Good points about travel and customs and money restricting travel. Why can people not freely travel to other countries? Capitalism that is why, mainly privative companies(NOT the people) OWN those air-lines.
Libertarian/anarcho/voluntarists? lol WTF you call it is essentially fascism dressed up as freedom. These people are ultimate capitalists who desire a cut-throat (not society)"something", where life if like a pepetual assault. YOUR freedom can result and does result in detriment to others, understand that
you advance a fictional theory lossely resembling the hypothetical "state of nature". People cannot assert individial choice to that degree. Even in highest final phase Communist society things such as assaults will likely occur and be dealt with by the collective the same way they have been for thousands of years throughout history before capitalism. Your completely non-coercive libertarian fantasy is unattainable.
Lenin discussed higher phase Communism in "The State &Revolution" (1918)
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY State capitalism isn't much better, and communist states just as bad as those you're responding to. You both define all good in terms of economic good. Protection of the individual against both other individuals and corporate entities is the primary purpose of government, and government should be run democratically, by the will of the people. The dictatorship of the proletariat has not been and will not be successful.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Simple: Russia always had manpower and resources. The Communists did nothing that the Czars wouldn't have. The Industrialization and arming of russia would have happened no matter who was in control.
If the Czars had cracked with the ruthless efficiency of Stalin, the result would have been the same.
@QuietReckoning 'The Communists did nothing that the Czars wouldn't have. The Industrialization and arming of russia would have happened no matter who was in control.'
That sentence completely and utterly false. The people of Russia lived under the brutal repression of the Tzars for about 400 years. This was the whole idea behind the Bolshevik 1917 Revolution. Also, Lenin's eldest brother was killed for plotting to assassinate the tsar (Czar)
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Stalinism was equally brutal to the czars, but far more efficient. There's no reason to think that one autocrat would be different from another, except that less people starved under Stalin. If I had to choose whether to live under Stalinism or the Czars, I'd definitely choose Stalin, but I'd prefer neither. Was Stalin better than the Czars? Probably. That doesn't mean either were good. Lenin's brother is irrelevant. The point is that they were both brutal.
@QuietReckoning No, Stalin murdered TENS of millions of people, the Czars all put together murdered only a small part of that.
Also, the Czars, while brutal, had restraint with their tyranny. Stalin was a maniac and had no such restraint on tyranny. Everything bad about the czars was magnified with Stalin. Virtually any history book will list him in the top 5 worst dictators of all time.
Stealing even if it seems harmless is still theft. Pimps abuse women's rights. As for taxes, if everyone just didn't pay then we would have REAL anarchy and not libertarianism. Wouldn't you rather change law through intelligent debate and legislation?
You can keep order by simply voting for anyone who's not a Republican or Democrat. Both of those parties are paid in full from the time they declare they're running. Of course that's not always true on the state level.
Oh god, I can't stand quote style rhetoric. Oh and yeah, almost no prostitution is "consensual". Drugs, underage rape, mental brainwashing and control, and blackmail have contributed to that.
Good video. But let's not forget that personal sovereignty can't exhist without personal bloodshed. I don't doubt the idea, but I do however doubt The Peoples willingness to give up the illusion of comfort and security for what could be described as true freedom....I supose most would need to be forced out of their comfort zone in order to see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
The problem arises that in order for this to achieve anything enough people have to start doing it virtually simultaneously, in order to overwhelm the safe guards against such an event. If everyone started "opting out" then, yeah, this might work. The problem is getting the people to do it - too many people are comforted by the state to oppose it any way but symbolically.
This whole approach reminds me of CrimethInc - anarchism without the organization or thought. In short, rebellion.
@ArandurKing909 In Germany where I live Prostition is legal. Most of the women I'ev seen are drug addicts. For the most part the women are working in the sex industry because they have been given no other opportunities to make money. Thousand of women are trafficed into German illegally . Many of these women are subject to violence. If you want to believe that its just a career move and women empowering themselves and all theat post-feminist clap trap you can.
The system can't be broken just by victimless crime, tho I do agree these help. What we need to do is form a political majority while we still have a republic. Now is the time to do this and all we need to do to get that majority is dump all the contraversial ideologies the main parties have invented and embraced to keep us apart. Most libertarians and anarchist still cling to tightly to right/leftist dogmas to make this happen.
@madscirat the state could be dismantled if the majority of the population refused to just pay taxes. Imagine it in a local level. Town by town, township by township, city by city, county by county etc. The state could never handle the overwhelming arrests, not enough resources for even a fraction of them. The key to dismantling power is non-violent non-cooperation.
And a violent argument erupts between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-capitalists. As noses are bloodied and red and black and yellow and black banners are torn, members of the Norwegian Beer Unity Party and the Pensioners Party, as well as Social Security recipients cheer them on just to see a little blood.
"And a violent argument erupts between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-capitalists."
To whom were you referring? I can't be easily pidgeonholed, though I suppose market anarchist, individualist anarchist, rational anarchist, agorist, mutualist, Rothbardian, Konkinite, Tuckerite, free marketeer, anti-capitalist, capitalist, and socialist are all appropriate labels, to a degree. I prefer to just refer to myself as an "anarchist", and beyond that I let my ideas speak for themselves.
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to anyone, but I was referring to two main "sides" (as if there were clearly defined sides in this case - there aren't) of adherents to anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. In any case, I threw in the Norwegian Beer Party and the pensioners to lighten the mood.
I don't know why you had to tag and drag Kropotkin into this. Kropotkin doesn't seem much like a libertarian in that he had this thing for mutual aid and could actually be considered an communist-anarchist. I think that when people consider communism and anarchism polar opposites, they forget that socialism (worker control of means of production) was supposed to lead to communism (political and economic democracy) to anarchism (stateless society).
"Kropotkin doesn't seem much like a libertarian in that he had this thing for mutual aid"
You mean just like individualist and collectivist anarchists? Communist anarchists don't have the market cornered on mutual aid; it's common to every strain of anarchism, including Rothbardians.
Yes! FREEDOM. You have some correct thoughts here. Millions are already doing just what you say, dropping out. But that isn't stopping it... because they just print more $ out of thin air and affect the middle class. Study Ron Paul's ideas. Study the Constitution. Pray to the maker of THE REAL LAW, the giver of RIGHTS. Duty is ours, results are God's.
Okay, Im an anarchist and I would be pissed if someone was cheating on their taxes, just because that increases government burden on other people. You can't revolt against government without organization, it won't get anything done.
2nd, downloading music illegally is something that anarcho-capitalists are against, why did you change your mind on this issue?
You get pissed off when a slave tries to do as little work for the master as possible, on the excuse that it increases the burden of the other slaves, and you call yourself an anarchist?
As for "illegally" downloading music, some vulgar libertarians and most conservative faux libertarians are against it, but their opposition is a clear deviation from Rothbardian "anarcho-capitalism"; Rothbardian property theory is based on Lockean property theory; it's incompatible with "intellectual property".
I was in a bad mood when I posted that. Pissed just wasn't the right word. What is logical is that it won't get anything done. I'll use your analogy. If one slave just stops working, either the master ignores it or punishes him/her. But what happens if all the slaves cooperate and either stop working or revolt?
Im not saying individual rebelion is a bad thing, Im just saying that its ineffective.
"Im not saying individual rebelion is a bad thing, Im just saying that its ineffective."
I agree, but it has to start somewhere, and at least for the slaves who do resist the master's demands, they reclaim their freedom to the extent that they resist. Even if it doesn't bring an end to the institution, it does limit to an extent the damage it does to them personally, and weakens the master, making it easier for others to also resist.
oh of course it wouldn't be illegal. It just would be pointless since all it takes is for one person to buy it and then share it with tons of people. IF it were feasible, it would be through renting, not through outright selling. Like a DVD could be "rented" but for life with a piece of paper that has the "right to view" and would be like a contract or lease that would say that one condition of renting the thing for life would be to not make any copies and not distribute it.
Freedom is, and will always be free. It's those who submit who find a cost in it and those who dominate will always exploit them.
Imona be my poor white trash ass driven around in a 02 BMW and suckin up government funds to go to school via pell grant. AND I AIN'T GONNA WORK FOR IT!!
