The will-kill is a ridiculous idea, since it offers no option for self-defense. I would much prefer to have people have guns (or other some such weapons) because, if somebody does not like me for no reason at all, then they would have to break through my self defensive measures before they could kill me. The will-kill doesn't allow this protection.
So if my father does something despicable and you kill him, then you agree to pay his dependents (me) support, as well as reparations for dehumanizing them? But... wherever shall you obtain all this money???
The will kill idea works, because some people don't understand the need for citizens to have guns. Surrendering weapons forever would mean the government would then be free to do whatever they wish... Hey i particularly liked that idea about how you throw your kids into this system to be educated by these lunatics that ruin the world, its comforting to know that there are people out there that understand why this country is so messed up.
Drop the "will kill" idea, and just call it "universal gun ownership". Don't "fine tune it", to make it better than gun rights. Just say "universal gun rights and training". Tends to put pressure towards the righteous use of force. The numbers of deaths are not irrelevant. YES. Thank you for being LOGICAL. There is too little logic in the world today. Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, or "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party?
I just listened to "Forget about Self Defense!" at your website, and it's so weak and self-contradictory that it has confused a lot of the sheeple on your chat room. Damn. You really brainwashed those poor kids, and pointed them in the wrong direction. You made a great point about WWI though, in "FASD". This video is much better, and addresses the problem of democide and tyranny. ...Much better!! Great job!
The notion of mutually self destruction was used to excuse nuclear weapons proliferation by the Soviet and US superpowers during the cold war. The idea was, like in the willkill, that a first strike would necessarily result in massive retaliation and so nobody wanted to do attack the enemy. The acronym of mutually assured destruction: MAD. In fact, the world came close to nuclear war inspite of this logic many times. As an argument against government control, the willkill is very weak indeed.
Firing nuclear bombs at a state does not equal destroying it completely, which would be the state equivalent to killing a human. I sincerely doubt that a state would have fired a bomb, if the cost were retaliation in the form of COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of said state.
The idea that a universal threat of death will deter everybody except the insane from doing bad things to other people is naive to the max and utterly fails to acknowledge that human nature is more complex than that. Entire cycles of violence in the world today exist which are based on desires for revenge, honour and so on - entirely irrational - and which are self-destructive and harder to carry out than the suggested willkill. It's like saying if eveyone had a gun fewer people would murder.
Violence is very rarely irrational, it's aimed at achieving control over people. In the willkill world this wouldn't work and so wouldn't be tried. Have you ever seen a workplace murderer shooting up a bank? Or a cop shop? Of anywhere else that's filled with armed men? If everyone had a gun the only people who would murder are those prepared to seriously risk death to achieve this goal. How many people think you're such a dick that it's worth dying to kill you?
I would rather look into the causality of such behaviour, as in the example with the killer entering a bus and trying to kill everyone.
Some medical research say that the lack of certain vitamins in those criminals' bodies is what's causing them to become crazy and anti-social.
So, in other words, here, instead of having a top-down approach we should consider a bottom-up approach, such as mentioned above, instead of eliminating the governments all together?
at around min 27 stef says: "while hundreds of millions of people were killed by the governments, if everyone would be allowed to carry guns, only one person would die, the one entering a bus and killing one person, being killed by the second passenger" (very approx.) Just to make it clear, this comment is to correct an error, even if minor.
Obviously more then one person would be killed adding up similar situations, right? So if you sum it all up, what would be the end result of deaths?
Stef, perhaps we could say 'we are all police' to assuage peoples' minds? Obviously, they wouldn't actually BE 'police' but the change of language might help people who want their masters to protect them from their slaves! Like, an anarchic society 'polices itself'?
with an equal power "Will kill" every sphere of life would be more or less voluntary no more exploitation + abuse + participating in an economic system witch by it's very existence creates concentration of power + privilege no more poverty no more class most wouldn't choose to die cause they loose a game they didn't choose to play equal power is both individual freedom + responsability and an end to caste if not, some body must have more power to keep it some other way
What if there were a law of nature that prevented people from violating each other's rights? Now THAT would be ideal, wouldn't it? If only God had thought of that one. ;)
excellent metaphor. excellent examples of the current "will kill" situation. Also, i like that if you replace the countries that have nukes who don't attack each other because they know that they too will become nuked, and pretty much non-existent, replace that with everyone owning a gun. Bam, almost world peace, but of course, there will still be those homicidal people, but of course that's natural.
