The next election will propably kill the illusion of Minarchism and Ron Paul, he has good chances to become president and then the world will see, that even he can't handle the state.
What about Switzerland? It's been around for a billion and a half years and hasn't ballooned into a police state. I can't see Sweden invading Iraq either. So what have they done different?
This is the video--from all the ones dealing with politics, but not excluding them--is the one that got me off my So called small government kick. And I'm thankful for it.
If you cant make a distinction between 911 and Iraq your probably not worth the breath to talk to (office workers vs soldiers) (war on lies...16 sanctions ONLY by america..right) just so you know Ron Paul doesnt believe we should have soldiers in anyone of the 260 countries we are in. Im not sure what drugs your on, If you don't believe in Iraq why would you be so against the one man in this county who would have stoped it. People like you enjoy their own misery. Your....apoplectic
Is our Commen life together and leading a good life enough to substain us anymore?
According to the human condition we find oursleves today... the answer to that is, no. Symbolically thats why we hated Bill Clinton, in the background there was this Kennedy-esque meaning that he was suppose to deliver.. just to dind out he was just another over weight southern guy... and our lives didn't mean anything more then they did before... and we're pissed
It soundsas if EvilDetector is lashing out from some childhood experience, Succumbing to the notion that his father figure is also vulnerable to evil, fears death just like the rest of us... He seeks meaning in a man that can not provide... this death of a god is the Absence of what Heidegger coined as the Dasein..
Bottom line is that your solution being anarchy is flawed.
Ron Paul may succumb to power and go against his principles after all he is only human, however based on side by side comparison with everyone else in the field and his record, he is the best man for the job imho.
Realistically, we have to accept the fact that a government of some sort will always exist, the core of the matter is to make sure this government is under as much control as possible.
TheEvilDetector, you are a comment-flooding idiot. Yes, that's a blatant ad hominem attack, and you are deserving of nothing more. I've never seen so much irrational stupidity expressed at once -- outside the halls of congress, that is.
Furthermore, your defeatism isn't appreciated. Struggle for freedom is an eternal struggle, you would be well served to point this out during your tirades.
By the way are you on anyone's payroll, putting in your Anti Ron Paul propaganda?
Not only do you understand that minarchy is a fallacy, you also (in the same video) understand the concept of enabling an addict. You're clarity across so many misunderstood areas is really amazing.
It was a crime to order 9/11, just as it is a crime to kill hundreds of thousands of people in pursuit after the architect of 9/11. This is why Ron Paul would've order a letter of mark and reprisal. Target Bin laden, and only him.
I don't have an answer to these questions, but for me, the best solution seems to be become the monkeywrench. Get inside, do as much damage as you can to the state, and get out before you get corrupted. If all ancap folks did this, there would be a large number of educated monkeywrenches.... and that's much better than the large number of uneducated monkeys we have in politics now.
I agree with most of your points, and they are extremely well argued. However, how do you propose to get rid of the state? Ethics in the real world is fantastic, but if people don't understand them because they are brain-washed by said state, how do we apply these ethics in the real world?
If you think Ron Paul is not ethical and a bad politician I would really like to know who it is that you support? Please let us know who is better than Ron Paul. I happen to think it is the right thing to do to hunt down and kill Osama. You soand to me like you do not like America or Americans?
No, he doesn't like America. He says 10 times per video how he hates governments, so why should the US be exempt?
He said as much that NO ONE can handle power. No one is good enough.
It's more important to kill someone who organized an effort to kill 3,000 people over someone who ordered the deaths of 1.2 million and sent 43% of the Iraqi population into destitution?
You need to read more of Ron Paul's speeches in the house. If all you have listened to is a few sound bites and the debates you have no idea of his views. Ron Paul is the almost the only Politician that has ethics in this country.
Then you should know that as a candidate Dr Paul feels it is not his position to bring up impeachment. It is the leaders of the House and Senate; spineless, useless beings that they are that should bring this up. Believe me, much of this country would cheer for that and happily see them all in jail. And since Dr Paul voted to impeach Clinton for much much less, I am pretty sure he would vote Yes to impeach BushCo.
YESSSSS!!!! I have never seen any of your videos, but what you just said about power corrupting is the reason why I chose anarchism. I couldn't have said it any better than you did... I'm subscribing!!!
