Does the government really exist?

[stoopidnametag]

does he really believe what he says?

[CymroGoch]

Alpha Centauri exists. Hohoho.

[ados25]

I like most of your videos, but I have to disagree. The government does exist, and it is very real. You declaring that it doesn't really exist proves that you have never been to prison before. That is very real.

[AtheistBelgium]

damn, it's gonna take a lot of time for me to watch ALL these great vids from you LOL

[podrag]

Oh look... my comment got deleted.

[KevZen2000]

Like Gods, governments do not exist, they are force their victims to believe they exist, with deception, violence, lies, propaganda, religion, and so on.

[alistairproductions]

What do you mean exactly by "reality" though. I do know what you are getting at, but still... I think how the world looks has a hell of a lot to do with where our minds are at.

Seperate from that possible difficulty I have with it though, I don't argue with the idea the government shouldn't be taken seriously.

[alistairproductions]

Doesn't a unicorn own everything in America? Oh no... are you...  wait..... :-(

[RafaelEnvoy]

I think you are too quickly dismissing proofs of existence on the basis that only objects can be shown to exist, disregarding the relationships between those objects. You of course are correct to point that abstract concepts such as "a forest" can't be shown to exist physically (i.e. as objects), but that is because concepts as "a forest" do not describe objects, but rather relationships between them; to show their existence requires only the presentation of its components and relation.

[sicktoaster]

...a legitimate means of acquiring ownership. Based on what most people would consider legitimate rules of property rights if you applied these rules to the US government it technically "stole" the property from the British government, the Native Americans, and the Mexicans. And before that the British Windsor Dynasty stole it from the rulers before that and the Mexicans under Santa Anna from the previous regime there and at one point stolen from the Spanish Empire who stole it from the Aztecs.

[Helionaeic]

@sicktoaster damn youtubez... i accidentally clicked vote down, except I agree with you.

Some ppl steal shit some of the time. Government ppl steal shit all of the time.

[sicktoaster]

Granted government is enabled by a "collective belief". If enough people didn't believe in and actively support the government it would cease to exist from nonenforcement. But the fact of the matter is these beliefs which are themselves made of matter because they are based on chemical thought processes impact material human behavior.

Granted I agree it's silly to consider the US government to own everything in America. It has effective control but if it legitimately owns it then "force" is..

[sicktoaster]

OK this is silly.

You're right that government is not a single object you can hold, but it is a term that expresses a material reality whose constituents are real material factors. At even the most basic level of the individual it is based on material factors and they are bound together by the actions of individuals on each other.

[chakirara]

meh this tree thing dissapointed me, i get what your trying to say about the government but trees and forest are names not concepts created to comunicate with each other on matters of land scape and location ect, eg- 'hey bub the deer are it the forest'

bub- 'which forest?'

me-' the forest in the valley' blah blah so on.

[amazingfertilla123]

the government is a bunch of people working together and therefore its the government isnt tangable its an idea but without people it doesnt work but with people it does. the government is people working together for a common good that are orginized. without people working towards a common good u have no government.

[Free4801]

so why does our mind have these thoughts? why were we created to think this way? just to have an imagination to make our material world better for ourselves? or to make it worse?

[RafrR74]

you are a redditor arent you?

[judoFLIPchopCHOPchop]

Moral of the story is.... you don't SEE gravity. But it REALLY DOES exist.

[judoFLIPchopCHOPchop]

Hmm... I think my middle post didn't get posted.

But basically... a family has forces that shove them under the same roof, much like Stefan's "followers" "under the same roof" of Freedomain Radio.

Is there no such thing as followers?

There is no tree, because I call it a flak.

There is no forrest, because there IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TREES.

The connection between people (families, church, & governments) are REAL, because the people SAY there's a connection. The trees don't say shit.

[judoFLIPchopCHOPchop]

Mess w 1 Bible Thumper, you mess with them all. Does a gang exist?

Does God exist? Sure does. How do I know? Science doesn't lie. Big bang, space-time, evolution, "matter/energy can't be created, nor destroyed", the Four Forces, etc.. all point to a Creator... & it's only LOGICALLY possible that there was a First Mover.

How can 1 look at a novel or spaceship or painting or motorized bicycle.. & believe that NOBODY put it together?? Then look at everything in existence, & say it had NO CREATOR?

[judoFLIPchopCHOPchop]

This is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Can't believe it takes 30 minutes to get such a simply retarded point across.

