Comment as I watch: At 54 min, he asks about roads. The answer to his proposition goes as follows: When you put gas in your car, there is included tax in the price at the pump. That gas tax is what pays for our roads and bridges. You are thereby volunteering to pay for the roads by putting gas in your car to drive on them. When you don't own a car, you don't pay gas tax (no gas needed obviously) and you are therefore not required to pay for the roads.
This is the counter to your "me" argument. Who is to say what is self defence, what situations require self defence. This is where the position of "not being violent" becomes quite foggy.
There are far too many reasonings for that which, indirectly harms us and which is the consequence of another's acted upon belief, leading to just as many reasonings for, preemptive defence.
I'm not currently sure if you can resolve this logical flaw, I'll have to get back to you after thinking on it
"I would never dream of using violence to prevent you from acting upon your beliefs..."
So you wouldn't use violence if the belief acted upon harms you?
Isn't this a self induced strawman, and if not, I would have to infer that you are a practitioner of absolute Pacifism, or more likely, a liar. Concluding that, we are not the same, nor do we share an agenda, and could not "accord you the same respect".
I'm confused on how someone would so quickly allow that assertion to be validated.
@Theobrothers: You're being a smart ass. You're not differentiating between the initiation of force and self defensive force. They are different. If someone attacks you, that person is the aggressor. If you defend yourself, you are justified. There is a big difference. No-aggression is different than pacifism just as body guards are different than assassins. You are seriously confused.
Hmmm, let's see how confused I am and how clear you seem to think this logic is.
A group of people, own a majority stake in a company. That company owns a majority stake in Television Media, which propagates lies as to give reason for war. They also own Military Construction and give donations to various politicians which pass legislation to go to war and award government contracts to the military companies.
Thousands are employed and turn a blind eye to these connections.
A war is entered through new legislation, against the agreements of the UN. Bombs are made, and dropped, many innocent civilians in a far off land die. People who's families have been murdered, rise up, they fight back. Sometimes they take civilian contractors and kill them. At one point they hijack planes and kill thousands of people, many of whom work for some of these companies who own the media, the military contracts and politicians.
Life is crazy complicated. If you think you don't deserve some of the blame for the slaughter and starvation of people in far off lands, you are ignorant.
Complacency causes people to not do the due diligence necessary to vet every company they may do business with. Whether it's purchasing groceries, clothing, or computer parts. Thousands of people have died as a nearly direct result of your choices and business dealings.
or more simply put: "ceasar is a roman, and if I declare that all romans are thugs, ceasar must be a thug" which seems agreeable, especially if you think that ceasar is a thug already, until, as you say, people start to point out that your declared premise is not so universally accepted, but then you just walk away without having to do the "hard work" of establishing your premise, despite it being so evident. this tactic might win an argument, but its bad logic, and i suspect you know this.
HOLY CRAP! AN OLDER VERSION OF ADAM KOKESH WITH BEARD AND HAIR TRAVELED BACK IN TIME TO ASK STEFAN A QUESTION AT THIS CONFERENCE! THIS IS VALID PROOF THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE FREE MARKET CREATES TIME MACHINES!!
In 1492, White, Europe, Christian, Psychopaths created a British Colony on the East Coast of North America, which they called the New World. Immediately they were given orders from the king and crown to kill Native peoples and exploit the resources of the Land. Shortly after these intrusion the imports decided to offer themselves Sovereignty, and offered each other PROPERTY RIGHTS. The question becomes, "where's your green cards" or get out?
How original. The point of governments is to monopolise violence. The only argument is how big the government should be and why? When you you look at it honestly, it is an impossible issue. There is a reason why we couldn't figure out this shit. You can't win an argument by telling people an obvious thing: governments are about the use of force. Thanks for telling us, genius.
Have you ever talked with a liberal or a conservative and tried to get them to look at getting gov't out of anything they think it should be doing?
First, they don't think that gov't is about the use of force. Second, they don't think it's about the use of force AGAINST YOU, which is the point of the video.
Perhaps you might learn something if you come off Mount Condescension
Then there is the concept of the "free rider." Resentment, as you Stephan have said said is a very powerful emotion. I might win "the political argument" but our system exists because "millions of intelligent and creative and involved and engaged people acting in their own self interest" act emotionally and the rationalize their actions. All the powers that be need to is elicit one powerful emotion - resentment ... greed! And the mob will and does in fact authorize the use of force.
to the soldiers observation at about 2:08 - That's the concept of complicity. The silent or complacent majority authorizes the use of force against me by their agreement to or acceptance of the use of force against them. They are complicit in the violation of my liberties by their lack of commitment to their own liberty.
is he part of the plan to something? i want to see know what his purpose or whole point is to tell us all this and still not get in trouble its like he had to convince the people he is talking about 1st to exposo all this and why would they agree? is there something he knows that he is not saying
I live in Poland and Soviet Union didn't ask us before if we want to live in communist state. They've just forced that on us, just as now it is done by European Union. Without defensive military forces we can't protect ourselves from other states and becouse of that I believe that we need government atleast for that.
But what with invasions of other non-free nations with imperialist government and military? Of course it's possible for free market to create one very big protection agency to protect large amounts of land and cities from other hostile states, but what if it won't emerge or do it too slow and people once again lose their freedom to other nation? Then what we do? Start everything again and try to convince this other nation that free society is better than imperialism?
@med2904 It's called a militia of people, they volenteer to be trained in guerilla combat, and they protect the place. Like a National Guard sort of thing. I mean shit look at a bunch of under equiped rebels are doing to America.
@nurbSoldier Adam Kokesh is a tad confused as to the role of the US military. If he had a good head on his shoulders he'd drop the right wing libertarian nonsense and come to the realization that the various wars are fought not to "fight terrorism" or any such blather but to expand and legitimize the western market system. We did it to Japan, we did it to Eastern Europe, we did it to South America and we're now doing it to the Middle East. No amount of wishful free market theory can change this.
@crud4 Actually the confused person here is you. Nothing you said here of Adam Kokesh is true. He is vehemently against the military industrial complex and the misuse of American soldiers, as well as how they waste american taxpayer money and destroy nations.
Also, I roll my eyes when people say libertarians are right wingers. Right wingers are for outlawing abortion, drugs and whores, for abstinence taught in schools, strong police/military, police state, strong prosecutors, perpetual war.
How would such a situation then be approached, and where (if at all) would the initiation of violence occur? Does person "B" have the right to initiate violence against the infringement on their individual right, or does the checkpoint program have the right to initiate violence against person "B" for not complying with the rules they're funded by person "A" to enforce?
My question is this: If person "A" believes, for example, that the state should set up random road check points to screen ALL drivers for immigration status, or for intoxication, and thus they have the right to fund such a program. However, person "B" believes that no such check points should exist, and has the right to not fund any such program. But when person "B" then gets pulled over by a checkpoint funded be person "A", is that not an infringement on "B's" individual right? [cont'd]
I think his point is what do you do about the "free rider" argument?
A conservative would argue we need a self defense that protect both of us. If you are free to not pay for it, then you get protection for free. This is unjust and a form of stealing resources from us (those who pay taxes).
Now I think the free rider argument is wrong but you will hear it a lot.
If I allow you to not pay for the roads (act on your belief) can I keep you off the roads that I pay for.
"the surge" and or most any military action is economic. The market must perpetually expand, take in new resources and open new markets in order to exist. One of the most blatant examples is what the US did pre WW2 with Japan- the entire NAVY was brought to Japan and they were given two choices, open up their "markets" to western capitalism or be destroyed. The same is now being done in the Middle East albeit a tad less obvious to the uneducated.
How did slave owners once control slaves? How did feudal lords once keep serfs in check? Force. How do capitalists keep workers in check? Force. If there were no state apparatus capitalists would have nothing to legitimize their system with. What happens when air traffic controllers go on strike? The National Guard is called in. What happens when Longshoreman's Strike? Police kill the strikers. What happens when workers strike in a"free" market system? The Pinkertons are called in. Do the math
The "free" state project is well.... If you really want to live in a market system without paying taxes then move to Guyana and give it a whirl- you'll soon find out why a state (force) is necessary for a modern industrial market system to function. None of you will do that though seeing in New Hampshire you benefit from the bounty the modern US capitalist system produces (roads, hospitals, industry, distribution etc) all of which wouldn't exist without FORCE (cont)
How to win political/economic arguments? In his case avoid them as much as possible and when cornered regurgitate right wing libertarian theory from Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and other hacks who don't understand the necessity of a state for the market system to work. "free" market capitalism is impossible - you people simply advocate a privatized state, one which would be disproportionally controlled by capitalists as the modern state is (cont)
@crud4 You're right..the problems of the world have absolutely nothing to do with fiat currencies. There's no need to worry about the inefficiencies of government, because whatever is lost through government can just be printed! There's no need to worry about borrowing $.42 of every $1 that the federal government spends because the US can just print! Let me hear you say print baby print! Make the government bigger and print more money! I love wasting resources and I love big government!
@FlipThatBond The capitalist system requires a state to exist. A very large one at that with a huge military to spread and "protect" markets across the globe. Most of your taxes go to the military who's role is to force previously unexploited "markets" into the western capitalist system. Your precious system would fall apart without a "big government" (state). This is why all supporters of the market system are STATISTS. It's a bad joke that you people don't understand these simple facts.
@crud4 Every single sentence that you wrote is false. Borrowing .$42 of every $1 is not capitalism, it is not efficient, and it is not good. The government giving a monopoly to a company to print money, control interest rates, and basically do whatever it wants is not capitalism, it is not efficient, and it is not good. The US generally had capitalism through the industrial revolution, without big government, and the US prospered tremendously to be the most productive country in the world.
