I'm picturing this guy crashing the Mensa group, with a massive intellectual inferiority complex, interrupting every attempt they make at discussion so he can divert the topic to some tedious philosophical exercise in definitions, all because he knows about the ‘truth’ of Libertarianism . This, of course, makes anyone who doesn’t brainless (despite what some IQ test says) and any discussion they might want to have, pointless. What a selfish ass this guy sounds like.
@666or999 I just think what the guy described was very inconsiderate. Was he even invited? He showed up to derail their discussions to suit his own agenda. I also find the parallels with Stefan’s own behavior staggering. On the occasions when people have attempted to attempt a sincere, polite and comprehensive dissertation of Stefan’s writings and philosophy on their forum, it has ended with hostility towards them and eventual expulsion.
@chisleu so many many great points... I can't wait to catch up on your videos. I find this to be more thoughtful and intelligent than some of the other political thinking channels I frequent.
Statist vs Anarchist debates, are like creationist vs evolution debates, and just as evolution is the winner, anarchy is the answer to the issue of political philosophy. Anarchy, does not favor the answer, which is easy in nature to accept, as Creationism, is in biology, but it recognizes that a successful society, is ran with the non-aggression principle. There is a million ways to special plead against the non-aggression principle, as creationist do for their god, but reality requires it.
@KevZen2000 Also a great society is ran on science and technology increasing their capabilities. As of now we are a hybrid of technology/ industrialized. The theocrat's will try and stand in our way of achieving a great society, they like control and want to control our lives, I wonder how it will turn out.
@Tethloach1. Society, in the long run,will become a better, more enlightened state, where the progress will not be recognized by us today. Anarchy, is the end result of political evolution, and people still have a fetish with the mythology of socialism, so most likely, but unfortunately, we will go through stages of a mixed economic state of 'socialism w/state capitalism,' similar to a water down version of Marxism, with a technocratic and environmental spin.
There are at least two concepts to describe/prescribe what a government is or should be:1, The defence of individual freedom in reference to principles laid down in a constitution: 2, The monopolization of violence in a given geographical area. Why is it Stef sees government only in reference to the 2nd def..? I suppose that if the majority of people vote for people who's agenda is for the second def, that is how it turns out. Is it possible to work for the 2nd def, if not, why not??
@TRONhack3r Just because money is DNA of this society and everything is about it, even you want it or not........ I dont like it but i cant do anything about it. Human being is too stupid that it cannot even think any other option of living.
@junnu79m We can only thank socail evolution, the old ideas fade away as the young embrace new ones. scientist in the future will be far smarter than scientist today if we are to achieve a great future, also are technological capabilities will be unbelievable, here is a hint: we will be able to build organs on demand, alter our DNA's, free food as in backyard farming, window farming, vertical farming, most the stuff I listed already exist or are in progress.
The kind of clarity of thought that may lead to the necessity of stepping off the treadmill is feared by most people, quite simply because they have been brutally conditioned into the state of fear for so long and in so many ways. But the times they are a-changin'. It's been good listening to you, with thanks.
@DanMorin007 What we should be trying to do is find the common ground between us.Not fighting over the meanings of words. Look in Wikipedia under 'socialism' and see the link to "libertarian socialism". Surely we all want peace, freedom and justice ? To me it seems like (US) libertarians only want freedom for the rich to continue exploiting the poor.
@HelmetBlissta Actually it is socialism that create an elite class exploiting the poor. From a rational analysis socialism is unfair, and from historical perspective, socialism is bloody. The USSR and Nazi were both socialist parties. Socialism is about legalized theft, and those who benefit are the elite, and the bulk of the population remains in poverty.
@DanMorin007 No, not actually, you might have said "From my perspective". My rational sees socialism as fair. The Nazi party, I think, could more accurately be described and "Nationalist-Zionist". I disagree Capitalism is all about "ownership" and as we are all children of the earth , the oil the gas , all resources should be commonly owned. You can point at the bad points of bad examples of Socialism. Whereas I can point to capitalism not working for the majority of people. You twist words.
@HelmetBlissta even marx admited socialism couldn't exist unless capitalism had first created a system for socialism to hijack. socialism DOESN'T work, it isnt creative, it cant build wealth, it cant create quality of life. capitalism DOES. and its the only thing that has ever done it to any measurable degree. and the only thing that will, its the only fair and natural means to embetter our or anyone elses lives.
@Intangion I live in a different reality to you. I have to go to work now but I'd love to continue this later if you like. To sum it up I think you are wrong on pretty much everything you have said. Would you prefer we combat each other to try to prove ourselves 'right' or would you like an exchange of ideas and attempt to find common ground ?
@dsfsdafdsafsdaf if you can establish common goals you can establish common objective morality. If we both agree we stand to gain more from trading with each other than murdering each other, we can also establish that murdering each other is wrong...
Capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. With a socialist economic system the workers own the means of production. I stand for the many and not with the few.
@HelmetBlissta Socialism concentrates wealth in the hands of the unproductive. With a capitalist system the workers own the product of their labor. I stand for the individual and not for the expropriator.
@mortalisk Wrong, socialism seeks a fairer more even distribution of wealth. With capitalism the boss or business owner "owns" the product of their labour. You stand for the individual if he is the boss and not if he is the worker. Socialism aims for us to be our own boss. Often when I talk to (US) "libertarians" I am left with the feeling that they/you have changed the meanings of many words, the most obvious example being "libertarian". Listen to Chomsky on "libertarians"
@HelmetBlissta I am not from America. I am for the individual no matter who he is. The worker is free to use his labor for himself and not share with anyone in my system. If he chooses to go into cooperation with others, it is his choice. In socialism he is forced to share with someone like today. I agree that socialism seeks a more even distribution of wealth, but I disagree that it would be fairer. I do not care what you wish to call me, I stand for individuals freedom from violent coercion.
@mortalisk And by individual I first and foremost mean ME. I have respect for myself and do not think I need to be bossed around in order to be virtuous. I know that I have to extend this to other people in order for them to extend this to me. I am worker, and my relationship with my all my coworkers and boss is a voluntary and mutually beneficial one. In stark contrast with my relationship to the state, who insist on forcing me to support their endeavors.
@mortalisk My wife is currently receiving treatment for cancer under the Australian universal health care system. I see that as a good thing even though some will insist that they shouldn't have to pay into this system. What would (US) libertarians suggest if a group of well armed meth salesmen moved into their neighborhood and started selling their shit to our children?
@HelmetBlissta It seem to me like you expect drug selling people to be the same and behave the same even if it were legal. Legality does not mean that anyone has to allow it on their property. Even if the neighborhood had no such rules, drug selling is not more profitable than any other business in normal situations. I also believe that in an anarchic society, children will not be told lies from the moment they can think, and so will actually have no need to rebel by taking drugs.
@mortalisk So are you saying that you think meth is acceptable and should be unregulated. It is highly addictive unlike many other businesses. Drug taking is not just a form of rebellion, some people use drugs as a coping mechanism, some just like it. I don't like prohibition , yet it seems that some things are very fucking strong and many if not most people who use meth suffer serious negative effects.
@mortalisk I also stand for "individuals freedom from violent coercion". We should try to find our common ground. My understanding of (US) libertarianism is a kind of right-wing anarchism. I am in favour of anarchism, I just do not see that we can achieve it from the right. Anarchism now would just leave the wealthy freer to exploit the masses. I would favour left-wing anarchism which is what I understand as 'libertarianism'. I do understand that in the US this is a different.
@HelmetBlissta I used to think of myself as a left-wing anarchist. Now I don't see the difference, except for different expectations of what would happen when people stop supporting violence. A great deal of the wealthy today do exploit the masses, but it is by state interference, like money printing, bank guarantees, bailouts and corporate protection from liability. There are also rich people who have done nothing but serving other people. There is a distinction, and it is important.