How about? Does the Government exist? Does "governing" exist? Who is doing the governing? Are the actions of this governor, not the government??

Some people are just too dense, because he sets up these straw man arguments for 20+ minutes.

Does a spiritual connection between people really exist?? That's like asking if attraction is real? Are there Forces?

[sal1365]

There is a good and bad people let's say good people need help solving there problems then they go to God and bad people need help to solve there problems and they go to rob a bank and thats a crime so he is saying crime doesn't exist. Crime is in people head it doesn't exist, I think he really needs to call 911 emergency. Can he make a video on "does crime exist?"

[zenowing]

I stumble across stefbot's videos from time to time. They are interesting, he's a great speaker and makes a good quality video.

So, okay, I can burn a leaf. But, isn't a 'leaf' just an idea that we all agree on for a particular formation of cells and stuff, a collection of elements. This kinda' seems like an exercise in goal post moving. Mr. 'Look! I'm one step ahead of you'.

I kinda feel like this falls under:

watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU

[GKDrew89]

As told by wonderful Wikipedia:

Extortion - a criminal offense which occurs when a person obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups.

Sound familiar?

[kittencartman]

problem  is...you don't know, what the reality of those objcects is. do you?

[rjtoten]

LOL, "they would turn these churches into something useful"... that's a good one.

[GabrielKoulikov]

Right concept, wrong description.

Governments exist, the State does not. Same with forests, family, religion, etc. If instead of constantly referring to "X collection of trees" that I own, I call it "forest X" does not mean that my forest doesn't exist-- it's only the shorthand I'm using instead of this particular collection of trees. You could call it subjective, but the collection of trees exist *and* each individual tree in that collection also exists. Same with the rest. (not Platonically)

[GabrielKoulikov]

i.e. Just because X is used as a label *for a set of descriptors* does not mean "that which is described by label X does not exist." It may not exist, but likewise it may exist, just like God may exist (the only example cited that's not a set). This does not violate the scientific method, as science can still investigate how closely label X matches the reality it purports to describe. Indeed, to discount set label X before investigating is what violates the scientific method, not the converse.

[ZamatoElite]

I must admit, your Christian bashing is hilarious. It gets me every time.

[djboony]

fascinating. what is that idea called?

[trevor920]

i need some Li

[ablazeinthesky]

This is basically a 28 minute video telling you that there is no such thing as collective nouns. Pretty damn obvious if you passed 5th grade English. No...you can't touch a herd, a pride, or a gaggle. Just like you can't touch a family, a government, or a religion.

So what?

[obiwan3257]

It means that the authority of government does not exist, and therefore the claim to authority is a lie. It also means that acts of violence committed pursuant to these (false) claims of legitimacy are nothing more than organized crime.

[THAWK3]

I remember when I was a kid,and I was crossing "State" lines I thought the lines were actually on the ground,you know-like in nature.

People need to pay attention to the kids,they usually point out and BLURT out the truth.

[spamsponge]

Stef, this good sermon will not convince anyone outside the "choir". So the anarchist and atheist are simply people AGAINST a given mental concept? Okay, but isn't an anarchist saying "government doesn't exist" almost as silly as an atheist saying that he "HATES God"? A man may live his entire life thinking that there is no god and never have a problem. But the man who lives his life thinking that there is no government will be in for a surprise! (Unless he lives at the bottom of the ocean!)

[thorell9]

I think you missed his point here. If I spend my life believing government exists, I don't pay my taxes, some people that believe government does exist show up at my door to -make- me pay my taxes. These people style themselves as representatives of "the government", but that makes them no more representatives than sticks on a dog's head makes him a reindeer.

[spamsponge]

I understand the point, but I just think this kind of extreme conceptual abstraction does little to win over the layman and little to advance society as a whole towards liberty. This is simply intellectual masturbation for libertarians\anarchists. Playing with word definitions does not stop the reality of those calling themselves the State. SOMEBODY has got their hands in our paychecks, you may label these people whatever you'd like, but "government" works for me, that's all I'm saying.

[thorell9]

I believe that he's trying to unfamiliarize the concept of government so individuals can recognize it as "people doing stuff" (Stef said in another video). I cannot speak to the efficacy of that tactic, though, so you may be right. I do get the feeling that, first and foremost, Stef isn't trying to convince the average viewer, but rather to intellectually arm the regular viewers with the understanding and arguments to do the convincing themselves.