@FlipThatBond You mean privatized banking? LOL So you'd rather have the government have a monopoly on printing money? The US became the most prosperous country in the world long after 1913 when the FED was created....WW2 destroyed most of the competition so the US had risen from WW2 as the sole productive force in the west. Non of you idiots have the slightest idea of what you're talking about- I'd rather not waste my time with you and prefer the maker of the video to reply to my comments.
@FlipThatBond There's many ways monopolies can form, the government (state) only being one avenue. Be honest with yourself for a moment (not to mention being historically correct) and admit monopolies have formed via collusion between capitalists. Get back to me when I don't have to ex[plain rudimentary aspects of capitalism to you. And yes I'm fully aware of the theoretical fantasy form of capitalism you call "free" market capitalism. I don't deal in fairy tails. It has and can NEVER exist
@crud4 I don't think you even read what I wrote. You sound confused and what you say is all over the board. Back in the day we actually used to make things. Real wealth is built by actually making things. When the world accepted the USD as the world's reserve currency, the US quickly transformed from a country that exported things to the main export being the USD. Now that the USD is about to end because of huge government, the US will no longer be able to cheat the world out of their goods
The experiences of anarchism in history might prove instructive. General Nestor Makhno and the Ukranian anarchists (leftists), were wiped out by Trotsky´s Bolshevik Communists in a bloody campaign that was the preamble to much other terror. They went for the anarchists because they couldn´t defend themselves as well, and they could clear an apparent ideological space around them. In Spain, during the Civil War, 1936-9, Anarchism, also failed to prevent fascist destruction of their paradise...
Molyneux completely avoids the fact that it is the monopolies and plutocrats that are corrupting government in order to deepen their grip on us. A State medical service is more likely, when properly managed, to allay the grip of large pharmaceutical cartels and their insidious doping of millions of Americans: ironically the biggest addiction facing the modern citizen is privately presribed opiates. Monopolies cherish ideas like his since they clear their path of regulation.
@HunnaNorthfolk Of course they do, but that is absolutely natural. Imagine a company, that you just found. You would be all pro free market and competition, because it's in your interest. But when you grow up, you'll shift this to no, I'm actually against free market, I want regulations that favor me. But in free market, in other words, no state regulations, you can't go and buy politicians, that have the power to force these regulations on people. No government -> no corruption.
I just found out your channel and watched a bunch of videos. I agree with you since mostly you worded out my thoughts (some of them existed before I became an anarchist). I'm not really good about terms since my English is limited to movies and dumb TV shows, you're keep talking about free market. Does that mean you're anarcho-capitalist? I would hate to admit that I idolize myself an anarcho-capitalist :)
I really enjoy Mr. Molyneux but his ideas of having absolutely no state at all are as much a utopian fantasy as the left's dream of a socialist/communist society. I would favor a great reduction in authority and power of the state, as was original intent of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, we've seen the state grow immensely in size and power over the last century mainly due to the abysmal ignorance and/or stupidity of those living in Western democracies.
@AlexanderRozhenko I think you just proved the very point you were arguing against. No gov't , no matter how small or how well written the constitution is can stay small. It is the nature of govt to grow without limit, it is how men operate when in power. The smaller the gov't originally, the more economically prosperous it will be, thus the more money it will have, thus the bigger it will get. The only logical answer is no government. Regardless of imperfection.
A big problem I have with Stef's arguments is that they often hinge on the idea that morality is defined by empiricism and logic. I say abortion is immoral. You say it's NOT immoral. I say that peaceful spectators to genocide are immoral. You say they are NOT immoral. I say that violent warriors who bring an end to genocidal dictatorships are moral. You mock them and call them baby killers. I say morality is defined by God. You say it's defined by the fickle human heart. Who is right?
What world does this guy live in? The media have been banging the drums of "peace" since day one of the Iraq war. They've tried to portray our soldiers as brain-washed dupes who "murder" innocent people for nothing and who throw away their own lives for nothing. He gripes about "the incredible invisible war" with "no bodies" being shown by the media. But he conveniently ignores the 12 years of "invisible 'peace'" that produced far more death, destruction, suffering and instability.
Statism IS a fantasy Stefan, you were right the first time. That is why there is no such thing as an atheistic dictatorship because all one does there is replace one mystical entity called "god" and replace it with another mystical entity called the "state". Because NO ONE holds ANY genuine "authority" over anyone else. Authority is fundamentally mythical. That is precisely why Russia was the most mystical place in the world before Marxism took hold. They were ripe for the fucking.
@physicalgenius Right on the money...C.J. Jung writes about this in a manner so convincingly that you not only see the whole structure of the Bolshevik system, but what I also love, is that from the objective point of view, Idealistic Christianity & Marxism are two side of the same coin. Great post
I just started typing out another response when I came upon something that helped me realize where it is our conflict lies. Perhaps you didn't know this yourself, as I'm compelled to believe as I'm sure you'd have caught this and brought it up yourself. There are two distinctive groups calling themselves libertarians. One is the left leaning libertarian group and the other is the right leaning group. Until now I was only familiar with the tenets of the right.
In a society without government rule... who enforces contracts between private individuals? If one party dishonors a contract... what third party is the enforcer?
Stefan Molyneux better watch his back... cuz I am sure the powers that be are figuring out many ways to whack Stefan, in ways that would appear to be natural causes.
Honestly, outside of a psychotic fascist dictator or eugenicists implementing a human genetic modification strategy that Molyneux didn't qualify to survive I can't imagine any scenario where any of the current governments in the world would want to have Molyneux killed. The guy is about as much of a threat as a puddle of water. He has a tiny following and they all believe in pacifism. They might as well be Amish or Quakers (although Quakers had no problem letting others fight for them).
Lol! Threaten? Molyneux seems like a nice guy, and ideally humans wouldn't need government. But ideally doesn't and can't exist. Why? Because without eliminating free will, the very thing he and all sane people cherish, evil can not be eliminated. At least not by humans. Most people realize this and that is why his following is very small. He deserves praise for being willing to resist the temptation to resort to violence.
Yes his ideas do threaten, Not in a direct violent way like you intimate... If everyone realizes the truth then the overlords would loose everything they have invested in their human farms...
That is why Stefan will probably end up with pancreatic cancer or a brain tumor or a heart attack... How else do you think they have lasted as long as they have?
If everything goes to shit... I am sure they are prepared to go underground and scorch the earth with neutron bombs.
Ok, explain to me exactly what truth Molyneux is telling people that will get him killed (by unnatural natural causes). I'm missing the threat here. He's not popular enough and he's not endorsing any form of revolution that can threaten 'the establishment'. So, sincerely, explain what I'm missing.
Yet ultimately it is the people who are violent on his behalf that allow him to be who he is. He will never gain enough support in his ideas to challenge a politician or a "overlord" of any kind. Not to the extent that he will be seen as a threat worth putting out an effort to silence.
At least libertarianism and conservatism can coexist with one another. Neither collectivism or anarchism can coexist with any other political systems (or lack thereof).
So take a deep breath and walk away knowing you aren't encountering an anti-libertarian in my person.
Is it just me or is the repeated line of "violence inherent in the state" remind anyone of the "Constitutional Peasant" in the Monty Python "Holy Grail" movie?
Yes, you are free to disagree and to act upon it------as long as you, in no way, receive any benefit, which is a consequence of the thing you disagree with.
Following that to its tip, such isn't possible, therefore, the argument is fantasy.
Get down to the nitty gritty basics... How does one even survive among predatory animals without creating some form of "statism"? By the definition of what he's calling statism all pre-planned organized attempts to create a stable environment for a human family and/or community is statism. I wonder where the humankind would be if previous generations rejected statism in the face of hungry wolf packs, bears, and lions.
Very true: The problem with this idea and others---Ayn Rand‘s failures to understand how selfishness never does any good on its own for another---is he sees volunteerism in a totally unrealistic way.
Not to mention dealing with nature itself in the form of flooding, droughts, fires...
This is all leaving out the most obvious and most formidable obstacle to humans living without any form of "state", and that is a group of humans organizing and deciding it wants what the unorganized humans have.
You're missing the motive and goals there though, and how things operate together. For example, capitalism in the economy of a Communist nation is a sabotage to the Communist system. It can't work. It compromises the way the Communist government works. Similarly, Communism does the same in a Capitalist society. Socialism consists of attempts to make compromise in favor of a Communist type system under the premise of Capitalism.
A government organized for the sole purpose of allowing for the maximum freedom of its citizens, both in economic and social behavior, is what a government such as that of the United States was formed to do. Socialism, Communism, and all other forms of collectivism don't take the "freedom factor" into account. It's all about wealth distribution. Capitalism is an already compromised free-economy system.
@willdrake1 The government was set up by a wide variety of people. The people who inspired it, and set it into motion were great. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were far removed from John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. They had a totally opposite viewpoint of what society should be. Adams threw people in prison for calling him fat, while Jefferson got death threats every day, but just shrugged them off. . . see what I mean?
Why? Because that's what they do and they like it! If you don't want to get your hands dirty by slamming them behind bars at the point of a gun or putting a bullet through their heads in a shootout when trying to arrest them in a raid then fine. But don't try to vilify those willing to make the sacrifices necessary to accomplish the task.
In addition - Only Self Defense and Foreign Policy - if a nation interacts with any other nation there are common laws needed.
What makes this guy and his anti-statism philosophy wrong is that it is narrow-minded and is basically a mind-set that is against pre-planned organized human effort. That's what makes it ridiculous. His view is no more extreme than those that advocate collectivism. Just as his view asks for absolute individual sovereignty, collectivism advocates absolute non-individual sovereignty. There are other options. A government that exists to enforce liberty instead of wealth equality.
