 2 years ago
Comment removed
Oniyama13 2 years ago
Who needs guns anyway, exept to go hunting?
kirafan68 2 years ago
how else are you gonna protect your house?
zma924 2 years ago 3
Whats the point if calling the cops if by the time they come you got shot in the head 30 times?
askAlanNow 2 years ago
Where do you live? Here, nobody I ever met owns a gun to protect the house, and none of them got robbed or shot. My dad owns guns, but they are just for hunting, and safely locked away all the time, if he´s not out hunting.
kirafan68 2 years ago
The state doesnt do anything, people do things. If people are inherently corruptible than wouldnt they be just as corrupt with or without a state. What if a neighborhood decided that they dont want any atheists living in their neighborhood? In a free society they would have every right to do this but would it be the right thing to do? And dont tell me that houses in Christian neighborhoods would be devalued because there are restrictions on them, they wouldnt.
nietsnevel 2 years ago
cont
There are plenty of people in the US that would love pay more to live in a white, straight, Christian neighborhood. We know from the civil rights movement that separate but equal is never truly equal, so if we start creating segregated neighborhoods someone is going to get the short end of the stick. What if a DRO decided to charge more to insure a black man than a white man? Would that be a free society?
nietsnevel 2 years ago
cont
I will admit that our current system of government is not perfect, but it does do some things well. I just happen to think that we are more likely to succeed if we try to change it for the better than to try to get ride of it and replace it with something new that may or may not turn out to be any better than the system we have.
nietsnevel 2 years ago
Do you own a gun stef?
drew335533 2 years ago
Marvellous. It's like the logic of Henry Hazlitt's - Economics in One Lesson - but expanded to the next level. Nice one :-)
nanciqwerty 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your political philosophy would be great if people were absolutely rational....In reality, these are all just pie in the eye schemes, and without agreed on laws as administered by the state there are no solutions to these problems. These solutions are not the best, but they can perhaps balance all competing interests.
FreudsCigar 2 years ago
See, now nobody is going to look at your comment. Proud of yourself?
tiecuando 2 years ago
Some protection of free speech.
FreudsCigar 2 years ago
Rule of thumb, when you don't care about anyone else' liberty, nobody is gonna care about yours. It's the golden rule.
tiecuando 2 years ago
Start paying close attention at 8:10
THAWK3 2 years ago 2
how bout we just stop talking about gun control, and then we stop trying to take people's rights away. there will always be people who dont obey the law, and that isnt justification to remove the rights from the rest of the population
marpoq 2 years ago 24
The key word in gun control is-------
CONTROL , Lead the masses to slaughter. It's better to have and not need ,than to need and not have!
hottrodd261 2 years ago 4
Idiot, DRO is just you term for a Government.
Tek1trader 2 years ago
why would you want gun control? Gun control is instituted by the states to complete its monopoly on force.
wizkid2000 2 years ago 24
I'd feel much safer living in a neighborhood where everybody has guns than living among unarmed people.
freedom3001 2 years ago
So long as all the crazies and children have guns too!
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Hi,
ill go little off topic here stef but bear with me.
Do you know Robert-Arthur:Menard who has gotten the status of freeman on the land? i think hes arguments about the law and how to use them for you shield against government abuse are interesting! Here is his presentation!
video.google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835
or jus search Think Free : Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception
ukkonoa 2 years ago
nobody going to take your guns there would just be communities in which ppl concede their right to own them as a condition of the purchase
VoiDofReasoN 2 years ago
and for a q what would be the checks on this security force inside these communities i assume they would be armed
VoiDofReasoN 2 years ago
WHAT ABOUT CROSSBOW CONTROL!??
ieatcorm 2 years ago
"Some oversight" in many cases is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I have read so many stories where an officer what put on paid leave during an investigation into wrongdoing that was very real, but few are actually fired.
tvincentchase 2 years ago
A house is almost never an investment, since nominal price may increase, but this is usually due to inflation, and no real increase in value. A house is not an asset (unless you happen to be a landlord), because assets are monetary flows that put money into your pocket, and actually are more likely to be liabilities, which are monetary flows that take money out of your pocket (for repairs, mortgage payments, etc.).