[sams0606]

he talks a whole lot about religion, but not government, he should change the title of this video.

[scubajon88]

the gov is a religion

[sams0606]

hooollllly mother of mary, this video is 28 minutes and 53 seconds, i thought all videos on youtube could only be 10 minutes long.

wowzer

[survivalstuffonline]

I understand the idea of having a concept in your mind(as far as God)etc.or the belief in people's minds. What if these internal beliefs materialized in the external world in such a way that proved what was just thought of as only an "internal" concept was actually real. Not in the way as God appearing in front of you, but in other ways that made u think of that internal belief. Proven externally.

[swingdocta]

trees don't exist. they are just aggregations of plant cells and fibers

[stefbot]

Except those cells and fibers are bound together physically, unlike people...

[podrag]

@stefbot If I tie strings between all the trees in the forest does that makes the forest exist again?

[hellojayo]

seriously! that was THE MOST long winded, long way round, saying the same 1 thing 50 ways, of explaining anything i have ever heard in my life!!

however, i do agree with you

(BTW how come your videos can be 20/30/40 mins long rather than the usual 10?)

[haansgruber]

u.S. Government is trespassing on the Native American Indians soil.

The argument; is as two fleas arguing they own the dog they chose to jump on.

Mickey Mouse is real I can show U.

It's all a belief system. Manufactured, compelled by forced, mandatory, brain pollution. I've been telling people this for years. They can't grasp it. It is outside what they have been convinced all their lives. I say convinced, because it becomes manifest in their minds, and is therefore real, if only to them.

[emphaticapathy]

Concepts exist to the extent that they have real quantifiable effects on material reality.

[stefbot]

Interesting -- can you give me an example? Gravity has an effect on material reality without requiring people to act -- can you think of the concept that does this as well?

[emphaticapathy]

Well, according to the definition of a concept outlined in this video, religion is not 'real'. However, the concept has enormous influence over people and leads them to act in a certain way - building churches, worshipping etc. This in a way validates the concept and makes it real, because it has real observable consequences. Maybe?

[emphaticapathy]

Stop insinuating I am mentally ill!

[richie3622]

One giant, 28-minute non-sequitur.

The concept of god and the concept of government have, as concepts, cognitive definitions.

The definition of god cannot be objectively verified in any way.

The government, as a body and organization, CAN be verified - you can go and FIND and TALK TO people involved in said body.

Courageous attempt, but there's no way this video follows logically.

[stefbot]

A leprechaun also has a cognitive definition, and I am sure you can find people who believe in them... Also, if you actually disprove my logic, you don't have to say I am illogical. If you have to say it, you have probably not achieved your goal, as in this case.

[richie3622]

But you can't show me a leprechaun in person. You *can* show me a government official in person. Difference.

Just like verifying the "reality" tree vs. the "idea" tree.

[richie3622]

And sorry for coming off so strongly at first! I was directed to this video by a kid that kinda riled me up =]

[stefbot]

Can you show me a "government official" without showing me a person? Can you show me a "forest" without any trees? Concepts do not exist.

[richie3622]

I suspect the fallacy of equivocation over your use of "existance".

A "concept" is reliant on its own criteria. Without trees, the concept of a "forest" cannot apply - but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't EXIST - it means it can't *apply itself* to an absence of trees.

Can you show me a monkey without showing me an animal? No. Then I guess monkeys don't exist. See how this inference doesn't follow?

Next you'll try to tell me there are no absolute truths.

[stefbot]

"Monkeys" as a category do not exist - individual animals do. And I completely believe in absolute truth and morals... :) Perhaps a spin through my free audiobook "Universally Preferable Ethics" might be of interest? It's on my web site...

[richie3622]

Hah, well if that's the case, you and I have nothing to dispute in that regard. =]

As per this subject:

Are you implying that a "word" does not exist?

[stefbot]

"Word" in what sense?

[richie3622]

In a conceptual sense ;)

And if it (the concept of a word) doesn't exist, then how can something that doesn't exist be processed in your head? I mean, it doesn't exist. Wouldn't this entire comment be . . . nothing?

[Ometechutli]

@richie3622 "most philosophical problems are really debates about language that arise because of three mistaken assumptions: a. that language is consistent, b. that because a word exists there must exist a ‘thing' that it represents and c. that the things which are represented should in themselves be integral." - Robert Pepperell

[davidiscoolerthanu]

yes it does :)

[VictorPross]

Stepf, here is Paul McKeever who might offer up an argument against the anarchism that is not standard homilies you are familiar with. Take a look. It would be interesting to see your answer.