@willdrake1 Pure human rights works. It's the only thing that works. If you respect human rights, and aggress against nobody, everyone is free to realize their own personal utopia so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another. That does work.
How do YOU define what is "right" for one Human vs what is right for another?
How can YOUR "utopia" never come into conflict: Social/Political/Resourceful and so on---with another’s?
Clearly these idealized views aren’t intrinsically held by all. And since it isn't working, though its been around for along time, it isn't Workable; therefore its just another Pure idea that fails to apply the reality of human affairs/interactions.
@terramortim How do YOU define what is "right" for one Human vs what is right for another?
How can YOUR "utopia" never come into conflict: Social/Political/Resourceful and so on---with another’s?
Clearly these idealized views aren’t intrinsically held by all. And since it isn't working, though its been around for along time, it isn't Workable; therefore its just another Pure idea that fails to apply the reality of human affairs/interactions.
A nation is defined by a universally agreed upon set of ideals. With a Constitution in place a nation continues to refine and define in detail what those ideals (laws) are. However, without a willingness to use of violence when necessary to enforce them, any physical/violent resistance to the enforcement of those laws renders them impotent. A certain set of drugs and the practice of using certain drugs in particular ways has been deemed illegal in the U.S.
Therefore, by libertarian standards enforcement of those laws by force is ethical. This is irregardless of whether or not the majority of people among libertarians agree with the laws themselves. That's another matter entirely. It is still ethical to enforce those laws.
Now, let's look at the laws themselves... Let's say you make it legal. What are you making legal and who is in charge of the trade?
Is someone going to wave a magical pacifist wand over the despots in current control of the drug cartels and make them legitimate businessmen? Are they suddenly going to be law abiding citizens instead of criminals? Why don't we just look at history - I would like an example, of even once in the history of mankind when (mind altering) drugs have been a legitimate industry. I know I can cite many points in history where the trade of them is enveloped in violence.
Here's what happens in that situation - You legalize mind altering drugs. The drug cartels refuse to do legitimate business and continue to sell drugs on the black market while continuing to continue human trafficking, trading black market weapons, and doing altogether the same criminal things they've always done. Why? Because they're criminals and they like to be that way! Generation after generation criminals do the same damn things.
The success of a society in dealing with drug abuse relies completely on that society's ability to eliminate the criminal drug trade. You can't eliminate it by making it legal. It's like legalizing murder. Murderers aren't going to stop murdering people because it's legal. You'll get other people that will murder because they've been afraid of the consequences but murderers will continue to murder without paying their taxes or legitimizing their "trade".
How do you expect to get other nations to respect common laws if you're unwilling to enforce those laws? Again, they become impotent. Absolutely you try diplomacy before war. But if you're unwilling to enforce them altogether then all the diplomacy in the world isn't going to deter a nation set on exploiting your "self defense only" manifesto. Foreign policy is one thing. A "self defense only" manifesto is something else and it is a recipe for annihilation.
@Omnicronimous So, you are essentially saying that the only way to deal with these issues is via violent force. . . There is no way to accomplish these things while still respecting human rights? There is no question that something has to help in a situation such as that, but why does it have to be forced on people? People won't naturally want some sort of help in an emergency? They can't voluntarily choose it? They have to have a violent state to answer the call?
This is why people that share your point of view are so often dismissed. To paraphrase what you were saying - "So you think violence is the answer to all problems?". Did I say that's what I believe? No. Furthermore, if you had actually taken the time to absorb and understand what I typed in my previous posts instead of jumping immediately to being defensive about my critique of pacifism you'd have seen my clear indication that I'm not for big government.
@Omnicronimous Violence is not the answer to non-violent problems. Take the drug war, for example. It is not a violent problem, so violence is not justified. . . rape, however. . . violence is totally justified, as it's a violent problem. Peaceful problems call for peaceful solutions and violent problems call for the same. Even the Bible has that ethic (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. . .it's part of the Natural Law ethic encoded into ancient religion)
@Omnicronimous So, basically the response must suit the problem. The punishment must fit the crime, and human rights are to be the top concern in all dealings. That's what libertarianism is, and from what I've seen Stefan is in a similar school of thought (a lot of his philosophies tend to come from the Rothbardian Libertarian ethic)
@Omnicronimous One of the biggest misunderstandings of libertarianism is that organization or cooperation is not acceptable. That isn't so. Violent force is the only thing that is not acceptable. If people voluntarily choose for a group of some sort to help them in some way, that is perfectly fine. . . it's just the violent force that is the problem.
I didn't even attack libertarianism - which by the way is not the same a pacifist anarchism - which is what this Molyneux guy seems to be advocating. I find pacifist anarchism to be a ludicrous position, and that is what inspired my critique. I am just as critical, if not more, of collectivism which includes all forms of totalitarian governmental systems, and their baby brothers.
I'm fine with libertarianism. I'm more conservative than libertarian myself, but that's me.
@Omnicronimous Well. The libertarian ethic is to uphold Natural Human Rights at all costs, so this is where Molyneux gets his position. If you want a good example of this, read the book "Libertarian Ethics" by Murray Rothbard. Pacifism isn't exactly the same. Libertarians recognize the right to self defense. VIolent force is not prohibited. It is just limited to self defense and systems of justice (So, if you murder someone, it is justified to use violent force against you, or in self defense)
Here is where your own views are in conflict - (paraphrased) The use of violence is limited to self defense and systems of justice. Then you cite an example where violence is out of place - Illegal drug trade. Wait... Let me highlight a word here for you *ILLEGAL* drug trade...
...
Did it hit you yet? Systems of justice - It encompasses the most noble aspect of government. Justice. However, to have justice one must be willing to enforce it.
All that said, Libertarianism doesn't reflect the kind of pacifism that Molyneux seems to advocate. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems Molyneux pretty openly supports pacifist anarchy. Since you seem to support Libertarianism I would expect you to have conflicts with his point of view, and not be supporting such self destructive views especially to the kind of criticism that I have for him.
@Omnicronimous Hmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is a variety of opinions amongst libertarian thinkers. Some are more of the "minarchist" mindset and some of the "anarchist". Most of Stefan's arguments can be traced to libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. I stress that libertarianism is more of a system of ethics than a system of administration. What binds libertarians together is the non-aggression principle. Other than that, it's open to interpretation.
Libertarian principles are not compatible with anarchy, whether it is violent anarchy or pacifist anarchy. Libertarianism requires government (albeit, stressing minimum government). Anarchy is the lack of government. This puts Libertarianism at odds with anarchy, as any form of government is necessarily at odds with anarchy. There certainly are different schools of thought within the scope of Libertarianism, but they all require government.
@Omnicronimous Some do, and some don't. Libertarianism is just merely a syf natural rights. It can contain government, or any other system that could acomplish the task. There are a lot of arguments as to what a libertarian system would look like. At any rate, a libertarian government would have to have free competition in money, no income taxation whatsoever, and some way would have to be concocted to keep the government totally constitutional in perpetuity.
@Omnicronimous I'd be curious to see a solution for how we could keep a constitution in place. They no doubt tried with the US constitution, by including the checks and balances, but that didn't quite work as well as it should have. I wouldn't quite say anarchy and libertarianism are at odds. They're two different things, but anarchy could be as libertarian as a constitutional government with natural rights at the center. It's just a matter of administration. I'm not really sure of the answer
The only way to keep a Republic "free", such as the United States as described by the Constitution, is "eternal vigilance". That is the price of freedom. Always staying on top of who is elected and what they will vote for. Paying attention to what they vote. Demanding limitations to government power through the vote.
The pitfall in a free society will always be resisting the temptation to put into power those that guarantee prosperity in exchange for power.
@Omnicronimous I suggest reading the book "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N Rothbard if you want to know where Stefen is coming from. It will, at least, give you a broad philosophical groundwork to understand Molyneux's position. As a libertarian, I'm not so concerned as to others' points of view. I am only concerned with violations to my rights. If someone wants to believe in the flying spaghetti monster without violating my rights, I am all in favor. . . if that answers your question.
I'm familiar with the tenets of Rothbard (familiar enough). Rothbard isn't the subject here though. I'm curious as to what exact stated beliefs Molyneux has and says that you believe make him a target of the establishment. I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm simply trying to qualify your fears because I honestly don't see anything that should cause legitimate concern. He's either advocating specific ideas that qualify a threat or he isn't.
@Omnicronimous Molyneux is mostly Rothbardian in his solutions (Randian when it comes to religion). Well. . . his idea of stateless society would be the ultimate threat to the establishment. I'm not quite convinced in a totally stateless private society, myself. I'm not convinced of any system in totality. A Republic could work as long as people pay attention and demand their rights. . . whether that's possible or not, I'm not sure.
"Molyneux is mostly Rothbardian in his solutions (Randian when it comes to religion)." - terramortim
Rothbard was more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Rothbard also advocates "self-ownership". If you were a Rothbardian you'd understand communism's incompatibility. Randian is not a religion or a religious outlook. Randian is philosophical and advocates atheism. Therefore, it is false to claim him as "Randian" instead of atheist in terms of his religious outlook or lack thereof.
@Omnicronimous I've read almost everything Rothbard has written. I'm a huge fan. I'm not quite through "concieved in liberty" as it's a literal monster of a book series, but I'm pretty well read on Rothbard.
Typo: Pacifist Anarchy is a libertarian system, but libertarianism isn't pacifist anarchy. Even a communist system, if it was a totally voluntary community that didn't impose itself on anyone outside of it could be "libertarian" in that the parties involved agree to be bound by such a system (thus no rights are infringed).