I'm fuckin the system in my own way.And it's a horny little bitch :D
Rock on For Freedom! but you have to be careful when you voilate the man's bs laws, they will use this against you, they will use the system against you, much better to can the system first, this is what they fear most that you get involved and change it for real. Abolish the IRS first if you want to not pay, this is what the zoo keepers fear, study the gobal elite and you will understand. Abolish the FED reserve as well and replace with competeting currency, the gobal elite fear this most:-)
That's putting the cart before the horse. Anarchy is actually the first crucial step to shrinking government. It's not the nature of government to get smaller. The only way to do it is to oppose it and withdraw your support as much as possible which includes not perpetuating the illusions they use to make us feel like we have control, like elections. We each need to be a wrench in the machine instead of a cog.
OK, point out to me the specific cases historically where a significant number of anarchists spoke out against government, refused to pay taxes or otherwise support it, and refused to obey to the point of going to jail rather than complying and then failed. I'd like to research them. Maybe I can learn from what they did wrong.
What's a "significant number?" Anyway I'm not sure if I can give you an answer at all. Even in cases where nonviolent resistance toppled a gov't, it was only replaced by an equally powerful or more powerful state (e.g. India).
I must correct my earlier statement. Gov't can be made smaller by nonviolent means, but only when there is some palatable threat of violence, such as when Jackson ended the central bank. That is, where violence will not do, intimidation is the only substitute.
There's precedent for incredible success for civil disobedience, but it hasn't been tried on a large scale along with a consistent anarchist philosophy. I see it as a type of evolution. It may still not work perfectly, but maybe it will work better and we can build on it.
Do you approve of the violent defense of one's life? One's property?
As to withholding taxes, consider the fact that Feds can and will print money to compensate for whatever you don't hand over. Withholding taxes does nothing but irritate tax collectors.
They can print as much fun money as they want, but when it comes down to it, it is resources and labor that are the real means of power. I think that finding ways to deprive the system of resources and labor will be a valuable tactic, whatever your overall strategy is.
If you want to use violence, then you will, I have no interest in stopping you, but if you try to attack this system, you're going to give them the legitimacy to oppress everyone in the interest of security.
As long as people at large are willing to use them, federal reserve notes are the same thing as resources and labor. As long as they have the printing presses and the guns to protect them, the Feds will have as much money as they need. Tax resistance does little but inconvenience the IRS and give its agents a legal reason to put you in bracelets.
Use violence? Not me. The police are terrifying. The military, more so. I was making a point.
That point being that states, historically, do not become smaller due to peaceful action or inaction. Even in the case of a total economic disaster, as in Weimar Republic hyperinflation, the state may falter and undergo change from within, but sooner, rather than later, it begins to grow, more rapidly than before the disaster even.
All states veer toward totalitarianism, if only b/c greater control of all assets is their natural and obvious purpose. Generally the gov't does not need rebels to lend legitimacy to its oppression. It manufactures that legitimacy every fall, winter, and spring weekday, in classrooms around the country. Today the people accept as normal and necessary a level of taxation and regulation that would have had our 19th century forebears up in arms. It can only get so much worse.
"Feds can and will print money to compensate for whatever you don't hand over"
The state governments don't print their own money, so they can go bankrupt, and as for the feds, the greater the monetary inflation, the greater the price inflation. Much like what happened in Zimbabwe, such inflation would promote the counter-economy and weaken the state; this could create a positive feedback loop leading ultimately to the state's destruction.
actually, it would still fit within anarchist beliefs to use violence as long as it were justified and wasn't put into play by the state. Now as for what would make it justified, that might be different according to different people.
What Anarchist beliefs? To my mind Anarchism is not an ideology, it is a description of societal structure. Anarchy is no more ideological than evolution.
We live in an Anarchy, just one where the inter-subjective consensus is that a state is necessary, and should be compulsory. However the consensus doesn't seem to backed by science.
Some Anarchist justify the use of violence as "self-defense" but I don't think violence will be a useful tactic at all.
Thats not all anarchism is. Anarchism means without authority, without hierarchy, without rule. Government is one thing that they are against, but to say that anarchists are against government isn't an adequite definition.
I need some clearing up on this as well. does anarchy, since it means without hierarchy, also mean being against voluntary hierarchy(like in the workplace, you gotta listen to the boss, and that kinda thing)?
Well. if its voluntary, its not really hierarchy, since hierarchy implies force. Voluntary forms of authority can be concidered legitimate. For example, a famous scientist giving a lecture. The worker boss relationship however, it unnecessary. I fully support workers-self management.
the gist I got from the word "hierarchy" in the merriam-webster online dictionary is that it's simply an authority structure, which means it can be either voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, a voluntary hierarchy can exist(like boss-worker, in that a boss can fire a worker)
Why is boss-worker voluntary? It seems pretty coercive to me, at least in modern society where its almost impossible to make a living without working for someone else.
boss-worker is not a coercive relationship cus you can leave whenever you want. Whether you have the ability/knowledge to productively use self-subsistence farming is irrelevant. What made slaves slaves is that if they tried leaving, they were forcibly brought back. In boss-worker you can leave. You can have your own business, make everything yourself (if you really want to) or work for someone else Don't confuse positive rights with negative rights
And your assuming that people can leave freely. Sure, they can technically leave, but its not in their best interest. Without an employer, its almost impossible to live life if you are not among the wealthy.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact by your very admission. If working conditions are bad enough, it is in their interest to leave...and by staying there, they are showing that it's their best option. Again, you're trying to show positive rights, but people dont' have positive rights since that's the same as confusing freedom with ability. There's no coercion there, but you're trying to say that voluntarism is equally as good or bad as coercion and that we're simply coercing the wrong people
Thats a blatand misrepresentation of what I was saying sir. You Implied that I am asking for coercing, which is not the case
Back to the beggining, its in their interests to leave? How would they feed their families? It just isn't possible to labor as an individual in modern society, nothing will get done. You say that he has the right to leave, well, if you take into account that he must work for a boss in order to live, your advocating [your medophore] a system where you choose your master.
Not intentionally, that's how I understood what you were saying. If you're saying "without an employer it's almost impossible to live" and then you call boss-worker relationship coercive...then at the very least you'd be saying that coercion is a necessary evil since it's necessary to live. My view is that such a relationship is not coercive.
As for how they would feed their families, there are multiple ways. Begging, growing their own food, working for someone else, or being self-employed
Okay, enough with the fallacies, just straight out argue, stop taking what I say out of context. I said that in modern society its impossible to work without a boss. Thats the current modern world, Im for worker's self management, so stop misrepresenting my opinion
Look at how society currently functions, individual's labour cannot amount to anything. Why? Everything that we use in a modern society is nearly impossible to create without relying on the labor of others. You read Berkman?
I'm not taking it out of context at all. Show what fallacy I made.
In modern society it is NOT impossible to work without a boss. Some people DO live on self-subsistence farming...but guess what: most people choose not to because they know they can do better by working for someone else.
Things we use in modern society take labor...ok, fine. so what? You can trade with someone who created said things either through barter or money. There's no virtue in self-sufficiency
"you'd be saying that coercion is a necessary evil since it's necessary to live"
You're assuming that the conditions existing under presently-existing capitalism would be exactly the same in a free market, which is absurd. The state's cartelizing influence on the market is well-documented. Its perversion of the concept of property, even by Lockean, let alone Rothbardian or Tuckerite, standards is clear. The state is what makes bosses necessary for workers to survive.
What we have isn't capitalism. It's more mercantilist.
And no the state is not what makes bosses necessary. People would still have bosses because of the division of labor.
I'm all against the state, but I don't attribute bad things to them that they don't cause...only the bad things they do cause. The boss-worker relationship is not one of them
Granted it would be MUCH easier to be your own boss in a free market whereas we currently have lots of regulations & policies that make it expensive
"People would still have bosses because of the division of labor."
Division of labor doesn't require hierarchy, and hierarchy is inherently economically inefficient due to the planning versus pricing problem, so a claim that hierarchy would persist in a free market requires a disproof of Mises' calculation argument, or at least Carson's application of it to all vertically-integrated firms.
again, the case is clearly that people are not coerced into having a job. It's just simply the case that most people prefer working for someone rather than growing their own food or going through the trouble of being self-employed.
"the case is clearly that people are not coerced into having a job"
Except of course for the state making the alternatives effectively impossible for most people. Property taxes make self-sufficiency impossible, cartelized banking and fiat "titles" (which make speculation in unhomesteaded resources possible) artificially restrict access to capital and make homesteading impossible, and the ways in which the state suppresses self-employment by restricting market entry are too numerous to list.