[calvinbeaulier]

Stefan, I have to say I totally agree with your message. Government is just a social construct and you quite sufficiently (for me at least) demonstrated that. My sole reservation is that, from my POV, you argue that government is not real (in objective reality) and therefore illegitimate. Yet, free markets depend squarely on the concept of property, which is equally "nonexistant" and constructed. However, I do not think you would sanely deny the legitimacy of private property.

[calvinbeaulier]

To the point, I'd argue that constructed concepts do not imply illegitimacy. Property is just, and government is illegimate based on morality (another constructed concept). The coercive violence perpetrated by the state not how we define the state in our minds is what makes it wrong. Eventually if you deconstruct things long enough you aren't left with anything; leading to nihilism. Did I understand your argument correctly or is this my error?

[stefbot]

Well first of all thank you for restoring my somewhat battered faith in the intelligence of youtubers! :) I believe that you are totally right, that the concept of property does not exist either -- but concepts are either valid or invalid, depending upon their logical consistency and conformity to empirical evidence. I do believe that the concept of private property is logically consistent and conforms to evidence, as I talk about in my book on ethics. :)

Thanks again!

[GentleSavage1]

#2

what you call government to be that close. Which is perfectly valid, since people even discern between governmentS of different regions. So, "THE government" exists, but not "government", which is the concept on a higher abstraction level.

Grouping some objects and call that names like "forest" is pretty arbitrary, to me this is not less abstract than government.

You really could have said what you wanted to say in a couple seconds...argh, I want my half hour back lol.

[FordPrefectA]

Agreed, all he had to do was say that a government is an idea/concept (we're not stupid). :P I would be more interested in seeing him explain why this is significant and not just a flame against governments. I mean, everyone can wake up tomorrow and forget any idea and it will 'cease to exist', so what? It's our ability to form concepts that makes us different than animals. Just because he thinks governments are a bad concept doesn't mean all concepts are bad (he thinks anarchism is good).

[threebobs]

I don't mean to sound crass, but you obviously don't subscribe to his podcast. He talks alot about valid and invalid concepts.

[GentleSavage1]

#1

here's the German government: watch?v=PWvJ_TmiQXI

Mow down all these people just like trees, there'd be no government. Verifiable by the fact that until things have been brought back to functioning (if that happens) things supposed to be done by the government aren't done. Also, after an election, there might be a new government that does things somewhat differently that the old government. So "government" is actually dependant on real world entities, if you chose the scope of

[OneRadRudeboy]

barbara streisand hahaha

[actaha]

By this argument, money doesn't exist...so why ask for donations at the end?

[stefbot]

I'm not asking for money. I'm asking for the goods that money can buy.

[actaha]

so even though you say money doesn't exist, you are confident that people will give you goods for it?

[actaha]

so you use money to buy things but still say it doesn't exist?

[actaha]

so you use money to buy things but still say it doesn't exist?

[nasiir07]

you now have explained your dumbness. and now i understand that there is now hope for you...may you be burned in Hell..

[stefbot]

And may you live in the hell of religious hatred...

[actaha]

I thought it was great presentation but respectfully disagree with the premise. A big part of being human is interaction with other humans, formation of societies. We choose to interact with one another in various ways, all of which are ultimately based only on human perception: friendships, marriages, businesses, sports teams, the government, etc.

[actaha]

I won't argue semantics and try to say these things do exist but they are different from unicorns in the following very important way: In choosing (collectively) to believe in them we have empowered them to influence our surroundings in very tangible ways. For example, you charge money for your book and appreciate donations because you recognize that the shared perception of money allows you to trade it for things you couldn't get in exchange for equally ornate pieces of paper and metal.

[stefbot]

You do not *choose* to interact with those who call themselves the 'government.'

[KapitanoUK]

2 kinds of existence:

1) Agglomeration, eg Government as president + congress + civil service + courts etc.

2) Shared belief, eg Government as something we all treat as real.

You mention both, but don't show how dropping (2) would lead to the disappearance of (1).

A slave who disbelieves in slavery is still hurt by the whip.

[stefbot]

I agree - but not by the concept of slavery, since concepts do not exist, any more than 'numbers' in the abstract do.