Anarchy and libertarianism are not compatible. Anarchy is the lack of government. Libertarianism requires government. The tenets of communism don't allow for dissent. How is a system that requires people to "voluntarily" give up all rights to property compatible with libertarianism.
You're just flat out wrong. It's becoming apparent that you don't understand libertarianism yourself.
@Omnicronimous But then . .. the old misconcenption of "government" vs. "a state". They aren't the same thing. You can have a government without a state. From what I've heard of Molyneux he still advocates a government. . . just a free competition private government (private insurance/protection agencies contracting with willing people), rather than a compulsury one based on monopoly.
Molyneux is correctly described as a pacifist anarchist. I have seen nothing from him that would indicate otherwise. Following Rothbardian ideas or Randian ideas or naming any other form of ideas as his inspiration makes no difference. What HE advocates is accurately summarized as pacifist anarchism. It existed before him, and whatever the path that led him to it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is what he advocates.
@Omnicronimous Read Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty", and you can see a major influence on Moleneux. Regardles, it's a fantastic book that I'd recomend to anyone.
The majority of registered "Libertarians" are right-leaning libertarians. When the party was formed Rothbard started publishing books on libertarian ideas. He was a left leaning "libertarian". The left leaning group of libertarians is essentially anarchist in nature, while the right believes in government for self defense, the protection of individual property rights, and law enforcement. Many academics seem to discard left leaning "libertarians" as being libertarian.
I'm inclined to do so myself. The concept of anarchy was well defined before the term libertarianism came about and it seems to me that because they shared some basic principles leaders among intellectual anarchists attached themselves to the libertarian movement. Since the majority of the first libertarians came from "classic liberal" or "modern American conservative" groups dissatisfied with big government, I think it's safe to say that's the core of the movement.
@Omnicronimous Your thoughts are very well reasoned, but I'd suggest that if you go back to P.J. Proudhon, who was the main inspiration to the American Josiah Warren, who was himself the mentor to the Incredibly important works of Mr. Benjamin R. Tucker, who was arguably the seminal figure in the so-described "leftist" persuasion of the philosophical Anarchist tradition. IMO, I've always posed the theory that Libertarianism is a right-wing reinvention, who w/o fail, refuse to address economics
Sorry about that... that last post (I'm familiar with the tenets... specific ideas that qualify a threat or he isn't) was a mixture of responses to two people at once - You and batfly. Just ignore it (for whatever reason it isn't giving me the option to remove the post yet.).
Anyway, I've been reading enough over the last two days to give me the information I needed. I'm familiar enough now to make a call. Molyneux advocates pacifist anarchy, not Libertarianism.
@Omnicronimous Pacifist anarchy is a libertarian system, but libertarianism isn't pacific anarchy. Libertarianism isn't a system but an overall philosophy. As for what system would administrate libertarianism, the debate is far from reaching a consensus. I don't think it really matters in the long run. The important thing is natural rights and non-violence.
You use the terms "Natural rights" and "non-violence" to describe libertarianism. To say that's an oversimplification is a drastic understatement. But let's say terramortism advocates those things as a belief system. What are natural rights? Define them. Who defines what natural rights are? Once those rights are "established" who will enforce them?
"Non-violence" is pacifism. It's the definition of pacifism. You keep advocating and retracting it like a yo-yo.
@Omnicronimous I don't get where you're coming from. Almost all libertarian literature is faily consistent with both Rothbard and Molyneux, and both descrbe themselves as libertarians. I think you're just playing with semantic arguments here. Read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, Chapter one for a good explanation of "natural rights". It's probably explained there better than I could.
@terramortim There is no other way to remain "free" and yet have government. The people must either forgo the "free" meal, or accept tyranny. For generations the people of the U.S. have accepted bits and pieces of the "free" meal in exchange for their liberty. That's why the U.S. looks the way it does today. It is a process that started right from the very beginning. The system needs to be reset. Anarchy and totalitarianism are not options.
So again, when it's a matter of enforcing common laws (more or less) between nations it does not conflict with libertarian views to use violence as it is a matter of being part of a justice role between nations. At least by the logic of libertarian ethics.
However, I am aware that Libertarians in general support "Self Defense Only" as a foreign policy altogether and it is a failing on their part in my humble opinion.
Ayn Rand ... It's hard for me to rail against her as she has become the symbol of the value of the individual as if no one before her had ever come along advocating the value of individual sovereignty/freedom. Railing against her has become synonymous with advocating collectivism, which is certainly not my position.
I don't rail against her, I just see her "philosophy" as being mostly empty and unworkable since it implies the pureness of people: Which is to say, if they do the best for themselves, they will therefore do the best for everyone else. Not true.
True, she wasn't the first nor the last.
I disagree though, the opposite to her "objectivism" isn't collectivism.
Fact: All Isim's and Ist's are useless; we must move beyond them if we are to survive.
Pacifism + no armed friends willing to defend the pacifist = dead pacifist.
Every human has the ability to be violent. It comes with just being alive. It's how you choose to use or not use your capacity for violence that matters. Denying it exists is a recipe for oblivion.
I'm against big government myself, but pacifism is only works for communities protected by those willing to protect the pacifist. No amount of argumentation can change that, no matter how clever you are.
this guy is ok, but he actaully believes the feminist bs, women are not oppressed and never were, no had freedom unitl men took it and soon after gave o women. I used to think he was kind smart unil I figure out he was just another sheep!
I never look at it the same way; how most use Satan as a figure of "evil" when he was the "good" guy. Satan represents all that is carnal and Jehovah represents that which is generally opposed to that which makes our lives fulfilling.
@ranger082469 His rule is: Party agrees with party to freedom of thought and according action provided that parties are not affected by force as result. A truth table would prove that this rule is invalid based on survival directives ie. No I am not okay with you killing me - but is generally valid. I believe he uses this as an extinguisher for cognitive error and a soft approach to wearing down people's defenses so they can become more receptive.
@ranger082469 If you were being comical; funny joke, but I didn't want to talk down to you by prefacing with "are you joking?" I was banging my head against the wall because his audience asked the same fundamental question quite often.
Comment as I watch: At 54 min, he asks about roads. The answer to his proposition goes as follows: When you put gas in your car, there is included tax in the price at the pump. That gas tax is what pays for our roads and bridges. You are thereby volunteering to pay for the roads by putting gas in your car to drive on them. When you don't own a car, you don't pay gas tax (no gas needed obviously) and you are therefore not required to pay for the roads.
SomebodyPickaName 3 days ago
I already used this argument after watching some of your other videos.
WhackTheWax 5 days ago
New Hampshire libertarian chicks are HOT! If I get divorced, I'm coming and bringing my guns and beard with me!!!!
chisleu 2 weeks ago
@45:01
This is the counter to your "me" argument. Who is to say what is self defence, what situations require self defence. This is where the position of "not being violent" becomes quite foggy.
There are far too many reasonings for that which, indirectly harms us and which is the consequence of another's acted upon belief, leading to just as many reasonings for, preemptive defence.
I'm not currently sure if you can resolve this logical flaw, I'll have to get back to you after thinking on it
Theobrothers 2 months ago
I believe personalizing the argument is correct. However, the logic, wording and analogies you use, I think, are flawed.
If you haven't understood why I say this, or perhaps disagree, I'll wait for you to say as much before going further with my argument.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@20:42
"I would never dream of using violence to prevent you from acting upon your beliefs..."
So you wouldn't use violence if the belief acted upon harms you?
Isn't this a self induced strawman, and if not, I would have to infer that you are a practitioner of absolute Pacifism, or more likely, a liar. Concluding that, we are not the same, nor do we share an agenda, and could not "accord you the same respect".
I'm confused on how someone would so quickly allow that assertion to be validated.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers: You're being a smart ass. You're not differentiating between the initiation of force and self defensive force. They are different. If someone attacks you, that person is the aggressor. If you defend yourself, you are justified. There is a big difference. No-aggression is different than pacifism just as body guards are different than assassins. You are seriously confused.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
@Deadwind002
Hmmm, let's see how confused I am and how clear you seem to think this logic is.
A group of people, own a majority stake in a company. That company owns a majority stake in Television Media, which propagates lies as to give reason for war. They also own Military Construction and give donations to various politicians which pass legislation to go to war and award government contracts to the military companies.
Thousands are employed and turn a blind eye to these connections.
Theobrothers 1 month ago
@Deadwind002
A war is entered through new legislation, against the agreements of the UN. Bombs are made, and dropped, many innocent civilians in a far off land die. People who's families have been murdered, rise up, they fight back. Sometimes they take civilian contractors and kill them. At one point they hijack planes and kill thousands of people, many of whom work for some of these companies who own the media, the military contracts and politicians.
Who are the aggressors?
Theobrothers 1 month ago
@Deadwind002
Life is crazy complicated. If you think you don't deserve some of the blame for the slaughter and starvation of people in far off lands, you are ignorant.
Complacency causes people to not do the due diligence necessary to vet every company they may do business with. Whether it's purchasing groceries, clothing, or computer parts. Thousands of people have died as a nearly direct result of your choices and business dealings.
They don't have the right to kill you?
Theobrothers 1 month ago
or more simply put: "ceasar is a roman, and if I declare that all romans are thugs, ceasar must be a thug" which seems agreeable, especially if you think that ceasar is a thug already, until, as you say, people start to point out that your declared premise is not so universally accepted, but then you just walk away without having to do the "hard work" of establishing your premise, despite it being so evident. this tactic might win an argument, but its bad logic, and i suspect you know this.
satumma 2 months ago
HOLY CRAP! AN OLDER VERSION OF ADAM KOKESH WITH BEARD AND HAIR TRAVELED BACK IN TIME TO ASK STEFAN A QUESTION AT THIS CONFERENCE! THIS IS VALID PROOF THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE FREE MARKET CREATES TIME MACHINES!!
lelanddupuy 2 months ago
In 1492, White, Europe, Christian, Psychopaths created a British Colony on the East Coast of North America, which they called the New World. Immediately they were given orders from the king and crown to kill Native peoples and exploit the resources of the Land. Shortly after these intrusion the imports decided to offer themselves Sovereignty, and offered each other PROPERTY RIGHTS. The question becomes, "where's your green cards" or get out?