I always say if you want to change the ideas of the world, you have to change thought. This takes much time. You help to do this with your program. Thank you for the videos. I enjoyed this one quite a bit.
Osama was directly responsible for the 3000 dead on 9/11. The U.S at war, did not directly kill Iraqi civilians. By taking Saddam out of power the U.S has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq.
And after Iraq's victory over Iran, the USSR supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons used to commit genocide in Southern Iraq. Blah blah blah, the U.S is there and if we stay or leave it's bad. But we are there and never purposely targeted innocent life.
How is minarchism any better off then? Or even liberal democracy? In either case the government can go to being the tool of coercion by underhanded individuals. I respect and understand your points on vigilance and so on, but they are not uniquely problematic to market anarchism.
Is one not allowed to engage in self-defence against individuals desirous of imposing a State on them? And I did not criticize Ron Paul, did I? His campaign aims at reducing State aggression.
I don't see how this will be a problem unless others try force a state on those in market anarchy; in which case, they will be treated as no more than thugs.
No, it will not be thrust on them. Individuals desirous of a State get to keep it - but if they try and foist it on us, they can expect to be met with force.
An outright insurrection by a minority of the population will be crushed instantaneously. Therefore, conversion and strategizing must precede overt use of force. Left-anarchists largely fail because they are perceived as aggressive thugs.
How many times Ron Paul and/or libertarism have to fail before you will start to say. mmh ok. voting and democratic campaign won't change thing maybe I should try something else? Because I want to know when we'll start to stop voting.
VERY much IN YOUR INTEREST. Your profile/homepage on youtube has a WRONG link to Freedomainradio. It mentions an extra "htttp//" three t's .... just look it up. God (fictional or not) knows how many donation you may have lost due to this bad link
Obviously government is bad, and it causes problems. But its also obvious that the more government you have the worse it is. If a total anarchist state cannot be achieved (and as much as i wish that wasnt true its a sad american reality) then the next best thing is a SMALLER government.
Im an anarcho capitalist, but i think a spectrum exists. On one side you have complete government control, and on the other side you have anarcho capitalism.
The closer things are to anarcho capitalism the better. So i think abandoning something that brings us in the direction of anarcho capitalism for something that takes us in the opposite direction is just counter productive.
What you are saying is true GWB should be put to death for war crimes along with Bin Laden. I however do not think our society could take that much truth. Our whole civilization is built upon a foundation of lies and if to much truth comes out at once it would destroy this country.
One of your best videos yet! Personally, I think it is a simplification of what you are talking about as someone else stated. But, it's my opinion that if people were keeping up to date on the subject they would know what is relevant and why you simplify the subject.
You are simplifying (as in most of the talks you do). Are you saying that it's not relevant at all how and why any number of people dies? Or are you ignoring this on purpose?
I think since the war was illegal, then Bush knew people would die. He was willing to go along with that as long as oil could be recovered, which seems to be the only real purpose -as the mission statement has changed maybe 4 times since the start?. Either the administration changes its mind every few months, or the true purpose is hidden. Iraq had no real link to terrorists, as the 9/11 commission stated. So the how and why seem pretty straightforward and immoral in my view
The next election will propably kill the illusion of Minarchism and Ron Paul, he has good chances to become president and then the world will see, that even he can't handle the state.
Bastii235 5 months ago
Minarchists are Boromir.
secrets0stolen 1 year ago
I liked the lighting in this one.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
What about Switzerland? It's been around for a billion and a half years and hasn't ballooned into a police state. I can't see Sweden invading Iraq either. So what have they done different?
GrayBlood1331 2 years ago
if we didn't pay income taxes, would the infrastructure of the nation crumble?
emonerd826 2 years ago
Your income taxes pay the interest on the national debt, they have nothing to do with infrastructure...
stefbot 2 years ago 4
This is the video--from all the ones dealing with politics, but not excluding them--is the one that got me off my So called small government kick. And I'm thankful for it.