Otherwise, interesting video. I enjoyed it.
tvincentchase 2 years ago
crazy cowboy americans. I don't really see how this is a problem. People should not be allowed to own devices designed to kill other people. Period.
waksibra 2 years ago
Well then I guess we will have to disarm all militaries and police forces. Until then speaking about gun control is silly since militaries and police forces kill more than all gangs combined. Additionally, guns equalize the balance of power. A weaker and more elderly person can more easily defend their self.
overmind25 2 years ago
I live in Norway, and here police don't need to wear weapons because the population does not have any neither. Yes, it will be a great day when we can disarm both police and military, but we need to start with people not having guns in their houses.
waksibra 2 years ago
Yes I saw your profile. The state would need to be disarmed first because otherwise you will have a weakened subjugated population. Weapons are the balance of power. Guns themselves do nothing. It is the mindset of the people that have them that should be the concern.
overmind25 2 years ago
fallacy
davyjames 2 years ago
huh?
waksibra 2 years ago
I live in Montana, and although I don't own a firearm, many law-abiding citizens here do own guns, which they use to harvest wild meat. And the rate of murder by guns here is nil compared with other places where people do not hunt for meat. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. If I wanted to kill you, I don't need a gun, I can think of a hundred other ways to get the job done.
canubelieve 2 years ago
It high time we start HARVESTING idiots.
wtfoof 2 years ago
Hmm?
canubelieve 2 years ago
More so than not, the elderly person is over power and killed or wounded by their own fire arm.
wtfoof 2 years ago
I would have to see the stats on that but that would still be denying someone else the liberty to defend themselves if they could manage it. Also, old people are just one category. Anyone that is weaker than another can equal their defense with a gun. The mindset of the person is what is important, not a gun that can do nothing on its own.
overmind25 2 years ago
I have to quote a very smart man here "I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion, so screw you!" :)
Oh, rights are a very sensible area, very sensible indeed. There will always be people who want to abuse their rights but does that mean we have to take those rights away? Where do we start banning rights, from guns on, or from explosives, bio-weapons, or already from knives on? This we will never agree on, people.
Anonymous247n 2 years ago
Spike would live in a tent,but the cops kicked him out of the park.
Myboss2oo9 2 years ago
So now he just lives behind a fiberboard wall.
popeyecaan 2 years ago
I saw that in the background,That is like 5 bucks for a 4 x 8 here,guess pay pal got that for him !
Myboss2oo9 2 years ago
I would much rather live in a neighbourhood without guns and pay to have private security I think.
vikingaprinsessan 2 years ago
There might be neighbourhoods where as a condition of residence you have to own a gun and be reasonably proficient with it.
newperve 2 years ago
Now there's an interesting type of control. Universal proficiency would arguably be even safer than universal absence of firearms.
onewkirk 2 years ago
False dichotomy.
Oppressors and criminals can be dealt with without a state.
For an outline of methodology, see "The Market for Liberty" on the freekeene site or "Everyday Anarchy" available free on Stefan's website.
WorBlux 2 years ago 2
if there was no government who would create money? or would we all have to engage in a barter economy hahhahahahahah
moneycrab 2 years ago
Anyone who wants to can create things and call them money. If other people act like the things are money then they are money. Typically people or organisations will create money out of rare metals for instance silver and gold, but there are dozens of different alternatives that have been tried. In Vermont they used alcoholic beverages, an idea I thought was uniquely Australian but isn't even originally Australian.
newperve 2 years ago
but that is a barter economy because there is no standard medium of exchange, it fluctuates from transaction to transaction. Who is to say what purity the gold or alcohol is to be etc etc....unless there is a government which regulates its value.
moneycrab 2 years ago
What generally happens is that people generally agree on a medium of exchange, my bet it will be gold but I'd prefer a basket of commodities, e.g. a multidollar can be exchanged for 1/60 oz. of gold plus 1/12 oz. of sliver and 1/2 oz. of copper. Seems more stable to me. Private firms are just as capable of delivering standard purities as government (and historically have been more reliable at doing so). Anyone delivering less than promised is guilty of fraud.
newperve 2 years ago
With technology it may be a simple virtual value system like credit so's we don't have to lug them nuggets around.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Well yes, the first paper money was promisory notes/reciepts that could be exchanged at a bank for a specified amount of coinage. Easier to carry than gold and just as good as long as the bank was reputable.
newperve 2 years ago
Commercial and professional standards can be formed and enforced by consensus. This happens all the time. What do you think credit scores are, or consumer ratings? In the absence of Federal Reserve notes, people would exchange convenient commodities, and eventually one or two commodities would be valued particularly as a media of exchange. This is how money was created.