MrSchpankme 2 months ago
Also who cares about winning an argument?
shitaye12 3 months ago
@shitaye12 I do.
myassin2009 3 months ago
How original. The point of governments is to monopolise violence. The only argument is how big the government should be and why? When you you look at it honestly, it is an impossible issue. There is a reason why we couldn't figure out this shit. You can't win an argument by telling people an obvious thing: governments are about the use of force. Thanks for telling us, genius.
shitaye12 3 months ago
@shitaye12
Have you ever talked with a liberal or a conservative and tried to get them to look at getting gov't out of anything they think it should be doing?
First, they don't think that gov't is about the use of force. Second, they don't think it's about the use of force AGAINST YOU, which is the point of the video.
Perhaps you might learn something if you come off Mount Condescension
NativeNewMexican 3 months ago in playlist True News! from Freedomain Radio
Harry Brown is a brilliant movie.
theworldeatswithyou 3 months ago
Stefan, if there was a 'love' button on YouTube, I'd click it on every one of your videos I watch :)
DestroyYourSkills 4 months ago
This is a great chat, I needed that.
MrAmbrister 4 months ago
Whitest audience ever.
oturista 4 months ago
Then there is the concept of the "free rider." Resentment, as you Stephan have said said is a very powerful emotion. I might win "the political argument" but our system exists because "millions of intelligent and creative and involved and engaged people acting in their own self interest" act emotionally and the rationalize their actions. All the powers that be need to is elicit one powerful emotion - resentment ... greed! And the mob will and does in fact authorize the use of force.
xl0l0l0l0lx 4 months ago
to the soldiers observation at about 2:08 - That's the concept of complicity. The silent or complacent majority authorizes the use of force against me by their agreement to or acceptance of the use of force against them. They are complicit in the violation of my liberties by their lack of commitment to their own liberty.
xl0l0l0l0lx 4 months ago
1:06:15 Holy shit it's Adam from Adam vs the Man on RT News! xD
dirint 5 months ago
lol this was awesome
jcrongoXisXaXjerk 5 months ago
is this part of the plan of the whole manipulation thing to show you the truth for bad intentions
philosophyheal 6 months ago
is he part of the plan to something? i want to see know what his purpose or whole point is to tell us all this and still not get in trouble its like he had to convince the people he is talking about 1st to exposo all this and why would they agree? is there something he knows that he is not saying
philosophyheal 6 months ago
lol adam kokesh out of fuckin nowhere
DestroyerX61 7 months ago 29
@DestroyerX61 definately random... but AWESOME
carny426 6 months ago
I live in Poland and Soviet Union didn't ask us before if we want to live in communist state. They've just forced that on us, just as now it is done by European Union. Without defensive military forces we can't protect ourselves from other states and becouse of that I believe that we need government atleast for that.
med2904 7 months ago
@med2904 or just give poland and soviert union a few nukes and... no wars will come.
sniped101 7 months ago
But what with invasions of other non-free nations with imperialist government and military? Of course it's possible for free market to create one very big protection agency to protect large amounts of land and cities from other hostile states, but what if it won't emerge or do it too slow and people once again lose their freedom to other nation? Then what we do? Start everything again and try to convince this other nation that free society is better than imperialism?
med2904 7 months ago
@med2904 give everyone a nuke and no one will invade anyone.. unless they wanna get nuked.
sniped101 7 months ago
@med2904 It's called a militia of people, they volenteer to be trained in guerilla combat, and they protect the place. Like a National Guard sort of thing. I mean shit look at a bunch of under equiped rebels are doing to America.
carny426 6 months ago
Adam Kokesh shows up at 1:06:30
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
@nurbSoldier Adam Kokesh is a tad confused as to the role of the US military. If he had a good head on his shoulders he'd drop the right wing libertarian nonsense and come to the realization that the various wars are fought not to "fight terrorism" or any such blather but to expand and legitimize the western market system. We did it to Japan, we did it to Eastern Europe, we did it to South America and we're now doing it to the Middle East. No amount of wishful free market theory can change this.
crud4 7 months ago
@crud4 Actually the confused person here is you. Nothing you said here of Adam Kokesh is true. He is vehemently against the military industrial complex and the misuse of American soldiers, as well as how they waste american taxpayer money and destroy nations.
Also, I roll my eyes when people say libertarians are right wingers. Right wingers are for outlawing abortion, drugs and whores, for abstinence taught in schools, strong police/military, police state, strong prosecutors, perpetual war.
nurbSoldier 6 months ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
Adam Kokesh shows up at @1:06:30
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
Comment removed
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
How would such a situation then be approached, and where (if at all) would the initiation of violence occur? Does person "B" have the right to initiate violence against the infringement on their individual right, or does the checkpoint program have the right to initiate violence against person "B" for not complying with the rules they're funded by person "A" to enforce?
jwalidea 7 months ago
My question is this: If person "A" believes, for example, that the state should set up random road check points to screen ALL drivers for immigration status, or for intoxication, and thus they have the right to fund such a program. However, person "B" believes that no such check points should exist, and has the right to not fund any such program. But when person "B" then gets pulled over by a checkpoint funded be person "A", is that not an infringement on "B's" individual right? [cont'd]
jwalidea 7 months ago
Deal with the Jew and you will deal with humanity's problems.
kingstuks 8 months ago
Point missed at 54 min.
I think his point is what do you do about the "free rider" argument?
A conservative would argue we need a self defense that protect both of us. If you are free to not pay for it, then you get protection for free. This is unjust and a form of stealing resources from us (those who pay taxes).
Now I think the free rider argument is wrong but you will hear it a lot.
If I allow you to not pay for the roads (act on your belief) can I keep you off the roads that I pay for.
ronwandell 8 months ago
@ronwandell Intresting... great point
Motherlandpluto 8 months ago
"the surge" and or most any military action is economic. The market must perpetually expand, take in new resources and open new markets in order to exist. One of the most blatant examples is what the US did pre WW2 with Japan- the entire NAVY was brought to Japan and they were given two choices, open up their "markets" to western capitalism or be destroyed. The same is now being done in the Middle East albeit a tad less obvious to the uneducated.
crud4 8 months ago
How did slave owners once control slaves? How did feudal lords once keep serfs in check? Force. How do capitalists keep workers in check? Force. If there were no state apparatus capitalists would have nothing to legitimize their system with. What happens when air traffic controllers go on strike? The National Guard is called in. What happens when Longshoreman's Strike? Police kill the strikers. What happens when workers strike in a"free" market system? The Pinkertons are called in. Do the math
crud4 8 months ago
The "free" state project is well.... If you really want to live in a market system without paying taxes then move to Guyana and give it a whirl- you'll soon find out why a state (force) is necessary for a modern industrial market system to function. None of you will do that though seeing in New Hampshire you benefit from the bounty the modern US capitalist system produces (roads, hospitals, industry, distribution etc) all of which wouldn't exist without FORCE (cont)
crud4 8 months ago
How to win political/economic arguments? In his case avoid them as much as possible and when cornered regurgitate right wing libertarian theory from Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and other hacks who don't understand the necessity of a state for the market system to work. "free" market capitalism is impossible - you people simply advocate a privatized state, one which would be disproportionally controlled by capitalists as the modern state is (cont)
crud4 8 months ago
@crud4 You're right..the problems of the world have absolutely nothing to do with fiat currencies. There's no need to worry about the inefficiencies of government, because whatever is lost through government can just be printed! There's no need to worry about borrowing $.42 of every $1 that the federal government spends because the US can just print! Let me hear you say print baby print! Make the government bigger and print more money! I love wasting resources and I love big government!
FlipThatBond 7 months ago
@FlipThatBond The capitalist system requires a state to exist. A very large one at that with a huge military to spread and "protect" markets across the globe. Most of your taxes go to the military who's role is to force previously unexploited "markets" into the western capitalist system. Your precious system would fall apart without a "big government" (state). This is why all supporters of the market system are STATISTS. It's a bad joke that you people don't understand these simple facts.
crud4 7 months ago
@crud4 Every single sentence that you wrote is false. Borrowing .$42 of every $1 is not capitalism, it is not efficient, and it is not good. The government giving a monopoly to a company to print money, control interest rates, and basically do whatever it wants is not capitalism, it is not efficient, and it is not good. The US generally had capitalism through the industrial revolution, without big government, and the US prospered tremendously to be the most productive country in the world.