[Person009]

His whole argument is a contradiction. For us to believe that the government doesn't exist objectively is a group (collective) decision. If we don't agree upon that then it isn't necessarily true, because majority rules.

[stefbot]

Love exists in our mind, and in our nervous systems, not in the world like a rock...

[Person009]

If living beings didn't exist, that rock wouldn't exist.

[LeeGeeGee]

Your mind is part of the world, just as the rock is. What exists in your mind, exists.

[Person009]

Love exists and thats just a collection of emotions. Would he say that love doesn't exist, just each chemical in the brain exists.

[Censeo]

If a crowd doesn't exist in the real world by this reasoning, neither does anything that isn't the absolute smallest pieces building the reality. The human would be as illusive concept as the crowd of humans. Identity of crowd has pieces of human beings... so what? Every object have a structure. We can destroy humans, and we can destroy human crowds without destroying any of the humans. Just blow up the structure by seperating the parts enough. =)

[LimpLoser]

there is no tree..........that is why u fail

[Censeo]

If a forest doesn't exist then so does not the tree. You can saw up a tree in different parts without burning up the parts. The tree is gone but the material of the tree has not disappeared. Same thing if you take a lot of trees close to each other up by their roots and plant them more spread out. No tree got lost, but the forest disappeared.

[Emptybottleofgin]

i understand i think, a majority of what you are saying...i understand that the individual exists and not the collective....i get that we have given this concept the power of our belief...my main issue...is.. simply...the same way democracy is tyranny of the majority...without this concept of gov't to keep in check individuals from using force to dictate others...how would individuals work together for common...ehh maybe im off..

[thmnetwork]

maybe I'm misinterpreting what was said, but aren't some collective fictions worth preserving? isn't the fact the gov't is able to do what it does (or the DRO's, etc) is that there are enough people to allow the fiction to function without material opposition (you can ignore the state, but people are still going to arrest you, the DRO is still going to look out for their client's interests, etc) you may have been saying that at the end, and if you were, sorry for missing it.

[LeeGeeGee]

stefbot is an anarcho-capitalist. He has yet to come to the realization that competition in the use of force is war. Competition is good in the marketplace, as long as it's not competition in violence. If you a society of people competing over who is going to forcibly dominate who, then you will have no market to speak of. stefbot will come to this realization eventually.

[stefbot]

You may have heard of lobbyists...

[LeeGeeGee]

And why are they lobbyists? Because the government's monopoly on force prevents them from using force themselves. So, they have to appeal to the monopoly. If the people are protected by an adequate constitution, violence used in a partial manner is kept to a minimum and there is sufficient predictabilty so that business can be carried out.

[stefbot]

Historically, that's just not true at all. As government grows, so does the number of lobbyists. You should not make up facts.

[LeeGeeGee]

So what if the number of lobbyists grows? What's your point? My point is that lobbyists do not engage in violence. That's because there is a monopoly on force - a state. If there was no monopoly on force, then there would by no lobbyists. There would just be a lot of violence.

[LeeGeeGee]

And, I'm saying that's a good thing. It's better that people turn to lobbying than to use force themselves to try to get their way. If there is a monopoly of force, things are most peacful and the economy can operate with relative stability.

[giggan1]

Part 2

Until all markets in the world are freed, a system such as government can be used to oversee, not 'control' how wealth is being distributed. When the vast majority see diret offense by foreign invasion into the system, they can demand the system closed.

[stefbot]

Your time might have been better spent watching a little more ;)

[giggan1]

I only watched the first 2 mins, for time sake, but here's my take.

Part 1

The gov is the overseer of the infrastructure of the US, which the people make up. If the people decide they don't want to have foreign entities corrupting our system by outsourcing our wealth to other nations, just for it to feed economical destruction overseas, they have a right to say so.

[thielenm]

yes government exists.

[stefbot]

ah, then i stand corrected... :)

[tguns001]

Crap... I need to call 911.

[LeeGeeGee]

I forced myself to sit through the whole dreadful thing. Government is a set of individuals who engage in legislative, judicial, and executive actions. Of course that exsts. A state is a government that taxes to fund this and/or enforces a monopoly or near monopoly on these services. Of course that exists.

[stefbot]

The individuals exist, not the collective - that's just a concept. Sorry you didn't get it bro!

[grantsinmypants]

Its disingenuous to say that he doesnt get it just b/c he doesnt agree with your political views. That this was your videos intention is as obvious as the needless, obvious distinction is points out.