An all knowing council of elders did not write a charter establishing money. It was an emergent phenomenon.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Saying the gov't needs to regulate some business or area is equivalent to saying that the adults involved in that area are so evil and/or incompetent they have to be threatened w/ violence to get them to run things properly.
Is that what you think about the currency, or any other area that purportedly needs "regulation?" You think that mommy needs to step in and spank the bad guys? Is that how you see the world, filled w/ recalcitrant children?
lnd3005 2 years ago
These anarchist arguments are truly absurd.
The purpose of the government is to incentivize mutually beneficial behavior by attaching individual costs to certain actions, and also providing for "common necessities" like military and police which any individual would be incapable of on their own.
Before you go suggesting these voluntary mini organizations, which are governments in themselves. Consider how this country is voluntary, you can vote by ballot or vote with your feet. MOVE if its bad
moneycrab 2 years ago
There is no reason to think the free market could not produce private security & dispute resolution organizations that could provide contractually all the services currently rendered by the police and courts under state monopoly. The voluntary organizations proposed by various anarchists are not states... b/c they're voluntary. Despite your insistence, states are not.
lnd3005 2 years ago
The state claims & violently enforces a territorial monopoly on the use of violence, its sundry services notwithstanding. Practically speaking it owns all things in the territory, including the people. Citizens do not choose to be ruled. They are made into de facto slaves at the moment they are born in the territory.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Voting w/ my feet, eh? I shouldn't have to leave the territory, just b/c it's filled w/ a bunch of bandits and con artists calling themselves gov't agents. I shouldn't have to be extorted, just b/c the extortionists were born before me. Besides there's no escaping the state; it's everywhere.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Voting w/ the ballot? The ballot is a mechanism for self delusion, a way someone can say to himself "This works," when everyone knows it doesn't. Voting changes nothing. Even if only 10% of the electorate turns out, "none of the above" isn't going to win. Some prick or another is still going to get up behind a podium and talk about his "mandate" & how he plans to use your money better than you could.
lnd3005 2 years ago
What you refer to as "common necessities" are not viewed as such by everyone.
The problem with voting in general is it inherently devalues minorities. Voting at the ballot means nothing if you outnumbered. As for voting with your feet, where are the anarchists supposed to go? It isn't as though the earth is teeming with ungoverned land.
onewkirk 2 years ago
listening to him try and come up with something as simple as a gun control policy without a government is pretty amusing
moneycrab 2 years ago
He isn't trying to come up w/ gun control policy. A "policy" is something that enforced by violent coercion. He's explaining how, in a society free of violent coercion, those who dislike guns could form communities w/o guns.
lnd3005 2 years ago
how would a space program work in an anarchist society?
EndDepravity 2 years ago
You build a rocket, you get some astronauts and you launch them into space. The laws of physics remain unchanged, even in the absence of a state. :)
As the manager of an aspiring space program, you'd have to rely on trade or donations to acquire money. You could sell rights to the technology you develop to raise money, or else use commercials to make people feel good about donating to your cause.
In essence, so long as people want space programs, there will be space programs.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
You ever see any gov't agents supervising the operation of a grocery store, or an electronics outlet, or a car lot, or an oil refinery, or a steel mill?
Should they really be supervising anything at all, given that those places seem to do quite well w/o them?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Stef i think you have nice blue eyes. no homo. am just saying.
sonofagunM357 2 years ago
thank you so much for making this video i haven't watched it but i know it will be great.
sonofagunM357 2 years ago
The guns that are currently in my house are used not for self defense nor crime. They are used for hunting rabbits, squirrels, turkey, deer, and the occasional varmint on the farm. Love your commentary, as usual!
freemarketeer67 2 years ago
I don't know what happened to the first one, but on that one I said I was okay with possession of a tactical nuclear device. Every little bit helps. :)
tiecuando 2 years ago
Why make a video arguing how people who have the silly, uninformed views that support "gun control" can somehow satisfy their wish in a stateless society (at least in their neck of the woods)? Just to show that anachism provides a big enough tent to please them too? I feel many of them are conceited "progressives" who LIKE the idea of forcibly disarming allegedly backward "gun-nuts" & vicariously imagining their wisdom leading humanity via the state. Anarchism can't appeal to these.