FlipThatBond 7 months ago
@FlipThatBond You mean privatized banking? LOL So you'd rather have the government have a monopoly on printing money? The US became the most prosperous country in the world long after 1913 when the FED was created....WW2 destroyed most of the competition so the US had risen from WW2 as the sole productive force in the west. Non of you idiots have the slightest idea of what you're talking about- I'd rather not waste my time with you and prefer the maker of the video to reply to my comments.
crud4 7 months ago
@FlipThatBond There's many ways monopolies can form, the government (state) only being one avenue. Be honest with yourself for a moment (not to mention being historically correct) and admit monopolies have formed via collusion between capitalists. Get back to me when I don't have to ex[plain rudimentary aspects of capitalism to you. And yes I'm fully aware of the theoretical fantasy form of capitalism you call "free" market capitalism. I don't deal in fairy tails. It has and can NEVER exist
crud4 7 months ago
@crud4 I don't think you even read what I wrote. You sound confused and what you say is all over the board. Back in the day we actually used to make things. Real wealth is built by actually making things. When the world accepted the USD as the world's reserve currency, the US quickly transformed from a country that exported things to the main export being the USD. Now that the USD is about to end because of huge government, the US will no longer be able to cheat the world out of their goods
FlipThatBond 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
adam kokesh is the soldier in this video
ott0Kitam 9 months ago
The experiences of anarchism in history might prove instructive. General Nestor Makhno and the Ukranian anarchists (leftists), were wiped out by Trotsky´s Bolshevik Communists in a bloody campaign that was the preamble to much other terror. They went for the anarchists because they couldn´t defend themselves as well, and they could clear an apparent ideological space around them. In Spain, during the Civil War, 1936-9, Anarchism, also failed to prevent fascist destruction of their paradise...
HunnaNorthfolk 9 months ago
7 people are freedom-hating statists.
danheneise 9 months ago
well, he has some very well reasoned ideas, I guess I am not a pacifist libetarian.
Hobgoblin1975 9 months ago
Molyneux completely avoids the fact that it is the monopolies and plutocrats that are corrupting government in order to deepen their grip on us. A State medical service is more likely, when properly managed, to allay the grip of large pharmaceutical cartels and their insidious doping of millions of Americans: ironically the biggest addiction facing the modern citizen is privately presribed opiates. Monopolies cherish ideas like his since they clear their path of regulation.
HunnaNorthfolk 9 months ago
@HunnaNorthfolk Of course they do, but that is absolutely natural. Imagine a company, that you just found. You would be all pro free market and competition, because it's in your interest. But when you grow up, you'll shift this to no, I'm actually against free market, I want regulations that favor me. But in free market, in other words, no state regulations, you can't go and buy politicians, that have the power to force these regulations on people. No government -> no corruption.
Bishop38f8 9 months ago
Loved seeing Kokesh in this :).
Frozenphilx 10 months ago
I just found out your channel and watched a bunch of videos. I agree with you since mostly you worded out my thoughts (some of them existed before I became an anarchist). I'm not really good about terms since my English is limited to movies and dumb TV shows, you're keep talking about free market. Does that mean you're anarcho-capitalist? I would hate to admit that I idolize myself an anarcho-capitalist :)
Alenthas 11 months ago
I really enjoy Mr. Molyneux but his ideas of having absolutely no state at all are as much a utopian fantasy as the left's dream of a socialist/communist society. I would favor a great reduction in authority and power of the state, as was original intent of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, we've seen the state grow immensely in size and power over the last century mainly due to the abysmal ignorance and/or stupidity of those living in Western democracies.
AlexanderRozhenko 11 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko I think you just proved the very point you were arguing against. No gov't , no matter how small or how well written the constitution is can stay small. It is the nature of govt to grow without limit, it is how men operate when in power. The smaller the gov't originally, the more economically prosperous it will be, thus the more money it will have, thus the bigger it will get. The only logical answer is no government. Regardless of imperfection.
dbill27 9 months ago
A big problem I have with Stef's arguments is that they often hinge on the idea that morality is defined by empiricism and logic. I say abortion is immoral. You say it's NOT immoral. I say that peaceful spectators to genocide are immoral. You say they are NOT immoral. I say that violent warriors who bring an end to genocidal dictatorships are moral. You mock them and call them baby killers. I say morality is defined by God. You say it's defined by the fickle human heart. Who is right?
stuntbaby63 11 months ago
What world does this guy live in? The media have been banging the drums of "peace" since day one of the Iraq war. They've tried to portray our soldiers as brain-washed dupes who "murder" innocent people for nothing and who throw away their own lives for nothing. He gripes about "the incredible invisible war" with "no bodies" being shown by the media. But he conveniently ignores the 12 years of "invisible 'peace'" that produced far more death, destruction, suffering and instability.
stuntbaby63 11 months ago
Statism IS a fantasy Stefan, you were right the first time. That is why there is no such thing as an atheistic dictatorship because all one does there is replace one mystical entity called "god" and replace it with another mystical entity called the "state". Because NO ONE holds ANY genuine "authority" over anyone else. Authority is fundamentally mythical. That is precisely why Russia was the most mystical place in the world before Marxism took hold. They were ripe for the fucking.
physicalgenius 11 months ago
@physicalgenius Right on the money...C.J. Jung writes about this in a manner so convincingly that you not only see the whole structure of the Bolshevik system, but what I also love, is that from the objective point of view, Idealistic Christianity & Marxism are two side of the same coin. Great post
AnomicDeadDisciple 10 months ago
I just started typing out another response when I came upon something that helped me realize where it is our conflict lies. Perhaps you didn't know this yourself, as I'm compelled to believe as I'm sure you'd have caught this and brought it up yourself. There are two distinctive groups calling themselves libertarians. One is the left leaning libertarian group and the other is the right leaning group. Until now I was only familiar with the tenets of the right.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
"It can contain government, or any other system that could acomplish the task." - terramortim
A system will have authority. A system of authority is a government. That's what a government is. How do you not understand that?
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
"Everyday Anarchy, Practical Anarchy" - Two books by Molyneux that I doubt the majority of Libertarians would agree with much.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
Is this talk available as an mp3 so I can listen to it on my iPod?
aikighost 1 year ago
@aikighost Sure, the link is above, in the description...
stefbot 1 year ago 2
@stefbot Thanks stef what a dumbass I am :)
aikighost 1 year ago
@stefbot I am one vote for the Equal Money System
schpongleded 5 months ago
@aikighost Also for future reference you can use Zamzar to download audio from YouTube videos in most formats. Hope this helps.
tis2nwod 6 months ago
In a society without government rule... who enforces contracts between private individuals? If one party dishonors a contract... what third party is the enforcer?
batfly 1 year ago
Stefan Molyneux better watch his back... cuz I am sure the powers that be are figuring out many ways to whack Stefan, in ways that would appear to be natural causes.
You think this couldn't happen... Think again.
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
Honestly, outside of a psychotic fascist dictator or eugenicists implementing a human genetic modification strategy that Molyneux didn't qualify to survive I can't imagine any scenario where any of the current governments in the world would want to have Molyneux killed. The guy is about as much of a threat as a puddle of water. He has a tiny following and they all believe in pacifism. They might as well be Amish or Quakers (although Quakers had no problem letting others fight for them).
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
The ideas he is proposing directly threaten the overlords power grip ideology.
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
Lol! Threaten? Molyneux seems like a nice guy, and ideally humans wouldn't need government. But ideally doesn't and can't exist. Why? Because without eliminating free will, the very thing he and all sane people cherish, evil can not be eliminated. At least not by humans. Most people realize this and that is why his following is very small. He deserves praise for being willing to resist the temptation to resort to violence.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
Yes his ideas do threaten, Not in a direct violent way like you intimate... If everyone realizes the truth then the overlords would loose everything they have invested in their human farms...
That is why Stefan will probably end up with pancreatic cancer or a brain tumor or a heart attack... How else do you think they have lasted as long as they have?
If everything goes to shit... I am sure they are prepared to go underground and scorch the earth with neutron bombs.
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
Ok, explain to me exactly what truth Molyneux is telling people that will get him killed (by unnatural natural causes). I'm missing the threat here. He's not popular enough and he's not endorsing any form of revolution that can threaten 'the establishment'. So, sincerely, explain what I'm missing.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@batfly
Have you ever heard of the phrase... "Nip in the bud" ?
Meaning
Put a stop to something while it is still in its early development.
"Extinguish these fond loues with minds labour, and nip thy affections in the bloome, that they may neuer bee of power to budde."
The world is a chess game best played with a poker face.
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
Yet ultimately it is the people who are violent on his behalf that allow him to be who he is. He will never gain enough support in his ideas to challenge a politician or a "overlord" of any kind. Not to the extent that he will be seen as a threat worth putting out an effort to silence.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
Liberty...
Freedom to believe in and do whatever you want, without impeding the liberty of others, is liberty.
Just because you believe in a certain set of ideals does not give you the right to force them on others.
Liberty is the right to do it wrong. Liberty is the freedom to make mistakes.
The breath of Liberty inhales tolerance and exhales forgiveness.
batfly 1 year ago
At least libertarianism and conservatism can coexist with one another. Neither collectivism or anarchism can coexist with any other political systems (or lack thereof).
So take a deep breath and walk away knowing you aren't encountering an anti-libertarian in my person.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
Is it just me or is the repeated line of "violence inherent in the state" remind anyone of the "Constitutional Peasant" in the Monty Python "Holy Grail" movie?
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
His trap works well...
Unless, you go one step forward, to say:
Yes, you are free to disagree and to act upon it------as long as you, in no way, receive any benefit, which is a consequence of the thing you disagree with.
Following that to its tip, such isn't possible, therefore, the argument is fantasy.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
Get down to the nitty gritty basics... How does one even survive among predatory animals without creating some form of "statism"? By the definition of what he's calling statism all pre-planned organized attempts to create a stable environment for a human family and/or community is statism. I wonder where the humankind would be if previous generations rejected statism in the face of hungry wolf packs, bears, and lions.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
Very true: The problem with this idea and others---Ayn Rand‘s failures to understand how selfishness never does any good on its own for another---is he sees volunteerism in a totally unrealistic way.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
Not to mention dealing with nature itself in the form of flooding, droughts, fires...
This is all leaving out the most obvious and most formidable obstacle to humans living without any form of "state", and that is a group of humans organizing and deciding it wants what the unorganized humans have.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
The concept of a pure one answer = all answers, is false: Purity in philosophical thought, doesn't exist.