@mortalisk But I think we have a lot of common ground already. Non-violence should let us respect each other to the end. I just think anarchism now would be magnificent(meaning that most people agreed on the non aggression principle). Rich people would have to pay for their own protection, in stead of getting it free from the state(who only protect rich people anyway). No more inflation, no more bailouts, no more taxes(which is where all the state powers come from)
@mortalisk No more universal healthcare , no more public services. I don't choose this world vision. I am very happy to agree with you that we share much common ground.
@HelmetBlissta I just think that if being realistic, you have to take the one with the other. You might have those systems of forcing everyone to pay for the services you like, but you will then have to live in a world where you are also forced to pay for the protection of rich people, inflation, bailouts, wasteful investments causing recessions or similar. I think working people(who pay the most anyway) could come together peacefully to provide for the few who really need it without that crap.
@mortalisk I like to think that we will come together and provide for those that need help as well , and it is observable many times too. Now I'm no fan of rich people but are you saying they should not have the same level of protection or security as others. In other conversations with people who call themselves (US) libertarians many have talked about 'property rights' so much so that it appears central to their beliefs. Do you believe in this concept ?
@HelmetBlissta You dont understand that property rights have to do with morals.Under any system someone owns property rights,its either the state,or individuals.Do you like to own your socks?You own property if you can CONTROL it,so,if the state can tell you witch time you can put your socks on,you dont own your socks.No fucking dictator has the right to tell you what you can do with your socks,or your piece of land,if you want to trade it,and for how much you want to trade.
@HelmetBlissta So were is the problem,if you want resources you buy them like everyone else,what makes you think your state(a few people at the top) have the right to control(own) all resources?If you find a pocket of oil under my house do you think you have a right to remove my property for oil drilling?No,but i do have a right to shoot you if you disrespect my property.And i have news for you,We dont have capitalism now aniway,we have corporatism,learn the difference
@TheCapitalistdog Anyway it is quite clear to me now that what people are calling 'libertarianism' here is not for me. I think sharing, common ownership, equality,peace and freedom are all positive values for us to live by. This isn't for me, we've all wasted enough of our time arguing with each other. It all seems so selfish. I hate that and see it at the root of our problems. I'm off to read some Chomsky.
Peace and freedom are postive value to live by. Common ownership involves contradictions with regards to the principle of self-ownership.
You have exclusive control of your mind and body. I cannot attain exclusive control of your mind and body, I can only influence it through external means, such as coercion and persuasion. For as long as you are living, your mind and body belong to you, naturally.
@TheCapitalistdog All preference is not selfish. We disagree mate . I have tried stefbot , I was attracted by the idea of liberty, I subscribe to anarchic ideas. Yet I do not wish to associate myself with this type of ideology. I am sure none of us are without flaw. It's not for me.
@mortalisk I note that the greedy capitalist bankers were the first to come to the "nanny state" when their game went bottoms up. I don't think it is fair to blame all of life's woes on "the state", when so many of them to my mind at least are the result of greedy private interest. I can imagine you might say it's because the state lets them or interferes or something, but greed is not the preserve of the state, power is not unique to the state, etc etc. greedy individuals do it too.
@HelmetBlissta I have a problem with the word greedy. What is greed? If it is wanting something really bad, I have no problem with greed. If bankers are greedy they can still do nothing to touch my life unless I am greedy too and get involved in their business. There is absolutely no need for putting your wealth in a greedy bank if you don't desire too. If you do you will be taking a big risk(except in today's world of course, where everyone who take risks are subsidized).
@mortalisk So are you saying that these privately run banks and their short comings are the fault of the state too . I don't buy it . Private business must be responsible for some of their actions surely. I do not accept that everything is the states fault. One function of government should be to protect the weaker members of society from the stronger ones. Who will stand against big business. Now I understand that gov and business are in bed together, lets change that.
@HelmetBlissta So long as the state forces people to pay taxes, they create demand for their currency. If they then print this and gives it to banks, they are subsidizing banks. In addition governments guarantee bank deposits, meaning no one cares where they put their money. They even bail them out. Yes, let us change this. I agree. The system will totally collapse, and we have to build it up from the ground though. No politician is ever going to allow this, so we are stuck in this crap system.
@mortalisk We have a crap system alright. here's to a better world. I have to go to bed now. Good night. Lets continue to find common ground rather than fight .
@mortalisk As long as the state does not allow banks to simply fail, and continue to print money, some people are going to get rich at the expense of others. If a ship is sinking you can blame the water in the boat or you can fix the hole. I view blaming people who simply respond to incentives like blaming the water. Demanding a gold standard(or ideally no taxes, removing the need for any standard) and no more guarantees or bailouts, is fixing the hole.
@HelmetBlissta how is stealing from people who risk more fair? how is stealing ever fair for any reason? capitalism rewards people who managed to work hard enough or efficient enough to gain some capital, and then use it wisely. socialism punishes those who are most successful by giving their well earned and well used capital to those who have no such aspirations or ability.
@HelmetBlissta and how is socialism enforced? by a few tyranically empowered despots at the top. So you DO stand for the few, the few murderous, thieving tyrants who 'make things fair' don't act like you care about individual rights, if you did you would recognize owning capital, and providing your own lively hood IS an individual right.
Look at the labelmaker. Going after everything but the arguments again, I see. The reason non of them are Anarchists is because Anarchy is ILLOGICAL.
Did you get flustered because they laughed at you? I laugh at you everytime I watch you, so don't feel too bad about other people telling you to your stubborn face that your full of shit and a detriment to human society.
I'm under the impression that many people are craving for attention, but don't get the necessary attention they need to feel alive and well. It is even uncertain if these people pay much attention to themselves. Why is this? Out of fear of rejection or of punishment. Some needs are bad, because they're immoral. So you don't give nor take what a human being really needs on a very basic level. Now you might say, that's what a government wants. But governments consist of misled human beings too.
I just want to say thanks for putting out your videos....maybe people will begin to seewhat is right in front of them if ehough of us keep pointing it out. Red pill or blue pill?
@daizee106 No, they don't, however the record of one's achievements is necessary when one is judged. e.g. college, jobs, loans, etc.
Therefore groups and certifications are common. Whether any individual degree or membership is valuable is something that comes to be well after the credential is established.
When you begin to think deeply about this you realise we actually get what we deserve....because we as a majority refuse to admit anybody's rights are being violated. So we let Government of any persuasion do what it wants. Governments do what they like. we vote for them. We must be chaotic ourselves if we allow all this misinformation and just put up with it. I put up with so much. Because I dont see how I can change this. I feel chaotic when I think about it. So head in sand.
I was struck as to how this connects with the way modernday warfare is being undertaken. Governments take our taxes and pay them to other countries who then wage the wars we want on our behalf. It is so corrupt and so difficult to combat. One can protest all one likes. I have tried it. I agree we dont want to actually get involved. We are content to let all this happen unless it actually affects us directly. I count myself in the apathetic section now because I know this and do nothing.
Are you really advocating simply agreeing on some first principles and then following them to their logical conclusion? Rationalism and logic are fine as far as they go, but you're forgetting the thing that has made modern science so successful -- empiricism. Shouldn't we be concerned about what actually works, rather than what "should" work?
@burgercide sure if you are a troll or not. There is a huge difference between applying empiricism to physics and chemistry and to economics and philosophy. There is no way for us to explain the economy mathematically with any sort of accuracy, or to base society off of statistical analysis. There are simply way to many factors that go into these things.
@smoliterno95 Okay, but just because economics will probably never be as exact a science as physics, shouldn't we at least attempt somehow to evaluate the outcomes that result from our policies?
@smoliterno95 What is the comment about being a "troll"? I asked simple straightforward questions about libertarianism. I would like to know more, and I take the content of the vid seriously. In fact, I believe I'm engaging in the kind of discussion the libertarian in the vid wishes he could have had with the Mensa people.
@burgercide Rather than pretending like we can predict the affect of a policy with any precision by using math modeling we could be more truthful and admit that we don't really have much idea what will happen quantitatively. We could admit that we know there will be unintended consequences. Maybe we could predict the outcome based on logic, but that to won't give us very good quantitative answers.
@smoliterno95 Right. I'm asking this because some people make the argument that if you start from the "correct" premises and follow them to their logical policy implications, whatever results from those policies must necessarily be the "right outcome", regardless of whether most people (or anyone) would agree that they're desirable outcomes.