bobtassoni 2 years ago
Yes, many of them are conceited "progressives" who like the idea of forcibly disarming others, but not all. Many simply never realized that state control is enforced by gun wielding death dealers.
lnd3005 2 years ago
If I were in this scenario, I'd PAY my neighbors to HAVE guns! Fortunately I don't have to :) The X26 Taser is pretty cool for self defense too, but I'll stick with hollow points
anakin005 2 years ago 4
Is hollow points really neccessary for self defence XD
VellocetKerova 2 years ago 2
What does 'necessary' mean? Safety is not a defined state that is achievable, it is a spectrum of trade-offs. Each person will take steps where the pros outweigh the cons until they've reached the level of safety they personally desire. Somebody might be really scared and want a tank, but can't afford it, while another isn't worried about safety as a rule, but will pick up some pepper spray since it's only $2. It's based on personal values, like all of our choices.
odigity 2 years ago 2
Well, in my opinion, though I wouldn't seek to directly stop someone from owning them.
They don't do anything directly to protect you, it simply wrecks more tissue, and reduces penetration, it seems like a sadistic choice.
VellocetKerova 2 years ago
why would you use anything less?
anakin005 2 years ago
Wouldn't want to kill someone..
I'd use .32ACP, or some other FMJ.
It would stop the attacker, wouldn't be fatal.
VellocetKerova 2 years ago
depends on your goals I guess
anakin005 2 years ago
Dude, any bullet would kill someone, are you crazy?
tiecuando 2 years ago
Any bullet would kill someone in the right place. But a shot away from the main organs and arterys from a FMJ bullet wouldn't kill the attacker, but injure them.
A hollow point would expand from point of entry and possibly kill the target.
VellocetKerova 2 years ago
If you don't want the bullet to keep going and possibly hit someone behind the target. Hollowpoints expand.
tiecuando 2 years ago
Well I agree that Hollowpoints are good for ensuring you dont wreck something behind the attacker.
But, my point was that I wouldn't want to kill someone.
So for me, FMJ's would be better.
VellocetKerova 2 years ago
yes
moneycrab 2 years ago
It sounds good. But what if I want to work as a teacher at M.I.T. But as it turns out there's no demand for a neighborhood without guns within 100 miles of my workplace. I guess I'm just at the whim of the market. The last 4 minutes of the video pretty much answered my questions.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Needless to say, five stars have been awarded.
Guncriminal 2 years ago
probably because NO ONE talks about it
regresseur 2 years ago
The problem with this, is that it doesn't address how one would enact gun control in a population such as the united states. Are any of those proposals translatable to a large population? "Guns prevent crime" - except if the government is in possession of them? I assume the DROs would need guns to enforce their dispute resolution? (otherwise a group of people with guns could take over a society. if they do carry guns, what would differentiate them from a government?
Kanthandleit 2 years ago
He's explaining ways for a community in consensus on this issue to achieve its consensus decision, in practice. Since a large population like that of the US is neither a community nor in consensus (if we are to take those terms at all seriously), his solutions aren't applicable to it.
Under a DRO, disputes would be resolved under contract. Those who refuse to abide by contact would not long find themselves under a DRO. Maybe a DRO would have armed security men to protect its customers...
lnd3005 2 years ago 2
... or maybe it would leave that to the customers themselves. That would depend on the details of the contract.
DRO's could be differentiated from gov'ts b/c they would be voluntary. They would not lay claim to a vast territorial monopoly, like the state does. Their powers of governance would extend only to the property and persons of those who voluntarily contracted their services (and who could break that contract, if need be).
lnd3005 2 years ago 2
Why would he? He never argued for "gun rights." What are those anyway, "rights?" One eyed Manitoban unicorns?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Spike... all of those corrupt people you speak of ARE naturally attracted to being politicians, soldiers, etc. Those people who wield control are inherently corrupt.
snipa4lyfe 2 years ago 2
You should be trained and arm yourself to the teeth! Govt. should be the only organization NOT allowed to have guns! Cops should be un-armed and scholars of the law...if they need armed back-up they should call on the volunteer militia constituted from the armed civilians...This will eliminate the need for 'pre-emptive' strikes against civilians in remote foreign lands! The 'Army' would be made up of 'Citizens' Trained & armed - supporting the police and part of society!