The state is not inherently evil: there are better and worse states. States are necessary to provide impartial justice between individuals and public goods (overcoming the free-rider problem). Real states are imperfect and burdensome of course but relatively successful ones do provide these things. Giving everyone the power to kill (or the real-life equivalent: giving everyone a gun) would be pure pure madness. Imagine the vendettas! What if someone will-killed you for overtaking them?
If it helps make key point in 'will kill' more understandable, imagine instead that everyone wore, in plain view, a holster with a handgun in it. Like a cowboy in a western, or a police officer. The gun is fully loaded, the safety engaged and the holster is clipped shut. Then watch the video again.
The best defense of the will-kill. Overpopulation, and climate change. More resources for the surviors, and less damage to the earth. Lower gas prices at the pump, and people kissing your ass at work.
Fewer customers, fewer doctors, fewer women to date... And the world is not ending, our life expectancy just keeps going up. Our greatest danger is war.
I would will-kill every bad driver off the road, not you stef-unless you cut me off and slowed down in the fast lane. Without regard, so in that way I am all for the will-kill, social-darwnism at its best.
Suicide bombers know they will die in thier attempt at salvation. What would prevent the legions of a relious following not to do the same on a much more targeted scale. Your previous video on the myth of the nice christan makes this point. Conformity, killing those who don't conform. Bottem line: it would not be creative, rather destructive.
Will-kill, the goverment may have; however, given that power to anyone at any-time would create unpredictible varibles in human behavior. Can you say indefinetly that there would only be polite people, and not murders mobs/ groups will-killing in hordes
You are saying if I will-killed someone, that there would be retribution; however, I don't see how. If I will-killed an individual, how would thier family/friends know it was me? ad infinum
There is plenty of people, namely my reliogus mother, who would will-kill me for god(because I was never married in a chruch, rather by a satanist, which for some resason she never attended). point being, most people would will-kill randomly due in part they would never be disovered and have to face a will-kill of those they know.
Old people, who because of thier lack of response-time, would die off and the courts would be filled with probate cases (way before) it was ment to occur. Jesus, there would be no courts, no safty valves for the weak and genetically inferior.
Parents, mad at thier teenagers -adolecnce rebel against them- would will-kill them out-of-a-fit consentrated rage. My deal is, we would have to redifine justice in this world. Is it just for me to break-into your house will-kill and rob you, or I like your car, will-kill while you drive. How do you punish those you can't find?
What about a large group of will-killers, who seek to use rethoric and presuasiveness do induct other memebers, and if you do not convert you are will-killed. Christains would take over...
There can't be blackmail, because you would just will kill whoever blackmailed you. What you are talking about is religion and government at the moment, particularly in theocracies like the Muslim countries.
Then how would anything be sold, if I felt my long distance carrier (who Identified herself as karen) charged me to much-Will-killed. Or, If I bought a car, i felt that I was being charged to much for... wait a week, then will-kill the seller (how would thier family seek "justice" for thier families lost?) It seems will-kill would create more trouble
... if children's natural inclination for curiosity were nurtured in education instead of teaching them to hate it, then democracy would begin to take place and crimes on any scale would diminish until virtually or actually gone.
of course not. but that doesn't mean running a school based on a profit motive will do any better. a school must be built on the understanding of what it means for the for community, of the individuals place in society and responsibility in a democracy. education should be about nurturing the child's curiousity and learning through direct experience. (see my videos on education)
Then you should start a school like that and compete with people who have different ideas! I'll have a look at your videos though, thanks for the link brother!
...but my basic moral issue is that education should not be 'provided' through the threat of violence, which is what governments do through taxation....