You're quite right about property taxes. Taxes in general (but especially property taxes) should be gotten rid of. There's someone running for governor in Texas with that as part of her plans.
Also, speculation would be possibly in any economic system and that's not bad. What is bad is restrictions on any economic activity in general that don't violate property rights. And of course the government creating artificial property rights is also bad (copyrights and patents)
"speculation would be possibly in any economic system"
No, it wouldn't. Speculation is claiming ownership of what is, by libertarian definition, unowned. In a consistent libertarian economy, the definition of property would be derived directly from the NAP, and so only use (occupation, transformation, and/or cultivation) of unowned resources would make them property, and only so long as that use of the resources (and thus the basis for the property claim) persisted.
Far as I know, speculation is buying stocks/shares in a company that sells certain commodities on the guess that said goods will increase in value at which point you sell. Walter Block describes how speculation is fine and does not contradict libertarianism.
"speculation is buying stocks/shares in a company"
I was referring specifically, and explicitly, to speculation in unhomesteaded resources, such as claims of ownership over unoccupied, untransformed, uncultivated land. Property claims that are incompatible with the homesteading principle, as derived from the NAP, are illegitimate, but the state routinely enforces such claims, artificially restricting access to capital.
"boss-worker is not a coercive relationship cus you can leave whenever you want"
So, by that reasoning, if I steal your kidneys but hook you up to a dialysis machine on the condition that you blow me, it's not coercive because you can leave at any time.
Yup...but boss-worker is not putting a gun to anyone's head so that statement doesn't hold in that particular situation.
And no you will not suffer just cus you don't work for a master. Some folks are self-employed. Many slaves fled slavery and made themselves better off, so clearly you don't need to be a slave. What made slavery slavery was that you weren't allowed to quit.
"boss-worker is not putting a gun to anyone's head"
It is if the state has done just about everything it can to suppress alternatives so that only the few can ever hope to get ahead, and only if they play the state's game by the state's rules, and thus feed into that very same system of oppression; which it has.
Do present, statist, conditions permit full self-employment? No? Then your argument fails. Free market arguments simply do not apply to the present situation; the present situation is not a result of the free interactions of individuals in a voluntary society, it is the result of pervasive state violence used both to directly plunder and to stack the deck in favor of the few.
"in the boss-worker relationship, property rights are not violated because it's voluntary"
It's no more voluntary under present conditions than the kidney-theft situation I described. The state has systematically distorted the market in such a way as to artificially restrict access to, and thereby concentrate into ever fewer hands, available capital resources, while directly restricting market entry and raising the costs of entry to make it prohibitively expensive for all but the few.
Actually, yes it is a lot more voluntary under the present conditions than kidney theft. I'm not saying it's ideal or anything close to what's optimal/best or that it's 100% free of coercion, but yes the boss-worker relationship is more voluntary than kidney theft.
As well, in a free market, there would still be some that couldn't afford to be self-employed.
Just as you say, it makes entry cost prohibitively expensive for all but a few...but that's still not ALL the people.
There is no "more voluntary" or "less voluntary", there are no degrees, either something is voluntary or it is coerced. If there is even a little coercion, it is not voluntary. As for self-employment in a free market, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be universal; individuals could either work independently or, particularly for large scale production, could work with others to set up a cooperative. With no artificial barriers to market entry, everyone could market something.
WEll in that case boss-worker relationship is voluntary.
And yes in a free market, people would be more able to set up cooperatives and/or be self-employed but that doesn't mean they would be. Just as some folks believe that having everything privately owned would lessen immigration, that doesn't mean it necessarily would...the point is that it would be voluntary or would mean they were trespassing and could be taken to court for that.
"WEll in that case boss-worker relationship is voluntary."
In the absence of all artificial restrictions to market entry, it could be, but then it wouldn't really be boss-worker, because it would be an exchange between equals. The "worker" would be a labor entrepreneur, the "boss" would just be a client; the nature of the relationship would be fundamentally changed from present boss-worker, because presently one party is completely subordinate to and dependent upon the other.
"Just as you say, it makes entry cost prohibitively expensive for all but a few...but that's still not ALL the people."
Those few for whom market entry is currently not made prohibitively expensive by the state either work independently or cooperatively, or they become bosses; the latter exploit the many who cannot self-employ because of the state. Bosses are nothing but wasteful and needless bureaucracy.
No, they don't "exploit" those who can't be self-employed. They provide them with a means to make a living. Without said bosses, those other people would still be struggling due to the state's policies and wouldn't look for a job unless they found it preferable to their alternatives..
No they're not wasteful and needless. By the way, nobody is stuck where they start. How do you think people start businesses? Not all of them are born with the resources to start one.
"They provide them with a means to make a living."
Means denied to them by the state, acting on behalf of those very same bosses. Bosses take advantage of the unequal relationship between labor and capital created by the state; market hierarchy is a reflection and consequence of state hierarchy. The bargaining between boss and worker is always skewed, by the state, in favor of the boss.
No, the means are not denied to them by the state, at least not in most cases. As you mentioned, property rights do this but most other things don't (except indirectly, but of course I'm against those things...I just wouldn't attribute everything bad under the sun to them).
Anyways, in many cases, the bargaining is skewed in favor of unions rather than bosses. In others, it favors bosses. It's not cut-and-dry. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just saying that certain things would still exist
"No they're not wasteful and needless.... How do you think people start businesses?"
They serve no function essentially different from state central planners; being a boss and being an entrepreneur are two very different things. As for starting a business, only the few can do so, and only on the state's terms.
except for the part about bosses not being different from central planners. There's a huge difference. Bosses are left in charge to run things inside an individual business, whereas central planners try to coordinate things across entire industries or even countries and through coercive means.
Don't vote? But USING the system is sometimes the best way to take DOWN the system! We can just vote in candidates that will make the Government smaller and smaller until we don't need it anymore.
People would just put their heads down and walk away, because they have jobs and families to think of. They'd be worried, frightened and in a totally different world from your naive dreams.
I also do not think a popular uprising could overthrow the US gov't, b/c I do not think it could not command the firepower. Violent revolutionary action would have to start in the military, not the populace.
You make the same conclusion, but you base it on a generalization of attitude toward violent political change, a generalization which is plainly wrong. Don't you think there were Russians who risked their jobs and families during the October Revolution and the Civil War that followed?
Most of the Bolsheviks and SR's where loners from the middle class and aristocracy, they put their whole lives into anti-tsarist activity, they didn't have jobs or families beyond that.
When the revolution was in full swing, it looked like everybody was going to get fucked over anyway. Not to mention they didn't live in central heated houses with televisions and need to get to a gas station every day.
Yes, most of the Bolsheviks were upper class. One had to have an education to be dissident, I guess. We aren't talking about the "professional" agitators, though.
Despite their poverty, the workers who threw their lot in w/ the revolutionaries did have something to lose. At the least they risked their lives.
Relatively, US citizens do live far better than the people of, say, revolutionary France, but that in turn means they expect more, and would be more aggrieved at some loss of comfort.
Indeed, but the police of today are more scary than the old Russian and French armies (and not to mention one prime ingredient for revolution is a lot of starving conscripts as opposed to professional volunteers)!
So you think US citizens fear their own military and police more than the Russians feared the Tsar's soldiers? That is probably true, if only b/c US citizens know so much more about "their" soldiers' brutality.
But do you think the US military and police are actually powerful enough to justify such fear (i.e. powerful enough to crush any popular uprising)?
I assume you come to the same conclusion as I, that violent revolution in the US would start in the military, if anywhere at all.
I maintain that Anarchism and Libertarianism are completely different concepts. Government does need to be limited, but there are some services government is needed for.
Also, downloading music isn't victimless.
Acknowledging that, a Libertarian revolution would be a great step for the world.
i recommend you read kropotkin's mutual aid because it would be a good start to help you solidify those ideas on anarchism and give you more understanding of what its actually about.
The state run Capitalism is garbage, but a free market Capitalism (laissez faire) works well. Work without a businesses license and get paid cash and don't pay taxes to the government. Barter, trade, and sell and never pay taxes. AGORISM is the key to eliminating government and living in a free society.
ur kinda cute in this video...but id like to point out A)your examples of victimless crimes are horrible.. and B) libertarianism and anarchism are totally different.
We don't want war. But we have to get the "keys to the kingdom" somehow and they're not just gonna give it to us. I do like the idea of "General Strike".