@smoliterno95 I'm not talking about predicting effects beforehand, I'm asking whether libertarians have an interest in evaluating the real effects of their policies once they're implemented, and if they would be willing to change those policies with undesirable outcomes.
@burgercide How exactly is our system 'working' today? History shows that all democracies eventually end in debt and at war for many of the reasons he mentions. Any system with an immoral foundation will not last very long.
@eadepaula While I agree with many of the criticisms of our system noted in the video, my essential question is, Why should we turn to libertarianism for solutions? To that end, I asked specific questions about what I took from the vid to be libertarian principles and process. I can't take seriously an answer that does not deal with those questions and merely asserts that nothing works in the current system, and makes a sweeping and inaccurate generalization about "all democracies".
@eadepaula My question about how libertarians would proceed from their founding principles ("moral" or otherwise) is key to determining whether I'd support libertarianism. If libertarians believe that it really is simply a matter of agreeing on the correct assumptions, with no evaluation of the results of policies based on those assumptions (as the vid appears to assert), then I'm afraid I can't tale libertarianism seriously. If I'm wrong about my impression, please let me know.
@burgercide I didn't mean troll. I was wondering if you were being sarcastic because many libertarians or anarcho-capitalists are very into austrian economics and make fun of mainstream economics obsession with empirical data, they believe that this only abstracts people from from is really going on in the economy
@burgercide in response to if a Libertarian would use empirical data to evaluate policies after the fact. For one I don't think that there have ever been Libertarian policies in this country, maybe back in the very early days of the Republic but since then there has been almost constant creep of the scope of government. Anyway, evaluating a Libertarian policy like reducing the scope of government via reduced spending and less regulation and corruption.
@burgercide continued: Of course Libertarians would evaluate the real outcomes of their policies. But all data needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If after 4 years of such policies the unemployment level has gone up slightly, how is one to say if it is the result of policy or other aspects of the economy? There is no way to prove causation using mathematical models. You can easily find correlation, but who is to say you are not leaving our important factors?
What's the relationship between the "obvious and basic principles" that "violence is wrong" and "property rights are valid"? Can you explain how to resolve conflicts between these two apparently absolute concepts?
@burgercide its violence against peaceful people that is wrong. and property rights exist because people use the world around them. you are practicing self ownership every time you decide to do something.
@HelmetBlissta Nope. Those who are deserving of reward, are rewarded with capital. If you provide goods and services that people want and are willing to pa for, you are rewarded.
@TheStrangerInTheRye Please mate, wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands under our capitalist system, I think this is bad, and that the worlds riches should be shared out more evenly.
@HelmetBlissta The system isn't just capitalist, you say that words as if whatever we have now is only capitalism, when it is capitalism without free markets, and a state. Capitalism is when means of production (that means everything) are privately owned, as opposed to publicly. Capitalism should be allowed to work. Capitalism is about profits and losses, if you subsidize the losses (see: bailout) you have some other crap, that is not to be confused with capitalism.
@TheStrangerInTheRye Mince words all you like. To me is is quite clear . Capitalism favours capital (the clue is in the name) and Socialism favours labour. I stand with the people and not with the money.
@HelmetBlissta You seem to believe capital belongs to some rigid elite (not the people.)
and even more astoundingly believe socialism favors "labor," as if that is some specified class (as opposed to a leisure class that does not labor?) These generalizations are historically proven inaccurate. State socialism, as opposed to voluntary cooperatives, has always ruined economies and all classes except the political bosses. Capital is simply savings for investment, owned privately or by rulers.
@HelmetBlissta Nonsense. Capitalism spreads prosperity far better than any other system. the most centralized, authoritarian systems limit entry to jobs, entrepreneurship, and extract resources from the people to reward to party bosses, period. That is the tiniest minority that wealth flows to in a controlled society. That is why mass starvation has happened under the most socialized systems, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's regime. Learn real history, not Statist propaganda
I'm confused. So this guy is just talking about how a random group of self-professed intelligent people, who would be about average at any top college, felt like meeting as a social gathering instead of serious intellectual debate? I apologize for only listening 3 minutes, but there was too much complaining.
@mvrak no, he talked about a lot of things. but how could you know since you admittedly listened to only the first 3 minutes of the video? describing the mensa meeting in a dismissive, derogatory manner doesn't make you "cool" or "tough" or validate your latter assertions in any way, it's just you mentally stroking yourself. confused? ya, because this guy's ideas aren't principled enough, he lacks consistency, and the way he talks? omg, so unclear. and complaining about complaining? G.J.
@regresseur this video has as little content as a typical mensa meeting, which tend to be a small meeting of social misfits, be they intelligent or not. it doesn't mean anything, so it is curious that it sparks any discussion
i'm not sure why you attempt to characterize me. i dont believe my personal feelings have any relation to my critique of the video
Question; Recently, a group of people were arrested at the Jefferson memorial. You may be aware of the specific incident. Essentially, though the video available of it wasn't clear on what prompted the police to request that the people cease 'dancing or protesting', those being asked to stop doing so began arguing with the police about the matter and were ultimately arrested (by force). Now, as someone that personally enjoys a relatively calm and peaceful environment when studying something or
@SibSpi viewing a museum exhibit, memorial piece or the like, I would personally be annoyed with these people if they were dancing (even just 'swaying back and forth') around the aforementioned, as I would find them distracting, and they do not have any apparent interest in what is located at their chosen venue so much as that they are dancing. Would I then be correct or wrong in my feeling that they are being unreasonable? Would it be selfish of me to find them unreasonable? As someone that
@SibSpi believes in fair trade, can you think of an example of how I could seek compensation from them for the inconvenience I feel they are causing me that would not be deemed selfish in its own way?
I ask this because I did not find it unreasonable for these people to be arrested in the manner they were arrested in nor, specifically, for the reasons they were arrested for. there are many who disagree with me and specifically believe that both the police and particularly the government
@SibSpi were in the wrong for the given situation, and that the police acted unfairly. Would deeming the arrest unfair and allowing them to continue being an unreasonable inconvenience to those around them not also be unfair? Is that kind of initially peaceful attempt to avoid a conflict of 'normal citizens' unreasonable? As far as governance is concerned, I do not personally believe that any group of people who have chosen to live together as a 'society' can last for long without deciding
@SibSpi That someone needs to 'lead' them. Because of this basic desire of someone within the group to lead them, the need for a democratic system may arise to avoid any one person or group of persons being in control. Wouldn't such a system, based on majority rule, be a form of governance in its own way?
On the side, with regards to your comments regarding risks and whether or not people would engage in a given act if there were or were not any risks; in modern society, I don't think you'd
@SibSpi easily find that a given area would not become overpopulated for its means. There are a few select communities throughout the world that have seemingly achieved a relatively relaxed population and even those that have died out because of their way of life, but was governance of their population growth not required in order to ensure that they didn't have more children than they could support? Who has the right to determine who may and who may not have children, and based on what criteria
@SibSpi Would the entire community sit at a table and have a majority-based vote to determine who may next have children? Would that be feasible among a society of a thousand adults, assuming, for the sake of argument, equal pairing of men and women with no genetic issues nor superiority of note?
It's because of this that, despite the screams of 'corruption' I hear so many people happily cry out when people feel they or their 'peers' have been 'wrongly' arrested, I don't think governments are
@SibSpi nearly as corrupt as individual men and women would be on their own, if left to their own devices with no authoritative body to report to. The Mafia? They couldn't be a group or organization without some or other form of agreement among their members, and agreement fosters governance of opinion, action and legislation within the group. If you fail to abide by those tenets, you are either required to bring about change or to leave the group/organization. If a troupe of apes have
@SibSpi lived together peacefully for a generation, that does not mean that, should one be unhappy with their chosen mate, they would not upset another male by stealing his mate away from them. In modern society this would be classed as adultery and a legal system exists to, hopefully, peacefully resolve the dispute. Among the apes, a fight would erupt and the victor would likely be accepted as the one that was worthy. So how does one begin to change human nature to not be selfish and/or to not
@SibSpi have issues with accepting their own circumstances?