I don't think that profit is a good enough bottom line to keep people honest. What about companies who make misleading commercials to control the weak minded fools who'll buy anything with more fun side effects than bad? Plenty of people who like private schools do because they are extremely religious. In doing so they are brainwashing their children and perpetuating their ideas (mind control seems a definite anarchist no-no to me).
i watched most of this one, i jumped around at a certain point though. i'm not sure i understand the relevance of the "will kill." i can wish all day that the world is fundamentally different than it is, but i must address the world as it is. i stand by the second amendment but think there should be limits. for instance, i don't everyone should be able to buy nuclear weapons. ...
I have a better understanding of anarchy now. It sounded like a bad word before I watched this vid. When everyone has the power to execute an immediate consequence on someone else, most people would be civil, maybe even loving, towards strangers.
This is simply the "Mutually Assured Destruction" argument. If you want to talk about films how about "the Forbidden Planet" where the Krill (itself based on the Tempest) had the ability to will-kill and as a result totally destroyed their civilisation.
Furthermore the growing violence in major British cities is for instance committed by equally armed and malicious gangs. The fear of mutual destruction doesn't seem to lessen the increasing frequency of gang-land murders.
I got the point, but Stephs arguement is one sided. Imagine someone killed a member of your family with their mind for stealing a car, you would want to kill them with your mind and so on. Would lead to more wars and problems.
you've over looked the other outcome - everyone just kills each other until theres only people who cant bring themselves to kill. You would end up with half the population of the world being killed. Would be safer, but could be left with a very boring world. Nice theory though!
If Everyone could kill anyone with their mind's, the whole planet would be dead. The muzzies would have "thought" us all dead way before 9-11. And somebody would have thought them dead.
The will-kill is a ridiculous idea, since it offers no option for self-defense. I would much prefer to have people have guns (or other some such weapons) because, if somebody does not like me for no reason at all, then they would have to break through my self defensive measures before they could kill me. The will-kill doesn't allow this protection.
JeffL08 9 months ago
What about the handicapped? I do agree with your basic premise, but do you have any ideas for that?
secrets0stolen 1 year ago
This almost makes me want to have a gun.
StephHuegi 2 years ago
Kind of reminds me of Death Note, only it's 1 guy with the "will kill".
boxant 2 years ago
So if my father does something despicable and you kill him, then you agree to pay his dependents (me) support, as well as reparations for dehumanizing them? But... wherever shall you obtain all this money???
ACTSRevolution 2 years ago
What? What does that have to do with the point he makes in this video?
inactivism 2 years ago
@ACTSRevolution Hell no to you and your despicable father . It's just your luck you had an asshole dad . Sorry!
fabianstraregy 7 months ago
The will kill idea works, because some people don't understand the need for citizens to have guns. Surrendering weapons forever would mean the government would then be free to do whatever they wish... Hey i particularly liked that idea about how you throw your kids into this system to be educated by these lunatics that ruin the world, its comforting to know that there are people out there that understand why this country is so messed up.
dunngar 2 years ago
Drop the "will kill" idea, and just call it "universal gun ownership". Don't "fine tune it", to make it better than gun rights. Just say "universal gun rights and training". Tends to put pressure towards the righteous use of force. The numbers of deaths are not irrelevant. YES. Thank you for being LOGICAL. There is too little logic in the world today. Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, or "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party?
heywoodjablohme 3 years ago
LOL Stef, most people don't comprehend the concept of "emergent order". It's limited to just a handful: you, Marc Stevens, me, Eric Drexler, etc...
heywoodjablohme 3 years ago
I just listened to "Forget about Self Defense!" at your website, and it's so weak and self-contradictory that it has confused a lot of the sheeple on your chat room. Damn. You really brainwashed those poor kids, and pointed them in the wrong direction. You made a great point about WWI though, in "FASD". This video is much better, and addresses the problem of democide and tyranny. ...Much better!! Great job!
heywoodjablohme 3 years ago
The notion of mutually self destruction was used to excuse nuclear weapons proliferation by the Soviet and US superpowers during the cold war. The idea was, like in the willkill, that a first strike would necessarily result in massive retaliation and so nobody wanted to do attack the enemy. The acronym of mutually assured destruction: MAD. In fact, the world came close to nuclear war inspite of this logic many times. As an argument against government control, the willkill is very weak indeed.