Downloading music illegally does involve a victim. Theft is the only crime, and illegal downloading is thievery in today's music business. Granted, I don't agree with it, but being a musician, I'd appreciate people giving me money if they like my songs...
Well your assumtion thats downloading music is a crime is based on the assumtion that copyrights and patents are legal and copatible with the free market...they are not they are totally incompatible with a free market who says you have the right to that music? The state: a totally accepted institution that has no power expect threw individuals coorporation! Not really valid
Oh define original idea that is open for a huge gray area...what I assume you mean is the first to public an idea on a large scale i.e. the Beatles who admittedly stole ideas and music from bands at the clubs they played in at Liverpool...defining original idea is open for to great of a debate/and also your saying the Law has a right to infringe on peoples minds if what your saying is the case why don't me start copy writing thoughts no this thought has already been though so I want money!
I say "original idea," and that is pretty ambiguous, I admit.
However, if you look into patent and copyright law (very different areas, mind you), you'll find that one can successfully file only under specific conditions. What I mean is "original idea" can be given a strict (and reasonable) meaning in either context (patent or copyright).
In an ideal world, private courts would determine who first qualified as a "patent/copyright holder," if a party filed suit over an IP issue.
Pimps are entrepreneurs? exploiting the women, dominating them. Thats an authoritarian dominance, there's nothing liberating about it.
Autonomous collective brothels, run by the sex workers themselves, that WOULD be liberatory, that would be consensual and counter-soceo-economic. But that's not what you're saying. You're praising drug dealers and pimps for exploiting the current system of capital to their personal advantage.
But I do like your metaphor of governments as little dots... quaint.
I don't see it so much as praising as I do exemplifying a new/different entrepeneur. Exploiting the system of captal to your personal advantage, isn't that what it means to be an entrepeneur?
Yes but this girl is on about Libertarian Anarchist Revolution, and unless I'm very much mistaken on the definition, an anarchist society will be one with no hierarchies whatsoever. No economic exploitation and no social dominance: No Masters
To praise a Pimp as working towards this goal is absurd. Yes they may be breaking down old social taboos about sex by perhaps making paid-for sex more available. But they oppress and exploit the workers! If its the oldest trade, they are the oldest masters
another point: society has a social contract. each individual has the right GIVEN to him to others. without society, there is no concept of rights, since rights are something which arises from social contract. social contract and cooperation are the key to progress, so we must strengthen this contract and this cooperation, and then each individual will live free and happy.
you make a good point about going against the system and the idea that the government is just a bunch of dots. i realized that one day living in Texas, and thats when i began to call myself an individualist anarchism, yet i supported socialism to an extenct. then i switched over to anarcho-communism, as i realized it was more fit.
'leftist liberal'. You fail. I'm not a liberal and that you think I am really highlights your ignorance. So what if I'm a leftist? That is hardly an insult.
yes, all leftists are state socialists....There is no other way to look at the economic policies of organisations like the WTO, than imperialistic and objecting to that is, just well, idoicy.
Well being for third world countries? you what? ever heard of third world debt and the G8? You are the dimwit.
How can anyone critisize anarchy or libertarianism by comparing their form of federal government. Look at the wars we have had against other countries and the world wars too for that matter. Those would not happen in an anarchist or libertarian society.
but your idea of breaking the law slowly is flawed because if all the anarchists/libertarians (which are different but I won't get into) start cheating on they're taxes, they MAY weaken the government, but they may go to jail.
tell me something, if all the anarchists are sitting in jail, where the hell is our revolution going to come from. It's a gamble, it's all about finding balance, I don't know where the line is
who knows, maybe we need to throw more molotov cocktails.
What would you hope to gain through violent revolution? Why does there have to a be 'our revolution'. Why do you label yourself and create an enemy? Us v.s them.
Any new society that is based on us v.s them is just a continuation of the old system. It's laws and paradigm will reflect it's relationship to the old system like two sides of a coin.
Violent revolution will most likely fail, it brings misery to the lives of the people and it will create another flawed system. Let things be.
Revolution now! A voluntary structure is possible..if the people wake up.
SiouxSyndicate 1 month ago
liberals are those not yet robbed or raped by their oh so precious black animals.
germanysjim 5 months ago
Piece of advice: either make your speech volume higher or the Bob Dylan music quieter.
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
Good points about travel and customs and money restricting travel. Why can people not freely travel to other countries? Capitalism that is why, mainly privative companies(NOT the people) OWN those air-lines.
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 9 months ago
Libertarian/anarcho/voluntarists? lol WTF you call it is essentially fascism dressed up as freedom. These people are ultimate capitalists who desire a cut-throat (not society)"something", where life if like a pepetual assault. YOUR freedom can result and does result in detriment to others, understand that
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 9 months ago
you advance a fictional theory lossely resembling the hypothetical "state of nature". People cannot assert individial choice to that degree. Even in highest final phase Communist society things such as assaults will likely occur and be dealt with by the collective the same way they have been for thousands of years throughout history before capitalism. Your completely non-coercive libertarian fantasy is unattainable.
Lenin discussed higher phase Communism in "The State &Revolution" (1918)
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 9 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY State capitalism isn't much better, and communist states just as bad as those you're responding to. You both define all good in terms of economic good. Protection of the individual against both other individuals and corporate entities is the primary purpose of government, and government should be run democratically, by the will of the people. The dictatorship of the proletariat has not been and will not be successful.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning that is incorrect: "all good" is NOT defoned in terms of economic good only.
'The dictatorship of the proletariat has not been and will not be successful'
Then how did it turn Russia, a backward peasant nation, into a nuclear armed superpower?
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 9 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Simple: Russia always had manpower and resources. The Communists did nothing that the Czars wouldn't have. The Industrialization and arming of russia would have happened no matter who was in control.
If the Czars had cracked with the ruthless efficiency of Stalin, the result would have been the same.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning 'The Communists did nothing that the Czars wouldn't have. The Industrialization and arming of russia would have happened no matter who was in control.'
That sentence completely and utterly false. The people of Russia lived under the brutal repression of the Tzars for about 400 years. This was the whole idea behind the Bolshevik 1917 Revolution. Also, Lenin's eldest brother was killed for plotting to assassinate the tsar (Czar)
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 9 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Stalinism was equally brutal to the czars, but far more efficient. There's no reason to think that one autocrat would be different from another, except that less people starved under Stalin. If I had to choose whether to live under Stalinism or the Czars, I'd definitely choose Stalin, but I'd prefer neither. Was Stalin better than the Czars? Probably. That doesn't mean either were good. Lenin's brother is irrelevant. The point is that they were both brutal.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning No, Stalin murdered TENS of millions of people, the Czars all put together murdered only a small part of that.
Also, the Czars, while brutal, had restraint with their tyranny. Stalin was a maniac and had no such restraint on tyranny. Everything bad about the czars was magnified with Stalin. Virtually any history book will list him in the top 5 worst dictators of all time.
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Nazi Germany also was the potentially most powerful military force, yet is regarded as universally evil. Try again.
nurbSoldier 7 months ago
Stealing even if it seems harmless is still theft. Pimps abuse women's rights. As for taxes, if everyone just didn't pay then we would have REAL anarchy and not libertarianism. Wouldn't you rather change law through intelligent debate and legislation?
You can keep order by simply voting for anyone who's not a Republican or Democrat. Both of those parties are paid in full from the time they declare they're running. Of course that's not always true on the state level.
davitodude 10 months ago
@davitodude Look up Duvergers law RE Voting.
It wont happen. The side that breaks first loses.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
Downloading music violates copyrights & private property.
I thought this chick was a capitalist.
thirdshift47 11 months ago
I totally love this girl. Great video.
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
omg another 5.29 stolen from my life .....dam you youtube !
right whats next
weadone 1 year ago
Oh, and stop reading a script, who wrote it for you?
sproutloveaffair 1 year ago
Oh god, I can't stand quote style rhetoric. Oh and yeah, almost no prostitution is "consensual". Drugs, underage rape, mental brainwashing and control, and blackmail have contributed to that.
sproutloveaffair 1 year ago
The tune in turn on drop out stuff didn't work in the 60's.
What do you think will make it work now?
How many people is enough people. 60-80% of people already don't vote. The only way to really cheat on your taxes is if you make more than $250,000.
Also "If the government decides you're unfit to leave the country..."
Never heard of this happening. They don't care if you leave unless you're in the middle of a court case or something.