That's all I wanted to ask for now. Thinking about it I could have sent this as a message to you on youtube and you could have addressed it via that or via another video... sorry for spamming your comments unnecessarily.
@SibSpi morality in civil societies hasn't changed due to govt. dancing people bother you so therefore they should be arrested? that's cool, your ~6 full posts bother me and so i think you should arrested. exactly how is this sensible in any way? the answer would be to talk to them... you know, "talking," AKA communicating? if they didn't stop then so what? doesn't mean they should be arrested, let alone just 'cause you feel like it. ridiculous. you can't always get what you want.
@regresseur I don't believe I implied they should be arrested for the mere fact that I as a single person didn't like their dancing. I implied they should be arrested for being asked in a peaceful manner to rather go and dance somewhere where they are not bothering others (such as by obstructing foot traffic, being distracting in a venue where people have gone for the sake of learning or concentration - a library or museum, say) where they are perfectly capable of dancing in a park
@SibSpi or at home. In other words, they are being asked peacefully to not be selfish in their behaviour but refuse, and when they begin being 'removed' in a 'gentle' manner, they get upset and cry 'unfair!', resist, and are so arrested for disobeying police direction.
You may not be able to always get what you want, but that doesn't mean others should be permitted to be selfish 'just because'.
This argument you have uploaded stinks of "belief" - as the argument you have tried to get across to them hits the "wall of belief" and they will defend that even if it's to their own demise.
Basically you are banging your head against a brick wall - it's futile.
Or is it?
Once the "belief" is understood, then and only then would they have an open mind to debate.
As i have informed my kids that democracy isn't the perfect system as 51% of the population could vote the other 49% as there servants, so don't just sit back and hope the elected leaders keep everything just perfect, because they often have lower morals and higher self serving ethics than the average person.
Sounds more to me like a network club for certain jobs that also require certain state of mind, in favor of the companies. I guess alternative opinions that can be effective in reality are not done in this club, because they are potential harmful for the managers of these companies. I experienced shifting immediately to conspiracy theory when I wanted to discuss the actual observations on 911 with a math professor. He works for a state institute.
damn theres so few flaws in your arguing throughout this whole video... even though i dont have all the answers for a free society i dont think i can ever go back to believing in the state
A question, what percentage of charities actually give away 90% of the proceeds? In my experience very few, a good charity will probably give away 50% and many give away very little at all.
@macspud28 I see. Well I'm not really sure I care if charities skim off the top, as long as they're honest about it. If not, then at least it's voluntary unlike government.
@macspud28 if you disagree with how a charity is spending their money then don't give them yours. If most people feel the same way then that charity will fail and a new one will raise up to try and spend their money in a way that will get more people to give them more money. its all about freedom to do what you like and that regulates society in a beautiful way.
Trust bit coin and you'll end up with a chip in your hand and your money cut off everytime you're a bad boy!!! that's where electronic money will end up in the hands of an Oligarchy.
Stefan doesn;t think voilence should be put in the hands of the state he thinks that people should be voilent instead... in big angry mobs... that poeple should sahre and form societies but just form lynch gangs and take..... its freedom after all....
@FriendOregon the state is just the evolved form of chaotic mob rule. What happens when one mob finally prevails above the rest? a gov't is formed. this government figures out that people are more productive if they believe they are free, so they start up a democracy. Violence = different versions of the state. Stefan is advocating peace.
Wait, what? High IQ is scar tissue from childhood abuse? Previously you said that abuse causes low IQ. It seems to me that you try to find childhood abuse everywhere. Is there any IQ level that is NOT an indicator of abuse??
Loving this dialogue and deep thinking but i just have to trow out there to anyone whos never heard of an Ad Hominem that it doesnt mean "i lost" directly. Its an attack on a persons character, or an insult. "Youre an idiot, youre ugly, youre a racist". And what Sef means here is that people who use Ad Hominem's are without knowing it admitting defeat.
All you anarchist should move to Somalia , that should be paradise on Earth. You demonize 'the state' but then ignore the fact that 'failed states' don't produce this utopia you claim government is keeping us from.
Randist bollocks!!
oneblueorange 2 days ago
I'm picturing this guy crashing the Mensa group, with a massive intellectual inferiority complex, interrupting every attempt they make at discussion so he can divert the topic to some tedious philosophical exercise in definitions, all because he knows about the ‘truth’ of Libertarianism . This, of course, makes anyone who doesn’t brainless (despite what some IQ test says) and any discussion they might want to have, pointless. What a selfish ass this guy sounds like.
deziistheone 5 days ago
@deziistheone Why do you want to think so badly of this guy?
666or999 1 day ago
@666or999 I just think what the guy described was very inconsiderate. Was he even invited? He showed up to derail their discussions to suit his own agenda. I also find the parallels with Stefan’s own behavior staggering. On the occasions when people have attempted to attempt a sincere, polite and comprehensive dissertation of Stefan’s writings and philosophy on their forum, it has ended with hostility towards them and eventual expulsion.
deziistheone 17 hours ago
@deziistheone "attempted to have"
deziistheone 17 hours ago
"Intellectualism is a defense against inflicted falsehoods as a child"
Sounds like someone is rationalizing as a defense against not having to challenge his beliefs.
eirefrance 5 days ago
Amazing way to think about the outsourcing of violence to the police.
chisleu 1 week ago
@chisleu so many many great points... I can't wait to catch up on your videos. I find this to be more thoughtful and intelligent than some of the other political thinking channels I frequent.
chisleu 1 week ago
Statist vs Anarchist debates, are like creationist vs evolution debates, and just as evolution is the winner, anarchy is the answer to the issue of political philosophy. Anarchy, does not favor the answer, which is easy in nature to accept, as Creationism, is in biology, but it recognizes that a successful society, is ran with the non-aggression principle. There is a million ways to special plead against the non-aggression principle, as creationist do for their god, but reality requires it.
KevZen2000 1 week ago
@KevZen2000 Also a great society is ran on science and technology increasing their capabilities. As of now we are a hybrid of technology/ industrialized. The theocrat's will try and stand in our way of achieving a great society, they like control and want to control our lives, I wonder how it will turn out.
Tethloach1 1 week ago
@Tethloach1. Society, in the long run,will become a better, more enlightened state, where the progress will not be recognized by us today. Anarchy, is the end result of political evolution, and people still have a fetish with the mythology of socialism, so most likely, but unfortunately, we will go through stages of a mixed economic state of 'socialism w/state capitalism,' similar to a water down version of Marxism, with a technocratic and environmental spin.
KevZen2000 1 week ago
There are at least two concepts to describe/prescribe what a government is or should be:1, The defence of individual freedom in reference to principles laid down in a constitution: 2, The monopolization of violence in a given geographical area. Why is it Stef sees government only in reference to the 2nd def..? I suppose that if the majority of people vote for people who's agenda is for the second def, that is how it turns out. Is it possible to work for the 2nd def, if not, why not??
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
This dude is 100% on the money about everything
TRONhack3r 2 weeks ago
@TRONhack3r Just because money is DNA of this society and everything is about it, even you want it or not........ I dont like it but i cant do anything about it. Human being is too stupid that it cannot even think any other option of living.
junnu79m 2 weeks ago
@junnu79m We can only thank socail evolution, the old ideas fade away as the young embrace new ones. scientist in the future will be far smarter than scientist today if we are to achieve a great future, also are technological capabilities will be unbelievable, here is a hint: we will be able to build organs on demand, alter our DNA's, free food as in backyard farming, window farming, vertical farming, most the stuff I listed already exist or are in progress.
Tethloach1 1 week ago
The kind of clarity of thought that may lead to the necessity of stepping off the treadmill is feared by most people, quite simply because they have been brutally conditioned into the state of fear for so long and in so many ways. But the times they are a-changin'. It's been good listening to you, with thanks.
laughinggranny69 3 weeks ago
I never met a socialist who is coherent.