DrObeoFwar 3 years ago
@DrObeoFwar
Firing nuclear bombs at a state does not equal destroying it completely, which would be the state equivalent to killing a human. I sincerely doubt that a state would have fired a bomb, if the cost were retaliation in the form of COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of said state.
StephHuegi 2 years ago
The idea that a universal threat of death will deter everybody except the insane from doing bad things to other people is naive to the max and utterly fails to acknowledge that human nature is more complex than that. Entire cycles of violence in the world today exist which are based on desires for revenge, honour and so on - entirely irrational - and which are self-destructive and harder to carry out than the suggested willkill. It's like saying if eveyone had a gun fewer people would murder.
DrObeoFwar 3 years ago
Violence is very rarely irrational, it's aimed at achieving control over people. In the willkill world this wouldn't work and so wouldn't be tried. Have you ever seen a workplace murderer shooting up a bank? Or a cop shop? Of anywhere else that's filled with armed men? If everyone had a gun the only people who would murder are those prepared to seriously risk death to achieve this goal. How many people think you're such a dick that it's worth dying to kill you?
newperve 2 years ago
I would rather look into the causality of such behaviour, as in the example with the killer entering a bus and trying to kill everyone.
Some medical research say that the lack of certain vitamins in those criminals' bodies is what's causing them to become crazy and anti-social.
So, in other words, here, instead of having a top-down approach we should consider a bottom-up approach, such as mentioned above, instead of eliminating the governments all together?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
at around min 27 stef says: "while hundreds of millions of people were killed by the governments, if everyone would be allowed to carry guns, only one person would die, the one entering a bus and killing one person, being killed by the second passenger" (very approx.) Just to make it clear, this comment is to correct an error, even if minor.
Obviously more then one person would be killed adding up similar situations, right? So if you sum it all up, what would be the end result of deaths?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
This world sounds like ideal for necrophiliacs
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Stef, perhaps we could say 'we are all police' to assuage peoples' minds? Obviously, they wouldn't actually BE 'police' but the change of language might help people who want their masters to protect them from their slaves! Like, an anarchic society 'polices itself'?
lukeev 4 years ago
troublebaker 4 years ago 2
What if there were a law of nature that prevented people from violating each other's rights? Now THAT would be ideal, wouldn't it? If only God had thought of that one. ;)
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
evolution has no preference
lukeev 4 years ago
Excellent question - keep watching, or listen to the first few podcasts on my web site. :)
stefbot 4 years ago
parispeter, statist propaganda does become boring after a while. None of what you described is the exclusive domain of the State.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
On what grounds, Ghetto4uk? That you utterly misunderstand what it implies? Probably.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
should be: ghettouk4u2
Elhan2005 4 years ago
excellent metaphor. excellent examples of the current "will kill" situation. Also, i like that if you replace the countries that have nukes who don't attack each other because they know that they too will become nuked, and pretty much non-existent, replace that with everyone owning a gun. Bam, almost world peace, but of course, there will still be those homicidal people, but of course that's natural.
randallpink 4 years ago
Thanks! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
The state is not inherently evil: there are better and worse states. States are necessary to provide impartial justice between individuals and public goods (overcoming the free-rider problem). Real states are imperfect and burdensome of course but relatively successful ones do provide these things. Giving everyone the power to kill (or the real-life equivalent: giving everyone a gun) would be pure pure madness. Imagine the vendettas! What if someone will-killed you for overtaking them?
parispeter2 4 years ago
If it helps make key point in 'will kill' more understandable, imagine instead that everyone wore, in plain view, a holster with a handgun in it. Like a cowboy in a western, or a police officer. The gun is fully loaded, the safety engaged and the holster is clipped shut. Then watch the video again.
worldvoyageur 4 years ago
I think the will spanking would be far more effective.
sabot96 4 years ago
Ha, right, just think of the instruction video! ;)
stefbot 4 years ago
@sabot96 what do you mean ?
fabianstraregy 7 months ago
Lots of people want to kill me...