QuietReckoning 1 year ago
@QuietReckoning actually there are quite a few people on a government "watch list" who cannot fly, unless privately i suppose.
greekmavros 11 months ago
@greekmavros That's not the only form of transportation, and that's not generally the way people move overseas.
Yeah, they might be afraid you'll blow up a plane, but they won't stop you at the border and make you turn around.
QuietReckoning 11 months ago
@greekmavros
actually they will....
greekmavros 11 months ago
You say you'll change the Constitution
Well, you know. We all want to . . . change your head
You tell me it's the "evil Govt institution"?
Well, you know . . . You better free you mind, instead!
But if you go carrying pictures of Michele Bachmann or Southern confederate General Lee?
You ain't going to make it with anyone, dontcha see?
Don't you know, it's going to be all right! All right! All right!
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago
But when you want money for people with minds that hate (Glenn Beck, Libertarian candidates & Free Market Fascist Tea Party)
All I can tell you is . . . sister, you have to wait!
Don't you know, it's going to be all right!
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago
You say you want a Liberty Freedom "revolution"?
Well, you know . . . We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's "Sovereignty & Individualism"
Well, you know . . . We all want to change the world
But when you talk about "Opt Out anti-Govt Tax Revolts".
Well you know . . . you better check the definition of Fascist revolution at Britannica.
And don't you know that you can count me out!
Don't you know, it's going to be all right!
VampiressOnDaProwlq 1 year ago
We're all little dots wanting to be free. :D
TheAzov 1 year ago
I'm going to snort coke and fuck hookers for revolution.
Thanks for your video!
fluorogoat 1 year ago
pendeha
noir0222 1 year ago
Great vid.
LUKEJAMESBARRETT 1 year ago
Bob Dylan was great in his early years.
UnmutteringMatt 1 year ago
Good video. But let's not forget that personal sovereignty can't exhist without personal bloodshed. I don't doubt the idea, but I do however doubt The Peoples willingness to give up the illusion of comfort and security for what could be described as true freedom....I supose most would need to be forced out of their comfort zone in order to see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
theswamprat1776 1 year ago
We need more people like you in orange county!!!
-Sp(A)rky
AVGreaser 1 year ago
nice metaphor. i totally agree, in my unknowledgeable opinion.
hollydolly06 1 year ago
The problem arises that in order for this to achieve anything enough people have to start doing it virtually simultaneously, in order to overwhelm the safe guards against such an event. If everyone started "opting out" then, yeah, this might work. The problem is getting the people to do it - too many people are comforted by the state to oppose it any way but symbolically.
This whole approach reminds me of CrimethInc - anarchism without the organization or thought. In short, rebellion.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
Prostitution is not a victimless crime!
antiracistskin69 2 years ago 2
@antiracistskin69 Pft, who's the victim?
ArandurKing909 1 year ago
@ArandurKing909 In Germany where I live Prostition is legal. Most of the women I'ev seen are drug addicts. For the most part the women are working in the sex industry because they have been given no other opportunities to make money. Thousand of women are trafficed into German illegally . Many of these women are subject to violence. If you want to believe that its just a career move and women empowering themselves and all theat post-feminist clap trap you can.
antiracistskin69 1 year ago
The system can't be broken just by victimless crime, tho I do agree these help. What we need to do is form a political majority while we still have a republic. Now is the time to do this and all we need to do to get that majority is dump all the contraversial ideologies the main parties have invented and embraced to keep us apart. Most libertarians and anarchist still cling to tightly to right/leftist dogmas to make this happen.
madscirat 2 years ago
@madscirat the state could be dismantled if the majority of the population refused to just pay taxes. Imagine it in a local level. Town by town, township by township, city by city, county by county etc. The state could never handle the overwhelming arrests, not enough resources for even a fraction of them. The key to dismantling power is non-violent non-cooperation.
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
And a violent argument erupts between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-capitalists. As noses are bloodied and red and black and yellow and black banners are torn, members of the Norwegian Beer Unity Party and the Pensioners Party, as well as Social Security recipients cheer them on just to see a little blood.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
"And a violent argument erupts between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-capitalists."
To whom were you referring? I can't be easily pidgeonholed, though I suppose market anarchist, individualist anarchist, rational anarchist, agorist, mutualist, Rothbardian, Konkinite, Tuckerite, free marketeer, anti-capitalist, capitalist, and socialist are all appropriate labels, to a degree. I prefer to just refer to myself as an "anarchist", and beyond that I let my ideas speak for themselves.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to anyone, but I was referring to two main "sides" (as if there were clearly defined sides in this case - there aren't) of adherents to anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. In any case, I threw in the Norwegian Beer Party and the pensioners to lighten the mood.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
I don't know why you had to tag and drag Kropotkin into this. Kropotkin doesn't seem much like a libertarian in that he had this thing for mutual aid and could actually be considered an communist-anarchist. I think that when people consider communism and anarchism polar opposites, they forget that socialism (worker control of means of production) was supposed to lead to communism (political and economic democracy) to anarchism (stateless society).
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Of course that's all just in theory.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
"Kropotkin doesn't seem much like a libertarian in that he had this thing for mutual aid"
You mean just like individualist and collectivist anarchists? Communist anarchists don't have the market cornered on mutual aid; it's common to every strain of anarchism, including Rothbardians.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Long live revolucion.
Nederlandac 2 years ago
Yes! FREEDOM. You have some correct thoughts here. Millions are already doing just what you say, dropping out. But that isn't stopping it... because they just print more $ out of thin air and affect the middle class. Study Ron Paul's ideas. Study the Constitution. Pray to the maker of THE REAL LAW, the giver of RIGHTS. Duty is ours, results are God's.
bellatruth 2 years ago
lets kill all they must die they have killed us now its your turn!!!
bfef123 2 years ago
Okay, Im an anarchist and I would be pissed if someone was cheating on their taxes, just because that increases government burden on other people. You can't revolt against government without organization, it won't get anything done.
2nd, downloading music illegally is something that anarcho-capitalists are against, why did you change your mind on this issue?
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
You get pissed off when a slave tries to do as little work for the master as possible, on the excuse that it increases the burden of the other slaves, and you call yourself an anarchist?
As for "illegally" downloading music, some vulgar libertarians and most conservative faux libertarians are against it, but their opposition is a clear deviation from Rothbardian "anarcho-capitalism"; Rothbardian property theory is based on Lockean property theory; it's incompatible with "intellectual property".
Libertarian333 2 years ago
I was in a bad mood when I posted that. Pissed just wasn't the right word. What is logical is that it won't get anything done. I'll use your analogy. If one slave just stops working, either the master ignores it or punishes him/her. But what happens if all the slaves cooperate and either stop working or revolt?
Im not saying individual rebelion is a bad thing, Im just saying that its ineffective.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
"Im not saying individual rebelion is a bad thing, Im just saying that its ineffective."
I agree, but it has to start somewhere, and at least for the slaves who do resist the master's demands, they reclaim their freedom to the extent that they resist. Even if it doesn't bring an end to the institution, it does limit to an extent the damage it does to them personally, and weakens the master, making it easier for others to also resist.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
downloading music....agreed there. In fact, I believe we need to get rid of all intellectual property right laws, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
I highly suggest going to mises (dot) org
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I feel you on that... except you cant make it illegal for someone to sell intellectual property.. cause that would not be free
mikelunz 2 years ago
oh of course it wouldn't be illegal. It just would be pointless since all it takes is for one person to buy it and then share it with tons of people. IF it were feasible, it would be through renting, not through outright selling. Like a DVD could be "rented" but for life with a piece of paper that has the "right to view" and would be like a contract or lease that would say that one condition of renting the thing for life would be to not make any copies and not distribute it.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
A leader speaking to an empty room has no followers.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Freedom is, and will always be free. It's those who submit who find a cost in it and those who dominate will always exploit them.
Imona be my poor white trash ass driven around in a 02 BMW and suckin up government funds to go to school via pell grant. AND I AIN'T GONNA WORK FOR IT!!
I'm fuckin the system in my own way.And it's a horny little bitch :D
BunyPunter 3 years ago
Rock on For Freedom! but you have to be careful when you voilate the man's bs laws, they will use this against you, they will use the system against you, much better to can the system first, this is what they fear most that you get involved and change it for real. Abolish the IRS first if you want to not pay, this is what the zoo keepers fear, study the gobal elite and you will understand. Abolish the FED reserve as well and replace with competeting currency, the gobal elite fear this most:-)
clthinkingman 3 years ago
Think, rebel, make friends!