Victorprossartcom 3 years ago
You sound like a British guy who is trying to talk with an American accent.
otonanoC 3 years ago
well, he is british. . . living in Canada
greyced 3 years ago
If you cant make a distinction between 911 and Iraq your probably not worth the breath to talk to (office workers vs soldiers) (war on lies...16 sanctions ONLY by america..right) just so you know Ron Paul doesnt believe we should have soldiers in anyone of the 260 countries we are in. Im not sure what drugs your on, If you don't believe in Iraq why would you be so against the one man in this county who would have stoped it. People like you enjoy their own misery. Your....apoplectic
nilesriver2 3 years ago
Nice.
DemianThomas 4 years ago
From the movie the big chill
Is our Commen life together and leading a good life enough to substain us anymore?
According to the human condition we find oursleves today... the answer to that is, no. Symbolically thats why we hated Bill Clinton, in the background there was this Kennedy-esque meaning that he was suppose to deliver.. just to dind out he was just another over weight southern guy... and our lives didn't mean anything more then they did before... and we're pissed
Explitiv3 4 years ago
It soundsas if EvilDetector is lashing out from some childhood experience, Succumbing to the notion that his father figure is also vulnerable to evil, fears death just like the rest of us... He seeks meaning in a man that can not provide... this death of a god is the Absence of what Heidegger coined as the Dasein..
Explitiv3 4 years ago
what about George Washington? He who would not let himself be King.
lrn2wlk4life 4 years ago
Your solution implies outright anarchy, I am sorry to tell you but not only is that simply not viable but it will be very short lived.
Without government initially, people will in short order form governments to maintain a cohesive and functional society.
The struggle is to keep government at a manageable and appropriate size conducive to liberty in the form of individual rights.
You correctly point out the WHAT happens, and as such you implicitly accept the need to MANAGE this.
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
Bottom line is that your solution being anarchy is flawed.
Ron Paul may succumb to power and go against his principles after all he is only human, however based on side by side comparison with everyone else in the field and his record, he is the best man for the job imho.
Realistically, we have to accept the fact that a government of some sort will always exist, the core of the matter is to make sure this government is under as much control as possible.
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
Utopian anarchy based rantings will not advance the cause of human liberty.
Anarchy CANNOT work on this planet because it will require the law of the jungle for the whole planet. LOL
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
Anarchy = 6 billion individual sovereign states all drunk on their power stemming from unlimited ability to do what they want.
The only person who is thoroughly deluded is you my friend.
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
Going to let your kids play outside your house, when there are no rules on society? LOL
Feel safe walking around? LOL
What you say? There are rules now?
Who enforces the rules?
enter the circular self-defeating logic...
LOLLLL
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
There are many rational solutions to your questions, there is really no need for such hysteria - have a listen to the first few of my podcasts... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
TheEvilDetector, you are a comment-flooding idiot. Yes, that's a blatant ad hominem attack, and you are deserving of nothing more. I've never seen so much irrational stupidity expressed at once -- outside the halls of congress, that is.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
Also, I do not like your straw man "Prove me wrong". You can't be proven wrong on what you say. However that ISN'T the point.
Congratulations, on trying, but as I said, no cigar.
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
BRILLIANT.
1. You want Ron Paul to claim bush is a criminal and needs to be prosecuted in the Hague, which will sink Ron Paul's campaign in an instant.
OR
2. You get people thinking that G.Bush isn't that bad since the man of principle of Ron Paul is not asking for him to be prosecuted at the Hague.
OR
3. Ron Paul is made to look like a hypocrite.
Nice try, no cigar.
Although its nice to see sophistication in attempts to subvert ron paul's message.
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
Furthermore, your defeatism isn't appreciated. Struggle for freedom is an eternal struggle, you would be well served to point this out during your tirades.
By the way are you on anyone's payroll, putting in your Anti Ron Paul propaganda?
TheEvilDetector 4 years ago
George Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq. He was carrying out a UN resolution.
geraldlee81 4 years ago
Not only do you understand that minarchy is a fallacy, you also (in the same video) understand the concept of enabling an addict. You're clarity across so many misunderstood areas is really amazing.
BrightAnarchist 4 years ago 3
Thanks so much! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I think you're one of the few people on the planet that has a clue about what's going on. Genius.