DanMorin007 3 weeks ago
@DanMorin007 What we should be trying to do is find the common ground between us.Not fighting over the meanings of words. Look in Wikipedia under 'socialism' and see the link to "libertarian socialism". Surely we all want peace, freedom and justice ? To me it seems like (US) libertarians only want freedom for the rich to continue exploiting the poor.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta Actually it is socialism that create an elite class exploiting the poor. From a rational analysis socialism is unfair, and from historical perspective, socialism is bloody. The USSR and Nazi were both socialist parties. Socialism is about legalized theft, and those who benefit are the elite, and the bulk of the population remains in poverty.
DanMorin007 3 weeks ago
@DanMorin007 No, not actually, you might have said "From my perspective". My rational sees socialism as fair. The Nazi party, I think, could more accurately be described and "Nationalist-Zionist". I disagree Capitalism is all about "ownership" and as we are all children of the earth , the oil the gas , all resources should be commonly owned. You can point at the bad points of bad examples of Socialism. Whereas I can point to capitalism not working for the majority of people. You twist words.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta even marx admited socialism couldn't exist unless capitalism had first created a system for socialism to hijack. socialism DOESN'T work, it isnt creative, it cant build wealth, it cant create quality of life. capitalism DOES. and its the only thing that has ever done it to any measurable degree. and the only thing that will, its the only fair and natural means to embetter our or anyone elses lives.
Intangion 3 weeks ago
@Intangion I live in a different reality to you. I have to go to work now but I'd love to continue this later if you like. To sum it up I think you are wrong on pretty much everything you have said. Would you prefer we combat each other to try to prove ourselves 'right' or would you like an exchange of ideas and attempt to find common ground ?
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
Sorry, but there is no such thing as objective morality.
dsfsdafdsafsdaf 1 month ago
@dsfsdafdsafsdaf if you can establish common goals you can establish common objective morality. If we both agree we stand to gain more from trading with each other than murdering each other, we can also establish that murdering each other is wrong...
Intangion 3 weeks ago
Capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. With a socialist economic system the workers own the means of production. I stand for the many and not with the few.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta Socialism concentrates wealth in the hands of the unproductive. With a capitalist system the workers own the product of their labor. I stand for the individual and not for the expropriator.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk Wrong, socialism seeks a fairer more even distribution of wealth. With capitalism the boss or business owner "owns" the product of their labour. You stand for the individual if he is the boss and not if he is the worker. Socialism aims for us to be our own boss. Often when I talk to (US) "libertarians" I am left with the feeling that they/you have changed the meanings of many words, the most obvious example being "libertarian". Listen to Chomsky on "libertarians"
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I am not from America. I am for the individual no matter who he is. The worker is free to use his labor for himself and not share with anyone in my system. If he chooses to go into cooperation with others, it is his choice. In socialism he is forced to share with someone like today. I agree that socialism seeks a more even distribution of wealth, but I disagree that it would be fairer. I do not care what you wish to call me, I stand for individuals freedom from violent coercion.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk And by individual I first and foremost mean ME. I have respect for myself and do not think I need to be bossed around in order to be virtuous. I know that I have to extend this to other people in order for them to extend this to me. I am worker, and my relationship with my all my coworkers and boss is a voluntary and mutually beneficial one. In stark contrast with my relationship to the state, who insist on forcing me to support their endeavors.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk My wife is currently receiving treatment for cancer under the Australian universal health care system. I see that as a good thing even though some will insist that they shouldn't have to pay into this system. What would (US) libertarians suggest if a group of well armed meth salesmen moved into their neighborhood and started selling their shit to our children?
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta It seem to me like you expect drug selling people to be the same and behave the same even if it were legal. Legality does not mean that anyone has to allow it on their property. Even if the neighborhood had no such rules, drug selling is not more profitable than any other business in normal situations. I also believe that in an anarchic society, children will not be told lies from the moment they can think, and so will actually have no need to rebel by taking drugs.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk So are you saying that you think meth is acceptable and should be unregulated. It is highly addictive unlike many other businesses. Drug taking is not just a form of rebellion, some people use drugs as a coping mechanism, some just like it. I don't like prohibition , yet it seems that some things are very fucking strong and many if not most people who use meth suffer serious negative effects.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk I also stand for "individuals freedom from violent coercion". We should try to find our common ground. My understanding of (US) libertarianism is a kind of right-wing anarchism. I am in favour of anarchism, I just do not see that we can achieve it from the right. Anarchism now would just leave the wealthy freer to exploit the masses. I would favour left-wing anarchism which is what I understand as 'libertarianism'. I do understand that in the US this is a different.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I used to think of myself as a left-wing anarchist. Now I don't see the difference, except for different expectations of what would happen when people stop supporting violence. A great deal of the wealthy today do exploit the masses, but it is by state interference, like money printing, bank guarantees, bailouts and corporate protection from liability. There are also rich people who have done nothing but serving other people. There is a distinction, and it is important.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk But I think we have a lot of common ground already. Non-violence should let us respect each other to the end. I just think anarchism now would be magnificent(meaning that most people agreed on the non aggression principle). Rich people would have to pay for their own protection, in stead of getting it free from the state(who only protect rich people anyway). No more inflation, no more bailouts, no more taxes(which is where all the state powers come from)
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk No more universal healthcare , no more public services. I don't choose this world vision. I am very happy to agree with you that we share much common ground.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I just think that if being realistic, you have to take the one with the other. You might have those systems of forcing everyone to pay for the services you like, but you will then have to live in a world where you are also forced to pay for the protection of rich people, inflation, bailouts, wasteful investments causing recessions or similar. I think working people(who pay the most anyway) could come together peacefully to provide for the few who really need it without that crap.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk I like to think that we will come together and provide for those that need help as well , and it is observable many times too. Now I'm no fan of rich people but are you saying they should not have the same level of protection or security as others. In other conversations with people who call themselves (US) libertarians many have talked about 'property rights' so much so that it appears central to their beliefs. Do you believe in this concept ?
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta You dont understand that property rights have to do with morals.Under any system someone owns property rights,its either the state,or individuals.Do you like to own your socks?You own property if you can CONTROL it,so,if the state can tell you witch time you can put your socks on,you dont own your socks.No fucking dictator has the right to tell you what you can do with your socks,or your piece of land,if you want to trade it,and for how much you want to trade.
affilinet 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@affilinet As far as I'm aware nobody is after your socks. I am interested in natural resources though, oil, minerals etc.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta So were is the problem,if you want resources you buy them like everyone else,what makes you think your state(a few people at the top) have the right to control(own) all resources?If you find a pocket of oil under my house do you think you have a right to remove my property for oil drilling?No,but i do have a right to shoot you if you disrespect my property.And i have news for you,We dont have capitalism now aniway,we have corporatism,learn the difference
affilinet 3 weeks ago
@affilinet Do you value property rights more than human rights ?
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta
The fundamental property right is a human right. Self-Ownership.
TheCapitalistdog 3 weeks ago
@TheCapitalistdog Anyway it is quite clear to me now that what people are calling 'libertarianism' here is not for me. I think sharing, common ownership, equality,peace and freedom are all positive values for us to live by. This isn't for me, we've all wasted enough of our time arguing with each other. It all seems so selfish. I hate that and see it at the root of our problems. I'm off to read some Chomsky.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta
Peace and freedom are postive value to live by. Common ownership involves contradictions with regards to the principle of self-ownership.
You have exclusive control of your mind and body. I cannot attain exclusive control of your mind and body, I can only influence it through external means, such as coercion and persuasion. For as long as you are living, your mind and body belong to you, naturally.
Other people do not own you... you own you.
TheCapitalistdog 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheCapitalistdog 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta
"It all seems so selfish"
This is the core flaw in your argument. All preference are selfish, including your preference to read Chomsky over Stef.
A preference is an effect of the self, an effect of the reasoning mind, and therefore, cannot be completely unselfish, no matter how hard you try.
It's not the root of our problems, it's the root of our reality. Ignoring it by diving into Chomsky books will not make it disappear.