Hellpartyboy2009 3 years ago
All the anarchists should join us libertarians because at the very least small government a stepping stone to no government (anarchy).
itCameFromEarth 3 years ago
That's putting the cart before the horse. Anarchy is actually the first crucial step to shrinking government. It's not the nature of government to get smaller. The only way to do it is to oppose it and withdraw your support as much as possible which includes not perpetuating the illusions they use to make us feel like we have control, like elections. We each need to be a wrench in the machine instead of a cog.
AnarchyInYourHead 3 years ago
Actually the only way to make a gov't smaller is to destroy it, by physical force. History confirms this.
lnd3005 3 years ago
OK, point out to me the specific cases historically where a significant number of anarchists spoke out against government, refused to pay taxes or otherwise support it, and refused to obey to the point of going to jail rather than complying and then failed. I'd like to research them. Maybe I can learn from what they did wrong.
AnarchyInYourHead 3 years ago
What's a "significant number?" Anyway I'm not sure if I can give you an answer at all. Even in cases where nonviolent resistance toppled a gov't, it was only replaced by an equally powerful or more powerful state (e.g. India).
I must correct my earlier statement. Gov't can be made smaller by nonviolent means, but only when there is some palatable threat of violence, such as when Jackson ended the central bank. That is, where violence will not do, intimidation is the only substitute.
lnd3005 3 years ago
There's precedent for incredible success for civil disobedience, but it hasn't been tried on a large scale along with a consistent anarchist philosophy. I see it as a type of evolution. It may still not work perfectly, but maybe it will work better and we can build on it.
AnarchyInYourHead 3 years ago
Evolution, eh? Might take a while.
"Liberty in our lifetime," has a ring to it, doesn't it? I thought so.
lnd3005 3 years ago
It would not be very Anarchistic to use violence as compulsion in order to bring about social change.
Withholding taxes is enough. Let's organize a strategy for doing so.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago 2
Do you approve of the violent defense of one's life? One's property?
As to withholding taxes, consider the fact that Feds can and will print money to compensate for whatever you don't hand over. Withholding taxes does nothing but irritate tax collectors.
lnd3005 2 years ago
They can print as much fun money as they want, but when it comes down to it, it is resources and labor that are the real means of power. I think that finding ways to deprive the system of resources and labor will be a valuable tactic, whatever your overall strategy is.
If you want to use violence, then you will, I have no interest in stopping you, but if you try to attack this system, you're going to give them the legitimacy to oppress everyone in the interest of security.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
As long as people at large are willing to use them, federal reserve notes are the same thing as resources and labor. As long as they have the printing presses and the guns to protect them, the Feds will have as much money as they need. Tax resistance does little but inconvenience the IRS and give its agents a legal reason to put you in bracelets.
Use violence? Not me. The police are terrifying. The military, more so. I was making a point.
lnd3005 2 years ago
That point being that states, historically, do not become smaller due to peaceful action or inaction. Even in the case of a total economic disaster, as in Weimar Republic hyperinflation, the state may falter and undergo change from within, but sooner, rather than later, it begins to grow, more rapidly than before the disaster even.
lnd3005 2 years ago
All states veer toward totalitarianism, if only b/c greater control of all assets is their natural and obvious purpose. Generally the gov't does not need rebels to lend legitimacy to its oppression. It manufactures that legitimacy every fall, winter, and spring weekday, in classrooms around the country. Today the people accept as normal and necessary a level of taxation and regulation that would have had our 19th century forebears up in arms. It can only get so much worse.
lnd3005 2 years ago
"Feds can and will print money to compensate for whatever you don't hand over"
The state governments don't print their own money, so they can go bankrupt, and as for the feds, the greater the monetary inflation, the greater the price inflation. Much like what happened in Zimbabwe, such inflation would promote the counter-economy and weaken the state; this could create a positive feedback loop leading ultimately to the state's destruction.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Starting a revolution is hard to do, you understand.
cm2dude 2 years ago
actually, it would still fit within anarchist beliefs to use violence as long as it were justified and wasn't put into play by the state. Now as for what would make it justified, that might be different according to different people.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
What Anarchist beliefs? To my mind Anarchism is not an ideology, it is a description of societal structure. Anarchy is no more ideological than evolution.
We live in an Anarchy, just one where the inter-subjective consensus is that a state is necessary, and should be compulsory. However the consensus doesn't seem to backed by science.
Some Anarchist justify the use of violence as "self-defense" but I don't think violence will be a useful tactic at all.
thanks
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
anarchy = no government. That's all it is.
All beliefs that anarchists hold, other than that we should have no state, may differ because they are not uniquely anarchistic beliefs.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Thats not all anarchism is. Anarchism means without authority, without hierarchy, without rule. Government is one thing that they are against, but to say that anarchists are against government isn't an adequite definition.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
ah ok.
I need some clearing up on this as well. does anarchy, since it means without hierarchy, also mean being against voluntary hierarchy(like in the workplace, you gotta listen to the boss, and that kinda thing)?
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Well. if its voluntary, its not really hierarchy, since hierarchy implies force. Voluntary forms of authority can be concidered legitimate. For example, a famous scientist giving a lecture. The worker boss relationship however, it unnecessary. I fully support workers-self management.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
the gist I got from the word "hierarchy" in the merriam-webster online dictionary is that it's simply an authority structure, which means it can be either voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, a voluntary hierarchy can exist(like boss-worker, in that a boss can fire a worker)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Why is boss-worker voluntary? It seems pretty coercive to me, at least in modern society where its almost impossible to make a living without working for someone else.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
You're confusing freedom with ability .
boss-worker is not a coercive relationship cus you can leave whenever you want. Whether you have the ability/knowledge to productively use self-subsistence farming is irrelevant. What made slaves slaves is that if they tried leaving, they were forcibly brought back. In boss-worker you can leave. You can have your own business, make everything yourself (if you really want to) or work for someone else Don't confuse positive rights with negative rights
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
And your assuming that people can leave freely. Sure, they can technically leave, but its not in their best interest. Without an employer, its almost impossible to live life if you are not among the wealthy.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
It's not an assumption, it's a fact by your very admission. If working conditions are bad enough, it is in their interest to leave...and by staying there, they are showing that it's their best option. Again, you're trying to show positive rights, but people dont' have positive rights since that's the same as confusing freedom with ability. There's no coercion there, but you're trying to say that voluntarism is equally as good or bad as coercion and that we're simply coercing the wrong people
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Thats a blatand misrepresentation of what I was saying sir. You Implied that I am asking for coercing, which is not the case
Back to the beggining, its in their interests to leave? How would they feed their families? It just isn't possible to labor as an individual in modern society, nothing will get done. You say that he has the right to leave, well, if you take into account that he must work for a boss in order to live, your advocating [your medophore] a system where you choose your master.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
Not intentionally, that's how I understood what you were saying. If you're saying "without an employer it's almost impossible to live" and then you call boss-worker relationship coercive...then at the very least you'd be saying that coercion is a necessary evil since it's necessary to live. My view is that such a relationship is not coercive.
As for how they would feed their families, there are multiple ways. Begging, growing their own food, working for someone else, or being self-employed
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Okay, enough with the fallacies, just straight out argue, stop taking what I say out of context. I said that in modern society its impossible to work without a boss. Thats the current modern world, Im for worker's self management, so stop misrepresenting my opinion
Look at how society currently functions, individual's labour cannot amount to anything. Why? Everything that we use in a modern society is nearly impossible to create without relying on the labor of others. You read Berkman?
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
I'm not taking it out of context at all. Show what fallacy I made.
In modern society it is NOT impossible to work without a boss. Some people DO live on self-subsistence farming...but guess what: most people choose not to because they know they can do better by working for someone else.
Things we use in modern society take labor...ok, fine. so what? You can trade with someone who created said things either through barter or money. There's no virtue in self-sufficiency
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"you'd be saying that coercion is a necessary evil since it's necessary to live"
You're assuming that the conditions existing under presently-existing capitalism would be exactly the same in a free market, which is absurd. The state's cartelizing influence on the market is well-documented. Its perversion of the concept of property, even by Lockean, let alone Rothbardian or Tuckerite, standards is clear. The state is what makes bosses necessary for workers to survive.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
What we have isn't capitalism. It's more mercantilist.