Merely because something is conceptual doesnt mean that its irrelevant to human life. If you want to say that govt is irrelevant to human nature, say it - but dont condescend to your audience by implying that they have psycho-epistemological issues just because they dont agree with Aism.

[tguns001]

Um... LeeGeeGee really doesn't get it. He says that Goverment is a set of individuals... and that state is a government that taxes, blah, blah... so basically state is a set of individuals engaging in actions. The only material thing that exists in the whole equation is "a set of individuals".

I don't see him condescending anyone... And really, I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say because your grammer threw me off.

[grantsinmypants]

Yes, I know what he was saying, thank you. I agree with him. There's just no reason to point it out except to insinuate that government is a meaningless delusion unnecessary to human life.

If he merely wanted to distinguish between material existants and conceptual existants he wouldn't have chosen gov't - he would have just stuck with trees.

[grantsinmypants]

I should clarify that by "he" I mean Stefbot.

[LeeGeeGee]

No, I honestly do get it. I get that Stefbot's video is incoherent. He makes up his own definition of government, making sure first of all that he's defining something that doens't exist, and then concludes that was he's referring to doesn't exist. It's circular reasoning, and it is a non-standard definition of government.

[grantsinmypants]

No, honestly, you don't get it. Stefbot is absolutely correct that gov't doesn't literally exist. It's the result of concepts and agreements within and amongst people. Hes correct to say that that is part of government's definiton. He's just nefarious to use that aspect to imply a moral judgement about a given concept.

[LeeGeeGee]

Absolutely false. One person can be a government. If I stand guard over you with a gun, take your money, and regulate you, I am a government. I exist.

[grantsinmypants]

I agree that the concept government exists, just not in the same way that Stefbot described it.

If you want to ignore the distinction between what exists materially and what exists existentially, that's fine, but it doesn't change that that distinction exists.

[grantsinmypants]

er, I meant to say "...the distinction between what exists materially and what exists ABSTRACTLY..."

[LeeGeeGee]

No kidding. Of course an ideas are not necessarily a representation of what exists outside the mind. That simple point Stefbot went over and over as if we're idiots. Of course that's true. But, when he goes on to say that government does not exist is when he gets incoherent, becuase he is not defining government as it is normally defined. He makes up his own definition.

[stefbot]

Sigh... I don't "make up" a definition, I provide it quite clearly and consistently, this has been proposed from Aristotle forward.

[grantsinmypants]

And what exactly is your definition then? How can something be defined as non-existant? Existence is the most basic requirement of a definition. It's implicit in all definitions.

Your defition doesn't serve to attack an existing misconception known as government, but the very concept of concepts. You're not denying that government exists, but that anything produced by cognition is unreal precisely because it is the product of cognition.

[LeeGeeGee]

You don't get it. Take it to a simpler level. One person can be a government. If I stand over you with a gun and guide you around to regulate you, and force payment from you, then I am a government. I exist. A concept of someone governing a person exists, but so do governments. A government is a person or several persons that are governing other persons. It's as simple as that.

[tguns001]

This wasn't at all a political video until the end when he says that people need to disassemble government. I think YOUR OWN political view is what made you comment so harshly.

Honestly... he can do and condescend any audience or anything he wants. Haven't you seen CaptNawesome's videos? Who are you to say what he can and can't say? YOU must be the government huh? lol.

[grantsinmypants]

...Which brings me to this point. Yes, it is my own political views that made me comment so harshly. So what? Should I disavow or not defend what I know to be true merely b/c I agree w/ it? Should I concede that b/c govt is a concept, conceptualizing is useless in existence?

I'm certainly not suggesting that he has no freedom to say what he says, I'm just saying that if truth and reason are his goals, he should retract them.

[danconia3873]

RP isn't going to deport shit. He's just using the issue to put pressure on the entitlement system.

[andy4009]

This video could have been 28 minutes shorter. All you had to say was, "Government is a concept."

[GabeTheArchAngel]

I know, he is an idiot

[stefbot]

Sure, if you know the answer, but you would not believe how many people find this totally mind-blowing...

[vaiman777]

I'm sorry I can't see the forest for the trees LOL j/k.

[btbking]

I think government is the group things,objects and people that add up to make the government, just like a soccer team, you can't say 1 soccer player is a soccer team, instead we call a soccer team the group of players. President+politics+white house+pentagon+constitution etc etc, are the 'things' that add up to 'make' the government, they are the one's that organize the country to their best method. continued...