TheCapitalistdog 3 weeks ago
@TheCapitalistdog All preference is not selfish. We disagree mate . I have tried stefbot , I was attracted by the idea of liberty, I subscribe to anarchic ideas. Yet I do not wish to associate myself with this type of ideology. I am sure none of us are without flaw. It's not for me.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HelmetBlissta
"All preference is not selfish. We disagree mate ."
That's where you're mistaken. It's not a simple disagreement, you're engaging in a fundamental rejection of reality.
You can ignore this reality, if it makes you feel better, but it won't stop being true.
"I do not wish to associate myself with this type of ideology."
That's fine, but the fact is... it's your selfish preference not to associate your SELF with this ideology. Do you recognize the flaw in your logic?
TheCapitalistdog 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk I note that the greedy capitalist bankers were the first to come to the "nanny state" when their game went bottoms up. I don't think it is fair to blame all of life's woes on "the state", when so many of them to my mind at least are the result of greedy private interest. I can imagine you might say it's because the state lets them or interferes or something, but greed is not the preserve of the state, power is not unique to the state, etc etc. greedy individuals do it too.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta I have a problem with the word greedy. What is greed? If it is wanting something really bad, I have no problem with greed. If bankers are greedy they can still do nothing to touch my life unless I am greedy too and get involved in their business. There is absolutely no need for putting your wealth in a greedy bank if you don't desire too. If you do you will be taking a big risk(except in today's world of course, where everyone who take risks are subsidized).
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk So are you saying that these privately run banks and their short comings are the fault of the state too . I don't buy it . Private business must be responsible for some of their actions surely. I do not accept that everything is the states fault. One function of government should be to protect the weaker members of society from the stronger ones. Who will stand against big business. Now I understand that gov and business are in bed together, lets change that.
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta So long as the state forces people to pay taxes, they create demand for their currency. If they then print this and gives it to banks, they are subsidizing banks. In addition governments guarantee bank deposits, meaning no one cares where they put their money. They even bail them out. Yes, let us change this. I agree. The system will totally collapse, and we have to build it up from the ground though. No politician is ever going to allow this, so we are stuck in this crap system.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk We have a crap system alright. here's to a better world. I have to go to bed now. Good night. Lets continue to find common ground rather than fight .
HelmetBlissta 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta Good night!
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk As long as the state does not allow banks to simply fail, and continue to print money, some people are going to get rich at the expense of others. If a ship is sinking you can blame the water in the boat or you can fix the hole. I view blaming people who simply respond to incentives like blaming the water. Demanding a gold standard(or ideally no taxes, removing the need for any standard) and no more guarantees or bailouts, is fixing the hole.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta how is stealing from people who risk more fair? how is stealing ever fair for any reason? capitalism rewards people who managed to work hard enough or efficient enough to gain some capital, and then use it wisely. socialism punishes those who are most successful by giving their well earned and well used capital to those who have no such aspirations or ability.
Intangion 3 weeks ago
@HelmetBlissta and how is socialism enforced? by a few tyranically empowered despots at the top. So you DO stand for the few, the few murderous, thieving tyrants who 'make things fair' don't act like you care about individual rights, if you did you would recognize owning capital, and providing your own lively hood IS an individual right.
Intangion 3 weeks ago
Guy sure thinks a lot of himself doesn't he?
attalal 1 month ago
@attalal Yes, I guess you don't?
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
That's an excellent way of looking at debt -- just morphine.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@stefbot can you do a video on your opinion of the Waco siege of 1993?
Chriznak 1 month ago
Dysfunctional human beings surround us. I hang out almost exclusively with my dog.
rockstarofredondo 1 month ago 2
When I was a kid I always asked myself who made the government legal, who ensure the ensuring companies and so on.
TheStrangerInTheRye 1 month ago
Look at the labelmaker. Going after everything but the arguments again, I see. The reason non of them are Anarchists is because Anarchy is ILLOGICAL.
Did you get flustered because they laughed at you? I laugh at you everytime I watch you, so don't feel too bad about other people telling you to your stubborn face that your full of shit and a detriment to human society.
MattSyTy 1 month ago
I'm under the impression that many people are craving for attention, but don't get the necessary attention they need to feel alive and well. It is even uncertain if these people pay much attention to themselves. Why is this? Out of fear of rejection or of punishment. Some needs are bad, because they're immoral. So you don't give nor take what a human being really needs on a very basic level. Now you might say, that's what a government wants. But governments consist of misled human beings too.
MagasVolar 1 month ago
I just want to say thanks for putting out your videos....maybe people will begin to seewhat is right in front of them if ehough of us keep pointing it out. Red pill or blue pill?
andjusticeforall2010 1 month ago
I think that really intelligent people do not have to carry a card around to prove it.
daizee106 1 month ago 20
@daizee106 No, they don't, however the record of one's achievements is necessary when one is judged. e.g. college, jobs, loans, etc.
Therefore groups and certifications are common. Whether any individual degree or membership is valuable is something that comes to be well after the credential is established.
mvrak 1 month ago
@daizee106 I think this is going to be my go to quote for Mensa.
shmabadu 1 month ago
When you begin to think deeply about this you realise we actually get what we deserve....because we as a majority refuse to admit anybody's rights are being violated. So we let Government of any persuasion do what it wants. Governments do what they like. we vote for them. We must be chaotic ourselves if we allow all this misinformation and just put up with it. I put up with so much. Because I dont see how I can change this. I feel chaotic when I think about it. So head in sand.
Cardywhite111 1 month ago
I was struck as to how this connects with the way modernday warfare is being undertaken. Governments take our taxes and pay them to other countries who then wage the wars we want on our behalf. It is so corrupt and so difficult to combat. One can protest all one likes. I have tried it. I agree we dont want to actually get involved. We are content to let all this happen unless it actually affects us directly. I count myself in the apathetic section now because I know this and do nothing.
Cardywhite111 1 month ago
this guy rocks
NecxZhor9 1 month ago
WOW
pootou 1 month ago 11
Super great :)
spystyle 1 month ago
Clearly it's the influence of The Patriots that is ultimately running our lives. Vote Big Boss for president.
TheZaius 1 month ago
@TheZaius Let us rise for the Zanzibarland national anthem.
jakebreaker 1 month ago
Are you really advocating simply agreeing on some first principles and then following them to their logical conclusion? Rationalism and logic are fine as far as they go, but you're forgetting the thing that has made modern science so successful -- empiricism. Shouldn't we be concerned about what actually works, rather than what "should" work?
burgercide 1 month ago
@burgercide sure if you are a troll or not. There is a huge difference between applying empiricism to physics and chemistry and to economics and philosophy. There is no way for us to explain the economy mathematically with any sort of accuracy, or to base society off of statistical analysis. There are simply way to many factors that go into these things.
smoliterno95 1 month ago
@smoliterno95 Okay, but just because economics will probably never be as exact a science as physics, shouldn't we at least attempt somehow to evaluate the outcomes that result from our policies?
burgercide 1 month ago
@smoliterno95 What is the comment about being a "troll"? I asked simple straightforward questions about libertarianism. I would like to know more, and I take the content of the vid seriously. In fact, I believe I'm engaging in the kind of discussion the libertarian in the vid wishes he could have had with the Mensa people.
burgercide 1 month ago
@burgercide Rather than pretending like we can predict the affect of a policy with any precision by using math modeling we could be more truthful and admit that we don't really have much idea what will happen quantitatively. We could admit that we know there will be unintended consequences. Maybe we could predict the outcome based on logic, but that to won't give us very good quantitative answers.
smoliterno95 1 month ago
@smoliterno95 Right. I'm asking this because some people make the argument that if you start from the "correct" premises and follow them to their logical policy implications, whatever results from those policies must necessarily be the "right outcome", regardless of whether most people (or anyone) would agree that they're desirable outcomes.
burgercide 1 month ago
@smoliterno95 I'm not talking about predicting effects beforehand, I'm asking whether libertarians have an interest in evaluating the real effects of their policies once they're implemented, and if they would be willing to change those policies with undesirable outcomes.