Everything is a mixture of many; nothing is simple or true for all people beyond Natrual Laws.
Also, it shouldn't be State vs Individual since you need both.
Balance.
Third party perspective: The middle or cooperative points, of any two views, is mostly where truth resides.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
You're missing the motive and goals there though, and how things operate together. For example, capitalism in the economy of a Communist nation is a sabotage to the Communist system. It can't work. It compromises the way the Communist government works. Similarly, Communism does the same in a Capitalist society. Socialism consists of attempts to make compromise in favor of a Communist type system under the premise of Capitalism.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
True.
But I would say, no system, ever was PURE.
None: Cap or Com or Soc, were ever 100% what they claimed to be.
Its like when people try and say Stalinism and Marxism and Maoism and Leninism and bla bla bla are all the same: They’re not and never were.
Also, no two “Capitalist” systems, are the same.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
A government organized for the sole purpose of allowing for the maximum freedom of its citizens, both in economic and social behavior, is what a government such as that of the United States was formed to do. Socialism, Communism, and all other forms of collectivism don't take the "freedom factor" into account. It's all about wealth distribution. Capitalism is an already compromised free-economy system.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
Really, you think our Gov was setup, from the get-go, for ALL PEOPLE to be allowed the maximum freedom: eco and social?
I think that is more the myth of our founding rather than the reality of it.
This is however off topic, so we should leave this here.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 The government was set up by a wide variety of people. The people who inspired it, and set it into motion were great. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were far removed from John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. They had a totally opposite viewpoint of what society should be. Adams threw people in prison for calling him fat, while Jefferson got death threats every day, but just shrugged them off. . . see what I mean?
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
However you feel they were "great" isn't the point and is off subject.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@terramortim
Why? Because that's what they do and they like it! If you don't want to get your hands dirty by slamming them behind bars at the point of a gun or putting a bullet through their heads in a shootout when trying to arrest them in a raid then fine. But don't try to vilify those willing to make the sacrifices necessary to accomplish the task.
In addition - Only Self Defense and Foreign Policy - if a nation interacts with any other nation there are common laws needed.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
Because that's what WHO do? And WHY do they like it?
What are you talking about?
And you never did answer my reply (this is your answer to what I said to terramortim)
So who needs arresting, being shot in a raid----whose vilifying whom?
Your last comment was also confusing.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
What who do? Drug cartels. The people involved at the top of those cartels.
Answer what question? Do you mean the one you pointed out was off topic?
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Omnicronimous
I don't think I ever said anything about Drug Cartels...so that part I'm confused about.
The question I wanted answered, which is off topic:
"Really, you think our Gov was setup, from the get-go, for ALL PEOPLE to be allowed the maximum freedom: eco and social?"
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1
What makes this guy and his anti-statism philosophy wrong is that it is narrow-minded and is basically a mind-set that is against pre-planned organized human effort. That's what makes it ridiculous. His view is no more extreme than those that advocate collectivism. Just as his view asks for absolute individual sovereignty, collectivism advocates absolute non-individual sovereignty. There are other options. A government that exists to enforce liberty instead of wealth equality.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
True
As I've said, there is no Pure idea that is workable; never has and never will.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 Pure human rights works. It's the only thing that works. If you respect human rights, and aggress against nobody, everyone is free to realize their own personal utopia so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another. That does work.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
How do YOU define what is "right" for one Human vs what is right for another?
How can YOUR "utopia" never come into conflict: Social/Political/Resourceful and so on---with another’s?
Clearly these idealized views aren’t intrinsically held by all. And since it isn't working, though its been around for along time, it isn't Workable; therefore its just another Pure idea that fails to apply the reality of human affairs/interactions.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@terramortim How do YOU define what is "right" for one Human vs what is right for another?
How can YOUR "utopia" never come into conflict: Social/Political/Resourceful and so on---with another’s?
Clearly these idealized views aren’t intrinsically held by all. And since it isn't working, though its been around for along time, it isn't Workable; therefore its just another Pure idea that fails to apply the reality of human affairs/interactions.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@terramortim
A nation is defined by a universally agreed upon set of ideals. With a Constitution in place a nation continues to refine and define in detail what those ideals (laws) are. However, without a willingness to use of violence when necessary to enforce them, any physical/violent resistance to the enforcement of those laws renders them impotent. A certain set of drugs and the practice of using certain drugs in particular ways has been deemed illegal in the U.S.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
Therefore, by libertarian standards enforcement of those laws by force is ethical. This is irregardless of whether or not the majority of people among libertarians agree with the laws themselves. That's another matter entirely. It is still ethical to enforce those laws.
Now, let's look at the laws themselves... Let's say you make it legal. What are you making legal and who is in charge of the trade?
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
Is someone going to wave a magical pacifist wand over the despots in current control of the drug cartels and make them legitimate businessmen? Are they suddenly going to be law abiding citizens instead of criminals? Why don't we just look at history - I would like an example, of even once in the history of mankind when (mind altering) drugs have been a legitimate industry. I know I can cite many points in history where the trade of them is enveloped in violence.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
Here's what happens in that situation - You legalize mind altering drugs. The drug cartels refuse to do legitimate business and continue to sell drugs on the black market while continuing to continue human trafficking, trading black market weapons, and doing altogether the same criminal things they've always done. Why? Because they're criminals and they like to be that way! Generation after generation criminals do the same damn things.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
The success of a society in dealing with drug abuse relies completely on that society's ability to eliminate the criminal drug trade. You can't eliminate it by making it legal. It's like legalizing murder. Murderers aren't going to stop murdering people because it's legal. You'll get other people that will murder because they've been afraid of the consequences but murderers will continue to murder without paying their taxes or legitimizing their "trade".
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
How do you expect to get other nations to respect common laws if you're unwilling to enforce those laws? Again, they become impotent. Absolutely you try diplomacy before war. But if you're unwilling to enforce them altogether then all the diplomacy in the world isn't going to deter a nation set on exploiting your "self defense only" manifesto. Foreign policy is one thing. A "self defense only" manifesto is something else and it is a recipe for annihilation.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous So, you are essentially saying that the only way to deal with these issues is via violent force. . . There is no way to accomplish these things while still respecting human rights? There is no question that something has to help in a situation such as that, but why does it have to be forced on people? People won't naturally want some sort of help in an emergency? They can't voluntarily choose it? They have to have a violent state to answer the call?
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
This is why people that share your point of view are so often dismissed. To paraphrase what you were saying - "So you think violence is the answer to all problems?". Did I say that's what I believe? No. Furthermore, if you had actually taken the time to absorb and understand what I typed in my previous posts instead of jumping immediately to being defensive about my critique of pacifism you'd have seen my clear indication that I'm not for big government.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Violence is not the answer to non-violent problems. Take the drug war, for example. It is not a violent problem, so violence is not justified. . . rape, however. . . violence is totally justified, as it's a violent problem. Peaceful problems call for peaceful solutions and violent problems call for the same. Even the Bible has that ethic (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. . .it's part of the Natural Law ethic encoded into ancient religion)
terramortim 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous So, basically the response must suit the problem. The punishment must fit the crime, and human rights are to be the top concern in all dealings. That's what libertarianism is, and from what I've seen Stefan is in a similar school of thought (a lot of his philosophies tend to come from the Rothbardian Libertarian ethic)
terramortim 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous One of the biggest misunderstandings of libertarianism is that organization or cooperation is not acceptable. That isn't so. Violent force is the only thing that is not acceptable. If people voluntarily choose for a group of some sort to help them in some way, that is perfectly fine. . . it's just the violent force that is the problem.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
I didn't even attack libertarianism - which by the way is not the same a pacifist anarchism - which is what this Molyneux guy seems to be advocating. I find pacifist anarchism to be a ludicrous position, and that is what inspired my critique. I am just as critical, if not more, of collectivism which includes all forms of totalitarian governmental systems, and their baby brothers.
I'm fine with libertarianism. I'm more conservative than libertarian myself, but that's me.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Well. The libertarian ethic is to uphold Natural Human Rights at all costs, so this is where Molyneux gets his position. If you want a good example of this, read the book "Libertarian Ethics" by Murray Rothbard. Pacifism isn't exactly the same. Libertarians recognize the right to self defense. VIolent force is not prohibited. It is just limited to self defense and systems of justice (So, if you murder someone, it is justified to use violent force against you, or in self defense)
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
Here is where your own views are in conflict - (paraphrased) The use of violence is limited to self defense and systems of justice. Then you cite an example where violence is out of place - Illegal drug trade. Wait... Let me highlight a word here for you *ILLEGAL* drug trade...
...
Did it hit you yet? Systems of justice - It encompasses the most noble aspect of government. Justice. However, to have justice one must be willing to enforce it.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
All that said, Libertarianism doesn't reflect the kind of pacifism that Molyneux seems to advocate. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems Molyneux pretty openly supports pacifist anarchy. Since you seem to support Libertarianism I would expect you to have conflicts with his point of view, and not be supporting such self destructive views especially to the kind of criticism that I have for him.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Hmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is a variety of opinions amongst libertarian thinkers. Some are more of the "minarchist" mindset and some of the "anarchist". Most of Stefan's arguments can be traced to libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. I stress that libertarianism is more of a system of ethics than a system of administration. What binds libertarians together is the non-aggression principle. Other than that, it's open to interpretation.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
Libertarian principles are not compatible with anarchy, whether it is violent anarchy or pacifist anarchy. Libertarianism requires government (albeit, stressing minimum government). Anarchy is the lack of government. This puts Libertarianism at odds with anarchy, as any form of government is necessarily at odds with anarchy. There certainly are different schools of thought within the scope of Libertarianism, but they all require government.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Some do, and some don't. Libertarianism is just merely a syf natural rights. It can contain government, or any other system that could acomplish the task. There are a lot of arguments as to what a libertarian system would look like. At any rate, a libertarian government would have to have free competition in money, no income taxation whatsoever, and some way would have to be concocted to keep the government totally constitutional in perpetuity.
terramortim 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous I'd be curious to see a solution for how we could keep a constitution in place. They no doubt tried with the US constitution, by including the checks and balances, but that didn't quite work as well as it should have. I wouldn't quite say anarchy and libertarianism are at odds. They're two different things, but anarchy could be as libertarian as a constitutional government with natural rights at the center. It's just a matter of administration. I'm not really sure of the answer
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
The only way to keep a Republic "free", such as the United States as described by the Constitution, is "eternal vigilance". That is the price of freedom. Always staying on top of who is elected and what they will vote for. Paying attention to what they vote. Demanding limitations to government power through the vote.