And no the state is not what makes bosses necessary. People would still have bosses because of the division of labor.
I'm all against the state, but I don't attribute bad things to them that they don't cause...only the bad things they do cause. The boss-worker relationship is not one of them
Granted it would be MUCH easier to be your own boss in a free market whereas we currently have lots of regulations & policies that make it expensive
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"People would still have bosses because of the division of labor."
Division of labor doesn't require hierarchy, and hierarchy is inherently economically inefficient due to the planning versus pricing problem, so a claim that hierarchy would persist in a free market requires a disproof of Mises' calculation argument, or at least Carson's application of it to all vertically-integrated firms.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
(continued)
again, the case is clearly that people are not coerced into having a job. It's just simply the case that most people prefer working for someone rather than growing their own food or going through the trouble of being self-employed.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"the case is clearly that people are not coerced into having a job"
Except of course for the state making the alternatives effectively impossible for most people. Property taxes make self-sufficiency impossible, cartelized banking and fiat "titles" (which make speculation in unhomesteaded resources possible) artificially restrict access to capital and make homesteading impossible, and the ways in which the state suppresses self-employment by restricting market entry are too numerous to list.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
You're quite right about property taxes. Taxes in general (but especially property taxes) should be gotten rid of. There's someone running for governor in Texas with that as part of her plans.
Also, speculation would be possibly in any economic system and that's not bad. What is bad is restrictions on any economic activity in general that don't violate property rights. And of course the government creating artificial property rights is also bad (copyrights and patents)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"speculation would be possibly in any economic system"
No, it wouldn't. Speculation is claiming ownership of what is, by libertarian definition, unowned. In a consistent libertarian economy, the definition of property would be derived directly from the NAP, and so only use (occupation, transformation, and/or cultivation) of unowned resources would make them property, and only so long as that use of the resources (and thus the basis for the property claim) persisted.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Far as I know, speculation is buying stocks/shares in a company that sells certain commodities on the guess that said goods will increase in value at which point you sell. Walter Block describes how speculation is fine and does not contradict libertarianism.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"speculation is buying stocks/shares in a company"
I was referring specifically, and explicitly, to speculation in unhomesteaded resources, such as claims of ownership over unoccupied, untransformed, uncultivated land. Property claims that are incompatible with the homesteading principle, as derived from the NAP, are illegitimate, but the state routinely enforces such claims, artificially restricting access to capital.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
ah ok, i didn't know about that kind of speculation
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"boss-worker is not a coercive relationship cus you can leave whenever you want"
So, by that reasoning, if I steal your kidneys but hook you up to a dialysis machine on the condition that you blow me, it's not coercive because you can leave at any time.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
No, that's simply a strawman.
Notice in the boss-worker relationship, property rights are not violated because it's voluntary.
If you steal someone's kidneys, that means they didn't give consent. Therefore, that person's property rights have been violated.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
If you put a gun to someone's head, they will voluntiarily give you the money, its the same concept. You will suffer if you do not work for a master.
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
Yup...but boss-worker is not putting a gun to anyone's head so that statement doesn't hold in that particular situation.
And no you will not suffer just cus you don't work for a master. Some folks are self-employed. Many slaves fled slavery and made themselves better off, so clearly you don't need to be a slave. What made slavery slavery was that you weren't allowed to quit.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"boss-worker is not putting a gun to anyone's head"
It is if the state has done just about everything it can to suppress alternatives so that only the few can ever hope to get ahead, and only if they play the state's game by the state's rules, and thus feed into that very same system of oppression; which it has.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Sure, but sans-state, there would still be bosses and the relationship itself is not coercive. What's coercive there is the state intervention.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"Some folks are self-employed"
Do present, statist, conditions permit full self-employment? No? Then your argument fails. Free market arguments simply do not apply to the present situation; the present situation is not a result of the free interactions of individuals in a voluntary society, it is the result of pervasive state violence used both to directly plunder and to stack the deck in favor of the few.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Yeah, there are some people that are self-employed and own their own business. That's self-employment.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"in the boss-worker relationship, property rights are not violated because it's voluntary"
It's no more voluntary under present conditions than the kidney-theft situation I described. The state has systematically distorted the market in such a way as to artificially restrict access to, and thereby concentrate into ever fewer hands, available capital resources, while directly restricting market entry and raising the costs of entry to make it prohibitively expensive for all but the few.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Actually, yes it is a lot more voluntary under the present conditions than kidney theft. I'm not saying it's ideal or anything close to what's optimal/best or that it's 100% free of coercion, but yes the boss-worker relationship is more voluntary than kidney theft.
As well, in a free market, there would still be some that couldn't afford to be self-employed.
Just as you say, it makes entry cost prohibitively expensive for all but a few...but that's still not ALL the people.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
There is no "more voluntary" or "less voluntary", there are no degrees, either something is voluntary or it is coerced. If there is even a little coercion, it is not voluntary. As for self-employment in a free market, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be universal; individuals could either work independently or, particularly for large scale production, could work with others to set up a cooperative. With no artificial barriers to market entry, everyone could market something.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
WEll in that case boss-worker relationship is voluntary.
And yes in a free market, people would be more able to set up cooperatives and/or be self-employed but that doesn't mean they would be. Just as some folks believe that having everything privately owned would lessen immigration, that doesn't mean it necessarily would...the point is that it would be voluntary or would mean they were trespassing and could be taken to court for that.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"WEll in that case boss-worker relationship is voluntary."
In the absence of all artificial restrictions to market entry, it could be, but then it wouldn't really be boss-worker, because it would be an exchange between equals. The "worker" would be a labor entrepreneur, the "boss" would just be a client; the nature of the relationship would be fundamentally changed from present boss-worker, because presently one party is completely subordinate to and dependent upon the other.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
"Just as you say, it makes entry cost prohibitively expensive for all but a few...but that's still not ALL the people."
Those few for whom market entry is currently not made prohibitively expensive by the state either work independently or cooperatively, or they become bosses; the latter exploit the many who cannot self-employ because of the state. Bosses are nothing but wasteful and needless bureaucracy.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
No, they don't "exploit" those who can't be self-employed. They provide them with a means to make a living. Without said bosses, those other people would still be struggling due to the state's policies and wouldn't look for a job unless they found it preferable to their alternatives..
No they're not wasteful and needless. By the way, nobody is stuck where they start. How do you think people start businesses? Not all of them are born with the resources to start one.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"They provide them with a means to make a living."
Means denied to them by the state, acting on behalf of those very same bosses. Bosses take advantage of the unequal relationship between labor and capital created by the state; market hierarchy is a reflection and consequence of state hierarchy. The bargaining between boss and worker is always skewed, by the state, in favor of the boss.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
No, the means are not denied to them by the state, at least not in most cases. As you mentioned, property rights do this but most other things don't (except indirectly, but of course I'm against those things...I just wouldn't attribute everything bad under the sun to them).
Anyways, in many cases, the bargaining is skewed in favor of unions rather than bosses. In others, it favors bosses. It's not cut-and-dry. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just saying that certain things would still exist
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"No they're not wasteful and needless.... How do you think people start businesses?"
They serve no function essentially different from state central planners; being a boss and being an entrepreneur are two very different things. As for starting a business, only the few can do so, and only on the state's terms.
Libertarian333 2 years ago
Well we agree there
:D
except for the part about bosses not being different from central planners. There's a huge difference. Bosses are left in charge to run things inside an individual business, whereas central planners try to coordinate things across entire industries or even countries and through coercive means.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Don't vote? But USING the system is sometimes the best way to take DOWN the system! We can just vote in candidates that will make the Government smaller and smaller until we don't need it anymore.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Sure, just like in all the successful revolutions this century.
BritishSocialism 3 years ago
People would just put their heads down and walk away, because they have jobs and families to think of. They'd be worried, frightened and in a totally different world from your naive dreams.
BritishSocialism 3 years ago
I also do not think a popular uprising could overthrow the US gov't, b/c I do not think it could not command the firepower. Violent revolutionary action would have to start in the military, not the populace.
You make the same conclusion, but you base it on a generalization of attitude toward violent political change, a generalization which is plainly wrong. Don't you think there were Russians who risked their jobs and families during the October Revolution and the Civil War that followed?
lnd3005 3 years ago
Most of the Bolsheviks and SR's where loners from the middle class and aristocracy, they put their whole lives into anti-tsarist activity, they didn't have jobs or families beyond that.