...but they can't find me.
xx1212 4 years ago
The best defense of the will-kill. Overpopulation, and climate change. More resources for the surviors, and less damage to the earth. Lower gas prices at the pump, and people kissing your ass at work.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Fewer customers, fewer doctors, fewer women to date... And the world is not ending, our life expectancy just keeps going up. Our greatest danger is war.
stefbot 4 years ago
Good science fiction plot.I object to the oxymoron 'anarcho capitalism'
ghettouk4u2 4 years ago
Agreed! Why don't people just say 'Libertarian'?
RebelWithoutASauce 4 years ago
I would will-kill every bad driver off the road, not you stef-unless you cut me off and slowed down in the fast lane. Without regard, so in that way I am all for the will-kill, social-darwnism at its best.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Haha, thanks for leaving me alive!
stefbot 4 years ago
Suicide bombers know they will die in thier attempt at salvation. What would prevent the legions of a relious following not to do the same on a much more targeted scale. Your previous video on the myth of the nice christan makes this point. Conformity, killing those who don't conform. Bottem line: it would not be creative, rather destructive.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Will-kill, the goverment may have; however, given that power to anyone at any-time would create unpredictible varibles in human behavior. Can you say indefinetly that there would only be polite people, and not murders mobs/ groups will-killing in hordes
Explitiv3 4 years ago
You are saying if I will-killed someone, that there would be retribution; however, I don't see how. If I will-killed an individual, how would thier family/friends know it was me? ad infinum
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Why would someone want to 'will kill' you? Does anyone want to kill you in real life now?
stefbot 4 years ago
There is plenty of people, namely my reliogus mother, who would will-kill me for god(because I was never married in a chruch, rather by a satanist, which for some resason she never attended). point being, most people would will-kill randomly due in part they would never be disovered and have to face a will-kill of those they know.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
I mean it would go by numbers Steph.
If you have one relative, you get killed, they kill the killer, someone from the group kills them and there's no one left on your side.
Like in chess if I have three pieces covering a square and you have two, I can attack that square.
xx1212 4 years ago
If you're alone and no one will risk death to avenge yours, then you're at everyone's mercy - safety in numbers leads to gangs (YKWIM)
No one could be famous - all our favourite actors would get killed (and you. lol)
Should I go on...
Sorry if I sound snippy -- had to cut everything for the word limit.
xx1212 4 years ago
Sure, that's a perfect description of the individual voter at the hands of the government...
stefbot 4 years ago
You've said the threat of violence alone is enough to create a state of tyranny - wouldn't we always be afraid?
If I convinced someone else to will-kill your friend, how would you know it was me?
If you used the power justly, would everyone listen to your whole trial or would his Mom just kill you back?...
xx1212 4 years ago
Not if your family would just 'will kill' her back - you see?
stefbot 4 years ago
OK I'll take it seriously.
You said we would decide if a kid was responsible enough - who would have that power?
You wouldn't kill your wife if she abused you -- like in the example you gave.
These psychos know they're going to die and want to take people with them but that's difficult.
Violent crime is impulsive that's why harsher punishment hasn't effectively reduced it...
xx1212 4 years ago
Old people, who because of thier lack of response-time, would die off and the courts would be filled with probate cases (way before) it was ment to occur. Jesus, there would be no courts, no safty valves for the weak and genetically inferior.
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Parents, mad at thier teenagers -adolecnce rebel against them- would will-kill them out-of-a-fit consentrated rage. My deal is, we would have to redifine justice in this world. Is it just for me to break-into your house will-kill and rob you, or I like your car, will-kill while you drive. How do you punish those you can't find?
Explitiv3 4 years ago
What about a large group of will-killers, who seek to use rethoric and presuasiveness do induct other memebers, and if you do not convert you are will-killed. Christains would take over...