The pitfall in a free society will always be resisting the temptation to put into power those that guarantee prosperity in exchange for power.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
Comment removed
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous I suggest reading the book "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N Rothbard if you want to know where Stefen is coming from. It will, at least, give you a broad philosophical groundwork to understand Molyneux's position. As a libertarian, I'm not so concerned as to others' points of view. I am only concerned with violations to my rights. If someone wants to believe in the flying spaghetti monster without violating my rights, I am all in favor. . . if that answers your question.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
I'm familiar with the tenets of Rothbard (familiar enough). Rothbard isn't the subject here though. I'm curious as to what exact stated beliefs Molyneux has and says that you believe make him a target of the establishment. I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm simply trying to qualify your fears because I honestly don't see anything that should cause legitimate concern. He's either advocating specific ideas that qualify a threat or he isn't.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Molyneux is mostly Rothbardian in his solutions (Randian when it comes to religion). Well. . . his idea of stateless society would be the ultimate threat to the establishment. I'm not quite convinced in a totally stateless private society, myself. I'm not convinced of any system in totality. A Republic could work as long as people pay attention and demand their rights. . . whether that's possible or not, I'm not sure.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
"Molyneux is mostly Rothbardian in his solutions (Randian when it comes to religion)." - terramortim
Rothbard was more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Rothbard also advocates "self-ownership". If you were a Rothbardian you'd understand communism's incompatibility. Randian is not a religion or a religious outlook. Randian is philosophical and advocates atheism. Therefore, it is false to claim him as "Randian" instead of atheist in terms of his religious outlook or lack thereof.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous I've read almost everything Rothbard has written. I'm a huge fan. I'm not quite through "concieved in liberty" as it's a literal monster of a book series, but I'm pretty well read on Rothbard.
terramortim 1 year ago
Typo: Pacifist Anarchy is a libertarian system, but libertarianism isn't pacifist anarchy. Even a communist system, if it was a totally voluntary community that didn't impose itself on anyone outside of it could be "libertarian" in that the parties involved agree to be bound by such a system (thus no rights are infringed).
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
Anarchy and libertarianism are not compatible. Anarchy is the lack of government. Libertarianism requires government. The tenets of communism don't allow for dissent. How is a system that requires people to "voluntarily" give up all rights to property compatible with libertarianism.
You're just flat out wrong. It's becoming apparent that you don't understand libertarianism yourself.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous But then . .. the old misconcenption of "government" vs. "a state". They aren't the same thing. You can have a government without a state. From what I've heard of Molyneux he still advocates a government. . . just a free competition private government (private insurance/protection agencies contracting with willing people), rather than a compulsury one based on monopoly.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
Molyneux is correctly described as a pacifist anarchist. I have seen nothing from him that would indicate otherwise. Following Rothbardian ideas or Randian ideas or naming any other form of ideas as his inspiration makes no difference. What HE advocates is accurately summarized as pacifist anarchism. It existed before him, and whatever the path that led him to it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is what he advocates.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Read Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty", and you can see a major influence on Moleneux. Regardles, it's a fantastic book that I'd recomend to anyone.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
The majority of registered "Libertarians" are right-leaning libertarians. When the party was formed Rothbard started publishing books on libertarian ideas. He was a left leaning "libertarian". The left leaning group of libertarians is essentially anarchist in nature, while the right believes in government for self defense, the protection of individual property rights, and law enforcement. Many academics seem to discard left leaning "libertarians" as being libertarian.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
I'm inclined to do so myself. The concept of anarchy was well defined before the term libertarianism came about and it seems to me that because they shared some basic principles leaders among intellectual anarchists attached themselves to the libertarian movement. Since the majority of the first libertarians came from "classic liberal" or "modern American conservative" groups dissatisfied with big government, I think it's safe to say that's the core of the movement.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Your thoughts are very well reasoned, but I'd suggest that if you go back to P.J. Proudhon, who was the main inspiration to the American Josiah Warren, who was himself the mentor to the Incredibly important works of Mr. Benjamin R. Tucker, who was arguably the seminal figure in the so-described "leftist" persuasion of the philosophical Anarchist tradition. IMO, I've always posed the theory that Libertarianism is a right-wing reinvention, who w/o fail, refuse to address economics
AnomicDeadDisciple 10 months ago
@terramortim
Sorry about that... that last post (I'm familiar with the tenets... specific ideas that qualify a threat or he isn't) was a mixture of responses to two people at once - You and batfly. Just ignore it (for whatever reason it isn't giving me the option to remove the post yet.).
Anyway, I've been reading enough over the last two days to give me the information I needed. I'm familiar enough now to make a call. Molyneux advocates pacifist anarchy, not Libertarianism.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous Pacifist anarchy is a libertarian system, but libertarianism isn't pacific anarchy. Libertarianism isn't a system but an overall philosophy. As for what system would administrate libertarianism, the debate is far from reaching a consensus. I don't think it really matters in the long run. The important thing is natural rights and non-violence.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim
You use the terms "Natural rights" and "non-violence" to describe libertarianism. To say that's an oversimplification is a drastic understatement. But let's say terramortism advocates those things as a belief system. What are natural rights? Define them. Who defines what natural rights are? Once those rights are "established" who will enforce them?
"Non-violence" is pacifism. It's the definition of pacifism. You keep advocating and retracting it like a yo-yo.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous I don't get where you're coming from. Almost all libertarian literature is faily consistent with both Rothbard and Molyneux, and both descrbe themselves as libertarians. I think you're just playing with semantic arguments here. Read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, Chapter one for a good explanation of "natural rights". It's probably explained there better than I could.
terramortim 1 year ago
@terramortim There is no other way to remain "free" and yet have government. The people must either forgo the "free" meal, or accept tyranny. For generations the people of the U.S. have accepted bits and pieces of the "free" meal in exchange for their liberty. That's why the U.S. looks the way it does today. It is a process that started right from the very beginning. The system needs to be reset. Anarchy and totalitarianism are not options.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@terramortim
So again, when it's a matter of enforcing common laws (more or less) between nations it does not conflict with libertarian views to use violence as it is a matter of being part of a justice role between nations. At least by the logic of libertarian ethics.
However, I am aware that Libertarians in general support "Self Defense Only" as a foreign policy altogether and it is a failing on their part in my humble opinion.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@willdrake1
Ayn Rand ... It's hard for me to rail against her as she has become the symbol of the value of the individual as if no one before her had ever come along advocating the value of individual sovereignty/freedom. Railing against her has become synonymous with advocating collectivism, which is certainly not my position.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
@Omnicronimous
I don't rail against her, I just see her "philosophy" as being mostly empty and unworkable since it implies the pureness of people: Which is to say, if they do the best for themselves, they will therefore do the best for everyone else. Not true.
True, she wasn't the first nor the last.
I disagree though, the opposite to her "objectivism" isn't collectivism.
Fact: All Isim's and Ist's are useless; we must move beyond them if we are to survive.
willdrake1 1 year ago
Pacifism + no armed friends willing to defend the pacifist = dead pacifist.
Every human has the ability to be violent. It comes with just being alive. It's how you choose to use or not use your capacity for violence that matters. Denying it exists is a recipe for oblivion.
I'm against big government myself, but pacifism is only works for communities protected by those willing to protect the pacifist. No amount of argumentation can change that, no matter how clever you are.
Omnicronimous 1 year ago
Nice. Put on by the free state project.
chaserehn 1 year ago
good video
a4finger 1 year ago
Great vid and then Adam Kokesh comes out of nowhere, awesome.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
this guy is ok, but he actaully believes the feminist bs, women are not oppressed and never were, no had freedom unitl men took it and soon after gave o women. I used to think he was kind smart unil I figure out he was just another sheep!
marcef100m 1 year ago
Comment removed
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
I never look at it the same way; how most use Satan as a figure of "evil" when he was the "good" guy. Satan represents all that is carnal and Jehovah represents that which is generally opposed to that which makes our lives fulfilling.
mrzeroten 1 year ago
typical liberal. now since Iam against liberal views do you respect my decision am i allowed to disagree with you without force against me
ranger082469 1 year ago
@ranger082469 His rule is: Party agrees with party to freedom of thought and according action provided that parties are not affected by force as result. A truth table would prove that this rule is invalid based on survival directives ie. No I am not okay with you killing me - but is generally valid. I believe he uses this as an extinguisher for cognitive error and a soft approach to wearing down people's defenses so they can become more receptive.
mrzeroten 1 year ago
@ranger082469 If you were being comical; funny joke, but I didn't want to talk down to you by prefacing with "are you joking?" I was banging my head against the wall because his audience asked the same fundamental question quite often.
mrzeroten 1 year ago