When the revolution was in full swing, it looked like everybody was going to get fucked over anyway. Not to mention they didn't live in central heated houses with televisions and need to get to a gas station every day.
BritishSocialism 3 years ago
Yes, most of the Bolsheviks were upper class. One had to have an education to be dissident, I guess. We aren't talking about the "professional" agitators, though.
Despite their poverty, the workers who threw their lot in w/ the revolutionaries did have something to lose. At the least they risked their lives.
Relatively, US citizens do live far better than the people of, say, revolutionary France, but that in turn means they expect more, and would be more aggrieved at some loss of comfort.
lnd3005 3 years ago
Indeed, but the police of today are more scary than the old Russian and French armies (and not to mention one prime ingredient for revolution is a lot of starving conscripts as opposed to professional volunteers)!
BritishSocialism 3 years ago
So you think US citizens fear their own military and police more than the Russians feared the Tsar's soldiers? That is probably true, if only b/c US citizens know so much more about "their" soldiers' brutality.
But do you think the US military and police are actually powerful enough to justify such fear (i.e. powerful enough to crush any popular uprising)?
I assume you come to the same conclusion as I, that violent revolution in the US would start in the military, if anywhere at all.
lnd3005 3 years ago
Downloading illegally, is still stealing isn't it? Oh and by the way, very thought provoking video!
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
This Bike is a Pipebomb?
Cailwyn 3 years ago
I maintain that Anarchism and Libertarianism are completely different concepts. Government does need to be limited, but there are some services government is needed for.
Also, downloading music isn't victimless.
Acknowledging that, a Libertarian revolution would be a great step for the world.
Spazman173 3 years ago
Mwhaha! Rammstein are my victims!
BritishSocialism 3 years ago
i recommend you read kropotkin's mutual aid because it would be a good start to help you solidify those ideas on anarchism and give you more understanding of what its actually about.
nelnel2709 3 years ago
The state run Capitalism is garbage, but a free market Capitalism (laissez faire) works well. Work without a businesses license and get paid cash and don't pay taxes to the government. Barter, trade, and sell and never pay taxes. AGORISM is the key to eliminating government and living in a free society.
Joefreiheit 3 years ago
ur kinda cute in this video...but id like to point out A)your examples of victimless crimes are horrible.. and B) libertarianism and anarchism are totally different.
wojoness 3 years ago
Secession is (almost) impossible, it's tried all the time.
Anarchist collectives are still not truly Anarchistic, because they still contribute and slightly depend on the Capitalistic world around them.
Anarchist communes ARE Anarchistic, but are barely possible to maintain permanently in today's consumer society.
Revolution isn't always about the romanticism, it's necessary and key.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
We don't want war. But we have to get the "keys to the kingdom" somehow and they're not just gonna give it to us. I do like the idea of "General Strike".
kittiest34 3 years ago
Downloading music illegally does involve a victim. Theft is the only crime, and illegal downloading is thievery in today's music business. Granted, I don't agree with it, but being a musician, I'd appreciate people giving me money if they like my songs...
mikeymacaque 3 years ago
Well your assumtion thats downloading music is a crime is based on the assumtion that copyrights and patents are legal and copatible with the free market...they are not they are totally incompatible with a free market who says you have the right to that music? The state: a totally accepted institution that has no power expect threw individuals coorporation! Not really valid
LBRTRN89 3 years ago
A man's original ideas are his property, are they not?
Patents and copyrights are valid b/c they designate the ideas which belong to a man.
Neither a man's right to his property nor the law which protects this right is dependent on the state.
lnd3005 3 years ago
Oh define original idea that is open for a huge gray area...what I assume you mean is the first to public an idea on a large scale i.e. the Beatles who admittedly stole ideas and music from bands at the clubs they played in at Liverpool...defining original idea is open for to great of a debate/and also your saying the Law has a right to infringe on peoples minds if what your saying is the case why don't me start copy writing thoughts no this thought has already been though so I want money!
LBRTRN89 3 years ago
I say "original idea," and that is pretty ambiguous, I admit.
However, if you look into patent and copyright law (very different areas, mind you), you'll find that one can successfully file only under specific conditions. What I mean is "original idea" can be given a strict (and reasonable) meaning in either context (patent or copyright).
In an ideal world, private courts would determine who first qualified as a "patent/copyright holder," if a party filed suit over an IP issue.
lnd3005 3 years ago
cute
redmattuk 3 years ago
Pimps are entrepreneurs? exploiting the women, dominating them. Thats an authoritarian dominance, there's nothing liberating about it.
Autonomous collective brothels, run by the sex workers themselves, that WOULD be liberatory, that would be consensual and counter-soceo-economic. But that's not what you're saying. You're praising drug dealers and pimps for exploiting the current system of capital to their personal advantage.
But I do like your metaphor of governments as little dots... quaint.
DevAnubis 3 years ago
I don't see it so much as praising as I do exemplifying a new/different entrepeneur. Exploiting the system of captal to your personal advantage, isn't that what it means to be an entrepeneur?
lookit87 3 years ago
Yes but this girl is on about Libertarian Anarchist Revolution, and unless I'm very much mistaken on the definition, an anarchist society will be one with no hierarchies whatsoever. No economic exploitation and no social dominance: No Masters
To praise a Pimp as working towards this goal is absurd. Yes they may be breaking down old social taboos about sex by perhaps making paid-for sex more available. But they oppress and exploit the workers! If its the oldest trade, they are the oldest masters
DevAnubis 3 years ago
another point: society has a social contract. each individual has the right GIVEN to him to others. without society, there is no concept of rights, since rights are something which arises from social contract. social contract and cooperation are the key to progress, so we must strengthen this contract and this cooperation, and then each individual will live free and happy.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
you make a good point about going against the system and the idea that the government is just a bunch of dots. i realized that one day living in Texas, and thats when i began to call myself an individualist anarchism, yet i supported socialism to an extenct. then i switched over to anarcho-communism, as i realized it was more fit.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
hahahahah this is what happens when you give a microphone to every uneducated teenager in the most opulent nation on earth
sheepfucker244 3 years ago
I agree
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
haha no. Go learn what liberalism is.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
'leftist liberal'. You fail. I'm not a liberal and that you think I am really highlights your ignorance. So what if I'm a leftist? That is hardly an insult.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
You're obviously the moron for being a capitalist that "Could care less about WTO".
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
You make no sense and your petty non-relevant immature insults really aren't doing your arguement the world of good.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
yes, all leftists are state socialists....There is no other way to look at the economic policies of organisations like the WTO, than imperialistic and objecting to that is, just well, idoicy.
Well being for third world countries? you what? ever heard of third world debt and the G8? You are the dimwit.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
Obviously.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
you try to come over a stupid? Cos you do.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
Yeah, it has nothing to do with imperialism and econmoic imperialism at all.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
You sound an integrist to me... Did your Jesus say "Might makes Right" ?
What's a nation were nobody is allowed to THINK ?
Who's talking of violence ? The truth is... your system is not viable, at least, not for much longer.
Kernunn0s 3 years ago
it's called social revolution.
punkisaghetto 3 years ago
I really think you simply don't understand what you are saying. Maybe you're just confused. Go do some research and actually think.
joebouce 3 years ago
So you're anti-revolution but are american. Ever heard of the war of independence you hypocrite.
joebouce 3 years ago
How can anyone critisize anarchy or libertarianism by comparing their form of federal government. Look at the wars we have had against other countries and the world wars too for that matter. Those would not happen in an anarchist or libertarian society.
Karma000Justice 3 years ago
I'm an anarchist.
but your idea of breaking the law slowly is flawed because if all the anarchists/libertarians (which are different but I won't get into) start cheating on they're taxes, they MAY weaken the government, but they may go to jail.
tell me something, if all the anarchists are sitting in jail, where the hell is our revolution going to come from. It's a gamble, it's all about finding balance, I don't know where the line is
who knows, maybe we need to throw more molotov cocktails.
slormins 3 years ago
What would you hope to gain through violent revolution? Why does there have to a be 'our revolution'. Why do you label yourself and create an enemy? Us v.s them.
Any new society that is based on us v.s them is just a continuation of the old system. It's laws and paradigm will reflect it's relationship to the old system like two sides of a coin.
Violent revolution will most likely fail, it brings misery to the lives of the people and it will create another flawed system. Let things be.
1988Mscott 3 years ago