burgercide 1 month ago
@burgercide How exactly is our system 'working' today? History shows that all democracies eventually end in debt and at war for many of the reasons he mentions. Any system with an immoral foundation will not last very long.
eadepaula 1 month ago
@eadepaula While I agree with many of the criticisms of our system noted in the video, my essential question is, Why should we turn to libertarianism for solutions? To that end, I asked specific questions about what I took from the vid to be libertarian principles and process. I can't take seriously an answer that does not deal with those questions and merely asserts that nothing works in the current system, and makes a sweeping and inaccurate generalization about "all democracies".
burgercide 1 month ago
@eadepaula My question about how libertarians would proceed from their founding principles ("moral" or otherwise) is key to determining whether I'd support libertarianism. If libertarians believe that it really is simply a matter of agreeing on the correct assumptions, with no evaluation of the results of policies based on those assumptions (as the vid appears to assert), then I'm afraid I can't tale libertarianism seriously. If I'm wrong about my impression, please let me know.
burgercide 1 month ago
@burgercide I didn't mean troll. I was wondering if you were being sarcastic because many libertarians or anarcho-capitalists are very into austrian economics and make fun of mainstream economics obsession with empirical data, they believe that this only abstracts people from from is really going on in the economy
smoliterno95 1 month ago
@burgercide in response to if a Libertarian would use empirical data to evaluate policies after the fact. For one I don't think that there have ever been Libertarian policies in this country, maybe back in the very early days of the Republic but since then there has been almost constant creep of the scope of government. Anyway, evaluating a Libertarian policy like reducing the scope of government via reduced spending and less regulation and corruption.
smoliterno95 1 month ago
@burgercide continued: Of course Libertarians would evaluate the real outcomes of their policies. But all data needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If after 4 years of such policies the unemployment level has gone up slightly, how is one to say if it is the result of policy or other aspects of the economy? There is no way to prove causation using mathematical models. You can easily find correlation, but who is to say you are not leaving our important factors?
smoliterno95 1 month ago
What's the relationship between the "obvious and basic principles" that "violence is wrong" and "property rights are valid"? Can you explain how to resolve conflicts between these two apparently absolute concepts?
burgercide 1 month ago
@burgercide its violence against peaceful people that is wrong. and property rights exist because people use the world around them. you are practicing self ownership every time you decide to do something.
karthadastim 1 month ago 2
Capitalism favours capital. Socialism favours labour. I know where I stand.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta That's the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen.
ReasonAndLiberty 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
Way to prove how persistent logical fallacies are in the indoctrinated mind.
tridentmovies 1 month ago 2
@HelmetBlissta i dont follow? so would you like to be able to own capital? or labor more?
Intangion 1 month ago
@Intangion I prefer a system that supports those who work rather than those who have money.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta and how exactly should it support them?
seems to me the system that works best, is the one where the capital winds up in the hands of those who labor most effectively
Intangion 1 month ago
@Intangion A capitalist system rewards those with capital.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta Nope. Those who are deserving of reward, are rewarded with capital. If you provide goods and services that people want and are willing to pa for, you are rewarded.
TheStrangerInTheRye 1 month ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye That does not match up with reality, unless of course you believe billionaires are so much better at working than the rest of us
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta It would be true if there were no government subsidies, but of course, there are.
TheStrangerInTheRye 1 month ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye Please mate, wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands under our capitalist system, I think this is bad, and that the worlds riches should be shared out more evenly.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta The system isn't just capitalist, you say that words as if whatever we have now is only capitalism, when it is capitalism without free markets, and a state. Capitalism is when means of production (that means everything) are privately owned, as opposed to publicly. Capitalism should be allowed to work. Capitalism is about profits and losses, if you subsidize the losses (see: bailout) you have some other crap, that is not to be confused with capitalism.
TheStrangerInTheRye 1 month ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye Mince words all you like. To me is is quite clear . Capitalism favours capital (the clue is in the name) and Socialism favours labour. I stand with the people and not with the money.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta You seem to believe capital belongs to some rigid elite (not the people.)
and even more astoundingly believe socialism favors "labor," as if that is some specified class (as opposed to a leisure class that does not labor?) These generalizations are historically proven inaccurate. State socialism, as opposed to voluntary cooperatives, has always ruined economies and all classes except the political bosses. Capital is simply savings for investment, owned privately or by rulers.
leafwatch 1 month ago
@leafwatch The vast majority of capital is owned by a tiny minority, capitalism sees to that.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta Nonsense. Capitalism spreads prosperity far better than any other system. the most centralized, authoritarian systems limit entry to jobs, entrepreneurship, and extract resources from the people to reward to party bosses, period. That is the tiniest minority that wealth flows to in a controlled society. That is why mass starvation has happened under the most socialized systems, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's regime. Learn real history, not Statist propaganda
leafwatch 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta capitalism favors freedom to value whatever you like. Socialism uses violence to enforce the opinions of a few sociopaths.
karthadastim 1 month ago 2
I'm confused. So this guy is just talking about how a random group of self-professed intelligent people, who would be about average at any top college, felt like meeting as a social gathering instead of serious intellectual debate? I apologize for only listening 3 minutes, but there was too much complaining.
mvrak 1 month ago
@mvrak no, he talked about a lot of things. but how could you know since you admittedly listened to only the first 3 minutes of the video? describing the mensa meeting in a dismissive, derogatory manner doesn't make you "cool" or "tough" or validate your latter assertions in any way, it's just you mentally stroking yourself. confused? ya, because this guy's ideas aren't principled enough, he lacks consistency, and the way he talks? omg, so unclear. and complaining about complaining? G.J.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur this video has as little content as a typical mensa meeting, which tend to be a small meeting of social misfits, be they intelligent or not. it doesn't mean anything, so it is curious that it sparks any discussion
i'm not sure why you attempt to characterize me. i dont believe my personal feelings have any relation to my critique of the video
mvrak 1 month ago
Question; Recently, a group of people were arrested at the Jefferson memorial. You may be aware of the specific incident. Essentially, though the video available of it wasn't clear on what prompted the police to request that the people cease 'dancing or protesting', those being asked to stop doing so began arguing with the police about the matter and were ultimately arrested (by force). Now, as someone that personally enjoys a relatively calm and peaceful environment when studying something or
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi viewing a museum exhibit, memorial piece or the like, I would personally be annoyed with these people if they were dancing (even just 'swaying back and forth') around the aforementioned, as I would find them distracting, and they do not have any apparent interest in what is located at their chosen venue so much as that they are dancing. Would I then be correct or wrong in my feeling that they are being unreasonable? Would it be selfish of me to find them unreasonable? As someone that
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi believes in fair trade, can you think of an example of how I could seek compensation from them for the inconvenience I feel they are causing me that would not be deemed selfish in its own way?
I ask this because I did not find it unreasonable for these people to be arrested in the manner they were arrested in nor, specifically, for the reasons they were arrested for. there are many who disagree with me and specifically believe that both the police and particularly the government
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi were in the wrong for the given situation, and that the police acted unfairly. Would deeming the arrest unfair and allowing them to continue being an unreasonable inconvenience to those around them not also be unfair? Is that kind of initially peaceful attempt to avoid a conflict of 'normal citizens' unreasonable? As far as governance is concerned, I do not personally believe that any group of people who have chosen to live together as a 'society' can last for long without deciding
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi That someone needs to 'lead' them. Because of this basic desire of someone within the group to lead them, the need for a democratic system may arise to avoid any one person or group of persons being in control. Wouldn't such a system, based on majority rule, be a form of governance in its own way?
On the side, with regards to your comments regarding risks and whether or not people would engage in a given act if there were or were not any risks; in modern society, I don't think you'd
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi easily find that a given area would not become overpopulated for its means. There are a few select communities throughout the world that have seemingly achieved a relatively relaxed population and even those that have died out because of their way of life, but was governance of their population growth not required in order to ensure that they didn't have more children than they could support? Who has the right to determine who may and who may not have children, and based on what criteria
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi Would the entire community sit at a table and have a majority-based vote to determine who may next have children? Would that be feasible among a society of a thousand adults, assuming, for the sake of argument, equal pairing of men and women with no genetic issues nor superiority of note?