Explitiv3 4 years ago
There can't be blackmail, because you would just will kill whoever blackmailed you. What you are talking about is religion and government at the moment, particularly in theocracies like the Muslim countries.
stefbot 4 years ago
Then how would anything be sold, if I felt my long distance carrier (who Identified herself as karen) charged me to much-Will-killed. Or, If I bought a car, i felt that I was being charged to much for... wait a week, then will-kill the seller (how would thier family seek "justice" for thier families lost?) It seems will-kill would create more trouble
Explitiv3 4 years ago
Quickly...
Took me a minute to realize what you'd done here.
This is obviously wrong but almost impossible to challenge because you only gave an idea, without details that can be picked apart.
I'll go for the one aspect which is grounded in reality - the neuclear example is confounded by survivorship bias.
I'd love to debate this with you if you're up for it.
peace
xx1212 4 years ago
... if children's natural inclination for curiosity were nurtured in education instead of teaching them to hate it, then democracy would begin to take place and crimes on any scale would diminish until virtually or actually gone.
phillipmcgarry 4 years ago
For that to occur, education would have to be totally privatized...
stefbot 4 years ago
so you think rich people should have better education than poor people?
phillipmcgarry 4 years ago
Do you think the governemnt is educating poor people well now? (and I give away all my 720 educational podcasts for free!)
stefbot 4 years ago
of course not. but that doesn't mean running a school based on a profit motive will do any better. a school must be built on the understanding of what it means for the for community, of the individuals place in society and responsibility in a democracy. education should be about nurturing the child's curiousity and learning through direct experience. (see my videos on education)
phillipmcgarry 4 years ago
Then you should start a school like that and compete with people who have different ideas! I'll have a look at your videos though, thanks for the link brother!
stefbot 4 years ago
...but my basic moral issue is that education should not be 'provided' through the threat of violence, which is what governments do through taxation....
stefbot 4 years ago
I don't think that profit is a good enough bottom line to keep people honest. What about companies who make misleading commercials to control the weak minded fools who'll buy anything with more fun side effects than bad? Plenty of people who like private schools do because they are extremely religious. In doing so they are brainwashing their children and perpetuating their ideas (mind control seems a definite anarchist no-no to me).
agenttachyon 3 years ago
i watched most of this one, i jumped around at a certain point though. i'm not sure i understand the relevance of the "will kill." i can wish all day that the world is fundamentally different than it is, but i must address the world as it is. i stand by the second amendment but think there should be limits. for instance, i don't everyone should be able to buy nuclear weapons. ...
phillipmcgarry 4 years ago
Except George Bush?
stefbot 4 years ago
especially george bush
phillipmcgarry 4 years ago
I have a better understanding of anarchy now. It sounded like a bad word before I watched this vid. When everyone has the power to execute an immediate consequence on someone else, most people would be civil, maybe even loving, towards strangers.
freebaker 4 years ago
This is simply the "Mutually Assured Destruction" argument. If you want to talk about films how about "the Forbidden Planet" where the Krill (itself based on the Tempest) had the ability to will-kill and as a result totally destroyed their civilisation.
Furthermore the growing violence in major British cities is for instance committed by equally armed and malicious gangs. The fear of mutual destruction doesn't seem to lessen the increasing frequency of gang-land murders.
Halothewynd 4 years ago
I got the point, but Stephs arguement is one sided. Imagine someone killed a member of your family with their mind for stealing a car, you would want to kill them with your mind and so on. Would lead to more wars and problems.
supercoolkid83 4 years ago
Less, actually. What nuclear power attack another nuclear power? None, that's a real-world example...
stefbot 4 years ago
you've over looked the other outcome - everyone just kills each other until theres only people who cant bring themselves to kill. You would end up with half the population of the world being killed. Would be safer, but could be left with a very boring world. Nice theory though!
supercoolkid83 4 years ago
Coolkid, You completely missed the point.
Great vid, Stef.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Great Video Brother...
scottferrie 4 years ago
Thanks so much!
stefbot 4 years ago
If Everyone could kill anyone with their mind's, the whole planet would be dead. The muzzies would have "thought" us all dead way before 9-11. And somebody would have thought them dead.
MetaMorphy 4 years ago