BrightAnarchist 4 years ago
WTF
bombing killed half a million children in iraq?
wasn't it the UN sanctions?
rellaleo 4 years ago
How were the sanctions enforced?
stefbot 4 years ago
It was a crime to order 9/11, just as it is a crime to kill hundreds of thousands of people in pursuit after the architect of 9/11. This is why Ron Paul would've order a letter of mark and reprisal. Target Bin laden, and only him.
aravoth 4 years ago
Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
stefbot 4 years ago
I don't have an answer to these questions, but for me, the best solution seems to be become the monkeywrench. Get inside, do as much damage as you can to the state, and get out before you get corrupted. If all ancap folks did this, there would be a large number of educated monkeywrenches.... and that's much better than the large number of uneducated monkeys we have in politics now.
nexalacer 4 years ago
Sabotaging the state is a good idea. ;)
Elhan2005 4 years ago 2
Forget the state.
Start with your family.
stefbot 4 years ago
I agree with most of your points, and they are extremely well argued. However, how do you propose to get rid of the state? Ethics in the real world is fantastic, but if people don't understand them because they are brain-washed by said state, how do we apply these ethics in the real world?
nexalacer 4 years ago
I do have a solution, it's outlined in my podcasts... And you can start it today! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
Excellent questions. Where are we? Think many feel scared, isolated and alone. Mostly due to their own ignorance.
noxtwilight 4 years ago
If you think Ron Paul is not ethical and a bad politician I would really like to know who it is that you support? Please let us know who is better than Ron Paul. I happen to think it is the right thing to do to hunt down and kill Osama. You soand to me like you do not like America or Americans?
silverisking2 4 years ago
No, he doesn't like America. He says 10 times per video how he hates governments, so why should the US be exempt?
He said as much that NO ONE can handle power. No one is good enough.
It's more important to kill someone who organized an effort to kill 3,000 people over someone who ordered the deaths of 1.2 million and sent 43% of the Iraqi population into destitution?
sonata1992 4 years ago
You need to read more of Ron Paul's speeches in the house. If all you have listened to is a few sound bites and the debates you have no idea of his views. Ron Paul is the almost the only Politician that has ethics in this country.
noxtwilight 4 years ago
I've read and seen plenty of his speeches - and Bush's and Reagan's, and Goldwater's etc etc etc...
stefbot 4 years ago
Then you should know that as a candidate Dr Paul feels it is not his position to bring up impeachment. It is the leaders of the House and Senate; spineless, useless beings that they are that should bring this up. Believe me, much of this country would cheer for that and happily see them all in jail. And since Dr Paul voted to impeach Clinton for much much less, I am pretty sure he would vote Yes to impeach BushCo.
noxtwilight 4 years ago
Great great great great great great great great great video, Stef.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
YESSSSS!!!! I have never seen any of your videos, but what you just said about power corrupting is the reason why I chose anarchism. I couldn't have said it any better than you did... I'm subscribing!!!
thinkNOW07 4 years ago
Check out the daily podcasts, too.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
I always say if you want to change the ideas of the world, you have to change thought. This takes much time. You help to do this with your program. Thank you for the videos. I enjoyed this one quite a bit.
ParabolaStrychnine 4 years ago
Osama was directly responsible for the 3000 dead on 9/11. The U.S at war, did not directly kill Iraqi civilians. By taking Saddam out of power the U.S has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq.
rustEshakelford 4 years ago
The US put Saddam into power, and armed him against Iran.
stefbot 4 years ago
And after Iraq's victory over Iran, the USSR supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons used to commit genocide in Southern Iraq. Blah blah blah, the U.S is there and if we stay or leave it's bad. But we are there and never purposely targeted innocent life.
rustEshakelford 4 years ago
How do you know?
stefbot 4 years ago
Where has it taken him out of power? He is as radicalized as ever.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Saved hundreds of thousands of lives by murdering a million people? HUH?
sonata1992 4 years ago 3
wrong.