It's because of this that, despite the screams of 'corruption' I hear so many people happily cry out when people feel they or their 'peers' have been 'wrongly' arrested, I don't think governments are
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi nearly as corrupt as individual men and women would be on their own, if left to their own devices with no authoritative body to report to. The Mafia? They couldn't be a group or organization without some or other form of agreement among their members, and agreement fosters governance of opinion, action and legislation within the group. If you fail to abide by those tenets, you are either required to bring about change or to leave the group/organization. If a troupe of apes have
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi lived together peacefully for a generation, that does not mean that, should one be unhappy with their chosen mate, they would not upset another male by stealing his mate away from them. In modern society this would be classed as adultery and a legal system exists to, hopefully, peacefully resolve the dispute. Among the apes, a fight would erupt and the victor would likely be accepted as the one that was worthy. So how does one begin to change human nature to not be selfish and/or to not
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi have issues with accepting their own circumstances?
That's all I wanted to ask for now. Thinking about it I could have sent this as a message to you on youtube and you could have addressed it via that or via another video... sorry for spamming your comments unnecessarily.
SibSpi 1 month ago
1
@SibSpi morality in civil societies hasn't changed due to govt. dancing people bother you so therefore they should be arrested? that's cool, your ~6 full posts bother me and so i think you should arrested. exactly how is this sensible in any way? the answer would be to talk to them... you know, "talking," AKA communicating? if they didn't stop then so what? doesn't mean they should be arrested, let alone just 'cause you feel like it. ridiculous. you can't always get what you want.
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur I don't believe I implied they should be arrested for the mere fact that I as a single person didn't like their dancing. I implied they should be arrested for being asked in a peaceful manner to rather go and dance somewhere where they are not bothering others (such as by obstructing foot traffic, being distracting in a venue where people have gone for the sake of learning or concentration - a library or museum, say) where they are perfectly capable of dancing in a park
SibSpi 1 month ago
@SibSpi or at home. In other words, they are being asked peacefully to not be selfish in their behaviour but refuse, and when they begin being 'removed' in a 'gentle' manner, they get upset and cry 'unfair!', resist, and are so arrested for disobeying police direction.
You may not be able to always get what you want, but that doesn't mean others should be permitted to be selfish 'just because'.
SibSpi 1 month ago
Maybe its just me, but where the hell are the like and dislike buttons?
TheReceptionBand 1 month ago
"If he wasn't a cop he would be a crook" old saying
donotfret 1 month ago
I enjoy your line-by-line refutation of arguments... it's very Rothbardian/Blockian of you. =)
mooseythejuiceman 1 month ago
I'm rendered speechless by the caliber of this rant. The truth spoken is brilliant!
donotfret 1 month ago
w w w . youtube.com/watch?v=z3IZPIWhWnQ
SteveXnycperformance 1 month ago
@chotaboy66
On the theme of being intellectually lazy... Your/You're. It's a simple choice ;)
123456789Arland 1 month ago
A Belief system is a bitch isn't it.
This argument you have uploaded stinks of "belief" - as the argument you have tried to get across to them hits the "wall of belief" and they will defend that even if it's to their own demise.
Basically you are banging your head against a brick wall - it's futile.
Or is it?
Once the "belief" is understood, then and only then would they have an open mind to debate.
HubSwitch 1 month ago
As i have informed my kids that democracy isn't the perfect system as 51% of the population could vote the other 49% as there servants, so don't just sit back and hope the elected leaders keep everything just perfect, because they often have lower morals and higher self serving ethics than the average person.
eyeswideopennimrod 1 month ago
Sounds more to me like a network club for certain jobs that also require certain state of mind, in favor of the companies. I guess alternative opinions that can be effective in reality are not done in this club, because they are potential harmful for the managers of these companies. I experienced shifting immediately to conspiracy theory when I wanted to discuss the actual observations on 911 with a math professor. He works for a state institute.
TerrierBram 1 month ago
Inequality is an illusion, created by the most repulsive in society.
stoptherot1 1 month ago
damn theres so few flaws in your arguing throughout this whole video... even though i dont have all the answers for a free society i dont think i can ever go back to believing in the state
xsickzackx 1 month ago
Wow. One of the most intelligent talks I've heard. Thank you - Subscribed
jgizzy 1 month ago in playlist Stateless Society II
That Last bit was Destructive
zawahra7 1 month ago
Mensa is for egoistic dummies
BuzzCoastinWTF 1 month ago
Thanks Stefan
edthecarpenter 1 month ago
A question, what percentage of charities actually give away 90% of the proceeds? In my experience very few, a good charity will probably give away 50% and many give away very little at all.
macspud28 1 month ago
@macspud28 And?
amanuscar 1 month ago
@amanuscar Well most charities are run much the same as governments syphoning off proceeds.
macspud28 1 month ago
@macspud28 I see. Well I'm not really sure I care if charities skim off the top, as long as they're honest about it. If not, then at least it's voluntary unlike government.
amanuscar 1 month ago
@macspud28 if you disagree with how a charity is spending their money then don't give them yours. If most people feel the same way then that charity will fail and a new one will raise up to try and spend their money in a way that will get more people to give them more money. its all about freedom to do what you like and that regulates society in a beautiful way.
karthadastim 1 month ago
Trust bit coin and you'll end up with a chip in your hand and your money cut off everytime you're a bad boy!!! that's where electronic money will end up in the hands of an Oligarchy.
2wheels88 1 month ago
Stefan doesn;t think voilence should be put in the hands of the state he thinks that people should be voilent instead... in big angry mobs... that poeple should sahre and form societies but just form lynch gangs and take..... its freedom after all....
FriendOregon 1 month ago
@FriendOregon Troll? :D
dirmilj 1 month ago
@dirmilj Poe's Law?
Micro8Bit 1 month ago
@Micro8Bit Yep, ain't no tellin' with such a statement, I could have written it my self if I wanted to make a good straw man argument...;)
dirmilj 1 month ago
@FriendOregon the state is just the evolved form of chaotic mob rule. What happens when one mob finally prevails above the rest? a gov't is formed. this government figures out that people are more productive if they believe they are free, so they start up a democracy. Violence = different versions of the state. Stefan is advocating peace.
karthadastim 1 month ago 2
"Theyre controlled and indocturnated to become productive tax cattle"
Love that line!!
NicosMind 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wait, what? High IQ is scar tissue from childhood abuse? Previously you said that abuse causes low IQ. It seems to me that you try to find childhood abuse everywhere. Is there any IQ level that is NOT an indicator of abuse??
MigDanskeren 1 month ago
@MigDanskeren watch the video again, what you just said makes no sense because your interpretation of what was said is wrong.
karthadastim 1 month ago
Comment removed
MigDanskeren 1 month ago
Mensa using the monkey arguments lol, arent' they supposed to be capable of more than that? Which their skyrocketing IQ's and all. hahahha!!
Iseeyoursoul 1 month ago
Loving this dialogue and deep thinking but i just have to trow out there to anyone whos never heard of an Ad Hominem that it doesnt mean "i lost" directly. Its an attack on a persons character, or an insult. "Youre an idiot, youre ugly, youre a racist". And what Sef means here is that people who use Ad Hominem's are without knowing it admitting defeat.
NicosMind 1 month ago
All you anarchist should move to Somalia , that should be paradise on Earth. You demonize 'the state' but then ignore the fact that 'failed states' don't produce this utopia you claim government is keeping us from.
afronutz 1 month ago
@afronutz
Dude stef has addressed the somalia argument a hundred times over.
Iseeyoursoul 1 month ago 2
@Iseeyoursoul Yeah I'm late to the party.
afronutz 1 month ago
@afronutz Oh dear oh dear. Somalia? Ever heard of a straw man argument? Do you just repeat what other people say and never think beyond that?
Stef talking about Somalia watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI
NicosMind 1 month ago
@NicosMind Thanks for the link, I watch the whole thing. While it makes a strong case against bad govern