HOLLNAIER 2 years ago 2
Oh? Well, how about we just do away w/ the police and gov't all together then? Doesn't sound like they'd be doing much, and if they didn't have any guns, virtually no one would pay taxes any how.
lnd3005 2 years ago 2
Yep.
tiecuando 2 years ago 2
It is interesting to see Steff advocating a 'rental' scenario...what else are property taxes? There will always be criminals so you will always need police - to interpret the law on the streets...but they should not be armed...this should be limilted to the civilian militia...I agree you can do away with the federal govt. but every society has always had a 'council of elders' that 'managed' day to day operations
HOLLNAIER 2 years ago
If by militia you mean strictly voluntary (non-conscripting) organizations that won't shoot at me if I tell them to stay off my property, refuse to pay for their equipment, or form a similar organization myself, then that's great. W/e floats your boat. Of course these hypothetical organizations are nothing like the police or the military, or the state.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yep, that's exactly what i mean...no armed police, military or any other agency...just armed civilians, doing voluntary service to back up the police if they are impeded in enforceing the law...like the the 'posse' in the old west
HOLLNAIER 2 years ago
As for interpreting the law, judges & lawyers do that, not police. Lawyers usually don't work for the state, and there's no good reason that judges must. The state assumes an unnatural monopoly on justice and law enforcement, and like any unnatural monopoly it renders lacking service at exorbitant prices.
Property taxes have only the faintest resemblance to rent. The former is inherently involuntary, the latter voluntary.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Police do it on the street...and arrest you if they deem you to have broken it...then judges either confirm, vary or dismiss the police's assesment of your crime...so police need legal training.
HOLLNAIER 2 years ago
Council of elders? Sure, elders are often held in high esteem for their experience, but that doesn't mean some council of fogies should have the privilege of killing me should I discard their "advice." That's how Congress works, and state legislatures and county & municipal councils are no different.
Community gatherings led by unassuming old men are one thing, but once violent coercion enters the picture, we aren't talking about gray-hairs, but masters.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yep, I agree it's not ideal... I prefer every man to be his own govt. but don't trust them to as i've got to know them better...maybe Plato had it right
HOLLNAIER 2 years ago
Very good video, truly inspirational.
Mattara 2 years ago
Oh, yeah. Some people are so stupid and child-like we should delegate a group of super adults who will wave guns in everybody's face. Of course these super adults could never be stupid and child-like themselves, b/c there are other super adults who wave guns at them, and some who wave guns at those, etc.
lnd3005 2 years ago
The police as a deterrent? People do not not commit murders because of the jail terms.
People do not not run red light because its punishable with ticket.
They dont do it out of the concern for themselves. IE. being a known killer is not very good if you live in a free society.
fergus247 2 years ago 2
i think for the same reasons people dont run red ligths. i mean when people obey traffic signals its not because they are afraid of getting a ticket. they are more concerned with the risk of accidents.
i think it would be most likely that a general rule will emerge where killing others is just not accepted.
if people were free to kill others, the random killer would be killed. who want a killer in their neighborhood?
fergus247 2 years ago 2
Yeah, because there's no chance the police might also be corrupt and want you dead. They're magical men, after all.
lnd3005 2 years ago 2
I certainly do understand your concerns, I try to address them in my free audio books Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy, available on my website... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Thank god we don't have corrupt controling harmful people in government because we'd have to accept it from them.
DCLugi 2 years ago 2
I like your thinking. It is very much like my own when it comes to gun ownership. There's an old joke where I grew up in the South. A farmer kept having melons stolen. He put up a sign that said there was a poison melon in the batch. Theft stopped. A week later, someone wrote on his sign "Now there are two!" Not knowing just which house might have a gun serves as much the same deterrent to thugs. I'll take armed neighbors over armed police any day.
BabyHominid 2 years ago 2
It appears the Ass Munching so called "elite" have figured out Americans will never give up their guns so they will make ammo extinct. Time to learn reloading skills.
ljrow49 2 years ago
Americans will never give up their guns?
Yeah. Like the way they kept their assault weapons.
lnd3005 2 years ago