nightpotato 4 years ago
How is minarchism any better off then? Or even liberal democracy? In either case the government can go to being the tool of coercion by underhanded individuals. I respect and understand your points on vigilance and so on, but they are not uniquely problematic to market anarchism.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Is one not allowed to engage in self-defence against individuals desirous of imposing a State on them? And I did not criticize Ron Paul, did I? His campaign aims at reducing State aggression.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Perhaps you're not reading my posts carefully enough - I said force is justified against the State, not that it is the best measure.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I don't see how this will be a problem unless others try force a state on those in market anarchy; in which case, they will be treated as no more than thugs.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
No, it will not be thrust on them. Individuals desirous of a State get to keep it - but if they try and foist it on us, they can expect to be met with force.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
An outright insurrection by a minority of the population will be crushed instantaneously. Therefore, conversion and strategizing must precede overt use of force. Left-anarchists largely fail because they are perceived as aggressive thugs.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
How many times Ron Paul and/or libertarism have to fail before you will start to say. mmh ok. voting and democratic campaign won't change thing maybe I should try something else? Because I want to know when we'll start to stop voting.
neutrinoide 4 years ago 2
Force against government is in self-defence, hence not aggression.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
So you're just saying some people might move to a minarchist state? Erm, so what?
Elhan2005 4 years ago
VERY much IN YOUR INTEREST. Your profile/homepage on youtube has a WRONG link to Freedomainradio. It mentions an extra "htttp//" three t's .... just look it up. God (fictional or not) knows how many donation you may have lost due to this bad link
sidewaysdragon 4 years ago
"The character of an institution, no less than of an individual, is revealed through actions, not words." -Wendy McElroy
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Fantastic video Stefan, and I think enabling is closely related, if not complete altruism.
IItothe222345helomot 4 years ago
I <3 Stefan Molyneux!
AESTHETE24 4 years ago
Great job stef, keep it up!
Burnaby1 4 years ago 2
Obviously this smaller government doesnt last but it allows for technological, societal, and capitalistic growth. That growth benefits humanity.
Given three options of big gov temp small gov and no gov i choose no gov. But given two options of big gov and temp small gov i choose temp small.
cjet79 4 years ago
Obviously government is bad, and it causes problems. But its also obvious that the more government you have the worse it is. If a total anarchist state cannot be achieved (and as much as i wish that wasnt true its a sad american reality) then the next best thing is a SMALLER government.
cjet79 4 years ago
It can be achieved if enough people believe it can. You are perpetuating the state when you say it must exist to some degree.
I don't believe in eliminating government either, but my version small government is self-government, which is anarcho-capitalism ;)
esfisher 4 years ago
Some anarcho-capitalists don't even label themselves that. They call themselves "polycentric minarchists". Makes me laugh. :P
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Im an anarcho capitalist, but i think a spectrum exists. On one side you have complete government control, and on the other side you have anarcho capitalism.
The closer things are to anarcho capitalism the better. So i think abandoning something that brings us in the direction of anarcho capitalism for something that takes us in the opposite direction is just counter productive.
cjet79 4 years ago
just curious, do you vote?
sheepwshotguns 4 years ago
My friend, I enjoy your vids. Even though, i´m also a philosophy geek", I would ejoy it even more if you cut down the time, not the content though.
murkertrerokolomerto 4 years ago
I think you've powerfully conveyed the lunacy of the whole situation in this video. Very convincingly argued.
velation 4 years ago
What you are saying is true GWB should be put to death for war crimes along with Bin Laden. I however do not think our society could take that much truth. Our whole civilization is built upon a foundation of lies and if to much truth comes out at once it would destroy this country.
willyswear 4 years ago
Thanks for the comment, but you're completely wrong! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
One of your best videos yet! Personally, I think it is a simplification of what you are talking about as someone else stated. But, it's my opinion that if people were keeping up to date on the subject they would know what is relevant and why you simplify the subject.
Daghita 4 years ago
great video stef, i especially love the facial expressions.
undefinedego 4 years ago
You are simplifying (as in most of the talks you do). Are you saying that it's not relevant at all how and why any number of people dies? Or are you ignoring this on purpose?
marjan15 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell me more! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I hope one day, someone will just try to prove him wrong for a change and stop say baseless opinions.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
I think since the war was illegal, then Bush knew people would die. He was willing to go along with that as long as oil could be recovered, which seems to be the only real purpose -as the mission statement has changed maybe 4 times since the start?. Either the administration changes its mind every few months, or the true purpose is hidden. Iraq had no real link to terrorists, as the 9/11 commission stated. So the how and why seem pretty straightforward and immoral in my view
DoctorFist 4 years ago
(response to marjan15)
DoctorFist 4 years ago