[btbking]

they will employ people to keep you safe, they will employ people to clean your streets, people to clean your parks, etc. so basically there is a physical movement or change, of course, they're using your taxes to employ those people but that's another story :)

[stefbot]

Sure, it's a label for the people who'll shoot me if I don't obey them - like the mafia.

[btbking]

You confused me, explain yourself. :|

[stefbot]

If you watch the "intro to philosophy" series, all will become clear... :)

[GabeTheArchAngel]

like a private gang like a DRO

[PeachedJesus]

Does YouTube really exist?

[stefbot]

Sure, it's matter and energy, right?

[EntertainedWatcher]

great video and explanations :D

[stefbot]

Thanks!

[natedagget250]

Hey, your hair also doesn't exist! =) good job. wonderful video

[stefbot]

haha, it does, just... elsewhere... ;)

[grantsinmypants]

Forests exist and are just as real as trees. Have you ever seen a a single-treed forest? Governments exist and are just as real as people. Have you ever seen a man survive without principles to govern it's action?

A tree can exist outside of a forest because it survives automatically but a man can't without anything to govern his actions.

How this applies to a social context is a secondary issue. One dealing with "subjective preferences translated into objective desires through price."

[stefbot]

Excellent - can you show me a picture of a "forest" that doesn't include any trees?

[grantsinmypants]

No, there can't be a forest without trees. What's your point?

Can you show me a man who can exist without using concepts? You can actually - but they still depend on their use in the minds of others. They're called criminals.

But then again, "crime" doesn't exist either since it's conceptual in nature right? Since people are automatically rational, we'll just depend on the full use of the concept of "non-aggression" to govern us.

[Nasikabatrachus]

Stef, I'm a bit confused. You say that if you take the individual units away (people, trees) then the group concept (family, forest) no longer applies, ergo the group concept does not exist. But, if you take a person apart atom by atom, nothing is left either. So help me out here: why do people exist while families do not?

BTW, at 9:20 in the vid--do you have a cat or something?

[stefbot]

"Family" is a concept - take a person apart, the atoms still exist...

[papackar]

Yeah, and "atom" is a concept too. Why do you stop there?

[stefbot]

Because it described actual matter, not just a conceptual aggregation...

[papackar]

You seem to be suggesting that anything which can be treated reductively, or taken apart, does not exist. That would go for atoms as much as for government. Protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.. All of it is conceptual. In the case of matter and energy, we're talking physical theory, which is nothing if not conceptual.

[stefbot]

So you're saying that matter does not exist? I'm aware that atomic theory is a form of metaphor, but that does not mean that matter does not exist. A 'forest' is a concept which relies on the existence of trees.

[papackar]

Actually, no, I'm not myself asserting that anything does or does not exist. That is what your video does, with respect to goverment. I am questioning the line that you draw regarding what does or doesn't "really exist". It does not seem to me to be tenable or consistent.

[papackar]

Markers, pens, trees, etc., are functioning constructs, as much as is the case for numbers. They're inventions, in that they originate in minds, and discoveries, in that they have been selectively retained for being applicable. When you say that physical objects are "real", or "exist in reality", you (and whoever agrees) are simply expressing an unquestioning confidence in the applicability of these concepts. The same would be true for someone who says government is "real".

[Nasikabatrachus]

So you're saying these constructs are arbitrary?

[papackar]

No, I'm saying that the designation "real", or "really exists", is a vote of confidence on the part of the speaker, more than it is anything else.

It isn't the case that science operates by verification. It operates by falsification. Ideas survive or they don't. The culling is what it's about. Not belief. Beliefs such as "reality" are irrelevant to science.

[Daghita]

lol, good to see you've cut backing on scratching.

[velation]

I was thinking about immigration too. I guess I never thought carefully or long enough, else I would have realised all this. Thanks for enlightening me once again. I really have to come up with this stuff on my own, I feel like I'm freeloading off your big brain. :D

[stefbot]

Free free to donate! :)

[SixMillionDollarAcid]

Very interesting...and true!

Will your book ever be available at amazon?

[stefbot]

Well if you buy a copy, that sure would help! ;)

[RussellsParadox]

Your cat-like reflexes and whooshing sounds have persuaded me to buy your book, lol.

[stefbot]

Haha, wind marketing! Let me know what you think..! :)